Lesson 35

Righteous Civil Officials – 17:1-13

 

We’re in Deuteronomy 17, I’d like to turn to Deuteronomy chapter one and go to verse 17.  Deut. 1, all the way back to the beginning of this book to 1:17.  The book of Deuteronomy is written in the form of an international treaty.  This has been suspected for many years, it is now proved by archeology that this is written up in the format of the second millennium and therefore it describes a legal relationship between Yahweh, known to you as Jehovah, and the twelve tribes of Israel, and it’s a covenant that He entered into with these twelve tribes and established a legal relationship between Him and a certain portion of the human race.  This is called in the Bible the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God lasted on earth from about 1440 when this was made on down to 586, it was withdrawn, it was offered again to Israel during the times of our Lord Jesus Christ and it’s withdrawn because of their rejection of Him and will ultimately come to earth for a one thousand year millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

 

So what we have in this treaty is an opening up and description of the Kingdom of God.  And notice that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with the Church; the Kingdom of God is a political thing, it involves the entire social order from top to bottom.  And this is why the book of Deuteronomy is so relevant today because it shows you God’s design for society.  Now it is not a mandate for us to invoke all these provisions in our own day because we can’t, we live in the Church Age, but we as citizens, participating in a functioning democracy can, as the Lord gives us opportunity press for some of these details in our own local situation.

 

The theme song from Deut. 12-26 is how to love the Lord your God with all your soul, or as we have transliterated with all the details of life.  And we go back to the idea that here is your life and your life is made up of many things, fellowship with other believers, relationship with family, relationship with society, relationship with government, it’s made up of things like a job with all the details concerned with work, it’s made up of things with health and recreation; it’s made up of sex, of various things in the home, etc. these many, many details and all these details are covered in chapters 12-26 because these details are important to God.  However, we always want to remember that chapters 5-11 dealt first with the inner mental attitude because without the inner mental attitude the outward works are just sham. 

 

In chapters 12-26 we moved first from chapters 12-16, now we’re moving from 16-21 and chapters 12-16 dealt with one central theme, the unity of the nation.  By this we mean the religious unity of the nation Israel and it shows us that every social order, every group of the human race on earth have a basic or must be basically united in the spiritual sense.  The ancients realized this; this is why in the ancient world you had national gods and you had a national, what we call a pantheon, or the house of gods.  And the ancient people in the ancient world realized the need of uniting people by a religious motivation.  Today we do the same thing; communism unites people by religious motivation.  If you’ve ever met a bona fide communist and talk with him you will understand something you will never get from the textbook or the newspapers and that is that they are religious people, committed to a religious idea and until you understand this you will never understand the nature of communism.  Communism is a Christian heresy.  Therefore we have the unity specified in the nation Israel, chapters 12-16. 

 

Now we’ve been moving to this next unit in the book and this has to do with another theme and this is the righteousness of the nation and the order of these two sections, proceeding from unity first then to righteousness is important because we have the cry abroad in our day to bring law and order back into the United States and yet if this is really the mechanics of the operation of history as we are learning from Deuteronomy, this is wrong.  This is putting the cart before the horse.  It does no good to station a policeman on every corner unless you first have a convinced populous and a populous that agree to the standards a policeman is going to enforce.  Otherwise you have nothing but a police state and therefore the order, the divine order is first you get a consensus in your society and then after you get your consensus, then you build your law and order. 

 

And this is a dilemma we face in America, we’ve lost our consensus, for as we’ve shown again and again in this book, there are only four sources of human law open to the human race at any time.  There is one by direct revelation; this is not available to us, it was only available to the nation of the Kingdom of God and that is Israel.  Therefore we in the United States have three sources that we can draw upon to establish our human laws, our civil and criminal laws, our concepts of right and wrong.  One of these is a consensus based upon the Word of God.  This is known in history as English Common Law or Reformation Law.  It comes from Samuel Rutherford and other men.  It came down through northern Europe, Great Britain and to the United States with the Pilgrims and the Puritans particularly who established the precedents for which much of our law today is derived.  This is based on an assumption, and this is what’s wrong with the legal system today, this whole system is based on the assumption that the population is going to accept Christian standards.  Not necessarily that the population is going to be all Christian, but that they will conform to Christian standards. 

 

When that assumption is cut as it is being done in our day, then we have to move to the third source of law and this is consensus again, but it’s based on some other thing, such as sociology, such as psychology, such are aristocracy or the ruling class or something like this.  You have to establish a consensus based on something else other than the Word of God.  And of course we’re in the throes of trying to establish a consensus, trying to establish an American form of right and wrong and we’re having trouble doing it because w have a lot of diverse elements in our society. 

 

Then the fourth and final area is anarchy and hear is where the individual himself is the source of his own law.  And this is the student radical of today who is answering his professors on the campus and saying what right do you have to enforce your law upon me; no one has given you the right to tell me what to do and I intend to live the way I want to.  A person has no authority of law if it doesn’t ground itself in the Word of God and what the student radicals are doing is simply they are the birds returning to the roost when the professors and the faculty of many college campuses for the last 30-40 years have systematically undermined the faith of the student and now they themselves are reaping the fruits of this attack. 

