SS Lesson Archive Week 5

Fairview Baptist Church
2040 Main Street WW - Ashland, Kentucky 41102
"Where Everybody Is Somebody and Jesus is Lord"

This Sunday School Study Guide is provided free of cost for personal study and as an aid for Sunday School teachers. It contains copyright material and may not be reproduced in any form for sale, without permission from the copyright holders.

1. Do you believe that, as a believer, you are obligated to give? Why, or why not?

3. What was God’s perfect ideal that there be no poor in the land of Israel? (See v. 4.)

4. Is verse 7 an “if”—“then” statement? If so, what does it tell us about our responsibility to/for fellow believers?

5. What does it mean to be “hardhearted” (v. 7)? “Tightfisted” (v. 7)? What might make a person this way?

8. How does verse 8 tell us we are to deal with this type situation among the brethren?

11. What was the significance of the “seventh year” (v. 9)? (See Digging Deeper.)

12. Based on verse 9b, what will result from a stingy heart? Does this have meaning for us today? If so, what is it?

13. What wicked thought might an Israelite have if a needy person approached him in the sixth year and asked to borrow money?

15. Does this verse mean that a blessing from God should motivate our giving? Why, or why not?

16. Does giving from a heart of love expect something in return? Why, or why not?

20. Are we supposed to loan people money or give with no strings attached? Explain.

22. With whom are we to share generously—just our family and other Christians? Explain.

23. Why might we be reluctant to share generously? What should be our attitude about giving, and why?

24. If there will always be poor people among us and we’re obligated to give, how do we keep from becoming poor ourselves? How can we know when to give and when it’s okay not to give? What if we simply don’t have extra, how do we obey this command?

1. Based on verses 10-11, what were the guidelines for making a loan to a neighbor?

4. Based on verse 13, how would God look on the behavior of the person making the loan?

7. How would you explain the meaning of the last part of verse 15? (See underlined commentary for this verse.)

8. How would you contrast the two ways of treating needy people described in this passage?

9. How does Jesus contrast the ways God responds to those attitudes and actions?

10. What do you think this have to do with us if we’re not creditors or employers?

12. What opportunities to help them already exist within our church and association and state convention? How can we take advantage of those opportunities?

13. How might the needy in your life face instances of not being treated with dignity each day?

14. How might the needy in this world be crying out to the Lord about His people? What might give them cause?

15. If people are going to talk to the Lord about you, is it because they are thanking God, and not complaining to Him, about our treatment of them?

16. How can we help others in our class and church in ways that protect them from embarrassment?

18. How can we make certain we do what we can to see they are treated with dignity?

2. Even though mercy is not mentioned in the passage, how were the Israelites to protect with mercy?

3. Why did some in Israel (aliens, orphans, widows) need extra protection (v. 17)?

6. Who are the vulnerable in our society who can’t speak for themselves or are trapped by circumstances?

7. What are some things that should be done for them by people who claim to stand for God?

8. How can Christians use their influence to work for justice for the vulnerable?

12. How would remembering their lives in Egypt help the Israelites show justice to others?

14. What can you remember that would compel you to be more merciful and generous? Why would it?

16. What should motivate me to mercifully protect others and work on their behalf?

17. How can our class minister to the vulnerable elderly in our congregation and community?

19. Why do you think they are often ignored—that they don’t count, or don’t have anything worth contributing to society?

Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions, and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:

SOURCE: Bible Studies For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

COMMENTARY:

(NOTE: Commentary for the focal verses comes from two sources: “Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Old Testament” and “The New American Commentary” and is provided for your study.)

I. Share Generously (Deut. 15:7-11) Commentary

In this chapter Moses gives orders, I. Concerning the release of debts, every seventh year (v. 1-6), with a caution that this should be no hindrance to charitable lending (v. 7-11). II. Concerning the release of servants after seven years’ service (v. 12-18). III. Concerning the sanctification of the firstlings of cattle to God (v. 19, etc.).

Here is, I. A law for the relief of poor debtors, such (we may suppose) as were insolvent. Every seventh year was a year of release, in which the ground rested from being tilled and servants were discharged from their services; and, among other acts of grace, this was one, that those who had borrowed money, and had not been able to pay it before, should this year be released from it; and though, if they were able, they were afterwards bound in conscience to repay it, yet thenceforth the creditor should never recover it by law. Many good expositors think it only forbids the exacting of the debt in the year of release, because, no harvest being gathered in that year, it could not be expected that men should pay their debts then, but that afterwards it might be sued for and recovered: so that the release did not extinguish the debt, but only stayed the process for a time. But others think it was a release of the debt for ever, and this seems more probable, yet under certain limitations expressed or implied. It is supposed (v. 3) that the debtor was an Israelite (an alien could not take the benefit of this law) and that he was poor (v. 4), that he did not borrow for trade or purchase, but for the subsistence of his family, and that now he could not pay it without reducing himself to poverty and coming under a necessity of seeking relief in other countries, which might be his temptation to revolt from God. The law is not that the creditor shall not receive the debt if the debtor, or his friends for him, can pay it; but he shall not exact it by a legal process. The reasons of this law are, 1. To put an honour upon the sabbatical year: Because it is called the Lord’s release, v. 2. That was Gods year for their land, as the weekly sabbath was God’s day for themselves, their servants, and cattle; and, as by the resting of their ground, so by the release of their debts, God would teach them to depend upon his providence. This year of release typified the grace of the gospel, in which is proclaimed the acceptable year of the Lord, and by which we obtain the release of our debts, that is, the pardon of our sins, and we are taught to forgive injuries, as we are and hope to be forgiven of God. 2. It was to prevent the falling of any Israelite into extreme poverty: so the margin reads (v. 4), To the end there shall be no poor among you, none miserably and scandalously poor, to the reproach of their nation and religion, the reputation of which they ought to preserve. 3. God’s security is here given by a divine promise that, whatever they lost by their poor debtors, it should be made up to them in the blessing of God upon all they had and did, v. 4-6. Let them take care to do their duty, and then God would bless them with such great increase that what they might lose by bad debts, if they generously remitted them, should not be missed out of their stock at the year’s end. Not only, the Lord shall bless thee (v. 4), but he doth bless thee, v. 6. It is altogether inexcusable if, though God had given us abundance, so that we have not only enough but to spare, yet we are rigorous and server in our demands from our poor brethren; for our abundance should be the supply of their wants, that at least there may not be such an inequality as is between two extremes, 2 Co. 8:14. They must also consider that their land was God’s gift to them, that all their increase was the fruit of God’s blessing upon them, and therefore they were bound in duty to him to use and dispose of their estates as he should order and direct them. And, lastly, If they would remit what little sums they had lent to their poor brethren, it is promised that they should be able to lend great sums to their rich neighbours, even to many nations (v. 6), and should be enriched by those loans. Thus the nations should become subject to them, and dependent on them, as the borrower is servant to the lender, Prov. 22:7. To be able to lend, and not to have need to borrow, we must look upon as a great mercy, and a good reason why we should do good with what we have, lest we provoke God to turn the scales.

II. Here is a law in favour of poor borrowers, that they might not suffer damage by the former law. Men would be apt to argue, If the case of a man be so with his debtor that if the debt be not paid before the year of release it shall be lost, it were better not to lend. “No,” says this branch of the statute, “thou shalt not think such a thought.” 1. It is taken for granted that there would be poor among them, who would have occasion to borrow (v. 7), and that there would never cease to be some such objects of charity (v. 7), and that there would never cease to be some such objects of charity (v. 11): The poor shall never cease out of thy land, though not such as were reduced to extreme poverty, yet such as would be behind-hand, and would have occasion to borrow; of such poor he here speaks, and such we have always with us, so that a charitable disposition may soon find a charitable occasion. 2. In such a case we are here commanded to lend or give, according to our ability and the necessity of the case: Thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand, v. 7. If the hand be shut, it is a sign the heart is hardened; for, if the clouds were full of rain, they would empty themselves, Eccl. 11:3. Bowels of compassion would produce liberal distributions, Jam. 2:15, 16. Thou shalt not only stretch out thy hand to him to reach him something, but thou shalt open thy hand wide unto him, to lend him sufficient, v. 8. Sometimes there is as much charity in prudent lending as in giving, as it obliges the borrower to industry and honesty and may put him into a way of helping himself. We are sometimes tempted to think, when an object of charity presents itself, we may choose whether we will give any thing or nothing, little or much; whereas it is here an express precept (v. 11), I command thee, not only to give, but to open thy hand wide, to give liberally. 3. Here is a caveat against that objection which might arise against charitable lending from the foregoing law for the release of debts (v. 9): Beware that there be not a thought, a covetous ill-natured thought, in thy Belial heart, “The year of release is at hand, and therefore I will not lend what I must then be sure to lose;” lest thy poor brother, whom thou refusest to lend to, complain to God, and it will be a sin, a great sin, to thee. Note, (1.) The law is spiritual and lays a restraint upon the thoughts of the heart. We mistake if we think thoughts are free from the divine cognizance and check. (2.) That is a wicked heart indeed that raises evil thoughts from the good law of God, as theirs did who, because God had obliged them to the charity of forgiving, denied the charity of giving. (3.) We must carefully watch against all those secret suggestions which would divert us from our duty or discourage us in it. Those that would keep from the act of sin must keep out of their minds the very thought of sin. (4.) When we have an occasion of charitable lending, if we cannot trust the borrower, we must trust God, and lend, hoping for nothing again in this world, but expecting it will be recompensed in the resurrection of the just, Lu. 6:35; 14:14. (5.) It is a dreadful thing to have the cry of the poor against us, for God has his ear open to that cry, and, in compassion to them, will be sure to reckon with those that deal hardly with them. (6.) That which we think is our prudence often proves sin to us; he that refused to lend because the year of release was at hand thought he did wisely, and that men would praise him as doing well for himself, Ps. 49:18. But he is here told that he did wickedly, and that God would condemn him as doing ill to his brother; and we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth, and that what he says is sin to us will certainly be ruin to us if it be not repented of.

