~ Click on this link for today's readings ~
Deuteronomy 21:1-22:30 ~ Luke 9:51-10:12
Psalm 74:1-23 ~ Proverbs 12:11
Old Testament - It is interesting to read about the cleansing for an unsolved murder in Deuteronomy chapter 21. I think God makes it crystal clear here that murder is such a horrible crime that affects the entire land / community. The Ten Commandments are obviously clear on "do not murder." These verses in Deuteronomy go into a bit of what happens to the land when one is murdered. Interesting to think about these verses on murder - and then realize that Jesus, whose blood was wholly innocent, was murdered on a cross. Was Jesus' murder unsolved? Who is guilty for this murder of Jesus? Whose sins put him on the cross? Thankfully, whose sins does Jesus' blood cover? Who does Jesus rescue and redeem through his innocent blood shed on a cross?
Deuteronomy chapter 22 has various rules & regs, including sexual purity. It makes sense that there needed to be rules & regs for 1 million+ Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years - and for them as they are now about to enter the Promised Land. Essentially, these rules & regs kept the peace. But, hopefully more than that, they kept the Israelites minds & hearts focused on God and not on sin. I think the rules & regs for sexual purity are obviously still so needed today. Our culture can take us quickly into the depths of sexual impurity. Depths that are so dark - even though the culture doesn't tell you about the darkness of sexual impurity as it is selling you the lie. Sexual sin unchecked is incredibly dangerous. If you are struggling with it, please flee. Run to God and Jesus. Humble yourself in confession & repentance. And allow Jesus to heal & transform you. Sexual purity is something we must pursue diligently each and every day. Don't start to go down any slippery slopes. It gets dark quick....
New Testament - Luke chapter 9 has a couple of challenging teachings for us from Jesus in verses 60 & 62 - "Let those who are spiritually dead care for their own dead. Your duty is to go and preach the coming of the Kingdom of God... Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God." How do these verses speak to you? Today verse 62 is standing out to me - once we start our Christian journey we should not look back toward the life we left behind. At least not in a way where we wish we were back in that old life. Once Jesus rescues us, we are now his forever. We have put our hand to the plow. We will preach the coming of the Kingdom of God in the way we live our lives. We should not look back longingly toward our old life. It is behind us. Have you set your hand to the plow? And are you looking straight ahead joyfully?
Continuing this agricultural / farming theme - in Luke chapter 10 today we read this teaching from Jesus to the disciples - "These were his instructions to them: "The harvest is so great, but the workers are so few. Pray to the Lord who is in charge of the harvest, and ask him to send out more workers for his fields." Do you believe that the harvest is great? Do you pray to God to send out more workers for his fields? Are you one of those workers? Are you participating in the harvest? Bible.org's commentary on Luke chapter 9 readings titled "Conflicting Commitments" is at this link.
Psalms - Psalm 74 dates from the time of the exile when the Promised Land was in shambles and the temple destroyed by neighboring nations. This is very evident by the verses we read in this Psalm. In light of this, I absolutely love the plea in verse 22 - "Arise, O God, and defend your cause. Remember how these fools insult you all day long." And as we will see later in the Bible this year, God indeed will arise to defend his cause...
Proverbs - Proverbs 12 verse 11 is so true on quite a few levels - "Hard work means prosperity; only fools idle away their time." I have been thinking about this "idling away time" issue recently. I know that I idle away and waste a lot of time in my life. And I know the Enemy wants us to waste time. The Enemy wants us to be distracted. The Enemy does not want us to work hard on things that are pleasing to God. The Enemy does not want the Kingdom of God to be prosperous. And if we buy into all of this that the Enemy tries to sell us each and every day, then indeed we are fools. Don't buy into the Enemy's Fool's Gold.
What verses or insights jumped out for you in today's readings? Please post up in the Comments section below!
