vs 21
If God means what I think he means, it is that in the same way God has made them envious and angry by worshipping idols, he will make them envious and angry of nations that have no concept of God and are not even considered a people. That is a threat worthy of "I'm going to hit you so hard your grandchildren will come out with bruises."
vs 22
Where would we be without pictures of wrath like that? I mean, when your dad gets angry at you, he can't say things like that - it's just way too grandiose. But when God says it, you actually have to ask the question, "Wow, will he really do that? Or is it just a metaphor?" That's one of the things i love about God. He can make poetry come alive, if he wants to.
vs 23
While arrows flying down from the clouds would be totally scary, I don't think it's literal. God can of course claim the arrows of all nations as his own, and fire them wherever he likes. So it could be a combination of calamity and war. But I think it is more likely an idiom - to spend ones arrows against someone, to fight against them.
vs 24
Famine, plague, pestilence, things that bite you (bears?) and snakes to poison you. They all just exist in this world, but to have them marshalled against you would just be bone-achingly wearisome, to the point of just giving up. Well, that's how I would feel.
vs 25
The link to the sword here means no doubt that not only will people die in war, but since women, children and the elderly will die, that means they will also lose those wars.
vs 26
How many times did he say that? Too many to count. Well, actually, I'm sure we could easily count them, but that he would say it at all is horrid. Not of God, though - he has the right. Of people, that we would treat him that way.
vs 27
The (T)NIV tradition translate adversary in singular, and don't link it to the people. The KJV and NASB do. Can I be bothered going to the Hebrew? It would probably make it clear. I might get Penny to look at it.
Obviously someone might misinterpret God's handiwork in crushing Israel. Either the enemies of Israel will think they just crushed them with military might, or Satan perhaps will think that he was able to take them out.
vs 28
Ouch! Not only does God just flat out say this, he puts it in a song for them to memorise!
vs 29
Dude, seriously, they're singing the song about how unwise they are. And yet I'll bet that sang this song all the way through Judges while the Phillistines were wailing on them.
vs 30
Normally, it would be Israel's ones and twos putting thousands to flight. But now, the tables will turn, and it will be Israel's thousands fleeing. Either way, God says, that is a sign that he is at work.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 32
vs 11
I'm afraid that picture is somewhat lost on me. Why does it stir up its nest? Do eagle chicks really fly on the wings of the mother? Anyway, I get that it's a picture of motherly protection, I just don't really bond with the metaphor.
vs 12
Now there's an important statement - only God was with Israel (Jacob - the whole singular thing can be confusing, but the song is really about the people). It was God who led his people to the promised land.
vs 13
I'm pretty sure honey doesn't come from rocks (although bees might have made their nests in the rocks). But oil from the flinty crag? Got to be a miracle. Unless we're talking about black gold, in which case I don't think it fed them. Either that or that's how you make oil, by squeezing it through rock crevices?
vs 14
It's all very poetic. Funny, I always think of Israel as just eating manna and quail. But they did have beasts and so could have made milk and curds and stuff. Foaming grape juice, I'm not so sure of. Like the wheat. You sort of need to sit in one place for a while to get those. So this could even refer to their stay in Egypt? I don't think so.
I actually think this is referring to Israel in the promised land. They're learning a song about their actions in the promised land before they even get there.
vs 15
See, I don't ever recall Jacob himself doing this. Surely this is talking about Israel as a people, and what is going to happen to them in the promised land.
vs 16
I'm assuming, since this really did happen to Israel as a nation, even in the time of Judges, that this is what is being referred to here.
vs 17
The idea of calling the other gods demons is a strong early indicator of the idea that all non-God gods are actually evil spirits. Again you can see the repetitive nature of Hebrew poetry.
vs 18
And again with the repetition.
Israel did forget God pretty much all together - certainly the northern kingdom was pretty close to that description. But even in the time of judges, there was a bit of forgetfulness.
vs 19
God's sons and daughters, or Jacob's sons and daughters? Either way it's the same people, but to be called the sons and daughters of God is pretty cool - not so cool when God's angry with you I guess.
vs 20
This is a rare statement of God - normally, God is deep into the affairs of humanity, and especially his chosen people. But this is one of those statements where God says, "You know what? I actually am going to pull back, hide, and see what happens to these people." So all those deists can know there's a verse in the Bible that almost backs up their ideas. But it's not done by God as a rule - in fact, for God to do so is a punishment.
I'm afraid that picture is somewhat lost on me. Why does it stir up its nest? Do eagle chicks really fly on the wings of the mother? Anyway, I get that it's a picture of motherly protection, I just don't really bond with the metaphor.
vs 12
Now there's an important statement - only God was with Israel (Jacob - the whole singular thing can be confusing, but the song is really about the people). It was God who led his people to the promised land.
vs 13
I'm pretty sure honey doesn't come from rocks (although bees might have made their nests in the rocks). But oil from the flinty crag? Got to be a miracle. Unless we're talking about black gold, in which case I don't think it fed them. Either that or that's how you make oil, by squeezing it through rock crevices?
vs 14
It's all very poetic. Funny, I always think of Israel as just eating manna and quail. But they did have beasts and so could have made milk and curds and stuff. Foaming grape juice, I'm not so sure of. Like the wheat. You sort of need to sit in one place for a while to get those. So this could even refer to their stay in Egypt? I don't think so.
I actually think this is referring to Israel in the promised land. They're learning a song about their actions in the promised land before they even get there.
vs 15
See, I don't ever recall Jacob himself doing this. Surely this is talking about Israel as a people, and what is going to happen to them in the promised land.
vs 16
I'm assuming, since this really did happen to Israel as a nation, even in the time of Judges, that this is what is being referred to here.
vs 17
The idea of calling the other gods demons is a strong early indicator of the idea that all non-God gods are actually evil spirits. Again you can see the repetitive nature of Hebrew poetry.
vs 18
And again with the repetition.
Israel did forget God pretty much all together - certainly the northern kingdom was pretty close to that description. But even in the time of judges, there was a bit of forgetfulness.
vs 19
God's sons and daughters, or Jacob's sons and daughters? Either way it's the same people, but to be called the sons and daughters of God is pretty cool - not so cool when God's angry with you I guess.
vs 20
This is a rare statement of God - normally, God is deep into the affairs of humanity, and especially his chosen people. But this is one of those statements where God says, "You know what? I actually am going to pull back, hide, and see what happens to these people." So all those deists can know there's a verse in the Bible that almost backs up their ideas. But it's not done by God as a rule - in fact, for God to do so is a punishment.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 32
vs 1
Okay, so it's a fairly long song. I always think I'm a little ripped off that the poetry and songs in the Bible aren't easily transcribable into western music. Because being told "It's a song" is not quite the same as experiencing it as a song. Of course, it's not like the score or anything is recorded here, so we are reading it more or less the way they did, just we don't get a sense of cadence perhaps.
So apparently when you sing this song, you're singing it to the heavens and the earth. Pretty poetic.
vs 2
I have read a thing or two about Hebrew poetry, like when we were studying the psalms in Old Testament. This kind of repetition is a very normal thing for Hebrew writing. I can't remember all the formulae they used now.
For all that, what is the picture actually of? Teaching falling like rain - so that everyone gets it? So there's lots of it?
vs 3
At least that is pretty clear cut.
vs 4
Aha, we have a song for this verse. I don't think Rock refers to perfection or justice. Probably more immovability and stability. But hey, there might be a cultural thing that means rocks are just or perfect, or righteous? I mean, someone less idealistic could interpret this as "God is immobile, unreactive and useless", but of course then they'd find that it hurts getting hit by a rock.
vs 5
Who are they? It seems a terrible othering to say in verse 3 "I proclaim that God is great" and now, "But them? Oh, they suck." Perhaps the idea is that, by keeping to the words of this song, you will be the "I" and not the "they".
vs 6
The first claim is about God as creator - that you cannot repay him with foolishness and corruption because he made you, and deserves the respect of a father for that.
vs 7
This hearkening back to history - I'm not sure if it is a point on its own (God has a faithful record) or is still referring to creation (the idea that there is a creation myth prevalent with the Israelites is an interesting one).
vs 8
This is implied in the pentateuch, but I don't know if it is flat out stated before now. In any case, the obvious thing is that Israel has a portion and an inheritance (which is of course important for a people who have as yet had no land to call their own). But it also suggests that all other nations have something similar. Obviously some are about to lose it. So it is not an eternal inheritance.
vs 9
This is of course a poetic thing - I mean, who does God inherit from? But Israel is his special bit. He is designating it special to him.
vs 10
Almost like he found a puppy lost on the street, and took him in and hugged him and squeezed him and called him George.
Okay, so it's a fairly long song. I always think I'm a little ripped off that the poetry and songs in the Bible aren't easily transcribable into western music. Because being told "It's a song" is not quite the same as experiencing it as a song. Of course, it's not like the score or anything is recorded here, so we are reading it more or less the way they did, just we don't get a sense of cadence perhaps.
So apparently when you sing this song, you're singing it to the heavens and the earth. Pretty poetic.
vs 2
I have read a thing or two about Hebrew poetry, like when we were studying the psalms in Old Testament. This kind of repetition is a very normal thing for Hebrew writing. I can't remember all the formulae they used now.
For all that, what is the picture actually of? Teaching falling like rain - so that everyone gets it? So there's lots of it?
vs 3
At least that is pretty clear cut.
vs 4
Aha, we have a song for this verse. I don't think Rock refers to perfection or justice. Probably more immovability and stability. But hey, there might be a cultural thing that means rocks are just or perfect, or righteous? I mean, someone less idealistic could interpret this as "God is immobile, unreactive and useless", but of course then they'd find that it hurts getting hit by a rock.
vs 5
Who are they? It seems a terrible othering to say in verse 3 "I proclaim that God is great" and now, "But them? Oh, they suck." Perhaps the idea is that, by keeping to the words of this song, you will be the "I" and not the "they".
vs 6
The first claim is about God as creator - that you cannot repay him with foolishness and corruption because he made you, and deserves the respect of a father for that.
vs 7
This hearkening back to history - I'm not sure if it is a point on its own (God has a faithful record) or is still referring to creation (the idea that there is a creation myth prevalent with the Israelites is an interesting one).
vs 8
This is implied in the pentateuch, but I don't know if it is flat out stated before now. In any case, the obvious thing is that Israel has a portion and an inheritance (which is of course important for a people who have as yet had no land to call their own). But it also suggests that all other nations have something similar. Obviously some are about to lose it. So it is not an eternal inheritance.
vs 9
This is of course a poetic thing - I mean, who does God inherit from? But Israel is his special bit. He is designating it special to him.
vs 10
Almost like he found a puppy lost on the street, and took him in and hugged him and squeezed him and called him George.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 31
vs 21
Imagine that, humming this song to yourself as you sift through the ruins of your house, wheeling the corpses of your family to a pit in the ground. Then you think, "I always thought it was just a nursery rhyme" or something. Its like a line out of a fiction book.