III. Here is a command to give cheerfully whatever we give in charity: “Thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest, v. 10. Be not loth to part with thy money on so good an account, nor think it lost; grudge not a kindness to they brother; and distrust not the providence of God, as if thou shouldest want that thyself which thou givest in charity; but, on the contrary, let it be a pleasure and a satisfaction of soul to thee to think that thou art honouring God with thy substance, doing good, making thy brother easy, and laying up for thyself a good security for the time to come. What thou doest do freely, for God loves a cheerful giver,” 2 Co. 9:7.

IV. Here is a promise of a recompence in this life: “For this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee.” Covetous people say “Giving undoes us;” no, giving cheerfully in charity will enrich us, it will fill the barns with plenty (Prov. 3:10) and the soul with true comfort, Isa. 58:10, 11.

SOURCE: Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Old Testament; Parsons Church Group, A Division Of Findex.Com; Omaha Nebraska

⁷If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. ⁸Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. ⁹Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. ¹⁰Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. ¹¹There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. (NIV)

15:7–9a Having addressed the matter of debt cancellation and the theoretical possibility of there being no poverty in the land of promise, Moses shifted the emphasis to the practical reality of poverty and how the more affluent in society must deal with it. Granted the existence of the poor, the attitude toward them must be one of softness of heart and openness of hand (vv. 7–8). That is, true charity consists of compassion at work. The real test of commitment to this principle would be the brother who asked for help at the last hour, just before the time of debt cancellation or suspension of payment came about (v. 9a). To lend to him then would likely be tantamount to making him an outright gift inasmuch as he would have little or no time left to pay back the loan. In such circumstances the tendency would be not to make a loan at all and to let the needy brother go unsatisfied.

15:9b–11 Such a response, however, is not at all appropriate for a kingdom citizen. Not only might the offended and neglected brother make appeal to the Lord, who is concerned about the plight of all his people (v. 9b), but the very attitude of stinginess is unbecoming to one who claims to be a servant of the Lord. Rather, one should give freely (so the inf. abs. of the verb nātan, v. 10a), not grudgingly, for this is what delights the Lord and prompts him to respond in like manner with blessing and prosperity (v. 10). In the real world of fallen humanity there will always be the poor (v. 11a), but there must also always be, among God’s people, a spirit of generosity to them (v. 11b). Jesus himself made note of this when he commended the woman with the precious ointment for having used it to anoint him in view of his impending death and burial (Matt 26:6–13). The poor about whom his hypocritical detractors professed to be concerned would always be with them, he said. They would have ample opportunity to unleash their compassion and largess upon them if they so desired.

II. Treat with Dignity (Deut. 24:10-15) Commentary

Here is, I. Provision made for the preservation and confirmation of love between new-married people, v. 5. This fitly follows upon the laws concerning divorce, which would be prevented if their affection to each other were well settled at first. If the husband were much abroad from his wife the first year, his love to her would be in danger of cooling, and of being drawn aside to others whom he would meet with abroad; therefore his service to his country in war, embassies, or other public business that would call him from home, shall be dispensed with, that he may cheer up the wife that he has taken. Note, 1. It is of great consequence that love be kept up between husband and wife, and that every thing be very carefully avoided which might make them strange one to another, especially at first; for in that relation, where there is not the love that should be, there is an inlet ready to abundance of guilt and grief. 2. One of the duties of that relation is to cheer up one another under the cares and crosses that happen, as helpers of each other’s joy; for a cheerful heart does good like a medicine.

II. A law against man-stealing, v. 7. It was not death by the law of Moses to steal cattle or goods; but to steal a child, or a weak and simple man, or one that a man had in his power, and to make merchandize of him, this was a capital crime, and could not be expiated, as other thefts, by restitution—so much is a man better than a sheep, Mt. 12:12. It was a very heinous offence, for, 1. It was robbing the public of one of its members. 2. It was taking away a man’s liberty, the liberty of a free-born Israelite, which was next in value to his life. 3. It was driving a man out from the inheritance of the land, to the privileges of which he was entitled, and bidding him go serve other gods, as David complains against Saul, 1 Sam. 26:19.

III. A memorandum concerning the leprosy, v. 8, 9. 1. The laws concerning it must be carefully observed. The laws concerning it we had, Lev. 13:14. They are here said to be commanded to the priests and Levites, and therefore are not repeated in a discourse to the people; but the people are here charged, in case of leprosy, to apply to the priest according to the law, and to abide by his judgment, so far as it agreed with the law and the plain matter of fact. The plague of leprosy being usually a particular mark of God’s displeasure for sin, he in whom the signs of it did appear ought not to conceal it, nor cut out the signs of it, nor apply to the physician for relief; but he must go to the priest, and follow his directions. Thus those that feel their consciences under guilt and wrath must not cover it, nor endeavour to shake off their convictions, but by repentance, and prayer, and humble confession, take the appointed way to peace and pardon. 2. The particular case of Miriam, who was smitten with leprosy for quarrelling with Moses, must not be forgotten. It was an explication of the law concerning the leprosy. Remember that, and, (1.) “Take heed of sinning after the similitude of her transgression, by despising dominions and speaking evil of dignities, lest you thereby bring upon yourselves the same judgment.” (2.) “If any of you be smitten with a leprosy, expect not that the law should be dispensed with, nor think it hard to be shut out of the camp and so made a spectacle; there is no remedy: Miriam herself, though a prophetess and the sister of Moses, was not exempted, but was forced to submit to this severe discipline when she was under this divine rebuke.” Thus David, Hezekiah, Peter, and other great men, when they had sinned, humbled themselves, and took to themselves shame and grief; let us not expect to be reconciled upon easier terms.

IV. Some necessary orders given about pledges for the security of money lent. They are not forbidden to take such securities as would save the lender from loss, and oblige the borrower to be honest; but, 1. They must not take the millstone for a pledge (v. 6), for with that they ground the corn that was to be bread for their families, or, if it were a public mill, with it the miller got his livelihood; and so it forbids the taking of any thing for a pledge by the want of which a man was in danger of being undone. Consonant to this is the ancient common law of England, which provides that no man be distrained of the utensils or instruments of his trade or profession, as the axe of a carpenter, or the books of a scholar, or beasts belonging to the plough, as long as there are other beasts of which distress may be made (Coke, 1 Inst. fol. 47). This teaches us to consult the comfort and subsistence of others as much as our own advantage. That creditor who cares not though his debtor and his family starve, nor is at all concerned what become of them, so he may but get his money or secure it, goes contrary, not only to the law of Christ, but even to the law of Moses too. 2. They must not go into the borrower’s house to fetch the pledge, but must stand without, and he must bring it, v. 10, 11. The borrower (says Solomon) is servant to the lender; therefore lest the lender should abuse the advantage he has against him, and improve it for his own interest, it is provided that he shall take not what he pleases, but what the borrower can best spare. A man’s house is his castle, even the poor man’s house is so, and is here taken under the protection of the law. 3. That a poor man’s bed-clothes should never be taken for a pledge, v. 12, 13. This we had before, Ex. 22:26, 27. If they were taken in the morning, they must be brought back again at night, which is in effect to say that they must not be taken at all. “Let the poor debtor sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee,” that is, “pray for thee, and praise God for thy kindness to him.” Note, Poor debtors ought to be sensible (more sensible than commonly they are) of the goodness of those creditors that do not take all the advantage of the law against them, and to repay their kindnesses by their prayers for them, when they are not in a capacity to repay it in any other way. “Nay, thou shalt not only have the prayers and good wishes of thy poor brother, but it shall be righteousness to thee before the Lord thy God,” that is, “It shall be accepted and rewarded as an act of mercy to thy brother and obedience to thy God, and an evidence of thy sincere conformity to the law. Though it may be looked upon by men as an act of weakness to deliver up the securities thou hast for thy debt, yet it shall be looked upon by thy God as an act of goodness, which shall in no wise lose its reward.”

