If there be found in thy midst in any of thy gates which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth what is evil in the sight of Jehovah thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
Deuteronomy 17 belongs to a section on judges, courts and public justice. Yet it opens with a sin committed in private by one man or woman — and treats it as a matter for the whole nation.
The wrongdoing here breaks a relationship. One writer ties the severe judgment straight to the covenant, and names what Israel was tempted to put in God's place:
The guilt of offering a blemished sacrifice to the Lord must bring severe judgment for transgressing God's covenant. The same was true of anyone who worshipped other gods — the sun, the moon or the stars. To people these may seem so high above them that worshipping them would be allowed.
The things people turned to were not crude or shameful. They were the brightest objects in the sky, and that is what made worshipping them feel reasonable.
Readers often stumble here, as if Moses had wandered off the subject of judges. One writer sees no break at all, and shows what holds the two subjects together:
To me this presents no real difficulty at all, and no interruption of the great subject of Israel's judicial life. We have to face here an important truth. What touches God, what misrepresents Him, has the closest bearing on the daily life of His people — in their households and in matters of public judgment. Suppose we are wrong in what we allow about God Himself. Suppose there is tampering with what stains His glory — a dishonour allowed, for instance, as to His nature, by admitting these false gods, or by setting up creatures in the place of God Himself. Then the whole lower part of life will feel at once the destructive and corrupting consequences of it.
Wrong thinking about God does not stay in the area of worship. It works its way down into homes and courtrooms.
The phrase locates the evil inside the community, not outside it. One writer points to Achan, a man of Israel whose hidden theft God charged to the whole nation:
This is especially solemn. God held the whole congregation responsible for the evil. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Unbelief may ask how all can be involved in the sin of one. But the Word of God settles the question — "Israel has sinned" — "they have taken" — "they have stolen" — "they have lied." The assembly was one: one in privilege, one in responsibility. So the sin of one was the sin of all, and all had to clear themselves completely by putting away the cursed thing from among them. Not one member of that large congregation escaped the effect of Achan's sin.
The verse begins with "if." One writer sets out what Israel had to do before acting on a report:
If a report came of any such abuses, Israel had to inquire with care and make certain the report was true. Once this was settled beyond question, the offender, whether man or woman, had to be brought to the gates and stoned to death. Today idolatry is no less hateful to God, but in grace He is delaying His judgment until the future.
The letter to the Hebrews reaches back to this very law. It uses the death penalty under Moses to measure a worse offence — turning away from Christ:
What was to be handed out to anyone who despised Moses' law? Death without pity was the penalty set there (Deut. 13:1-11; 17:2-13). So what could someone who abandons Christianity expect? In turning his back on it he had trampled the Son of God underfoot, siding with those who blasphemed and rejected Him.
- Covenant. The sin breaks a relationship, not just a rule. Israel turned to the sun, moon and stars — objects grand enough to make the swap feel reasonable.
- Consequence. Get God wrong, and the damage spreads. It reaches into homes and into courtrooms.
- Community. "Found among you" puts the evil inside, not outside. God charged one man's hidden sin to the whole nation, as He did with Achan.
- Certainty. Nothing moves on rumour. Israel had to inquire with care and settle the matter beyond question first.
- Christ. Hebrews uses this same law. If despising Moses' law brought death without pity, trampling the Son of God is worse.
and goeth and serveth other gods, and boweth down to them, either to the sun or to the moon, or to the whole host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
Deuteronomy 17 deals with how Israel was to be governed. Verse 3 names the crime that struck at the whole nation: worship given to created things instead of to God.
This was not a private matter. One commentator explains why a law about worship sits among laws about judges and courts.
Deuteronomy 17 begins with a strong warning about any man or woman who had done wickedness in the sight of Jehovah. Such a person broke His covenant by going and serving other gods, and above all by worshipping the host of heaven. It seems to me that this is no real difficulty, and no interruption of the great subject of Israel's judicial life. We have to face here an important truth. What touches God, what falsifies Him as God, has the closest bearing on the daily life of His people, at home and in matters of public judgment. Suppose we are wrong in what we allow about God Himself. Suppose we tamper with what stains His glory, or allow a dishonour about His nature by admitting these false gods, or set up creatures in the place of God Himself. Then the whole lower part of life will at once feel the destructive and corrupting consequences.