God knows they are going to rebel. He knows that they are bound for a painful ride. No doubt he knew about Adam and Eve too. But he goes through with it all anyway, which must show that the act itself has meaning, and purpose, in God's eyes.
vs 22
What song? Where is it? Is it Moses' song that is recorded later?
vs 23
Joshua still has his part to play, even though God has revealed to him a spoiler about how it ends. God did the same for Abraham, if you recall - the slavery in Egypt was foretold. God likes giving spoilers. But they never really contain it all, do they? The results always still take us by surprise.
vs 24
The one book?
vs 25
So not the whole tribe, but those ones specifically who had this very important job. If you're going to entrust something important to someone, probably the ones who carry the giant gold box are the guys to do it.
vs 26
Just as the Ark represents the presence of God with them, so the Book represents in very real terms the Laws that they have accepted over them.
vs 27
Moses knows that it will get worse after he's gone. That's not a reflection on Joshua, it's a reflection on Israel.
vs 28
Perhaps a little bit of a scare tactic, but it's also him doing his responsible thing. He wants to make sure they have every opportunity, so they can't later turn around and say, "We weren't told," or "We forgot," or "You didn't tell us enough times."
vs 29
Moses knows because God told him. But he also knows what God him is true because it is self-evident by the actions of these leaders at pretty much every step of the way between Egypt and where they stand now.
vs 30
So now we get the song. You could be forgiven for thinking that the bit before has been shoved in by some later editor. But then it's trying to be chronological here, and Moses had to set the scene for the song. Remember, it's supposed to remind them, to hold them to account, for the disasters that will befall them when they turn away from God. And we get to look at that tomorrow.
Imagine that, humming this song to yourself as you sift through the ruins of your house, wheeling the corpses of your family to a pit in the ground. Then you think, "I always thought it was just a nursery rhyme" or something. Its like a line out of a fiction book.
God knows they are going to rebel. He knows that they are bound for a painful ride. No doubt he knew about Adam and Eve too. But he goes through with it all anyway, which must show that the act itself has meaning, and purpose, in God's eyes.
vs 22
What song? Where is it? Is it Moses' song that is recorded later?
vs 23
Joshua still has his part to play, even though God has revealed to him a spoiler about how it ends. God did the same for Abraham, if you recall - the slavery in Egypt was foretold. God likes giving spoilers. But they never really contain it all, do they? The results always still take us by surprise.
vs 24
The one book?
vs 25
So not the whole tribe, but those ones specifically who had this very important job. If you're going to entrust something important to someone, probably the ones who carry the giant gold box are the guys to do it.
vs 26
Just as the Ark represents the presence of God with them, so the Book represents in very real terms the Laws that they have accepted over them.
vs 27
Moses knows that it will get worse after he's gone. That's not a reflection on Joshua, it's a reflection on Israel.
vs 28
Perhaps a little bit of a scare tactic, but it's also him doing his responsible thing. He wants to make sure they have every opportunity, so they can't later turn around and say, "We weren't told," or "We forgot," or "You didn't tell us enough times."
vs 29
Moses knows because God told him. But he also knows what God him is true because it is self-evident by the actions of these leaders at pretty much every step of the way between Egypt and where they stand now.
vs 30
So now we get the song. You could be forgiven for thinking that the bit before has been shoved in by some later editor. But then it's trying to be chronological here, and Moses had to set the scene for the song. Remember, it's supposed to remind them, to hold them to account, for the disasters that will befall them when they turn away from God. And we get to look at that tomorrow.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 31
vs 11
So either they read it to their groups, or they took it in turns I suppose. The idea is to get them while they are all gathered in one spot. The problem being, of course, that as far as we know, they never celebrated this, not once.
vs 12
When the book of the law is actually found in Josiah's reign, its reading does cause a fear of the Lord, and it does cause them to follow it more carefully. I am still surprised it's only every seven years though. Perhaps other parts were read at other times, and this is the only time that the whole thing is read out.
vs 13
I suppose it becomes a bit of an epic thing, the reading of the Law, partly because it is meant to happen on the Sabbath year, which would be one of those years you measure time by. This festival would be one of the more memorable things happening in the year. And it goes together with the whole Sabbath being consecrated to God thing too.
I'm just trying to think of some things we learn as children that are simply taken for granted in this day and age, and that have this same sort of importance. Australia has no history.
vs 14
Things are coming to an end for Moses. Imagine being told that you're going to die soon, so get your stuff in order. He's actually probably okay with it - he's lived a long life, served God pretty faithfully, and he is remembered forever. Whether he knew of any sort of afterlife or not, I'm sure he trusted God to do right by him. And God is filling his position with a capable person of the middle guard, Joshua. Not the old guard (Moses), not the new guard (post-wilderness).
vs 15
What a cool effect.
vs 16
Who takes this harder, Moses or Joshua? Moses would be pained by it, surely - this people for whom he has given up so much to bring them to the place God gave them, in answer to their cries for help, are going to rebel against God again, and forsake him more. Although on the one hand he could expect it - it's happened so many times now - perhaps he thought that the promised land would change things.
As for Joshua, he's having the hard part of the job put right in front of him - you are taking over the leadership of a rebellious people. You will have the same problems Moses did.
vs 17
God never forsook the people in the wilderness. He threatened it, lots of times. But he never actually destroyed them. But now God is telling these leaders that this is what the people are destined for, because they just can't stop being wicked. Eventually, they will realise it. But only eventually.
vs 18
Even when they realise it, God will not answer them. He will leave them to the punishment due to them for their idolatry and turning away from him.
vs 19
God speaks in song as much as anything else. He understood that it was easy for them to memorise a song and sing it to themselves. He knew that would stay with them much more easily than the whole law, and that even when the Law was lost, a song would be passed on with mothers singing it to their children.
vs 20
Part of me thinks that the logical time to turn away from God is when things go bad, not when they are good, and especially not when God has so specifically promised how good they will be! But this is a quirk of human nature - we stick with what we know in tough times, hearken back to our roots, and in times of plenty, we get greedy and we look for something even better than what we've got, because things seem to only be getting better. Go figure.
Perhaps it is the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness we have when things are bad - we're weak, and we can't fix it ourselves, so we turn to God. But the thing is, these people are still turning to gods - but not to solve their problems, perhaps. Maybe they turn to them because their festivals of mass sex and food are more fun than God's food without sex festivals?
So either they read it to their groups, or they took it in turns I suppose. The idea is to get them while they are all gathered in one spot. The problem being, of course, that as far as we know, they never celebrated this, not once.
vs 12
When the book of the law is actually found in Josiah's reign, its reading does cause a fear of the Lord, and it does cause them to follow it more carefully. I am still surprised it's only every seven years though. Perhaps other parts were read at other times, and this is the only time that the whole thing is read out.
vs 13
I suppose it becomes a bit of an epic thing, the reading of the Law, partly because it is meant to happen on the Sabbath year, which would be one of those years you measure time by. This festival would be one of the more memorable things happening in the year. And it goes together with the whole Sabbath being consecrated to God thing too.
I'm just trying to think of some things we learn as children that are simply taken for granted in this day and age, and that have this same sort of importance. Australia has no history.
vs 14
Things are coming to an end for Moses. Imagine being told that you're going to die soon, so get your stuff in order. He's actually probably okay with it - he's lived a long life, served God pretty faithfully, and he is remembered forever. Whether he knew of any sort of afterlife or not, I'm sure he trusted God to do right by him. And God is filling his position with a capable person of the middle guard, Joshua. Not the old guard (Moses), not the new guard (post-wilderness).
vs 15
What a cool effect.
vs 16
Who takes this harder, Moses or Joshua? Moses would be pained by it, surely - this people for whom he has given up so much to bring them to the place God gave them, in answer to their cries for help, are going to rebel against God again, and forsake him more. Although on the one hand he could expect it - it's happened so many times now - perhaps he thought that the promised land would change things.
As for Joshua, he's having the hard part of the job put right in front of him - you are taking over the leadership of a rebellious people. You will have the same problems Moses did.
vs 17
God never forsook the people in the wilderness. He threatened it, lots of times. But he never actually destroyed them. But now God is telling these leaders that this is what the people are destined for, because they just can't stop being wicked. Eventually, they will realise it. But only eventually.
vs 18
Even when they realise it, God will not answer them. He will leave them to the punishment due to them for their idolatry and turning away from him.
vs 19
God speaks in song as much as anything else. He understood that it was easy for them to memorise a song and sing it to themselves. He knew that would stay with them much more easily than the whole law, and that even when the Law was lost, a song would be passed on with mothers singing it to their children.
vs 20
Part of me thinks that the logical time to turn away from God is when things go bad, not when they are good, and especially not when God has so specifically promised how good they will be! But this is a quirk of human nature - we stick with what we know in tough times, hearken back to our roots, and in times of plenty, we get greedy and we look for something even better than what we've got, because things seem to only be getting better. Go figure.
Perhaps it is the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness we have when things are bad - we're weak, and we can't fix it ourselves, so we turn to God. But the thing is, these people are still turning to gods - but not to solve their problems, perhaps. Maybe they turn to them because their festivals of mass sex and food are more fun than God's food without sex festivals?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 31
Wow, has it really been that long since I posted? For shame! Stupid assignments.
vs 1
So here's another speech from Moses. This one has a bit of a different character, though.
vs 2
It's not quite as cheery as Bilbo Baggins' speech, but then he was only eleventy one. I don't actually think the age was so much a factor (but he was old!). The fact was, God had said he wasn't going to cross the Jordan, and that's what Israel was up to, so he couldn't take then any farther.
vs 3
Note that it is God who is mentioned first in his role as going before Israel. God is the leader of his people, and it is God that will make everything happen. Joshua will go too, sure. But God is the important one.
vs 4
Joshua won't destroy them. God will.
vs 5
That is, the total remorseless slaughter with your own hands. Note that even at Jericho, while God pulled the walls down, the Israelites still had to get up to their necks in the blood of children.
vs 6
This is the same call that the people will make upon Joshua - to be strong and courageous. It's more than a physical strength, and more than an outer courage too. They must have the fortitude to do what needs to be done, regardless of the awfulness. It might be righteous, but it won't be nice.
Most of all, though, they cannot fear - for there should be no fear for them if God has promised to be with them. Because God will not leave or forsake.
vs 7
Now it's official - the office is being transferred. The final parts of the job are being transferred. Strength and courage will be needed to deal not just with their enemies, but with Israel too. The division of the inheritance will be as scary as the fighting for it. Scary in a different way, but still.
vs 8
God will be with his people, but there is a special sense in which he will be with Joshua as the leader of his people. And Joshua especially will have God with him.
Remember that no-one ever tells you not to be afraid or discouraged if the situation isn't going to be scary and discouraging.
vs 9
That really does make it sound like Moses wrote down Deuteronomy. It sounds either like several copies, or that one copy was entrusted to the priests and leaders of the people. One copy is probably more likely, given what happens to it.
vs 10
It's not as often as we might think. Every seven years, once during the feast of tents. Maybe if they'd done it every year? But then we forget that these are the stories of the people - they will be told at every feast anyway. They will be talked about around the campfire. They will be written on the doorframes, talked about on the roads, taught to the children.
