vs 1
And of course shows a lack of respect for and perhaps even faith in God. As it says elsewhere, you would not offer a blemished animal to the governor, so why to God?
vs 2
Why do I get the feeling a stoning is coming?
vs 3
Worshipping other gods, this isn't sounding good.
vs 4
This is an interesting addition to what is a very repeated law. Investigations must be thorough. You can't fly off the handle on this one. People can lie, or misinterpret words or actions. Justice is partly about knowing what happened, before punishing it.
vs 5
And there's the stoning.
vs 6
We find out later in history that paying two or three witnesses to sit next to someone and then swear that he blasphemed God, so that he can be killed and his vineyard stolen by a king, is totally possible. But at least it's more difficult than "he said, she said".
vs 7
This is another interesting caveat - if you are going to speak up about someone doing something worthy of a death sentence, be prepared to have that person's blood on your hands in a very real and tangible way.
vs 8
I'm guessing this is mostly written to the judges who are to be put in place, as was written last chapter. But not everyone got judges to settle their differences - perhaps they could go straight to the place of the Lord instead of to their judge? It seems odd for there not to be a heirarchy, I know. I'm just saying it doesn't specifically say so here.
vs 9
Ahhhh... so there is a judge involved. But who is it? Is it the judge of the Levites? Or is it the judge judge, as in the big judges that we read about in Judges? I'm guessing the latter. Although, if it turns out that all the judges in Judges are Levites then there's no problem.
vs 10
There is no higher power to appeal to than this judge of judgeness.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 16
Is this what it has come to? I get up so early that I only have time to post here on weekends. Sigh. Prac is a drain.
vs 12
I wonder if constantly remembering the slavery of Egypt could have had the effect of making Israel think they will never be slaves again, Scarlet O'Hara style? If it did, they were going to be disappointed.
vs 13
Another feast! It comes after harvest.
vs 14
Well, it is a festival - no point being morose. But notice that everyone is involved. So you can't go off and party and leave your slave to keep working. Everyone gets the time to celebrate.
vs 15
This festival is to be a joyful reminder that all the stuff they have harvested, and are celebrating with, has come from God in accordance with his promise. So yay to God!
vs 16
Three regular pilgrimages to the chosen place. Each one is a feast, so you've got to make sure you can take something.
vs 17
It is interesting that God is a percentage God, a proportional God - fairness across the board. No flat taxes for God.
vs 18
This is pretty much perpetuating the judges Moses put over them in the first place. when he decided he couldn't do it all.
vs 19
We read this and say, "Well, that's stating the obvious." But bribes are so common outside the western world, that they stop seeming wrong. They aren't looked on as bribes - they are looked on as gifts, or tips, or supplementary payments. It all depends on culture. So this statement would be more powerful in such a culture.
vs 20
Justice should be its own reward for a judge. Besides, anyone who gets posted as a judge is probably going to be in a fairly good financial position anyway.
vs 21-22
Again, we would think this is obvious. But everything has to be said a first time (and I know this probably isn't the first time it is said, but things get repeated for memory's sake so much in this culture that you can probably still count it as a first time. It's in the first set, if you like).
vs 12
I wonder if constantly remembering the slavery of Egypt could have had the effect of making Israel think they will never be slaves again, Scarlet O'Hara style? If it did, they were going to be disappointed.
vs 13
Another feast! It comes after harvest.
vs 14
Well, it is a festival - no point being morose. But notice that everyone is involved. So you can't go off and party and leave your slave to keep working. Everyone gets the time to celebrate.
vs 15
This festival is to be a joyful reminder that all the stuff they have harvested, and are celebrating with, has come from God in accordance with his promise. So yay to God!
vs 16
Three regular pilgrimages to the chosen place. Each one is a feast, so you've got to make sure you can take something.
vs 17
It is interesting that God is a percentage God, a proportional God - fairness across the board. No flat taxes for God.
vs 18
This is pretty much perpetuating the judges Moses put over them in the first place. when he decided he couldn't do it all.
vs 19
We read this and say, "Well, that's stating the obvious." But bribes are so common outside the western world, that they stop seeming wrong. They aren't looked on as bribes - they are looked on as gifts, or tips, or supplementary payments. It all depends on culture. So this statement would be more powerful in such a culture.
vs 20
Justice should be its own reward for a judge. Besides, anyone who gets posted as a judge is probably going to be in a fairly good financial position anyway.
vs 21-22
Again, we would think this is obvious. But everything has to be said a first time (and I know this probably isn't the first time it is said, but things get repeated for memory's sake so much in this culture that you can probably still count it as a first time. It's in the first set, if you like).
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 16
Honestly, I have not worked out when I am going to find time to do this over the next three weeks... I've only been at school one day, and it was so draining. And I have to get up so early...
vs 1
Go the TNIV for having the guts to retransliterate. They still don't change names though.
Passover is an important time - it marks the final release of Israel from Egypt, and shows their special markedness.
vs 2
Ok, this sentence is woefully put together - regardless of translation. I mean, I'm sure it's understandable, but you have to read it a few times. Perhaps I was just out too late last night.
vs 3
They remember themselves being captives... but of course they can only remember that for one generation, perhaps two. After that, they are putting themselves back into that situation mentally. And in case they can't be bothered doing a mental reconstruction, they are helped by not being allowed to use yeast.
vs 4
The same rules that applied on the passover night.
vs 5
Interestingly a verse all on its own... you would hope that the verse has a caveat, or else it might be quite a difficult feast.
vs 6
So you must travel to celebrate passover, like some of the other feasts. Its day is a specific anniversary of what it celebrates, since it is celebrating a historical event.
vs 7
Because you also have to live in a tent while you eat the passover, is that right? I mean, surely once they're in the promised land they won't have to live in tents.
vs 8
I've written a whole lot on the do-no-work thing, so I won't repeat myself.
vs 9
I love these arbitrary dates for festivals. It's like Groundhog Day. Well, actually I believe that Groundhog day is a specific day, but you know what I mean.
vs 10
Free will doesn't mean you can't give it, I don't think. Instead it means 'give something extra'. This is part of the law, after all.
vs 11
Weeks is a fun celebration anyway - it's all about joyful fun and happiness at the good blessings of God. Why not chip in some stuff and join the party? Everyone's invited, after all.
vs 1
Go the TNIV for having the guts to retransliterate. They still don't change names though.
Passover is an important time - it marks the final release of Israel from Egypt, and shows their special markedness.
vs 2
Ok, this sentence is woefully put together - regardless of translation. I mean, I'm sure it's understandable, but you have to read it a few times. Perhaps I was just out too late last night.
vs 3
They remember themselves being captives... but of course they can only remember that for one generation, perhaps two. After that, they are putting themselves back into that situation mentally. And in case they can't be bothered doing a mental reconstruction, they are helped by not being allowed to use yeast.
vs 4
The same rules that applied on the passover night.
vs 5
Interestingly a verse all on its own... you would hope that the verse has a caveat, or else it might be quite a difficult feast.
vs 6
So you must travel to celebrate passover, like some of the other feasts. Its day is a specific anniversary of what it celebrates, since it is celebrating a historical event.
vs 7
Because you also have to live in a tent while you eat the passover, is that right? I mean, surely once they're in the promised land they won't have to live in tents.
vs 8
I've written a whole lot on the do-no-work thing, so I won't repeat myself.
vs 9
I love these arbitrary dates for festivals. It's like Groundhog Day. Well, actually I believe that Groundhog day is a specific day, but you know what I mean.
vs 10
Free will doesn't mean you can't give it, I don't think. Instead it means 'give something extra'. This is part of the law, after all.
vs 11
Weeks is a fun celebration anyway - it's all about joyful fun and happiness at the good blessings of God. Why not chip in some stuff and join the party? Everyone's invited, after all.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 15
vs 12
So no-one should be forced to live in slavery more than 7 years, no matter what their situation. It is interesting that this goes for women too. Quite equal for 1500BC.
vs 13
As you would normally for a slave - I mean, it's not like you owe them anything beyond what you have provided them already.
vs 14
Basically, you're being asked to set them up with a little start-up fund. Flocks are wealth. Giving someone a goat is a big deal. It's like handing them a dot com startup.
vs 15
Remembering their past, what God saved them from, is very important. And that memory is not just meant to be something that is thought about fondly, or abstractly. It's supposed to change how they might otherwise live. This principle could possibly have been of some use to the new Israel post-WWII...
vs 16
Like I said, no-one is forced to be a slave. The simple fact that this verse is here should show that slavery was not always a terrible thing. Some people found fulfilment and satisfaction in their work with a family.
vs 17
It's not a punishment. It's just a marking. Piercings were originally used to mark slaves. Which is why it's so funny that they're used now as non-conformist bling.
vs 18
Because obviously Jews work harder... No, it's probably true that a slave is worth twice what a hired hand is. After all, you can get them to do pretty much anything.
vs 19
Basically, you are raising white elephants. They are useless to you - well, more to the point, you're not allowed to use them. Because they are not yours. Since they are God's, they must be kept pure.
vs 20
So these are the animals to be eaten at the feasts celebrated in their certain spot. Even just having them there, sitting around acting all special, is a reminder of God's specialness.
vs 21
So firstborn is not cancelled by defective.
vs 22
You can still eat things with flaws. Here again is this idea of eating ceremonially unclean animals. Perhaps this is what the term is referring to - animals that are edible but which are defective and hence can't be sacrificed? Possible. I mean, you do end up eating the sacrificed animals too.
vs 23
The typical Jewish thing, repeated once more.
