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).