Judgement

Deuteronomy 17 ~ Who’s In Charge

So tonight makes it half way through the 34 chapters of Deuteronomy. That doesn’t really sound that exciting, but to me, that’s saying that even if I do continue to falter here and there with regularity on blog updates, by the end of April at the latest, I’ll be out of the Pentateuch. This is actually a fairly major achievement for me – I’ve tried reading the bible from start to finish before, and as far as I can recall, I don’t think I’ve ever even made it to Joshua, so to me, this is a big achievement – and a motivation point to keep going for at least another seventeen days!

I found this chapter interesting, though. It goes through the Israelite cycle of leadership. At this stage their physical and human leader is Moses, but ultimately they’re following God. At the end of chapter 16, they were told to appoint judges and officials to help lead them when they were settled into the promised land.

Have you ever noticed how long it can sometimes take us to learn something, as humans? I can’t actually find a reference in a brief Google search at the moment, but I remember hearing once that on average, we have to hear something four times before we actually absorb it.

Here again, the Israelites are warned fairly sternly against turning away from God. Don’t worship any other gods, or the sun, the moon or the stars – and if anyone’s caught doing this, then it’s the death penalty – only, though, if there are enough witnesses. On the testimony of one person, the death penalty was not to be applied.

The point being, though, that it’s been told to them over and over, to keep their eyes on God. In fact, it’s pretty much one of the key themes throughout the bible – the more we pay attention to God, the better our lives will be. If we listen to what he says, we’ll be doing the right thing.

I personally think that one of the main reasons behind repeating it so many times, was to make sure it sunk in.

This chapter, though, goes from judgment before God; to judgment before the priests and courts. Then finally, it goes on to speak about a king.

Now I’m not a republican (For you Americans, in Australia that means being in favour of us becoming a Republic rather than Constitutional Monarchy), but I’m more of a Monarchist just for tradition’s sake. I like the way our society is with the Queen of England as our ultimate head of state, and don’t really see any need to change it. That said, I don’t really see why the Israelites would be keen for a king – but apparently it was inevitable.

So there were some pretty strict rules laid down. First, the king had to be an Israelite. That makes sense.

Then, though:

He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.” ~ Deuteronomy 17:17

What I see there, is the instruction being given that the king was to be a leader; not a ruler. The king wasn’t going to be there for power, but to be a figurehead and a guide for the people. He was to take the book of the law, and actually write it down for himself so that everything that the Israelites were supposed to do would be set into his mind. The king was to learn to revere God.

The experience the Israelites would have had with royalty was from Egypt, where the traditional view was that the Pharaoh was a god incarnate. Stating that any Israelite king was meant to learn to revere God was not only a step towards ensuring the king would lead the Israelites the way God wanted them to be led; but it also is a statement that clarifies, their king was not deified in any way. He was a leader, and God was still firmly above him.

Whether it’s reminding the Israelites not to worship other gods, or the sun, etcetera. Whether it’s firmly stating that judgments made by God’s representatives – the priests, was final, or whether it was the clear placement of a king as a leader and figurehead, but still firmly under God, one theme in this chapter in clear.

The ultimate authority goes back to God.

Leviticus 12 ~ Newborns

I only have one more day of work until holidays.

Which, unfortunately, means that I’m probably equally distant now between going on holidays and getting back. Tomorrow will drag as if it’s going on forever, and then my holidays will flash by in what seems like a matter of hours!

Must find a way not to enjoy the holiday period!

I jest. Can’t wait. Melbourne and Perth here I come!

More seriously, I went to life group tonight (and got birthday cake – felt so special! It was actually home cooked and everything! Thanks Anna!), we had some interesting discussion topics come up throughout the course of the evening.

One of which, though, was about salvation – and the ‘moment’ of salvation, or the moment a person enters the body of Christ is probably more accurate than the moment of salvation. Where does a person become a ‘member’ (so to speak) of the body of Christ? Is there a defining moment,or is it something more gradual?

For me, and this is just my perspective, but Jesus didn’t give grey areas on this. He said straight out that no one comes to the father except through him. To me that says that without actually accepting Jesus’ gift, and without acknowledging him as Lord, a person isn’t necessarily a part of his body. I see that some things in the bible, in doctrine, in theology are and can be completely grey, but not here.

Just my thought for the evening. Feel free to comment with disagreements or points of consideration.

Leviticus 13:

I don’t get this passage.

Why is a woman unclean after giving birth? This is perhaps one of the most rewarding and amazing moments in two people’s lives, when their child is born, but the woman is ceremonially unclean for actually quite a long period (forty one days if I calculate right for male children and double that for women.

Now I have heard, and I think I’ve referred to before, that there are actually very valid reasons for some of the laws that exist in the Levitical law. Laws that come under necessity of hygiene or prevention of illness, etcetera (I have no specific references on hand, this is just what I’ve heard); and that’s fine with me if it’s the case. I could look up something now and see what reasons there might be not to eat camels or badgers, or what reasons there might be for a woman to be ceremonially unclean for a month after having a baby.

Perhaps she’s more vulnerable to illness? I don’t know.

The thing that also stands out to me is the requirement for a sin offering.

Now as I read this I wondered why a woman would have to offer a sin offering after giving birth to a child. What sin has she committed? Leviticus 4 talked about the sin offering and said it was for sins people had committed without actually realising it. Well, what was the sin?

But just as I’ve been writing this, I wondered something. What if the sin offering isn’t actually for the mother? What if it’s for the child?

The concept of being born into sin is fairly well established throughout the church; and was certainly one struggling point and topic of interest for me in my time away from God. How could God judge guilty babies, infants and toddlers who really don’t have a concept of right and wrong? Well, ask ten people that question and you’d probably get ten different answers.

But I just wonder, is the sin offering a covering over the child from birth until they come of age to be responsible for their own actions?