Well, that was the plan.
vs 1
So here's another speech from Moses. This one has a bit of a different character, though.
vs 2
It's not quite as cheery as Bilbo Baggins' speech, but then he was only eleventy one. I don't actually think the age was so much a factor (but he was old!). The fact was, God had said he wasn't going to cross the Jordan, and that's what Israel was up to, so he couldn't take then any farther.
vs 3
Note that it is God who is mentioned first in his role as going before Israel. God is the leader of his people, and it is God that will make everything happen. Joshua will go too, sure. But God is the important one.
vs 4
Joshua won't destroy them. God will.
vs 5
That is, the total remorseless slaughter with your own hands. Note that even at Jericho, while God pulled the walls down, the Israelites still had to get up to their necks in the blood of children.
vs 6
This is the same call that the people will make upon Joshua - to be strong and courageous. It's more than a physical strength, and more than an outer courage too. They must have the fortitude to do what needs to be done, regardless of the awfulness. It might be righteous, but it won't be nice.
Most of all, though, they cannot fear - for there should be no fear for them if God has promised to be with them. Because God will not leave or forsake.
vs 7
Now it's official - the office is being transferred. The final parts of the job are being transferred. Strength and courage will be needed to deal not just with their enemies, but with Israel too. The division of the inheritance will be as scary as the fighting for it. Scary in a different way, but still.
vs 8
God will be with his people, but there is a special sense in which he will be with Joshua as the leader of his people. And Joshua especially will have God with him.
Remember that no-one ever tells you not to be afraid or discouraged if the situation isn't going to be scary and discouraging.
vs 9
That really does make it sound like Moses wrote down Deuteronomy. It sounds either like several copies, or that one copy was entrusted to the priests and leaders of the people. One copy is probably more likely, given what happens to it.
vs 10
It's not as often as we might think. Every seven years, once during the feast of tents. Maybe if they'd done it every year? But then we forget that these are the stories of the people - they will be told at every feast anyway. They will be talked about around the campfire. They will be written on the doorframes, talked about on the roads, taught to the children.
Well, that was the plan.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 30
vs 11
This verse makes me think. It makes me wonder whether the 'inability' language that we use, while backed up by plenty of scripture, is not somehow giving us an out with regards to our responsibility for our own actions when it comes to sin. After all, what is being "commanded today" is to obey God's commands, and to turn to God with all your heart and soul. Paul's book of Romans tells us that this verse in Deuteronomy is, in fact, wrong - that the sinful nature prevents us from following God's commands purely because they are God's commands, and it wants to rebel against them!
In light of such, this verse possibly does not mean what it originally seems to mean. Perhaps it is talking about general obedience, rather than slavish obedience. That is, in following God's commands it is accepted that you will fail - this is no different in the New Testament, according to 1 John - but that should not prevent us from following them broadly as a body of laws. But that seems a little weak.
vs 12
Interestingly, the idea of the laws being out of reach seems to be less about the ability to follow them, and more about their origins and where they can be found. Even though these laws are from God, we don't need to climb up into heaven to find them.
vs 13
They are also not in some far away land (like they are for non-Israel countries). Note that both times, the request is couch in terms of "So we may obey it." The focus is more on the finding the law than the difficulty in obeying it.
vs 14
This is part of God making it their law, not just his law, so that they have ownership of it.
vs 15
Even here, you would think that the carrot and stick approach would attract people to obey the law. But we know full well it does not. Having said that, we also know that if you punish someone with enough plagues, they will turn to God for help.
vs 16
Moses' command is to follow the road of life and prosperity.
vs 17
Again, the clear focus on idolatry which is the deal breaker.
vs 18
And what a deal breaker. The results of idolatry are painted very clearly in Moses' speech.
vs 19
This choice of life is not only to accept that God has made laws, but to then follow them.
There is the classic "Won't someone think of the children" line - good to know that's as old as time itself.
vs 20
Note that it's not just about an abundant life in the land, though - it is about having a relationship with God. If they turn their back on him now, they lose the chance to love him, listen to him and hold fast to him. They would be like any other nation. Having said that, God might smack them around until they change their minds. We don't know, although that would fit his MO.
This verse makes me think. It makes me wonder whether the 'inability' language that we use, while backed up by plenty of scripture, is not somehow giving us an out with regards to our responsibility for our own actions when it comes to sin. After all, what is being "commanded today" is to obey God's commands, and to turn to God with all your heart and soul. Paul's book of Romans tells us that this verse in Deuteronomy is, in fact, wrong - that the sinful nature prevents us from following God's commands purely because they are God's commands, and it wants to rebel against them!
In light of such, this verse possibly does not mean what it originally seems to mean. Perhaps it is talking about general obedience, rather than slavish obedience. That is, in following God's commands it is accepted that you will fail - this is no different in the New Testament, according to 1 John - but that should not prevent us from following them broadly as a body of laws. But that seems a little weak.
vs 12
Interestingly, the idea of the laws being out of reach seems to be less about the ability to follow them, and more about their origins and where they can be found. Even though these laws are from God, we don't need to climb up into heaven to find them.
vs 13
They are also not in some far away land (like they are for non-Israel countries). Note that both times, the request is couch in terms of "So we may obey it." The focus is more on the finding the law than the difficulty in obeying it.
vs 14
This is part of God making it their law, not just his law, so that they have ownership of it.
vs 15
Even here, you would think that the carrot and stick approach would attract people to obey the law. But we know full well it does not. Having said that, we also know that if you punish someone with enough plagues, they will turn to God for help.
vs 16
Moses' command is to follow the road of life and prosperity.
vs 17
Again, the clear focus on idolatry which is the deal breaker.
vs 18
And what a deal breaker. The results of idolatry are painted very clearly in Moses' speech.
vs 19
This choice of life is not only to accept that God has made laws, but to then follow them.
There is the classic "Won't someone think of the children" line - good to know that's as old as time itself.
vs 20
Note that it's not just about an abundant life in the land, though - it is about having a relationship with God. If they turn their back on him now, they lose the chance to love him, listen to him and hold fast to him. They would be like any other nation. Having said that, God might smack them around until they change their minds. We don't know, although that would fit his MO.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 30
vs 1
Not the most encouraging start, is it? To be told that you are going to fail, and that the curses will befall you, or at least your children or following generations.
vs 2
And yet it would seem that God is fully confident in his plan. Yes, they may well rebel, and yes, they will be cursed and punished. But those who are left will return to God.
vs 3
Just like Job, who was made to suffer for a time, but was then restored to a life of even greater glory than before, God will restore the fortunes of those who rebel against him.
vs 4
And here is the important point. God will restore not just their relationship with him, but the land as well. The land becomes their land, in the same way that the promises are their promises and God is their God. It's a part of ownership and identity.
vs 5
Just taking a jump forward, they obviously did return to the land - built a new temple, all of that. Were they more prosperous and numerous than their anscestors? I don't know about that. I mean, they lost 11 tribes, more or less. So numbers are obviously going to be problematic. And as for wealth, they would compare with Solomon's age (remember the old people weeping at seeing the second temple?).
If that is the case, what do we do with these verses? Unfortunately, I think what we have to assume is that with the land comes the blessings and curses once more - and Israel obviously continued to fail to live up to God's standards, and so was punished, even after returning from exile. So they never achieved their level of wealth, perhaps because their leaders took little notice of all the words from God to them.
vs 6
The thing is, this doesn't really happen until Jesus. It obviously happens to some degree, because Judah basically loses their lust for idolatry after a long stay in Babylon. But the real circumcision of the heart comes with Christ. Although the prophets call for it pretty regularly.
vs 7
That will be a nice change - it will be like going back to the Egypt model.
vs 8
So the thing is they actually do obey them a bit occasionally. They are going back to a time of obedience. Not going forward through a time of disobedience to a time of obedience. So even God considers they do okay at some point - although, considering God has a long view, it's not really clear what time he's talking about here. Under David? Solomon? Hezekiah? Josiah?
vs 9
The formula of blessing returns in this verse. Wombs and livestock and crops a plenty.
vs 10
It's almost a reset. The blessings and curses never stop being conditional on obedience. And we also see the requirement of returning to God with all of heart and soul.
Not the most encouraging start, is it? To be told that you are going to fail, and that the curses will befall you, or at least your children or following generations.
vs 2
And yet it would seem that God is fully confident in his plan. Yes, they may well rebel, and yes, they will be cursed and punished. But those who are left will return to God.
vs 3
Just like Job, who was made to suffer for a time, but was then restored to a life of even greater glory than before, God will restore the fortunes of those who rebel against him.
vs 4
And here is the important point. God will restore not just their relationship with him, but the land as well. The land becomes their land, in the same way that the promises are their promises and God is their God. It's a part of ownership and identity.
vs 5
Just taking a jump forward, they obviously did return to the land - built a new temple, all of that. Were they more prosperous and numerous than their anscestors? I don't know about that. I mean, they lost 11 tribes, more or less. So numbers are obviously going to be problematic. And as for wealth, they would compare with Solomon's age (remember the old people weeping at seeing the second temple?).
If that is the case, what do we do with these verses? Unfortunately, I think what we have to assume is that with the land comes the blessings and curses once more - and Israel obviously continued to fail to live up to God's standards, and so was punished, even after returning from exile. So they never achieved their level of wealth, perhaps because their leaders took little notice of all the words from God to them.
vs 6
The thing is, this doesn't really happen until Jesus. It obviously happens to some degree, because Judah basically loses their lust for idolatry after a long stay in Babylon. But the real circumcision of the heart comes with Christ. Although the prophets call for it pretty regularly.
vs 7
That will be a nice change - it will be like going back to the Egypt model.
vs 8
So the thing is they actually do obey them a bit occasionally. They are going back to a time of obedience. Not going forward through a time of disobedience to a time of obedience. So even God considers they do okay at some point - although, considering God has a long view, it's not really clear what time he's talking about here. Under David? Solomon? Hezekiah? Josiah?
vs 9
The formula of blessing returns in this verse. Wombs and livestock and crops a plenty.
vs 10
It's almost a reset. The blessings and curses never stop being conditional on obedience. And we also see the requirement of returning to God with all of heart and soul.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 29
vs 21
The idea of thinking you'll be fine even though you're going against God is so opposite to God's desires that he has made this special mention of the force with which his curses will smite such foolish people.
vs 22
So there will be no sweeping God's curses under the mat for when foreigners come and visit. No hiding skeletons (of people who died from curses) in the closet from the kids.
vs 23
The who now? The kingdoms of Admah and Zeboyim (Zeboiim, Zeboim) were allied with Sodom and Gomorrah back in Genesis 14. Also Zoar, but they don't get mentioned here. So anyway, they were obviously on the losing side of that alliance, because God threw them down.