Here, I. Masters are commanded to be just to their poor servants, v. 14, 15. 1. They must not oppress them, by overloading them with work, by giving them undue and unreasonable rebukes, or by withholding from them proper maintenance. A servant, though a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, must not be abused: “For thou wast a bondman in the land where thou wast a stranger (v. 18), and thou knowest what a grievous thing it is to be oppressed by a task-master, and therefore, in tenderness to those that are servants and strangers, and in gratitude to that God who set thee at liberty and settled thee in a country of thy own, thou shalt not oppress a servant.” Let not masters be tyrants to their servants, for their Master is in heaven. See Job 31:13. 2. They must be faithful and punctual in paying them their wages: “At his day thou shalt give him his hire, not only pay it in time, without further delay. As soon as he had done his day’s work, if he desire it, let him have his day’s wages,” as those labourers (Mt. 20:8) when evening had come. he that works by day-wages is supposed to live from hand to mouth, and cannot have tomorrow’s bread for his family till be is paid for this day’s labour. If the wages be withheld, (1.) It will be grief to the servant, for, poor man, he sets his heart upon it,. or, as the word is, he lifts up his soul to it, he is earnestly desirous of it, as the reward of his work (Job 7:2), and depends upon it as the gift of God’s providence for the maintenance of his family. A compassionate master, though it should be somewhat inconvenient to himself, would not disappoint the expectation of a poor servant that was so fond to think of receiving his wages. But that is not the worst. (2.) It will be guilt to the master. “The injured servant will cry against thee to the Lord; since he has no one else to appeal to, he will lodge his appeal in the court of heaven, and it will be sin to thee.” Or, if he do not complain, the cause will speak for itself, the “hire of the labourers which is kept back by fraud will itself cry,” Jam. 5:4. It is a greater sin than most people think it is, and will be found so in the great day, to put hardships upon poor servants, labourers, and workmen, that we employ. God will do them right if men do not.

SOURCE: Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Old Testament; Parsons Church Group, A Division Of Findex.Com; Omaha Nebraska

¹⁰When you make a loan of any kind to your neighbor, do not go into his house to get what he is offering as a pledge. ¹¹Stay outside and let the man to whom you are making the loan bring the pledge out to you. ¹²If the man is poor, do not go to sleep with his pledge in your possession. ¹³Return his cloak to him by sunset so that he may sleep in it. Then he will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the Lord your God. ¹⁴Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns. ¹⁵Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin. (NIV)

24:10–13 The elasticity of the application of covenant mandate is apparent in the connection between the commandment forbidding false testimony and the case here of the borrower whose pledge may not have been forcibly exacted from him. The matter of loans and pledges has already been addressed (23:19–20; 24:6; cf. Exod 22:25–26; Lev 25:35–37), but the issue here was the integrity and dignity of the person who had been forced by circumstances to borrow from his neighbor. Out of respect for the debtor, the creditor was not to go into the debtor’s house to demand the item being offered as a pledge of payment. Rather, he was to honor him enough to allow him to take the initiative to render the pledge (v. 11). If the debtor was so poor that he had to pledge his cloak, it was to be returned to him at night so he would have something to cover himself with against the cold (v. 12; cf. Exod 22:26–27). To do such a thing would be regarded as a “righteous act” (Heb. ṣĕdāqâ) before the Lord; that is, it was a deed that conformed with covenant expectations and norms.

24:14–15 The “neighbor” of this section was clearly a fellow Israelite as the context and parallel passages (cf. Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35) attest, but the subject of the next case—that of the poor hired man—may have been an Israelite or a foreigner (Deut 24:14–15). His plight was so serious that he lived from hand to mouth or from day to day. He therefore was to be paid his wages daily so that he could put food on the table. The fact that he was “only a hireling” (Heb. śākîr), a person of a lower socioeconomic status, was no excuse to deny him his rights. In fact, he enjoyed such status with God that he could and might cry out to the Lord against the stingy, dishonest employer and thus invoke God’s verdict of guilt (v. 15). Again the matter of the poverty stricken has previously been addressed in the context of rendering tribute to the Lord (cf. Deut 15:7–18), but here the focus is on human dignity, even of the poorest of the people. To view the poor as inferior or as easy victims of oppressive manipulation is to slander them, for they, like anyone else, are created as the image of God.

III. Protect with Mercy (Deut. 24:17-18) Commentary

II. Magistrates and judges are commanded to be just in their administrations. 1. In those which we call pleas of the crown a standing rule is here given, that the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, v. 16. If the children make themselves obnoxious to the law, let them suffer for it, but let not the parents suffer either for them or with them; it is grief enough to them to see their children suffer: if the parents be guilty, let them die for their own sin; but though God, the sovereign Lord of life, sometimes visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, especially the sin of idolatry, and when he deals with nations in their national capacity, yet he does not allow men to do so. Accordingly, we find Amaziah sparing the children, even when the fathers were put to death for killing the king, 2 Kings 14:6. It was in an extraordinary case, and no doubt by special direction from heaven, that Saul’s sons were put to death for his offence, and they died rather as sacrifices than as malefactors, 2 Sa. 21:9, 14. 2. In common pleas between party and party, great care must be taken that none whose cause was just should fare the worse for their weakness, nor for their being destitute of friends, as strangers, fatherless, and widows (v. 17): “Thou shalt not pervert their judgment, nor force them to give their very raiment for a pledge, by defrauding them of their right.” Judges must be advocates for those that cannot speak for themselves and have no friends to speak for them.

III. The rich are commanded to be kind and charitable to the poor. Many ways they are ordered to be so by the law of Moses. The particular instance of charity here prescribed is that they should not be greedy in gathering in their corn, and grapes, and olives, so as to be afraid of leaving any behind them, but be willing to overlook some, and let the poor have the gleanings, v. 19-22. 1. “Say not, ’It is all my own, and why should not I have it?’ But learn a generous contempt of property in small matters. One sheaf or two forgotten will make thee never the poorer at the year’s end, and it will do somebody good, if thou have it not.” 2. “Say not, ’What I give I will give, and know whom I give it to, why should I leave it to be gathered by I know not whom, that will never thank me.’ But trust God’s providence with the disposal of thy charity, perhaps that will direct it to the most necessitous.” Or, “Thou mayest reasonably think it will come to the hands of the most industrious, that are forward to seek and gather that which this law provides for them.” 3. “Say not, ’What should the poor do with grapes and olives? It is enough for them to have bread and water;’ for, since they have the same senses that the rich have, why should not they have some little share of the delights of sense?” Boaz ordered handfuls of corn to be left on purpose for Ruth, and God blessed him. All that is left is not lost.

SOURCE: Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Old Testament; Parsons Church Group, A Division Of Findex.Com; Omaha Nebraska

¹⁷Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. ¹⁸Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. (NIV)

24:17–18 Continuing on a descending scale, the law next addresses the worth of the most helpless of Israel’s society, the aliens, orphans, and widows (vv. 17–22). Just as the innocent in general were to be protected from miscarriage of justice (v. 16), even more so were these especially needy ones. The alien (gēr), as a non-Israelite, would tend to be barred from many of the privileges of Israelite community and worship life by social custom, but the law everywhere accorded him full participation provided he became part of the community by circumcision and other rites of membership (Exod 12:48–49; cf. 22:21; 23:9; Lev 17:8–16; 24:22; Num 15:14–16). As such a member he was to be accorded evenhanded justice along with the orphan, for neither enjoyed the protection of normal family or tribal affiliation. The widow also was especially vulnerable, prone no doubt to constant indebtedness. In such circumstances not even her clothing could be taken as a pledge, suggesting, perhaps, that loans to her were to be made without collateral of any kind. This would, in effect, have become more a gift than a loan because her opportunities for repayment would have been extremely limited depending on her age and physical capacity and the like. The mercy to be extended to her as well as to the alien and orphan was a reflex of the mercy of God, who in a mighty act of redemptive and protective grace brought helpless Israel out from Egyptian bondage (v. 18; cf. 5:15; 6:12, 21; 8:14; 10:19; 15:15). Memory of the Lord’s goodness to them should have evoked corresponding blessings from them to the weakest members of the community.

HARDNESS OF THE HEART: A stubborn attitude that leads a person to reject God’s will. The Bible speaks of the attitude both as stemming from the human heart and from God’s action.

As in secular psychology the word “personality” does not refer to a single entity, but is rather a cluster of ideas, so the biblical teaching about the heart has a group of meanings. It is the location of intellectual powers. Hebrew can describe thinking as, “Esau said in his heart” (Gen. 27:41). Jesus, while healing the palsied man, challenged the scribes, “Why reason ye these things in your hearts?” (Mark 2:8).

The heart was also the seat of the emotions. When the father was urging his son to be well behaved he gave a reason, “My son, be wise, and make my heart glad” (Prov. 27:11). The king spoke to his cupbearer about his sad countenance, “this is nothing else but sorrow of heart” (Neh. 2:2). Even the emotion of hatred comes from the heart, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart” (Lev. 19:17).

The functions of the will—both good and bad—came from the heart. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9). It is the source of pride, “Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God” (Deut. 8:14).

Best of all, these volitional powers can be used to gain contact with God (Ps. 27:8). Paul emphasized that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). Since God makes contact with people, it is important that we have hearts that are ready (Job 23:16).

The Bible makes it clear that humans can resist God who respects the free human will. One of the most important ways of resisting God is for a person to “harden his heart.” The analogy is to a rock or a millstone so that the individual has no feeling and is like a piece of stone.

When God’s people were in captivity in Egypt, “Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Ex. 8:32) as he refused to let the Israelites go. One of the puzzling aspects of this hard heart is that in the next chapter in the contest between God and Pharaoh, “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them” (Ex. 9:12).

The explanation of saying God hardened Pharaoh’s heart seems to be that this is the way of punishment which comes as the consequence of his own initial self hardening. Pharaoh hardened his own heart and then became confirmed in his obstinacy. Sin has become its own punishment. This makes more relevant the warning in the Psalms, “Harden not your heart” (Ps. 95:8).

