DEUTERONOMY 23
“The congregation of Jehovah” is necessarily exclusive of what is unsuitable to Him. The word translated “congregation” is only used before in this book with reference to the assembly at Horeb; the Greek translators rendered it ecclesia, and the fact that the Lord used this word to designate His assembly gives it deep interest for those who love Him. It generally refers in the Old Testament to the actual gathering together of the people of God for His service, though it is sometimes used of them in a more general way. Psalm 22: 22, 25; Psalm 35:18; Psalm 40: 9, 10 shew that it is the place of holy activities on the part of Christ both Godward and manward. “The congregation of Jehovah” when the Lord was here consisted of those to whom He could make God known, and in the midst of whom He could praise, though this could not be realised in a full sense until redemption was accomplished and He was risen from the dead. The congregation is spoken of in Psalm 149: 1 as “the congregation of the godly”. The effect of its true character being realised in Nehemiah’s day was that “They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude” (Nehemiah 13: 1 - 3). It was a grievous offence when Eliashib the priest allowed Tobijah the Ammonite to have a chamber in the courts of the house of God. It shewed a complete absence of the exclusive spirit which can alone maintain holy associations. There is no such thing contemplated in Scripture as God’s service or worship being carried on by a “mixed multitude”.
[p. 295] The eunuch, the bastard, the Ammonite, the Moabite, would represent what is unsuitable to God, and therefore cannot have any place in His congregation. This does not mean that any individual is excluded from the blessings of grace, whatever may be his condition or birth. The Ethiopian eunuch, Ebed-melech in Jeremiah 39 and Ruth the Moabitish woman shew this clearly, and Isaiah 56: 3 - 8 is a beautiful word in this connection. Grace can, and does, remove every disability where there is turning to God in repentance. But the moral character represented figuratively here can never be in the congregation of Jehovah.
A eunuch represents that which has lost its original and God-given character and energy, and has become like a sapless and fruitless tree. How much in the Christian profession is like this! Such a condition is ready for complete apostasy. It is like the dried up fig-tree (Matthew 21: 19), or the dried up branch of John 15: 6. Jude refers to some as being “trees without fruit”; they were outwardly amongst the people of God as “spots in your love-feasts”, but they had no place truly in His congregation; God will not have such an element there.
The bastard represents one who has not come legitimately amongst the people of God, and not having a true pedigree has never been a partaker of the chastening to which all God’s sons are subjected (Hebrews 12). An Ammonite or Moabite, being descended from Lot, represents those who have had some connection, according to the flesh, with the people of God. It is to be noted that Ammon and Moab are regarded much more severely than Edom and Egypt. They originated in the moral abasement of a true, but failing, saint, and when what is of God is corrupted it is worse in His sight than that which is purely natural or worldly, and it results in greater hostility to His people and testimony.
[p. 296] Those who have departed from the truth are more hostile to it than those who have never known it.
Neither an Edomite nor an Egyptian were to be abhorred. They were both to be regarded, in the light of this chapter, as in the view of God for blessing. “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come” (Hebrews 11: 20). Edom represents those whom we are to regard as brethren, and who have an assigned portion from God, which, nevertheless, stops short of His full thought for His people. The Egyptian would be rather the man of the world as such, living on his own resources and without the knowledge of God, but not viewed as an adversary. This scripture supposes that of such there might be some who would desire to share in the privileges of the land and the congregation of God, and “in the third generation” they might acquire a new status whereby they might be qualified to do so — typically as on the ground of death and resurrection. The spiritual privileges of the congregation are exclusive of elements contrary to God, or unsuitable to Him, but they are open to those who through godly exercise desire them, and who recognise that they can only be taken up as of a new generation and on spiritual grounds. In the congregation of God things are maintained in spiritual vigour, and in the true and holy affections of sons, and elements of departure and fleshly pride are not admitted. The congregation is holy because it is “the congregation of Jehovah”.
