Deuteronomy 17 – Laws Pertaining to the Rulers of Israel
A. Laws regarding justice and courts.
1. (1-5) Religious offenses.
“You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God.
“If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.
a. You shall not: This section, much like Exodus 21-23, was meant to give instructions to the judges of Israel in how to administrate justice for the nation. It was case law, upon which legal precedents for future cases could be understood.
i. This section of the second sermon of Moses in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 4:44-26:19) began at Deuteronomy 16:18 with general instructions to judges. Then, matters of worship and sacrifice were addressed, starting at Deuteronomy 16:21. Deuteronomy 17 continues the instructions of judges regarding sacrifice and worship.
b. Which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God: God refused any sacrifice which had any blemish or defect, even calling it an abomination to Him. God did not recognize the giving of cast-off, worthless items, as a true sacrifice to Him. It is human nature to give God second best – if not third or fourth best. But God will not receive such sacrifices.
i. Israel did not always live up to this standard: And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?” Says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:8)
ii. King David powerfully illustrated the idea behind this commandment when he refused to accept the threshing floor of Araunah as a gift, which David was going to give to the LORD as the place to build the temple. David said, nor will I offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God with that which costs me nothing (2 Samuel 24:24). David understood that if it didn’t cost something, it wasn’t a true sacrifice.
c. Who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them: Judges are also commanded to make sure that any who had gone after idolatry were to be investigated (inquire diligently), and if found to be guilty, they were to be executed.
2. (6-7) The standard of evidence in capital crimes.
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
a. Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses: The judges of Israel were to uphold the standard that a death-sentence for any crime had to be based on evidence from at least two independent, unimpeachable sources. The Law of Moses specifically noted that one witness was not enough for conviction (Numbers 35:29-30).
i. The two or three witnesses required need not necessarily be two or three individuals. A piece of strong, tangible evidence (such as the ancient equivalent of a fingerprint on a murder weapon) also served as a witness.
ii. The requirement of two or three witnesses inherently demands that the witness is present publicly, guarding against secret accusations. This requirement also inherently demands that the witness is available for questioning (cross-examination) by the accused or the representatives of the accused, confirming that they are indeed witnesses and to judge the reliability of their testimony.
iii. Though God commanded Israel to carry out the death penalty for certain crimes, there was also great concern for the rights of the accused. When the standard of two or three witnesses was observed, the innocent or falsely accused would not be sentenced to death.
iv. This high standard of evidence also meant that there would be some murderers who would not be prosecuted and brought to justice because there were not adequate witnesses to convict. In such cases, final justice would wait for God’s court beyond this life. This assurance of final justice would give small solace to the survivors of those murdered under such circumstances.
v. This standard of evidence for the accused is also stated in the New Testament, in reference to the murder of reputation. God commands that one should not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19) – the same standard as for proving murder.
b. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death: Additionally, the witnesses had to be so certain of what they saw, that they were willing to initiate the actual execution. This made certain that no one would be executed for a crime they did not commit.
i. “The hands of the witnesses were to be the first to administer punishment.” (Kalland)
ii. This puts the words of Jesus regarding the woman taken in adultery in John 8 in perspective: He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first (John 8:7). Jesus asked for the official witness to step forward and identify themselves on record as having witnessed this act of adultery yet had been hypocritical enough to bring the woman and not the man.
c. And afterward the hands of all the people: The execution was a community event, in the sense that it was supported by the community. The whole village would know the justice of what was being done.
i. So you shall put away the evil from among you: “When Paul told the Corinthian church members that they should expel the wicked man from among them [1 Corinthians 5:13], he quoted this injunction, which appears, with slight variation, nine times in Deuteronomy.” (Kalland)
3. (8-13) Provision made for higher courts.
