Deuteronomy chapter 25

vs 11

This is one of the more painful ways to break up a fight. What I can't work out is who she is grabbing - the assailant or the husband. I'm guessing it's the assailant? In any case, it is a particularly specific case, this one - if you whack the guy on the back of the head with a lump of 4x2 you will be fine. Just don't grab the happy sacs!

I wonder if the principle of this verse includes kicking or otherwise inflicting harm on the manhood?

vs 12

There isn't a lot of cutting off of bits in the OT law. It's something I think is quite remarkable, really. But it also makes this specific law quite remarkable. Why is it such an offence? Because it was a woman interfering with a strange man's mummy-daddy button? Is it because it is specifically the reproductive organs, and permanent injury may result? It really is quite specific.

vs 13

We move on to financial cheating now. Since all dealings were done with weight, you have to use the same fair weight for everyone. No having "mate's rates weights".

vs 14

Fluid things were measured rather than weighed, but it's the same principle I say.

vs 15

If you're already trading in something to the extent that weights and measures are required, then surely you're going to make a fair price for it anyhow. Why do you need to rip people off? But that's not the reason given. God is the reason. Honesty is important to God.

vs 16

Dishonest dealings are not reflective of God's dealings with Israel. So for them to go on and deal unfairly with each other, or with people outside of Israel, would be grossly disrespectful of God.

vs 17

They attacked Israel, if you're having trouble remembering.

vs 18

There you are, Moses makes it clear what part he wants remembered. Not only did they attack the weary, those lagging, but they also had no fear of God. Two bad things there.

vs 19

Except for it being in Deuteronomy right here. But of course, that's if you read 'name' literally. Think of name as a symbol of power, and you realise that Amalek's name will be blotted out, as it will be crushed to powerlessness.

Deuteronomy chapter 25

vs 1

That's a pretty good overall summary of the justice system.

vs 2

Which you will note is not given - the number of lashes obviously was in some way subjective to the judge, or attested to culturally.

vs 3

So except for a maximum, you could get any number of thrashing in between. The reason they stop at 40 is because anything beyond that would be degrading! This is important though - it means that even those who do wrong are still fundamentally valuable and should not be degraded through punishment, only punished.

vs 4

5 points to the person who can link this to its preceding and following verses.

Paul uses this verse to teach that church leaders should be financially supported.

vs 5-6

The duty of a brother-in-law being to father a son for his brother's family name. I suppose the 'living together' thing is to let brothers off who live on the other side of the promised land. Because remember, with marriage comes the responsibility of the land that was apportioned to the brother, and you'd be flicking between land spots, managing your own and your brother's otherwise.

vs 7

That a woman could approach the elders with this shows how serious it is.

vs 8

He might have a good reason... like his current wife will get jealous, or he doesn't have time. Or he might have a not so good reason, like she's ugly or he hated his brother.

vs 9

Lovely. We must understand that it is very much in the widow's interests for her to become married to the brother-in-law. Not only is there great shame in not providing a son, but your living standards drop horribly when you're a widowed woman otherwise - especially when you have no son to look after you! So the brother saying no is a big insult to her too.

vs 10

This is not necessarily linked to what happens in Ruth 4, with the passing of a sandal. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying it isn't necessarily the same thing. At least, that's what I've been told.

Deuteronomy chapter 24

vs 12

Now this one makes more sense. Just because someone pledges something to you doesn't mean you need to keep it with you all the time, especially if they are poor and will need it, and you are rich and don't need it at all.

vs 13

The example given being a cloak that a poor person might need to sleep in - if you take even their cloak away from them, then they might freeze to death when they sleep.

Okay, that might be a little dramatic, but still, why deprive them of a warm night sleep? Instead, you can show mercy to them, but still allow them a pledge so that they can maintain their honour - no wonder God will be pleased.

This whole system of pledges does show that money was still going to be loaned to other Jews - just that you didn't get interest off them for it.

vs 14

This verse encapsulates the disempowerment of poverty. God understands that poor people are disadvantaged, and therefore he speaks out about it. Not only that, he expects his people to look out for them.

vs 15

Not necessarily to give them equality of lifestyle, mind you. But you are to give them what they are owed, and smartly.

vs 16

I'm sure a lot of parents (and probably children) breathed a sigh of relief at this one. And it is an important point being made here. Although the life of Israel is communal, God still maintains a stark individual distinction between people, and their individual responsibility for sin. God cares for both his people as a community, but also about the lives of individuals.

vs 17

This is almost proverbial in its language. These are three disempowered subgroups of society - the foreigner was not a Jew, so didn't have the same rights. The fatherless and the widow have the same problem - they are missing the powerful male figure of the family. It is a discredit to the society (and hence to God) if it cannot protect justice for the sake of it being justice, rather than to make sure that only rich or powerful people get it.

Furthermore, widows are objects of charity, not loans.

vs 18

Not only were they slaves, but they were treated unjustly. It's hard for us to not simply think that slave = abused and mistreated. But slaves weren't always treated that way, and in fact had the opportunity to buy themselves out. They were a part of the family - I mean sure, more like a dog is a part of the family, but still, people love dogs too.

vs 19

We saw this in Ruth, the idea of not being too strict on your harvesting in order that the poor might glean from your fields. In not being greedy, God will bless you.

vs 20

Same principle.

vs 21

Do you get the picture? Moses, in naming three different situations where you should be practicing this principle, has hopefully covered it for all harvesting practices. Or, by naming three, it could be that he excludes the others, and the poor have to live on bread, oil and wine (or grapes). I would think that the principle extends to all crops, but it doesn't actually say.

vs 22

But it is verses like this that should make the principle more important than the individual rules. If they remember their history as slaves, they should be kind to the disempowered. It's almost Rawlsian - but rather than hypothesising, it is calling on a memory of their actual situation (or the memory of the situation as suffered by their parents).

Deuteronomy chapter 24

vs 1

This next section (vs 1-4) is all one section - about divorce and remarriage issues. But The KJV uses a full stop at the end of vs 1, which makes it seem a bit more discrete. The problem with this is that it makes the mistake of making vs 1 sound like a commandment on its own - which is the exact problem the Pharisees had wi th this verse. (Apparently - so I've been told - the Septuagint also contains this discreteness, but the Masoretic does not. I can't back that up. Ethan Longhenry explores this here.)

Anyway, I'm going to use the (T)NIV type translation at this point, which means that it is all flowing together into one glorious whole.

So vs 1 sets the scene. A man doesn't like his wife, divorces her, and sends her packing.

vs 2

Another conditional clause - since she is now free to marry again, assume that she does.

vs 3

I'm glad they throw in the "or if he dies", otherwise you're beginning to think, "Wow, there's something wrong here. No-one likes being married to this woman." But I suppose it happens.

vs 4

It might seem odd that, even though the first husband wants her back, as it were, he can't have her anymore. But this is the importance of the conditions in verses 2 and 3. If she had not married again, then he could remarry her (at least, that seems the intention). I know it doesn't say that if he remarries then he can't marry her again, but since men were allowed multiple wives, I'm guessing it didn't matter so much to them.

This rule actually does a few things, which are important. One, it means you have to be serious when you divorce a wife - because if someone else snatches her up, that's it, you can't have her anymore. So it means you'll think twice before divorcing her. It also prevents wife-swapping sort of deals, where you divorce your wife long enough for another man to have her, and then get her back again. None of that - that's pimping! I'm being serious, because this is something that is attested to in other cultures. And God is serious too - he sees it as detestable.

vs 5

I prefer the word "duty" to "business" - it makes it sound more like he's being foisted with a responsibility, probably from the state or community, rather than he should give up running his hot dog stand.

It's a good rule, and one which MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) follows quite, well not literally, because MAF don't send people to war. But they don't let people fly planes for a year after they get married. You might think, "Hmm, that seems a bit odd. Why would MAF do that?" But I think, at least partly, they do it for the same reason - flying small planes over large mountains can cause sudden cases of death, as can war. It's a ballsy policy, and it probably costs them a few pilots too. But they are following a godly principle.

vs 6

So if someone owes you money, you can repossess stuff, but not things that they need to make a living. You have to at least give them a chance to pay your debt back! Why do you think mob bosses break people's fingers for not paying back debt? Not only because they want to scare people, but they also want to keep those people in their pocket, so they can never be free of debt.

vs 7

Israelites must never be slaves again. Doing this is so contrary to God's will and plan that there's simply no alternative but death.

vs 8

I wonder why it was traditionally translated leprosy? Perhaps because of Moses and his snowy hand - but surely that could be any number of horrific diseases. Anyway, the fact is you might get one, and then you'd better follow what the Levites are to do (which they should find in the book of Leviticus).

I will also point out that this verse assumes that the books of Leviticus (and possibly Numbers) exists, or at least that the information is available and known. So those people who think that Deuteronomy was the first book of the Bible, and that the other books of the Pentateuch were written later on in Kings time might have some trouble with this verse. I say trouble, they'll just say it's a later editorial addition, which is of course completely unprovable, and somewhat unnecessarily silly if you ask me.

vs 9

The Miriam thing is referring to an episode in Numbers 12 where Miriam and Aaron stand against Moses because his wife is from Cush. But she is healed because she follows the protocol, and I think that's the point Moses is making here.

vs 10

The pledge seems to be what we would call equity - so you're putting up something you own to show that you intend on paying the loan back. I'm not quite sure why you don't go into the person's house to get it - perhaps a cultural thing. Perhaps it's to stop you from also grabbing other things from their home.

vs 11

Perhaps also this act of bringing the pledge out shows that they are giving it willingly to pledge for the loan, rather than you just choosing something and yoinking it. This flows on with the next few verses.

Sermon: Priscilla and Aquila

I'm actually giving this next Sunday, not tomorrow. But I thought I'd put it up early.

--------------------------------------

Priscilla and Aquila – in that order!

I want to show you a picture of an important person.

This man was promoted to the rank of Major during the second world war, although he never saw direct combat, and was awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire for those who aren't up with their titles) for his military service. He went on to be a successful businessman, before becoming a member of the board of Castrol, and then Burmah oil companies. He was the chairman of Atlas Preservatives, the vice-chairman of Attwoods, a director of Quinton Hazel, and a non-executive director of Halfords. He was awarded the last hereditary title given to someone outside the royal family (thus far), becoming a 1^st Baronet. He would have been introduced as Sir Denist. He died in June 2003. Who is this man?

Does anybody know? His importance as a person can be seen by him standing at the door of number 10 Downing Street. I'm guessing none of you recognise him, except perhaps if you lived in England. But if I were to show you the full picture, would you be able to take a guess at who he was?

His name was Denis Thatcher, the husband of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1975 to 1990.

As important as he was, as much as he achieved, Sir Denis will go down in history as being “The husband of Margaret Thatcher”. It's not that he did nothing – more that he was simply overshadowed by the prominence and achievements of his wife.

Today, I want us to look at a Christian couple who are mentioned only a scant six times in the Bible – three times by Luke in his book of the Acts of the Apostles, and three times by Paul in those sections at the end of his letters when he's saying lots of greetings. You know, those bits we don't generally spend a lot of time on. This couple were Priscilla and Aquila, and almost every time they are mentioned, it is the wife Priscilla who gets spoken of first.

You might think, “Well, so what? It's not like there's a rule that they have to be in alphabetical order or something.” But remember that back then, it was a very conservative culture. A woman was lucky to get a mention alongside her husband in the first place. But for the wife to get the primary mention was a strong message. So before we look at the lives of Priscilla and Aquila according to what the Bible tells us about them, we should try and discover what kind of message Luke and Paul were wanting to send to us by putting Priscilla's name first in their culture.

Was it because Priscilla's work in the church was of a better quality that Aquila's? Was it because she was a church leader? Because she wrote the book of Hebrews, as some scholars have suggested? Was it because she was a member of a noble family, the gens Prisca? Was she famous, well-known in Christian circles? The truth is that the Bible simply doesn't tell us. But she was obviously important, not only because she even gets a mention (we could be left to wonder how many wives did not), but is given primacy of first mention by both Paul and Luke.

The New Testament, and Luke and Paul in particular, actually give quite a lot of space to women, considering the era in which it was written. Of the 29 people that Paul greets in the end of the letter to the Roman church, 10 of them are women – that's about a third. It shouldn't surprise us, then, that one of them might have been especially noteworthy or distinctive to get a special mention. And you know what? It shouldn't bother us at all if our wives or daughters or sisters go on to achieve something greater than we men are able to. Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” They are not achieving something really great 'for a woman', they are achieving something great for God's kingdom. Good on them! They deserve our support and encouragement, and that of the church. You might even say we have our own Priscilla in St Ives Community Church, who always gets a special mention before her husband – Bethany and Claude Kapezya! We don't do it because we are seeking to belittle or demean Claude. But Bethany is a daughter of St Ives Community Church, and we esteem her for her role as a missionary in the Congo. She's special to us, and so is Claude. No doubt Priscilla was special to the Christians of New Testament time, and so was Aquila.

So why are this couple special enough to rate a whole sermon? Well, for one we can see the important role of women in the church, and that it was valued by both Paul and Luke. But there is more, much more, that is of special relevance today when we look at this Christian couple. In fact, from the six short mentions we receive about Priscilla and Aquila together as a couple, there are six important lessons we here in St Ives today can learn from and follow.

- Successful businesspeople who used their business to support church work (Acts 18:1-3)

We read in Acts 18 starting at verse 1 that after Paul left Athens and went to Corinth, he met there a Christian couple called Priscilla and Aquila. He was particularly interested in them, because their business was that of tentmaking, or probably more properly leatherworking generally, and this was the same business that Paul was involved in. Apparently Jewish rabbis were taught a trade so that they would not have to be a financial burden on those they taught – whereas the Greek culture saw it fit to pay people who came and spoke, because their speaking was as much entertaining as it was informative. But Paul didn't want a bar of that – he didn't want non-Christian people to have to pay to hear the gospel themselves.

Well, Priscilla and Aquila obviously weren't going to simply put up the cash to support Paul on their own. Even if their business was a roaring success, Paul probably would have turned them down anyway. Instead, Paul joins them in their business, working leather to earn his pay so that on weekends he can go and preach the gospel in the synagogue to both Jews and local Corinthian Greeks. These days, we call missionaries who use their working trades to get into countries who don't accept full time missionaries “tentmakers”, because of what Paul did in Corinth. Of course, verse 4 tells us that once Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, probably with a financial gift for Paul from the churches there, Paul was then able to devote his full time to the ministry. So Paul obviously preferred having his ministry funded if it was possible.

But back to Priscilla and Aquila. They had a successful business, obviously successful enough that they could move from Rome to Corinth, from Corinth to Ephesus, and then from Ephesus back to Rome, having houses in each, at a time when such travel was really only open to the well off or the desperate. They were prepared to take on a Christian whom they'd never met before to work in their shop, not knowing how long he would be able to commit to the work, and knowing that his real passion was in reaching out to people with the gospel. This is an excellent example of people who are prepared to give all that they have to God for God's purposes.

I know several of you here own businesses. Others probably work in situations where they have positions into which they hire people. You know full well that someone who is simply saving up money to make a mission trip to Africa or Europe or Asia, and who will trip out the door the moment they have the dough, is probably not the person who would be the best choice to hire to work for you. They might have good qualifications, but they don't have your business as their first priority. Their eyes are set out there, on the field, where they can be working on the frontlines for God. They're not reliable – you have to train them, they have to learn their role, but they might only be with you a year, or less!

And yet that is exactly what Priscilla and Aquila did for Paul. I can tell you, from my work at AMT, that there are a lot of highly skilled Christians out there on the field working for God – doctors, nurses, teachers, administrators, engineers and others – and I can tell you that the hardest time for them to raise money is when they are forced to come home because of danger or because their chosen country suddenly becomes closed off. They don't know how long they will be home, or when (or even if) they will get to go back. Who is going to give them a job, knowing that as soon as the opportunity arises they'll head back overseas, back onto the mission field? Knowing that they're going to be heading off on weekends visiting churches and mission conferences left, right and centre, making reports about their work? Knowing that their mind is not really on the task, but on the Kingdom? I'll tell you who will do it – Priscillas and Aquilas will – people who value the Kingdom of God and its work above their own temporary business dealings.

You might not own a business or be in a position to pull some strings and get someone a job. I'm certainly not. So do Priscilla and Aquila's example hold anything for us? Absolutely, because:

- Hospitable people who opened their doors to others (individuals and churches) (Acts 18:26, Rom 16:4, 1 Cor 16:19)

Not only were Priscilla and Aquila generous with their business, they were also generous with their house. Acts 18:24-28 tells a great story of a man named Apollos, who came to Ephesus speaking boldly about Jesus being the Messiah, even though he only knew about it because of John's baptism. For the second time, Priscilla and Aquila open their doors to a stranger because they were a Christian. More than that, we read in 1 Corinthians 16 that Priscilla and Aquila had a church meeting in their home (most likely in Ephesus). They probably had church meetings in their homes in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome.

Many of us are blessed enough to own their own homes. Yet more of us have a roof over our heads that we can call our own, even temporarily. As Christians, we should be looking for opportunities to use these dwellings that are given to us to further God's kingdom. Do you have a spare bedroom? Is there a Christian person out there who could use it? Are you going away on holiday for several months? Is there a missionary family home on furlough who could use your house as a base while they stay in Sydney? It can be really hard for missionary families to find places to stay, especially in Sydney where it is so expensive. Have you offered to host a Bible study in your house, even occasionally? Is there some other use the church could have for your house? Be creative! No doubt you know the advantages and best uses of your own place. It is a burden. Yes, it costs you time (because you'll most likely have to clean up before and afterward). It will probably cost you money (feeding people or providing snacks, washing extra laundry, lending someone the car). But such Christian hospitality is one of the things that should mark out a Christian community. Even having people to your house for lunch or dinner is a great act of hospitality and fellowship which can show love and care for others. In my time at AMT I went to lots of different churches and stayed with many different people who were hospitable enough to give me a room to stay in. Penny and I have had our fair share of visitors to our spare bedroom as well. If you've got the space, keep an ear out for the opportunity to practise hospitality.

This hospitality ministry led to Priscilla and Aquila being involved in the life of a powerful Christian speaker of their time, and even led to them having quite a powerful impact on his life, because:

- Discerning Christians who could recognise giftings and disciple others (Acts 18:26)

Apollos, we are told, was a persuasive and powerful speaker, who taught boldly from the Scriptures about Jesus, even though he'd only ever heard about him through John's baptism! But Apollos went on to become a powerful and influential Christian speaker of the early church. You might remember from our studies in Corinthians last year that Apollos was one of the Christian leaders who was so powerful a speaker that one of the Corinthian church factions followed him exclusively. But how does someone get from not even knowing about Jesus fully, to becoming a powerful Christian leader? They meet up with Priscilla and Aquila, of course!

When Apollos first got to Ephesus, he was passionate and fervent, but he had gaps in his knowledge about Jesus Christ. Priscilla and Aquila were discerning enough to recognise the gifts and passion of Apollos, but also to recognise his weak area – he needed more knowledge. So they took him into their house (hospitality, like we were just talking about), but they also trained him themselves. They discipled this great speaker, and he went on to become an influential church leader.

Priscilla and Aquila were discerning Christians. They had God's wisdom, and could recognise someone's giftings, but also recognise how to help that person to become even more successful in their service to God and the Kingdom. Think about the people in St Ives church today. Have you got a relationship with someone strong enough that you can look at them with God's wisdom and see the sorts of things God could use them for? If you do, let me encourage you not to just talk to them about it (although even giving someone a word of encouragement about their gifts is a great thing to do) but can I encourage you to talk to that person about how you can play a part in supporting them to unlock their full potential for God. It might be something as simple as a financial problem. Such problems are easily contributed to. But they might have different social concerns – their parents might not agree with them following a certain course because they want them to be financially successful. They might need regular prayer for their endeavours. You might even have a similar gifting and be able to pass on helpful experience and principles that have helped you over the years.

And we're not just talking about Christian leadership here either. It could be passing on recipe ideas for meals that are simple to make and take little washing up, or don't include milk, peanuts, and other things everyone seems to be allergic to these days ( meals like that are great for regular hospitality). It could be networking them with someone else gifted in their area, or keeping them up to date with opportunities they might not be aware of. Young people particularly need this sort of encouragement and support – there is nothing better when you're young then having someone recognise something you're good at and giving you ideas. They might go on and do something completely different with their gifting. But working out what our gifts are is one of the key challenges that faces young Christians today. I can tell you that if it wasn't for discerning Christians from St Ives taking the time to both recognise my gifting and encouraging me to use it, to study, to go to conferences and so on, I would not be up here today preaching to you!

- Caring people who are prepared to make sacrifices for others (Rom 16:4a)

If you couldn't tell already, Priscilla and Aquila were the kind of people who were prepared to stick their own necks out to help other people, for the glory of God. Paul goes so far as to say this about them: “They risked their lives for me.” We don't know when they did this, or how often. Oh, people have made up all sorts of stories, let me tell you! But the simple fact is that Priscilla and Aquila were not only prepared to put their business and their home up for God's use – they were prepared to put their very lives on the line to further God's kingdom. It doesn't happen often in suburban Sydney that we need to put our lives on the line. But it should show us just how far we should be prepared to go, just how much we are prepared to sacrifice for others, and for God.

Priscilla and Aquila were this type of people. For Paul's ministry, they were prepared to pack their bags and follow him from Corinth to Ephesus. And Paul didn't even stay there! He dropped them off and just kept going on his merry way to Caesarea. He left the people in Ephesus hungry for God's word, and then off he went, leaving Priscilla and Aquila in his dust. But for the sake of Paul's vision and God's mission, they set up home in Ephesus, no doubt opening their business and their home there up for God's use, just like it had been in Corinth.

It's an ever present challenge to the Christian – how much of ourselves do we give to those around us? I know I find myself getting involved in this ministry or that, and the responsibilities and involvements start to pile up, and then someone asks, “Can you do this?” and I think, “If I do one more thing, I'll explode.” But sometimes I'm prepared to push it that one extra step, to make the sacrifice of time and energy, and I think it always pays off, because the work of the Lord is never done in vain.

- Dedicated people who are prepared to make the most of opportunity for the Kingdom (Acts 18:2, 18-19; Rom 16:3, 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19)

I've left this till second last, but really this is a summary of the attitude of Priscilla and Aquila in everything they did for God. But there's a distinct point here too. We learn in Acts 18 that Priscilla and Aquila got chased out of Rome (with a lot of other Jews) because Christianity was causing a stir in the Empire's capital. So they had to pack their bags, and off they went to Corinth. It was there that they were able to meet Paul and give him a job and get involved in his ministry. Later in Acts 18, after a word in their ear from Paul, and probably guidance from God through prayer, they pack their bags again and find themselves living in Ephesus. This is where they meet Apollos and have a massive impact in his life. They also house a church here in their own home. Then at some point in time they end up back in Rome, where Paul greets them in his letter to the Roman church. No doubt they were working hard there to encourage and help the church too.

Throughout all the moving back and forth, they are prepared to look for God's work. They keep their eyes open for any opportunities that they can see to be involved in growing God's kingdom. They might have been leatherworkers by trade, but they were Christians first, and they sought to make use of everything – even being moved out of home against their will – for God's glory.

Is that how you live your life? Because it's really easy to get into a regular Christian timetable where you do all your bits of service each week, and that's fine. But when something goes other than you had planned, do you look at it and think, “Here's an opportunity for me to do something different for God”? People move jobs more often than ever before, and often it causes them to move house, move state or even country, as we have seen several times in this church. I thank God that we have had some really good role models of Priscilla and Aquila-type opportunists in this church, who have used changes in job situation or in location to do something great and different for God. Let's all follow that example, and be that dedicated to God to look for opportunities everywhere.

- They end up being Beloved people who are a blessing to the whole church (Rom 16:4b)

This is the final thing about Priscilla and Aquila, and it comes out in Romans 16:4, where Paul says, “Not only I, but all of the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.” That's how important Priscilla and Aquila were to the growth of the early church. They gave its most influential leader a place to stay and a job. They discipled another great leader. They housed some of the most well known churches of the early church period in their own homes. They risked their necks for others. They were prepared to up and move house if God wanted it, and they were always on the lookout for yet more opportunities wherever life found them.

Were they brilliant speakers? Were they strategic leaders? All we are told about them in the Bible is that they were a Christian couple who were business owners, home owners, and travellers. And yet they were so important in these simple ministries of hospitality and such that all of the gentile churches were grateful to them for their influence. Let's pray that our lives will be used as powerfully by God, as we look out for the opportunities he puts before us.

Deuteronomy chapter 23

vs 14

If God steps in poo while he guards the camp, he'll leave.

Seriously though, this is about conviction of God's presence and understanding his holiness. Poo is only unclean because he says it is (although why he picked it to be unclean is fairly obvious). If you really believe God is guarding the camp, then you want to show him respect and honour, and so you keep the place clean.

For Christians, if we really believe the Holy Spirit lives inside us, then I assume we don't do stuff with our bodies that will dishonour him.

vs 15

Interesting law. I assume it has the same basis as all the other laws of slavery - that Israel was once a slave in Egypt, so you should treat slaves well.

In the same way, Christianity was once a minority religion whose adherents were persecuted and killed and stripped of thei rights...

vs 16

This makes it sound like it is slaves escaping from people who live outside Israel. So Israel is a place of refuge for escaped slaves - as long as they don't come from within Israel.

vs 17

If this wasn't obvious. I imagine that shrine prostitution was pretty popular - if not for the prostitute themselves, then for the population at large.

Oh, the KJV for this is priceless. The word for prostitution and shrine prostitution is the same, sometimes anyway. But other times, like in the next verse...

vs 18

...they use the word for adultery, but in the context of payment. Adultery for money = prostitution. Or, for men, they just call you a dog.

God doesn't accept bad money. He wants it to come from a reputable source.

vs 19-20

Interesting that Christians picked up this law in the medieval times, and then Jews were able to charge them interest. And then they just got hated all over again.

Anyway, God wanted the community of God to look after its own. Being prepared to lend money without interest, to forgive debt, was part of the hesed of the community.

vs 21

I'm assuming that a vow is a fiscal type arrangement - like promising to give thank offerings? Possibly when people pray, "Lord, if you bless my land, I will give you the first harvest" - you know the prayers I mean. Or it could be that it means all vows, and that payment is the language used to show that God expects fulfillment of those vows in the same way a lender would expect payment.

vs 22

These promises are totally voluntary. Which means they are more than thank offerings, which I think are more mandatory.

vs 23

So there you go - it is more than just financial. Anything you promise to God you have to go on with. God will hold you to it, and if you fail, then you will be guilty of sin.

vs 24

I'll remember that next time I visit Penny's aunt and uncle's vineyard. I wonder if Woolworths would accept this as a defence when they catch you eating grapes from the fruit section?

vs 25

So don't harvest from your neighbour's crops, but feel free to take a snack if you're hungry. It might sound unfair, but considering they can do the same thing, then it's fine. And inevitably those who are rich are going to get snacked on by those who are less well off, so it's going to make for equity.

Deuteronomy chapter 23

vs 1

In the immortal words of Dave, "You mean there are other ways that allow you in?" to which suggestions such as tearing and biting were suggested. I think the idea is that if you have emasculated yourself for the purpose of becoming a eunuch - that is, purposefully - then you can't come into the community. But if it happened by accident - wild dog accident or runaway cart accident - then it's okay.

vs 2

Now here is a good reason why you get married if you sleep with a virgin - your kids won't be allowed into the community otherwise. But the (T)NIV does it one better, actually - forbidden marriage is more accurately what the Hebrew word describes (although points to the KJV for simply saying 'bastard' - I'd love to read that out in an Aussie church). Because the word isn't just about birth out of wedlock - it also describes birth from an incestuous relationship, or birth of a child with only one Hebrew parent.

vs 3

Does this mean the 11th generation is okay? I'm thinking it's symbolic of "a long time".

vs 4

Everyone remembers how well that worked for them. But that's not the point - even if you screw up your action against God's people, it's still against God's people. Now this might seem incredibly harsh, then - why, if they suddenly change their minds and realise that God alone is God, can they not come to the community? It wasn't them after all, it was their ancestors.

Well, there's nothing stopping them from worshipping God and offering sacrifices. But by not being members of the community, they wouldn't be allowed to do it properly. It's a hard one. In that case, 10 generations might actually be a more literal number - so that there is a sunset clause on this statement. But then, it's not that the symbolic statement doesn't also have a sunset clause - it's just that we can't recognise when it's going to be.

vs 5

At this point I believe cheers and applause are necessary.

vs 6

But if they seek one? That's not really covered.

vs 7

Edomites is understandable - they are Esau's offspring, I think. So that's like brothers. But Egyptians is particularly interesting - they were, at first, like landlords. Then slavemasters. But still, God doesn't want them thought of as the enemy. He's talking to people who are one generation out of slavery - some of them actually lived as slaves under Egyptian rule. That's pretty special.

vs 8

So that is obviously a literal number. I assume the generations are taken from after the entrance to the promised land, otherwise it's a bit useless.

vs 9

Perhaps because there will be more impurities around their enemies? Probably more so that they are holy, because combat for them is something God has told them to do.

vs 10

Lovely. If that's not obscured enough, go for the KJV, "uncleanness that chanceth him by night."

vs 11

God really takes ceremonial cleanness seriously. Imagine how seriously he takes holiness of his people.

vs 12

The KJV and NASB are more literal here - there's no word for "relieve yourself", it is literally "go out there". But then, that's pretty much what we say, "Oh, man, I've really got to go!" So the (T)NIV is really just clarifying idiom.

vs 13

But the KJV is certainly nor literal with its translation "that which cometh from thee." The word is tsa'ah, and it means poo. It's the same word Ezekiel uses to describe, I don't know, Israel or something. We'll get to that in the decades to come.

Deuteronomy chapter 22

vs 21

This shows two things. One, if you want to protect your daughter, then make sure you keep proof of her virginity. Two, while God does not like people who lie, even to the point where their lie could mean someone's death, he also does not like adultery.

vs 22

Your real problem here is going to be finding the two or three witnesses. But at least both of them die.

vs 23

So, that is someone who is already spoken for, but isn't married yet.

vs 24

So there is a caveat here for rape. If you scream, then you're obviously being raped, and so it's not a problem. But notice that the rule for sleeping for a woman who isn't spoken for, and one who is, are different. The woman is not a man's wife until she's spoken for. In that case, you'd be forced to marry her.

vs 25

Of course, how it is proved if there was no-one around to witness it becomes a difficulty.

vs 26-27

I guess it's like a murder and robbery in that the person getting murdered and robbed has nothing to do with it - not like a murder where you egg them on with annoyance until they kill you out of hatred.

So the assumption is that the woman did scream, but no-one was there to hear it. So women are given the benefit of the doubt in this case. Which is good.

vs 28

Ahh, here's the rule I was talking about.

vs 29

This does seem awful. Who wants to marry the man who raped them? And yet you see that when David's son rapes his sister, the same thing happens - she would rather have her honour in tact by at least being married, than have both the shame of being dishonoured and then also being unable to be married again.

vs 30

It sounds totally wrong, but remember that in this culture, especially with multiple wives, it was possible for older men to buy up a younger woman, both for hanky panky, but also because their first wife is getting old and can't do all the housework as well.

Deuteronomy chapter 22

vs 11

Again, this is a representation of holiness. I would like to see the dietary brigade come up with a health reason or other worldly benefit for this law.

vs 12

Ok, this is just weird. I don't know what tassels represent, so I'm at a loss on this one. It might be a fashion that only Israel wore, or that priests were known to wear, or something. The word is only used twice in the Bible - and the other is talking about a building, I think.

vs 13

So note straight away that the reasoning for this scenario is set - he doesn't like her. It sets the tone for the whole thing.

vs 14

It really is slander. I mean, a woman could be killed for adultery. And it's not because he really believes it, it's just because he doesn't like her.

vs 15

The separation from our culture to this culture is so wide that I have had several questions on this area. Proof comes in the form of a blood-soaked sheet from the marriage bed. This whole section revolves around having this proof, and is really a warning for parents to ensure that they have this in their possession, because not having it can lead to their daughter's death.

vs 16

So the father makes the countercharge that the man is simply a bastard.

vs 17

There's no forensic science back then - what's to say you couldn't just make a cloth with some goat's blood or something?

vs 18

Ahh, now the shoe is on the other foot. The rule is you can't make such statements simply because you're a nasty man.

vs 19

In modern times we would not allow this, because by our standards it is horrible that a woman would have to stay married all her life to someone who was prepared to make an accusation that could have meant her death.

But their culture was different. Death is better than shame. Better to be married to an awful husband, but at least be married. I know, it's psychotic. Thankfully Paul lays down the law of sense in 1 Corinthians.

Of course, your next question will be, "OK, if God wants women to have equal rights, why didn't he instill that in the OT Law? Sure, you can say he gave women more rights than the other countries around them, but that's not the same as giving them equal rights." The answer is that women don't have equal rights in some areas according to God's law, or at the very least that women's rights are not absolute, and are allowed to be changed depending on the whim of the culture that one finds oneself in. Or, that God wanted to set in place a progression, a moral precursor, but really wanted women to have equal rights and for there to be no slavery. That is, that God wanted the whole process of slavery to freedom, and few rights for women to lots of rights, in order to prove some point. But it's not really biblical to say that - it's just a fine logical argument.

vs 20

What happens if no proof can be found? I've already said, but we'll see it played out tomorrow!

Deuteronomy chapter 22

vs 1

This is, after all, a nice thing to do. It's like returning a lost wallet or puppy. It's actually like a mix of the two!

vs 2

Obviously today you could hand it into a police station or something similar. Unless you found it out in front of your house, and there was a reason why the person looking for it would come to your house. The point, anyway, is that it's a loving thing to do, and you should go as far as possible to help the person, even if you don't know them. Remember, keeping an oxen or sheep on your property is actually costing you grassland that you could be grazing your own animals on.

vs 3

There's so much junk in the world today that it's hard to know if someone has lost something or just dropped it on the side of the road. The amount of umbrellas I see, where people have just discarded them where they stood because they broke - I mean sure, you're getting wet, and you might be a bit upset at the fact that your umbrella broke, but why chuck it straight on the footpath?

vs 4

Or, in modern times, help someone with a flat tyre. Of course, helping a donkey out of a ditch is a more simple problem than helping someone who's car has broken down. I mean, as I have had it said once, if you pull over and know nothing about how to fix an engine, someone who does know might go past thinking, "That person is OK." I think perhaps we assume people will be OK too much. Like, we assume they'll have a mobile phone and stuff, and there's nothing we can do to help. Some friends from our Qld church once filled the back of their car with bottles of cold water and drove up and down the highway handing them out to people who had broken down, just because they knew that it would be nice (in a Qld summer, I'll bet it was!).

vs 5

So many arguments, so many intricacies. God did not say "Let there be pants, and they belong to men." In fact, people didn't wear pants in Israel! It was about the cut of tunics, I'm told. I like the argument that men shouldn't dress up like women in order to sneak into secret women's quarters and commit adultery. I guess women wearing man's clothes could be for the purposes of an Osama type education or work exercise, which would be unnecessary if Israel were looking after its widows and orphans appropriately. Since in modern day we have designer clothes, and more equal opportunity, I think this is a lot less of an issue. What about transvestites? Hell, I don't know. I can't see a problem with it, really, if it's just that they like wearing the clothes. If it's because they want to be a member of the opposite sex and can't afford a sex change, that's probably going to be more of a homosexual/rebel against creation issue.

I guess at the end of the day the fact is that while we would like to think that there are some things that are harmless and that should be a part of some private sphere that no-one can talk about, even what happens in a marital bedroom will be judged by God, and God can ban pretty much whatever he wants. I would say that there's nothing wrong with a woman wearing a guy's shirt in the morning while she cooks breakfast or whatever (you know the scene in the movie I'm talking about), but since God can ban the colour orange if he wants to... Hell yes, it's arbitrary. Everything God does is inevitably arbitrary, when you come back to first principles. I'm not saying that God does things without reason, but that he creates reason as well as doing.

Anyway, I'm not going to judge people by their clothing. Not with regards to spiritual efficacy, at least. And I would be prepared to sail somewhat close to the wind on this one. Close hauled on the port tack, just like Hornblower. I'm rambling now.

vs 6

Don't destroy the whole family. I'm guessing it's something to do with sustainability.

vs 7

There is no reason given. Sustainability seems the obvious reason. But there is also a justice reason too, I suppose. To be honest, sustainability is not a broad brush across the OT, while justice is, in my opinion. Anyway, anything I say won't stop hippies from reading it as a command to hug trees. This command is knit into God's promised land promises - "that it will go well with you and you will have a long life."

vs 8

Also, don't install spikes on the front of your car. I mean, it's just stupid. Who are you, Mad Max? In fact, according to this Christians should all drive those cars that have high pedestrian safety ratings. Also, banning people from going on your roof is allowable, so don't feel the need to go for actual crenelations. Of course, I want them on my house, but only because it would be a castle and be awesomely cool.

vs 9

So does calling them two separate vineyards make it okay? I think the issue here is purity. It's symbolic. So surely having two separate vineyards is fine.

vs 10

I assume that they'd go around in circles, but also again I think this is symbolism of purity. And there are more commands like this. Verse 12, well we'll get to that tomorrow.

Deuteronomy chapter 21

vs 12

Head shaving is supposed to be a mark of shame for a woman in Greek culture - perhaps it wasn't the same in Hebrew culture. The cutting fingernails remark sounds like they're converting a wild woman from the jungle, but I assume these could all be symbols of the woman putting aside her old life. Either that, or it's just cultural difference.

vs 13

Because marriage really was as simple as that. What they called "common law marriage" back in the days of yore. Just on that point, common law marriage has been a fact for thousands of years. It was only in the 1500s that the Catholic church refused to recognise common law marriages, and required a priest to preside. So for all those Christians who think that you somehow need to get married in a church building, finding some Biblical precedent will be difficult. The best thing you will do is talk about NT marriage celebrations - but the culture of arranged marriage and common law marriage is so different to western culture that it's hard to make concrete comparisons.

vs 14

So once you "marry" her (ie do the nasty), if you're not pleased, you can't then pimp her out. You can keep her as a slave if you don't do this, but once you start dishonouring your captured women, then they are free if you don't keep them as a wife. And as we will see, wives are wives - you can't have your "saucy wife" and your "cleaning wife". Well, actually, you can. But you have to treat them the same.

vs 15

Sounds like a Jerry Springer show. Seriously, multiple wives? Are you seriously thinking it's worth it?

vs 16

This is a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do" from God. God has claimed the weak and not firstborn from among people already (Jacob, Joseph) and will continue (David, Solomon). You could almost argue that God wants Israel to keep the tradition of the importance of firstborn so that it is more obvious when he breaks it.

vs 17

Having a son is a sign of strength, apparently. Is this an eternal biblical precept, or is it a culture more? I'll let you think about that one.

vs 18

Wait, isn't this everyone? Oh, no, wait a moment - they actually disciplined their children back then and made them work. They didn't have a 6-12 year long adolescence. You went from boy to man. And people actually had to work hard to provide for themselves and their family.

vs 19

You know it's not good when you end up at the gates of the town in front of the old guys. Because they will say, "Kids these days, I don't know. I remember when I was his age, my father hand an onion on his belt, which was the style at the time..." and so on.

vs 20

I tried to find the hebrew word for what the (T)NIV translates as 'profligate' (NASB and KJV "glutton") . Couldn't work it out. Am feeling lazy. Basically the son is a bum. We think, "Ahh, being a drunkard means that he must be an adult." I'd like to see where in the law it gives a minimum age for drinking. But he probably is an adult - we have to remember that even though you were a "man" a lot younger, you were basically employed by the family business (farming) until your dad retired. So this is like the punishment for both a bad child and a bad employee.

Thankfully, my Hebrew scholar of a wife tells me that the word (which I did discover, but then couldn't look up out of laziness) means that he "makes light of things", that is that he wastes things, and treats things as if worthless. This is where they get the idea of gluttony from. Not sure if profligate really covers it. I think the Ben translation "bum" is best used.

vs 21

And of course, that makes it totally fair to kill this person. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some sort of disowning and poverty would have been sufficient, but God apparently knows best, and best means more killing.

vs 22

Pole is an interesting translation from the TNIV. Even the NIV stuck with tree. Even I know the hebrew word for 'tree', and this is it. But apparently, it can mean more than just tree - even a gallows uses the same word. Which makes sense, when you see it written in Hebrew. Still, for them to go 'pole' instead of 'tree' is a break from translation tradition for quite a well known verse.

vs 23

Now, I can't say I'm 100% sure about this. It might be talking about their body as a living body, but I have a feeling the word will turn out to be 'corpse'. Yup, it is. So that makes me more sure of what I'm going to say - the corpse is there hanging on a pole. If you leave it there, that person is under God's curse (and it is the person, just a simple pronouny bit). So that means, surely, that there was some sort of cursing going on after they are dead. So here is a hint at there being more to life than just life - once you die, there are further consequences. And what happens to your corpse can apparently make a difference.

And I don't think I need to make reference to the obvious prophetic reference to Christ here. So I won't.

Deuteronomy chapter 21

vs 1

Which is more exciting: "Expiation of a crime" or "Atonement for an unsolved murder"? Go the NIV subtitles. I love the amount of detail that God goes into regarding murder. Human life is of a huge worth to him.

vs 2

Distance becomes the determining factor. I wonder how they measured it? Paces?

vs 3

That is, a fresh, new heifer.

vs 4

Lovely. I assume all the parts of the land have a valley that is never planted and has a flowing stream. That's pretty specific.

vs 5

Good to know they actually have work to do. It seems they've gotten off kind of lightly so far. But now they have to step up.

vs 6

Symbolic of ridding themselves of the unsolved murder, I guess.

vs 7

That's assuming that none of them did it.

vs 8

So, of course, if they are lying, then God won't accept the sacrifice, and then they're in trouble.

vs 9

I wonder how often, if ever, this was done? Regardless, it shows that God is giving Israel opportune devices with which to maintain its purity before God. An individual killer who cannot be caught will not be the ruin of the nation - if justice cannot be done, at least the innocent blood can be atoned for.

vs 10

Ahh, captives. As we have read already, women are like possessions, as are whole towns if they surrender.

vs 11

But wait, aren't you meant to not marry women outside of Israel, because they will lead you astray to foreign gods? It's not actually as simple as that. It may well be that the Israelites had a view that those women who were married to an Israelite man became defacto Israelites. Just why you would want to marry a woman whose family you had possibly killed and definitely conquered in battle is beyond me.