And he will do the same thing if his demands aren't met by Israel. He wants a relationship, sure, but he will still punish those that go against him.
vs 24
So calamatous and so mighty will God's wrath be that nations will be forced to acknowledge his hand in it.
vs 25
But God won't just be happy with people asking the question of his involvement. No, for him Israel, the cursed, the oathbreakers, will stand as an example of what happens to those who abandon covenant with God. I've actually never felt so bad for someone who denies Christ after being in the body as I do after reading this passage.
vs 26
Rebellion and rejection and idolatry were their crimes.
vs 27
Perhaps Moses thought some people might read the curses and think, "Well, I could survive one or two of these." He wants to make sure that they understand that all of them are coming on those who break covenant.
vs 28
The quotation marks here mean that whoever translated this assumes that this verse is part of Moses' speech. I'm not arguing with them, but it is interesting to note that if you stopped them one verse ago, this would read as a very interesting later editorial addition.
vs 29
This is an interesting idea. Because God reveals himself to a degree, and his laws and commandments and desire for relationship, as God's people we gain a sense of ownership over those things. Ownership is perhaps not the best word, as God really owns everything. But that doesn't mean he can't then give a bit of it to us. He can let us own those things he reveals to us.
After all the talk of cursing, this is a great promise - that not only does God offer relationship, but he offers himself to us. We can call him our God, and it's true. "I will be your God," says God, and he means it. He will let them (and us) claim him. Not exclusively, obviously. But there's enough of God to go around.
The idea of thinking you'll be fine even though you're going against God is so opposite to God's desires that he has made this special mention of the force with which his curses will smite such foolish people.
vs 22
So there will be no sweeping God's curses under the mat for when foreigners come and visit. No hiding skeletons (of people who died from curses) in the closet from the kids.
vs 23
The who now? The kingdoms of Admah and Zeboyim (Zeboiim, Zeboim) were allied with Sodom and Gomorrah back in Genesis 14. Also Zoar, but they don't get mentioned here. So anyway, they were obviously on the losing side of that alliance, because God threw them down.
And he will do the same thing if his demands aren't met by Israel. He wants a relationship, sure, but he will still punish those that go against him.
vs 24
So calamatous and so mighty will God's wrath be that nations will be forced to acknowledge his hand in it.
vs 25
But God won't just be happy with people asking the question of his involvement. No, for him Israel, the cursed, the oathbreakers, will stand as an example of what happens to those who abandon covenant with God. I've actually never felt so bad for someone who denies Christ after being in the body as I do after reading this passage.
vs 26
Rebellion and rejection and idolatry were their crimes.
vs 27
Perhaps Moses thought some people might read the curses and think, "Well, I could survive one or two of these." He wants to make sure that they understand that all of them are coming on those who break covenant.
vs 28
The quotation marks here mean that whoever translated this assumes that this verse is part of Moses' speech. I'm not arguing with them, but it is interesting to note that if you stopped them one verse ago, this would read as a very interesting later editorial addition.
vs 29
This is an interesting idea. Because God reveals himself to a degree, and his laws and commandments and desire for relationship, as God's people we gain a sense of ownership over those things. Ownership is perhaps not the best word, as God really owns everything. But that doesn't mean he can't then give a bit of it to us. He can let us own those things he reveals to us.
After all the talk of cursing, this is a great promise - that not only does God offer relationship, but he offers himself to us. We can call him our God, and it's true. "I will be your God," says God, and he means it. He will let them (and us) claim him. Not exclusively, obviously. But there's enough of God to go around.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 29
vs 11
This promise is being bound not just to the leaders, not just to the men of fighting age, but to everyone - children, wives, even the foreigners who live with the Israelites. It is for all the community to take direct responsibility.
vs 12
A covenant which includes all the curses you just heard. So unless you're deaf or stupid you have no recourse - you know what you're getting into. This is serious oath language, a contractual type arrangement - well, it's more than that, it's a huge commitment to make.
vs 13
Commitment is a great word for this, because it is so much more relational than 'contract'. Obviously the suzerain-vassal covenant is in mind, but it is more benevolent and also much deeper than that, because it is about more than rules.
vs 14
What separates the covenant from the oath? The (T)NIV has commas to separate it to that effect, but even the KJV and the NASB use the word 'and' which makes them sound distinct. Covenant is the relationship, I guess, and oath is the binding promise. That's how I think of it... but it seems I'd be wrong. When I look at the Hebrew, covenant (b'reet) is an alliance, a positive relationship type word. Oath ('alah) is translated more often as curse than it is as oath. This word is used 6 times in Deuteronomy: five of them in chapter 29, and once in 30, twice translated "oath" (here and in vs 12), and the other four translated as "curse". I think it's like saying "I swear I will kill your parents" - it's a promise, but not a happy promise like "till death do us part."
vs 15
Who isn't there that day? Had some people gone shopping? I suppose this might be a way of saying "the future generations", although it's not like he couldn't just say that. It might also be "those who are patrolling the settlement, or those on priestly duties, or those going to the bathroom".
vs 16
That is, only by God's grace really.
vs 17
I wonder if Israel had a problem with idolatry while living in Egypt? It doesn't seem like they brought any idols with them. However, they did fall into golden calf worship pretty easy.
vs 18
The bitter poison of curses, I think he's talking about. It's not the kind of poison you want to let enter your water supply, because it destroys whole nations.
vs 19
Even dry land will be cursed because of these people! How much more cursed can it already be? Obviously trying to do things without God is not an option here, if you make the commitment.
vs 20
Eep. Angry God. My first thought on reading this is that perhaps we could use a few more verses like this in the New Testament to remind us that God is in fact very damn holy. But then I thought, "Wait a minute, that just means we're not reading our Old Testament enough!" Read your OT!
This promise is being bound not just to the leaders, not just to the men of fighting age, but to everyone - children, wives, even the foreigners who live with the Israelites. It is for all the community to take direct responsibility.
vs 12
A covenant which includes all the curses you just heard. So unless you're deaf or stupid you have no recourse - you know what you're getting into. This is serious oath language, a contractual type arrangement - well, it's more than that, it's a huge commitment to make.
vs 13
Commitment is a great word for this, because it is so much more relational than 'contract'. Obviously the suzerain-vassal covenant is in mind, but it is more benevolent and also much deeper than that, because it is about more than rules.
vs 14
What separates the covenant from the oath? The (T)NIV has commas to separate it to that effect, but even the KJV and the NASB use the word 'and' which makes them sound distinct. Covenant is the relationship, I guess, and oath is the binding promise. That's how I think of it... but it seems I'd be wrong. When I look at the Hebrew, covenant (b'reet) is an alliance, a positive relationship type word. Oath ('alah) is translated more often as curse than it is as oath. This word is used 6 times in Deuteronomy: five of them in chapter 29, and once in 30, twice translated "oath" (here and in vs 12), and the other four translated as "curse". I think it's like saying "I swear I will kill your parents" - it's a promise, but not a happy promise like "till death do us part."
vs 15
Who isn't there that day? Had some people gone shopping? I suppose this might be a way of saying "the future generations", although it's not like he couldn't just say that. It might also be "those who are patrolling the settlement, or those on priestly duties, or those going to the bathroom".
vs 16
That is, only by God's grace really.
vs 17
I wonder if Israel had a problem with idolatry while living in Egypt? It doesn't seem like they brought any idols with them. However, they did fall into golden calf worship pretty easy.
vs 18
The bitter poison of curses, I think he's talking about. It's not the kind of poison you want to let enter your water supply, because it destroys whole nations.
vs 19
Even dry land will be cursed because of these people! How much more cursed can it already be? Obviously trying to do things without God is not an option here, if you make the commitment.
vs 20
Eep. Angry God. My first thought on reading this is that perhaps we could use a few more verses like this in the New Testament to remind us that God is in fact very damn holy. But then I thought, "Wait a minute, that just means we're not reading our Old Testament enough!" Read your OT!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 29
vs 1
Written in the third person, possibly by Joshua? Certainly a good sum up to this point.
vs 2
So this is now the third address to Israel by Moses. You can see why the Hebrew Bible starts vs 1 here. It's a pretty standard beginning now - start with what they know about God by seeing (or history of seeing).
vs 3
Signs and wonders really are important to Israel. Paul wasn't kidding.
vs 4
So that's where Jesus gets it!
It's funny to think that God has done all these miracles, but he hasn't actually equipped his people with the ability to understand his message very well.
vs 5
One of the many signs and wonders of their age.
vs 6
His purpose is entirely about revealing himself to them. The problem comes, of course, when Israel then expects this sort of thing every time something bad happens, and if they don't see God working immediately then they lose faith and go worship an idol.
Faith based on miracles only lasts as long as miracles do.
vs 7
Indeed they did.
vs 8
Two and a half tribes of women and children who now have homes, but will always be those tribes that leave on the "east side" of the Jordan.
vs 9
If the one billion verses of curses doesn't encourage you to follow the covenant carefully, then perhaps the reminder of blessings will.
vs 10
Typical maleocentric maleocracy putting the men, and the leaders (who are men) first. But the others, as we will see, are mentioned. This is a covenant with all of the people - with the leaders, yes. But also with the individuals in their families. They will all be held to account.
Written in the third person, possibly by Joshua? Certainly a good sum up to this point.
vs 2
So this is now the third address to Israel by Moses. You can see why the Hebrew Bible starts vs 1 here. It's a pretty standard beginning now - start with what they know about God by seeing (or history of seeing).
vs 3
Signs and wonders really are important to Israel. Paul wasn't kidding.
vs 4
So that's where Jesus gets it!
It's funny to think that God has done all these miracles, but he hasn't actually equipped his people with the ability to understand his message very well.
vs 5
One of the many signs and wonders of their age.
vs 6
His purpose is entirely about revealing himself to them. The problem comes, of course, when Israel then expects this sort of thing every time something bad happens, and if they don't see God working immediately then they lose faith and go worship an idol.
Faith based on miracles only lasts as long as miracles do.
vs 7
Indeed they did.
vs 8
Two and a half tribes of women and children who now have homes, but will always be those tribes that leave on the "east side" of the Jordan.
vs 9
If the one billion verses of curses doesn't encourage you to follow the covenant carefully, then perhaps the reminder of blessings will.
vs 10
Typical maleocentric maleocracy putting the men, and the leaders (who are men) first. But the others, as we will see, are mentioned. This is a covenant with all of the people - with the leaders, yes. But also with the individuals in their families. They will all be held to account.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
vs 61
Just in case you think that you can complain when you get some new, special disaster.
vs 62
That's a pretty key summary of it, although it leaves out all the suffering before the death.
vs 63
Not only will you suffer and die, but it will please God just as much to destroy you (because of your rebellion) as it did for him to bless you (because of your obedience.)
That's a verse worth remembering. The fact is that most of us don't like disciplining people, or punishing them. We probably think it's sadistic to enjoy it. Now I know that God doesn't say that he enjoys this, exactly. But he is pleased with it. He is pleased, no doubt, because it is his will that those who disobey are punished.