In the New Testament Jesus took up the same theme as He warned His disciples, “Have ye your heart yet hardened?” (Mark 8:17). Hardening the heart was also seen as evidence of skepticism, “They considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened” (Mark 6:52).

God’s people can have hardened hearts and begin to complain when God’s ethical standards seem too high. Discussing the permanence of marriage and the concession that Moses made to the children of Israel, Jesus said, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:5-6). Even though the word was part of Scripture (Deut. 24:1), it was simply a concession to the hardness of the people’s hearts.

Failure to hear the voice of God may come from a hardened heart (Prov. 28:14; 29:1).

Scottish people speak about falling in love as “having a soft heart,” and God’s people must constantly maintain a soft heart towards their Lord, ever remembering the exhortation of the writer of the Hebrews letter, “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 4:7).

SOURCE: Holman Bible Dictionary; General Editor, David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.

“hard hearted” (v. 7): The Hebrew root for this word basically means “to make firm,” “to strengthen,” or “to secure.” The first use of this word occurred in the Old Testament when God told Rebekah that, of the two sons about to be born to her, one would be stronger than the other (Gen. 25:23). God also used the word repeatedly with Joshua in His call for Joshua to be strong (Josh. 1:6-7,9,18). The word can also be used with the idea of making one’s heart stubborn or obstinate, as was Sihon’s the king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30). We are to avoid letting our hearts become so hardened that they become strong enough to resist God’s call of compassion, love, and mercy.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

Security (24:11,12; “pledge,” KJV): The Old Testament regulated the practice of offering a “security” or “pledge” (physical property) as collateral on a debt. The Law required an Israelite to make an interest free loan to another Israelite; however, a foreigner could be expected to pay interest (Deut. 23:19-20). In either case, the borrower had to put up some form of collateral which the lender held as security. However, provisions for the disadvantaged in society placed limitations on the terms of the security. Prohibitions against taking millstones (24:6) likely safeguarded against taking away a man’s ability to earn income.

SOURCE: Life Ventures-Bible Studies for Life; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN.

“security” (24:10,11,12,13): The Hebrew word is only used four times in the Old Testament—all in verses 10,11,12,13—to refer to a pledge or any article that was taken as security for a loan. We might think in terms today of collateral for a loan, but the security in this passage (that is, the garment) was truly not sufficient to serve as collateral. A garment would not be worth the value of the loan; instead, it was a symbolic gesture. The gesture would b witnessed by others in a local court, signifying a promise of the borrower to repay what was loaned.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

“bless” (24:13): The root of the Hebrew word for bless is tied to the idea of kneeling. Although the word is only used three times in the Old Testament to refer to kneeling (Gen. 24:11; 2 Chron. 6:13; Ps. 95:6), there is a strong connection between the act of kneeling and receiving or giving a blessing. We bless God as we kneel before Him in adoration. To bless is to bestow upon somebody—or to desire it on their behalf—power for success, prosperity, or longevity. The blessing usually was given but eh greater to the lesser. However, the Bible sees God as the only source of blessing. Therefore, the lesser might bless the greater, implying a call for God to bless that recipient.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

BLESS (בָּרַךְ, bārakh): This word is found more frequently in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, and is used in different relations.

(1) It is first met in Gen 1:22 at the introduction of animal life upon the earth, where it is written, “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,” etc. The context furnishes the key to its meaning, which is the bestowal of good, and in this particular place the pleasure and power of increase in kind. Thus it is generally employed in both Testaments, the context always determining the character of the bestowal; for instance (where man is the recipient), whether the good is temporal or spiritual, or both.

Occasionally, however, a different turn is given to it as in Gen 2:3 the King James Version, where it is written, “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.” Here the good consists in the setting apart and consecrating of that day for His use.

(2) In the foregoing instances the Creator is regarded as the source of blessing and the creature the recipient, but the order is sometimes reversed, and the creature (man) is the source and the Creator the recipient. In Gen 24:48, for example, Abraham’s servant says, “I bowed my head, and worshipped Yahweh, and blessed Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham,” where the word evidently means to worship God, to exalt and praise Him.

(3) There is a third use where men only are considered. In Gen 24:60, her relatives “blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of ten thousands” (the King James Version “millions”), where the word expresses the wish or hope for the bestowal of the good designated. There are also instances where such a blessing of man by man may be taken in the prophetic sense, as when Isaac blessed Jacob (Gen 27:4, 27), putting himself as it were in God’s place, and with a sense of the Divine concurrence, pronouncing the good named. Here the word becomes in part a prayer for, and in part a prediction of, the good intended. Balaam’s utterances are simply prophetic of Israel’s destiny (Nu 23:9, 10, 11, 23 margin,24).

Although these illustrations are from the Old Testament the word is used scarcely differently in the New Testament; “The blessing of bread, of which we read in the Gospels, is equivalent to giving thanks for it, the thought being that good received gratefully comes as a blessing”; compare Mt 14:19 and 15:36 with 1 Cor 11:24.

SOURCE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; James Orr, M.A., D. D., General Editor; Parsons Technology, Inc.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

MERCY, MERCIFUL: A personal characteristic of care for the needs of others. The biblical concept of mercy always involves help to those who are in need or distress. Such help covers a broad range, from assistance in finding a bride to God’s forgiveness of sin. A wide vocabulary is employed in the original languages to express these concepts, and an even wider vocabulary is found in English translations.

Mercy in the Old Testament Three main Hebrew roots involve the idea of mercy.

1. Racham/rachamim This word family consistently has the meaning of showing mercy, compassion, or pity. Related to the word for womb, it may have the connotation of a mother’s affection or of the bond between siblings. This sense of a mother’s compassion for her child is found in 1 Kings 3:26, and a similar expression describes Joseph’s feelings for his brother in Genesis 43:30. Likewise, God’s mercy is often likened to family relationships: as a father to his children (Jer. 31:20; Ps. 103:13; Isa. 63:15-16), a husband to a wife (Isa. 54:6-8; Hos. 2:19), a brother to a brother (Amos 1:11), even as a mother toward a nursing child (Isa. 49:15).

God’s mercy is bound up with His covenant with Israel. He is merciful to them because He chose them (Ex. 33:19; 2 Kings 13:23; Isa. 54:10, 63:7). God’s mercy is never just a feeling but is expressed by His action: providing for Israel in the wilderness (Neh. 9:19; Isa. 49:10) and delivering her from enemies (Pss. 69:16-21; 79:8-11; Isa. 30:18; Jer. 42:11-12). When Israel turned from God, He showed no pity (Isa. 9:17; 27:11; Jer. 13:14; 16:5; Hos. 1:6-8; 2:4). On the other hand, He is a forgiving God and shows mercy to a penitent people (Pss. 25:4-7; 40:11-12; 51:1-4; Prov. 28:13-14; Isa. 54:7; 55:7; Lam. 3:31-33; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:19; Hab. 3:2). He is merciful in restoring the nation (Ps. 102:13; Isa. 14:1; 49:13; Jer. 12:15; 30:18; 33:26; Ezek. 39:25; Zech. 1:16; 10:6) and renewing His friendship with them (Hos. 2:19, 23). God’s mercy is the very source of His people’s life (Pss. 103:4; 119:77, 156).

Racham is also used to describe human mercy or lack of it. Israel’s enemies were merciless (Isa. 13:18, 47:6; Jer. 6:23; 21:7; 50:42). In legal contexts, Israel was to show no mercy to criminals (Deut. 13:8; 19:13, 21). On the other hand, God expected His people to be merciful to their neighbors (1 Kings 8:31-32; Prov. 3:29; 21:13). He especially expected their mercy toward the poor and needy (Zech. 7:9-10).

2. Chesed Chesed occurs 245 times in the Old Testament, 127 in Psalms alone. The Septuagint translators regularly rendered it with the Greek word for mercy, eleos. Likewise, the King James version translates it regularly as mercy or kindness. See Kindness. Other English versions render it as “steadfast love” (NRSV), “lovingkindness” (NASB), “loyalty” or “constant love” (REB), “love” or “unfailing love” (NIV), “faithfulness” (TEV).

Like racham, chesed describes a variety of human relationships: husband and wife (Gen. 20:13), next-of-kin (Gen. 24:49), father and son (Gen. 47:29), host and guest (Rahab and the spies—Josh. 2:12-14), friends like David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:8, 14-17), king and subjects (2 Sam. 2:5). Also like racham, it expresses itself in action: Rahab delivered the spies; Jonathan protected David from Saul. The relationship is always reciprocal. One who experiences the chesed of another is to reciprocate when the opportunity presents itself. Thus, the spies promised protection for Rahab, and David pledged to protect the house of Jonathan. An element of covenantal fidelity was involved. An element of mercy was also involved. Each sought to meet the other’s need. Since one can scarcely meet a need of God, this covenantal aspect of mercy was expressed in God’s requirement to show mercy to others. This was often coupled with a command for justice (Mic. 6:8; compare Hos. 12:6; Zech. 7:9).

God expects His people to show chesed to one another because He shows chesed to them—to individuals such as Abraham (Gen. 24:12-14), Jacob (Gen. 32:10), David (2 Sam. 7:15), and Job (10:12). Above all, He was merciful to His chosen people Israel (Ex. 15:13; Ps. 107:8, 15, 21, 31; Isa. 63:7; Jer. 31:2-6). The linkage of God’s covenant and His chesed is explicit in such phrases as “keeping covenant and showing chesed” (1 Kings 8:23; Deut. 7:9; Neh. 1:5; 9:32; Dan. 9:4; compare Ps. 106:45; Isa. 54:10).