Grace,
Mike
There are some challenging issues raised in Deuteronomy. I must say that I love most parts of the book of Deuteronomy. It's one of the books that Jesus quoted from the most. However, for all the years that I have read the OYB I have never found a reasonable explanation for what is happening in the section on what to do when they go to war and capture women. (Deut 21:10ff) On the one hand, believers are not supposed to be
'unequally yoked' with unbelievers but verse 11 says, "And suppose ou see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and you want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all her clothes....After that you may marry her." This is a "heh, what's going on here passage?". As Christians we spend a lot of time exhorting people not to be 'unequally yoked'. Is this passage saying something different? What is the timeless principle here that we should abide by? I realize that parts of the Deuteronomic code we choose to obey and follow. For example we all follow the commands to care for the poor, etc, but what about this one? Any thoughts out there? The LORD God must have had something else in mind that we can't appreciate with our finite minds. I know that as my sons and Christians I am mentoring read these passages they ask very sincere questions about verses like this. I honestly don't have a simple answer. Maybe there isn't one.
Perhaps the one main timeless principle is that People are made in the image of God, and human life is precious in His sight. People, including captives of war, are not to be treated like animals or things, and the laws in deuteronomy 21 illustrate this truth.
Posted by: Luciano Del Monte | April 02, 2006 at 06:00 AM
Deuteronomy 21:1-22:30
WOW! My eyes have been open to some things I’ve read before which I was never allowed me to see. I made this statement before and I think some took offense which does not make the statement false or wrong: What we see and hear is colored by the contents of our hearts. And truly the condition of my heart prevented me from seeing the provision God provided for woman that insured they would not be victimized through exploitation.
I am a product of the effects of slavery in the United States. As a daughter of descendents of slaves and old enough to have childhood memories of Jim Crow laws, that proclaimed separate but equal, I must admit I have always wrestled with the Bible’s words on dealing with slavery and its duel laws and methods with dealing with people who were not “like us,” so to speak. When I began this journey, I chose to take a mindset of accepting what I read in this Book as God’s Word even if I did not understand. If God IS good, than everything that God decrees must be good also whether I understand or not. Thus, the belief that the condition of my heart filters everything I read and try to understand in the Bible comes from suddenly understanding things that previously were in the dark. But God is good and today something was removed from my heart that made me see that God does truly love me. God loves woman and though it may appear that God is trying to subjugate the “other” sex, He is in fact liberating them from the whimsical nature of men’s minds and hearts.
God will not leave us as “orphans.” He will not encourage or give His support to men having “sex” with women, which to him is “marriage” and then throwing them away when they are tired of them. She and her offspring MUST be provided for and in the manner that is due them by His law and not by man’s law and whim.
I had a problem with the twenty-second chapter, verses thirteen through thirty, especially that whole thing about stoning the woman at the door of her father’s house, who was accused of not being a virgin and who had no proof that she was. Well, the law provided for cases of rape inside and outside of the village/town; however, today, I don’t think anyone would want to remain married to someone who raped them. Yet marriage was a way for women to have security, it wasn’t really about “falling in luv,” and God’s Law, when upheld, prevented mistreatment.
God, I thank you for opening up the eyes of my heart and showing me Your Truth where I was unable to see.
Grace and peace,
Ramona
Posted by: Ramona | April 02, 2006 at 09:12 AM
Luciano,
Hmmm, let me see. You stated:
> … have never found a reasonable explanation for what is happening in the section on what to do when they go to war and capture women. (Deut 21:10ff) On the one hand, believers are not supposed to be 'unequally yoked' with unbelievers…>
What we are suppose to do, God’s Perfect Will, and what we end up doing, God’s Permissive Will—if it is even that, has always been a big problem with man. As you know if we do not keep our “sin-nature,” our flesh, under control, we will allow our fleshly desires and attractions to rule our spirits. So, as a reader of the OYB by habit, you know that from Genesis through Revelation man lives on the side of God’s Permissive Will much more than His Perfect Will. If we study the words that begin many of the sentences in today’s readings the word “if” pops up a multitude of times.
Paul, in his first letter to Timothy states this:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (1 Timothy 1:9 KJVR)
The laws were given because God’s people, even those declared righteous by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, don’t always behave in a manner that is righteous.
Posted by: Ramona | April 02, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Thanks Ramona for your insight. I too struggled with this passage. Why would God have a woman marry someone who raped them? Why didnt' he say something like, "She is still considered a virgin."
Yet that would be covering up the effects of real shame, like sweeping it up under the carpet.
It think there things in this passage we don't see in western culture, like shame.
And I am talking about healthy shame....like covering yourself up a bit as a woman, instead of letting it all hang out. Or these movies stars who are so proud about producing a baby out of wedlock!