God's will, before it is anything else, is his will. It's always right, because God is righteous, he is righteousness. Whatever we think about it is not even secondary, it's tertiary. If we think it's wrong, it is us who need to change.
vs 64
They will be disconnected from the land of promise. And then they will be disconnected from God, worshippinhg idols.
vs 65
But God won't be disconnected from them. His hand stretches far, and he will be working in them the whole time. They won't be able to settle in the lands they are driven into. They can't escape God - or to put it a nicer way, even after all this he is still interested in them.
vs 66
Unfortunately for them, sometimes it's better not to have God's eyes on you. The torture of the curses infects their very lives, so that those left from death are burdened with their lives.
vs 67
They will live in fear, and they will experience and witness horrible things. What is really terrible is that they will be witnessing these things from the inside - they will actually be trying to worship the foreign gods and obey their practices in an effort to stand out less. At least you can take heart that you righteously oppose something, if you aren't trying to emulate it.
Again, the Jews actually learned their lesson and didn't do this, as far as I know. As for North kingdom Israel, hard to say.
vs 68
I was going to say that this never happened, but those familiar with the exile story will know that a small group of Jewish refugees did flee to Egypt. They probably did become poor there, and may have even offered themselves into slavery. What an awful place to be for the people of God.
Just in case you think that you can complain when you get some new, special disaster.
vs 62
That's a pretty key summary of it, although it leaves out all the suffering before the death.
vs 63
Not only will you suffer and die, but it will please God just as much to destroy you (because of your rebellion) as it did for him to bless you (because of your obedience.)
That's a verse worth remembering. The fact is that most of us don't like disciplining people, or punishing them. We probably think it's sadistic to enjoy it. Now I know that God doesn't say that he enjoys this, exactly. But he is pleased with it. He is pleased, no doubt, because it is his will that those who disobey are punished.
God's will, before it is anything else, is his will. It's always right, because God is righteous, he is righteousness. Whatever we think about it is not even secondary, it's tertiary. If we think it's wrong, it is us who need to change.
vs 64
They will be disconnected from the land of promise. And then they will be disconnected from God, worshippinhg idols.
vs 65
But God won't be disconnected from them. His hand stretches far, and he will be working in them the whole time. They won't be able to settle in the lands they are driven into. They can't escape God - or to put it a nicer way, even after all this he is still interested in them.
vs 66
Unfortunately for them, sometimes it's better not to have God's eyes on you. The torture of the curses infects their very lives, so that those left from death are burdened with their lives.
vs 67
They will live in fear, and they will experience and witness horrible things. What is really terrible is that they will be witnessing these things from the inside - they will actually be trying to worship the foreign gods and obey their practices in an effort to stand out less. At least you can take heart that you righteously oppose something, if you aren't trying to emulate it.
Again, the Jews actually learned their lesson and didn't do this, as far as I know. As for North kingdom Israel, hard to say.
vs 68
I was going to say that this never happened, but those familiar with the exile story will know that a small group of Jewish refugees did flee to Egypt. They probably did become poor there, and may have even offered themselves into slavery. What an awful place to be for the people of God.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
vs 51
Sounds like an army of goats. They just eat everything.
vs 52
That's more like an army.
vs 53
That is the reality of seige warfare. It is all about time. The army sits outside the walls and starves, the people sit inside the walls and starve. Whoever breaks first. Very occasionally you can pull down a wall or something. But it's more usually a hopeless waiting game.
You would think that people would surrender before they started eating their own babies. Perhaps the message is that Israel will be too proud, or they know that surrendering will only mean that their babies get eaten (or taken away) anyway.
vs 54
Hunger does that to people, I suppose. And the stress of the seige.
vs 55
I guess if one of your other kids dies because you don't feed them your baby, then you can always eat them too? It is such a gruesome picture, one that we wouldn't even believe in modern times. But it is described here with such matter-of-factness that it might have been a possible reality to these people.
vs 56-57
Same again, but now including the afterbirth. I suppose the idea of the most gentle of women doing the same as the most sensitive of men is just bringing about an utter degridation of that society and culture. This is a picture of total depravity brought about by rebellion against God and the suffering of the consequences.
vs 58
Interestingly, the words "written in this book" are appearing in a speech by Moses. I'm not sure what to do with that. Joshua is probably there taking notes, and perhaps Moses is making it clear that everything he has said will be in a book that they will be taking with them into the promised land, since he won't be going in with them.
vs 59
A fair summary of what has been promised if the people don't follow God's laws and bring him glory.
vs 60
I'm guessing this is in reference to the plagues, but it could also just be a reference to the various diseases that from time to time ravaged Egypt more generally. After all, the Israelites wouldn't have much experience of what it was like outside Egypt. The fact is that God will protect them from regular diseases, but also from calamitous ones that come from curses, if they are obedient.
Sounds like an army of goats. They just eat everything.
vs 52
That's more like an army.
vs 53
That is the reality of seige warfare. It is all about time. The army sits outside the walls and starves, the people sit inside the walls and starve. Whoever breaks first. Very occasionally you can pull down a wall or something. But it's more usually a hopeless waiting game.
You would think that people would surrender before they started eating their own babies. Perhaps the message is that Israel will be too proud, or they know that surrendering will only mean that their babies get eaten (or taken away) anyway.
vs 54
Hunger does that to people, I suppose. And the stress of the seige.
vs 55
I guess if one of your other kids dies because you don't feed them your baby, then you can always eat them too? It is such a gruesome picture, one that we wouldn't even believe in modern times. But it is described here with such matter-of-factness that it might have been a possible reality to these people.
vs 56-57
Same again, but now including the afterbirth. I suppose the idea of the most gentle of women doing the same as the most sensitive of men is just bringing about an utter degridation of that society and culture. This is a picture of total depravity brought about by rebellion against God and the suffering of the consequences.
vs 58
Interestingly, the words "written in this book" are appearing in a speech by Moses. I'm not sure what to do with that. Joshua is probably there taking notes, and perhaps Moses is making it clear that everything he has said will be in a book that they will be taking with them into the promised land, since he won't be going in with them.
vs 59
A fair summary of what has been promised if the people don't follow God's laws and bring him glory.
vs 60
I'm guessing this is in reference to the plagues, but it could also just be a reference to the various diseases that from time to time ravaged Egypt more generally. After all, the Israelites wouldn't have much experience of what it was like outside Egypt. The fact is that God will protect them from regular diseases, but also from calamitous ones that come from curses, if they are obedient.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
Over half way now.
vs 41
When you don't even get to keep your children, you know something is up. We see how this was experienced in the book of Daniel. I wouldn't even want to think what this meant for the average Israelite. Probably their kids were fair game to be taken as prisoners of war, so they were pretty much instant slaves.
vs 42
I don't know about you, but do you get the feeling sometimes that God has his favourite forms of punishment, and that locusts are pretty high on the list?
vs 43
And Israel thought they were low when they were still in the land and everything was going pear shaped. How low will they be when the foreigners are pushing them lower?
vs 44
So I guess they'll have to learn to wag the dog. I can't think of a better way to say that Israel will be at the ass-end of the economic and political world.
vs 45
You can't outrun God's cursing. Basically, in signing up to become God's special people, you have built into your life, and that of your children to come, a worm that will eat their future. Well, if they turn out to persistently disobey God.
vs 46
But even though destruction will come, it does not necessarily overtake them (unless you're from the northern kingdom, I guess). God uses the punishment of Israel as a sign and a wonder to later generations. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 that this is exactly what Israel is for the Christian - a sign to us of the need to obey God.
vs 47
Uh-oh.
vs 48
Service to God in plenty sure seems like a better deal than slavery to enemies in poverty and hunger. Certainly better than destruction!
vs 49
France?
The nation from far away just makes it all the more inevitable, or unstoppable perhaps. I mean, you can go and do pre-emptive strikes against the Phillistines all day long, but if the eagle is coming from far away, you're just going to have to fight them on the beaches, as it were.
vs 50
I wonder if old and young were usually respected when it comes to war and invasion? Certainly Israel respected nothing like that, not in the promised land anyway. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out, as it were.
Or perhaps it's a more general attitude of the nation - in which case it's basically calling them uncivilised. They throw their old people into tar pits, and they burn their young ones in the flames as sacrifices to some pagan god. Okay, the tar pits thing I got from that old show called Dinosaurs, but you get my drift.
vs 41
When you don't even get to keep your children, you know something is up. We see how this was experienced in the book of Daniel. I wouldn't even want to think what this meant for the average Israelite. Probably their kids were fair game to be taken as prisoners of war, so they were pretty much instant slaves.
vs 42
I don't know about you, but do you get the feeling sometimes that God has his favourite forms of punishment, and that locusts are pretty high on the list?
vs 43
And Israel thought they were low when they were still in the land and everything was going pear shaped. How low will they be when the foreigners are pushing them lower?
vs 44
So I guess they'll have to learn to wag the dog. I can't think of a better way to say that Israel will be at the ass-end of the economic and political world.
vs 45
You can't outrun God's cursing. Basically, in signing up to become God's special people, you have built into your life, and that of your children to come, a worm that will eat their future. Well, if they turn out to persistently disobey God.
vs 46
But even though destruction will come, it does not necessarily overtake them (unless you're from the northern kingdom, I guess). God uses the punishment of Israel as a sign and a wonder to later generations. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 that this is exactly what Israel is for the Christian - a sign to us of the need to obey God.
vs 47
Uh-oh.
vs 48
Service to God in plenty sure seems like a better deal than slavery to enemies in poverty and hunger. Certainly better than destruction!
vs 49
France?
The nation from far away just makes it all the more inevitable, or unstoppable perhaps. I mean, you can go and do pre-emptive strikes against the Phillistines all day long, but if the eagle is coming from far away, you're just going to have to fight them on the beaches, as it were.
vs 50
I wonder if old and young were usually respected when it comes to war and invasion? Certainly Israel respected nothing like that, not in the promised land anyway. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out, as it were.
Or perhaps it's a more general attitude of the nation - in which case it's basically calling them uncivilised. They throw their old people into tar pits, and they burn their young ones in the flames as sacrifices to some pagan god. Okay, the tar pits thing I got from that old show called Dinosaurs, but you get my drift.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
vs 31
The rescue of sheep - an ongoing biblical metaphor. Salvation both for humanity and ovinity alike.
I think we lose something in not keeping livestock. I mean, the way they describe them almost sounds more like pets than tools and walking food barrels. Think about the story Nathan tells David when he's accusing him of adultery - the poor man with his beloved sheep.
I think about my dad's farm. He still named his cows, even though he knew he was going to eat them. It's an interesting thought. Perhaps if we named our cars and stuff, we would mourn them more when we lost them. But then, the point isn't to love our material goods more. The point is to not disobey God, or we will lose those things dear to us, name or no name.
vs 32
It doesn't say they'll never come home - just that you can't do anything to make it happen.
vs 33
It's not even as if this is anything new - it's only 40 odd years ago that they were suffering this in Egypt.
vs 34
I would imagine that the knowledge that they as a people had thrown away their relationship with God would also drive them mad, but people are a short-sighted bunch. It's their own suffering and stuff that probably drives them mad, perhaps with a mix that the God they would call out to for help is the one causing it in the first place.
vs 35
Can anybody say Job? Boils on the soles of your feet, erk.
vs 36
Now this right here is quite an interesting verse. The exile we focus on, the southern exile, doesn't end this way. Remember, when they end up in exile, Judah suddenly becomes all idolatry free (well, for the most part, anyway).
