DEUTERONOMY 21
There is a wide scope of spiritual instruction in the chapter now before us. The one “found slain in the land” has, no doubt, reference to Christ. His death could not be attributed to any particular person; it was something which had to become the occasion of deep exercise for all the people as represented by their elders and judges. “Thy people Israel” were all involved, and had to clear themselves of blood-guiltiness in a righteous way.
The heifer that had not been wrought with, and that had not drawn in the yoke, was a type of Christ in the character in which He needs to be apprehended in order to the expiation of the guilt of slaying Him. He never came under man’s influence in any way, nor did He serve man’s purposes at all. He came according to God’s will, by God’s determinate counsel and foreknowledge. On the side of man’s responsibility He was found slain, but on the divine side He was the Heifer brought down into the “ever-flowing watercourse” of God’s blessed activities in grace. That is a stream which has been ever flowing independent of man altogether, flowing in spite of man’s wickedness.
Peter in Acts 2 brought upon consciences the slaying of Christ, but he also took his hearers into a region which was quite apart from any actings of man. This may be suggested by the watercourse being neither tilled nor sown. It is in such a region that Christ can be apprehended as having died to accomplish expiation according to God’s purpose and grace, in view of those who were under blood-guiltiness having remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Such could only clear themselves of the guilt of innocent blood by washing their hands over Christ as the One whose death had wrought expiation. Pilate washed his hands, and this was a solemn testimony permitted of God against the Jews, but it did not expiate Pilate’s guilt, for he did not do it with the slightest apprehension of Christ as making expiation by His death. He did not wash his hands over the Heifer. But those convicted under Peter’s preaching, and who repented, did clear themselves of the blood of Christ, and they recognised that expiation had been made on God’s part, according to His determinate counsel, in the very act that spoke of their violence against His Anointed. Peter called upon them to be saved from the perverse generation that was under blood-guiltiness, and as so separated morally from their act and deed they were cleared, and could “answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood”. They learned the death of Christ, not as bringing blood-guiltiness upon them, but as the righteous ground of forgiveness, redemption, and expiation.
The elders and the priests were there, in a spiritual sense, for Peter and the eleven were men who had ability to take knowledge of what had transpired, and to bring home the conviction of it to those who lay under responsibility. They were also able to bring Christ into their view as the Heifer whose death was the only divine ground of expiation. Guilty as the people were, through infinite mercy and grace they could righteously wash their hands over the Heifer and clear themselves of blood-guiltiness. The nation will yet do so when they take up the language of Psalm 2, and when Zechariah 12:14 to Zechariah 13:1 is fulfilled. The slaying of Christ will then be estimated in a priestly way, and also its precious import [p. 272] as making expiation for sin. In principle every convicted sinner does so when he is brought to see the expiatory value of the death of Christ. The measuring to the nearest city, from this point, of view, would indicate a bringing home of responsibility to those who may have been previously unaware of it. It is a deeply serious matter that, the innocent blood of Christ has been shed; and the only One entitled to live here has been slain. It is in God’s sight the most fearful thing that has ever happened in the world, and the Spirit of God would bring home to every man’s conscience the necessity for clearing himself in regard of it.
But “the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation”. As being spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit Scripture has a very wide bearing. I have no doubt that principles are brought out here which were intended of God to be instruction for us when conditions are found “in the land” which are abnormal. The principle here enunciated would have some bearing on “every controversy and every stroke” (verse 5) which raises a question in regard to which all God’s people have to prove themselves to be clear. If something fatal to the enjoyment of the land takes place it is a serious matter; it affects the whole of God’s people; all have to prove themselves to be pure in the matter. The elders and judges universally have to concern themselves about such a matter; its gravity demands that some action shall be taken; and the wisdom of God assigns responsibility for such action to the nearest city.
This is a divine principle to which we do well to take heed. It is not a question here of the responsibility of each local assembly to deal with matters that arise within itself. That would be established by 1 Corinthians. But here responsibility is assigned on the ground of proximity, indicating that in abnormal circumstances [p. 273] we may be called upon to take some action by reason of nearness to the place where such circumstances have occurred. The man found slain being “in the land” and “in the field” gives the circumstance a universal bearing. The holiness of God, and the purity of His land generally, are involved, and the gravity of the case requires that it shall be taken up somewhere. When moral questions arise, and things take place which are not according to the mind of God, it is not His way that they should be left undetermined. It cannot be regarded as nobody’s business if something has happened that is contrary to the character of “the land” as the sphere of life. All Israel is concerned in such a matter, but responsibility is definitely fixed in “the city that is nearest”. It is not left to be taken up voluntarily by any city that thinks fit to do so. If something not strictly local has to be taken up, in view of universal assembly conditions, the elders and judges should be careful to observe this rule. “The priests the sons of Levi” will come near when the right city takes the matter up, but they could not be expected, according to divine order, to come near if another city intervened. One would confidently look for light and spiritual discernment to be given where responsibility lies according to God’s mind.
“And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to do service unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and according to their word shall be every controversy and every stroke”. When that element comes near there is priestly discernment, and things are determined according to God.
The “heifer” and the “ever-flowing watercourse” would indicate that all such exercise as is contemplated here is to be taken up in the light of the death of Christ, and of the unceasing activities of divine grace. It is a [p. 274] question of doing what is right (verse 9) not merely in a legal way, but in consistency with the grace of the dispensation, so that God’s people generally may be relieved of implication in wrong-doing, and may continue under priestly blessing. “Every controversy and every stroke” is to be righteously determined in view of this. But responsibility to take action is definitely assigned to the “city that is nearest”.