Deuteronomy chapter 20

vs 11

So basically, peace for them means slavery. This is what happened to the Gibeonites, except that they pretended they were from far away. This is the confusing thing for me. I was sure God said that there was no mercy, you had to kill all the people inside the land. And if this refers then to cities you attack outside the land, why are you attacking them?

vs 12

This is usually what happens when peace negotiations fail.

vs 13

That's harsh. I would say it is more harsh than most countries were at the time, and some of them could be pretty harsh. I mean, the Greeks and Romans could be like this - killing everyone and sowing the ground with salt - but it was rare. Israel was meant to do it every time.

vs 14

Women count as plunder. Children aren't even mentioned. Cattle are more important.

This plunder is for the use of the warriors, rather than having to be "devoted to God" through a bonfire.

vs 15

There we go. I was sure we must be talking about war that happens outside of the promised land here. But again, why are they going and invading other towns?

vs 16

Babies breathe. Ducklings breathe. Puppies breathe. Imagine being a member of the duckling death squads.

Ok, I know I'm being silly, but this is actually serious. God wants everything dead, which means that people actually have to go around putting babies to death.

vs 17

Obviously God focuses on the people, rather than the ducklings. That's a lot of people groups. Well, I mean even one people group labelled "Kill them all" is a lot.

vs 18

Better for them to die than for Israel to be turned away from God.

And there are people who view Australia like a Christian Israel. They don't say we should kill all the non-Christians, just that we shouldn't let them into the country. Only one step before we get death squads, really.

vs 19

Wait, is God here saying that a fruit tree is safe because it's not a person, but if it were a person handing out fruit, chop the bugger down with an ax? Yes, that is indeed what he is saying. These verses are just showing the utter justice of God. There is no mercy here. Except for a tree. I guess the hippies would be happy - right up until the Israelites killed them.

vs 20

There's just the slightest hint here of why Israel would be at seige with a city that isn't in the promised land. It's the idea that its people are at war with Israel. Perhaps this is where modern day Israel gets the idea of the defensive land grab?

Oh, and sorry hippies, God says I can cut down the trees to make seige works. Only fruit trees are safe. That is, useful trees. Wasn't it nice of God to give Israel some tactical advice on use of trees?

Deuteronomy chapter 20

vs 1

That's a nice thought. I will point out that it is also a specific promise to God's people. If you try this now, you will inevitably get boned.

Okay, that's not exactly true. God has made promises he will stick to forever. But this one is fairly specific. The principle that God will always be there for you is true. But he won't necessarily make your country win a war. Or even a battle.

vs 2

This, I would say, is pretty specific.

vs 3

Wouldn't it be nice if everything could be accomplished through formulaic speeches? I wonder if this really was liturgical, or if they could substitute an appropriately stirring speech with the same sentiment? There is comfort in both, I guess.

vs 4

It doesn't matter how hard you fight - God is the one who wins it for you.

vs 5

This is all one big statement regarding how unnecessary force of arms is when you have God on your side. So it weeds out those people who probably aren't all that keen on fighting anyway. Only those who are willing to put their lives on the line for God should do it. And they are, because there's no guarantees that they won't still die - only that Israel will win the battle.

vs 6

Easy way to get out of war - plant a vineyard.

vs 7

It might be that some of these also keep people at home happy too - only those people that the country is prepared to lose are sent to war.

vs 8

So not only do you weed out those people who don't really want to be there, who aren't focused and on task, but also those who might bring down morale.

vs 9

Now that you have weeded out all those who don't need to be there, you can appoint commanders, because that appointment is based on numbers I think.

vs 10

Now this is totally interesting. I'll be keen to look at this more tomorrow morning. Before I go, though, I will just say that whoever broke up these chapters of Deuteronomy into verses is great.

Deuteronomy chapter 19

vs 11

That is, someone who murders someone else in cold blood, or even hot blood.

vs 12

What I find most interesting about this rule is that the avenger must kill the person. There is no separation between the family grieved and the restitution of justice. They get their five minutes alone, as it were. The state-sanctioned death penalty is like an abbatoir of justice - it separates the call for final justice from those who seek it. God doesn't accept that. Of course, for a family of all girls whose husband/father is killed, this will present a problem of justice - who will kill the murderer?

vs 13

I was going to say that the next interesting thing is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of a clause to prevent the torturous stringing out of the suffering of such a person. Now we read here, "Show no pity." Yikes. Even I am afraid of the consequences there. The family really do get what they want, if what they want is to cause an extreme and terrible pain-filled death.

And no, I'm not reading all that into "Show no pity." I know that simply means, "Don't let them off with a death price or something." But the fact that there is no mention of sanctioned methods of death specific to this case makes me wonder. I suppose the idea of "Love your neighbour" could cover "Kill them as painlessly as possible", but it doesn't cover "Don't kill them at all", so in saying that it's really just an assumption that I don't think bears up.

vs 14

That's worth just throwing in there, while we're talking about murder and refuge. Honestly, where does this come from? Now, I will admit that in the (T)NIV it uses paragraph breakups to have this as a different section. It could be (although I think it unlikely) that the section on witnesses is related specifically to the moving of landmark stones.

vs 15

This does not preclude the need for considered judgment. This is more a caveat on such judgment, saying that without at least 2-3 witnesses, don't bother.

vs 16

Because they will. Important to have a rule for it. Interesting that the KJV calls it a "false" witness, but everyone else calls it a "malicious" witness. Having said that of course, the (T)NIV makes the wonderful eisegesis of reading in "takes the stand". Makes it sound like a Perry Mason drama.

vs 17

I thought this is what they would do anyway, but I think this is more along the lines of the final court of appeal - the big judges and priests who are at the place the Lord will name.

vs 18

So not only are they judging on the matter at hand, they are also judging whether the testimony of the witness is valid. This is kind of like the HCCC - when a doctor gets called up in front of them for a section 66 thing (like they were handing out benzodiazepam or having sex with patients), they don't just investigate that, they check their record-keeping abilities, they check their mentoring and reporting procedures, the cleanliness of their offices, whether they brush their teeth in the morning. It's quite invasive.

vs 19

Eep. So if you were trying to sue someone out of everything they own - you just made yourself a pauper. So when King Ahaz (or was it Ahab?) killed Naboth, he really should have been killed. Or at least the guys who were prepared to give false testimony should have been. God dealt with them, I'm sure.

vs 20

Again, control by fear. Godly.

vs 21

Eye for eye. In this context, it is not the punishment for simple crimes. It is the punishment for false witnesses. And I think it extends out to these things - so normally it would be financial claims or such, but even if they are seeking physical punishment, then that is what will be meted out on them. False witnesses are bad!

Deuteronomy chapter 19

vs 1

So that is, not now.

vs 2

This is a repeat of instructions. There are to be cities of refuge on both sides of the Jordan, too.

vs 3

The fact that roads are to be built to them is significant. This is a huge deal. Building roads is only what you do to major centres. God saying he wants roads built to these cities means he thinks this is important. And we're also reminded in a single sentence what they are for - if you kill someone, you can flee there.

vs 4

So just when you begin to think that the death penalty is a bit harsh, God puts in place mechanisms of mercy and justice, such as to protect those people who are responsible for the death of another, but only by accident.

vs 5

Obviously this is the sort of thing that could happen. It seems an odd illustration to use when Israel has been in the desert for 40 years. Perhaps sand isn't very dangerous.

vs 6

Just one more thing about the culture that we probably don't understand. Chasing down someone who killed one of your family and killing them was totally acceptable! It's an honour and shame culture, and to do nothing when someone kills one of your family is shameful. God does not speak out against this practice either - he merely sets up a situation whereby those who would be killed unjustly can be protected.

vs 7

A good explanation all around. Except for the illustration, but I'm sure it will make more sense once they have some forests.

vs 8

Wait, if? Don't you mean when? I suppose this contingency is linked to the obedience of Israel. The promised land is by no means an assurity. There is stuff they have to do, like conquer it.

vs 9

Aha! I was right.

vs 10

This is one of the ways that the land can be spoiled - by the Israelites allowing innocent blood to be spilled on their land. God wants justice. The blood they will spill in conquering is justice blood. But people can't be killed because of false allegation or in situations where they were not malicious. God will be displeased.

Deuteronomy chapter 18

vs 12

And so we hear once again why the nations are being driven out - because of their detestable and ungodly practices. Even way back here we see that God judges all nations, not just Israel.

vs 13

The implication being that Israel will not escape the same fate simply by being chosen by God - they still need to steer clear of detestable practices.

vs 14

So it's not about whether divination works or not. This is not a pragmatic decision. It is because God wants people to listen to him, not to diviners or magicians.

vs 15

Of course, Joshua might be seen as such a prophet. But there is a longer ranging promise here too. When we read more about this prophet, it will become clear.

vs 16

This was the request of Israel - so at least partly because Israel recognised the need for a mediator between God and mankind, we receive one in the form of a great prophet.

vs 17

God had to agree, of course. But he did. In fact,

vs 18

The role of a prophet then, is to tell the people the commands of God. This does not sound so much like a ministry of predicting, does it? That is what diviners do, after all! No, a prophet exists to make plain the commands of God to people.

vs 19

And he does so with the authority of God. God himself will punish those who disobey the prophet.

vs 20

So this is not a carte blanche for starting up a cottage industry in prophecy, or even creating a new job market. If you aren't called by God, you'll die. If you try and work in other gods into your prophecy, you will die.

So there's a bit of an indication of how important God sees this role.

vs 21

What a great preemptive question! Aren't you thinking that right now as you read this?

vs 22

Now we get the idea that a prophet should speak predictively about something. But this is more a test, really, than what his job is.

Deuteronomy chapter 18

vs 1

This means that Israel has to keep up a sin/thankfulness coefficient in order for the tribes of Levi to survive. Either that, or the festivals represented enough for all Levites to live on, at least barely. After all, it was not like other ancient societies who had so little access to meat that they could only eat it at sacrifice - God has told them they'll be so rich they can eat meat whenever they want!

vs 2

Which means that the living standards of the Levites would be an excellent barometer of the overall spirituality of the Israelites. They would be the ones to suffer, when sacrifices stop coming in.

vs 3

Not bad, really. I'm not an organ man myself, but this is a substantial part of the animal.

vs 4

This is all the stuff that is given to God. The Levites are the ones that get the benefit of it. I love that this is made really clear - you will give stuff to God, but God doesn't eat it or make use of it. He wants you to give it up as a sacrifice to him, but in the end the Levites quite plainly are going to get it.

vs 5

Israel may not have been the first people group to use a sacrificial system, but God uses that system for his glory. He is able to bend it to his will. Well, use it to exeplorise what he wanted.

vs 6

So it's not that Levites were bound to the towns they were sent to either. That's pretty cool, considering that for the most part in the ancient world most people didn't travel much.

vs 7

So Levites who feel called to the central place of worship can go there. Not just for a holiday though.

vs 8

From moving house, I assume it means. So even a rich Levite can still work in the service of God. That is their inheritance, regardless of where else they make money.

vs 9

You should be too busy killing them all anyway.

vs 10-11

There are a lot of words for pretty much similar things here. I'm sure they all have their intonations. I know the Greek ones do.

Apparently the Wiccans want "witchcraft " to be translated more literally in the Bible, because they think that the translation "witchcraft" is eisegetical and has been put there to allow for the persecution of the Wiccan religion. Since Wicca is only like 4 years old, they are at least partly right. I don't think Moses had a bunch of robe wearing hippies in mind when he was talking about this. He was talking about real magic of various kinds. Still, modern readers of the Bible don't really understand all the vagaries and trivialities of ancient magic, so probably better to just use a term like "sorcerer" or "witch" to get the general meaning across.

So remember, when you're preaching on Deuteronomy 18, don't preach hate against Wiccans. Be sure to include a suitable footnote, "This is not talking about Wiccans. Wiccans are just a bunch of postChristian neopagans that want to forge for themselves an identity that they think sounds cool, and gives nerdy fat guys an excuse to meet ditzy chicks."

Deuteronomy chapter 17

vs 11

The priests then have an authority both as judges and as teachers. Their words should be seen not just as decisions made for the sake of justice, but words of wisdom imparted for the sake of your learning.

vs 12

If only this rule existed in the classroom - I'd have put at least three students to death by now, and I can't think of a better way to enforce rule of law at present.

vs 13

God so obviously uses fear! And yet I feel like my hands are tied in doing so in a classroom. That reminded me to send an email.

vs 14

The fatalism with which these words are written is astonishing. God actually establishes laws concerning kings, even though this has probably not yet entered the minds of Israel. If you believe that God never wanted a king to rule over Israel, then you probably think this is a gracious law, like having laws for divorce. If you think God's plan was to have a king, then this is obviously not so much a problem.

vs 15

So when Israel decides to have a king, they only have one choice - a king God chooses. And that will only be an Israelite. Israel is to value its independence, and never to become a vassal to another state.

vs 16

Don't rely on horses for you military, rely on God! I wonder how God feels about Israel buying tanks and helicopter gunships from the USA?

vs 17

All wise things to put in place for a king to follow. Of course, somehow this book gets lost, and so these things all get done by Solomon. He can't plead ignorance though - God gave him wisdom!

vs 18

This is never recorded as having been done. Not even by David, I don't think. Imagine the difference it might have made.

It occurs to me, then, that so many of these laws never see effect on a country-wide scale. So we can't really judge Israel by these laws, because as a whole they were never even trialled.

vs 19

I have stopped doing my daily readings because I pretty much rush out of the door every morning, and I have so much class stuff to do when I get home. And I can feel the difference in not having it there. I just don't know where to fit it in though. It's one thing I look forward to when prac finishes. That and not having to teach anymore.

vs 20

No-one should consider that they could do something "better" than the way God plans things. That's just stupid. God even makes it clear that those kings who follow his rules will reign for a long time. So the alternative is fairly obviously implied.