I find it interesting that this day’s Old Testament reading deals in a large part with women when men are concerned.
Firstly, God gives explicit instructions on what a man was to do with a captive woman he desired to marry… right down to shaving her head and cutting her nails. But notice the restrictions on their marriage that exist; if the man doesn’t delight in her, then he has no obligation to continue their marriage. The only stipulation is that he not sell her. Sad and interesting.
Secondly, a man with more than one wife and in the situation where he hates one wife, but not the other, is not allowed to pass his inheritance to the firstborn of the wife he loves. The inheritance passes to the firstborn. Period. It is nice God makes a provision for children of a hated wife… at least once in scripture, we find a hated wife producing a firstborn male. Again, God points to the unshakable fact that the firstborn (especially male) is a special creation; the beginning of his father’s strength and chosen of the Lord. I have to wonder if female firstborns are special to God… it seems everywhere God speaks highly and possessively of firstborns, He is referring to males.
Thirdly, women are not supposed to wear men’s clothing. I don’t believe this means women shouldn’t wear pants or shorts, I believe that this literally means that a woman should not wear men’s clothing (i.e., clothing specifically created for men). Traditionally, pants have been the woman’s clothing; providing full coverage in every-day tasks.
Fourthly, when a man takes a wife, knows her, and then hates her and says she had been with someone else before him, the father of the woman is supposed to provide the proofs of her virginity – this is a white cloth from her wedding day which has been blood-stained during the consummation of that marriage ceremony.
Here’s the kicker… if the father produces the proof, the man is chastised and will not be able to divorce his wife for the rest of his life. However, if the father cannot produce this proof, the men of the city will stone her until she dies. Why? She played the whore and brought shame to all of Israel. Makes one wonder what today would be like if this penalty were still in effect.
Fiftly, men are not punished with respect to crimes committed on women if the woman is not promised or married to another man. In the case of adultery, upon discovery, the man and the woman were to be stoned until dead. If an engaged virgin is caught with a man in the city, both were stoned until dead. If a man forced an engaged virgin in a field, only he would be stoned because it was assumed the woman would have called for help.
The thing that really bothers me somewhat is the fact that if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, he doesn’t die for this. Instead, he pays the father a huge chunk of money and then marries the woman and will never be able to divorce her for the rest of his life.
I suppose this way of dealing with men/women issues relates to how women are seen with respect to men. A married woman is her husband’s property. Betrothal (or engagement) fall into the same kind of category; the woman is promised to the man and really all that remains before she becomes his is the wedding and consummation. When a man messes with another man’s property (i.e., his neighbor’s wife or almost-wife), he must pay the penalty of death.
Unengaged women still belong under their father’s protectorate and are therefore not considered as belonging to a man, therefore the man isn’t killed for defaming “un-owned” property.
Showing posts with label honour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honour. Show all posts
Monday, April 02, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Honorable Feasts and Arbitrary Holidays
The children of Israel had a kind of living history class. Two generations prior, they had literally been slaves, working for a king whose enslavement of the children of Israel had come two generations after a literal child of Israel had ensured that Egypt would survive a famine. Which is an interesting way to thank the God.
So the children of Israel, finally free to take the new world, are given cause to remember the past, through the three feasts.
The first feast is Passover. Set in the month of Abib [as a side note, this has some interesting observations about the original Hebraic calendar and this site observes that there seems to have been a variable leap year, based entirely on crop - in this way they could ensure the year began with that state of ripeness called Abib ... which brings it all full circle], which may have been in April or November ... it will take more than a cursory overview on my part to know WHEN it was, but we know it was near the beginning of the Hebrew calendar. It is the observation of thanksgiving for God's grace in keeping His people safe during a plague, when the Egyptians (in particular the Pharaoh) were not allowing the children of Israel to leave. However, instead of observing the same efforts of survival (whereby the Hebraic slaves were called to wipe blood on their door frames), they share in a Passover feast, in commemoration of God's grace and redemption. In practice, Passover is associated with a seven day "fast" of sorts, where those faithful followers are called to allow no leavened bread to be eaten by said person for seven days (Deuteronomy 16:4) although I am not certain if it is to be before or after the Passover - although, I would say that most of these kinds of associativity in the Bible are predominantly before the feast, so the leavened bread loss is a kind of sacrifice of leavening?
The second feast is mentioned after the first, in Deuteronomy 16:8-12, called the "feast of weeks" - wherein the children of Israel are, again, to bring to mind exactly gracious God is, and how He saved the children of Israel out of Egypt. This is a solemn feast. There doesn't seem to be any particular meal or activity associated with the feast, however a little digging reveals that it was called the feast of weeks in honor of the harvest, which makes sense if the first week was to be set in Abib, which was relatively set based on the crop, and so this second feast was apparently (by God) chosen to coincide with when the crop (again, I believe it was barley) was to be harvested. Thus, this feast would coincide with an amazing abundance of foodstuffs, and everyone could be blessed by it.
The third feast mentioned, in Deuteronomy 16:13-15, called the feast of tabernacles, is again not well described in Deuteronomy, although one can find a few references online readily enough (like this, this, and this) and references the forty year period during which the children of Israel wandered in the desert, living in temporary shelters. The second feast is joyful, which provides a contrast to both the second feast, as well as how joyful the children of Israel were themselves, while traveling those forty years. There are a number of passages in scripture which indicate they were grumbling and generally not being very pleasant. Few (I don't know of any, but please inform me if you know of some) passages indicate that the children of Israel, as a whole, were every happy or appreciative of anything.
So these three feasts are to be observed yearly. And much like before Deuteronomy 16, when it was talking about individual sacrifices (and doesn't directly relate to the feasts, unless we see all three feasts as kinds of sacrifices, the verses following the feasts (Deuteronomy 16:18 - ) seem to drop the subject entirely.
I was interested to learn that the children of Israel mowed their grass (Psalm 72:6). Although I have read the Bible once through, but there is so much content that it is quite simply easy to miss the sheer volume of details. The fact that their gardens were maintained shouldn't be a surprise to me; the first profession of man was that of gardener - you could say it is the noblest profession for that reason. I imagine the mowing itself was done by goats or some other herbivore.
Interesting to me is the comparison between Psalm 72 1 and 2, where the king and prince are compared to the people and their poor. It implies there is a regality to being poor that others don't experience. Also, that Psalm 72 seems to be focused on three things - observation of God's greatness, judgment of everyone, and administration of righteousness. I also get the distinct impression, although I can't quite put my finger where it came about, that the poor will be, and are being judged, with how they address being poor. I have always had the impression that being poor itself is a kind of judgment, but it makes a great deal more sense how you respond to the state, than to suggest someone be judged on the state itself; it is wise to for judgment to follow a decision and not a description. I'm so blessed that God lets me notice when I make mistakes - He helps me learn that much more effectively.
Psalm 12:9 bears dwelling upon. It states its better to be despised and with a servant; than to honour yourself and lack bread. There is clearly some connection between this verse and the one indicating that He would that we were hold or cold rather than lukewarm, where it is implied that owning a servant, much like being despised, implies one is the equivalent of "hot", but honouring - what exactly is that? Is that the feeling one gets when one chooses to be self-righteous about doing the right thing or some other reason? A modern day Pharisee? One could also go another route, noting that of the two, the first has put more thought into what tools he needs to function, whereas the second has no bread. Which reminds me of the passage where we are called to action; it is better to offer food and beverage, than to tell the beggar "Be fed and of good cheer" and then walk away.
Lastly, I wonder about the end of Psalm 72 - where it says "The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." This is nowhere near the end of Psalms. Are the Psalms in chronological order? Are we to conclude that the remainder of Psalms are NOT David's work?
~ Transition ~
In a few days, some calendars will celebrate the Passover feast. Millions of people, the world over, mostly Jewish, but some others, will observe this feast - some will have done it following a week of unleavened meals, some will observe only the day in question, and some will observe it, as well as prepare for the following two feasts.
Two parts to today's call to action
First: How do you determine spiritual relevance?
One of the most intense discussions you may ever have is one about spiritual relevance. It is a really interesting question, because it assumes that there is a spiritual aspect to things many of us might not associate with the spiritual realm. I certainly don't know myself, and I believe our perceptions are by election, while also believing that the reality is separate. You might believe that what friends you have won't affect you spiritually. This won't change the reality of them affecting you. In the same way other beliefs, about spiritual relevance or anything else, should be as established in reality and facts as possible. Which is why I start asking the question - how do you determine spiritual relevance?
So Part I: take time out to evaluate what guidelines you currently use to determine whether something is edifying, needs to be stopped, or is valid and useful. What tools, what mechanisms, what paradigms do you hold to that help you make decisions such as what is relevant and what is not? Do you respond intuitively? Do you confer with a multitude of counselors? Do you search the scriptures? Do pick at random, use a dartboard, or the like? Do you just agree with whichever group you're with?
Second: What rites, activities, and holidays you observe?
One of the hardest things we can do is to take an earnest look at who we are, and one area where this is intensely true is that of holidays. We, as a group, often celebrate things without considering their relevance to our material lives, or their appropriateness to our spiritual lives. And it may not seem like it, but the decisions you make do change (and thus can strengthen or weaken) your walk with Christ. So earnestly do this today.
Given the completed Part I above, you should now be well equipped to evaluate whether the holidays, rites, and activities you observe are aligned with your personal beliefs, and whether you should practice them at all.
Here are some examples, to help you get started.
Simple:
I believe holidays should be established to honor God. I therefore don't celebrate Halloween, as it not only has pagan roots (the basis of the holiday was to ward off dark spiritual entities, and in Christ we are given power and authority over devils - so why would I encourage them, or taunt them, by a ward?) but reinforces begging in children.
Hard:
I believe holidays should be established to honor God. I also think that honoring God is not an excuse to celebrate a holiday. I believe Christmas should be abolished. Christmas was originally established, as I understand it, to tie together two separate events, a pagan holiday, twelve days in length (which is where the carol comes from) honoring the new year and the other the birth of Christ. Given what we know, from scripture, about when the birth of Christ, it was likely NOT in the month of December. You want to honor the birth of Christ, why wait until December? You could probably argue for the event to have happened around September. Even the icons of Christmas are a bit fantastic. We have Santa Claus, a kind of demi-god who can travel the world in a day, who has elves for slaves/servants, and is a kind of spiritual father-figure to those who buy into Christmas as any kind of secular holiday. We also have the nativity scene, which is contrived, in particular the three wise men. I suppose the association might have come from the Christmas song (we three kings) but if you look at scripture, Jesus wasn't vested by three kings, or three wise men, during the time of his birth. He was visited by shepherds. (Luke) It was some time later that the wise men showed up (Matthew). So, if you're going to have a birth (nativity) scene, the visitors should be the shepherds, not the wise men. Plus, we don't know how many there were, although I've always been given the impression there were two.
So the children of Israel, finally free to take the new world, are given cause to remember the past, through the three feasts.
The first feast is Passover. Set in the month of Abib [as a side note, this has some interesting observations about the original Hebraic calendar and this site observes that there seems to have been a variable leap year, based entirely on crop - in this way they could ensure the year began with that state of ripeness called Abib ... which brings it all full circle], which may have been in April or November ... it will take more than a cursory overview on my part to know WHEN it was, but we know it was near the beginning of the Hebrew calendar. It is the observation of thanksgiving for God's grace in keeping His people safe during a plague, when the Egyptians (in particular the Pharaoh) were not allowing the children of Israel to leave. However, instead of observing the same efforts of survival (whereby the Hebraic slaves were called to wipe blood on their door frames), they share in a Passover feast, in commemoration of God's grace and redemption. In practice, Passover is associated with a seven day "fast" of sorts, where those faithful followers are called to allow no leavened bread to be eaten by said person for seven days (Deuteronomy 16:4) although I am not certain if it is to be before or after the Passover - although, I would say that most of these kinds of associativity in the Bible are predominantly before the feast, so the leavened bread loss is a kind of sacrifice of leavening?
The second feast is mentioned after the first, in Deuteronomy 16:8-12, called the "feast of weeks" - wherein the children of Israel are, again, to bring to mind exactly gracious God is, and how He saved the children of Israel out of Egypt. This is a solemn feast. There doesn't seem to be any particular meal or activity associated with the feast, however a little digging reveals that it was called the feast of weeks in honor of the harvest, which makes sense if the first week was to be set in Abib, which was relatively set based on the crop, and so this second feast was apparently (by God) chosen to coincide with when the crop (again, I believe it was barley) was to be harvested. Thus, this feast would coincide with an amazing abundance of foodstuffs, and everyone could be blessed by it.
The third feast mentioned, in Deuteronomy 16:13-15, called the feast of tabernacles, is again not well described in Deuteronomy, although one can find a few references online readily enough (like this, this, and this) and references the forty year period during which the children of Israel wandered in the desert, living in temporary shelters. The second feast is joyful, which provides a contrast to both the second feast, as well as how joyful the children of Israel were themselves, while traveling those forty years. There are a number of passages in scripture which indicate they were grumbling and generally not being very pleasant. Few (I don't know of any, but please inform me if you know of some) passages indicate that the children of Israel, as a whole, were every happy or appreciative of anything.
So these three feasts are to be observed yearly. And much like before Deuteronomy 16, when it was talking about individual sacrifices (and doesn't directly relate to the feasts, unless we see all three feasts as kinds of sacrifices, the verses following the feasts (Deuteronomy 16:18 - ) seem to drop the subject entirely.
I was interested to learn that the children of Israel mowed their grass (Psalm 72:6). Although I have read the Bible once through, but there is so much content that it is quite simply easy to miss the sheer volume of details. The fact that their gardens were maintained shouldn't be a surprise to me; the first profession of man was that of gardener - you could say it is the noblest profession for that reason. I imagine the mowing itself was done by goats or some other herbivore.
Interesting to me is the comparison between Psalm 72 1 and 2, where the king and prince are compared to the people and their poor. It implies there is a regality to being poor that others don't experience. Also, that Psalm 72 seems to be focused on three things - observation of God's greatness, judgment of everyone, and administration of righteousness. I also get the distinct impression, although I can't quite put my finger where it came about, that the poor will be, and are being judged, with how they address being poor. I have always had the impression that being poor itself is a kind of judgment, but it makes a great deal more sense how you respond to the state, than to suggest someone be judged on the state itself; it is wise to for judgment to follow a decision and not a description. I'm so blessed that God lets me notice when I make mistakes - He helps me learn that much more effectively.
Psalm 12:9 bears dwelling upon. It states its better to be despised and with a servant; than to honour yourself and lack bread. There is clearly some connection between this verse and the one indicating that He would that we were hold or cold rather than lukewarm, where it is implied that owning a servant, much like being despised, implies one is the equivalent of "hot", but honouring - what exactly is that? Is that the feeling one gets when one chooses to be self-righteous about doing the right thing or some other reason? A modern day Pharisee? One could also go another route, noting that of the two, the first has put more thought into what tools he needs to function, whereas the second has no bread. Which reminds me of the passage where we are called to action; it is better to offer food and beverage, than to tell the beggar "Be fed and of good cheer" and then walk away.
Lastly, I wonder about the end of Psalm 72 - where it says "The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." This is nowhere near the end of Psalms. Are the Psalms in chronological order? Are we to conclude that the remainder of Psalms are NOT David's work?
~ Transition ~
In a few days, some calendars will celebrate the Passover feast. Millions of people, the world over, mostly Jewish, but some others, will observe this feast - some will have done it following a week of unleavened meals, some will observe only the day in question, and some will observe it, as well as prepare for the following two feasts.
Two parts to today's call to action
First: How do you determine spiritual relevance?
One of the most intense discussions you may ever have is one about spiritual relevance. It is a really interesting question, because it assumes that there is a spiritual aspect to things many of us might not associate with the spiritual realm. I certainly don't know myself, and I believe our perceptions are by election, while also believing that the reality is separate. You might believe that what friends you have won't affect you spiritually. This won't change the reality of them affecting you. In the same way other beliefs, about spiritual relevance or anything else, should be as established in reality and facts as possible. Which is why I start asking the question - how do you determine spiritual relevance?
So Part I: take time out to evaluate what guidelines you currently use to determine whether something is edifying, needs to be stopped, or is valid and useful. What tools, what mechanisms, what paradigms do you hold to that help you make decisions such as what is relevant and what is not? Do you respond intuitively? Do you confer with a multitude of counselors? Do you search the scriptures? Do pick at random, use a dartboard, or the like? Do you just agree with whichever group you're with?
Second: What rites, activities, and holidays you observe?
One of the hardest things we can do is to take an earnest look at who we are, and one area where this is intensely true is that of holidays. We, as a group, often celebrate things without considering their relevance to our material lives, or their appropriateness to our spiritual lives. And it may not seem like it, but the decisions you make do change (and thus can strengthen or weaken) your walk with Christ. So earnestly do this today.