So no-one should be forced to live in slavery more than 7 years, no matter what their situation. It is interesting that this goes for women too. Quite equal for 1500BC.
vs 13
As you would normally for a slave - I mean, it's not like you owe them anything beyond what you have provided them already.
vs 14
Basically, you're being asked to set them up with a little start-up fund. Flocks are wealth. Giving someone a goat is a big deal. It's like handing them a dot com startup.
vs 15
Remembering their past, what God saved them from, is very important. And that memory is not just meant to be something that is thought about fondly, or abstractly. It's supposed to change how they might otherwise live. This principle could possibly have been of some use to the new Israel post-WWII...
vs 16
Like I said, no-one is forced to be a slave. The simple fact that this verse is here should show that slavery was not always a terrible thing. Some people found fulfilment and satisfaction in their work with a family.
vs 17
It's not a punishment. It's just a marking. Piercings were originally used to mark slaves. Which is why it's so funny that they're used now as non-conformist bling.
vs 18
Because obviously Jews work harder... No, it's probably true that a slave is worth twice what a hired hand is. After all, you can get them to do pretty much anything.
vs 19
Basically, you are raising white elephants. They are useless to you - well, more to the point, you're not allowed to use them. Because they are not yours. Since they are God's, they must be kept pure.
vs 20
So these are the animals to be eaten at the feasts celebrated in their certain spot. Even just having them there, sitting around acting all special, is a reminder of God's specialness.
vs 21
So firstborn is not cancelled by defective.
vs 22
You can still eat things with flaws. Here again is this idea of eating ceremonially unclean animals. Perhaps this is what the term is referring to - animals that are edible but which are defective and hence can't be sacrificed? Possible. I mean, you do end up eating the sacrificed animals too.
vs 23
The typical Jewish thing, repeated once more.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 15
vs 1
This of course assumes that there will be debts. Can you imagine how this would never work in our society! This is one of the problems with a deregulated housing market, I guess - when houses become worth hundreds of times more than the cost of their materials and the labour to build them, suddenly you need to repay your mortgage over 35 years - five times longer than the 7 years of debt cancellation.
vs 2
No other reason! God has proclaimed it, now do it!
vs 3
This highlights the fact that, even if you are a foreigner who lives by the laws of God, you still won't get your debts cancelled. So foreigners are not treated equally under the law.
vs 4
In other words, there shouldn't be much need for debts in the first place, and certainly no reason why cancelling someone's debt should put you in difficultly. The placement of this verse might even mean that even foreigners, who have to keep paying their debts, should still do well!
vs 5
And of course God's commands can be obeyed by both foreigners and Israelites alike.
vs 6
I would say that anyone who decided to apply this verse as meaning that the Jews should be allowed to lend money should have also realised how limited the promise was, and how many nations have ruled over Israel.
vs 7
Well done to the translators here - hard hearted and tight fisted is an excellent translation.
vs 8
Now this is interesting - God's laws have a kind of charity that is really a loan - which of course can be considered charity because the loan will get cancelled after seven years. But surely, looking at it this way gives it a different perspective. I wonder whether encouraging loans to people instead of handouts (such as the microloans that a lot of Christian agencies are doing now to help poor people start their own business).
vs 9
So the closer to the seventh year, the closer it is to charity. It's interesting that the law doesn't set a rate of interest - I assume that interest is set at some appropriate rate, although I doubt that it was either controlled by markets or by a central bank.
vs 10
I guess this is the thing about a shame culture - if someone does lend you money right after the seven year cancellation, you're going to do your damnest to pay it back, because if you don't it's a shame towards your family's name. Even if you get lent money the day before, you'd probably want to pay it back.
vs 11
The poor will always be with you, as Jesus said. This is not a reason for callousness, but for constant openhandedness.
And don't think that there will only be inequality this side of heaven - there are rewards there too! So inequality is a functional eternal principle, it seems. You shouldn't be surprised - we're always unequal to God.
This of course assumes that there will be debts. Can you imagine how this would never work in our society! This is one of the problems with a deregulated housing market, I guess - when houses become worth hundreds of times more than the cost of their materials and the labour to build them, suddenly you need to repay your mortgage over 35 years - five times longer than the 7 years of debt cancellation.
vs 2
No other reason! God has proclaimed it, now do it!
vs 3
This highlights the fact that, even if you are a foreigner who lives by the laws of God, you still won't get your debts cancelled. So foreigners are not treated equally under the law.
vs 4
In other words, there shouldn't be much need for debts in the first place, and certainly no reason why cancelling someone's debt should put you in difficultly. The placement of this verse might even mean that even foreigners, who have to keep paying their debts, should still do well!
vs 5
And of course God's commands can be obeyed by both foreigners and Israelites alike.
vs 6
I would say that anyone who decided to apply this verse as meaning that the Jews should be allowed to lend money should have also realised how limited the promise was, and how many nations have ruled over Israel.
vs 7
Well done to the translators here - hard hearted and tight fisted is an excellent translation.
vs 8
Now this is interesting - God's laws have a kind of charity that is really a loan - which of course can be considered charity because the loan will get cancelled after seven years. But surely, looking at it this way gives it a different perspective. I wonder whether encouraging loans to people instead of handouts (such as the microloans that a lot of Christian agencies are doing now to help poor people start their own business).
vs 9
So the closer to the seventh year, the closer it is to charity. It's interesting that the law doesn't set a rate of interest - I assume that interest is set at some appropriate rate, although I doubt that it was either controlled by markets or by a central bank.
vs 10
I guess this is the thing about a shame culture - if someone does lend you money right after the seven year cancellation, you're going to do your damnest to pay it back, because if you don't it's a shame towards your family's name. Even if you get lent money the day before, you'd probably want to pay it back.
vs 11
The poor will always be with you, as Jesus said. This is not a reason for callousness, but for constant openhandedness.
And don't think that there will only be inequality this side of heaven - there are rewards there too! So inequality is a functional eternal principle, it seems. You shouldn't be surprised - we're always unequal to God.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 14
vs 11-20
More unclean animals. I could never eat an owl.
Now here's an interesting question - you're not allowed to eat swarming flying insects. But John the Baptist eats locusts and honey. I have heard before that there is a kind of fruit called a locust. But how it translates through Greek is beyond me.
vs 21
I love that God, the ever-pragmatic, allows you to sell the meat to passers-by. And you wonder why the Jews got the reputation for being money hungry... well, it was more likely usury.
When you think about this, it is actually quite harsh. One of your sheep gets killed by a wolf, you can't eat it now. A chook dies of fright, you can't do anything with it.
This goat in mother's milk thing comes up so often, and is often used as the classic "law we follow because we would never do it". But I've always wondered - does it mean a kid who is still nursing, or does it literally mean boiling it in milk? Either way, there are so many people who have tried to make dietary and moral - MORAL! - arguments for why this law is put in place. I mean, moral? You eat meat that comes from an abbatoir! The mind boggles, it really does.
vs 22
Now we get to the whole thing about tithes. I don't even know where to start with this. Is tithing specifically mentioned anywhere in the NT? Little that I've read suggests it is. People look at tithing so legalistically - do I tithe before or after tax? May well I should ask whether I tithe 10% of the chillis off my chilli plant!
But for Israel, it was a command. This one particularly covers fields.
vs 23
And now it also covers firstborn of herds and flocks. Notice that the tithes are for eating. So they aren't really supporting anyone (sure, some priests might get some, but you eat some too - so how much of the 10% do they get?).
vs 24
Which for some people it would be. Not everyone can live next door to the place the Lord chooses.
vs 25
It's easier to move around that way. Note that you still have to make the trip though.
vs 26
So you spend your tithe to buy stuff that you and your household ends up boozing away in front of the altar! Where's the sanctimony in that?
vs 27
Ok, so some of it goes to the Levites. Although how much is in question - it does not say. But then, that's only if you do as the (T)NIV and split verses 27 and 28. If you kept them together so that 27-29 was a paragraph, it would read a whole lot more like the share of the Levites is outlined below.
vs 28-29
Ahh, now we get a picture of how the Levites eat. They eat alongside the widows and orphans and foreigners. They eat the tithes of the people every three years. So for two years, you get to booze up your tithe. It's only on the third year that you give it to the Levites. Well, I think it can at least possibly be read that way.
So what does this mean for tithing - that we should really only give 3.3% of our gifts to supporting church workers? After all, that's the purpose behind the preaching of a tithe, isn't it? The rest we should spend in boozing up for God (or at least on feasts and celebrations and banquets)? Forgive me if I think those who are legalistic about tithing don't mention this.
More unclean animals. I could never eat an owl.
Now here's an interesting question - you're not allowed to eat swarming flying insects. But John the Baptist eats locusts and honey. I have heard before that there is a kind of fruit called a locust. But how it translates through Greek is beyond me.
vs 21
I love that God, the ever-pragmatic, allows you to sell the meat to passers-by. And you wonder why the Jews got the reputation for being money hungry... well, it was more likely usury.
When you think about this, it is actually quite harsh. One of your sheep gets killed by a wolf, you can't eat it now. A chook dies of fright, you can't do anything with it.
This goat in mother's milk thing comes up so often, and is often used as the classic "law we follow because we would never do it". But I've always wondered - does it mean a kid who is still nursing, or does it literally mean boiling it in milk? Either way, there are so many people who have tried to make dietary and moral - MORAL! - arguments for why this law is put in place. I mean, moral? You eat meat that comes from an abbatoir! The mind boggles, it really does.
vs 22
Now we get to the whole thing about tithes. I don't even know where to start with this. Is tithing specifically mentioned anywhere in the NT? Little that I've read suggests it is. People look at tithing so legalistically - do I tithe before or after tax? May well I should ask whether I tithe 10% of the chillis off my chilli plant!
But for Israel, it was a command. This one particularly covers fields.
vs 23
And now it also covers firstborn of herds and flocks. Notice that the tithes are for eating. So they aren't really supporting anyone (sure, some priests might get some, but you eat some too - so how much of the 10% do they get?).
vs 24
Which for some people it would be. Not everyone can live next door to the place the Lord chooses.
vs 25
It's easier to move around that way. Note that you still have to make the trip though.
vs 26
So you spend your tithe to buy stuff that you and your household ends up boozing away in front of the altar! Where's the sanctimony in that?
vs 27
Ok, so some of it goes to the Levites. Although how much is in question - it does not say. But then, that's only if you do as the (T)NIV and split verses 27 and 28. If you kept them together so that 27-29 was a paragraph, it would read a whole lot more like the share of the Levites is outlined below.
vs 28-29
Ahh, now we get a picture of how the Levites eat. They eat alongside the widows and orphans and foreigners. They eat the tithes of the people every three years. So for two years, you get to booze up your tithe. It's only on the third year that you give it to the Levites. Well, I think it can at least possibly be read that way.
So what does this mean for tithing - that we should really only give 3.3% of our gifts to supporting church workers? After all, that's the purpose behind the preaching of a tithe, isn't it? The rest we should spend in boozing up for God (or at least on feasts and celebrations and banquets)? Forgive me if I think those who are legalistic about tithing don't mention this.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 14
vs 1
Now we will be given a reason for God not wanting people to take part in this practice in the next verse. Just the thought of cutting myself for any reason fills me with feelings of wincing pain. Cutting my hair I could handle. But apparently it's a no go if you're doing it for dead people.
vs 2
Ok, so the reason given is pretty expected - you are a holy people of God. But why does God not have a process of remembering or doing things for the dead once they're dead? It doesn't really get a theological explanation. But it's another suggestion at the idea that the understanding of death is a final one, and that you won't be changing anything for dead people if you start cutting your hair or yourself for them. I don't exactly know what this represented in the other religions around, but that might give us some insight.
vs 3
You mean like...
vs 4-8
A list of animals you can't eat. I'm sure a dietician could tell me any number of reasons why we should eat one and not the other. I bet another dietician could tell me the opposite, and a third one would say that we should only eat tofu.
The point is that God tells them not to, so they don't. Here's my problem - Deut 12:15,22. How are these explained in the light of these verses here?
vs 9-10
More, different, kinds of animals to eat and not eat. I am not going to draw anything of theological significance from this. I refuse to.
Now we will be given a reason for God not wanting people to take part in this practice in the next verse. Just the thought of cutting myself for any reason fills me with feelings of wincing pain. Cutting my hair I could handle. But apparently it's a no go if you're doing it for dead people.
vs 2
Ok, so the reason given is pretty expected - you are a holy people of God. But why does God not have a process of remembering or doing things for the dead once they're dead? It doesn't really get a theological explanation. But it's another suggestion at the idea that the understanding of death is a final one, and that you won't be changing anything for dead people if you start cutting your hair or yourself for them. I don't exactly know what this represented in the other religions around, but that might give us some insight.
vs 3
You mean like...
vs 4-8
A list of animals you can't eat. I'm sure a dietician could tell me any number of reasons why we should eat one and not the other. I bet another dietician could tell me the opposite, and a third one would say that we should only eat tofu.
The point is that God tells them not to, so they don't. Here's my problem - Deut 12:15,22. How are these explained in the light of these verses here?
vs 9-10
More, different, kinds of animals to eat and not eat. I am not going to draw anything of theological significance from this. I refuse to.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 13
vs 10
Harsh. Now here is the thing that came up from Ben O's talk yesterday. Here's my note from the sermon "Jonah attacks the idea that postmodern, relativistic practices or attitudes and a pluralistic society are acceptable to God, or at least God is unable to challenge or change these attitudes."
Does this mean that God does not accept the pluralism of western democracy? Does this mean he intends for us to stone to death evangelists from other faiths if Christianity is in ascendency? I cannot help but think that this is inappropriate.
So what made it appropriate back in Moses' time? Because Judaism had the ascendency within Israel? Surely insufficient?
vs 11
Here is the answer. Well, one answer at least. First of all, the law covers those who are within Israel's citizenry. Secondly, it is a fear tactic - while we all know that fear enforcement doesn't work for everyone, it must be said that a majority of people will accept it.
The unspoken one here is that God is setting up not just a set of religious rules, but governing laws for a land. Which means that, while we may accept theological principles from the laws here, I cannot accept that God would expect us to put such laws into place were we to gain government now. No doubt, if he were to ordain a theocratic government, rather than allowing us to "rule ourselves" as it were, then he would provide us with laws.
vs 12
Who do they hear these rumours from? Travellers, I suppose.
vs 13
So now we're talking about a failsafe, about the next level. These people obviously have not stoned their brother to death when he has led them astray, and the thing has gone pear shaped and taken over a whole town.
vs 14
A whole town is a big deal. You can't just stone a whole town to death. Not on your own, certainly.
vs 15
See, this is not a stoning option. Stoning only works when you outnumber them. If there's going to be a whole town of people to kill, they aren't going to just lie down and take it. So that's when you need to get military, and strap swords on. The livestock, well, they're collateral damage.
vs 16
I can make up reasons why this is a good idea. For example, if you didn't ordain a complete burning, then towns might just attack each other to steal their goodies. But I think the reason God is giving is that they have become tainted, and that burning sends that message. So does leaving the town forever in ruins. It shows that God doesn't mess around with this. It's important, and dealt with with finality.
vs 17
The suggestion being that if you were to possibly hold onto that gold nugget because, hey, it's not like the gold nugget was even involved. Or that cow? I'm pretty sure it just wandered in here - it surely didn't belong to this town at the time... that sort of thinking is not appropriate. God is so angry with these people that his anger overflows into their possessions and their livestock. That's how angry rebellion makes him. But if the nasty job of "cleansing" such a town is done properly, he promises mercy and compassion and continue to bless Israel.
vs 18
I mean, this is not an easy law to fulfil. Killing your own family, or killing an entire town of your own people - it would be easy to just ignore it and hope that it goes away. Perhaps it's just a phase they're going through? Well, that might be the thinking that led a whole town to fall. Maybe we can talk them out of it? Well, that might be a possibility. But the reaction has to be fairly swift to remain appropriate, I guess. Especially with one person. I mean, when the group of guys with swords turns up outside the town, you can always say, "Ok, we give up!" I don't know what happens then. I don't know what happens when you tell your wife, "I'm sorry, we have to stone you to death because you're speaking blasphemy" and she says, "Oh, sorry. I repent." Does God only make martyrs, or does he kill people who have been bamboozled?
Harsh. Now here is the thing that came up from Ben O's talk yesterday. Here's my note from the sermon "Jonah attacks the idea that postmodern, relativistic practices or attitudes and a pluralistic society are acceptable to God, or at least God is unable to challenge or change these attitudes."
Does this mean that God does not accept the pluralism of western democracy? Does this mean he intends for us to stone to death evangelists from other faiths if Christianity is in ascendency? I cannot help but think that this is inappropriate.
So what made it appropriate back in Moses' time? Because Judaism had the ascendency within Israel? Surely insufficient?
vs 11
Here is the answer. Well, one answer at least. First of all, the law covers those who are within Israel's citizenry. Secondly, it is a fear tactic - while we all know that fear enforcement doesn't work for everyone, it must be said that a majority of people will accept it.
The unspoken one here is that God is setting up not just a set of religious rules, but governing laws for a land. Which means that, while we may accept theological principles from the laws here, I cannot accept that God would expect us to put such laws into place were we to gain government now. No doubt, if he were to ordain a theocratic government, rather than allowing us to "rule ourselves" as it were, then he would provide us with laws.
vs 12
Who do they hear these rumours from? Travellers, I suppose.
vs 13
So now we're talking about a failsafe, about the next level. These people obviously have not stoned their brother to death when he has led them astray, and the thing has gone pear shaped and taken over a whole town.
vs 14
A whole town is a big deal. You can't just stone a whole town to death. Not on your own, certainly.
vs 15
See, this is not a stoning option. Stoning only works when you outnumber them. If there's going to be a whole town of people to kill, they aren't going to just lie down and take it. So that's when you need to get military, and strap swords on. The livestock, well, they're collateral damage.
vs 16
I can make up reasons why this is a good idea. For example, if you didn't ordain a complete burning, then towns might just attack each other to steal their goodies. But I think the reason God is giving is that they have become tainted, and that burning sends that message. So does leaving the town forever in ruins. It shows that God doesn't mess around with this. It's important, and dealt with with finality.
vs 17
The suggestion being that if you were to possibly hold onto that gold nugget because, hey, it's not like the gold nugget was even involved. Or that cow? I'm pretty sure it just wandered in here - it surely didn't belong to this town at the time... that sort of thinking is not appropriate. God is so angry with these people that his anger overflows into their possessions and their livestock. That's how angry rebellion makes him. But if the nasty job of "cleansing" such a town is done properly, he promises mercy and compassion and continue to bless Israel.
vs 18
I mean, this is not an easy law to fulfil. Killing your own family, or killing an entire town of your own people - it would be easy to just ignore it and hope that it goes away. Perhaps it's just a phase they're going through? Well, that might be the thinking that led a whole town to fall. Maybe we can talk them out of it? Well, that might be a possibility. But the reaction has to be fairly swift to remain appropriate, I guess. Especially with one person. I mean, when the group of guys with swords turns up outside the town, you can always say, "Ok, we give up!" I don't know what happens then. I don't know what happens when you tell your wife, "I'm sorry, we have to stone you to death because you're speaking blasphemy" and she says, "Oh, sorry. I repent." Does God only make martyrs, or does he kill people who have been bamboozled?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 13
vs 1
Not something our modern laws really discuss, is it?
vs 2
But you can see the reason such laws need to be in place here. In modern times, this person would be known as someone causing civil disquiet. It is against the law to incite others to break the law.
