|
Post by elizabeth on Dec 17, 2015 21:10:36 GMT
I am just curious about this portion of scripture:
Deu 17:16 "Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' Deu 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
I understand why a man is not to multiply wives, but I find it interesting that he is not to multiply horses for himself, regardless of whether he is going to Egypt to get them or not. Then there's the silver and gold that God is telling them they shall not greatly increase for themselves. I find these statements very interesting, I guess it's the first time I took notice of them in all the times I have read the Bible. I wonder what the Jewish Commentary books have to say about this portion of scripture.
Does anyone have any thought on this?
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Dec 18, 2015 6:00:34 GMT
That's a great question, Liz. Maybe it has something to do with anything that will take their eyes off the Lord and them being focused on material wealth?
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Dec 18, 2015 6:05:57 GMT
That has to be true, Shiloh, and the bit about the love of money being the root of all evil. But it's the bit about the horses that really still puzzles me. Back in those days, wouldn't they have needed a constant supply of horses to fight in their wars? Maybe I don't know enough about how they fought their wars, I just assumed a fair bit of it was on horseback. Plus, you would think horses would be invaluable animals for them to have for labour and transportation.
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Dec 18, 2015 6:35:06 GMT
Yeah. There's a lot of Arabian horses that are very valuable. Maybe they had slow wars from riding on camels..."We'll be there to fight you and kill you in about 3 months."
|
|
|
Post by Gr8tful on Dec 19, 2015 3:24:26 GMT
Very good question Elizabeth! I thought like Shiloh. But not having lots of horses, maybe that too would make them considered 'wealthy'? I'm sure they had what they needed but were not to have no more than needed? hmmmm...He obviously did not want them to go back to Egypt for any reason, so maybe that was why. No going back for horses, wives, money which would require trade or selling w/them. Good catch!
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Dec 22, 2015 11:17:03 GMT
I think the point here is that Israel didn't natively have horses at all. In fact, they don't appear in the archaeological record until quite late in Israel's history - so the implication here is that if the King were to have horses, he would HAVE to get them from Egypt (or elsewhere).
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Dec 22, 2015 17:03:06 GMT
Good point. But, then why were they mentioned in Deu 17:16 "Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'
Was that in reference to a future prophecy?
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Dec 23, 2015 10:56:47 GMT
I don't think so, I think the reference is essentially talking about the fact that the Lord brought them out of slavery in Egypt, and they were not to return there, no matter how attractive the reasons might have seemed.
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Dec 23, 2015 18:51:10 GMT
So, in a sense this has to do with idolatry, right?
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Dec 23, 2015 22:56:26 GMT
Gee, that's real interesting. Thanks for your contributions everyone. It's amazing how they can tell when specific animals appeared in a land. The horses they already had in Israel would have bred though, so they would have multiplied there in Israel, would they not have? I do get your point though Benjamin, and I think that is probably the point of the scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Dec 24, 2015 20:24:57 GMT
Gee, that's real interesting. Thanks for your contributions everyone. It's amazing how they can tell when specific animals appeared in a land. The horses they already had in Israel would have bred though, so they would have multiplied there in Israel, would they not have? I do get your point though Benjamin, and I think that is probably the point of the scripture. Yes - and this comes back to Shiloh's point. it is indeed about idolatry; about the fact that the King was not to surround Himself with anything other than God. The Egypt factor in this verse just complicates that a little. The idea is that Israel's reliance is to be upon God and not anything else; where historically when things didn't go well they often went to Egypt.
|
|