The “congregation” is the place of privilege, but there is also the “camp” — the place of conflict; there will not be the enjoyment of the one without taking up the strenuous exercises of the other; and holiness is necessary in both. As in the land we have to face many subtle foes, and we shall not be able to overcome them save as God is with us. The enemy has ever been attacking those who have in any measure occupied divine territory,
[p. 297] but when holiness has been maintained God has walked in the midst of the camp to deliver His people. Hence it is of the greatest importance to “keep thee from every evil thing ... and thy camp shall be holy, that he see nothing unseemly with thee, and turn away from thee” (verses 9, 14). If we lose the presence and power of God we shall have no true power for conflict, and to secure His presence there must be holiness which removes every unseemly thing.
Then verses 15, 16 are a beautiful touch of evangelical grace. Any runaway slave is to be received; “he shall dwell with thee, even in thy midst”. God’s people are to give refuge to any fugitive from the bondage of sin, the world or Satan. It supposes that he has heard a report of the grace that reigns amongst God’s people, and has escaped from his old master unto them. He appreciates a place amongst them, and chooses it as seeming good to him, and what he desires is to be freely accorded. He is to have the liberty of the land, and to dwell “in the place that he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it seemeth good to him”. Onesimus being sent back to Philemon is quite in keeping with this scripture, because he was sent back to be received “not any longer as a bondman, but above a bondman, a beloved brother”. He was to be received, not to be in bondage, but with all the welcome that Philemon would have accorded to Paul, his beloved father in Christ, God would have His people to be known as liberators. How beautifully the Spirit of God has put together the holiness of the congregation, and of the conflict which will maintain what is due to God, and the compassionate mercy which will freely open its doors to receive a poor runaway slave, and which will put no burden of oppression upon him.
Verse 18 contains the only mention of the house of God which is found in this book, and it is here seen as [p. 298] the place where vows are paid; that is, where the devoted affections of His people find expression. It is blessed to consider that God looks for movements of devotedness to Himself that will find expression in His house. This is a very distinct feature of the house of God, characterising it from Genesis 28 onwards. See Genesis 28: 17, 20. A vow is the fruit of exercise God-ward, and the scripture before us shews that what is unclean cannot be dedicated to God. Everything that has the true character of a vow must be spiritual and not fleshly.
Jacob’s vow was that of one who was small in divine things; he was spiritually immature, for he was thinking of himself and his own needs. There is a great contrast between the free and magnificent commitment of God to him in grace and faithfulness (verses 13 - 15) and his conditional commitment to God (verses 20 - 22). But still in the sense of dependence upon God he vowed; he felt it was due that there should be something for God. And no doubt his vow was acceptable so far as it went. If we are only prepared to give a tenth to God He values that; the purpose of heart that there should be something for Him is very precious in His sight. Jacob had to go through a great deal of discipline to prepare him to pay his vow. If at any time we have purposed in our hearts any true dedication to God, and afterwards let other things hinder it, it is very likely that He will bring us back through His chastening ways to pay our vows.
Hannah’s was a more advanced exercise (1 Samuel 1). She was godly, but was under reproach from an adversary, and the reproach intensified in her soul the spirit of a vow. If all had gone smoothly, and she had had “ten sons” she might never have vowed at the house of Jehovah, and for the house of Jehovah. Thanksgiving has not the same character as a vow (see Leviticus 7: 15, 16);
[p. 299] it has not the same intensity of devotion. Sometimes the ways of God with us seem to leave us under reproach. We do not appear to have the same manifestations of divine favour as others. There may be that which the adversary uses to provoke us. It is well if such an exercise develops in us the spirit of a vow — an intense desire and purpose to bring forth something that shall be entirely for God. Hannah’s thought went far beyond Jacob’s; he would give one-tenth to God and retain nine-tenths for himself; but she would give the whole of what He gave her back to Him for the service of His house. Hannah overcame the wicked one, and thus shewed that divine strength was with her.