A final characteristic of God’s chesed is its permanence (Pss. 23:6; 25:6; 103:17; 117:2; Isa. 54:8). This is often expressed in the set phrase, “for the Lord is good, his mercy (chesed) is everlasting” or “his mercy endureth forever” (Pss. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 1 Chron. 16:34; 2 Chron. 5:13; 7:3; Ezra 3:11; Jer. 33:11; compare Pss. 118:2-4; 136:1-26).

3. Chanan/chen This is the third Hebrew word family involving mercy and pity. Job used it in appealing for pity (19:21) and with it the psalmist described one who is generous to the poor (Pss. 37:21; 112:5; compare Prov. 14:21-23; 19:17; 28:8). The latter examples show how chanan involves not only pity but also being gracious. It is in this sense that the word is applied to God, referring to His gracious and generous nature.

4. Conclusion It is difficult to draw precise distinctions between the various words used in the Old Testament for God’s mercy and grace. Racham, chesed, and chanan all refer to the one gracious, forgiving, loving God who is forever faithful in reaching out to His people in their need. Nowhere is their interrelatedness more evident than in the following recurrent Old Testament liturgy which combines all three: “God is merciful (racham) and gracious (chana), slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (chesed) and faithfulness” (Ex. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2).

Mercy in the New Testament: Three word families express the idea of mercy in the New Testament.

1. Splagchna Splagchna literally refers to the upper human organs (heart, liver, lungs). This usage appears in the grim depiction of Judas’ death in Acts 1:18. Much like the Hebrew rachamim, splagchna developed the derived sense of strong emotional feelings, particularly of compassion and affection. The word is often used of Jesus’ compassion—for the multitudes (Matt. 9:36, 14:14, 15:32), for the blind (Matt. 20:34), for a leper (Mark 1:41), for a possessed child (Mark 9:20-27), for a widow’s plight (Luke 7:13). His parables use the term to describe the mercy of a master on his indebted servant (Matt. 18:27), the compassion of a father for his prodigal son (Luke 15:20), and a Samaritan’s pity for a wounded Jew (Luke 10:33). With this word Paul urged the Corinthians to renew their affection for him (2 Cor. 6:12; compare 7:15), exhorted the Philippians to mutual love and concern (Phil. 2:1-2), and played on the sympathy of Philemon (Philem. 7, 12, 20). With it, John reminded his readers that one who closes his heart to a brother’s need scarcely has God’s love (1 John 3:17).

2. Oiktirmos This word also means “pity, mercy, compassion” and is used together with splagchna in Colossians 3:12, Philippians 2:1, and James 5:11. It can be used negatively as in Hebrews 10:28 where it describes the merciless justice of the Law. Paul pointed to the positive side of God as “the father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3), and he urged the Romans to sacrificial service based on God’s mercy (12:1). Christian mercy is rooted in God’s mercy, a principle already given by Jesus (Luke 6:36).

3. Eleos The most common words in the New Testament for mercy belong to the eleos family. In secular Greek, the word was often viewed as a sign of weakness, a sentimental inclination to be overly lenient. The New Testament does not share in this assessment, having more in common with the Old Testament perspective on God’s mercy.

To be sure, the negative aspect appears. Drawing on Exodus 33:19, Paul showed how God in His sovereign purposes can withdraw His mercies (Rom. 9:15-16, 18, 23). The total New Testament picture is much brighter. Jesus brought the good news of a merciful, forgiving God. He embodied that good news in Himself, and everywhere He was met by cries and expectations for mercy—from two blind men (Matt. 9:27), a woman with a possessed daughter (Matt. 15:22), the father of an epileptic boy (Matt. 17:15), and by ten lepers (Luke 17:13). His healings are themselves testimony to the divine mercy (Mark 5:19). Reminiscent of chesed, Jesus’ birth and that of John are testimonies that God is both merciful and faithful to His promises (Luke 1:58, 72, 78). Paul had a keen awareness of God’s mercy in his own life (1 Cor. 7:25; 2 Cor. 4:1; 1 Tim. 1:13, 16), and in restoring his co-worker Epaphroditus to health (Phil. 2:27).

God’s mercy was shown in His readiness to forgive the penitent sinner (Luke 8:13). Especially was it transparent in the atoning work of Christ (Heb. 2:17). Through Christ, God’s mercy delivers from the death of sin into life (Eph. 2:4-5) and includes the Gentiles as part of His people (Rom. 11:30-32). In Christ the mercy of God brings new life (1 Pet. 1:3) and undergirds the hope of life to come (Jude 21). In this life the mercy of God is always available for those who approach His throne (Heb. 4:16). The Christian life is lived under this assurance of God’s mercy. This is why mercy is often an element in New Testament greetings and benedictions (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Gal. 6:16; 2 John 3; Jude 2).

Those who experience God’s mercy are themselves to be merciful. God does not desire the external trappings of religiosity but deeds of mercy to others (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; 23:23). One who shows no mercy to others cannot expect God’s mercy (Matt. 18:33-34; Jas. 2:13). Mercy is a mark of discipleship (Matt. 5:7). Disciples show deeds of mercy to a neighbor (Luke 10:36-37) and perform them cheerfully (Rom. 12:8). God is mercy, and one who shares in God’s wisdom shares His mercy (Jas. 3:17).

4. Conclusion As with the Old Testament, the New Testament treatment of God’s mercy cannot be separated from His love, His grace, and His faithfulness. They are all part of the same fabric. The difference, of course, is that the New Testament writers had come to see the mercy of God in a much brighter light in the face of Jesus Christ. He was the ultimate manifestation of God’s mercy, the assurance of that mercy for believers, and the basis of their own mercy in their relationships with others.

SOURCE: Holman Bible Dictionary; General Editor, David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.

SABBATICAL YEAR: Every seventh year when farmers rested their land from bearing crops to renew the land and people of Israel. Mosaic law directed that every seventh year the land would not be planted in crops; food would come from what grew wild (Ex. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:1-7). Just as the Law reserved the seventh day as holy unto God, so too, was the seventh year set aside as a time of rest and renewal. This not only assured the continued fertility of the land by allowing it to lay fallow, but also protected the rights of the poor. Peasants were allowed to eat from the natural abundance of the untended fields. It may be that only a portion of the land was allowed to rest each sabbath year, the remainder farmed as usual. Hebrews sold into slavery were to be released in that year (Ex. 21:2). Loans and debts to Israelites were also to be forgiven (Deut. 15:1-3). It is doubtful that the sabbath year was celebrated in early Israel. Jeremiah reminded the people that their fathers had ignored the observance of the law (Jer. 34:13-14; compare Lev. 26:35). Although Israel renewed her dedication to practice the sabbath year during Nehemiah’s time, it is unclear whether it was carried out (Neh. 10:31). During the intertestamental period an attempt was made by Israel to observe the sabbath year despite the political turmoil of the times (1 Macc. 6:49). The sabbath year laws consistently pointed to helping the poor.

YEAR OF JUBILEE: The fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years (Lev. 25:10) in which Israel’s land and people gained freedom. It was begun with a blast from a ram’s horn on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 25:9). During this year of joy and liberation, the law stipulated three respects in which the land and people were to be sanctified: (1) It was to be a time of rest for the soil as well as people (Lev. 25:11). The unattended growth of the field was for the poor to glean and for the beasts of the field (Ex. 23:11). (2) All land was to revert back to the original owner (Lev. 25:10-34; 27:16-24). The original distribution of land was to remain intact. All property which the original owner had been obligated to sell (and had not yet been redeemed) was to revert (without payment) to the original owner or his lawful heirs. Some exceptions to this pattern are noted in Leviticus 25:29-30; 27:17-21. (3) Every Israelite who had sold himself—either to his fellow countryman or to a foreigner settled in the land—because of poverty and remained unredeemed was to be freed along with his children (Lev. 25:39-46).

The Year of Jubilee prevented the Israelites from oppression of one another (Lev. 25:17). It had a leveling effect of Israel’s culture by giving everyone a chance for a new start. It discouraged excessive, permanent accumulations of wealth and the depravation of an Israelite of his inheritance in the land. Families and tribes were preserved by the return of freed bondservants to their own families. Permanent slavery in Israel was rendered impossible.

This year was a constant reminder of God’s interest in economic freedom (Ezek. 46:17). Purchase of property was actually tantamount to assuming a lease for a maximum of forty-nine years, and the seller always retained the right to cancel the purchase by settling with the buyer on the amount of money that was still payable, taking into account the number of years that the buyer had made use of the property. If the seller was either incapable or not desirous of making use of this right of redemption, the property nevertheless returned to his possession automatically in the next Year of Jubilee. So the sale of a house, for example, was equivalent to renting it for a specified period of time (Lev. 25:29-34). This made it difficult to accumulate vast permanent holdings of wealth (compare Isa. 5:8; Mic. 2:2). God’s designed arrangement was against both large estates and pauperism. The Israelites were repeatedly given the opportunity to begin anew, and the impoverished were enabled to maintain themselves in society.

This year also reflected God’s provision for the soil’s conservation (Lev. 25:11-12, 18-21). During the Year of Jubilee, the Israelites were once again taught that they were to live in faith that the Lord would satisfy their needs (compare Ex. 16:17-18).

