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?