In the next two sections of the chapter we have, first, a relationship which is probational, and which may be disowned if the requisite conditions are not fulfilled; and then a relationship which is unalterable, the rights of which are inalienable. If we would understand the ways and grace of God, and learn how to distinguish between things that differ, we must pay attention to what is here before us.
The captive woman of verse 11, is, no doubt, a figure of Israel. Ezekiel 16 and Hosea may be compared. Jehovah had desired Israel, and proposed to have her for Himself in definite separation from all that marked her origin in a natural way. He would have her in covenant relations with Himself. But the thought is suggested here that, after having got her, He might “have no delight in her”; He might have to “let her go according to her desire”. How truly does this depict what actually occurred! Jehovah did not have delight in Israel, and she went voluntarily away from her blessed relations with Him. He did not treat her as a slave, He would not retain her against her desire; He did not “sell her for money” as giving any other a right to her; He has “let her go according to her desire”. How sad is her position as being thus let go!
The solemn lesson of this is as much for us as for Israel. Those in the Christian profession have been called to be in suitability to Christ, and for His delight, as [p. 275] having laid aside all that pertained to our former state. But does the present state of the church yield delight to Christ? I speak of the church now as that which stands professedly for Christ in the world. Alas! it is far otherwise. Long ago Paul had to say, “For all seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ”. Early in the church’s history the Lord had to say, “I have against thee... I have a few things against thee... But I have against thee” (Revelation 2:4; Revelation 2:14; Revelation 2:20). To the last phase of the church He says, “I am about to spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16). Public and collective departure is the result of private and individual departure, so let us see to ourselves in this matter. It is a searching question for each one of us; are we ministering delight to Christ, or are we hankering after other things! What are the desires that really govern us in a practical way? Perhaps some of us would be ashamed to say? Suppose we were let go according to our desire, where should we go to? The Lord does not retain people unwillingly; if my desire is to go He may let me go. Many disciples went away from the Lord (John 6:66), and he let them go. He said to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” If I desire to be spiritual, and to minister to the delight of Christ, He will grant it. But if I want the world He may let me have it. “Demas has forsaken me, having loved the present age” (2 Timothy 4:10); “All who are in Asia... have turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1:15). With sorrow of heart he had to let them go. Judas had been in service and apostleship, but he “fell to go to his own place”. John says of some that “They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us” (1 John 2:19). People sooner or later go to their own place; they go into associations that correspond with their inward [p. 276] condition and desires. But even apostates carry the evidence that they have once been positionally near to Christ; they carry into the world elements which it could never have derived from men like Buddha or Confucius. But it is intensely solemn to be let go because Christ has no delight in us, and because our desires are not really for Him at all. Such will be the fate of that great body of profession which bears His name only to dishonour it. May each one of us heed the warning!
The subject of verses 16 - 17 is the inalienable right of the firstborn, This has reference to the saints as being the fruit of divine working, and not merely as being in a place of outward privilege. The two wives here would represent, I think, the outward human conditions in which God works, whether in Israel or among the Gentiles, but the firstborn in either case is the fruit of the operation of divine power. At the present time God’s firstborn for heavenly blessing is being brought forth among the Gentiles; the firstborn for earthly blessing will be brought forth by Israel; but in either case “the right of the firstborn” is inalienable. The firstborn represents what is of God — “the first-fruits of his vigour”, to use the language of the type — and a “double portion” of the inheritance is secured to such by His appointment. We were all by nature in the state described in Ephesians 2. Yet divine power wrought, and a firstborn has been brought forth, and is being brought forth, to inherit with Christ who is the true Firstborn.
Israel is today in the position of the hated wife. God has no complacency in her. He has had to say of her, “Not my people ... not beloved” (Romans 9: 26). But His divine power will work, and Israel will yet bring forth a firstborn for earthly blessing. But at the present time the firstborn brought forth amongst the Gentiles [p. 277] has taken precedence by divine appointment, and has obtained an inheritance that Israel will never have. There is nothing probational about this; “the heirs of the promise” get their portion according to the unchangeableness of God’s purpose.
That which has been outwardly in relation to God without any true subjection to Him is set forth in the “unmanageable and rebellious son” of verses 18 - 21 . This was Israel’s case, and it is very largely the case in christendom also. God’s election in either case obtains blessing (Romans 11: 7) as the firstborn, the fruit of His own gracious work, but the rest disclose their true character, and will eventually come under His unsparing judgment.
Then the closing section of the chapter (verses 22, 23) has touching reference to Christ as taking up vicariously the sin, death, and curse of His people. To be hanged on a tree is to be publicly in the place of curse, and Christ was found there in infinite grace. All that stood connected with sin, death, and curse was defiling, and the body of one who had been in that place was to be buried that day. The man under curse was to be buried. In the light of this we can understand the significance of the place which Scripture gives to the burial of Christ. See 1 Corinthians 15: 4. The man under curse has gone out of God’s sight in the burial of Christ, never to be seen again to defile God’s land.
The “night” is suggestive of the present period, which so far as believers are concerned is to be marked by burial. “We have been buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6: 4.). “Buried with him in baptism” (Colossians 2: 12). If we are not in accord with the burial of Christ we shall defile the land by keeping the man in view who [p. 278] has been publicly seen in the cross of Christ to be “a curse of God”. It is a matter of righteousness now that we should accept the place of burial with Christ. The Ethiopian eunuch said, “What hinders my being baptised?”; his desires went that way.