In Psalm 116 there is a further experience. Here is one who can perform his vows. He loves Jehovah because his voice and his supplications have been heard. He has known a full deliverance; he has believed, and he is full of Jehovah’s benefits; he returns to his rest, and knows the bountifulness of God’s dealings with him. He is really in the blessedness of life, walking before Jehovah “in the land of the living”. And, in result, he performs his “vows unto Jehovah, yea; before all his people, in the courts of Jehovah’s house”. It is touching to see that “Precious in the sight of Jehovah is the death of his saints”, stands in immediate connection with the performing of vows. It seems to intimate that their very lives are given up in the spirit of a vow, and this would be in keeping with Romans 14: 8. “For both if we should live, it is to the Lord we live; and if we should die, it is to the Lord we die; both if we should live then, and if we should die, we are the Lord’s”. Paul’s readiness to be poured out (Philippians 2: 17; 2 Timothy 4: 6) is a beautiful example of one prepared to die in the true spirit of a vow.
One would desire to think more of the house of God as the place where there is something for God. It is [p. 300] noticeable that when the house of God is spoken of there is a tendency to dwell upon what is there for men, but Deuteronomy only presents it as the place where vows are paid — the place where there is something for God. God has enriched us with precious thoughts of Christ which have become, to some extent, the wealth and joy of our hearts. But do we think sufficiently that God would have such things to be dedicated for His pleasure? The result for God is, after all, the most important thing. We have the privilege of bringing our vows to His house. Their being paid “before all his people” gives them assembly character; all are to be refreshed and stimulated by them. If we are conscious that we are possessed of something which God can delight in, let us not be behind in the purpose of heart that will devote it to His service in His house.
Jephthah’s vow (Judges 11: 30) is a warning against vowing unintelligently, and saying more with our lips than we have thought of doing. Such a vow might not really be for God’s pleasure at all. I am afraid that most Christians are guilty of having said more in their prayers or hymns than they are prepared to carry out practically. If all believers had performed the vows thus uttered there would have been a very different result for God. Those who vow and do not pay their vows are regarded by God as fools, and He has no pleasure in them. (Ecclesiastes 5: 1 - 5). See Deuteronomy 23: 21 - 23.
The fullest exemplification of One with the vows of God upon Him was the Lord Jesus Himself; He was the true Nazarite, and His self-dedication in love as the Hebrew Servant (Exodus 21: 5) was in the true spirit of a vow.
Then verses 19, 20 shew that amongst the people of God there is to be found a kindly affection which acts without thought of any gain for self, and on different lines from what is legitimate in our commercial dealings [p. 301] with men. Our brother has need, and we do not shut up our bowels from him, nor do we use his need to secure any gain for ourselves. It is the true spirit of “the brotherhood” (1 Peter 2: 17). The principle of it would apply both to “the world’s substance”, and to the spiritual wealth gained in the inheritance. Both are to be used in grace for the benefit of the brotherhood with no self-advantage in view such as place, reputation, or the praise of men. The taking of “interest” in that form would be displeasing to God. But it is always right to seek “the glory which comes from God alone”, or, as we read here, “that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all the business of thy hand in the land”.
The grace in which the inheritance is held makes us welcome to go into our neighbour’s vineyard or cornfield and eat our fill of his grapes or corn. But the same grace would restrain us from appropriating them in a wholesale way as if they were our own (verses 24, 25). The “vessel” and the “sickle” are for use in our own vineyard or cornfield, but not in our neighbour’s. The fruits of our neighbour’s labour, and of God’s favour to him, are not to be dealt with as if they were our own produce. We have liberty to enjoy personally the good of our neighbour’s spiritual fruits. Whatever he has of joy in the Holy Spirit, or of the preciousness of Christ, we may freely appropriate for our own joy and nourishment. But we must beware of using the “vessel” or the “sickle”. The apostle’s words in Galatians 6: 4 are in keeping with what is here before us: “But let each prove his own work, and then he will have his boast in what belongs to himself alone, and not in what belongs to another”. We are welcome to get the good for ourselves of the spiritual thoughts of others, but it is unlawful to use them as if they were the fruit of our own exercises. One might pass off thus as having a good vineyard or cornfield, when in truth all belonged to another. And “[p. 302] if any man reputes himself to be something, being nothing, he deceives himself”. A man may get a reputation by repeating the thoughts of others as if they were his own, when he only has them in his “vessel”, and not as masticated and assimilated food, but it is not the kind of reputation to be coveted.