One thing that did come to light for me is the importance of marriage. We downplay it nowadays....but it seems here that it is a provision and a good thing for our society and for women.
Ramona, I appreciate your reference to the "other" or second sex. I have been doing some reading on the history of modern feminism. I just read a book called the Miseducation of Women that gives interesting insight into Betty Friedan having second thoughts later in life, and Simone de Beauvoir longing to just have a family.It was an interesting read...not written by a Christian (he is into evolutionary psychology)...but you could apply it to a biblical world view that God did indeed create us differently.
Posted by: Kristie Kercheval | April 02, 2006 at 09:47 AM
Law vs. other cultures
I was doing some reading about another issue and ran across this paragraph. (I broke it up to make it easier to read.) It has been mentioned before that "The Law" as it was originally set out was revolutionary comapred to the existing legal structures of the time - Hammurabi's code, Egyptian Law, etc.
"Israelite Law with respect to crime and punishment was distinct from the laws of other cultures in several ways.
First, Israel, in contrast to many of its neighbors, did not consider crimes against property to be capital crimes. Israel observed a system of corporal punishment and/or fines for lesser crimes.
Second, Israel restricted the law of retaliation (eye for an eye; lex talionis) to the person of the offender. Other cultures permitted the family to be punished to the crimes of the offender.
Third, Israel did not observe class differences in the enforcement of the Law to the extent that their neighbors did. Nobility and commoner, priest and lay people were treated equally in theory. However, slaves and sojourners (foreigners) did not have an equal standing with free Israelites—though their treatment in Israel was often better than in surrounding nations; and women did not have equal standing with the men in Israelite culture—especially in regard to marriage and divorce laws and laws pertaining to sexual offenses.
Finally, Israelites (in contrast to the people of surrounding nations) could not substitute sacrifices for intentional breaches of the law; sin and guilt offerings were allowed only in the cases of unwitting sins (Leviticus 4-5)."
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1460
(In light of Ramona's comment - there may be some disagreement with the portion on women - but I thought it was worthwhile to post.)
Posted by: John | April 02, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Luch,
I have read that in that era before a battle women would dress to be attractive to their captors.
The rest is my conjecture:
A man sees a women all decked out and has feelings for her and takes her to his abode. The thirty days seems like a cooling off period. It allows her to mourn for dead relatives, and with all the fine clothes, nails and hair removed - the man sees her over time in her natural state.
He may get to know her as a person, or it may just allow for his testosorene level to come down from the initial meeting.
Since slaves were an asset and increased net worth, it may also give time for the man to consider the ramifications of what happens if a "marriage" does not work out. Since a failed marriage would mean the man was to release the woman with no compensation, it would negatively affect his net worth - and perhaps shame him as he might be perceived to not have good judgment (in selecting a wife, controlling his assets, etc.).
I have read that there is no recorded instance in any Hebrew literature of a son being stoned for disobediance to parents. Perhaps the punishment was so severe that parents did not want to go that route, and sons would know the line not to cross.
In like manner, I wonder how many times the situation occurred regarding female captives. Did the 30 days work as a "cooling off" period? If marriage occurred how many times did the man activate the "escape clause"? If it happened 1 in a 1,000 can we say God's rule on this seemed to work????
In modern times the message may be that if you meet an attractive woman outside your "sphere", do not rush into marriage. Make sure there is an engagement period where you get to know the "real" her, and don't let physical attractiveness cause you to marry quickly.
[NOTE: These are my thoughts and I reserve the right to have 30 days to reconsider my hypothesis :) ] j/k well, they are my thoughts.
Posted by: John | April 02, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Luke 9:55-56
But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village. NAS
The bracketed verses are left out in NIV. For those that read the Bible online from Mike's links - thought you might want to be aware of the rest of the verses. the reason for the omission in some translations is below:
"Luke 9:55-56 are mutilated in the Sinaiticus manuscript and the Alexandrinus manuscript. The first part of verse 56 is also missing in the Vaticanus manuscript. All the other manuscripts which contain the Gospel of Luke include these verses in its entirety. It is found in the Old Latin Vulgate (c. 150 AD) and the Peschito (c. 150 AD) plus the Armenian Coptic, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopic versions plus many church fathers such as Tertullian. The Eastern Church reads this portion of Scripture after the day of Pentecost."