SOURCE: Holman Bible Dictionary; General Editor, David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.

HE CLOTHING NEEDS for most of those who lived in the days of Jesus were simple. Garments usually were home-made, coarse, and strong. The upkeep on the necessary wearing apparel was a part of the housewife’s occupation. The words of Jesus concerning the sewing of a “piece of new cloth on an old garment” (Mark 2:21) was, no doubt, a common saying of the day and reflected the economic circumstance of our Lord and his early followers.

In biblical days, one’s clothing consisted of four basic units. Both men and women wore a long kimono-like garment next to the body which fitted close to the skin. This garment (chiton), often called a tunic, was sometimes made of plain linen, at other times of wool, hair cloth, or leather. It had armholes, was made with or without sleeves, and sometimes reached to or even below the knees. Like the modern undershirt for men, it could be omitted when the weather was sufficiently warm. This same Greek word was sometimes used for clothes in general.

The second garment was the tunic coat, a long straight robe, with sleeves, that opened all the way down in front. Usually of one solid color, it extended down to the ankles when worn as a dress coat. The sleeves had long pointed ends which reached almost to the ground. When a person was working, he could tie them together and throw them over his shoulders, leaving his arms free. When one “made bare his . . . arm” (Isa. 52:10), it indicated his readiness for energetic action. The coat was sufficiently wide to lap over well in front.

The third article was a girdle, worn like a belt over the tunic coat, and made of either cloth or leather. The fourth unit of dress, the cloak, was the outer garment, also referred to as a mantle or robe. This was the article of clothing that showed distinction or rank.

In the Old Testament days, the cloak existed in two varieties, with the writers distinguishing between the simlah (SIHM-lah) and the me-il (meh-ILL). The first was the outer garment, worn by both men and women of modest means, and, most likely, was practically unshaped, with any form that it possessed being shaped by the body wearing it. The word is translated both “garment” and “raiment” and was, in plural form, one of several terms employed for clothing in general. This article of dress was open down the front, with one flap being pulled over the other and secured by a strap or sash. Sometimes this cloak was worn merely over a loincloth. The part between the folds above the strap served as a pocket.¹ When Jacob left his father’s house, he probably stayed long enough to fling such a coat about his shoulders.² When one of poor or modest means retired for the evening, he customarily undressed and then wrapped up in this outer garment (simlah), which served as his bed-clothes. Jewish law provided that if a creditor took his debtor’s clothing in pledge, he must return the poor man’s cloak, which served also as his blanket, at sunset lest he have no covering while he slept.³ This was a part of the reason that Amos condemned so severely the people that “lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar” (2:8). These garments should have been returned before nightfall!

The other outer garment (me-il, Hebrew word) was worn by the upper classes and also by the priests when they were not engaged in sacrificial ritual. This long robe was slipped over the head rather than opening down the front. With wide skirts, falling into folds, it served ideally as the royal robe. Isaiah, although he does not use this exact Hebrew word, employed a similar one (whose root scholars cannot ascertain with certainty), when he pictured the Lord enthroned with the skirts of his robe covering the Temple floor (6:1). In the King James Version (Old Testament) the word “cloak” appears only once (Isa. 59:17); the Hebrew word used in this passage is me-il. This same Hebrew word is also translated in different contexts as coat, mantle, and robe, always referring to the outermost garment worn by a person.

The Greek word for “cloak” appears in the King James Version (New Testament) only six times, three of these being metaphorical uses (John 15:22; 1 Thess. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:16): “no cloak for their sin,” “cloak of covetousness,” and “cloak of maliciousness.” All of these, of course, refer symbolically to one’s outer appearance. Two other of the six references (Matt. 5:40; Luke 6:29) are parallel uses where Jesus said that if one sues us at the law and takes either our coat or our cloak, we should let him have the other also. The other passage records Paul’s request that Timothy bring to him the “cloak that I left in Troas” (2 Tim. 4:13).

The Greek word (Imation, hih-MAH-tea-ahn), which Matthew and Luke used in the parallel passages and is translated “cloak,” is also the word Matthew used when he said that the “high priest rent his clothes” contending that Jesus had spoken blasphemy (26:65). John used the same word (19:2,5), for the purple robe the soldiers put on Jesus. “Purple” is not, however, part of the word for “robe” but is a separate Greek adjective. Matthew used the word chlamus (klah-MOOS; 27:28), which means a short mantle or coat used by the military, to described the robe that the soldiers placed on Jesus. It was, of course, a form of cloak.

The Greek word Paul used in 2 Timothy 4:13 when he asked Timothy to bring his cloak (phailonon; fail-LAHN-ayn) is a term whose meaning was, at one time, a subject of debate among scholars. Earlier, some held that it meant a traveling case for books, but later study in the papyri shows that the word was used for a long cape made of the heaviest materials, one a person would not want to carry during the summertime. Its use dates back to the time of Alexander the Great. Most likely a traveling cloak for cold or rainy seasons, if perhaps had room for books and parchment. This cloak should be understood primarily, however, as one used during times of disagreeable and inclement weather. The word is similar to another Greek one (phainolas) which was used for a cloak or greatcoat which had a hood and was used chiefly on journeys or in the army. Two other words in the New Testament, though not translated “cloak,” describes the outer garment. Luke uses esthas (ehs-THAYS) as a general term for apparel or clothing. He told how Herod arrayed Jesus in “a gorgeous robe” and sent him back to Pilate (23:11). The literal meaning of the accompanying adjective is a “throwing round splendid,” while the word esthas probably should be translated “clothing” rather than “robe.” The other word (stola, stoh-LAY) represented the long flowing robe or dress that the Pharisees loved to wear (Mark 12:38). The author of the second Gospel used this same word, translated “garment,” to describe the clothing worn by the young man who sat in the sepulcher of Jesus (16:5). Luke used this same Greek word to describe the robe which was given to the prodigal son on his return (15:22). This robe, in all probability, indicated prestige and may have been similar to the type possessed by the Old Testament priesthood. In Revelation, the martyrs (6:11) and the redeemed (7:9,13) wore this type of garment. Although one must be cautious when making a statement of how the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew text, since the translators were not always consistent, it seems safe to say that the stola was the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew me-il.

Even as today we have many variations of clothes, there was not complete uniformity in biblical days as to how people dressed, or even in the words used to describe the articles of clothing. The four basic garments worn, however, were fairly constant. The same basic type of dress in the Old Testament was still in vogue in the days of Jesus, but the one distinction of the outer garment, whether we call it cloak, robe, or mantle, was that those of more modest means wore a simpler one while those who could afford it embellished their dress. After all, life has always been like that and probably always shall be! Bi

1. R. H. Kennett, Ancient Hebrew Social Life and Custom As Indicated in Law Narrative and Metaphor (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 46.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 38, No. 2; Winter 2011-12.

Peter R. Haik is associate professor of Old Testament, Mississippi Baptist Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi.

OR THE POOR WILL NOT CEASE from out of the land.”¹ With these words, one is reminded that poverty is a universal reality. Indeed, poverty is a tragic experience known in all times and places.

Ancient Israel was an agricultural society.² For most of its history and most of its people, agriculture was the economy, not just its backbone. Survival depended almost completely on the abundance of the crops and livestock. Drought and pestilence could destroy both in a short time. Various natural disasters could impoverish even the wealthy.

The Mosaic Law included numerous regulations to protect the needy. The verse quoted above and its context—Deuteronomy 15—offer God’s solution to the problem: “For the poor will not cease from out of the land; therefore I—even I—command you, saying, ‘You shall indeed open wide your hand unto your brother, to your poor and your needy in your land!’” (Deut. 15:11, author’s translation).

The poor and needy are to be recognized as “brothers” and helped accordingly. The ideal was for all Israelites to see one another as family. One should care for, and be generous to, other family members, especially in their time of need. “This sermon is a summons to meet the poor at all times with an open hand and an open heart.”³

One means of assisting the poor commanded in Deuteronomy 15 is the Sabbath Year, also known as the Year of Release.⁴ Those fortunate enough to have an excess were to lend freely to those in need. For up to six years, the borrower was to seek to repay the debt. In the seventh year, however, all debts to fellow Israelites were to be canceled. Foreigners were not included in the mandate. This law protected people from becoming slaves to the debt. Such an act of mercy reflected the Lord’s benevolence to His people.

An identical injunction applied to people who had been sold into slavery. They were to serve for six years as payment of their debt. Having done such, however, their debt was to be considered as paid in full. Thus, in the seventh year these servants were to be released. The memory of God’s deliverance from Egyptian slavery was the primary motivation. In addition, these “brothers” were not to be released empty handed. Rather, they were to be given a fair portion from the crops and the livestock with which to begin their lives anew. Again, this was a reflection of God’s generosity to His people: “as Yahweh your God has blessed you, you shall give Him” (Deut. 15:14).

Closely related was the Year of Jubilee, elaborated in Leviticus 25. The Year of Jubilee was the 50^th year, culminating 7 cycles of 7 years each, including a Sabbath year. The unique feature about aiding the poor was the return of any land lost to debt since the last Jubilee. The land was recognized as God’s special endowment to His people and , as such, was ultimately to be returned to the people to whom it had been given. Thus, the family land, and inheritance from God, would not be lost forever.

