Posts
Deuteronomy 19-21 Skeptics Annotated Bible
We get a repeat on the Cities of Refuge and a very specific example on who can flee to a city.
"Um, yeah, we were chopping wood in the forest. I draged his body back to my kitchen later to try and help him."
We also get good advice on trusting witnesses. The penalty for perjury was a little harsher back in those days (Death).
God tells us in Chapter 20 that there are ways to get out of going to war. New house? New farm? New virgin wife? No problem. See you when you're done. Cowards are also exempt.
God is easing up on the mass extermination rule by allowing women and children to survive as slaves. They are now the spoils of war. But this only applies to the cities they'll conquer in the promised land.
We still see that God is hateful of people who have different beliefs at 20:17
Destroy everything but save the trees that bear fruit. Sounds reasonable.
We come back to laws and justice in 21 (again, who did the editing?!?!) but what a bizarre collection!
1. If you find a murdered man in the field, cut off a cows head and have the priests wash their hands over it. This ritual is basically the priests saying "we didn't do it."
2. If you win a battle and find a beautiful woman, you may take her as a wife but first she must shave her head, cut her nails, get naked and mourn her parents (who you killed) for a month. Only then can you have sex with her. If you find out you don't really like her, you can let her go free.
3. If a man has two wives and hates one, but she gave him his firstborn son.....zzzzzz, boring.
4. Parents can have their children stoned for not behaving!
5. When you hang a man, you can't keep his body hanging over night.
Deut could have been subtitled "Recapitulations, Admonishments and Exhortations" - we're getting a lot of it.
ReplyDeleteRemind me - what characteristics differentiate Deut from the earlier books (thus lead the DH to attribute them to a different school of authorship)? Chapters 19-21 sure have that "Priestly" feel to them.
What is the purpose of the law? In this short essay the three purposes of the law are discussed.
ReplyDeleteScripture shows that God intends His law to function in three ways, which Calvin crystalized in classic form for the Church's benefit as the law's threefold use.
It's first function is to be a mirror reflecting to us both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings. As Augustine wrote,"the law bids us, as we try to fulfill its requirements, and become wearied in our weakness under it, to know how to ask the help of grace." The law is meant to give knowledge of sin (Rom.3:20;4:15;5:13;7:7-11), and by showing us our need of pardon and our danger of damnation to lead us in repentance and faith to Christ (Gal.3:19-24).
A second function, the "civil use", is to restrain evil. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgement, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut.13:6-11;19:16-21;Rom.13:3,4). Thus it secures civil order, and serves to protect the righteous from the unjust.
Its third function is to guide the regenerate into the good works that God has planned for them (Eph.2:10). The law tells God's children what will please their heavenly Father. It could be called their family code. Christ was speaking of this third use of the law when He said that those who become His disciples must be taught to do all that He had commanded (Matt.28:20), and that obedience to His commandments will prove the reality of one's love for Him (John14:15). The Christian is free from the law as a system of salvation (Rom.6:14;7:4,6;1 Cor.9:20; Gal.2:15-19;3:25), but is "under the law of Christ" as a rule of life (1Cor.9:21;Gal6:2).
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteDeut 21:23 This is what they said of Jesus on the cross.(Galatians 3:13)
As for #4, "Parents can have their children stoned for not behaving!"
The text does not say "not behaving" it says stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will no hearken unto them. This is a big difference than just not behaving.
My question to you is, seeing that this person will not listen and obey his parents, do you think he will obey any other authority figure? Do people like this bring peace and blessings to society?
Well, at least this law code is easier to read than P's. Still pretty boring though.
ReplyDeleteI quite like the rules of war, especially the exemption for cowards. Reminds me of that scene in Return of the King (the book) when Aragorn let the Dunedain riders go.
Oh, how nice, you can make peace offers to cities. By... enslaving them. Well, that's a kind of peace, I guess.
Yeah, horrible editing. The latter half of ch. 21 really does fit better with ch. 20, and 21:1-9 would go after 19:13.
This section is pretty jumbled. I would not hire Moses to be my copy editor.
Remind me - what characteristics differentiate Deut from the earlier books (thus lead the DH to attribute them to a different school of authorship)? Chapters 19-21 sure have that "Priestly" feel to them.
Well right now we are in the middle of the DTR law code, which predates the rest of Deuteronomy. It shares a lot of material with the law code from Exodus (E's Covenant Code) and has also shared law with P. (These chapters seem to be mostly original material?)
D is a strong voice that doesn't appear until Deuteronomy, and then it pops up sporadically throughout Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. It has a very strong message that is pretty easy to sum up: Keep God's law and everything will be cool. Tear down the "high places" and worship in the one place God chose.
P took centralization for granted, and to him it's the Tabernacle. He's also very narrowly focused on the actions of the Aaronid Levites. It's all about proper protocol and holiness and such. D has more a mix of civil and religious law.
P is generally the easiest to spot because he was a horrible writer. All his stories seem highly artificial and lack the cultural authenticity that JE and D have. (Which is why P is so hard to date, and why many think it is a late invention. It doesn't feel "real".)
Hope that helps?
I kind of muddled that.
ReplyDeleteD *mandated* centralization of worship (by tearing down the "high places" and only sacrificing at the Temple in Jerusalem ("the place God chose"). Whereas P *assumed* centralization, at the Tabernacle (as a precursor to the temple.)
Another major difference is how, to D, all Levites are priests, but P is very choosy and specifies that Aaron's descendants are the only real priests.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteMy question to you is, seeing that this person will not listen and obey his parents, do you think he will obey any other authority figure?
Perhaps they should try first? Little tough love? Or maybe just stone the mother for raising such a little shit in the first place?
As for #4, "Parents can have their children stoned for not behaving!"
ReplyDeleteI would actually focus on the "children" part. Since they're calling him a drunkard and a glutton, I assume this isn't a four year old (although it would be nice if they clarified).
Maybe I'm becoming numb to the bloodshed, etc but I'm surprised that the mother is included in this decision rather than just the father bringing the rebel to the elders.
@Abbie - thanks for the (always) in-depth explanation. I'd forgotten about Aaronites being priests - we've gotten so much of the Levites lately.
ReplyDelete@momof atheists,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps they should try first? Little tough love?"
They did try first. 21:18b "when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:"
chastened: Corrected; punished; afflicted for correction.
Would that be "tough love?"
"Or maybe just stone the mother for raising such a little shit in the first place?"
Don't forget the father, we should stone him as well. :-)