Original Meaning
Safeguarding the Rights of a Slave (23:15–16)
THE PERVASIVENESS OF THE problem of runaway slaves is reflected in the frequency with which the issue appears in Mesopotamian2 and Hittite law codes3 and in treaty documents.4 This instructional fragment casts Israel’s vision beyond their own community to the lot of foreign slaves who might seek refuge from their masters within the land of Israel.5 Moses declares that Israelites are not to send persons who have escaped from their masters back to their (foreign) owners. The prohibited action (lit., “to shut someone in”) means to apprehend and imprison the fugitive until the owner arrives, when he would be delivered into the master’s hands.6
The present provision continues the humanitarian trajectory expressed toward Israelite slaves in chapter 15 and the openness to non-Israelites in the assembly of Yahweh (23:7–8). But the magnanimity of verse 16 is extraordinary.7 The Israelites must not only let fugitive slaves reside among them, but also allow them to choose a place in any town that seems good to them.8 Nor may the Israelites exploit and oppress them. The word hônâ (from yānâ) refers to any kind of mistreatment by which the owner takes advantage of the person’s alien status. In effect, foreign slaves who fled to Israel were free to live anywhere without fear.9 By calling the Israelites to provide safe haven for fugitives, Moses treats the entire land as terra sancta.
Bridging Contexts
LATER OLD TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS. The appropriation and application of these diverse instructions in the remainder of the Old Testament are uneven. We will explore allusions to each fragment separately.
The instructions on fugitive slaves (vv. 15–16) do not reflect on the rightness or wrongness of a slave fleeing from his master. Rather, they focus on Israel as a host to such fugitives and remind readers how countercultural Israelite values were to be. Whereas elsewhere masters were allowed and encouraged to rule over slaves with ruthless force, in Israel all human beings, even the slaves who came to them from the outside, were to be treated with dignity and compassion. That Deuteronomy should make such provision for outsiders, but remain silent on the case of fugitive Israelite slaves, is remarkable.
Deuteronomy assumes the institution of slavery, but the Israelite version is to differ radically from their own experience in Egypt and from the American experience. On the one hand, Israelites with economic power over others are to treat their indentured country folk with compassion and generosity (15:1–18), but on the other, the entire land of Israel was to function as a refuge for foreign slaves running away from harsh treatment.26
Paul’s short epistle to Philemon provides the closest New Testament analogue to the situation reflected here. The apostle writes the letter to Philemon expressly to encourage this Christian slave owner to receive back his fugitive slave, who has in the meantime also become a believer. In this instance Paul’s role is analogous to that of the Israelites. Onesimus has not only experienced conversion under his ministry, but he has also sought refuge with him. In resolving the tensions among this triad of believers, Paul does not cite the letter of the law. Moses would have affirmed his appeal to the moral conscience of both slave and master. Recognizing Philemon’s rights but against his own personal interests, Paul sends Onesimus back (Philem. 12). However, he sends the letter by the hand of the slave himself, and when Onesimus hands the letter to his master, the minds of all three will meet. As members of the assembly of God, all are equal, but if as members of society distinctions exist, those distinctions are to be tempered by a sense of duty on the part of the subordinate, and by compassion and charity on the part of the superior.
Micah alludes to the fragment in Deuteronomy on the sanctity of the cult (vv. 17–18) in his denunciation of the idolatry of Samaria (Mic. 1:7); as already noted, Proverbs 7 also associates immoral sexual acts with religious devotion. However, this ordinance seems to have been honored more in its inversion than in its direct application. In Ezekiel 16 the exilic prophet paints a particularly graphic picture of Jerusalem taking the resources that Yahweh had graciously lavished on her and using them for idolatrous and harlotrous purposes. In the New Testament, Paul takes the association of idolatry and religious devotion in a different direction when he encourages Christians not to worry about meat that has been offered to idols—since an idol is nothing—unless the act of eating causes someone else to stumble. This sensitivity is remarkably Mosaic.
Echoes of Moses’ instructions on charging interest on loans are clearer in the Old Testament. Responding to the question, “Who can be assured of acceptance with Yahweh when they appear before him in worship?” Psalm 15:2–5 presents a list of evidences that one is walking in integrity and demonstrating righteousness. The characteristic of a righteous person mentioned in Psalm 12:5[6] echoes Deuteronomy 23:20: “[He] lends his money without usury.” Ezekiel’s catalogues of the distinctions between a wicked person who is sentenced to death and a righteous person who is sentenced to life refer to this ordinance three times; it is a mark of wickedness to charge interest to a brother and a mark of righteousness not to do so (Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17). In Ezekiel 22:3–12 he climaxes his recitation of abominations and crimes committed by Jerusalem against Yahweh with the charge that she has exploited the poor, expressly noting the charging of usurious interest. While the echo of Leviticus 25:35–38 is clearer, Proverbs 28:8 recognizes the ironic justice when those who increase their wealth through interest and usury end up padding the pockets of those who are gracious to the poor.
The New Testament reiterates both Moses’ call for generosity toward the poor and his distinctions between the way the community of faith treats those within and those without. With respect to the latter, Paul enjoins Galatian Christians: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). His declaration in Romans 13:9–10 that love does no wrong to a neighbor has caught the spirit of Deuteronomy, as has his encouragement to his readers to please their neighbors for their good (15:2). First Corinthians 5:11 classifies greed with idolatry, sexual immorality and drunkenness.
The most striking application of Moses’ instructions on vows (vv. 21–23) involves Jephthah’s perverse vow to secure the support of Yahweh in his battle with the Ammonites (Judg. 11:29–40). This vow was not only rash but entirely unnecessary—the Spirit of Yahweh had already come upon him and the troops had rallied behind him. However, half-pagan in disposition and outlook, he followed Canaanite practices in seeking to guarantee divine favor. When the victim of his vow turned out to be his daughter, he lamented that he had opened his mouth to Yahweh and that he could not take back his vow. But abandoning all self-interest, the young girl assured him that keeping his vow was his only recourse.27
Even so, that the victim was a human raises questions about what Jephthah should have done.28 The valorous response would have been to sacrifice his own šālôm and leave the vow unfulfilled. To be sure, our text would have considered this sin and subjected him to the curse of Yahweh (which, ironically, is what happened in any case), but it would have spared his daughter and in so doing secured his own future. Jephthah could also have appealed to the loophole that Leviticus 27:1–8 seems to provide and spared her by paying twenty shekels to the priest at the central shrine as compensation for the life of his daughter.29 While this case is slightly different from that envisioned in Leviticus 27, on the rabbinic principle of qal wahomer (lit., “light and heavy”) he could have argued that a rule addressing a lesser case would certainly apply in a more serious case involving human life. Finally, Jephthah could have done as he in fact did; fulfill the vow to the letter. The text is silent on whether or not he contemplated a different option.30
Judging by the prophetic denunciations of rich landowners abusing the poor in the ways they handle agricultural resources (Amos 8:4; Mic. 2:2), it seems the principles taught in Deuteronomy 23:24–25 were generally disregarded as the end of the nation approached. Remarkably, however, clear echoes of this text are not heard until the time of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels recount Pharisees reporting to Jesus that they have caught his disciples plucking heads of grain and eating the kernels (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). Unlike greedy landlords, who might have begrudged the disciples this little bit of food, what troubled the Pharisees was the fact that the “crime” was committed on the Sabbath.
A later uniquely Matthean insertion reflects precisely the spirit of the Mosaic counsel: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23). Formal boundaries of Sabbath behavior had trumped the second half of the Supreme Command, which demonstrated covenant commitment (love) for one’s neighbors by permitting them to eat plucked kernels of grain even if it was the Sabbath.
Contemporary Significance
ALIENS IN THE LAND. If we reflect on the contemporary significance of these fragments of pastoral instruction, the answers will be uneven. The first fragment (vv. 15–16) reminds the reader that the community of faith should be a place where those who are oppressed and burdened by exploitative powers may find refuge. While the institution of slavery is officially suppressed around the world, many remain in slavery to abusive landlords, drug lords, pimps, and poverty itself. It is unrealistic to expect secular governments to operate by biblical norms, but the harsh disposition of many evangelicals toward unregistered aliens in this land violates both the spirit and the law of Moses.31 We must address the illegality of unregistered aliens,32 not only by insisting on obedience to the laws of the land, but especially by genuine friendship and efforts to help them legalize their presence among us. The Lord is honored and the poor are served when, like Boaz (Ruth 2:12), we ourselves are the wings of God.
Ministry and morality. Moses’ call to safeguard the sanctity of the cult reminds us of the dangers of prostitution, not only the prostitution of one’s body, but also the prostitution of one’s calling. Whether male or female, the call to spiritual ministry demands the most scrupulous attention to one’s personal life and the performance of one’s professional duties. These are to be fulfilled for the glory of God, not for the pleasure or advantage of the minister. And when ministers cater to worshipers’ demands for pleasure without regard to the sanctity of their office or of the community of faith, a serious abomination has been committed. Religious practice and covenantal morality may never be divorced. Resources gathered through illicit means (extortion, theft, immoral business practices, immoral actions) represent “dirty money,” repugnant to God.
Charging interest. Deuteronomy’s policy concerning interest stands in sharp contrast, not only to ancient Near Eastern law, but also to modern business practices. Recent developments on Wall Street and in the world’s financial markets have exposed the greedy underbelly of individualistic capitalism and capitalist individualism.33 Although Old Testament authors could not have imagined our banking system, where directors amass vast wealth by simply shuffling other people’s money, the principles underlying verses 19–20 are especially relevant for the community of the righteous. As the Lord’s people, Christians will not exploit others’ destitution for personal gain. In the past, certain groups within the Western church have taken these principles seriously, but hardened commitments to capitalism and free enterprise have a propensity to encourage greed and to blind one to the real needs of others.
Fulfilling vows. Few injunctions that Moses lays on his hearers in Deuteronomy have greater relevance for Christians today than his call to fulfill vows. While the specific subject of verses 21–23 is vows that people make to Yahweh, verse 23a in particular demands much broader application: “Whatever crosses your lips you must keep and do” (pers. trans.). This statement assumes that keeping one’s word is a mark of righteousness and a badge of those who belong to the assembly of God. It was to be this way in the Old Testament, and it must be so today. To a culture like ours, which assumes that unless people swear on the Bible or unless they put their commitments in writing people will not keep their word, this text is a fossil from a distant time. Evidently ideals had not changed by New Testament times. In Matthew 5:33–37 Jesus appealed directly to our text to draw the lines of ethical behavior around his own community:
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.” But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Few Christians today follow the original Anabaptists in taking these commands literally. But those in this tradition have been closer to the spirit and the letter of Jesus’ words than many within the evangelical church. George Gallup observes that differences in ethical behavior between churchgoers and those not religiously active are slight; patterns of lying, cheating, stealing, and “immorality” are virtually indistinguishable.
If the polls conducted by George Barna are valid, in modern America the divorce rate among born-again Christians is actually higher than among unbelievers; and among evangelicals (his surveys distinguish between the groups) it is virtually the same as the general population. Indeed some surveys suggest that divorce rates in some parts of the southern Bible belt are double that of Catholics in the northeast.34 In Malachi 2:10–16 the prophet calls this moral cancer “breaking faith.” Inasmuch as marriage ceremonies typically involve vows made in the presence of God, Moses’ appeal is especially relevant. We have become a nation of infidels, who do not keep their word.
Generosity. The significance of the final fragment is self-evident. God’s people will be compassionate and generous in sharing their resources with others, but they will also be respectful and grateful when they are beneficiaries of that generosity.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Cult (23:17–18)
THIS FRAGMENT CONSISTS OF three negative commands, followed by a final motive clause. Among these commands, the second is most complex, featuring two critical expressions: “fee of a prostitute,” and “hire of a dog” as a coordinate pair. Like most English translations, the NIV interprets the Hebrew phrases here as female and male cult/temple prostitutes respectively, with zônâ (“female prostitute”) clarifying the former, and keleb (lit., “dog”) somehow referring to the latter.10 While some ancient fertility cults included special rites involving worshipers engaging in sexual intercourse with cult functionaries to promote the productivity of their herds and crops and to ensure human fertility,11 this interpretation is not entirely convincing.12
(1) No woman referred to as both qedēšâ and a zônâ in the Old Testament is associated with cultic activities or a cult center.
(2) In Akkadian texts qadištu refers to a woman of special status; she is never portrayed in the role of a prostitute. Since both qādēš and qedēšâ derive from the root qdš (“to be set apart for divine service”), they should not be secularized to mean a prostitute who by virtue of her profession and unmarried status is alienated from the community.13 The qedēšô and qedēšî seem to have been young women and men dedicated for service to the gods at the local shrines. Their service may have ranged from menial janitorial service at the shrine to singing and dancing in public events (cf. Judg. 21:19–23). As in the ostensibly religious celebrations of Mardi Gras, cultic events often occasioned orgiastic revelry.14
Although the Old Testament describes women in a wide range of religious activities,15 there is no evidence for female functionaries tied to tabernacle or temple rituals. The consecration of females for cultic service and the involvement of such persons in prostitution here reflects an imitation of foreign cults. If qedēšâ designates a female consecrated for service at a shrine but who also functioned as a prostitute serving male worshipers, then qādēš denotes a dedicated male involved in similar service.16 Apparently they combined official roles with unofficial participation in sexual orgies, either with female worshipers, or more likely gross homosexual acts with male worshipers.
Verse 18 suggests the actions of qedēšâ and qādēš had economic significance. The phrase “earnings of a female prostitute” involves a word that always refers to the fee for a prostitute’s sexual services.17 Accordingly, meḥir keleb (lit., “payment of a dog”) refers pejoratively to fees paid for the sexual favors of a qādēš.18 Although other ancient Near Easterners valued dogs for protection and healing and as symbols of loyalty to a master, the Old Testament views them as dangerous and unclean.19 As scavengers that consume carrion and return to their own vomit (Prov. 26:11), dogs represented the antithesis to holiness.20 Moses’ equation of qedēšîm with “dogs” pejoratively portrays them as engaging in the most disgusting and defiling practices, but also copulating indiscriminately with any available female dog.
The text does not specify the services for which fees are paid. While “fee of a prostitute” is missing in Proverbs 7, this chapter links the payment of vows (v. 14) with brazenly immoral sexual activity. The expression that “the LORD detests them both” places their actions in a category with carved images of pagan deities (7:26; 27:15), pagan service to gods, including child sacrifice (12:30–31), sacrificing blemished animals (17:1), divination, sorcery, magic (18:10–12), transvestism (22:5), and dishonesty in business (25:16). These gifts are rejected as “dirty money.”
Bridging Contexts
LATER OLD TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS. The appropriation and application of these diverse instructions in the remainder of the Old Testament are uneven. We will explore allusions to each fragment separately.
The instructions on fugitive slaves (vv. 15–16) do not reflect on the rightness or wrongness of a slave fleeing from his master. Rather, they focus on Israel as a host to such fugitives and remind readers how countercultural Israelite values were to be. Whereas elsewhere masters were allowed and encouraged to rule over slaves with ruthless force, in Israel all human beings, even the slaves who came to them from the outside, were to be treated with dignity and compassion. That Deuteronomy should make such provision for outsiders, but remain silent on the case of fugitive Israelite slaves, is remarkable.
Deuteronomy assumes the institution of slavery, but the Israelite version is to differ radically from their own experience in Egypt and from the American experience. On the one hand, Israelites with economic power over others are to treat their indentured country folk with compassion and generosity (15:1–18), but on the other, the entire land of Israel was to function as a refuge for foreign slaves running away from harsh treatment.26
Paul’s short epistle to Philemon provides the closest New Testament analogue to the situation reflected here. The apostle writes the letter to Philemon expressly to encourage this Christian slave owner to receive back his fugitive slave, who has in the meantime also become a believer. In this instance Paul’s role is analogous to that of the Israelites. Onesimus has not only experienced conversion under his ministry, but he has also sought refuge with him. In resolving the tensions among this triad of believers, Paul does not cite the letter of the law. Moses would have affirmed his appeal to the moral conscience of both slave and master. Recognizing Philemon’s rights but against his own personal interests, Paul sends Onesimus back (Philem. 12). However, he sends the letter by the hand of the slave himself, and when Onesimus hands the letter to his master, the minds of all three will meet. As members of the assembly of God, all are equal, but if as members of society distinctions exist, those distinctions are to be tempered by a sense of duty on the part of the subordinate, and by compassion and charity on the part of the superior.
Micah alludes to the fragment in Deuteronomy on the sanctity of the cult (vv. 17–18) in his denunciation of the idolatry of Samaria (Mic. 1:7); as already noted, Proverbs 7 also associates immoral sexual acts with religious devotion. However, this ordinance seems to have been honored more in its inversion than in its direct application. In Ezekiel 16 the exilic prophet paints a particularly graphic picture of Jerusalem taking the resources that Yahweh had graciously lavished on her and using them for idolatrous and harlotrous purposes. In the New Testament, Paul takes the association of idolatry and religious devotion in a different direction when he encourages Christians not to worry about meat that has been offered to idols—since an idol is nothing—unless the act of eating causes someone else to stumble. This sensitivity is remarkably Mosaic.
Echoes of Moses’ instructions on charging interest on loans are clearer in the Old Testament. Responding to the question, “Who can be assured of acceptance with Yahweh when they appear before him in worship?” Psalm 15:2–5 presents a list of evidences that one is walking in integrity and demonstrating righteousness. The characteristic of a righteous person mentioned in Psalm 12:5[6] echoes Deuteronomy 23:20: “[He] lends his money without usury.” Ezekiel’s catalogues of the distinctions between a wicked person who is sentenced to death and a righteous person who is sentenced to life refer to this ordinance three times; it is a mark of wickedness to charge interest to a brother and a mark of righteousness not to do so (Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17). In Ezekiel 22:3–12 he climaxes his recitation of abominations and crimes committed by Jerusalem against Yahweh with the charge that she has exploited the poor, expressly noting the charging of usurious interest. While the echo of Leviticus 25:35–38 is clearer, Proverbs 28:8 recognizes the ironic justice when those who increase their wealth through interest and usury end up padding the pockets of those who are gracious to the poor.
The New Testament reiterates both Moses’ call for generosity toward the poor and his distinctions between the way the community of faith treats those within and those without. With respect to the latter, Paul enjoins Galatian Christians: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). His declaration in Romans 13:9–10 that love does no wrong to a neighbor has caught the spirit of Deuteronomy, as has his encouragement to his readers to please their neighbors for their good (15:2). First Corinthians 5:11 classifies greed with idolatry, sexual immorality and drunkenness.
The most striking application of Moses’ instructions on vows (vv. 21–23) involves Jephthah’s perverse vow to secure the support of Yahweh in his battle with the Ammonites (Judg. 11:29–40). This vow was not only rash but entirely unnecessary—the Spirit of Yahweh had already come upon him and the troops had rallied behind him. However, half-pagan in disposition and outlook, he followed Canaanite practices in seeking to guarantee divine favor. When the victim of his vow turned out to be his daughter, he lamented that he had opened his mouth to Yahweh and that he could not take back his vow. But abandoning all self-interest, the young girl assured him that keeping his vow was his only recourse.27
Even so, that the victim was a human raises questions about what Jephthah should have done.28 The valorous response would have been to sacrifice his own šālôm and leave the vow unfulfilled. To be sure, our text would have considered this sin and subjected him to the curse of Yahweh (which, ironically, is what happened in any case), but it would have spared his daughter and in so doing secured his own future. Jephthah could also have appealed to the loophole that Leviticus 27:1–8 seems to provide and spared her by paying twenty shekels to the priest at the central shrine as compensation for the life of his daughter.29 While this case is slightly different from that envisioned in Leviticus 27, on the rabbinic principle of qal wahomer (lit., “light and heavy”) he could have argued that a rule addressing a lesser case would certainly apply in a more serious case involving human life. Finally, Jephthah could have done as he in fact did; fulfill the vow to the letter. The text is silent on whether or not he contemplated a different option.30
Judging by the prophetic denunciations of rich landowners abusing the poor in the ways they handle agricultural resources (Amos 8:4; Mic. 2:2), it seems the principles taught in Deuteronomy 23:24–25 were generally disregarded as the end of the nation approached. Remarkably, however, clear echoes of this text are not heard until the time of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels recount Pharisees reporting to Jesus that they have caught his disciples plucking heads of grain and eating the kernels (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). Unlike greedy landlords, who might have begrudged the disciples this little bit of food, what troubled the Pharisees was the fact that the “crime” was committed on the Sabbath.
A later uniquely Matthean insertion reflects precisely the spirit of the Mosaic counsel: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23). Formal boundaries of Sabbath behavior had trumped the second half of the Supreme Command, which demonstrated covenant commitment (love) for one’s neighbors by permitting them to eat plucked kernels of grain even if it was the Sabbath.
Contemporary Significance
ALIENS IN THE LAND. If we reflect on the contemporary significance of these fragments of pastoral instruction, the answers will be uneven. The first fragment (vv. 15–16) reminds the reader that the community of faith should be a place where those who are oppressed and burdened by exploitative powers may find refuge. While the institution of slavery is officially suppressed around the world, many remain in slavery to abusive landlords, drug lords, pimps, and poverty itself. It is unrealistic to expect secular governments to operate by biblical norms, but the harsh disposition of many evangelicals toward unregistered aliens in this land violates both the spirit and the law of Moses.31 We must address the illegality of unregistered aliens,32 not only by insisting on obedience to the laws of the land, but especially by genuine friendship and efforts to help them legalize their presence among us. The Lord is honored and the poor are served when, like Boaz (Ruth 2:12), we ourselves are the wings of God.
Ministry and morality. Moses’ call to safeguard the sanctity of the cult reminds us of the dangers of prostitution, not only the prostitution of one’s body, but also the prostitution of one’s calling. Whether male or female, the call to spiritual ministry demands the most scrupulous attention to one’s personal life and the performance of one’s professional duties. These are to be fulfilled for the glory of God, not for the pleasure or advantage of the minister. And when ministers cater to worshipers’ demands for pleasure without regard to the sanctity of their office or of the community of faith, a serious abomination has been committed. Religious practice and covenantal morality may never be divorced. Resources gathered through illicit means (extortion, theft, immoral business practices, immoral actions) represent “dirty money,” repugnant to God.
Charging interest. Deuteronomy’s policy concerning interest stands in sharp contrast, not only to ancient Near Eastern law, but also to modern business practices. Recent developments on Wall Street and in the world’s financial markets have exposed the greedy underbelly of individualistic capitalism and capitalist individualism.33 Although Old Testament authors could not have imagined our banking system, where directors amass vast wealth by simply shuffling other people’s money, the principles underlying verses 19–20 are especially relevant for the community of the righteous. As the Lord’s people, Christians will not exploit others’ destitution for personal gain. In the past, certain groups within the Western church have taken these principles seriously, but hardened commitments to capitalism and free enterprise have a propensity to encourage greed and to blind one to the real needs of others.
Fulfilling vows. Few injunctions that Moses lays on his hearers in Deuteronomy have greater relevance for Christians today than his call to fulfill vows. While the specific subject of verses 21–23 is vows that people make to Yahweh, verse 23a in particular demands much broader application: “Whatever crosses your lips you must keep and do” (pers. trans.). This statement assumes that keeping one’s word is a mark of righteousness and a badge of those who belong to the assembly of God. It was to be this way in the Old Testament, and it must be so today. To a culture like ours, which assumes that unless people swear on the Bible or unless they put their commitments in writing people will not keep their word, this text is a fossil from a distant time. Evidently ideals had not changed by New Testament times. In Matthew 5:33–37 Jesus appealed directly to our text to draw the lines of ethical behavior around his own community:
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.” But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Few Christians today follow the original Anabaptists in taking these commands literally. But those in this tradition have been closer to the spirit and the letter of Jesus’ words than many within the evangelical church. George Gallup observes that differences in ethical behavior between churchgoers and those not religiously active are slight; patterns of lying, cheating, stealing, and “immorality” are virtually indistinguishable.
If the polls conducted by George Barna are valid, in modern America the divorce rate among born-again Christians is actually higher than among unbelievers; and among evangelicals (his surveys distinguish between the groups) it is virtually the same as the general population. Indeed some surveys suggest that divorce rates in some parts of the southern Bible belt are double that of Catholics in the northeast.34 In Malachi 2:10–16 the prophet calls this moral cancer “breaking faith.” Inasmuch as marriage ceremonies typically involve vows made in the presence of God, Moses’ appeal is especially relevant. We have become a nation of infidels, who do not keep their word.
Generosity. The significance of the final fragment is self-evident. God’s people will be compassionate and generous in sharing their resources with others, but they will also be respectful and grateful when they are beneficiaries of that generosity.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding the Economic Health of the People of Yahweh (23:19–20)
THE REFERENCE TO THE “payment of a dog” in verse 18 may have triggered the shift in attention to another economic issue, the charging of interest on loans. This is the third appeal in the Pentateuch that those with means should be generous to the poor, particularly in the way they handle loans (cf. Ex. 22:25–27 [24–26]; Lev. 25:35–38).21 Deuteronomy is distinctive in its narrow focus on interest, reflected in the sevenfold occurrence of the root nšk. Prohibiting Israelites from charging interest on loans to their countrymen was driven by the sense of community and the desire to inhibit economic stratification, which often resulted in debt-slavery.22 By addressing would-be lenders rather than borrowers, Moses makes interest-free loans a matter of responsibility for those with means rather than a right of the poor. True righteousness (cf. 16:20) is demonstrated when the rich lend willingly to those in need, without compulsion or desire to profit from someone else’s misfortune.
The Deuteronomic version of the policy exhibits three significant features. (1) The generosity reflected in interest-free loans is to characterize all of life (v. 19). Moses’ rhetorical strategy is impressive; by moving from the most overtly economic item, silver, to food, and finally to anything one might need, he opens the eyes to opportunities to assist their countrymen.
(2) The ban on interest for loans does not extend to foreigners (cf. 17:15; 29:22 [21]). Unlike the “alien” who lived among the Israelites, albeit with limited rights, the “foreigner” remained an outsider with no intention of settling down in Israel. The persons envisioned here might have been merchants who bought and sold goods for profit rather than the sheer need for survival. If their business ventures did not succeed, they could always go home.
(3) Finally, this policy seeks to inspire generosity by reminding Israelites that Yahweh’s generosity toward them is contingent on their generosity toward each other. The motive clause reflects Yahweh’s desire to bless them in the land in every effort to which they put their hands.23
Bridging Contexts
LATER OLD TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS. The appropriation and application of these diverse instructions in the remainder of the Old Testament are uneven. We will explore allusions to each fragment separately.
The instructions on fugitive slaves (vv. 15–16) do not reflect on the rightness or wrongness of a slave fleeing from his master. Rather, they focus on Israel as a host to such fugitives and remind readers how countercultural Israelite values were to be. Whereas elsewhere masters were allowed and encouraged to rule over slaves with ruthless force, in Israel all human beings, even the slaves who came to them from the outside, were to be treated with dignity and compassion. That Deuteronomy should make such provision for outsiders, but remain silent on the case of fugitive Israelite slaves, is remarkable.
Deuteronomy assumes the institution of slavery, but the Israelite version is to differ radically from their own experience in Egypt and from the American experience. On the one hand, Israelites with economic power over others are to treat their indentured country folk with compassion and generosity (15:1–18), but on the other, the entire land of Israel was to function as a refuge for foreign slaves running away from harsh treatment.26
Paul’s short epistle to Philemon provides the closest New Testament analogue to the situation reflected here. The apostle writes the letter to Philemon expressly to encourage this Christian slave owner to receive back his fugitive slave, who has in the meantime also become a believer. In this instance Paul’s role is analogous to that of the Israelites. Onesimus has not only experienced conversion under his ministry, but he has also sought refuge with him. In resolving the tensions among this triad of believers, Paul does not cite the letter of the law. Moses would have affirmed his appeal to the moral conscience of both slave and master. Recognizing Philemon’s rights but against his own personal interests, Paul sends Onesimus back (Philem. 12). However, he sends the letter by the hand of the slave himself, and when Onesimus hands the letter to his master, the minds of all three will meet. As members of the assembly of God, all are equal, but if as members of society distinctions exist, those distinctions are to be tempered by a sense of duty on the part of the subordinate, and by compassion and charity on the part of the superior.
Micah alludes to the fragment in Deuteronomy on the sanctity of the cult (vv. 17–18) in his denunciation of the idolatry of Samaria (Mic. 1:7); as already noted, Proverbs 7 also associates immoral sexual acts with religious devotion. However, this ordinance seems to have been honored more in its inversion than in its direct application. In Ezekiel 16 the exilic prophet paints a particularly graphic picture of Jerusalem taking the resources that Yahweh had graciously lavished on her and using them for idolatrous and harlotrous purposes. In the New Testament, Paul takes the association of idolatry and religious devotion in a different direction when he encourages Christians not to worry about meat that has been offered to idols—since an idol is nothing—unless the act of eating causes someone else to stumble. This sensitivity is remarkably Mosaic.
Echoes of Moses’ instructions on charging interest on loans are clearer in the Old Testament. Responding to the question, “Who can be assured of acceptance with Yahweh when they appear before him in worship?” Psalm 15:2–5 presents a list of evidences that one is walking in integrity and demonstrating righteousness. The characteristic of a righteous person mentioned in Psalm 12:5[6] echoes Deuteronomy 23:20: “[He] lends his money without usury.” Ezekiel’s catalogues of the distinctions between a wicked person who is sentenced to death and a righteous person who is sentenced to life refer to this ordinance three times; it is a mark of wickedness to charge interest to a brother and a mark of righteousness not to do so (Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17). In Ezekiel 22:3–12 he climaxes his recitation of abominations and crimes committed by Jerusalem against Yahweh with the charge that she has exploited the poor, expressly noting the charging of usurious interest. While the echo of Leviticus 25:35–38 is clearer, Proverbs 28:8 recognizes the ironic justice when those who increase their wealth through interest and usury end up padding the pockets of those who are gracious to the poor.
The New Testament reiterates both Moses’ call for generosity toward the poor and his distinctions between the way the community of faith treats those within and those without. With respect to the latter, Paul enjoins Galatian Christians: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). His declaration in Romans 13:9–10 that love does no wrong to a neighbor has caught the spirit of Deuteronomy, as has his encouragement to his readers to please their neighbors for their good (15:2). First Corinthians 5:11 classifies greed with idolatry, sexual immorality and drunkenness.
The most striking application of Moses’ instructions on vows (vv. 21–23) involves Jephthah’s perverse vow to secure the support of Yahweh in his battle with the Ammonites (Judg. 11:29–40). This vow was not only rash but entirely unnecessary—the Spirit of Yahweh had already come upon him and the troops had rallied behind him. However, half-pagan in disposition and outlook, he followed Canaanite practices in seeking to guarantee divine favor. When the victim of his vow turned out to be his daughter, he lamented that he had opened his mouth to Yahweh and that he could not take back his vow. But abandoning all self-interest, the young girl assured him that keeping his vow was his only recourse.27
Even so, that the victim was a human raises questions about what Jephthah should have done.28 The valorous response would have been to sacrifice his own šālôm and leave the vow unfulfilled. To be sure, our text would have considered this sin and subjected him to the curse of Yahweh (which, ironically, is what happened in any case), but it would have spared his daughter and in so doing secured his own future. Jephthah could also have appealed to the loophole that Leviticus 27:1–8 seems to provide and spared her by paying twenty shekels to the priest at the central shrine as compensation for the life of his daughter.29 While this case is slightly different from that envisioned in Leviticus 27, on the rabbinic principle of qal wahomer (lit., “light and heavy”) he could have argued that a rule addressing a lesser case would certainly apply in a more serious case involving human life. Finally, Jephthah could have done as he in fact did; fulfill the vow to the letter. The text is silent on whether or not he contemplated a different option.30
Judging by the prophetic denunciations of rich landowners abusing the poor in the ways they handle agricultural resources (Amos 8:4; Mic. 2:2), it seems the principles taught in Deuteronomy 23:24–25 were generally disregarded as the end of the nation approached. Remarkably, however, clear echoes of this text are not heard until the time of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels recount Pharisees reporting to Jesus that they have caught his disciples plucking heads of grain and eating the kernels (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). Unlike greedy landlords, who might have begrudged the disciples this little bit of food, what troubled the Pharisees was the fact that the “crime” was committed on the Sabbath.
A later uniquely Matthean insertion reflects precisely the spirit of the Mosaic counsel: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23). Formal boundaries of Sabbath behavior had trumped the second half of the Supreme Command, which demonstrated covenant commitment (love) for one’s neighbors by permitting them to eat plucked kernels of grain even if it was the Sabbath.
Contemporary Significance
ALIENS IN THE LAND. If we reflect on the contemporary significance of these fragments of pastoral instruction, the answers will be uneven. The first fragment (vv. 15–16) reminds the reader that the community of faith should be a place where those who are oppressed and burdened by exploitative powers may find refuge. While the institution of slavery is officially suppressed around the world, many remain in slavery to abusive landlords, drug lords, pimps, and poverty itself. It is unrealistic to expect secular governments to operate by biblical norms, but the harsh disposition of many evangelicals toward unregistered aliens in this land violates both the spirit and the law of Moses.31 We must address the illegality of unregistered aliens,32 not only by insisting on obedience to the laws of the land, but especially by genuine friendship and efforts to help them legalize their presence among us. The Lord is honored and the poor are served when, like Boaz (Ruth 2:12), we ourselves are the wings of God.
Ministry and morality. Moses’ call to safeguard the sanctity of the cult reminds us of the dangers of prostitution, not only the prostitution of one’s body, but also the prostitution of one’s calling. Whether male or female, the call to spiritual ministry demands the most scrupulous attention to one’s personal life and the performance of one’s professional duties. These are to be fulfilled for the glory of God, not for the pleasure or advantage of the minister. And when ministers cater to worshipers’ demands for pleasure without regard to the sanctity of their office or of the community of faith, a serious abomination has been committed. Religious practice and covenantal morality may never be divorced. Resources gathered through illicit means (extortion, theft, immoral business practices, immoral actions) represent “dirty money,” repugnant to God.
Charging interest. Deuteronomy’s policy concerning interest stands in sharp contrast, not only to ancient Near Eastern law, but also to modern business practices. Recent developments on Wall Street and in the world’s financial markets have exposed the greedy underbelly of individualistic capitalism and capitalist individualism.33 Although Old Testament authors could not have imagined our banking system, where directors amass vast wealth by simply shuffling other people’s money, the principles underlying verses 19–20 are especially relevant for the community of the righteous. As the Lord’s people, Christians will not exploit others’ destitution for personal gain. In the past, certain groups within the Western church have taken these principles seriously, but hardened commitments to capitalism and free enterprise have a propensity to encourage greed and to blind one to the real needs of others.
Fulfilling vows. Few injunctions that Moses lays on his hearers in Deuteronomy have greater relevance for Christians today than his call to fulfill vows. While the specific subject of verses 21–23 is vows that people make to Yahweh, verse 23a in particular demands much broader application: “Whatever crosses your lips you must keep and do” (pers. trans.). This statement assumes that keeping one’s word is a mark of righteousness and a badge of those who belong to the assembly of God. It was to be this way in the Old Testament, and it must be so today. To a culture like ours, which assumes that unless people swear on the Bible or unless they put their commitments in writing people will not keep their word, this text is a fossil from a distant time. Evidently ideals had not changed by New Testament times. In Matthew 5:33–37 Jesus appealed directly to our text to draw the lines of ethical behavior around his own community:
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.” But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Few Christians today follow the original Anabaptists in taking these commands literally. But those in this tradition have been closer to the spirit and the letter of Jesus’ words than many within the evangelical church. George Gallup observes that differences in ethical behavior between churchgoers and those not religiously active are slight; patterns of lying, cheating, stealing, and “immorality” are virtually indistinguishable.
If the polls conducted by George Barna are valid, in modern America the divorce rate among born-again Christians is actually higher than among unbelievers; and among evangelicals (his surveys distinguish between the groups) it is virtually the same as the general population. Indeed some surveys suggest that divorce rates in some parts of the southern Bible belt are double that of Catholics in the northeast.34 In Malachi 2:10–16 the prophet calls this moral cancer “breaking faith.” Inasmuch as marriage ceremonies typically involve vows made in the presence of God, Moses’ appeal is especially relevant. We have become a nation of infidels, who do not keep their word.
Generosity. The significance of the final fragment is self-evident. God’s people will be compassionate and generous in sharing their resources with others, but they will also be respectful and grateful when they are beneficiaries of that generosity.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding Promises (23:21–23)
THE FREQUENCY OF REFERENCES to vows outside the Pentateuch24 reflects the significance of vows in the ancient world. While neither reiterating nor expanding on earlier instructions (Lev. 27; Num. 30:1–16 [2–17]), this statement highlights three fundamental principles underlying vows. (1) Vows are entirely optional. This is explicitly stated in verse 22 and reinforced in verse 23 with the word “freely.”25
(2) Once vows are made, they must be kept. Verse 21 warns those who make vows not to delay in making good on the vow, while verse 23 speaks of keeping one’s word and acting according to what one has vowed to Yahweh.
(3) Yahweh holds persons accountable for the vows they make. As in 18:19 the expression dāraš min means “to require of, to hold one accountable for”—in this case, to punish for what is considered a crime. The emphatic construction, “the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you,” reinforces this point. Like failing to keep an oath, failing to fulfill a vow is sin and renders one guilty of theft (cf. Matt. 5:33); technically what has been vowed belongs to another person. It is eminently better not to vow at all than to vow and not keep one’s promise.
Safeguarding the Trust of Neighbors (vv. 24–25)
THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONAL FRAGMENT is unparalleled in the Pentateuch. Like the preceding, it promotes a community of neighbors who trust one another and look out for one another’s welfare. Within an agrarian economy, the right of passers-by to pick grain or fruit from the trees for the journey from the fields they were crossing could create several problems. On the one hand, landowners could be greedy and unreasonable, posting guards at the borders of their land and shooing off passers-by. On the other hand, especially in harvest time, people passing through would be tempted to carry containers and fill them with grapes, or to bring along a sickle (cf. 16:9) with which to cut standing grain and stuff it in their bags.
Moses’ instructions as pastoral spokesman for the divine Landlord are simultaneously realistic, generous, and responsible. Except for people whose allotments abutted the boundaries of their town or village, men and women going out to work their fields or to visit friends or relatives in a neighboring village would inevitably need to pass through other people’s vineyards, fields of grain, and groves of olives and fruit. Because the land belonged to the nation, landowners must allow casual travelers to pass through their property and let them pick grapes and rub grain out of its heads in their hands for consumption on the journey. However, travelers must respect the rights of the owners of fields and vineyards. This short paragraph makes no reference to God, but it obviously reflects divine values, seeking to base ethics on love and trust.
Bridging Contexts
LATER OLD TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS. The appropriation and application of these diverse instructions in the remainder of the Old Testament are uneven. We will explore allusions to each fragment separately.
The instructions on fugitive slaves (vv. 15–16) do not reflect on the rightness or wrongness of a slave fleeing from his master. Rather, they focus on Israel as a host to such fugitives and remind readers how countercultural Israelite values were to be. Whereas elsewhere masters were allowed and encouraged to rule over slaves with ruthless force, in Israel all human beings, even the slaves who came to them from the outside, were to be treated with dignity and compassion. That Deuteronomy should make such provision for outsiders, but remain silent on the case of fugitive Israelite slaves, is remarkable.
Deuteronomy assumes the institution of slavery, but the Israelite version is to differ radically from their own experience in Egypt and from the American experience. On the one hand, Israelites with economic power over others are to treat their indentured country folk with compassion and generosity (15:1–18), but on the other, the entire land of Israel was to function as a refuge for foreign slaves running away from harsh treatment.26
Paul’s short epistle to Philemon provides the closest New Testament analogue to the situation reflected here. The apostle writes the letter to Philemon expressly to encourage this Christian slave owner to receive back his fugitive slave, who has in the meantime also become a believer. In this instance Paul’s role is analogous to that of the Israelites. Onesimus has not only experienced conversion under his ministry, but he has also sought refuge with him. In resolving the tensions among this triad of believers, Paul does not cite the letter of the law. Moses would have affirmed his appeal to the moral conscience of both slave and master. Recognizing Philemon’s rights but against his own personal interests, Paul sends Onesimus back (Philem. 12). However, he sends the letter by the hand of the slave himself, and when Onesimus hands the letter to his master, the minds of all three will meet. As members of the assembly of God, all are equal, but if as members of society distinctions exist, those distinctions are to be tempered by a sense of duty on the part of the subordinate, and by compassion and charity on the part of the superior.
Micah alludes to the fragment in Deuteronomy on the sanctity of the cult (vv. 17–18) in his denunciation of the idolatry of Samaria (Mic. 1:7); as already noted, Proverbs 7 also associates immoral sexual acts with religious devotion. However, this ordinance seems to have been honored more in its inversion than in its direct application. In Ezekiel 16 the exilic prophet paints a particularly graphic picture of Jerusalem taking the resources that Yahweh had graciously lavished on her and using them for idolatrous and harlotrous purposes. In the New Testament, Paul takes the association of idolatry and religious devotion in a different direction when he encourages Christians not to worry about meat that has been offered to idols—since an idol is nothing—unless the act of eating causes someone else to stumble. This sensitivity is remarkably Mosaic.
Echoes of Moses’ instructions on charging interest on loans are clearer in the Old Testament. Responding to the question, “Who can be assured of acceptance with Yahweh when they appear before him in worship?” Psalm 15:2–5 presents a list of evidences that one is walking in integrity and demonstrating righteousness. The characteristic of a righteous person mentioned in Psalm 12:5[6] echoes Deuteronomy 23:20: “[He] lends his money without usury.” Ezekiel’s catalogues of the distinctions between a wicked person who is sentenced to death and a righteous person who is sentenced to life refer to this ordinance three times; it is a mark of wickedness to charge interest to a brother and a mark of righteousness not to do so (Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17). In Ezekiel 22:3–12 he climaxes his recitation of abominations and crimes committed by Jerusalem against Yahweh with the charge that she has exploited the poor, expressly noting the charging of usurious interest. While the echo of Leviticus 25:35–38 is clearer, Proverbs 28:8 recognizes the ironic justice when those who increase their wealth through interest and usury end up padding the pockets of those who are gracious to the poor.
The New Testament reiterates both Moses’ call for generosity toward the poor and his distinctions between the way the community of faith treats those within and those without. With respect to the latter, Paul enjoins Galatian Christians: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10). His declaration in Romans 13:9–10 that love does no wrong to a neighbor has caught the spirit of Deuteronomy, as has his encouragement to his readers to please their neighbors for their good (15:2). First Corinthians 5:11 classifies greed with idolatry, sexual immorality and drunkenness.
The most striking application of Moses’ instructions on vows (vv. 21–23) involves Jephthah’s perverse vow to secure the support of Yahweh in his battle with the Ammonites (Judg. 11:29–40). This vow was not only rash but entirely unnecessary—the Spirit of Yahweh had already come upon him and the troops had rallied behind him. However, half-pagan in disposition and outlook, he followed Canaanite practices in seeking to guarantee divine favor. When the victim of his vow turned out to be his daughter, he lamented that he had opened his mouth to Yahweh and that he could not take back his vow. But abandoning all self-interest, the young girl assured him that keeping his vow was his only recourse.27
Even so, that the victim was a human raises questions about what Jephthah should have done.28 The valorous response would have been to sacrifice his own šālôm and leave the vow unfulfilled. To be sure, our text would have considered this sin and subjected him to the curse of Yahweh (which, ironically, is what happened in any case), but it would have spared his daughter and in so doing secured his own future. Jephthah could also have appealed to the loophole that Leviticus 27:1–8 seems to provide and spared her by paying twenty shekels to the priest at the central shrine as compensation for the life of his daughter.29 While this case is slightly different from that envisioned in Leviticus 27, on the rabbinic principle of qal wahomer (lit., “light and heavy”) he could have argued that a rule addressing a lesser case would certainly apply in a more serious case involving human life. Finally, Jephthah could have done as he in fact did; fulfill the vow to the letter. The text is silent on whether or not he contemplated a different option.30
Judging by the prophetic denunciations of rich landowners abusing the poor in the ways they handle agricultural resources (Amos 8:4; Mic. 2:2), it seems the principles taught in Deuteronomy 23:24–25 were generally disregarded as the end of the nation approached. Remarkably, however, clear echoes of this text are not heard until the time of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels recount Pharisees reporting to Jesus that they have caught his disciples plucking heads of grain and eating the kernels (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). Unlike greedy landlords, who might have begrudged the disciples this little bit of food, what troubled the Pharisees was the fact that the “crime” was committed on the Sabbath.
A later uniquely Matthean insertion reflects precisely the spirit of the Mosaic counsel: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23). Formal boundaries of Sabbath behavior had trumped the second half of the Supreme Command, which demonstrated covenant commitment (love) for one’s neighbors by permitting them to eat plucked kernels of grain even if it was the Sabbath.
Contemporary Significance
ALIENS IN THE LAND. If we reflect on the contemporary significance of these fragments of pastoral instruction, the answers will be uneven. The first fragment (vv. 15–16) reminds the reader that the community of faith should be a place where those who are oppressed and burdened by exploitative powers may find refuge. While the institution of slavery is officially suppressed around the world, many remain in slavery to abusive landlords, drug lords, pimps, and poverty itself. It is unrealistic to expect secular governments to operate by biblical norms, but the harsh disposition of many evangelicals toward unregistered aliens in this land violates both the spirit and the law of Moses.31 We must address the illegality of unregistered aliens,32 not only by insisting on obedience to the laws of the land, but especially by genuine friendship and efforts to help them legalize their presence among us. The Lord is honored and the poor are served when, like Boaz (Ruth 2:12), we ourselves are the wings of God.
Ministry and morality. Moses’ call to safeguard the sanctity of the cult reminds us of the dangers of prostitution, not only the prostitution of one’s body, but also the prostitution of one’s calling. Whether male or female, the call to spiritual ministry demands the most scrupulous attention to one’s personal life and the performance of one’s professional duties. These are to be fulfilled for the glory of God, not for the pleasure or advantage of the minister. And when ministers cater to worshipers’ demands for pleasure without regard to the sanctity of their office or of the community of faith, a serious abomination has been committed. Religious practice and covenantal morality may never be divorced. Resources gathered through illicit means (extortion, theft, immoral business practices, immoral actions) represent “dirty money,” repugnant to God.
Charging interest. Deuteronomy’s policy concerning interest stands in sharp contrast, not only to ancient Near Eastern law, but also to modern business practices. Recent developments on Wall Street and in the world’s financial markets have exposed the greedy underbelly of individualistic capitalism and capitalist individualism.33 Although Old Testament authors could not have imagined our banking system, where directors amass vast wealth by simply shuffling other people’s money, the principles underlying verses 19–20 are especially relevant for the community of the righteous. As the Lord’s people, Christians will not exploit others’ destitution for personal gain. In the past, certain groups within the Western church have taken these principles seriously, but hardened commitments to capitalism and free enterprise have a propensity to encourage greed and to blind one to the real needs of others.
Fulfilling vows. Few injunctions that Moses lays on his hearers in Deuteronomy have greater relevance for Christians today than his call to fulfill vows. While the specific subject of verses 21–23 is vows that people make to Yahweh, verse 23a in particular demands much broader application: “Whatever crosses your lips you must keep and do” (pers. trans.). This statement assumes that keeping one’s word is a mark of righteousness and a badge of those who belong to the assembly of God. It was to be this way in the Old Testament, and it must be so today. To a culture like ours, which assumes that unless people swear on the Bible or unless they put their commitments in writing people will not keep their word, this text is a fossil from a distant time. Evidently ideals had not changed by New Testament times. In Matthew 5:33–37 Jesus appealed directly to our text to draw the lines of ethical behavior around his own community:
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.” But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Few Christians today follow the original Anabaptists in taking these commands literally. But those in this tradition have been closer to the spirit and the letter of Jesus’ words than many within the evangelical church. George Gallup observes that differences in ethical behavior between churchgoers and those not religiously active are slight; patterns of lying, cheating, stealing, and “immorality” are virtually indistinguishable.
If the polls conducted by George Barna are valid, in modern America the divorce rate among born-again Christians is actually higher than among unbelievers; and among evangelicals (his surveys distinguish between the groups) it is virtually the same as the general population. Indeed some surveys suggest that divorce rates in some parts of the southern Bible belt are double that of Catholics in the northeast.34 In Malachi 2:10–16 the prophet calls this moral cancer “breaking faith.” Inasmuch as marriage ceremonies typically involve vows made in the presence of God, Moses’ appeal is especially relevant. We have become a nation of infidels, who do not keep their word.
Generosity. The significance of the final fragment is self-evident. God’s people will be compassionate and generous in sharing their resources with others, but they will also be respectful and grateful when they are beneficiaries of that generosity.