Another legal protection for the poor involved regulations for harvesting (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-22). Harvesting was to be deliberately less than complete. Corners were to be left untouched as were the gleanings and any fruit that may have fallen to the ground. Such left-overs were available for the poor and needy. The message was simple: the loss will not be great, but the gain for the poor could mean the difference between life and death.

One purpose of the tithe was to assist the needy (Deut. 14:28-29). After every third year, a tithe was to be brought to town for collection and later distribution. The tithe was used by the Levites, who had no property as an inheritance from the Lord. It was also used by orphans, widows and aliens who were in need. Over and over, the Lord sought, through His Law, to insure that the poor received assistance in their need.

Family and national solidarity were crucial aspects of the Hebrew faith. This is seen especially in the concept of the “kinsman redeemer” (Lev. 25:25; Jer. 32:6-8). If a relative were in danger of lowing property due to debt, the “kinsman redeemer” (Hebrew goel ) was to purchase the land; thus, saving it for the family. Similarly, if one were to be sold into slavery, the relative was to buy his or her freedom. The person so redeemed was to work as a hired servant to repay their relative.

While not directly addressing the issue of poverty, the law regarding Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-6; Ruth 3—4) also had definite positive results. When an Israelite male had a married brother or kinsman die without male children, he was to marry the widow and name the first child after the deceased. The law’s purpose was to carry on the name of the deceased. Yet, because of this law, many women and their female children were saved from the dire existence of widows and orphans.

Perhaps the greatest causes of poverty, after crop and livestock shortages, were social injustice and overt crime. The Law and the Prophets addressed these problems.⁵ Underlying the laws and prophetic messages was one basic assumption: the poor were protected by God. The lord’s demands for fairness for all—especially the poor—can be found throughout the Old Testament. One good example is found in Psalm 82:3-4:

Vindicate the weak and orphans: Do justice for the afflicted and poor. Rescue the weak and needy; From the hand of the wicked, deliver them.

The appeal was necessary because the opposite was far too common. Injustice is no modern invention. False weights and measures were used. Exorbitant interest rates were charged. Bribery, favoritism and false witness in legal matters were widespread. These and the more blatant forms of highway robbery contributed to many people having little chance of rising above abject poverty.

By the time of the New Testament, the economy was more international in scope. Industry and trade were a larger part of the life of the nation. Still, for most, agriculture was their life. Unfortunately, crime and injustice were also a fact of life. Poverty, as always, was a threat, if not reality, for many.

John challenged early Christians to respond to people’s needs around them. To know Christ, to be a Christian, means to have experienced God’s love through Christ. Having known such love, a Christian should share it with others. Love is more than sentimental feelings. Sharing one’s worldly goods with those in need is imperative. John asked,

Whoever has the goods of the world and sees his brother having a need and shuts his heart away from him, how does the love of God dwell in him (1 John 3:17)?

John clearly expected a negative answer. Simply put: God’s love does not dwell in that person!

John had learned from the example of the Lord Jesus. His concern for the needy was evident in both His words and deeds. Jesus fed, taught, and loved the needy. His followers will be known for doing the same. He made this abundantly clear in His parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46).

Those who follow Jesus will be welcomed into His glory because they fed Him when He was hungry, gave Him a drink when He was thirsty, welcomed Him when He was a stranger, clothed Him when He was naked, and visited Him when He was sick or in prison. In dismay, they will ask, “When?” Then the King will answer saying to them: “Amen I say to you, inasmuch as you did it for the least of these my brothers, you did it for Me (Matt. 25:40)!”

2. Martin Noth, The Old Testament World, trans. Victory I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 163; H. N. Richardson, “Agriculture,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962-76), 1:56.

3. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Doreothea Barton (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 106.

4. J. Morgenstern, “Sabbatical Year,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962-76), 4:141-144.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Summer 1993.

Dr. DeVries is campus minister and professor at Baptist Campus Ministries, Springfield, Missouri.

MOS’ PROCLAMATION, “They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth” (5:10),¹ contains both a compliment and an accusation. It was a compliment to those judges who sought to bring about justice. But Amos seems to be saying that for most of the judges of his day, that was not the case. The judge who sought the truth and made upright decisions was hated and abhorred. Most of Israel’s judicial officials in Amos’ day were guilty of the perversion of justice.

The message of Amos simply underlines the tremendous impact this official had on the life of ancient Israel. The significance of the judge, the importance of the role he played in society, and the tradition and imagery that developed around his office is seen throughout the Bible. The popularity of this office and its occupant even prompted Jesus to draw on it in the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8). However, to clearly define the role of the judge in ancient Israel and his functions in society is not easy. Unlike the concept we have of judges in the Western world, the judge in ancient Israel was not limited to a court of law and the administration of justice as we think of it, even though that was a major role for him.

Who then was the judge in ancient Israel? What was his function in society? What is the origin of the office? What significant developments took place during the history of Israel?

Several Hebrew terms are used in the Old Testament in reference to one who acts as judge. The most popular and widely used term is shaphat, which refers to one who acts as a magistrate or who administers justice. However, the term encompasses a variety of functions. On the one hand, the judge was an official who judged the disputes among people (Deut. 16:18); on the other hand, the judge was a military leader who “delivered” or “saved” the people from the onslaught of the enemy (Judg. 2:16). And yet the Old Testament seems to contain hints that the judge was one who functioned in other ways as a leader in the community. In some passages, to judge perhaps meant “to rule” or “to lead” (Judg. 4:4-5), or simply to function as a community administrator (1 Sam. 7:15-16). The terminology used in reference to the appointment of judges, “I will appoint them as your heads” (Deut. 1:13,15, NEB), also seems to imply someone with authority or a community leader.

The origin of this office goes back to the early beginnings of Israel, that period commonly referred to as the Exodus, Conquest, and Settlement. It was here under the leadership of Moses that the formation of a special community took place. George Mendenhall makes numerous observations about this period and the uniqueness of the new community which perhaps will aid our understanding.

In effect, the Exodus and the settlement in the land of Canaan consisted of a biblical revolution that resulted in the formation of the early biblical community, founded upon a religious covenant.² Unlike the common view of the day in which religion guaranteed the political legitimacy of the state, this new community of Israel was based on a new concept of religion that “consisted of man’s voluntary submission to the will of God defined in ethical terms that were binding beyond any social or territorial boundary.”³ Mendenhall suggests that the starting point for Moses, at least his taking action, may well have been the encounter in which he killed the Egyptian overseer, and the ensuing question the following day by the Hebrew, “Who made you a prince and judge over us?”⁴

We note with interest that Moses, accompanied by the tribally related families and a “mixed multitude” (Ex. 12:37-38), immediately faced leadership responsibilities of “a prince and judge” himself. But the provision of leadership in this new community must be seen in the light of the covenant made at Sinai. This was a community in covenant with Yahweh God. When a Hebrew bound himself to God in covenant, he submitted to God’s will and the ethical directives that recognized that real needs of persons and society. Therefore, the office of judge—as well as all other offices—must be seen as being under Yahweh, and as an extension of the supreme office holder who was Yahweh himself.

The practice of appointing judges originated with Moses because of the overwhelming task of administering justice in that early community (Ex. 18:13-26; Deut. 1:9-17). Upon the advice of his father-in-law, Jethro, who recognized that the task was “too heavy” (Ex. 18:18), Moses was to appoint a select group of men to administer justice in the disputes of the people (Ex. 18:21-22). Moses would act as the supreme administrator of justice who made decisions in the most difficult cases, perhaps those in which legal precedent had not been established (Ex. 18:22). The appointees who assisted Moses were to possess four basic qualities, according to verse 21. They were to be “able men” who “fear God,” “trustworthy” men, and men who “hate a bribe.”⁵

As noted above, the term “judge” had a much broader usage than that of a legal figure. This broader usage is seen especially in accounts that refer to events from the period of the judges. It is perhaps best illustrated in the story of the request the elders of Israel made to Samuel. Samuel was old and had appointed his sons as judges over Israel (1 Sam. 8:1). However, his sons were not trustworthy of the office, for they had taken “bribes and perverted justice” (v. 3, RSV). Consequently, the elders made the request: “Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). In the usage of the verb “to judge” (shaphat) in this passage, the other meanings of the term or functions of the person who held the title become apparent, because here in this context “to judge” carries the idea “to govern” (RSV) or “to rule.”⁶ This idea also appears in passages where the title “judges” (Ps. 2:10; RSV translates “rulers”) seems to imply one whose function is parallel to a king.

During the period of the judges the judge was above all a leader whose responsibilities varied. He came on the scene perhaps in response to a crisis and functioned as a military leader, as in the case of Othniel (Judg. 3:7-11). He was endowed with “the spirit of Yahweh.” He acted as a “deliverer” or “savior” (v. 9) in the midst of the crisis. He was the one through whom Yahweh provided leadership and deliverance.

In other instances, the judge was an important leader or official in the community, or a part of a more permanently fixed institution of the confederation of tribes. For instance, the whole community sought out the leadership and advice of Deborah (Judg. 4:5). She is described as one who “was judging Israel” (Judg. 4:4, R$V), as she sat “under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim” (Judg. 4:5, RSV). Apparently, she made legal decisions in individual disputes, as well as decisions which affected the community at large. In a sense, Deborah’s “judging” constituted a type of “ruling,” or “governing,” in the community.

The office of judge as a more permanently fixed office of the confederation of tribes is best illustrated in the judgeship of Samuel. Here again, while the tribes did not have a political head Samuel as judge was the one to whom all could appeal. From his hometown, Ramah, “he administered justice to Israel” (1 Sam. 7:17, RSV). He also went on an annual circuit “to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all these places” (1 Sam. 7:16, RSV).

The coming of the monarchy apparently caused the judgeships to develop eventually, along clearer lines. At first, the king was considered to be a judge. He had judicial power and functioned as the supreme judge of the land (2 Sam. 8:15). Consequently, the Israelites prayed that the king would be given justice and that he would judge the people with righteousness (Ps. 72:1-2). Apparently, Absalom accused his father, David, of neglecting his judicial responsibilities (2 Sam. 15:1-3) and, as he sought to take the kingship from his father, suggested, “Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a suit or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice” (2 Sam. 15:4, RSV).

Solomon, who recognized his role as judge of Israel, prayed, “Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern [literally, “to judge”] thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to govern [“to judge”] this thy great people?” (1 Kings 3:9, RSV).

As supreme judge of the land, the king had a court in Jerusalem to which all Israel was to have access and to which all could appeal. Reference is made to this court in the description of the building activities of Solomon. His palace included the “Hall of Judgment” (1 Kings 7:7, RSV), the place from which he administered justice.

Judicial reform and reorganization came during the reign of Jehoshaphat, whose name means “Yahweh judges” (2 Chron. 19:4-11; see also Deut. 16:18-20; and 17:8-13). He appointed judges in every fortified city in Judah (2 Chron. 19:5), and set before these judges the standards of the office: “no perversion of justice . . . or partiality, or taking bribes” (v. 7, RSV). He also established a court in Jerusalem comprised of “Levites and priests and heads of families” (v. 8, RSV). This court was to consider disputes from the inhabitants of Jerusalem (v. 8, RSV) and was to act as an appeals court for cases referred to them from other cities (v. 10). The court had two top officials: Amariah, the chief priest, who considered matters related to God, and Zebadiah, the governor of the house of Judah, who considered all matters related to the king (v. 11). Apparently, the Levites served in the capacity of notaries (v. 11). Roland de Vaux has noted that Jehoshaphat’s reform was a judicial one in which he established one court system to handle matters regarding the king and assigned to the existing court those matters that related to Yahweh. Thus, the king was relieved of his office of supreme judge.⁷

Three classes of judges administered justice in Israel: the elders, the professional judges, and the priestly judges. Each group worked within its own jurisdiction: the elders in community affairs, the professional judges as an extension of the royal court, and the priestly judges in religious matters.

The elders were leading citizens in the community and functioned as a type of lay judge. Located at the gate of the town (Deut. 21:19), the elders officiated in the business transactions of the residents of that community. The account of Boaz purchasing the parcel of land owned by Naomi provides a good example of the function of the community court with its officials, the elders (Ruth 4:1-12). The elders not only presided at the court session, they also inflicted the penalty in some cases (Deut. 22:18; 1 Kings 21:10-11).

In addition to these lay judges, Israel had its professional judges. These were appointed officials in each city or district (Deut. 16:18) who worked with the local elders. The appointment, which was made perhaps by the king or the royal court, in turn provided a judicial network throughout the nation for the administration of justice. Like the elder, the professional judge was to witness the execution of the verdict of the court concerning the guilty party (Deut. 25:1-3). Cases which were too difficult or could not be decided by the elders or the local judges were referred to a higher court (Deut. 17:8-13) located in Jerusalem.

Israel also had its priestly jurisdiction in which priests functioned as judges (Deut. 17:9; 2 Chron. 19:8). Cases referred to the higher court in Jerusalem were presented to the professional judges and priests (Deut. 17:8-9; 19:17). The precise function of the priestly judge is not clear. His primary role was to make decisions in the “matters of the Lord” (2 Chron. 19:11). The priestly judge made decisions in both civil and religious matters, but his expertise was used especially in those cases in which the interpretation of a religious law was involved (Ezek. 44:23-24).

For the most part, the office of judge in ancient Israel enjoyed a rich heritage. While Israel at times had judges whose practices were corrupt, the ideal for the office and the person who filled it was still remembered. The primary role of the judge in ancient Israel was not to inflict harsh judgments: rather the judge was one who settled disputes and defended the rights of all, especially groups like the widows and the orphans. His chief concern was not to punish, but to arbitrate, to defend, and to reconcile.

The judge in ancient Israel and his function in society provided a beautiful model for Israel’s understanding of God. God was the judge of the world, and he judged with righteousness and equity (Ps. 9:7-8). But more than a judge who simply handed out harsh sentences, he was a God who sought to vindicate and to defend his people. And as an expression of faith the worshiper could pray with confidence, “Vindicate [judge] me, O God, and defend my cause” (Ps. 43:1, RSV). Centuries later, Paul, through his encounter with the resurrected Christ, saw a new dimension in the judgeship of God and summarized it in the confession, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). Bi

1. From the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copy righted 1946, © l1971, 1973. Subsequent quotations are marked RSV.

2. George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), see Preface, xi.

5. Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Exodus,” The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), vol. 1, p. 388.

6. This quotation is from the Good News Bible, the Bible in Today’s English Version. Old Testament: Copyright © American Bible Society 1976; New Testament: Copyright © American Bible Society 1966, 1971, 1976. Used by permission.

7. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1965), vol. 1, p. 154.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Summer 1981.

BIBLE CHARACTER TRIVIA

Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s Trivia Question Found? What king made a great feast to the nobles and princes of the 127 provinces of his empire? Answer next week!

The answer to last week’s trivia question: To whom was it said, “your brothers will praise you”? Answer! Judah; Gen. 49:8.

Study Theme: Going Right in a Culture Gone Wrong				What This Lesson Is About:
Week of:		Lesson Title:		We have an obligation to meet the needs of people our culture would prefer to ignore.
	Jan 1	Thriving in a Fast-Food Culture
	Jan 8	Seeking Purity in a Sensual Culture
	Jan 15	Caring in an Expendable Culture
	Jan 22	Loving in a Divided Culture
X	*Jan 29*	*Giving in a Greedy Culture*

BACKGROUND PASSAGE:			Deuteronomy 15:7-11; 24:10-22
FOCAL PASSAGE:			Deuteronomy 15:7-11; 24:10-15,17-18
LIFE IMPACT:			This lesson can help you get more personally involved in helping people in need around you.
LESSON OUTLINE:			I. Share Generously (Deut. 15:7-11) II. Treat with Dignity (Deut. 24:10-15) III. Protect with Mercy (Deut. 24:17-18)
OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND PASSAGE: Deuteronomy 15:7-11; 24:10-22
The Distinctive Concern for the Poor and Oppressed (Deuteronomy 15:1-18) Israel also acknowledged God as its sole Lord by its distinctive concern for the poor and the oppressed. Every seventh year was a year of release in which poor Israelites were freed of all financial encumbrances that had befallen them as a result of their indenturing themselves to their fellow countrymen (15:1-18). SOURCE: Holman Bible Handbook; General Editor David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee Fairness Principle (Deuteronomy 24:8-18) Fairness is the essence of the ninth commandment, “You shall not bear false witness.” Nine cases requiring fairness are considered. 1. A person with a leprous skin disease should not be allowed to jeopardize the well-being of the community. The sanitation laws were to be strictly followed as they had been in the case of Miriam (24:8-9). 2. A lender was not to enter the home of a borrower to secure the collateral. This law protected the privacy of the borrower’s home and left up to him the choice of collateral. The creditor was also protected from covetousness (24:10-11). 3. The collateral of a poor man—most likely his cloak—was to be returned at sunset so that he would have something to protect him from the chill of night. This was regarded as a righteous act in the sight of God (24:12-13). 4. A hired man was to be paid daily. Should wages be withheld from such a one, the employer would be guilty of sin (24:14-15). 5. They must guard against overzealousness in punishing crime. Only the guilty was to be punished, not any other member of his family (24:16). 6. Foreigners were to be accorded justice. No collateral should be extracted from a widow which would cause her duress (24:17-18). 7. When harvesting crops—grain, olives, grapes—a farmer was not to be greedy and go through the process a second time. What was left in the field, the tree or the vine was to be for the poor who had the right to the “second” harvest (24:19-22). SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Pentateuch; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.
INTRODUCTION:
For so many of us, it is easy to get caught up in consumerism, focusing on all we have and comparing ourselves to those who have even more. That materialistic focus can keep us from seeing the greater need of those with little who are around us? You may have heard of this illustration. If the world was a village of 100 people, only one person would have a computer or a college education. Eighteen of those people would not be able to read or write. Twenty-five people in the village would not have a home or adequate food. Seventeen villagers would not have clean water. We can probably understand this on a worldwide scale, but there are people in our own communities who also have great needs. This week’s study will challenge us to open our eyes and respond to the needs we see around us with generosity, dignity, and mercy. SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

III.	Protect with Mercy (Deut. 24:17-18)
¹⁷ Do not deny justice to a foreigner or fatherless child, and do not take a widow’s garment as security. ¹⁸ Remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. Therefore I am commanding you to do this.

I. Share Generously (Deut. 15:7-11) Commentary

II. Treat with Dignity (Deut. 24:10-15) Commentary

III. Protect with Mercy (Deut. 24:17-18) Commentary

DIGGING DEEPER: