Deuteronomy 21-22
Some of the laws given from here on seem random and unconnected. They are interesting as they stand, especially when you think that God thought them up. The laws show something about Him and they make you think of what the point was behind these laws. Even if the laws were only binding for Israel, and then, only for Israel as they were ruled by God (for example, under Roman law the Jews couldn't kill people for adultery or not keeping the Sabbath), there was still a lesson involved in God thinking up that particular law.
One thing you notice is that every now and then, there is a purpose statement given which explains the reason behind the law or maybe it is a block summary for many laws that have been given to that point. In our reading today, Deut. 21:23 is one of those purpose statements. This is why verse 23 was chosen as a good place for a chapter division. These laws gave order and a sense of respectability and propriety to the customs of the people so that they wouldn't defile the land. They emphasize the reality that the nation is set apart for God, holy.
There might be a connection between the order of these laws and it's fun to try to find it, but even that can be overdone. We'll just have to ask God in heaven why they were given like this. I have a feeling that when we get to heaven we won't care anymore. It is important to remember that these laws were not meant to answer every question and contingency, but rather to give a general rule or judgment from which other rules and judgments could be made for situations not mentioned.
Deut. 21:1-9
This was in the days before "CSI" and "Bones." Notice verse 9. The issue of "innocent blood" was / is no small thing with God.
Deut. 21:10-14
This was definitely a different time and a different culture.
Note, this was future oriented because none of the women in Canaan would have qualified for this. This woman did not have to be a virgin. The occasion would have been after the conquest of Canaan. Some nation would have picked a fight with Israel, been defeated by Israel on the field, and then Israel would have pursued them to their land and taken their cities.
Even though this might seem kind of barbaric to our cultured sensitivities, there was order here. There was no raping and pillaging. This event was totally legislated. The act of the woman having to shave her head and trim her nails sounds similar to the Levites having to cut their hair almost as if to enter their new life/service as newborns. Notice also, there was no sexual relationship until a month had passed. The man went into her as her husband, meaning the social customs had been acknowledged and fulfilled and they were legally married.
Deut. 21:15-17
It is interesting here that God never commanded that a man should only have one wife. God could have nipped it in the bud right here. The model of creation is one man and one woman and the best marriages you find in the Bible are just one man and one woman. When God says, "the two become one flesh," it's apparent that that is His model. Why he even allowed polygamy to exist is beyond me, but He not only allowed it, but when David messed up, God implied that He would have given David more wives (2Samuel 12:8). It's clear that monogamy was the rule and having more than one wife was the exception. By Roman times the Jews were totally monogamous, and Christianity never made a provision for more than one wife.
It is also interesting that God says the firstborn son is the "firstfruits of his (the man's) strength."
Even though God chose to go around this with Esau and Jacob and with Manasseh and Ephraim, for society, this rule kept things fair and in order.
Deut. 21:18-21
The Swedes (no spankings) would have freaked out about this one. Obviously this is referring to an older teen, if he was also a glutton and drunkard. Also, this was done in court; therefore, the elders and the gates of the city are mentioned. It was a very public matter. This wasn't shooting him behind the barn.
So what about the rebellious daughter? Probably the same held true.
Notice the purpose statement at the end of verse 21.
Deut. 21:22-23
Paul refers to verse 23 in Gal. 3:13 in talking about Jesus being cursed by God for us.
Deut. 22:1-4
This is not for the animal, it is for the neighbor. I did this today walking. This huge dog ran up to me. Thankfully I was wearing so many layers that the dog couldn't smell the fear that I'm sure was pouring out of me. But it was just a big fierce looking, slobbery, shedding, love dog. But it kept following me so I was in a pickle. If I had kept walking, it would have followed me over a busy road. And besides, Rover didn't look intelligent enough to find its way home. So there I stood, until about five minutes later someone missed him. A woman, about half the size of the dog, walked out on the sidewalk down the block in her pjs. The last I saw, the dog ran down to her, picked her up in his mouth and took her into the house, for breakfast, I think. (JUST KIDDING!!!!!) Anyway, I guess I fulfilled this command today. How funny.
Deut. 22:5 This is not Halloween, this is real cross dressing. God doesn't think it's funny. He considers it to be perverted sexuality.
Deut. 22:6-12
These are all laws of propriety to set them apart as a people who have been given a special relationship to God. The people had manners and laws that would have created questions from outsiders. The Israelites themselves would have been forced to try to understand the "spirit" behind the law.
Notice verse 10. Paul quotes this in 2 Cor. 6:14, Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
V. 12 refers to the tassels God commanded to be sown on all of their garments in Num. 15:37-41. The reason was to make them remember always to obey the Lord. How could you forget what those conspicuous little, dangly things meant? They weren't jewelry. They also would have started some conversations with foreigners.
Deut. 22:13-21
Note that this law is to keep a man from unjustly getting rid of his wife by insisting she was sexually impure before they were married. This law is a protection for the woman. That is the focus.
Premarital sexual purity was expected to be the norm. Parents were to testify to their daughter's virginity and a man expected to marry a virgin. The proof the parents were to bring was the sheet from the wedding night that showed that as the girl had intercourse for the first time, she bled.
Looking at the punishment for the man or the woman, this law would have made premarital sex a very serious and dangerous event. In verse 28, rape meant forced marriage without provision for divorce. In Ex. 22:16 there is a variation of this for seduction, where the girl's father could refuse to have his daughter marry that man. The end result was that premarital sex was not acceptable.
Deut. 22:22-30
From all of these laws you understand that adultery was punishable by death. An engaged woman was legally married, just not yet married.
Note that a woman had to cry for help. The guy couldn't say, "If you yell, I'll kill you," because if she didn't yell she'd die too.
All of these laws set a standard by which other situations could be evaluated. In our day, you know that if adultery meant death, fewer people would be willing to do it and it wouldn't be glamorized on TV. And if premarital sex meant a forced marriage, I wonder if people wouldn't take things more seriously. We understand what is allowed in society, and we know that God forgives and gives grace and love; but still, here we see what God's opinion of all this stuff is. And actually, it comes out of His love for us, wanting the best for us.
Luke 9:51-10:12
Luke 9:51-56
This wasn't Jesus' final trip to Jerusalem, but the reality of His death and the rejection of His offer to the Jews added more definition to His training of the twelve and to His agenda. Before, Jesus had been willing to spend time with the Samaritans. Now, He was given direction via the Spirit, to get to Jerusalem.
The Jews and Samaritans hated each other, so this reaction of the Samaritans was to be expected. It appears that only this Samaritan village reacted this way. Maybe the next village responded better.
V. 54 This is one time we see James and John earning the nickname Jesus gave them, "The Sons of Thunder." There were probably lots of other examples.
Luke 9:57-62
How do you categorize these three? Try to put these objections in your own words.
For me they are a need to have security in life, a need to have what you deserve (the inheritance), and a need to have the approval of others. These things are death to following Christ as a disciple in the harvest.
The "hand to the plow" can apply to all of these men.
Luke 10:1-12
Jesus was stepping up His discipleship training, and also preparing His itinerary for visiting towns on the north and east side of the Sea of Galilee. If they found towns that were open, Jesus would visit the town. Much of this looks similar to sending out the 12. It doesn't say it, but I've often wondered if the disciples each supervised 3 pairs of men: 6 x 12 = 72.
Psalm 74
The family of Asaph were singers in the temple from the reign of David to the restoration after the exile under Ezra and Nehemiah. It looks like this writer wrote after the people returned to Israel after the Babylonian exile.
Proverbs 12:11
What if "works his land" simply meant "worthwhile, God honoring, pursuits." What would happen here if bread meant "nourishment for your spiritual life as a disciple?" Since most people are not farmers, some thinking about the sense of the proverb helps. Also, we know from Deuteronomy that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.
If you’re reading along and don’t have a One Year Bible, click on this link Every Day in the Word. If that doesn't work, go to http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/devotions/ and click on “Every Day in the Word.”
I'm writing these comments to and for those who are following a One Year Bible and interested in growing deeper as a disciple, following Jesus in the harvest. My hope is to see the growth of a discipleship culture in the church. Groups of 3-4 disciples, meeting weekly, encouraging each other to follow Christ and work to reach out and make disciples who make disciples. The Bible itself is the most universal manual we have and key to our growth and service in Christ. Nothing keeps us more focused on why we are here or what we are to be doing. My comments are only meant to provide some explanation of the events or to show the flow of God's plan of redemption. My comments are in no way exhaustive, but are designed to keep us focused on Christ and our role in His harvest. My hope is that the people in these groups will grow in Christ and be willing, after a year, to find 3 others to meet with and encourage in their growth as disciples, disciples making disciples in the harvest.
If you would like a more descriptive commentary that is still readable and concise, I'd recommend the Bible Knowledge Commentary. It's keyed to the NIV, so the result is, the commentators are constantly telling you what the Greek or Hebrew is. That never hurts.
I am not endorsing any particular One Year Bible; in fact, I read something you don't, die revidierte Lutherbibel 1984.
Anyone reading along with us is welcome to do so and is encouraged to take their own notes and make their own observations. If the comments made do not agree with your particular tradition or understanding, that's OK. Nothing I've written is meant to criticize any point of view, but only to express the truth of what God has written to us, as I understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment