Thursday, April 16, 2009

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.

2 comments:

Nina May said...

Just why you would want to marry a woman whose family you had possibly killed and definitely conquered in battle is beyond me.Maybe because she's a top sheila?

I just read both the second half of chapter twenty, and then this, one after the other - it feels like such a hard transition from Kill them all! to atone for the blood of one person, but I'm sure to some extent that's the modern bleeding heart liberal sensibility in me. I wonder if there was a point in the juxtaposition?

Anonymous said...

The transitions in Deuteronomy are oft-argued over in commentaries. As far as I know, no-one has come up with a framework for Moses' speeches that fits a recogniseable and logical framework.