Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Megatron]

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evilafrom your midst."

Notice it says that these false prophets WOULD EVEN PERFORM MIRACLES and that it would be a test.

He says the only way to know if they aren't false is if they preach to keep the law and to follow yahweh.

Doesn't this condemn Jesus and the boys?

[jimwalton]

Deuteronomy 13 doesn't even get close to condemning Jesus. The entire contextual thrust of Deut. 13 is a warning not to follow other gods, and if someone tries to lead you astray, even if they can do fantastic things, doesn't mean you should follow them. Stick to the truth, and follow the true God. Jesus endorsed that one should love God (Dt. 13.3; Matt. 22.37), and that one should follow God (Dt. 13.4; Matt. 4.10) and serve him only. Jesus preached the law and followed it (Mt. 5.17; 19.17-19; 22.37-40). It is true that Jesus asked people to follow him, but he also said that he and YHWH were one and the same (Jn. 10.30 and others).

If you take all of what the Bible says about false prophets, we end up with these tests:

1. If the prophet is idolatrous: Dt. 13.1-3; 18.10-11, 20-22.

2. If his prophecy doesn’t come true: Dt. 18.20-22

3. If he follows astrology: Ex. 22.18; Lev. 19.26, 31; 20.6; Jer. 27.9; Ezk. 13.7, 18

4. If he follows deceiving spirits: 1 Tim. 4.1-3

5. If he preaches a wrong gospel, anything other than the gospel of Christ: Gal. 1.8

6. If he does not acknowledge Jesus: 1 Jn. 4.1-3

You haven't been clear enough in your question. Why does Deut. 13 condemn Jesus?

[Megatron]

It condemns Jesus and the boys because he does what it says not to do. Follow a trinity god and throw out the law of Moses. The trinity god is another god because it is a different god than the one the ancient Hebrews knew.

[jimwalton]

Oh, THAT'S your point. That wasn't clear at all. I'll readily admit that the ancient Hebrews didn't understand the trinity very well, but there are certainly places in the Tanakh, or the Old Testament, where the trinity is hinted at, so much so that we can recognize that following a trinity God doesn't throw out the law of Moses.

Ps. 110.1: A declaration of David concerning the Messiah. David is clearly not speaking of himself.

Gn. 1.2: God is identified as Elohim and as a "separate" Spirit.

In Ex. 3.13-14, God identifies himself as "I AM" three times. So also in Dt. 6.4 he identifies as "Lord" three times. See also Isa. 6.3.

There's also Psalm 2, widely recognized as a messianic psalm, mentions Father and Son.

It's interesting that the plural of man and woman in Gn. 1.26 reflect the nature of the one God.

Proverbs 30.4 is intriguing in that it mentions God and his son.

Maybe the ancients have more of an idea of the trinity than we give them credit for. 1 Peter 1.10-12 hints that they had a foggy notion about Christ, but didn't understand it well and wanted to. Maybe the hints of trinity in the Tanakh are clues without the map to make sense of it all. They could only see through the keyhole and didn't understand what they were looking at.

It's difficult for you to be certain about what they knew and didn't know.

[TrakeM]

I thought that a big part of Jesus was that the laws of moses (and the old testament in general) were not valid anymore. It seems to me that the passage here is saying don't follow someone who tells you that you don't need to follow the laws of the old testament. Surely we shouldn't be following the laws of the old testament, right? This is one of the problems that I have with the bible. I want to keep on one topic and we're talking about deuteronomy chapter 13 so I'm going to focus on that for right now (though I have problems with the rest of the old testament and new testament).

Deuteronomy chapter 13 continues on with verses 6-11 which state as follows:
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

This is the basic founding principle of ISIS. If someone says that they don't believe in the one true god and tries to talk you out of what you believe, you should murder them because they are trying to lead you and others away from the truth and toward hell. This is the core principle that ISIS uses to justify what they do. This is the core principle of every madman with an AK. I have spoken with a number of people about this passage, but so far everyone I have talked to have given answers that either don't make a lot of sense to me or just make it worse. How is this not an evil commandment? You can say that the commandment is no longer in effect (and in doing so saying that we shouldn't follow the law of moses which seems to be something that the bible says we shouldn't listen to profits who don't affirm the law of moses), but even if we declare that true, you still have god making a commandment at one point in time that was clearly not moral and clearly could never have been commanded by anything other than a monster beyond monsters.

[jimwalton]

Excellent questions and comments. Glad to talk.

In slight disagreement, I wouldn't say that a "big part" of Jesus was that the laws of Moses (and the OT in general) weren't valid anymore. First, Jesus more said that they were still valid, but now fulfilled. Jesus didn't come to throw out the Mosaic law, but to fulfill it. Jesus keeps the Law. At root the law was all about showing people how to live in relationship with God. The Mosaic law in itself was a temporary measure—showing us what God is like and how we can have a love relationship with him. When Jesus came, he did exactly that: showed us what God is like and how we can have a love relationship with him. So he fulfilled the Law. According to John, he showed us the glory of God, as well as godly attitudes and actions. Moses brought a revelation from God; Jesus was the revelation of God. But even though Jesus was the complete revelation of the person of God, he wasn't dissolving the Law. It's more accurate to say the law of Christ was superimposed over the Mosaic Law.

The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not one part of it. He “fulfilled” it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we’ll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don’t do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’ example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

Second, all those places where the Gospels are showing that Jesus was breaking "the rules,"—He wasn't disobeying the Law of Moses, but just the mountains of petty rules that religious people had added to them. Jesus was letting us know that the Last of Moses was still valid, but all of the add-ons were not the word of God and didn't need to be followed.