It could be, then, that these punishments being described are mostly for the northern kingdom - that which totally turned its back on God.
vs 37
I wonder how long that went on for? I mean, as many scholars point out, the exiled and scattered Israel don't even rate a mention today - they pretty much don't exist. But I can imagine that for ages they were ridiculed by those people they were forced to live amongst.
vs 38
Awesome, now we're back to being punished by plagues and stuff again. Instead of sickness, now locusts. The thing is, of course, that Israel got attacked by locusts (look at Joel). But the deal always was that if Israel turns back to God, the blessings return. Once they've been exiled and taken from their land, this won't happen anymore. They have to suffer locusts like the rest of the world's people.
vs 39
Grape worms. Deut 28:39 is not the verse you want to see on a wine bottle.
vs 40
I guess that's bad. They talk about beating olive trees with sticks to get the olives off, so I assume if they just come off by themselves that there's something wrong with them.
The rescue of sheep - an ongoing biblical metaphor. Salvation both for humanity and ovinity alike.
I think we lose something in not keeping livestock. I mean, the way they describe them almost sounds more like pets than tools and walking food barrels. Think about the story Nathan tells David when he's accusing him of adultery - the poor man with his beloved sheep.
I think about my dad's farm. He still named his cows, even though he knew he was going to eat them. It's an interesting thought. Perhaps if we named our cars and stuff, we would mourn them more when we lost them. But then, the point isn't to love our material goods more. The point is to not disobey God, or we will lose those things dear to us, name or no name.
vs 32
It doesn't say they'll never come home - just that you can't do anything to make it happen.
vs 33
It's not even as if this is anything new - it's only 40 odd years ago that they were suffering this in Egypt.
vs 34
I would imagine that the knowledge that they as a people had thrown away their relationship with God would also drive them mad, but people are a short-sighted bunch. It's their own suffering and stuff that probably drives them mad, perhaps with a mix that the God they would call out to for help is the one causing it in the first place.
vs 35
Can anybody say Job? Boils on the soles of your feet, erk.
vs 36
Now this right here is quite an interesting verse. The exile we focus on, the southern exile, doesn't end this way. Remember, when they end up in exile, Judah suddenly becomes all idolatry free (well, for the most part, anyway).
It could be, then, that these punishments being described are mostly for the northern kingdom - that which totally turned its back on God.
vs 37
I wonder how long that went on for? I mean, as many scholars point out, the exiled and scattered Israel don't even rate a mention today - they pretty much don't exist. But I can imagine that for ages they were ridiculed by those people they were forced to live amongst.
vs 38
Awesome, now we're back to being punished by plagues and stuff again. Instead of sickness, now locusts. The thing is, of course, that Israel got attacked by locusts (look at Joel). But the deal always was that if Israel turns back to God, the blessings return. Once they've been exiled and taken from their land, this won't happen anymore. They have to suffer locusts like the rest of the world's people.
vs 39
Grape worms. Deut 28:39 is not the verse you want to see on a wine bottle.
vs 40
I guess that's bad. They talk about beating olive trees with sticks to get the olives off, so I assume if they just come off by themselves that there's something wrong with them.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
vs 21
The harshness, the venom of this verse is just palpable. Not cool at all.
vs 22
I feel like withering after just reading this verse. God takes obedience so seriously that he is not above causing epic amounts of pain and grief to people. God is not afraid of using pain against us. And yet he still loves us. Love is about more than the ceasing of pain. Utilitarians are wrong. Hedonists are wrong. Humanitarians are wrong. These verses prove it.
vs 23
At first I thought the ground would be iron, like it would be hard to dig. That would suck. But then, what does a bronze sky mean? That it will be really hot? I'm not sure. If it was referring to the colours of the sky and ground, this might mean something to a farming community that I am unaware of. In any case, the metallic references probably mean unyielding, unforgiving.
vs 24
The thought of this just makes me sick. I would rather drown in a flood of Noahic proportions than live in a land of plague, scorching heat and dust rain.
vs 25
Not a thing of horror because of great power. No, a thing of great horror like a deformed person or a large massacre is a great horror. Israel would be so easily defeated that people would shake their heads in shame.
vs 26
Dishonour even in death, at not being buried, but being eaten by birds.
vs 27
I didn't know Egypt had specific boils. I guess he's talking about boils similar to those afflicting Egypt during the plagues. There's a turn up for the books.
vs 28
How madness and confusion of mind are different I can't quite tell. Perhaps madness is more of an emotional disturbance? In any case, it's an awful thing to inflict on a people as punishment. But God does do it - what about Nebuchadnezzar?
vs 29
I'm utterly depressed. This list of curses is so bad - would I seriously agree to this? If there was even a chance of these things being inflicted on me as a punishment, because I signed up to it, would I sign on the dotted line?
But that's the thing, isn't it - you don't actually get a choice. This is the element of the Mozaic covenant that is most like a suzerain-vassal treaty. You don't actually get to choose to be a part of it - you can't "opt out" of government law and order and other interventions. The government puts itself over the people, and it sets out promises it makes (that encourage you about the value of having it there at all) and sets out what it expects of its citizens. You can't opt out of citizenship without opting out of living there at all. And this is God, not a king - you can emigrate to avoid a king. Jonah shows us you can't emigrate to avoid God.
vs 30
And yet the list goes on. This next part seems to be describing the taking away of the land, and of its privileges, by some sort of foreign power. This is punishment at the hands of another nation, rather than directly from God (or via nature, if you like) through plagues and blindness and madness and cursing of the soil.
The harshness, the venom of this verse is just palpable. Not cool at all.
vs 22
I feel like withering after just reading this verse. God takes obedience so seriously that he is not above causing epic amounts of pain and grief to people. God is not afraid of using pain against us. And yet he still loves us. Love is about more than the ceasing of pain. Utilitarians are wrong. Hedonists are wrong. Humanitarians are wrong. These verses prove it.
vs 23
At first I thought the ground would be iron, like it would be hard to dig. That would suck. But then, what does a bronze sky mean? That it will be really hot? I'm not sure. If it was referring to the colours of the sky and ground, this might mean something to a farming community that I am unaware of. In any case, the metallic references probably mean unyielding, unforgiving.
vs 24
The thought of this just makes me sick. I would rather drown in a flood of Noahic proportions than live in a land of plague, scorching heat and dust rain.
vs 25
Not a thing of horror because of great power. No, a thing of great horror like a deformed person or a large massacre is a great horror. Israel would be so easily defeated that people would shake their heads in shame.
vs 26
Dishonour even in death, at not being buried, but being eaten by birds.
vs 27
I didn't know Egypt had specific boils. I guess he's talking about boils similar to those afflicting Egypt during the plagues. There's a turn up for the books.
vs 28
How madness and confusion of mind are different I can't quite tell. Perhaps madness is more of an emotional disturbance? In any case, it's an awful thing to inflict on a people as punishment. But God does do it - what about Nebuchadnezzar?
vs 29
I'm utterly depressed. This list of curses is so bad - would I seriously agree to this? If there was even a chance of these things being inflicted on me as a punishment, because I signed up to it, would I sign on the dotted line?
But that's the thing, isn't it - you don't actually get a choice. This is the element of the Mozaic covenant that is most like a suzerain-vassal treaty. You don't actually get to choose to be a part of it - you can't "opt out" of government law and order and other interventions. The government puts itself over the people, and it sets out promises it makes (that encourage you about the value of having it there at all) and sets out what it expects of its citizens. You can't opt out of citizenship without opting out of living there at all. And this is God, not a king - you can emigrate to avoid a king. Jonah shows us you can't emigrate to avoid God.
vs 30
And yet the list goes on. This next part seems to be describing the taking away of the land, and of its privileges, by some sort of foreign power. This is punishment at the hands of another nation, rather than directly from God (or via nature, if you like) through plagues and blindness and madness and cursing of the soil.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
vs 11
Abundant prosperity to Israel - in their land of promise - is one of the ways God shows the other nations of the world the kind of God he is. He's a god of relationship, promise fulfilling, of blessing, and of power. You can trust this God to do what he says.
vs 12
This isn't a command - the lending and borrowing bit - it's just to show how great the blessing on their land will be. It's funny, really - when Naomi and her family had to move from Israel to Moab, it was because of famine. I wonder how many people at the time realised that there must be something wrong if there's a famine in Israel, when God's meant to be pouring out rain from his shed?
vs 13
The head and not the tail - how quaint. It's a nice turn of phrase. The condition is obedience, and the result should put them on top. It's hard to accept this historically - I mean, they were never going to be a huge empire like Egypt and Babylon, were they? Were they? I guess we'll never know, because they weren't obedient enough! But even when Solomon was at his heights, it wasn't that big. Perhaps they had a higher standard of living than people in Babylon, and that's what they meant? Certainly I'd be interested to know the wife count of some of the emperors of the time...
vs 14
Of all the commandments, the one that gets mentioned especially is the idolatry one. It's just so foundational. Everything else you do, you are at least doing under God I guess.
vs 15
Uh oh. You mean you were serious when you said that thing about curses?
vs 16
So the opposite of before - regardless of where you go, it will be bad.
vs 17
There's a hole in my bucket!
vs 18
That's pretty harsh. I mean, the cursing of the womb either means no kids (which is awful in that culture) or it could possibly even mean birth deformities (which in that culture could even be worse? I don't know.)
vs 19
You'll go out to harvest and find nothing much, and then you'll go home and beat your wife. Or any other number of a hundred other situations I'm sure you can imagine.
vs 20
So it's pretty much total calamity followed up by destruction. It's an all or nothing bet, this relationship with God. Perhaps when we're so keen to claim on the blessings of the OT promises, we should turn our minds to the curses that are tied up in it.
Abundant prosperity to Israel - in their land of promise - is one of the ways God shows the other nations of the world the kind of God he is. He's a god of relationship, promise fulfilling, of blessing, and of power. You can trust this God to do what he says.
vs 12
This isn't a command - the lending and borrowing bit - it's just to show how great the blessing on their land will be. It's funny, really - when Naomi and her family had to move from Israel to Moab, it was because of famine. I wonder how many people at the time realised that there must be something wrong if there's a famine in Israel, when God's meant to be pouring out rain from his shed?
vs 13
The head and not the tail - how quaint. It's a nice turn of phrase. The condition is obedience, and the result should put them on top. It's hard to accept this historically - I mean, they were never going to be a huge empire like Egypt and Babylon, were they? Were they? I guess we'll never know, because they weren't obedient enough! But even when Solomon was at his heights, it wasn't that big. Perhaps they had a higher standard of living than people in Babylon, and that's what they meant? Certainly I'd be interested to know the wife count of some of the emperors of the time...
vs 14
Of all the commandments, the one that gets mentioned especially is the idolatry one. It's just so foundational. Everything else you do, you are at least doing under God I guess.
vs 15
Uh oh. You mean you were serious when you said that thing about curses?
vs 16
So the opposite of before - regardless of where you go, it will be bad.
vs 17
There's a hole in my bucket!
vs 18
That's pretty harsh. I mean, the cursing of the womb either means no kids (which is awful in that culture) or it could possibly even mean birth deformities (which in that culture could even be worse? I don't know.)
vs 19
You'll go out to harvest and find nothing much, and then you'll go home and beat your wife. Or any other number of a hundred other situations I'm sure you can imagine.
vs 20
So it's pretty much total calamity followed up by destruction. It's an all or nothing bet, this relationship with God. Perhaps when we're so keen to claim on the blessings of the OT promises, we should turn our minds to the curses that are tied up in it.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 28
I hate being sick.
And oh, look, 68 verses to get through.
vs 1
I'm not exactly sure what being set high above other nations entails. It seems a little enigmatic. But I assume it's got something to do with being closer to God.
vs 2
Now we get to the list of blessings, which I will note now, like the curses, are specific to Israel and their covenant involving the land. I don't think we can rely on these. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't tell us anything about God's will or his wants - it just means don't expect all flowers and sunshine.
vs 3
So God blesses everyone living in the land, regardless of where they end up. The idea that God loves the rustic wholesomeness of working with one's hands on the farm more than the hustle and bustle of city life is just incorrect.
vs 4
I love the way children are measured up next to crops and livestock. It's all one idea - that of fruitfulness and fertility. The idea that a barn full of grain is as valuable to you as a new son or a fat calf.
vs 5
Not "full", which is what you really want to hear. But I guess the most blessed basket is either a full one, or just one that doesn't break.
vs 6
Whether you're out on the town or spending a quiet evening at home. I think it actually means more whether you're out at work or at home with family.
vs 7
God does not promise that their future will be one without war, or without people rising against them. No, people will still attack. But God will give victory. It's like the blessing of crops - God doesn't bless your basket by giving it hands and feet and making it do the harvest for you. You still have to work.
vs 8
So as long as you actually put your hand to it - rather than merely sticking your hand out - you will receive blessing. That's a pretty cool blessing. But note the fundamental tie between the blessing and the land.
vs 9
As a cap, the call for obedience to God is made both at the beginning of this new section of blessings, just so you can't forget that God's blessing and promises are contingent on obedience.
vs 10
God isn't just promising an occasional blessing, or a hard to measure blessing. It should be so obvious that God is blessing Israel that other nations can recognise it.
I think I'd be prepared to say the same thing about Christians today. Not necessarily that you're blessed by so much material blessing that it's obvious God is with you, but more that Christians should stand out among non-Christians so much that they can't help but be noticed for the difference. I don't know how much we do stand out though.
And oh, look, 68 verses to get through.
vs 1
I'm not exactly sure what being set high above other nations entails. It seems a little enigmatic. But I assume it's got something to do with being closer to God.
vs 2
Now we get to the list of blessings, which I will note now, like the curses, are specific to Israel and their covenant involving the land. I don't think we can rely on these. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't tell us anything about God's will or his wants - it just means don't expect all flowers and sunshine.
vs 3
So God blesses everyone living in the land, regardless of where they end up. The idea that God loves the rustic wholesomeness of working with one's hands on the farm more than the hustle and bustle of city life is just incorrect.
vs 4
I love the way children are measured up next to crops and livestock. It's all one idea - that of fruitfulness and fertility. The idea that a barn full of grain is as valuable to you as a new son or a fat calf.
vs 5
Not "full", which is what you really want to hear. But I guess the most blessed basket is either a full one, or just one that doesn't break.
vs 6
Whether you're out on the town or spending a quiet evening at home. I think it actually means more whether you're out at work or at home with family.
vs 7
God does not promise that their future will be one without war, or without people rising against them. No, people will still attack. But God will give victory. It's like the blessing of crops - God doesn't bless your basket by giving it hands and feet and making it do the harvest for you. You still have to work.
vs 8
So as long as you actually put your hand to it - rather than merely sticking your hand out - you will receive blessing. That's a pretty cool blessing. But note the fundamental tie between the blessing and the land.
vs 9
As a cap, the call for obedience to God is made both at the beginning of this new section of blessings, just so you can't forget that God's blessing and promises are contingent on obedience.
vs 10
God isn't just promising an occasional blessing, or a hard to measure blessing. It should be so obvious that God is blessing Israel that other nations can recognise it.
I think I'd be prepared to say the same thing about Christians today. Not necessarily that you're blessed by so much material blessing that it's obvious God is with you, but more that Christians should stand out among non-Christians so much that they can't help but be noticed for the difference. I don't know how much we do stand out though.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 27
vs 14
Wait, aren't the Levites part of the blessing camp? Perhaps this is extra duties.
vs 15
Note that to each one of these, the people have to agree. They are legitimising the curses as part of their relationship with God, formalising them through agreement. All this means is that they know what's coming and are taking responsibility. But That's actually a good first step. I mean, how many people don't even do that much?
So idolatry is wrong, although this seems to specifically talk about secret idolatry - perhaps because those who build idols in public will be stoned to death.
vs 16
One of the 10 commandments.
vs 17
The jerrymandering of land is important, because the land is such an important part of God's promises to Israel.
vs 18
Why would you even do that? This could be symbolically important too - not just the physical act of being mean to blind people, but that anyone would take advantage of anyone who can't see what's going on.
vs 19
These last two have both been about kindness. The fact is that these people don't need justice - God could have been merciless to their plight. But he's not, and so therefore his people should be merciful to.
vs 20
Why does this one stick out? Like the second one, it is reiterating the importance of the family unit I suppose. And it's also just wrong. Perhaps it's just a good example of "Don't do this stuff - it's just plain wrong."
vs 21
As with this one.
vs 22
And this one. Sex gets us into so much trouble. People talk about how the church and the Bible have so much to say about sex. Well, perhaps because we think about it so much - even Israel had to be told not to sleep with animals and relatives!
vs 23
Because if the 6th command here doesn't make the principle clear enough, God feels the need to clarify this position too.
vs 24
Again with things being done in secret - because when you kill someone in front of a dozen people, I think it will be pretty immediately obvious whether you did it on purpose or not.
vs 25
It is a problem with justice systems that involve the death penalty - they involve the judgment of people, who can be wrong, or who can be bought. And so innocent people can die. This command at least shows that the weakness is recognised.
vs 26
A nice overall covering message to wrap up the curses.
Wait, aren't the Levites part of the blessing camp? Perhaps this is extra duties.
vs 15
Note that to each one of these, the people have to agree. They are legitimising the curses as part of their relationship with God, formalising them through agreement. All this means is that they know what's coming and are taking responsibility. But That's actually a good first step. I mean, how many people don't even do that much?
So idolatry is wrong, although this seems to specifically talk about secret idolatry - perhaps because those who build idols in public will be stoned to death.
vs 16
One of the 10 commandments.
vs 17
The jerrymandering of land is important, because the land is such an important part of God's promises to Israel.
vs 18
Why would you even do that? This could be symbolically important too - not just the physical act of being mean to blind people, but that anyone would take advantage of anyone who can't see what's going on.
vs 19
These last two have both been about kindness. The fact is that these people don't need justice - God could have been merciless to their plight. But he's not, and so therefore his people should be merciful to.
vs 20
Why does this one stick out? Like the second one, it is reiterating the importance of the family unit I suppose. And it's also just wrong. Perhaps it's just a good example of "Don't do this stuff - it's just plain wrong."
vs 21
As with this one.
vs 22
And this one. Sex gets us into so much trouble. People talk about how the church and the Bible have so much to say about sex. Well, perhaps because we think about it so much - even Israel had to be told not to sleep with animals and relatives!
vs 23
Because if the 6th command here doesn't make the principle clear enough, God feels the need to clarify this position too.
vs 24
Again with things being done in secret - because when you kill someone in front of a dozen people, I think it will be pretty immediately obvious whether you did it on purpose or not.
vs 25
It is a problem with justice systems that involve the death penalty - they involve the judgment of people, who can be wrong, or who can be bought. And so innocent people can die. This command at least shows that the weakness is recognised.
vs 26
A nice overall covering message to wrap up the curses.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 27
vs 1
Since Moses won't be following them in, it's good to get the elders in on the act too, as if the importance of following God's commands wasn't important enough.
vs 2
There's a bit of a debate about whether there is one or two gatherings of stones. We'll see how we do. Notice here that they are to gather stones (the word must connote a certain size - there is more than one hebrew word for rock and stone) and to coat them in plaster. This is for a specific purpose.
vs 3
It is so that the Law can be written on them! Assuming they want the whole of at least Deuteronomy written on the stones, they'd want to be pretty big.
vs 4
A repetition of the plaster coating (because they have to remember to do it - they aren't doing this until after they've crossed the Jordan) is followed by a command for these stones to be set up on Mount Ebal.
vs 5
Here's where the debate starts. The question is whether the stones coated in plaster form part of the altar, or whether they are a commemorative stone pile (which is also known to be done) and the altar is a different set of stones. The truth is the language is unclear. I am partial to there being two, because God does not like things being done to his altar stones (even here they are told not to fashion them with a tool). But then that position runs into trouble later.
vs 6
Fieldstones - another special kind of stone? Or is it the same stones? The actual Hebrew word is shalem (well, it's sh'lemot, but it comes from shalem) which you would recognise as the word for peace, but really has that notion of perfect wholeness. So the NASB uses "uncut" and KJV uses "whole". I don't know where the NIV tradition came up with "fieldstone". Sounds pretty American to me, actually. Another point for difference of stones, I would say personally. Whatever Moses is talking about is an actual altar, because offerings are burnt on it.
vs 7
As well as other offerings. The major point, of course (forgetting stones for a moment) is that the moment they cross the Jordan they are to do something commemorating it, because it is such an important day for Israel. Part of that is an immediate celebration of God's fulfilment of his promises, and another is building something that can be pointed at when all the food is gone.
vs 8
See, now we come back to writing the law on "these" stones. This is where my view is weak. I think, if I am right on my Hebrew, that you would expect this to have a different beginning if it were to be referring back to the original stones, but it most likely is referring to the last mention of stones. Still, Hebrew is s harsh mistress, and I could be wrong.
vs 9
After all the wanderings, after all the wonderous signs and the various punishments, they are now, standing here on the brink of promised land, have become God's people.
vs 10
And as such, they should obey God's laws. The marriage between these two things couldn't be clearer, and yet it begins to separate almost the moment they cross the river. And that is a clear warning to us as Christians today - that we can easily think that we're a Christian and we're saved because of what God has done, but not realise that this also holds a responsibility to do things according to God's will.
vs 11
This seems a fairly natural break - Moses might have had a toilet stop or something.
vs 12-13
So we are about to begin the blessings and the curses. Israel is split in two, with half the tribes going to Mount Ebal to shout out curses, and half going to Gerizim to shout out blessings. Why are the curses done from Ebal, when that's where they have their commemorative party and their altar? Is it significant? Not sure.