 

So these are the four sources of law, direct revelation available only to Israel; consensus based on the Word of God, available to northern Europe, Great Britain, United States up until this century; consensus based on some form of sociology, as we’ve illustrated before, the United States after 1930; anarchy which is the United States of the 1960s.  There are the only four sources of law, you can take your pick.  I for one would choose number two but we don’t have people conform to this and there’s going to be struggle going on and on in this nation until we settle down to something. 

Deut. 1:17 gives you the concept of law in Israel.  This is law under the Kingdom of God; this is law as it will be in the Millennium.  This is a picture, the divine viewpoint of civil operation of law.  This ought to be the motivation; this ought to be the memory verse of every policeman, of every person functioning in our court system today, of every civil official, of every civil servant. 

Verse 17, Moses instructs these men that he has appointed, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s,” and the key phrase is “the judgment is God’s.”  This is the reason for government.  This is the source of capital punishment; this is what authorizes human beings to take the life of another human being. 

 

I’m preparing to go to speak to some servicemen and I know one of the great questions as Christian soldiers is going to be when I’m manning my weapons and all of a sudden I get human bodies in front of my gun sights and I have to pull the trigger, is this wrong.  My answer will be no, it is not wrong, because God has authorized the instrument of government to provide for justice and by execution of other people you are conforming to God’s role of government.  Capital punishment is authorized in the Word of God.  Now this doesn’t authorize every cotton picking revolution that goes on, this doesn’t authorize promiscuous killing, as we shall see in Deut. 20 to the doctrine of war.  But it does authorize in principle the government to take life of its citizens, for the government itself does not possess the authority, the judgment is God’s.  This is the classical concept of the divine institution of government, the judgment is God’s. This is the theme now that we are going to see from Deut. 17-21.  Over and over again these officials are charged, it’s not their authority, you don’t respect a civil servant because of who and what he is; you respect a civil servant because as a Christian you respect the concept of law and order.  

 

This is why the early Christians in the apostolic era supported the Roman government.  Why, contrary to some Christian pacifists you had an entire legion of Roman soldiers who were born again Christians and they had the reputation for being one of the most aggressive legions in the Roman army.  And these legions would go across and they’d have prayer meetings before they went into battle and this was an entire Christian legion in the Roman Army.  These men were all born again Christians and they killed as functionaries of the Roman government. 

 

Now, here the theme song is the judgment of God and to see it in detail turn to Deut. 16.  We’ve already gone through the stages of government, verse 18, “Judges and officers shalt thou make in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God gives thee, throughout thy tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.”  If you diagram the government it looks like this: Yahweh or Jehovah was the King, He ruled through His law.  Every government had three functions, legislature, executive, judicial.  Notice Israel had no human legislature; there was no Congress, no House of Representatives because God made the Law.  Legislature is absent in Israel, God was the legislature.  Then you have the executive and judicial combined into one branch of go, the “judges and officers.”  And it looked this way, you had the Law and then  you had underneath the Law something we’ll see called the supreme council and underneath this, in each town you had a little township type of government, a judge or judges, plural, the shoterim, these were the assistant judges and you had sarim, who were the appointed town officials.  You had the garbage man and somebody else, and whoever they appointed were the sarim.  So you have the judges, the shoterim and the sarim, and you have these in each township. 

 

This is what it means in verse when it says “judges and officers,” “judges and shoterim shalt thou make thee in all thy gates,” gates is an idiom, it’s a metonymy for all your cities, “which the Lord thy God gives thee, throughout thy tribes, an they shall judge,” and the charge is given to them in verses 19-20 with the theme being in verse 20, not “that which is altogether just shalt thou follow” but in the Hebrew it says “righteousness and only righteousness shalt thou follow.”  In other words stay right on the track, for the very Hebrew righteousness, zedek, this Hebrew righteousness means standard, line, absolute, “and this and only this shall you follow.” 

 

Now verse 21, there’s a strange set of three verses, verses 21, 22 and 17:1.  You look at that carefully and you wonder what has that got to do with judges and officers.  So we’ve had liberals say who study the Bible with a razor blade, they like to cut this section out and say this is the work of some later editor and he brought this in here because he couldn’t think of anything else to put there.  Let’s look at it and see if it does or does not fit.  “Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. [22] Neither shalt thou set thee up any image, which the LORD thy God hates. [17:1] Thou shalt not offer unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evil favouredness [blemish] for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.” 

 

What has that got to do with a civil government, operation civil government if you were religious?  And that’s precisely the point.  For Israel recognized the fact that civil law and order, or civil law was always erected on a foundation of the Word of God.  And you could not disconnect the two.  This is why I always challenge people who walk around and say this famous slogan, it doesn’t matter what you believe it’s just how you live.  Nothing could be further from the truth, that’s absolutely wrong.  Everything matters on how you believe because this sets up the concepts and approaches to life.  So the civil law is grounded on the Word. 