So now let's talk about ISIS. There is a major difference between ancient Israel (in the context of Dt. 13.6-11) and ISIS. The Deuteronomy text is talking about the people who supposedly know God, who supposedly follow God, and who supposedly teach the truth. If those people are instead misleading people, deceiving people, and in effect turning people away from God, this is a serious matter with eternal consequences. It's not just a matter of believing in something false, but in people spending time in hell that's the consequence. Let me put it this way: Suppose you had a daughter who was of marrying age, and you found out the man who was dating her was a liar and deceiviant (nice made-up word, eh?), and that he planned to pimp her out as a sex slave, get her addicted to drugs, and kill her when he was done with her, what would you do? You would do everything possible, and even try impossible things, to get her away from him. But supposing this man had a truckload of girls, with no intention of stopping? This man should be arrested, tried, and executed, in my opinion. Well, this is what the Bible is saying about the danger of people who deceive others with lies so that they end up in hell. This is to be stopped at all possible costs.

ISIS, on the other hand, is executing people who aren't Muslim. In addition, the stated goal of ISIS is political domination: "We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, but he permission of Allah, the Exalted. ... [We] will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market." They are dedicated to political conquest and human trafficking. In contrast to the OT, trying to preserve morality and truth, ISIS is engaged in crimes against humanity. They are seeking Paradise through murder, mayhem, and chaos—it's a completely different scenario than anything in the Bible.

Dr. Craig Evans writes that ISIS should not be thought of as a terrorist group in the classical sense, but a formidable military force with political goals, not goals of religious purity. That's why many Muslims reject them. Others, however, are attracted to the possibilities of power. It is primarily a military actor, which has been devised and engineered to conquer territory and control populations. It's nothing like Deuteronomy.

I'll be glad to read your response.

[TrakeM]

I don't see in deuteronomy chapter 13 6-11 anything about someone being a pimp or slaver or murderer. Deuteronomy chapter 13 1-5 is referring to false prophets. Deuteronomy chapter 13 6-11 is talking about what to do if your own son or your own daughter etc suggest worshipping other gods. It's not saying if your own son or daughter etc tries to sell people into slavery, the "crime" here is suggesting worshipping other gods.

If there was a jesus and he affirmed, fulfilled or even vaguely considered this commandment to be anything other than an absolute moral abomination, should he be followed?

[jimwalton]

> pimp or slaver or murderer

You're right. Those were an analogy I made suggesting some of the worst things our society might recognize as terribly immoral things. Maybe I could try to say it this way, since we are talking about Christianity: God really exists. He created us to have a loving relationship with Him, and that's what gives meaning to life. Knowing God in a loving relationship is what the Bible says life is all about. Since God is life, being in relationship with God is how to have life. The Bible talks about it as abundant life now and eternal life forever. For someone who chooses not to be in relationship with God, they are choosing to separate themselves from life, and therefore they are choosing death, the eternal death the Bible calls hell: separation from God.

Now, if this is all true (the affirmation of which is what Christianity is all about), then missing the life that God offers is the worst fate facing any individual. Any disease, pain, or deprivation pales in comparison to missing a relationship with God. This is what Deuteronomy is talking about when it speaks of false prophets. If you are leading someone away from God and away from this life, you are the worst character EVER. You are not only condemning yourself, but someone else and maybe many others. This person is a monster. God warns in the strongest possible terms not to follow such a person, and any such person needs to be executed for the harm they can bring to others, just like a murderer, rapist, or pimp.

There was a Jesus (it's about as certain as any historical person), and he was in agreement with God on this one: Real life (union with God) is the ultimate goal, and in one sense the only goal worth achieving. For someone to interfere with another achieving this real and eternal life is truly a moral abomination.

My guess is that you're thinking (and it is just a guess) that religious stuff is just opinion anyway, so to kill someone over it is loathsome. That would only be the case if God doesn't really exist and eternity isn't hanging in the balance. But since Christianity has many evidences to it, and since therefore faith can be shown to be more likely true than not, and since theism has more in its favor than atheism (as far as rational argument), the case is strong that religious stuff isn't just opinion, and teachings like this matter. But I'm just guessing on what you may be thinking. Obviously, if you agreed with me you would be a Christian already. So we can keep talking, as you wish.

[TrakeM]

I'm honestly trying to think of some way to interpret what you are saying that doesn't include the idea that murdering someone for publicly promoting atheism or some non-christian religion is good or at the very least was good at some time and place. Am I interpreting your words correctly? I'm honestly not trying to misinterpret you to make you look like a monster, but I'm not sure how else to interpret what you're saying.

[jimwalton]

Let me try it this way (what I wrote elsewhere in response to another conversation you and I have going): There is no command in the Bible to kill all atheists and agnostics, or all idolaters or everyone from another religion. There's nothing in the Bible even close to saying or implying that. For instance, the Israelites were not commanded to slaughter all the Egyptians, who didn't recognize YHWH, before they left Egypt. Abraham was not commanded to slaughter all the Canaanites in the land when he was there. Even Joshua was not commanded to slaughter all the Canaanites during the Conquest. The first part of that plan was to ask the city to surrender and to be incorporated into Israel. The second part of the plan was to drive them from the land, not kill them. So there is no teaching that murdering people who argue YHWH doesn't exist is OK.

People have a right to publicly promote atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or anything else. There is no command or suggesting in the Bible to kill all infidels.