The sun and moon look higher and greater than anything on earth. That is the trap.
This continues the subject of righteous government. Offering a blemished sacrifice to the Lord brought guilt, and it must bring severe judgment (vv. 1-2) for transgressing God's covenant. The same was true of any who worshipped other gods, whether the sun or moon or the stars. These may seem to people to be on such a high level that worshipping them would be permissible.
The same writer, on the earlier warning in Deuteronomy 4, shows what the sky is for.
Also, they might lift their eyes up to heaven, beyond the level of creatures on earth. Then let them be sure to look above the sun, moon and stars, to the One who had created all these things. They were not to worship these visible works of God's hands... God has created these wonderful heavenly bodies. But they are there only to direct our attention to their unseen Maker.
The ESV ends the verse "which I have forbidden." Older translations read "which I have not commanded," and one writer builds on that wording. The same phrase appears where Nadab and Abihu offered fire God had not commanded.
The sin is will-worship — "strange fire which He commanded them not" — the will of man dictating in spiritual things, a sin now thought little of... To take away from that Word under any pretext is disobedience, and to add to it (as if it were not enough) is in fact to take from it. Sadly, nowadays who can bear this? Yet in Nadab and Abihu the sin is not said to have been doing what God had forbidden, but simply doing what He had not commanded.
The danger was real. Israel's later history shows the nation doing this very thing.
The Israelites were warned against worshipping the moon as well as the sun and stars. Deut. 4:19; Deut. 17:3. Of Israel, in the time of Hoshea and of Manasseh, it is said they worshipped "all the host of heaven." 2 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 21:3, 5. Jeremiah also states that in Judah and Jerusalem cakes were made to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, which is commonly thought to refer to the moon, worshipped as Astarte.
Verses 5-7 command death by stoning. That penalty belonged to a nation God ruled directly.
In maintaining this, God's claim came first, and so the commands about idolatry follow at once. There was to be no toleration at all in such cases, but sharp removal by the sword of justice. God governed them openly, and the worship of other gods was open rebellion. Church and state were here really one, and religious penalties were also civil ones. Of course, this gives no justification for such a course today, under completely different conditions. The kingdom of God is now "not of this world." Christ's people do not reign. They are patient sufferers, and their weapons are spiritual, not physical.
What has not changed is God's estimate of the sin itself.
Idolatry is no less hateful to God today, but in grace He is delaying His judgment until the future. Yet if someone who professes to be a Christian is guilty in this way, we must firmly refuse him fellowship.
- Covenant — Serving other gods broke God's covenant. What falsifies God at the top corrupts daily life below.
- Creature — The sun, moon and stars look high enough to seem worthy of worship. They exist to point above themselves to their unseen Maker.
- Command — In the older wording, the charge is that God never commanded this worship. Worship shaped by human will is the sin.
- Collapse — Israel later did what this verse warned against. They worshipped the host of heaven and the "queen of heaven."
- Consequence — Stoning belonged to a nation God ruled directly. Today God delays judgment in grace. Where a professing Christian is guilty, the answer is refusal of fellowship, not the sword.
and it be told thee, and thou hearest of it; then thou shalt make thorough inquiry, and if it be truth [and] the thing be certain, that this abomination hath been wrought in Israel,
A report of idolatry reaches the people, and this verse tells them what to do with it: stop and check the charge before anyone acts. It shapes how God's people handle any accusation — how sure they must be, and why sin in one town stains the whole nation.
The laws around this verse deal with courts and fair judgment. Then the subject turns to a man or woman who has served other gods. One commentator sees no accident in that.
This is no real difficulty at all. It does not interrupt the great subject of Israel's judicial life. I believe we have to face here an important truth. What touches God, what misrepresents Him as God, has the closest bearing on the daily life of His people, both in their households and in matters of public judgment. Suppose we are wrong in what we allow about God Himself. Suppose there is tampering with what stains His glory — a dishonour allowed about His nature, for instance, by admitting these false gods, or by putting creatures in the place of God Himself. Then all the lower part of life will at once feel the destructive and corrupting consequences.
The inquiry here is not about an obvious idol of wood or stone. It is about the worship of the sun, moon and stars.