 

Now what these verses, verses 21-22 & 17:1 are teaching is that they do not want to pollute the sanctuary which is the ultimate base of the law.  There shall be no pollution, and the charge in verse 21, “Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees,” has reference to the idea of Asherah. Asherah was a sex goddess of the ancient world, a very promiscuous type of worship and she always had her converts plant groves of trees.  They’d have these trees and have all sorts of orgiastic rites underneath them, they liked to do everything in the shade.  So they had these trees, it was a hot desert land, and when they lived it up they at least wanted some air conditioning, so they planted trees and they did everything under these trees.  And one of the results of these orgies they had with Asherah was to divinate, or to try to understand the future.  And they would do this when they were pressed to understand who was right or who was wrong, they’d go to Asherah to ascertain whether this person was guilty or not guilty.  And there was a tendency in that time of history to pollute the law and order of the Word with these mystical practices of pagan religion. 

 

And thus you find verses 21, 22, and 17:1 do fit into the context because these three verses are saying thou shalt preserve the fountain of law; the fountain of law is Jehovah, thy God and His sanctuary.  Thou shalt not allow it to be mixed with pagan worship.  And today in our country if we were to apply this as Bible-believing Christians we would insist upon the fact that there are absolutes and standards in the Word of God and we cannot compromise those standards regardless of who we are, to whom we’re voting for.  Therefore these standards in verses 21, 22 and 17:1 all have to do with the preservation of the fountainhead of law. 

Deut. 17:1, “Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God” approaches the same problem from a slightly different perspective.  In verses 21-22 we dealt with a problem of pollution.  In verse 1 you deal with a problem of sloppiness.   Here you have the people going to Jehovah, they’re sacrificing to Jehovah in verse 1 but they’re doing something wrong, they’re getting sloppy about it.  This indicates an attitude.  People who are sloppy always show their attitude.  You see it around any organization; people that you tell to do a job and they say oh yeah, we’ll do it, and then you look around six months later and nothing’s happened, that tells you something; that tells you that they don’t care, they just flat don’t care.  It’s the same thing in verse 1, they should have an active interest in Jehovah and His law; don’t get sloppy.

 

Beginning in verse 2 we have the functions of these judges and this section will take us down to verse 13.  At verse 13 we terminate so next week we’ll go into the king, the problem of federalized government and centralization of power beginning in verse 14, but verses 2-13 deal with the role of the judge.  Now don’t think of the judge here as a judge today in our system, although this context will tend to make you think that way.  Just think of a judge as one who is both executive and judicial official; think of them both in one person and you’ve the concept of a judge.  This is the idea of the Scripture at this point.  Samson was a judge, so you see what I mean, there was more than just the fact that he decided controversies, right and wrong, it was that he was a military leader also, he performed executive functions.

 

Verse 2, “If there be found among you within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God gives you, man or woman who has wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covenant,” now why pick this particular crime to illustrate the function of a judge.  In verses 2-7 there is one crime that is outline and this crime is the crime of all crimes in the nation, it is treason. Everything depends on Jehovah, He’s the King, and if you violate His law it’s treason against Him.  Therefore if you bring in anti-Bible doctrine or something that is not Biblical you are a traitor to the nation and summarily executed.  Therefore they take this crime of treason, and this is the highest of all crimes, and this is going to be an example, for if the judge knows how to handle the one crime of all crimes, then by implication he can handle the other lesser crimes.  So that’s why in verses 2-7 Moses selects the worst of all possible crimes in that day and uses it as an illustration of what the judge is to do.

 

Verse 2 illustrates, he has the report, verse 3 is what they have done [And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded], now verse 4, the report comes to the judge.  “And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it is true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel,” and when we get to this word “is wrought” we have to go back to Hebrew grammar to understand a little point here.  “Is wrought” is the way it looks in the King James, that’s not the way it looks in the Hebrew.  In the Hebrew it’s a participle; a participle in the Hebrew language always indicates action that is going on at the moment you’re looking. So therefore it’s a moving picture type of tense; the action is going on before you.  And what this tells us in verse 4 is that the judges get the report while the crime is still being perpetuated.  In other words, it’s not a retroactive report, someone sees this thing going on and they are immediately reported to the judge, he gets the report, you might say, catching them red-handed.  This thing “is being wrought in Israel.” 

 

Verse 4 is the procedure, “inquire diligently,” and here is the command to conduct an investiga­tion; you do not operate on hearsay alone. We’ll get into the court procedures in detail later but this is just to outline the job description of a judge.  He is to “inquire diligently,” so there’s one of the aspects of the job of a judge in the nation, to check gossip out because the worst thing you can do in any organization is to learn something from somebody that comes to you on the telephone, did you see so and so do such and such, oh, let’s get together and have a prayer meeting for so and so.  Usually if you’re smart you will discount it until you get it confirmed from other sources.  So this is the first job, to separate gossip and maligning from the real thing, “inquire diligently.” 