Posted by: John | April 02, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Just having a cursory look at a vital issue that pops in my mind and I thought I would post it here to have your feedback.
In my walk with the Lord I have been convinced that we are to be imitators of Jesus. We have to become like Jesus and follow in his footsteps but following passages from Genesis are confounding in the light of the knowledge of NT.
Genesis 3:22 , ''And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
But the NT teaches that we should be like Jesus and have a life everlasting. Why Genesis denies what Jesus promises?
Posted by: Emberglow | April 02, 2006 at 07:14 PM
Emberglow,
I will get to Genesis in a second, but first need to clarify a statement you made in post.
"But the NT teaches that we should be like Jesus and have a life everlasting."
Not exactly. To recieve "life everlasting":
John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." NIV
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. NIV
Amongst others of the same ilk. If you try to be "like" Jesus without believing in him, it would be just like trying to follow the Law. Impossible.
======================================================
"But the NT teaches that we should be like Jesus and have a life everlasting. Why Genesis denies what Jesus promises?"
I don't know how people that allegorize Genesis or make it a metaphor handle this question, but the straightforward interpretation is that God is talking about the "Tree of Life" in regards to physical life here on earth. Much different than the "everlasting life" concept.
The "everlasting life" in New Testament starts when you believe in Jesus - your heart is regenerated and you have a new spiritual life. While you are still alive there is a conflict between the habits of the "flesh" and your "new spirit". The completion of the sanctification process happens after you die - and (depending on what you believe) receive your "glorified body".
So, from our perspective, the WORST THING God could do after mankind "turned" from Him in sin would be for Him to allow Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life and "physically" live forever.
Either) Mankind would walk around in a perpetual state of sin and never be reconciled and restored to God. Literally a type of "hell on earth".
Or) God's original plan would have been different.
Or) God would send Jesus to die on the cross and believers would live perpetually here on earth in a state of warfare between the "spirit" and the "flesh". Never to realize the inheritance of heaven.
God's plan is perfect. Anything other than God's plan as revealed up to this point through the "Word" and history: could not be more perfect and could only be less perfect. So the three options above would not be acceptable to God.
The plan "was and is" for Jesus Christ to come to earth and pay the price of sin for mankind. To provide an option for mankind to be reconciled and restored to the Father - if they just believe in Him. Therefore, God would have to kick Adam and Eve from the Garden lest they eat from the "Tree of Life" (amongst other reasons) and prevent mankind from receiving the gift of Christ in its fullest. "Everlasting Life" to be fully enjoyed as adopted children of God and co-inheritors of the Kingdom of God.
[Note: Long answer - but necessary to fully answer your thoughtful question.]
Posted by: John | April 02, 2006 at 08:38 PM
Old testament vs new...Reading through the the old testament so far,few people loved God...I mean really loved God.They followed him when it was convenient,sometimes out of fear but their hearts were hardened.Husbands seemed to "love" their wives for their beauty.Abraham and Isaac were willing to sacrifice their wives to save their skins,men could "marry" a wife without loving her and God had set rules on how to divorce a wife so she would have some sort of protection.I wondered,why didn't God just ban men from marrying more than one wife...maybe God knew they just weren't capable of love...they did a pretty bad job of obeying him anyway so asking them to be faithful to a wife (someone who was weaker in strength)when they were not faithful to God(who had displayed his strength)would have put the Israelites in trouble big time.
In the new testament,we find people who just love Jesus,Peter had a family but followed Christ around,John's favorite spot was on Jesus's breast,the lady with the expensive perfume didn't care what anyone said...she was going to show her love...years after Jesus was on earth,his followers sometimes pay for their faith with their love...people learn how to love...Now God can expect us to love one wife because if we love Jesus,he puts love for others in our lives...and we can obey him out of love....And know God is love.
God bless you all
Posted by: Anka | April 02, 2006 at 10:23 PM
oops I meant people pay for their faith with their lives....
Posted by: Anka | April 02, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Location, Location, Location, the three principals of Real Estate investment. The issue regarding everlasting or eternal life is this: We are spirits foremost.
God is Spirit (God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.(John 4:24 KJVR) & And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he ALSO (emphases mine) is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3 KJV)
Everyone who has ever walked the earth will live forever. The question is where? Location, location, location is EVERYTHING!
Posted by: Ramona | April 03, 2006 at 03:25 AM