This prophet in this legal example is doing more than that - they are inciting people to break God's law. So obviously that has to be dealt with.
vs 3
This is hardcore. People laugh about the "fossils are there to test the faithful" thing, but the principle is actually backed up here (I am not saying I think fossils are there to test the faithful). But God says that he will allow prophets not only to come and speak, but to actually have signs and wonders occur for them, so that it could seem that their words were genuine because they are marked by wonders and signs. This means that you actually have to listen to what they say, and judge it by what you know God says and who he is. This means knowing those things.
vs 4
That is, it is God you must follow, not the people who tell you about him. You must know God yourself, individually and corporately, but directly.
vs 5
The New Testament has a slightly different attitude. Churches do not have the ability to give death sentences. But God makes his opinion clear on people who attempt to lead others away from his revealed truth.
vs 6
These are the people closest to you. That you most admire, you most respect. That you love and are devoted to. Not just some guy who appeared from over the hill with signs and wonders.
vs 7
Quick clarification of what is meant by "other gods".
vs 8
Do not yield to them is obvious. But wait, don't shield them or show them pity? Why, what's going to happen to my son or daughter, my wife or husband, my brother, sister or best friend?
vs 9
If it's not clear from this law, then it's never going to be clear. God comes first. There is nothing, no-one, more important than God and your relationship with God. Your worship of God is more important that the lives of your whole family. Think about that.
Not something our modern laws really discuss, is it?
vs 2
But you can see the reason such laws need to be in place here. In modern times, this person would be known as someone causing civil disquiet. It is against the law to incite others to break the law.
This prophet in this legal example is doing more than that - they are inciting people to break God's law. So obviously that has to be dealt with.
vs 3
This is hardcore. People laugh about the "fossils are there to test the faithful" thing, but the principle is actually backed up here (I am not saying I think fossils are there to test the faithful). But God says that he will allow prophets not only to come and speak, but to actually have signs and wonders occur for them, so that it could seem that their words were genuine because they are marked by wonders and signs. This means that you actually have to listen to what they say, and judge it by what you know God says and who he is. This means knowing those things.
vs 4
That is, it is God you must follow, not the people who tell you about him. You must know God yourself, individually and corporately, but directly.
vs 5
The New Testament has a slightly different attitude. Churches do not have the ability to give death sentences. But God makes his opinion clear on people who attempt to lead others away from his revealed truth.
vs 6
These are the people closest to you. That you most admire, you most respect. That you love and are devoted to. Not just some guy who appeared from over the hill with signs and wonders.
vs 7
Quick clarification of what is meant by "other gods".
vs 8
Do not yield to them is obvious. But wait, don't shield them or show them pity? Why, what's going to happen to my son or daughter, my wife or husband, my brother, sister or best friend?
vs 9
If it's not clear from this law, then it's never going to be clear. God comes first. There is nothing, no-one, more important than God and your relationship with God. Your worship of God is more important that the lives of your whole family. Think about that.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 12
vs 23
More repetition. No blood.
vs 24
Discard it.
vs 25
This formulae of things going well for you marks this out as one of the laws Israel is to follow. It might also mark a break between sections, but I'm not sure about that.
vs 26
So now we're back to those people who can reach the place God chooses. Or are we? It could be that the relaxation above is only for the sake of eating meat. But they possibly were still expected to bring their grain offerings and other things.
vs 27
Blood is importantly sacrificed, but not consumed - you may eat the meat, but even in sacrifice the blood is not for God's people. It is kept separate, holy if you will.
vs 28
And there is the ritualistic sort of saying that goes with following a rule.
vs 29
Now again the focus goes to the nations who are being driven out, and what happens after that. God looks ahead - he tells Israel what he's going to do after the immediate problem is solved. That's what faith is meant to look like, I suppose - we should be looking forward to what happens next, and planning strategically, because we should have faith that God is going to work.
We might say that we don't know what's going to happen with the same clarity that Israel knew that God was going to drive people out before them, but they still were lacking in faith and ended up not being able to drive them out. Surely if we know the mind of God through being transformed by his renewing, then we can do such strategic planning.
vs 30
You might not think that it is strategic planning to think about what not to do after something has been accomplished. Well, I would say that if you are thinking ahead, you are more likely to think about what should and shouldn't be done. Sometimes our biggest mistakes come after we achieve something quite exemplary for God, because we just lose it in the moment and do something silly.
vs 31
This makes me think of politics, or teaching. Christians might strive to get power or influence in these fields, which is very godly. But they spend so much time thinking about how they will win the battle to get influence, that once they've got it, they don't know what to do - they haven't thought about how they should use their influence! They just figure that having Christians in the position is better than having a non-Christian. But then they don't know what to do, so what do they do? They turn to non-Christian practices that were being done before they got there, and lo and behold that nothing much changes. Certainly not as much as should have changed.
vs 32
At first I thought one of these was easier than the other - probably that not taking away was easier than not adding to. After all, If you respect the laws, you won't ditch them. Of course, every time we fail to obey a law we are in fact taking it away from the laws. Adding laws is all too easy too, but the reason we do that is because we think that there is something missing, which shows an innate lack of trust in God to supply what we need.
More repetition. No blood.
vs 24
Discard it.
vs 25
This formulae of things going well for you marks this out as one of the laws Israel is to follow. It might also mark a break between sections, but I'm not sure about that.
vs 26
So now we're back to those people who can reach the place God chooses. Or are we? It could be that the relaxation above is only for the sake of eating meat. But they possibly were still expected to bring their grain offerings and other things.
vs 27
Blood is importantly sacrificed, but not consumed - you may eat the meat, but even in sacrifice the blood is not for God's people. It is kept separate, holy if you will.
vs 28
And there is the ritualistic sort of saying that goes with following a rule.
vs 29
Now again the focus goes to the nations who are being driven out, and what happens after that. God looks ahead - he tells Israel what he's going to do after the immediate problem is solved. That's what faith is meant to look like, I suppose - we should be looking forward to what happens next, and planning strategically, because we should have faith that God is going to work.
We might say that we don't know what's going to happen with the same clarity that Israel knew that God was going to drive people out before them, but they still were lacking in faith and ended up not being able to drive them out. Surely if we know the mind of God through being transformed by his renewing, then we can do such strategic planning.
vs 30
You might not think that it is strategic planning to think about what not to do after something has been accomplished. Well, I would say that if you are thinking ahead, you are more likely to think about what should and shouldn't be done. Sometimes our biggest mistakes come after we achieve something quite exemplary for God, because we just lose it in the moment and do something silly.
vs 31
This makes me think of politics, or teaching. Christians might strive to get power or influence in these fields, which is very godly. But they spend so much time thinking about how they will win the battle to get influence, that once they've got it, they don't know what to do - they haven't thought about how they should use their influence! They just figure that having Christians in the position is better than having a non-Christian. But then they don't know what to do, so what do they do? They turn to non-Christian practices that were being done before they got there, and lo and behold that nothing much changes. Certainly not as much as should have changed.
vs 32
At first I thought one of these was easier than the other - probably that not taking away was easier than not adding to. After all, If you respect the laws, you won't ditch them. Of course, every time we fail to obey a law we are in fact taking it away from the laws. Adding laws is all too easy too, but the reason we do that is because we think that there is something missing, which shows an innate lack of trust in God to supply what we need.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 12
vs 12
This specific, as yet unnamed, place is where they are to celebrate and rejoice before God.
vs 13
I've said before about this centralisation that I am not sure what its purpose is. After all, there are Levites in every town, so you assume they have a role. But the levites aren't supported by sacrifices - I think they get their own towns within the land of other nations.
vs 14
Some people argue that this does get picked - that it is Shiloh, and it only gets moved to Jerusalem when David takes the city. I suppose that's fair enough. I'm not sure how God picks his spot - I'm pretty sure it's Joshua, or the elders, that pick Shiloh.
vs 15
So they can eat the animals they're not allowed to sacrifice. I can't say I've ever read that before. My knowledge of the law is so flawed that I don't even know if they are strictly forbidden from eating ceremonially unclean animals here. I mean, I thought pig fit in there. Do you think I'll look it up to find out?
Anyway, this allows the Jews to still eat meat, so they won't get tempted to sacrifice to other gods just so they can have a steak.
vs 16
This rule has been around since Noah, so that's nothing new.
vs 17
Note that it doesn't say don't eat them at all - just not in the towns where you live.
vs 18
And here's why - because God has his one place for making sacrifices, so you have to take all your tithes there.
vs 19
Which means of course that even though the levites might have towns of their own, people are still expected to give them stuff.
vs 20
In fact, the whole idea of being able to eat as much meat as you want denotes such a great wealth, that it is hard to imagine for us, because we just have meat all the time.
vs 21
So even if you live too far away, that doesn't give you a reason to disobey God. Although I don't know what too far away means.
vs 22
We're going to see some more repetition here.
This specific, as yet unnamed, place is where they are to celebrate and rejoice before God.
vs 13
I've said before about this centralisation that I am not sure what its purpose is. After all, there are Levites in every town, so you assume they have a role. But the levites aren't supported by sacrifices - I think they get their own towns within the land of other nations.
vs 14
Some people argue that this does get picked - that it is Shiloh, and it only gets moved to Jerusalem when David takes the city. I suppose that's fair enough. I'm not sure how God picks his spot - I'm pretty sure it's Joshua, or the elders, that pick Shiloh.
vs 15
So they can eat the animals they're not allowed to sacrifice. I can't say I've ever read that before. My knowledge of the law is so flawed that I don't even know if they are strictly forbidden from eating ceremonially unclean animals here. I mean, I thought pig fit in there. Do you think I'll look it up to find out?
Anyway, this allows the Jews to still eat meat, so they won't get tempted to sacrifice to other gods just so they can have a steak.
vs 16
This rule has been around since Noah, so that's nothing new.
vs 17
Note that it doesn't say don't eat them at all - just not in the towns where you live.
vs 18
And here's why - because God has his one place for making sacrifices, so you have to take all your tithes there.
vs 19
Which means of course that even though the levites might have towns of their own, people are still expected to give them stuff.
vs 20
In fact, the whole idea of being able to eat as much meat as you want denotes such a great wealth, that it is hard to imagine for us, because we just have meat all the time.
vs 21
So even if you live too far away, that doesn't give you a reason to disobey God. Although I don't know what too far away means.
vs 22
We're going to see some more repetition here.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 12
vs 1
We can begin to see the fashion in which Moses organises his talk. He is starting here with a speech against idols and idolatry. This is not the first time he's spoken about it, but it's still interesting because he is now talking in the context of when they actually begin to take over the land, and the actions they should take.
vs 2
Even if it's just two rocks piled on top of one another, that's enough to throw them into idolatry.
This is quite ruthless. We often talk, when talking about Islam, about the Meccan and Medinan versions of Islam, and it has been said that Islam doesn't have a theology of minority - it doesn't know what to do when it isn't in power. If we consider God's treatment of Israel as a Christian theology of majority (which the Catholics did, really) then we notice straight away that God does not believe in pluralism within his state. Although this rule hardly ever gets followed.
Is this what Christians should be striving for in areas where they hold a majority? I think the question comes down to whether Israel is a model for heaven, or a model for earth. I would say Jesus makes it clear that it is a model for heaven, even though we should try and live it on earth. Do we smash idols? Probably not the way to someone's heart. Convert them, and watch them smash their own idols, I suppose.
vs 3
The whole idea of wiping the names of these gods out of history is something that would help me conclude that this is a once-off thing, and not a model for people to follow in the future. In the same way as Christians should not kill every non-Christian in the town in which they move to.
vs 4
Even co-opting foreign methods into their own worship is disallowed. I wonder if this verse has been used by Christians against Christians? As in, "Don't do that - that's what pentecostals do, and we know they're not really Christians."
vs 5
I love the fact that they aren't told where that will be. It is not for Moses to reveal - he's not going into the land anyway.
vs 6
God does not remove a sacrificial system from them. He wants to ensure, though, that by choosing only one place, they realise that they are all worshipping the one God perhaps. Perhaps it will also stop them from getting into drunken revelry and such too.
vs 7
As I said, they still get the celebration of a sacrifice, but it is now appropriate to God - celebrating God's gift of this land, rather than bonking for the fertility goddess or suchlike.
vs 8
This verse is pretty much tailor made for the end of Judges.
vs 9
God is not unreasonable. He understands that the system he wants in place in the land is not useful for them now, while they're still moving, or on the warpath. But he is telling them what he wants for the future.
vs 10-11
So the deal is go in, settle, God will give you rest, and you can start the real work of bringing him glory.
Which does bring up an interesting question about Judges - because the people do not have rest in Judges - there are still plenty of enemies to fight. Is the statement at the end of Judges therefore not as strong a rebuke as I have originally thought?
We can begin to see the fashion in which Moses organises his talk. He is starting here with a speech against idols and idolatry. This is not the first time he's spoken about it, but it's still interesting because he is now talking in the context of when they actually begin to take over the land, and the actions they should take.
vs 2
Even if it's just two rocks piled on top of one another, that's enough to throw them into idolatry.
This is quite ruthless. We often talk, when talking about Islam, about the Meccan and Medinan versions of Islam, and it has been said that Islam doesn't have a theology of minority - it doesn't know what to do when it isn't in power. If we consider God's treatment of Israel as a Christian theology of majority (which the Catholics did, really) then we notice straight away that God does not believe in pluralism within his state. Although this rule hardly ever gets followed.
Is this what Christians should be striving for in areas where they hold a majority? I think the question comes down to whether Israel is a model for heaven, or a model for earth. I would say Jesus makes it clear that it is a model for heaven, even though we should try and live it on earth. Do we smash idols? Probably not the way to someone's heart. Convert them, and watch them smash their own idols, I suppose.
vs 3
The whole idea of wiping the names of these gods out of history is something that would help me conclude that this is a once-off thing, and not a model for people to follow in the future. In the same way as Christians should not kill every non-Christian in the town in which they move to.
vs 4
Even co-opting foreign methods into their own worship is disallowed. I wonder if this verse has been used by Christians against Christians? As in, "Don't do that - that's what pentecostals do, and we know they're not really Christians."
vs 5
I love the fact that they aren't told where that will be. It is not for Moses to reveal - he's not going into the land anyway.
vs 6
God does not remove a sacrificial system from them. He wants to ensure, though, that by choosing only one place, they realise that they are all worshipping the one God perhaps. Perhaps it will also stop them from getting into drunken revelry and such too.
vs 7
As I said, they still get the celebration of a sacrifice, but it is now appropriate to God - celebrating God's gift of this land, rather than bonking for the fertility goddess or suchlike.
vs 8
This verse is pretty much tailor made for the end of Judges.
vs 9
God is not unreasonable. He understands that the system he wants in place in the land is not useful for them now, while they're still moving, or on the warpath. But he is telling them what he wants for the future.
vs 10-11
So the deal is go in, settle, God will give you rest, and you can start the real work of bringing him glory.
Which does bring up an interesting question about Judges - because the people do not have rest in Judges - there are still plenty of enemies to fight. Is the statement at the end of Judges therefore not as strong a rebuke as I have originally thought?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 11
vs 23
It is incredible, when you think about the whole picture together, just how much of God's promises to Israel did rely on their obedience. Some things would only be partially fulfilled otherwise (Israel never claims all the land that belonged to them, not for centuries anyway), other things would happen drastically or immediately (such as plagues or prophets being sent), and some things would just tick like a time bomb (the exile).
vs 24
That's a lot of land, for a people who currently have next to none. And within a generation, they will all at least have some places to live, even if they haven't claimed everything that belongs to them.
vs 25
And the great thing is, of course, that this happens. The fear and terror are there. But fear and terror are fickle, which makes them a good tool for God - he turns them on and off like a tap to teach Israel to trust him, rather than rely on their own strength. They are, after all, attacking much larger nations.
vs 26
The red pill or the blue pill. Of course, these pills they had to keep taking, and they mixed their medicines, just like I'm mixing my metaphors.
vs 27
Just good to clarify that, in case you think the blessings come because of who you are, or because you've been saved out of slavery by God. No, no, these blessings are all about obedience.
vs 28
The curse is very interestingly linked specifically to following other gods. The opinion of a pre-modern people - if you're not worshipping one god, you are obviously worshipping another! They had it right. They knew how it worked. We're the ones that ignore the basic system of worldview and religion, and think that we're so smart for ignoring it!
vs 29
Now if that is not symbolic of the two choices that Israel has to make, then what is?
vs 30
That saves me from having to explain where they are... as if I knew.
vs 31
Well, "about to" is subjective. They have to listen to Moses for a while yet.
vs 32
It's really worth following them now, too. Although how bad can you get, sitting around listening to Moses? Well, if anyone was going to be breaking a law in the middle of a speech about laws, it's going to be Israel.
It is incredible, when you think about the whole picture together, just how much of God's promises to Israel did rely on their obedience. Some things would only be partially fulfilled otherwise (Israel never claims all the land that belonged to them, not for centuries anyway), other things would happen drastically or immediately (such as plagues or prophets being sent), and some things would just tick like a time bomb (the exile).
vs 24
That's a lot of land, for a people who currently have next to none. And within a generation, they will all at least have some places to live, even if they haven't claimed everything that belongs to them.
vs 25
And the great thing is, of course, that this happens. The fear and terror are there. But fear and terror are fickle, which makes them a good tool for God - he turns them on and off like a tap to teach Israel to trust him, rather than rely on their own strength. They are, after all, attacking much larger nations.
vs 26
The red pill or the blue pill. Of course, these pills they had to keep taking, and they mixed their medicines, just like I'm mixing my metaphors.
vs 27
Just good to clarify that, in case you think the blessings come because of who you are, or because you've been saved out of slavery by God. No, no, these blessings are all about obedience.
vs 28
The curse is very interestingly linked specifically to following other gods. The opinion of a pre-modern people - if you're not worshipping one god, you are obviously worshipping another! They had it right. They knew how it worked. We're the ones that ignore the basic system of worldview and religion, and think that we're so smart for ignoring it!
vs 29
Now if that is not symbolic of the two choices that Israel has to make, then what is?
vs 30
That saves me from having to explain where they are... as if I knew.
vs 31
Well, "about to" is subjective. They have to listen to Moses for a while yet.
vs 32
It's really worth following them now, too. Although how bad can you get, sitting around listening to Moses? Well, if anyone was going to be breaking a law in the middle of a speech about laws, it's going to be Israel.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 11
vs 12
So the reason it's a good land is because God makes it so. We could talk about weather patterns and soil structure, or all that stuff, but at the end of the day that's all in God'scontrol anyway. As the Israelites will find out when the locust plagues start happening.
vs 13
Note that this statement is said to fulfill all the commands - of which there are many. So saying that the great commandment isn't meant to summarise the commands is just wrong - it states as much here.
vs 14
Obviously rain out of season is less useful.
vs 15
Which is very satisfying - especially if you're eating cattle.
vs 16
This warning has been around for a while now. But it's interesting that there can be a link between a material blessing that comes from God, and a subsequent turning away from him. I know various translations put a paragraph marker here, but it's still interesting that they are next to each other.
vs 17
So you see, God's looking after the land is totally reliant upon the Israelites' obedience. This is a covenant, but it has a lot of carrot and stick to it, which is different to most of the other covenants made by God. It is pretty much tied to the land though - the carrot and stick stuff, I mean. The relationship stuff isn't based purely on obedience.
vs 18
Was this really meant to be literal? I mean, you can't fix the words on your heart and mind, so were you meant to literally tie them to yourself? I know people did. I'm not really prepared to comment on the effectiveness, as I notice we don't do it now.
vs 19
So that means pretty much all the time. These laws are to be part of the culture. We might worry about them being consigned to history, but history, as I've said many times before, only seems to get shoved into the past by the western world. I read something recently that said that individualism devalues history, so perhaps that's it.
vs 20
This stuff has been said before, but repetition means rememberance. I suppose having a copy of Footprints hanging in the bathroom counts? It must do - every Christian household seems to have one.
vs 21
So this writing them on door frames and wearing them is important, because it is couched in the same language of the covenant. Remembering the words of God will mean they stay in the land a long time.
vs 22
Again, another short summary of the covenant, useful for memorising and remembering, no doubt.
So the reason it's a good land is because God makes it so. We could talk about weather patterns and soil structure, or all that stuff, but at the end of the day that's all in God'scontrol anyway. As the Israelites will find out when the locust plagues start happening.
vs 13
Note that this statement is said to fulfill all the commands - of which there are many. So saying that the great commandment isn't meant to summarise the commands is just wrong - it states as much here.
vs 14
Obviously rain out of season is less useful.
vs 15
Which is very satisfying - especially if you're eating cattle.
vs 16
This warning has been around for a while now. But it's interesting that there can be a link between a material blessing that comes from God, and a subsequent turning away from him. I know various translations put a paragraph marker here, but it's still interesting that they are next to each other.
vs 17
So you see, God's looking after the land is totally reliant upon the Israelites' obedience. This is a covenant, but it has a lot of carrot and stick to it, which is different to most of the other covenants made by God. It is pretty much tied to the land though - the carrot and stick stuff, I mean. The relationship stuff isn't based purely on obedience.
vs 18
Was this really meant to be literal? I mean, you can't fix the words on your heart and mind, so were you meant to literally tie them to yourself? I know people did. I'm not really prepared to comment on the effectiveness, as I notice we don't do it now.
vs 19
So that means pretty much all the time. These laws are to be part of the culture. We might worry about them being consigned to history, but history, as I've said many times before, only seems to get shoved into the past by the western world. I read something recently that said that individualism devalues history, so perhaps that's it.
vs 20
This stuff has been said before, but repetition means rememberance. I suppose having a copy of Footprints hanging in the bathroom counts? It must do - every Christian household seems to have one.
vs 21
So this writing them on door frames and wearing them is important, because it is couched in the same language of the covenant. Remembering the words of God will mean they stay in the land a long time.
vs 22
Again, another short summary of the covenant, useful for memorising and remembering, no doubt.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 11
vs 1
I wish I'd kept count, now. It would have been interesting.
vs 2
No, they weren't - they'll no doubt get their own though.
vs 3
The idea that he is talking to parents of children who weren't there, though, makes me think that it was just a generation of fighting men (and perhaps their wives?) who died. So perhaps the oldies like him are still alive, having treked through the desert. I wonder what scholars have to say about it? Probably don't even think it's an issue.
vs 4
Just a reminder that God shed a lot of blood to get them out of Egypt - he'll shed more getting them into Palestine - or whatever it was called. Canaan? Plus other bits?
vs 5
That is, all the provision of food and water, and non-wearing out of clothes, and protection from snakes, and also some judgment and punishment too.
vs 6
This was apparently a big deal for Israel, these people being swallowed up. It is a pretty cool story.
vs 7
So those who are there now listening to Moses are eye-witnesses. It was them, it wasn't their children. I feel that has been cleared up, even if it does force me to ask other questions about who exactly died in the desert.
vs 8
I can't say that I think following God's laws makes you a strong warrior. The strength he talks of I think is the strength of the Lord - that if they follow God's commands, God will give them strength - perhaps directly, in the strength of their arm, perhaps indirectly in the strength of character to go through with what they have to do, perhaps supernaturally in going ahead and causing mayhem.
vs 9
With this in mind, it seems to be an ongoing strength of spiritual will - not only will they take the land, but also to live in the land under God's commands. It might seem weird - "follow the commands so you have the strength to follow them" - but that just reminds me of some advice John Wesley was given when he wasn't sure about whether he should preach the gospel if he didn't believe it. He was told, "Preach it until you believe it, then preach it because you believe it."
vs 10
Irrigated it by foot? You mean on foot? What? I don't understand. The point being the land won't be like that.
vs 11
Mmmm, mountains and valleys. You know, it doesn't actually sound that appealing to me. But I guess it rains a lot, instead of needing irrigation from the Nile. Also, it will be theirs, and I do know that having your own land is a lot more appealing than living on someone else's.
I wish I'd kept count, now. It would have been interesting.
vs 2
No, they weren't - they'll no doubt get their own though.
vs 3
The idea that he is talking to parents of children who weren't there, though, makes me think that it was just a generation of fighting men (and perhaps their wives?) who died. So perhaps the oldies like him are still alive, having treked through the desert. I wonder what scholars have to say about it? Probably don't even think it's an issue.
vs 4
Just a reminder that God shed a lot of blood to get them out of Egypt - he'll shed more getting them into Palestine - or whatever it was called. Canaan? Plus other bits?
vs 5
That is, all the provision of food and water, and non-wearing out of clothes, and protection from snakes, and also some judgment and punishment too.
vs 6
This was apparently a big deal for Israel, these people being swallowed up. It is a pretty cool story.
vs 7
So those who are there now listening to Moses are eye-witnesses. It was them, it wasn't their children. I feel that has been cleared up, even if it does force me to ask other questions about who exactly died in the desert.
vs 8
I can't say that I think following God's laws makes you a strong warrior. The strength he talks of I think is the strength of the Lord - that if they follow God's commands, God will give them strength - perhaps directly, in the strength of their arm, perhaps indirectly in the strength of character to go through with what they have to do, perhaps supernaturally in going ahead and causing mayhem.
vs 9
With this in mind, it seems to be an ongoing strength of spiritual will - not only will they take the land, but also to live in the land under God's commands. It might seem weird - "follow the commands so you have the strength to follow them" - but that just reminds me of some advice John Wesley was given when he wasn't sure about whether he should preach the gospel if he didn't believe it. He was told, "Preach it until you believe it, then preach it because you believe it."
vs 10
Irrigated it by foot? You mean on foot? What? I don't understand. The point being the land won't be like that.
vs 11
Mmmm, mountains and valleys. You know, it doesn't actually sound that appealing to me. But I guess it rains a lot, instead of needing irrigation from the Nile. Also, it will be theirs, and I do know that having your own land is a lot more appealing than living on someone else's.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 10
vs 12
You started out by making it sound like it wasn't going to be much! In fact, it is a huge ask. But then, you have to weigh up the request with the reward. Ok, so you basically have to swear a loving fealty and constant obedience to someone. Sounds like less than the ideal deal. But that someone is God. Surely that is the key to the whole bargain.
I think it's important that we realise that God does ask a lot from us. He asks everything, in fact. But as has already been said (and not by me), when you are in this situation where you face God, where else can you go, and what else can you do?
vs 13
Oh, wait, there are some more things to do. Still, as I said, there is nothing that you can put on the scales that's going to make a relationship with God be outweighed.
vs 14
In other words, don't mess with him. But also, don't undervalue him.
vs 15
God's awesomeness is to be compared to the ordinariness of Israel. And yet they were chosen, and loved. And that love remains, hundreds of years later.
vs 16
The circumcision of the heart is not a new thing that Jesus invented. It is an old thing that God describes, or at the very least Moses. Circumcision is the mark of the covenant with God, and so the circumcision of the heart means committing your heart to God. God wants from them a change of attitude. Their present attitude is not good enough - they are stiff necked.
I am always wary about saying things like this in church, because if a church is more or less on the right track and people are doing well, then there's no reason to call them a stiff-necked people. Yes, we've always got to be aware of our sinfulness, but this message is for a people who were publicly disobeying and turning from God.
vs 17
I'm not quite sure why the bit about bribes is in there. Perhaps it is to highlight how above petty human judgments he is.
vs 18
Not only is God just, but he is also loving, merciful, and inclusive! He isn't just fair - he goes out of his way to help the widow and the foreigner. He deliberately helps them. Is this going so far as to be positive discrimination? I don't know. Possibly. It's not really clear, but the fact that God is for the weak is certainly clear.
vs 19
As God does, so are his people to do. This command should have run loud and clear in Israel. But instead, so often foreigners were hated and despised.
vs 20
This has been said before, I think. But here it is made clear again. God demands worship in all areas of life, in areas of truth especially. He demands that your actions be for him first, and only, really.
vs 21
And this is the payoff. In return for total subservience, Israel receives God as their God. They can claim him as their own. They are his special possession. To modern liberalism, this is blasphemy - the idea that the best place to be is in bondage to another, and beholden to their will. The idea that another person knows what is good for you better than you do. But there it is.
vs 22
This is just one of the things God has done to show his faithfulness to Israel - made them a nation, as he promised he would to Abraham. Even just by looking at the number of people who are around them now, they can see God's faithfulness.
You started out by making it sound like it wasn't going to be much! In fact, it is a huge ask. But then, you have to weigh up the request with the reward. Ok, so you basically have to swear a loving fealty and constant obedience to someone. Sounds like less than the ideal deal. But that someone is God. Surely that is the key to the whole bargain.
I think it's important that we realise that God does ask a lot from us. He asks everything, in fact. But as has already been said (and not by me), when you are in this situation where you face God, where else can you go, and what else can you do?
vs 13
Oh, wait, there are some more things to do. Still, as I said, there is nothing that you can put on the scales that's going to make a relationship with God be outweighed.
vs 14
In other words, don't mess with him. But also, don't undervalue him.
vs 15
God's awesomeness is to be compared to the ordinariness of Israel. And yet they were chosen, and loved. And that love remains, hundreds of years later.
vs 16
The circumcision of the heart is not a new thing that Jesus invented. It is an old thing that God describes, or at the very least Moses. Circumcision is the mark of the covenant with God, and so the circumcision of the heart means committing your heart to God. God wants from them a change of attitude. Their present attitude is not good enough - they are stiff necked.
I am always wary about saying things like this in church, because if a church is more or less on the right track and people are doing well, then there's no reason to call them a stiff-necked people. Yes, we've always got to be aware of our sinfulness, but this message is for a people who were publicly disobeying and turning from God.
vs 17
I'm not quite sure why the bit about bribes is in there. Perhaps it is to highlight how above petty human judgments he is.
vs 18
Not only is God just, but he is also loving, merciful, and inclusive! He isn't just fair - he goes out of his way to help the widow and the foreigner. He deliberately helps them. Is this going so far as to be positive discrimination? I don't know. Possibly. It's not really clear, but the fact that God is for the weak is certainly clear.
vs 19
As God does, so are his people to do. This command should have run loud and clear in Israel. But instead, so often foreigners were hated and despised.
vs 20
This has been said before, I think. But here it is made clear again. God demands worship in all areas of life, in areas of truth especially. He demands that your actions be for him first, and only, really.
vs 21
And this is the payoff. In return for total subservience, Israel receives God as their God. They can claim him as their own. They are his special possession. To modern liberalism, this is blasphemy - the idea that the best place to be is in bondage to another, and beholden to their will. The idea that another person knows what is good for you better than you do. But there it is.
vs 22
This is just one of the things God has done to show his faithfulness to Israel - made them a nation, as he promised he would to Abraham. Even just by looking at the number of people who are around them now, they can see God's faithfulness.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 10
vs 1
This time, Moses has to make the tablets. He also needs to bring a chest, which we call an ark, because "chest of the covenant" just sounds strange. But don't worry, it's not a boat - the words in Hebrew are different, if I recall.
vs 2
Unlike Mormonism, I have no doubt that the tablets actually had the same stuff written on them. This was God hand-writing the tablets, after all - not some guy wearing magic sunglasses and looking into a hat.
vs 3
Moses made that ark with his own hands, and chiselled out the stone tablets too. I know it's not like he built a boat or anything (Noah style), but still, it's more than he had to do last time. This time, he is going up the mountain to God with more expectation of what's going to happen, and probably hoping that the rest of the Israelites can keep their pants on for 20 minutes.
vs 4
And of course we all imagine that, as Moses held the tablets, God struck them with lightning and they were etched with perfect Hebrew. Why not, eh? Although we have no evidence that Moses looked like Charlton Heston. I wonder if there was a particularly solid and solemn tradition of copying the 10 commandments, since they were a written word directly from God's hand? Who knows.
vs 5
Being put in the ark before the people makes them special, I guess. It means that people can look and see the ark (rather than Moses having to lug around two big stone tablets), and say "Ah, there's the laws of God that we were given."
vs 6
This is put into brackets, I assume, because it is written in a certain way in Hebrew. I saw this when we translated Ruth. It's hard to explain in English, because, well, we just have brackets. But ther is a method in Hebrew writing where a point is made, and then a bit of it can be a sub-point, sort of tangential to the topic, and it is marked by certain things. So this is probably marked that way. I'd check, but I'm on the train and hence lazy.
It's interesting that God chose an inherited system for the priests, but that Moses was succeeded directly by choice.
vs 7
Sounds nice.
vs 8
Those little "as they still do today" notes could indicate that this is a later editorial addition, and that Moses didn't say this stuff. It's possible, but obviously unprovable. And even if it is a later addition, that shouldn't rock your faith in it being God's word. I wonder who carried the ark before the Levites? Again, normally I'd go check, but it's slightly more difficult between Strathfield and Sydney.
vs 9
It's a mixed blessing, really. It sounds good, but I don't know how valuable it was during the years of the Judges.
vs 10
That's a fairly short summary of 40 days and 40 nights. Moses has balls staying up there that long again. After all, who knows what Israel is getting up to at this time? But God has relieved him a bit, by saying that he doesn't want to destroy Israel. That is what you've really got to be afraid of, I suppose.
vs 11
Why did we come back to this again? I know it's putting it all into context, and probably we're looking more deeply at the context of the laws given to Israel and the attitude with which they treated them. But we are now 10 chapters into the book. It does make it sort of feel like Deuteronomy was The Book - like it was used to summarise the rest of the pentateuch so it could be more easily used liturgically. Again, who knows.
This time, Moses has to make the tablets. He also needs to bring a chest, which we call an ark, because "chest of the covenant" just sounds strange. But don't worry, it's not a boat - the words in Hebrew are different, if I recall.
vs 2
Unlike Mormonism, I have no doubt that the tablets actually had the same stuff written on them. This was God hand-writing the tablets, after all - not some guy wearing magic sunglasses and looking into a hat.
vs 3
Moses made that ark with his own hands, and chiselled out the stone tablets too. I know it's not like he built a boat or anything (Noah style), but still, it's more than he had to do last time. This time, he is going up the mountain to God with more expectation of what's going to happen, and probably hoping that the rest of the Israelites can keep their pants on for 20 minutes.
vs 4
And of course we all imagine that, as Moses held the tablets, God struck them with lightning and they were etched with perfect Hebrew. Why not, eh? Although we have no evidence that Moses looked like Charlton Heston. I wonder if there was a particularly solid and solemn tradition of copying the 10 commandments, since they were a written word directly from God's hand? Who knows.
vs 5
Being put in the ark before the people makes them special, I guess. It means that people can look and see the ark (rather than Moses having to lug around two big stone tablets), and say "Ah, there's the laws of God that we were given."
vs 6
This is put into brackets, I assume, because it is written in a certain way in Hebrew. I saw this when we translated Ruth. It's hard to explain in English, because, well, we just have brackets. But ther is a method in Hebrew writing where a point is made, and then a bit of it can be a sub-point, sort of tangential to the topic, and it is marked by certain things. So this is probably marked that way. I'd check, but I'm on the train and hence lazy.
It's interesting that God chose an inherited system for the priests, but that Moses was succeeded directly by choice.
vs 7
Sounds nice.
vs 8
Those little "as they still do today" notes could indicate that this is a later editorial addition, and that Moses didn't say this stuff. It's possible, but obviously unprovable. And even if it is a later addition, that shouldn't rock your faith in it being God's word. I wonder who carried the ark before the Levites? Again, normally I'd go check, but it's slightly more difficult between Strathfield and Sydney.
vs 9
It's a mixed blessing, really. It sounds good, but I don't know how valuable it was during the years of the Judges.
vs 10
That's a fairly short summary of 40 days and 40 nights. Moses has balls staying up there that long again. After all, who knows what Israel is getting up to at this time? But God has relieved him a bit, by saying that he doesn't want to destroy Israel. That is what you've really got to be afraid of, I suppose.
vs 11
Why did we come back to this again? I know it's putting it all into context, and probably we're looking more deeply at the context of the laws given to Israel and the attitude with which they treated them. But we are now 10 chapters into the book. It does make it sort of feel like Deuteronomy was The Book - like it was used to summarise the rest of the pentateuch so it could be more easily used liturgically. Again, who knows.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 9
vs 21
And although it doesn't say it here, he made them drink it. And I think the big lesson of this story is that people, when faced with the reality of God burning a mountain within their visual range, will ask someone to make them an idol they know is false because it is more comfortable.
vs 22
Ouch. The situations that occurred at these places don't even get named, but the point is it wasn't just one time.
vs 23
In court, they'd call this a "pattern of behaviour", and it would mean you're probably going to gaol. This one is particularly bad though, because it is the result of a promise of God to his people, who then turn around and refuse to claim the promise he has made. Cold.
vs 24
What a damning verse. Worth memorising.
vs 25
Even with the verse before, Moses knows that he can't just stand by and watch God wipe out these people. His reason may be partly because he thinks it's the "right thing to do", but I think overall he is concerned with the glory of God. We get to see his reasons more fully below, as he gives them.
For Moses, it's particularly close to him - he was there, it was his job to lead them (not a job he asked for), and so no doubt he feels responsible for them as a people. And he gets held to an incredibly high standard - he slips up once that we know of, and for that he is assigned to the same punishment that all the others of his generation suffered. Once is enough.
vs 26
So the first argument is that it would be inefficient. God has already brought them up from Egypt, why destroy them afterwards?
vs 27
It's not that God ever forgot his promises. He could still fulfil them, just not through this group of people. But Moses asks that their wickedness be overlooked. He prays for them almost like a father Job over his children, although this father knows his kids have been bad. He asks God for forgiveness, because I guess he knows that it is part of God's nature.
It's kind of funny, because we often mock Muslims because their Allah is described as gracious and compassionate, and then tells people to chop limbs off. But God here shows his grace and compassion by simply killing off an entire generation of people, but letting their kids live.
vs 28
It is very relevant to note that Moses thinks God has a care for what other nations think. Moses at least knows that God wanted Israel to be an example to all people, which included the gentiles.
vs 29
And the fact is Moses knows God didn't bring them out in the desert to kill them all. He still remembers the mighty power of God in their release from Egypt, even if those who were the slaves don't. Crazy stuff.
And although it doesn't say it here, he made them drink it. And I think the big lesson of this story is that people, when faced with the reality of God burning a mountain within their visual range, will ask someone to make them an idol they know is false because it is more comfortable.
vs 22
Ouch. The situations that occurred at these places don't even get named, but the point is it wasn't just one time.
vs 23
In court, they'd call this a "pattern of behaviour", and it would mean you're probably going to gaol. This one is particularly bad though, because it is the result of a promise of God to his people, who then turn around and refuse to claim the promise he has made. Cold.
vs 24
What a damning verse. Worth memorising.
vs 25
Even with the verse before, Moses knows that he can't just stand by and watch God wipe out these people. His reason may be partly because he thinks it's the "right thing to do", but I think overall he is concerned with the glory of God. We get to see his reasons more fully below, as he gives them.
For Moses, it's particularly close to him - he was there, it was his job to lead them (not a job he asked for), and so no doubt he feels responsible for them as a people. And he gets held to an incredibly high standard - he slips up once that we know of, and for that he is assigned to the same punishment that all the others of his generation suffered. Once is enough.
vs 26
So the first argument is that it would be inefficient. God has already brought them up from Egypt, why destroy them afterwards?
vs 27
It's not that God ever forgot his promises. He could still fulfil them, just not through this group of people. But Moses asks that their wickedness be overlooked. He prays for them almost like a father Job over his children, although this father knows his kids have been bad. He asks God for forgiveness, because I guess he knows that it is part of God's nature.
It's kind of funny, because we often mock Muslims because their Allah is described as gracious and compassionate, and then tells people to chop limbs off. But God here shows his grace and compassion by simply killing off an entire generation of people, but letting their kids live.
vs 28
It is very relevant to note that Moses thinks God has a care for what other nations think. Moses at least knows that God wanted Israel to be an example to all people, which included the gentiles.
vs 29
And the fact is Moses knows God didn't bring them out in the desert to kill them all. He still remembers the mighty power of God in their release from Egypt, even if those who were the slaves don't. Crazy stuff.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 9
vs 11
Written in the hand of God. I wonder what his handwriting was like? Did he point his text?
vs 12
Even in this face of this monumental time, a burning mountain and the voice of God having been heard only a month ago, God has to give Moses this news about his people. Quickly is a fair term.
vs 13
As if God didn't know that before he brought them into the desert.
vs 14
I think we try and read over this, or say that God is testing Moses, or something. The fact is, Israel is meaningless to God. Ouch, but true. "Can not God raise sons for Abraham out of these stones?" Or Moses for that matter? It is an option God has. God, however, puts it at least partly into Moses' hands. Moses can step aside and let it happen, or not.
vs 15
Here is Moses recounting this awful day in Israel's history. So he goes through it step by step. After all, he was there, and remembers it clearly.
vs 16
Note how alike Moses' words and God's words are. Exactly what God had said, that's what Moses has seen.
vs 17
I'm sure it was an emotional time, but note that he did it before their eyes. He wanted them to see what has happened to them because of their sin.
vs 18
Instead of being sustained by the Lord through closeness, he is now going without in repentance before God. This is on behalf of a people whom he is angry with. I'd be half inclined to let them get wiped.
vs 19
Angry enough to destroy, and about to destroy, are slightly different things. In any case, Moses here shows his compassion for a people who don't deserve it. Call it mercy. And God decides to show mercy. Does he change his mind? I don't really know, and I don't see a problem with him venting his frustration and stating his feelings.
vs 20
Just a quick reminder of who the troublemaker was. True, Aaron didn't lead them into it, he got pressured into it. But how weak. Imagine having that on your shoulders.
Written in the hand of God. I wonder what his handwriting was like? Did he point his text?
vs 12
Even in this face of this monumental time, a burning mountain and the voice of God having been heard only a month ago, God has to give Moses this news about his people. Quickly is a fair term.
vs 13
As if God didn't know that before he brought them into the desert.
vs 14
I think we try and read over this, or say that God is testing Moses, or something. The fact is, Israel is meaningless to God. Ouch, but true. "Can not God raise sons for Abraham out of these stones?" Or Moses for that matter? It is an option God has. God, however, puts it at least partly into Moses' hands. Moses can step aside and let it happen, or not.
vs 15
Here is Moses recounting this awful day in Israel's history. So he goes through it step by step. After all, he was there, and remembers it clearly.
vs 16
Note how alike Moses' words and God's words are. Exactly what God had said, that's what Moses has seen.
vs 17
I'm sure it was an emotional time, but note that he did it before their eyes. He wanted them to see what has happened to them because of their sin.
vs 18
Instead of being sustained by the Lord through closeness, he is now going without in repentance before God. This is on behalf of a people whom he is angry with. I'd be half inclined to let them get wiped.
vs 19
Angry enough to destroy, and about to destroy, are slightly different things. In any case, Moses here shows his compassion for a people who don't deserve it. Call it mercy. And God decides to show mercy. Does he change his mind? I don't really know, and I don't see a problem with him venting his frustration and stating his feelings.
vs 20
Just a quick reminder of who the troublemaker was. True, Aaron didn't lead them into it, he got pressured into it. But how weak. Imagine having that on your shoulders.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 9
vs 1
But where does the sky start, exactly? I mean, if all they have to do is block your view of the ground and the other highest feature, then the walls probably only need to be taller than a tree or someone's house. Still, sounds imposing. Just also sounds like hyperbole.
vs 2
This was early in human history, see - the pithy saying was still in its infancy.
vs 3
God will make sure that the path is ready for them. Just like God makes the wheat grow but doesn't then harvest and bake it for them, so he prepares the land for conquering, but doesn't just cast power word kill and wipe everything out.
I must be feeling a bit extra nerdy today.
vs 4
I've been positing this the whole time, but here it is in black and white. God is using Israel as a tool of judgment against these nations. Sure, he is also rewarding Israel with land promised to Abraham all that time ago. But as God said, not because of their righteousness. Because he has plans and chose them specially for them.
vs 5
Pretty much what I said. Can't ask for much more clarity there.
vs 6
So stiff necked, in fact, that you needed to hear the same message three times in three verses.
vs 7
Sad but true. And yet despite this, they are still standing at the foot of the land. No wonder when you get to the New Testament they're all, "We're God's chosen people, and that's more important than how we act."
vs 8
That would be the Golden Calf incident. Which hasn't been mentioned yet, so no doubt it will be expanded on now.
vs 9
Is that hyperbole? Is he leaving out an important fact like "I did drink fruit juice and I ate cake"? I don't think so. Why couldn't God sustain him? In fact, the idea that in God's presence his needs were entirely sustained is a very nice one.
vs 10
I can't imagine the feeling of this situation. Moses would have been in such a good place at that point. I bet his mind went back to it when he was saying this. A revelation that is pretty much unparalleled.
But where does the sky start, exactly? I mean, if all they have to do is block your view of the ground and the other highest feature, then the walls probably only need to be taller than a tree or someone's house. Still, sounds imposing. Just also sounds like hyperbole.
vs 2
This was early in human history, see - the pithy saying was still in its infancy.
vs 3
God will make sure that the path is ready for them. Just like God makes the wheat grow but doesn't then harvest and bake it for them, so he prepares the land for conquering, but doesn't just cast power word kill and wipe everything out.
I must be feeling a bit extra nerdy today.
vs 4
I've been positing this the whole time, but here it is in black and white. God is using Israel as a tool of judgment against these nations. Sure, he is also rewarding Israel with land promised to Abraham all that time ago. But as God said, not because of their righteousness. Because he has plans and chose them specially for them.
vs 5
Pretty much what I said. Can't ask for much more clarity there.
vs 6
So stiff necked, in fact, that you needed to hear the same message three times in three verses.
vs 7
Sad but true. And yet despite this, they are still standing at the foot of the land. No wonder when you get to the New Testament they're all, "We're God's chosen people, and that's more important than how we act."
vs 8
That would be the Golden Calf incident. Which hasn't been mentioned yet, so no doubt it will be expanded on now.
vs 9
Is that hyperbole? Is he leaving out an important fact like "I did drink fruit juice and I ate cake"? I don't think so. Why couldn't God sustain him? In fact, the idea that in God's presence his needs were entirely sustained is a very nice one.
vs 10
I can't imagine the feeling of this situation. Moses would have been in such a good place at that point. I bet his mind went back to it when he was saying this. A revelation that is pretty much unparalleled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)