 

As a result of this think it’s obviously true, so then in verse 5 is the next step the judge is to do.  “Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which has committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”  That’s not for every crime, that’s for the crime of treason as we covered in Deut. 13.  The procedure was that they would bring forth the accused to the gate.  I said that gate is metonymy for city and it, but it also means something else, it means that in these ancient towns they had sort of a town square and this town square bordered on the gates of the wall, and it’s here where the elders would meet.  Those of you who ever read the book of Ruth know what Boaz did; he went down to the gates to get this legal matter cleared up with the family.  So these are where the elders met.  We would make a translation today, the city council, or some function like that, you go to whoever the ruling elders and you have a bunch of the men that are the respected leaders of the community, you have a group of elders and they have among them, some are judges, i.e. they have been officially installed in an office. 

 

Therefore, you bring the accused and the trial is done at the gate.  When the trial was finished, the person was convicted; the execution always took place outside the city, never at the gate. They would take the person out here and stone them, and this was a tremendously important ceremony.  Execution never occurred on city property; it always occurred outside the city because they felt to execute inside the city was an act of pollution.

 

Now you can understand, if you turn to Hebrews 13 why the author of this book says what he says about the Lord Jesus Christ in verse 12, once again showing us that if we understand the Old Testament we will understand the New Testament.  Keep in mind that these New Testament epistles were written to people who had an excellent background in the Old Testament and this is why Christians have trouble with the New Testament, because we don’t have the background of the Old Testament.  If we had the background these people had, no trouble at all in most of the passages of the New Testament. 

 

Here in Hebrew. 13:12 he says, “Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”  What does that mean?  It means the Lord Jesus Christ suffered as a criminal, and that is a nuance; it just doesn’t mean that the Lord Jesus Christ felt like He wanted to go outside the gate to suffer.  The fact that the cross was set up outside the city of Jerusalem and it’s referred to here in verse 12 is an indicator that this was horrible to the Jewish mind.  And you can’t understand this until you sense the horror of the Old Testament for this, something that’s outside the gate that’s been executed.  They dumped garbage outside the city, they executed criminals outside the city, something outside the city was filth.  Now this is the thing that the early Christians had to fight.  You mean to tell me that your God, Lord and Savior would die outside the city.  And this is one of the great things the early Christians had to fight off, that the God-man Savior, the King of Kings, the Lord of glory was outside with the garbage and the dead bodies.  He was executed as a common criminal and this is what it means, therefore in verse 13, when he says by way of application, “Let us,” as believers, “go forth, therefore, unto Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.”  Now you understand what that means.  It means that you go outside and you are identified with a criminal.  You are identified with the off-scouring of society. You are identified with one to whom all the decent people looked down upon.

 

You have this manifest in our day, people look at you and I have had this happen to me, after explaining the gospel and they say what, you mean people are saved by blood, how gory, slaughter house religion; you’re saved by the death of a man.  Of course you are, how else do you expect to be saved?  The Lord Jesus Christ made it very clear. God’s essence looks like this: sovereignty, righteousness, justice, love, eternality, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and immutability.  Here is a member of the human race, we are sinners in His sight, righteous and justice looks down and everywhere righteous and justice looks at the sinner it decrees death. God is not going to compromise His righteousness and justice.  Let’s put ourselves in God’s place for a moment and say all right, here’s the problem; you have to figure out how you are going to save this individual without destroying God’s righteousness and justice.  How are you going to salvage the human race that you love?  Love pours out, love wants to do something but righteousness and justice say no, the person is a sinner must die.  Could you design a plan of salvation that would at the same time bring this person in answer to your love would save the individual and yet preserve God’s righteousness and justice?  The Old Testament wasn’t very clear but it gave hints and in the New Testament we have this. 

 

God in His sovereignty works out a plan of salvation in the cross of Jesus Christ.  The cross of Jesus Christ is the means by which our sins, which are credited to our account are re-credited to Christ’s account; we call this the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.  So legally what happened was, since sin was the issue and not the personality, God simply took your sins, every one of the sins that you have never ever committed yet, you can tell the 5,800 you’ve already committed, but what about the 10,899 sins that you haven’t committed yet?  Think of all the sins that everyone can commit; Christ took every single one and had it laid on Him on the cross. That was the plan of God and so therefore righteousness and justice looked down and said “die” and Jesus Christ died. Therefore since the penalty of sin was paid and since you can’t have double jeopardy, once something is judged it’s always judged, therefore there’s no such thing now as sin separating God from men. What separates God from man now is only the, what we call the unpardonable sin and that’s the sin of rejection of Christ, negative volition, I reject Jesus Christ.  But when God laid all the sins on Him, this means that these sins were credited to Christ’s account and in turn therefore righteousness and justice are satisfied; love now can pour out to this person.  Love is free to pour out without violating the attributes of righteousness and justice because of the cross of Christ.

 

That is a perfect plan of salvation and you can study every religion on the face of this earth and you will never find a religion that does this.  Every religion apart from Judaism in the Old Testament and Christianity in the New Testament, all religions fail to reconcile the righteousness and justice of God with His love.  You’ll never resolve this tension apart from the cross of Christ.  Therefore the issue today is here I am, here God is, and what stands between me and God is Jesus Christ.  “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by Me,” and this is what Jesus Christ meant by this.  He wasn’t being a narrow dogmatist.  When I was a freshman in college this was one of the things that repelled me as a non-Christian about Christianity, the arrogancy of Jesus Christ to get up and say “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father man,” the sheer arrogancy of the claim.  But when I understood through the Holy Spirit’s illumination why He said that, it made all the sense in the world because it’s the cross that resolved the problem.

 

Therefore a person can go two ways; he can go positive or negative.  A person can go positive volition, I accept Jesus Christ as Savior.  How does a person accept Christ as Savior—reaching out with the empty hands of faith to grasp God’s gracious provision in Christ. Simply in a moment of time in prayer you can tell the Father that you are trusting in Christ’s work for your salvation and not our own good works.  Or you can reject, and this is your privilege, we never cram, ram or jam the gospel down anyone’s throat, you shouldn’t if you’re a Christian.  Just present the issue and respect human volition; he has a right to reject, and if he rejects generally it will be on the basis of human good.  People like to say I’ll trust in my good works to gain me credit with God.  If people want to trust in that fine, it’s their choice.  There’s the plan of salvation outlined, and our Savior, then, becomes an executed criminal. 

 

Now back to Deut. 17.  We have the next item on the agenda for the judge, it’s to deal with witnesses, and when he deals with the witnesses he has another problem.  He must have two or three witnesses, and only two or three witnesses; he can’t have one.  If a person is going to be executed, in fact later on we’re going to see, if any crime is solved in the nation it’s got to be by two or three witnesses.  The reason for this is that you have conflicting testimony.  It’s interesting, turn to Mark 14:56 where you’ll see one of the great miscarriages of justice in history at the trial of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It was a most amazing thing that happened at the trial of our Lord.  Jesus was tried by the judges of Deut. 17 and the judges realized that God had entrusted them with the proviso that there had to be two or three witnesses that would agree to the crime before anybody could be executed. 

 

Look carefully at Mark 14:56, “For many bore false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.”  In other words, at the trial of Jesus Christ they had gobs of witnesses, that wasn’t any problem, the problem that out of the hundreds of people that would step forward and say this man blasphemes, this man claimed to be God, it’s interesting, skeptics always say Jesus never claimed to be God; the basis of His whole trial was blasphemy.  The people that were there had no question about whether He claimed to be God, that was the whole point of the trial.  Now the point is here that even though they could get many witnesses to come to this courtroom, they wouldn’t even agree.  And at the trial of Jesus Christ two people weren’t even present that would agree on one thing about Jesus Christ.  And if you go down to verse 59 you see the same thing, “But neither did their witness agree together.”  Jesus Christ was therefore illegally executed.  The prerequisite of Judaism, of the primary justice of Deut. 17 was never satisfied, absolutely not satisfied and it was an illegal execution.

 

Back to Deut. 17:  6, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall” the capital punishment be done. Only one witness is insufficient.  Now the next provision was a court of appeals.  It sounds like a court of appeals except I want to show you something, it wasn’t quite a court of appeals.  You see in verse 8 it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for thee,” now who’s “thee?”  “Thee” are the judges.  This is addressed to judges, not the plaintiff, not the defendant.  “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates, then thou shalt arise,” these are the judges, not the plaintiff, not the defendant, “and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. [9] And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment.”  This is the supreme council of the nation.  These were professionals. 

 

These people in the towns were sort of like our mayor and government, they were part-timers.  In other words, they were paid for their government duties but the towns were small and couldn’t afford a fulltime staff.  But the supreme council was twenty-four day people, and they were the professional judges of the time. And there were two kinds of people, they had priests and they had judges for a reason I will show you.  They had this council made up of these two.  Now notice, this is not the appeals system we have today.  The case had never been decided in the lower court.  Today we have the case decided in a lower court and then the appeal is made to the next higher court, and then it goes on up the ladder, but that’s not the way it was done here.  Here there were two differences.  First of all, the case was never made, or never decided upon in the lower court and secondly, the people that went to the higher court weren’t the accused.  The people that went to the higher court were the judges and officials of the lower court to get help.

 

Verses 10, “And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee,” this sentence passed down by the supreme council was the Word of God.  These people had access to direct revelation and therefore their sentence was final.  No appeal beyond this.  Why no appeal beyond this?  Because their decision was perfect, they had access… remember, they were sitting right there in the Temple; they had the presence of God to consult, they had the Urim and Thummim, they had these things to consult so therefore they had a perfect choice. 

 

In verse 11 you see two parts of a court decision.  “According to the sentence of the law,” the word there “law” is Torah, and this is the work of the priest.  On the supreme council you had two categories of people.  The priest put out the sentence of law and what this sentence… after you got through the court they’d give you two pieces of paper.  One was the sentence of law and one was the judgment.  The sentence of law stated where you had violated the Word of God.  And so the priest’s job in that day, these were the Bible students, and their job was to hunt through the law to find out where did this case violate the word of Yahweh, or Jehovah. So when they found it they issued this sentence, and that is what is spoken of in verse 11, “the sentence of law which they shall teach thee,” see these people were Bible teachers and they were teaching the judges. The judges got a little rusty on some portion of Scripture and so they’d come to this place for aid. The priest would sit down, go through the Scriptures and say look, here’s where so and so… they didn’t have verses but I’m just mimicking 20th century, here’s where so and so violated the law and so they would teach the judge.  See, right here, this is where they violated the Word of God.  So that is “the sentence of the law” which they are teaching the judges.

 

“…and according to the judgment,” and this is mishpat and that is the rule of the judges.  Now this is the second piece of paper you would have.  The first piece of paper would have where you violated the Word of God; the second piece of paper would have the punishment.  And then the judges would take these two pieces of paper back to the local town where they came from and execute the judgment.  This is how justice was done in difficult situations.  [… according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.”]

 

Verse 12, “And the man who will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die.”  Now here you have one of the other reasons for capital punishment in the Old Testament. Defiance of the authority of government meant you were executed.  Either you left the country or you stayed around and tried to make waves, they made waves for you; they dragged you outside the city and stoned you and that was how they handled the rebels of their day.  So therefore there was no tolerance.  Now the reason for this stiff sentence was that look where it came from; it came from the Temple.  And we have shown previously that the Temple was the presence of God and so when the supreme council passed down these two papers, who were they acting for?  They were acting for Jehovah Himself and to violate those two pieces of paper meant that you were violating the very words of God.  It was as though you had come before the throne of God and He hands you this to do and you violated it, and there’s nothing left.  These people that disobeyed and badmouthed the central authority, the supreme council were eliminated, and that’s why at the end of verse 12 it says “and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. [13] And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.” 

 

Now we’re going to see there’s some deep meanings in that word “presumptuously.”  The word “presumptuously” in the Old Testament means one of two things.  It means either the sin unto death, which believers can commit, or it means the unpardonable sin which unbelievers can commit, and it means that… the sin of presumption is always used when you have very clearly given to you the will of God.  The word “presumptuous” is used when God makes His will very clear to you, so there’s no mistaken what His will is for you and you still violate it.  When this happens and God has given, usually, by the way, this form is not in the moral law but in God’s specific will. When God has outlined His will for your life and you say no, I’m not doing, that is sinning presumptuously and that is the thing that always brings on death in the Old Testament.

 

Now let’s review some of the features of the court system and apply it to our day.  First we’ll review the role of witnesses.  This is to give you some background so as we go on through the Old Testament you’ll understand some of these things, you’ll understand some of the prophets.  This is not just dry culture, this is the means in which we understand the Word of God.  The first amazing thing about witnesses in the Old Testament was that everything, EVERYTHING hinged on the witness.  There were no police in Israel.  Isn’t that remarkable; there was no police force in Israel.   They didn’t have a chariot with a little siren on it to go chasing around the teenagers that hot-rodded through the streets of Jerusalem in their chariots; they just had a witness, write down their license on the back of the chariot, there goes so and so, I saw them riding down through the street the other day, dragging out with another one.  All they had was witnesses.

 

In Lev. 5:1 there is a reference that tells us that if you are a citizen and you see a crime committed and fail to report it, God charges you with the crime.  And this gets rid of this citizen involvement business, where you have in New York city a girl gets raped and 40-50 people stand around watching the thing, don’t want to get involved!  And isn’t it interesting in Israel you had total involvement by the citizenry because you had no police department.  You didn’t get up and call the police, you were there and you took care of it.  Therefore they had total involvement by the citizens, everything hinged on Lev. 5:1, if you were a citizen and you saw a crime committed, you reported it or you were credited with the crime.  [Blank spot]

 

False witness in Israel was the major crime, it’s prescribed in the Old Testament, the Ten Commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness. That’s what that term means, it means gossip and maligning too, but it also means that in a legal court you’d better not get up and charge your neighbor falsely or you had some things coming to you which I’ll outline in a moment.  This was the major crime and you can see why they treated it as a major crime because if you couldn’t rely upon the witnesses, the whole system of justice broke down. 

 

Third point about witnesses in Israel; punishment for a false witness was the punishment that would have come on the person to whom you gave false witness.  For example, you don’t like Mr. X over here, Mr. X stepped on your toe and you don’t like him so you’re going to eliminate Mr. X and you say hey, I saw Mr. X go down and knock off some person down in the bar.  So you come in with this big report and you drag Mr. X before the gate and you falsely accuse Mr. X. Do you know what the crime for murder was? Capital punishment, and so guess what, all of a sudden the judges begin to spot some irregularities in your testimony because you can’t get somebody else to witness exactly the same way and they begin to suspect, wait a minute here, something’s wrong. 

 

So they take you before the supreme council, we’ll see this procedure later on, and they decide hey, you’re the one that’s a false witness, well isn’t that interesting because do you know what’s going to happen to you?  You want to get rid of Mr. X with capital punishment, well guess what’s going to happen to you?   You’re going to get eliminated. So the thing that you tried to put off on someone else gets put right back on you and that was the punishment for a false witness.  If you gave false testimony in a certain crime where there was scourging, then you were scourged.  So you see, this cut down false witnesses a little bit, particularly the worse the crime was the less tendency you had of false witness because you realize if you got caught it was curtains for you. So that’s how they guarded their system of false witness. 

 

The fourth point they had was that it didn’t take one, it had to take two, for every conviction in Israel there had to be two or three witnesses that agreed on the same thing. 

 

Fifthly, that is that witnesses to capital crimes were the ones who threw the stones. For example, if this had been really true, and you saw Mr. X go down to the bar and bump somebody off and you brought him into court and the sentence was capital punishment.  If you were the witness you had to stand up right in front of Mr. X and heave the first stone.  Now do you know why they had that little provision?  Because when you had to look into a man’s eyes and take his life, you’d better be sure that you’re right and you’d better have convictions about the law.  And so therefore the person who had… this is not vengeance, this is something entirely different from vengeance. These people came down and the executors of the person who was caught, the person who was sentenced to death, the executors were the witnesses.  They were the first people to pick up the rocks.  That’s dealing with the witnesses, five points on the witnesses. 

 

Now let’s deal with the court procedure, and we have five points on court procedure in the ancient world.  And this will understand, you keep these in your mind and these will give you a clue as to some of the prophets, they used these analogies often in the Old Testament. 

 

The first principle of the court procedure was quick access for all citizens.  You didn’t have to wait three years to get your case to court.  It was quick access.  The reason for this was they had a vast number of small courts, not a small number of large courts.  They had a tremendous number but they were all small courts, but they had a lot of them and this way they could handle the cases very rapidly.  You find this in Ruth 4, for example, an example of quick access. Boaz wants to get vindication for his cause, he just walks down, makes an appointment with the court and within 24-48 hours he has his case in the courtroom. 

 

Two, the complaint was brought by the plaintiff, not by a DA, not by a lawyer.  The citizens did a lot of the court work themselves, Deut. 21, 22, etc. 

 

The third thing about court procedure was that the judge, the accused, the accusers, and the witnesses all had one principle and that is that the judgment is God’s, and it was conducted in a holy atmosphere.  It was conducted with a seriousness because they looked upon a court system, not as a means of gaining revenge but as a means for execution of the will of God and there’s a tremendous distinction here.  People totally misunderstand capital punishment in the Old Testament.  They think oh, this is gruesome, this is primitive justice.  People who say that usually have no concept of the holiness of God, absolutely none.  And they also misunderstand the motivations of the Old Testament.

 

The fourth thing is very interesting, punishment was immediate; there was no delay.  Once the sentence was made, punishment was immediate. There was never a jail term except for one type of crime and that was the crime that we saw tonight where they couldn’t figure out who was wrong.  And if they had this crime and they suspected the witnesses were wrong and there was something wrong with the case, then they did jail the person.  This is described in Lev. 24:12; Num. 15:34, but this is the only time I can find in the entire Old Testament where jail sentences were used. They did not lock up men like animals in the Old Testament.  They flogged them and that may sound cruel and vicious to you, but I just wonder as I’ve gone through these pages and I’ve devoted many, many hours over the past months to prepare this serious on the justice of Israel, the thought has gone through my mind, is it in the end more cruel to take a man out and lash him than it is to lock him up as an animal in a cage where he will have psychiatric problems the rest of his life, where he will be in touch with other hardened criminals.  I’m not convinced in my own thinking that jail terms are less cruel or less primitive than the systems of punishments authorized here in the Word of God.

 

Finally we have the fifth one, if the crime was not solved, what happens.  And this is very interesting.  If the crime was not solved, guess who took the responsibility?  The local government.  So, for example, if you had a crime committed in some local area and the murderer was not identified, the local government assumed the responsibility and made due payment for the people that lost their individual, as much as they could.  Now this is a fantastic provision. We don’t even have this in our country.  We have it in sections, but if a crime is not solved beyond a certain time limit in the Bible the local government paid off the person who was injured. 

Now out of this whole thing you see something.  You see that the object of justice in the Old Testament is God; the judgment is God’s.  And the concern of the court isn’t the accused; the concern of the court is the crime that was done; that’s the concern.  The concern isn’t the person who did the crime; the concern is the crime itself that was perpetuated. 

 

Now we have four additional points on capital punishment itself.  We’ve gone through capital punishment but we’ll just outline four basic points of it here to give you the background for this section we’re moving into. 

 

Capital punishment in Israel was limited to the following crimes, and this is quite a limitation when you compare the Code of Hammurabi, when you work with the Hittite codes, when you work with some of the Mesopotamian law codes, you’ll find that this is quite a limitation.  Capital punishment was only for the sins of murder, treason, certain sexual sins which we’ll outline later on as we go through here, slave trading, defiance of civil and parental authority. That’s an amazing one.  If the parents had a child that they couldn’t control, they just took him down to the elders and he was eliminated.  They solved their JD problem in those days quite rapidly.  So capital punishment was limited to murder, treason, sexual sins, slave trading, defiance of civil or parental authority. 

 

Secondly, capital punishment could not be executed until it had been thoroughly investigated. This was not arbitrary justice. 

 

Thirdly, the execution, and this is interesting, it sounds gruesome when you look at it but I don’t think it was, the more I think of this the more wisdom I see in it.  The execution was public, in front of everybody.  Now why do you suppose execution would be public?  These people had feelings; don’t get in your mind if you hear this barf in history about oh these primitive people back there, they didn’t have any heart.  Bologna.  I can show you verse after verse in the Old Testament where it says when you get in this situation, don’t let your eyes pity.  Now why is that command in there if the people didn’t care; they cared.  People in that day had human emotions just like you have and it wasn’t very pleasant for them to go out and find this person being stoned to death in front of them.  They had problems emotionally with it too, but here’s why I think it was public.  It was a graphic demonstration of the justice of God.  And people stood around and saw the execution, the seriousness and the horror of an execution, and felt once again that the law is serious.  It wasn’t just flippancy. We execute a man today and you never even hear about it, we hide them, don’t let people go to see. It’s precisely the opposite in the Bible. 

 

Then they had another interesting thing and this gets into a detail which we’ll see later, it has to do with the cross of Christ.  The body was hung on a tree.  Now that’s what that means in the Old Testament, it doesn’t mean that they crucified them in the Old Testament. After they killed them they picked up the corpse and hung it from a tree until night.  At night they had to take it back down because they felt it would pollute the land but it was hung on a tree for display. 

 

Do you see these two provisions; the gruesomeness, the horror, the blood and guts of this thing was clear to all the citizens, and I dare say it had a slight deterrent effect on crime.  You say it’s gruesome but I wonder.

 

Now this is the summary of the last section in verse 13 where we have in Deut. 17, “And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously,” and here we have the information that apparently in the land this whole display did have a deterrent effect because it says after people see this kind of thing they’re not going to do any more presumptuously.  It’s going to make them mend their ways. 

 

Now, this is an interesting contrast, this quick criminal thing.  So summarize what we’ve done tonight we’ve worked with the judge a little bit; we’ve worked with his job description a little bit.  We’ve seen some of the things that a judge does; we’ve noticed that one of the central features of the judicial system of Israel was the promptness of justice. Throughout the whole thing from beginning to end there’s a promptness of justice.  Combine this with our system today.  U.S. News and World Report reported, March, 1969, the average time between arrest and jury trial varied from 1.4 months in western Kentucky to 22.8 months in eastern New York.  The average time, some cases are more than that, that means from the time of an arrest to the time of the trial, the first trial, not even the second and third appeal, but from the arrest to the trial, is over a year, almost two years.  Now you ask what’s happening to the justice system.  This is why in our country we do have a problem with the judge; the whole judicial system needs to be overhauled. 

 

And in Israel under the Kingdom of God you see one of the most perfect judicial systems ever worked out in the history of the world.  I suggest that we as citizens take careful notice of some of these features because I am not convinced that this is primitive justice at all in the Old Testament; I’m convinced that it’s very wise justice. Gruesome, yes, but isn’t crime gruesome. We talk about murder and we don’t like to execute a criminal but what about the person that was executed?  What about the person that was murdered? Don’t their lives count?  Let me tell you something interesting about the Word of God and capital punishment.  I have studied for comparative purposes and historical background the Hittite code, the Code of Hammurabi, various other codes in the Mesopotamian valley to compare and see what are the unique features of the Bible. And one of the striking features of the Bible is this: that in all the other codes when a person was murdered oftentimes the accused would be only fined.  It’s very interesting; in the Code of Hammurabi you find this; in the Mesopotamian valley you find this, that the people could get off from a capital offense by a fine. 

 

Now think it through for a moment.  Why in the Bible does every capital offense, every murder, every time someone is murdered does it require the taking of a life?  I think the reason is this, not because of vengeance but because the Bible places such a high price on human life that it can’t be held for by any fine and so therefore when you go to these other codes and so and so killed so and so and they get off with a $3,000 fine, do you know what you’ve really done by that sentence?  You’ve said that the life of the person that was killed is only worth $3,000 and in the Old Testament that wasn’t true.  In the Old Testament a person who killed someone else deliberately had to pay for his own life because the life that he took was so valuable that all the riches in the world could not pay for it.  This is the reason, I think, behind the motivation for capital punishment in the Old Testament; not a motivation of vengeance, a motivation to teach men the value of human life.  Blood spilt, God says, pollutes the land and I will not stand it until the blood of the one who did it is taken because blood spells value and this is why when the Gospels say Jesus Christ shed His blood for you it means Jesus Christ paid with His life for your sins and no religion, no amount of good works, fines or anything else can pay for your sins.  It requires a life for a life.  You see that principle on the cross.  Think of it; if it wasn’t the principle a life for a life then God would never have sent His Son to die on the cross for your sins, He would have had some other solution.  But the matter of the fact is that when God says this life shall die with sins the only way He can pay off your debt and mine is by another life and that was the life of His Son.