This continues the subject of righteous government. The guilt of offering a blemished sacrifice to the Lord must bring severe judgment (vs.1-2) for transgressing God's covenant. The same was true of any who worshipped other gods — the sun, the moon or the stars. These may seem to people to be on such a high level that worshipping them would be permissible… In the present day idolatry is no less abhorrent to God, but in grace He is delaying His judgment until the future.
The verse begins with something told and heard. That is only a report.
Inquiry, search, and diligent asking must take place. Then if inquiry shows the report of evil is true and the thing is certain, judgment is to strike. Never accept reports or rumours of evil as truth until careful inquiry has proved them true and produced evidence.
The verse sets a standard: true and certain. What happens when someone is sure of the facts but the evidence will not come?
People may raise all kinds of objections. They say we cannot always expect this much testimony. They say we must look at the circumstances, and if we cannot produce enough evidence, we must act on what seems most likely. But this is nothing less than abandoning divine ground for what is human. I am persuaded of this. One departure from His word and mind and way in such a matter would injure the people of God far more deeply than a failure to convict in ten cases where there might be evil underneath. Our business is never to leave the plain word of God. We are to hold to it, and to wait on God, whatever the pressure of circumstances. He is able to produce witnesses when we least see how or where they come from.
The verse does not place the abomination in a house or a town. It places it in Israel. One writer, on the same command elsewhere, draws out what that means for the rest of the nation.
The evil was in a city of Israel. If another city belonged to Israel, that evil counted as being among its people too… The question was not simply evil in a certain city, but evil among you — evil in Israel. Evil in one city was the concern of all Israel according to God.
Careful inquiry also protects the person being talked about.
We are all prone to rush to hasty conclusions, to pick up impressions, to give room to groundless suspicions, and to let prejudice warp our minds and carry them away… We may let ourselves pass on an utterly groundless accusation that badly damages another person's character. This is very sinful in the sight of God… If anyone brings a charge against another behind his back, we should insist that he prove it or withdraw it.
- Report. What reaches the ear is only a report. Never treat it as truth until inquiry has proved it.
- Inquiry. The order is fixed — hear, then search, then act. Judgment waits on facts that are true and certain, not on impressions or prejudice.
- Evidence. When the required testimony is missing, the answer is to wait on God, who can produce witnesses from where we least expect them.
- Reach. The sin is called an abomination in Israel, not merely in one town; evil in one place is the concern of the whole people.
- Root. Idolatry sits among the laws of the courts because what misrepresents God corrupts all the lower parts of daily life.
thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman, who committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, the man or the woman, and shalt stone them with stones, that they die.
Verse 5 gives Israel's sentence for idolatry: public execution by stoning. The verses around it tie that sentence to strict conditions, which raises two questions — why so severe, and what protected the innocent?
A law about worship sits inside a chapter about courts. One commentator sees no break between the two.
To me this is no real difficulty at all, and no break in the great subject of Israel's public justice. We have to face an important truth here. What touches God, what makes Him out to be other than He is, bears directly on the daily life of His people — in their homes and in their courts alike. If we are wrong in what we allow about God Himself, if we tamper with anything that stains His glory, if we allow a dishonour to His nature by admitting these false gods or by putting creatures in the place of God Himself, then the whole lower part of life will at once feel the destructive and corrupting results.
The stoning of verse 5 is the end of a process, not the start of one. A report alone moved no one.
If a report came in of any such abuses, Israel had to investigate carefully and be completely certain that the report was true (v.4). Once this was settled beyond question, they had to bring the offender, man or woman, out to the gates and stone them to death (v.5).
One person's word, however trustworthy, could not send anyone to the gates. One commentator applies the same rule to the judgements we make now.
We should never form a judgement without the testimony of two or three witnesses, much less state it and act on it. However trustworthy and upright one witness may be, his word is not enough to build a conclusion on. We may feel sure a thing is true because someone we trust says so. But God is wiser than we are. The one witness may be completely honest and truthful. He may be a man who would not tell a lie or accuse anyone falsely for all the world. All of that may be true. Still we must hold to God's rule: "Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."
The next verse adds a second safeguard, and it costs the witness something.
The witness also had to be the first to put the offender to death (v.7). This would make people slow to come forward unless they were fully convinced that the accused was guilty.
The same rule shapes how Christians handle wrongdoing among themselves. One person's certainty is not enough to act on.
Suppose there is moral evil or false teaching in an assembly of Christians, and only one person knows of it. That one person is completely certain, fully convinced of the fact. What should be done? Wait on God for further witness. To act without it breaks a divine principle that God's word lays down again and again, as plainly as possible. Should the one witness feel hurt or insulted because the assembly will not act on his word? Certainly not. He should not even expect it. In fact he should not come forward as a witness at all until one or two others can back up what he says.
Men later quoted this very passage to cover murder. Correct procedure can dress up a crime.
Sadly, men can at times look wonderfully careful about the letter of Scripture when it suits their own ungodly aims. They can quote its sacred words to defend the most open unrighteousness and shocking immorality. Two witnesses accused Naboth of blaspheming God and the king, and that faithful Israelite lost his inheritance and his life on the word of two liars, hired at the orders of a godless, cruel woman. Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit, was stoned to death for blasphemy on the word of false witnesses. The leading religious men of the day accepted that testimony and acted on it, and they could no doubt quote Deuteronomy 17 as their authority.
No one today carries out this penalty. The commentators do not conclude from that, though, that God's estimate of the sin has softened.
Today idolatry is just as hateful to God, but in grace He is holding back His judgment until the future. Yet if someone who claims to be a Christian is guilty of it, we must refuse him any fellowship.
- Why so severe. Wrong thoughts of God never stay inside worship. They spread into homes and into public justice.
- Inquiry first. Verse 5 ends a careful search for the truth. It never answers a rumour.
- Two, never one. However honest a single witness is, his word alone is never a safe basis for judgement.
- The witness pays. The accuser's own hand had to strike first, and that alone stopped careless accusations.
- Judgment delayed. Naboth and Stephen show how men twist the rule. God now holds back the sentence in grace, and asks His people to refuse fellowship with the evil.
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death he shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deuteronomy 17 deals with the worst crime Israel could commit. A man or woman among God's own people turns to worship other gods, and the penalty is death by stoning. Yet before anyone picks up a stone, God sets a limit on His own court. One voice, however honest, can never send a person to die.
The offence behind this verse is not a private failing. It is open rebellion against the God who ruled the nation. One writer shows how tightly religion and public law were tied together here, and warns against carrying the penalty into our own day.
In such cases there was to be no tolerance at all, but a swift cutting off by the sword of justice. God was governing them openly, and the worship of other gods was open rebellion. Church and state were really one here, and religious penalties were civil ones too. This, of course, is no justification for such a course in the completely different conditions of another age. The kingdom of God is now "not of this world"; Christ's people do not reign, but suffer patiently.
Even with a crime this serious, the sentence waits on proof. The rule set here reaches far beyond Israel's courts.
Further, the subject goes on to show the place of testimony. By the mouth of two witnesses, or three, the one who deserved death was to be put to death. This was of great value in practice, and the New Testament uses it a great deal — a principle no one can ever neglect without loss.
The next verse puts the first stone in the witness's own hand. That makes an accusation costly to the one who makes it.
However, the testimony of one witness would not be enough to pass a death sentence: there must be two or three witnesses (v.6). The witness also had to be the first to put the offender to death (v.7). This would make people slow to testify unless they were fully convinced that the accused was guilty.
The same standard shapes how Christians handle charges against each other. Mackintosh asks what to do when only one person knows of a wrong.
Suppose there is moral evil or false teaching in an assembly of Christians, and only one person knows of it. That person is completely certain and fully convinced of the fact. What should be done? Wait on God for another witness. To act without that is to break a divine principle, laid down as clearly as possible, again and again, in the word of God. Should the one witness feel wronged or insulted because no one acts on his testimony? Certainly not. He should not even come forward as a witness until one or two others can back up what he says.
The rule reaches beyond formal cases. It touches ordinary conversation about people who are not in the room.
Whenever anyone brings a charge against another behind his back, we should insist that he either prove his statement or take it back. If we followed this plan, we would be free of a huge amount of evil speaking, which is not only useless but truly wicked, and must not be tolerated.
Men have kept the letter of this law and still committed murder. Scripture records the cases.
Two witnesses accused Naboth of blaspheming God and the king. That faithful Israelite lost his inheritance and his life on the word of two liars, hired at the direction of a godless, cruel woman. Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit, was stoned to death for blasphemy on the word of false witnesses. The great religious leaders of the day accepted that testimony and acted on it, and they could no doubt quote Deuteronomy 17 as their authority.
Both men died with Scripture quoted as cover. Mackintosh names a third case above all: "the only perfect Man that ever walked this earth."
Jesus applied this same rule to Himself. He pointed to two witnesses for His words: His own and His Father's.
It was an accepted principle that every word should be settled by the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Lord appeals to this here: "And in your law too it is written that the witness of two men is true" (verse 17). How much more, then, the testimony of the Father and the Son! "I am He who bears witness concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness concerning Me" (verse 18).
- Charge — the crime here is open rebellion against the God who ruled the nation, where church and state were one. That penalty does not carry over into a kingdom "not of this world."
- Proof — one voice never takes a life. Two or three witnesses is the standing rule, and the New Testament keeps it.
- Cost — the witness throws the first stone. That makes a person slow to accuse unless he is sure of the guilt.
- Patience — when only one person knows of an evil, wait on God for another witness. The lone witness must not take offence.
- Christ — the Lord answered from their own law, placing the Father's witness beside His own.
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.
The law does not let an accuser stay at a safe distance. The one whose word condemned a man had to be the one whose hand fell on him first, and that requirement worked backwards into the courtroom.
However, the testimony of one witness would not be enough to pass a death sentence: there must be two or three witnesses (v.6). Also the witness had to be first in putting the offender to death (v.7). This would make people slow to witness if they were not fully persuaded of the guilt of the accused.
Verse 7 rests on verse 6, which requires two or three witnesses. One writer applies that rule to how Christians handle reports of wrong today.
For instance, suppose there is moral evil or doctrinal error in an assembly of Christians, and only one person knows of it. That one is perfectly certain, and thoroughly convinced of the fact. What is to be done? Wait on God for further witness. To act without this is to break a divine principle laid down as clearly as possible, again and again, in the word of God. Is the one witness to feel wronged or insulted because his testimony is not acted upon? Certainly not.
After the witnesses came everyone else. The whole nation, not its officials alone, cleared God's name. One writer sees the same duty resting on Christians gathered together today.
The assembly, not just its officials, was to act, and clear the Lord's name. Long ago the Lord had said, "Israel has sinned," and all Israel stoned the offender with stones so that he died (Joshua 7). The same is true here. They were to judge those "within" and leave those "without" to God, so they had to purge the evil person from among themselves. And this is always binding on the gathered saints. An assembly denies its own character when it becomes indifferent to holiness.
Centuries later, men still kept this rule to the letter. Those who stoned Stephen took care to follow it.
Stephen was stoned, the witnesses laying down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. By the law the witnesses were to cast the first stone at the criminal (Deut. 17:7). This was not overlooked at that moment.
Mackintosh weighs what kind of religion can do that.
Religion, without conscience or the fear of God, is the most degrading, demoralising, hardening thing under heaven. One of its most terrible features is this. Men under its influence are not ashamed or afraid to use the letter of holy Scripture as a cloak to cover the most horrible wickedness.
Men once brought a woman to Jesus to be stoned under this law. He took the rule that the witnesses must throw first and turned it back on them.
"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." The effect was immediate and complete. His words reached the heart. Why did none of the witnesses stand up and do the work? What, not one? "Those who heard it were convicted by their own conscience. They went out one by one, beginning with the oldest, down to the last; and Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing there." The law had never done this. They had studied the law and trifled with it up to this time; they had freely used it, as men still do, to convict other people.
Kelly quotes an older translation of John 8:9. The ESV says only that they went away one by one, without the words about conscience.
The offence judged in this chapter is idolatry. One writer explains why God's view of it has not changed, even though the stoning is not carried out now.
In the present day idolatry is no less hateful to God, but in grace He is delaying His judgment until the future. Yet if a person who claims to be a Christian is guilty of it, we must firmly refuse him any fellowship (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Tim. 2:16-21).
- Evidence first. No sentence rests on one voice; where proof is missing, the answer is to wait on God, not to act on private certainty.
- Then cost. The accuser's hand had to fall first. To testify was to carry out the sentence yourself.
- Then everyone. The people's hands followed. Clearing out evil was the whole community's work, not a job for a few officials.
- Then the warning. Stephen's death shows men keeping the form of this law while doing the worst wickedness under it.
- Then grace. Christ turned the first-stone rule back on the accusers. Today God holds back judgment, but He hates the evil as much as ever.