“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
a. If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge: In ancient Israel, God provided for courts of appeal. These were higher courts where cases were taken beyond the local judges to the priests, the Levites – who were understood to be wiser judges because of their greater knowledge of God’s word.
i. Too hard for you to judge: “The verb ‘be difficult’ or ‘be baffling’ is related in its root to the noun pele, which connotes something wonderful or miraculous, e.g. the mighty acts of God’s deliverance in Egypt (Exodus 3:20; 15:11; 34:10). The case in question was, then, one that had some very unusual features.” (Thompson)
b. Degrees of guilt for bloodshed: God’s law recognized there are different degrees of guilt when a person is killed. This was the foundation for the cities of refuge (Numbers 35, Joshua 20). Not every killing is the same, and some are worthy of more severe judgment than others.
c. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest…that man shall die: The authority of the judges had to be respected. Therefore, to treat God’s appointed court with contempt was a capital crime. God thought it was essential that the courts and judges were respected in Israel.
B. Laws pertaining to kings.
1. (14-15) God’s indirect promise of a future king for Israel.
“When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
a. I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me: God looked forward – some 400 years forward – to Israel’s future, to the time when they would demand a king. God warned them to look for and support a king whom the LORD your God chooses, and that person had to be an Israelite and not a foreigner.
i. Although kingship was foreseen even in the days of the patriarchs (Genesis 17:6, 17:16, 35:11, 49:10), for more than 500 years of its history, Israel had no king. “Moses, in spite of his authoritative position, was not a king. Joshua, his successor, received an appointment charismatically, as did Moses. The judges that followed were not kings.” (Kalland)
b. I will set a king over me: When Israel eventually said this in 1 Samuel 8:6-9, it was not motivated by a desire to keep God’s law here in Deuteronomy 17. It was motivated by a desire to be like the other nations, and by the desire to reject God’s leadership over Israel.
i. God eventually wanted Israel to have a king. These commands in Deuteronomy anticipate a king, and most of the time when Israel did not have a king was not a time of national glory (the time of the book of Judges).
ii. God wanted Israel to have a king, but of His choosing, and at His timing. Saul was a perfect example of a king not from God’s will, who was chosen by the nation and at their timing; David is an example of a king chosen by God and in His timing.
2. (16-17) Commands for the king.
But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.
a. He shall not multiply horses for himself: The future king of Israel must not put undue trust in military might, here represented by horses that were mighty weapons in a time when most soldiers fought on foot.
i. “Lest the people might depend on a well-appointed cavalry as a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the strength and protection of God.” (Clarke)
b. Neither shall he multiply wives for himself: The future king of Israel must not put undue emphasis on physical indulgence and personal status, here represented by having multiple wives.
i. “A large harem of many wives also represented a likeness to the Oriental courts of other kingdoms, and having many wives envisaged the usual procedure of acquiring those wives from families of other kings and so sealing treaties by marriage. Such wives would bring the impact of foreign cultures into the palace, particularly the worship of other gods, and so lead the heart of the king astray.” (Kalland)
c. Nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself: The future king of Israel must not put undue emphasis on personal wealth, here represented by the silver and gold he would accumulate.
d. Lest his heart turn away: Each of these were a matter of balance. The king had to have some military power, but not too much; one wife and certain comforts, but not too much; some personal wealth, but not too much. Such balances are often the hardest to keep.
i. Solomon was a notorious breaker of these commands. He had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots (1 Kings 4:26), and Solomon had horses imported from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28). He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart (1 Kings 11:3). He surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches (1 Kings 10:23).
ii. Yet, all along, we might see Solomon knowing the commands of Deuteronomy 17, yet deceiving himself by asking the self-justifying questions, “How much is ‘multiply’? This isn’t an exact number. I haven’t gone too far.” It might seem self-evident that 700 wives and 300 concubines is multiplying wives, but the human heart has an astounding ability to deceive itself.
iii. “Military aggrandisement, a large harem, and the amassing of wealth were typical of Eastern potentates long before Moses’ day.” (Thompson)
iv. “This is a remarkable portrait of God’s ideal of kingship. It would be an interesting exercise to measure the kings of men throughout history by this ideal…. the measure by which they have violated these principles has been the measure of the disaster resulting from their rule.” (Morgan)
v. Each of these three areas reflects the places where many modern Christian leaders fall: power, pleasure, or money. God’s commands for leaders have not changed; and neither has the need to be on guard against the self-deception in these things which made Solomon fall.
3. (18-20) The king and the word of God.
“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.
a. He shall write for himself: God commanded the king of Israel, when he was appointed king, to write a copy of the law for himself. It is striking to picture the king of Israel, laboring over parchment with a pen, making a personal copy of the law of Israel. This shows how greatly God wanted the word of God to be on the hearts of His rulers; God wanted every king to also be a scribe.
i. From the one before the priests: “It is likely this means, that the copy which the king was to write out was to be taken from the autograph kept in the tabernacle before the Lord, from which, as a standard, every copy was taken, and with which doubtless every copy was compared; and it is probable that the priests and Levites had the revising of every copy that was taken off, in order to prevent errors from creeping into the sacred text.” (Clarke)
ii. “The king’s copy was to be made from the ‘official’ version, that retained by the priests, presumably in or near the ark of the covenant (cf. Deuteronomy 31:9, 25–26). This is most likely the ‘book of the law’ found by Josiah’s priests and scribes in the days of Judah’s reformation (cf. 2 Kings 22:8–13).” (Merrill)
iii. “Incidentally, the phrase a copy of this law (Deuteronomy 17:18) appears incorrectly in the LXX [Septuagint] as ‘this second law’, to deuteronomion touto. It was this misunderstanding that gave rise to the English name Deuteronomy.” (Thompson)
b. It shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life: The word of God was to be a constant companion of the king of Israel, and something he read every day.
i. “Only the study of this law could preserve him from the temptations which beset a king.” (Thompson)
ii. “The corrective suggested here is meditation on the Word of God. The king was to write out a copy with his own hard, and meditate on it all the days of his life; this would keep him in the lowlands of humility. The Bible is so true in its analysis of the heart; like a mirror it reveals a man to himself. It gives such exalted views of the greatness and holiness of God, compared with which the greatest human state is like the royalties of an ant-heap.” (Meyer)
iii. Everyone needs the word of God. But the greater our responsibilities, the greater our need to depend on the truth of God’s word.
iv. John Trapp of the 17th century praised an English monarch for her love of God’s word: “Queen Elizabeth, as she pass in triumphal state through the streets of London after her coronation, when the Bible was presented to her at the little conduit in Cheapside, received the same with both her hands, and kissing it, laid it to her breasts, saying that the same had ever been her chiefest delight, and should be the rule whereby she meant to frame her government.”
c. That he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law: Staying in the word of God was intended to build in the king a reverence for God and a holy life.
i. “As a result of failing to follow carefully the law, notice the mistake David made when he first attempted to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and the correction of that mistake at the second and successful attempt (1 Chronicles 13:1–10; 15:2, 13).” (Kalland)
ii. It is wonderful to consider that reading a book – the great book, the Bible – can keep a person from sin. We may not understand all the spiritual work behind the word of God, but staying in the word will keep one from sin. It has been well written in many Bibles: “This book will keep you from sin. Sin will keep you from this book.”
d. That his heart may not be lifted up: Staying in the word of God would keep the king properly humble and help him to not think of himself as above those he ruled over.
i. “The Scriptures, diligently read and studied, are a powerful and probable means to keep him humble, because they show him that, though a king, he is subject to a higher Monarch, to whom he must give an account…sufficient to abate the pride of the haughtiest person in the world, if he duly consider it.” (Poole)
ii. He and his children: Adam Clarke, a British Methodist of the 19th century, had a comment on this phrase appropriate to his time and place. “From this verse it has been inferred that the crown of Israel was designed to be hereditary, and this is very probable; for long experience has proved to almost all the nations of the world that hereditary succession in the regal government is, on the whole, the safest, and best calculated to secure the public tranquillity.”
iii. “Those who forsook the Lord and disregarded the principles of godly rule would face personal disaster and lack of royal succession. The history of Israel would prove this to be all too true.” (Merrill)
© 2017-2024 The Enduring Word Bible Commentary by David Guzik – [email protected]