Is the split between the tribes important? I'd say probably. The blessings includes Levites, Benjamin, Joseph and Judah - all important and beloved tribes. I'm sure if I looked harder I could work out why Simeon is there (was he the oldest? The one they left behind in Egypt?) and Issachar (I don't remember anything about him).
Since Moses won't be following them in, it's good to get the elders in on the act too, as if the importance of following God's commands wasn't important enough.
vs 2
There's a bit of a debate about whether there is one or two gatherings of stones. We'll see how we do. Notice here that they are to gather stones (the word must connote a certain size - there is more than one hebrew word for rock and stone) and to coat them in plaster. This is for a specific purpose.
vs 3
It is so that the Law can be written on them! Assuming they want the whole of at least Deuteronomy written on the stones, they'd want to be pretty big.
vs 4
A repetition of the plaster coating (because they have to remember to do it - they aren't doing this until after they've crossed the Jordan) is followed by a command for these stones to be set up on Mount Ebal.
vs 5
Here's where the debate starts. The question is whether the stones coated in plaster form part of the altar, or whether they are a commemorative stone pile (which is also known to be done) and the altar is a different set of stones. The truth is the language is unclear. I am partial to there being two, because God does not like things being done to his altar stones (even here they are told not to fashion them with a tool). But then that position runs into trouble later.
vs 6
Fieldstones - another special kind of stone? Or is it the same stones? The actual Hebrew word is shalem (well, it's sh'lemot, but it comes from shalem) which you would recognise as the word for peace, but really has that notion of perfect wholeness. So the NASB uses "uncut" and KJV uses "whole". I don't know where the NIV tradition came up with "fieldstone". Sounds pretty American to me, actually. Another point for difference of stones, I would say personally. Whatever Moses is talking about is an actual altar, because offerings are burnt on it.
vs 7
As well as other offerings. The major point, of course (forgetting stones for a moment) is that the moment they cross the Jordan they are to do something commemorating it, because it is such an important day for Israel. Part of that is an immediate celebration of God's fulfilment of his promises, and another is building something that can be pointed at when all the food is gone.
vs 8
See, now we come back to writing the law on "these" stones. This is where my view is weak. I think, if I am right on my Hebrew, that you would expect this to have a different beginning if it were to be referring back to the original stones, but it most likely is referring to the last mention of stones. Still, Hebrew is s harsh mistress, and I could be wrong.
vs 9
After all the wanderings, after all the wonderous signs and the various punishments, they are now, standing here on the brink of promised land, have become God's people.
vs 10
And as such, they should obey God's laws. The marriage between these two things couldn't be clearer, and yet it begins to separate almost the moment they cross the river. And that is a clear warning to us as Christians today - that we can easily think that we're a Christian and we're saved because of what God has done, but not realise that this also holds a responsibility to do things according to God's will.
vs 11
This seems a fairly natural break - Moses might have had a toilet stop or something.
vs 12-13
So we are about to begin the blessings and the curses. Israel is split in two, with half the tribes going to Mount Ebal to shout out curses, and half going to Gerizim to shout out blessings. Why are the curses done from Ebal, when that's where they have their commemorative party and their altar? Is it significant? Not sure.
Is the split between the tribes important? I'd say probably. The blessings includes Levites, Benjamin, Joseph and Judah - all important and beloved tribes. I'm sure if I looked harder I could work out why Simeon is there (was he the oldest? The one they left behind in Egypt?) and Issachar (I don't remember anything about him).
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 26
vs 11
Foreigners just seems thrown in there, really. But it is such an unlikely fit, it jars the brain almost, to think that they celebrate just as much as the person bringing the fruits, and the Levites who are overseeing the sacrifices. But celebrating would include being involved in the feasting, which is pretty special.
vs 12
The real question here is whether this 3rd year tithe is just the regular tithe, or is an extra above and beyond the regular tithe? There are arguments in both directions. If you add up all the various tithings and givings, assuming that they are all different, you end up with like 35% of your earnings being given away. I read that in a book about this subject when I was preaching on giving once.
Anyway, this third year tithing seems to be for the purpose of setting up a welfare system. So don't let anyone say, "Oh, back then they didn't have any welfare system." It's a tax, inspired by God, to give foreigners, widows and orphans something to eat.
vs 13
This prayer is to ensure that you understand what you are doing, and you pledge that it is being done appropriately.
vs 14
It's a list that I'm sure we wouldn't have any problems with. I assume the mourning thing is something to do with not working while mourning, so you might be tempted to dip into your tithe instead of your own stocks. The unclean thing is simply showing an understanding that, even though poor people are going to eat your tithe, it still belongs to God. I'd say the offering to the dead is just a statement against idolatry.
vs 15
Because one person obeys God, they can call down a prayer of blessing on the whole community. That's an excellent example of what it means to be community. I'll remember that verse.
vs 16
Wow, it almost sounds like Moses is wrapping up. But don't be fooled.
vs 17
The word 'listen' here is shema, it is the word that represents the overarching command of Deuteronomy to Israel - "Hear, o Israel." So we're linking all the way back to Deut 6 here. This is Moses tying Israel to their promises - as they stand there that day on the brink of the promised land, they are swearing to God to obey him.
vs 18
God's part of the promise is to make Israel his treasured, special people. But they have to follow his laws for that. It doesn't simply run in their blood. It's a relationship with God, not with your mum.
vs 19
God doesn't lump all the responsibility on them, though. He does promise that he will make them holy (the OT focus on holiness is much more about separation than purity - so simply putting his special seal on them goes a long way to make them holy), and also to make them famous. He does it all, too. As if they weren't famous enough for marching through the desert, destroying civilisations left and right.
Foreigners just seems thrown in there, really. But it is such an unlikely fit, it jars the brain almost, to think that they celebrate just as much as the person bringing the fruits, and the Levites who are overseeing the sacrifices. But celebrating would include being involved in the feasting, which is pretty special.
vs 12
The real question here is whether this 3rd year tithe is just the regular tithe, or is an extra above and beyond the regular tithe? There are arguments in both directions. If you add up all the various tithings and givings, assuming that they are all different, you end up with like 35% of your earnings being given away. I read that in a book about this subject when I was preaching on giving once.
Anyway, this third year tithing seems to be for the purpose of setting up a welfare system. So don't let anyone say, "Oh, back then they didn't have any welfare system." It's a tax, inspired by God, to give foreigners, widows and orphans something to eat.
vs 13
This prayer is to ensure that you understand what you are doing, and you pledge that it is being done appropriately.
vs 14
It's a list that I'm sure we wouldn't have any problems with. I assume the mourning thing is something to do with not working while mourning, so you might be tempted to dip into your tithe instead of your own stocks. The unclean thing is simply showing an understanding that, even though poor people are going to eat your tithe, it still belongs to God. I'd say the offering to the dead is just a statement against idolatry.
vs 15
Because one person obeys God, they can call down a prayer of blessing on the whole community. That's an excellent example of what it means to be community. I'll remember that verse.
vs 16
Wow, it almost sounds like Moses is wrapping up. But don't be fooled.
vs 17
The word 'listen' here is shema, it is the word that represents the overarching command of Deuteronomy to Israel - "Hear, o Israel." So we're linking all the way back to Deut 6 here. This is Moses tying Israel to their promises - as they stand there that day on the brink of the promised land, they are swearing to God to obey him.
vs 18
God's part of the promise is to make Israel his treasured, special people. But they have to follow his laws for that. It doesn't simply run in their blood. It's a relationship with God, not with your mum.
vs 19
God doesn't lump all the responsibility on them, though. He does promise that he will make them holy (the OT focus on holiness is much more about separation than purity - so simply putting his special seal on them goes a long way to make them holy), and also to make them famous. He does it all, too. As if they weren't famous enough for marching through the desert, destroying civilisations left and right.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Deuteronomy chapter 26
vs 1
So, now we're back to some more ways to live in the land.
Not that they should stop doing most of these things when they enter the land - but some they can start doing now, others have to wait.
vs 2
Ahh, firstfruits. They are an indicative symbol which shows that the entire crop belongs to God. So when they sell that first box of mangos at the fish markets, it really belongs to God.
vs 3
But this particular firstfruits has another special purpose. By harvesting it and offering it to God, the person is saying, well, what's been said here. It is reminding them that God's promise of a fruitful land has, pardon the pun, bore fruit.
vs 4
I'm not sure what else he would do to it - set it on fire? "My basket! Damn you!"
vs 5
So now the idea seems to be that, in dedicating the fruit to God, they recount their history, and what has brought them there. Note that it's their father who was the wandering Aramean - does this mean that inheritence went through the father? I only question it because sometimes it pops up that it comes through the mother (something to do with Mary). Anyway, it's most likely "ancestor" rather than father, because after all they're talking about something that happened 400 years ago.
vs 6
Indeed.
vs 7
The question is, did it take 400 years for them to cry out, or 400 years for God to hear them?
vs 8
This attestation is of immense importance - without God bringing them out of Egypt, they would never have made it to the promised land.
vs 9
Don't forget the fruit!
vs 10
So this first of the firstfruits offerings is yet one more step in the Israelites remembering their beginnings, the history of their people and the road they have travelled. It reminds them of God's promise, how it has been fulfilled every step of the way, and how now they are living the good life because of God.
So, now we're back to some more ways to live in the land.
Not that they should stop doing most of these things when they enter the land - but some they can start doing now, others have to wait.
vs 2
Ahh, firstfruits. They are an indicative symbol which shows that the entire crop belongs to God. So when they sell that first box of mangos at the fish markets, it really belongs to God.
vs 3
But this particular firstfruits has another special purpose. By harvesting it and offering it to God, the person is saying, well, what's been said here. It is reminding them that God's promise of a fruitful land has, pardon the pun, bore fruit.
vs 4
I'm not sure what else he would do to it - set it on fire? "My basket! Damn you!"
vs 5
So now the idea seems to be that, in dedicating the fruit to God, they recount their history, and what has brought them there. Note that it's their father who was the wandering Aramean - does this mean that inheritence went through the father? I only question it because sometimes it pops up that it comes through the mother (something to do with Mary). Anyway, it's most likely "ancestor" rather than father, because after all they're talking about something that happened 400 years ago.
vs 6
Indeed.
vs 7
The question is, did it take 400 years for them to cry out, or 400 years for God to hear them?
vs 8
This attestation is of immense importance - without God bringing them out of Egypt, they would never have made it to the promised land.
vs 9
Don't forget the fruit!
vs 10
So this first of the firstfruits offerings is yet one more step in the Israelites remembering their beginnings, the history of their people and the road they have travelled. It reminds them of God's promise, how it has been fulfilled every step of the way, and how now they are living the good life because of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)