Given the completed Part I above, you should now be well equipped to evaluate whether the holidays, rites, and activities you observe are aligned with your personal beliefs, and whether you should practice them at all.
Here are some examples, to help you get started.
Simple:
I believe holidays should be established to honor God. I therefore don't celebrate Halloween, as it not only has pagan roots (the basis of the holiday was to ward off dark spiritual entities, and in Christ we are given power and authority over devils - so why would I encourage them, or taunt them, by a ward?) but reinforces begging in children.
Hard:
I believe holidays should be established to honor God. I also think that honoring God is not an excuse to celebrate a holiday. I believe Christmas should be abolished. Christmas was originally established, as I understand it, to tie together two separate events, a pagan holiday, twelve days in length (which is where the carol comes from) honoring the new year and the other the birth of Christ. Given what we know, from scripture, about when the birth of Christ, it was likely NOT in the month of December. You want to honor the birth of Christ, why wait until December? You could probably argue for the event to have happened around September. Even the icons of Christmas are a bit fantastic. We have Santa Claus, a kind of demi-god who can travel the world in a day, who has elves for slaves/servants, and is a kind of spiritual father-figure to those who buy into Christmas as any kind of secular holiday. We also have the nativity scene, which is contrived, in particular the three wise men. I suppose the association might have come from the Christmas song (we three kings) but if you look at scripture, Jesus wasn't vested by three kings, or three wise men, during the time of his birth. He was visited by shepherds. (Luke) It was some time later that the wise men showed up (Matthew). So, if you're going to have a birth (nativity) scene, the visitors should be the shepherds, not the wise men. Plus, we don't know how many there were, although I've always been given the impression there were two.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Conditional Absolute
I start today's post with an observation from Deuteronomy 2:14.
I knew that Aaron died a few verses before, in Numbers, and I thought to observe his passing as signal for a few reasons, one of them being he was the first to die of the generation that would need to pass before the children of Israel were to make it to the promised land.
I believe this was further verified in Deuteronomy 2:14, where it states the people (who I take to mean the children of Israel) took 38 years to travel from Kadesh-barnea the brook Zered, "...until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host..." So Aaron might have been the first, might have been only one of the first (although at 123 years of age, without the active blessing of God, he likely would not have lasted the remaining years.)
Another is that of Moses, in Deuteronomy 3:25, where Moses is pleading with God to let him go over to the promised land. It has always been interesting to me, because Moses had interceded so many times on behalf of the children of Israel, and had asked for very few things for himself, that after years of traveling, when Moses finally got to the promised land, and finally saw what it was they had all been believing for, that Moses still couldn't walk across the threshold. The obvious reference is the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:8-12) and I am left with the awareness that sometimes intercession works, sometimes it doesn't, and in the end, it’s all for the glory of God!
God is really forgiving in any way I can fathom, and in many dimensions I can’t, but one of the enduring consistencies I always walk away from scripture is the realization that, even when he is doling out punishment, or granting requests, or calling to action, he is consistent. God is sometimes sneaky. Not in an underhanded way, but in a specific way.
We know that Jesus will come, as a thief in the night, and so this aspect of God’s character should be no new thing. The reality is that one aspect of God’s will for our lives is that His thoughts are above ours. And I think another way to look at that is to say He thinks differently than anyone you’ll ever meet. And sometimes those thoughts look sneaky. But His character has not changed.
In addition, there are few promises given by God that do not have conditions. This isn’t because He is limited, but because WE are. And so it is of import to be aware what your own obligations are when you wish to honor God, or intercede for someone.
So my call to action for you today is simple:
What promises are you claiming in His word?
What are the conditions attached to those promises?
Learning what they are will bring in you closer union with Him and will likely increase the chance that you’ll honor them.
I knew that Aaron died a few verses before, in Numbers, and I thought to observe his passing as signal for a few reasons, one of them being he was the first to die of the generation that would need to pass before the children of Israel were to make it to the promised land.
I believe this was further verified in Deuteronomy 2:14, where it states the people (who I take to mean the children of Israel) took 38 years to travel from Kadesh-barnea the brook Zered, "...until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host..." So Aaron might have been the first, might have been only one of the first (although at 123 years of age, without the active blessing of God, he likely would not have lasted the remaining years.)
Another is that of Moses, in Deuteronomy 3:25, where Moses is pleading with God to let him go over to the promised land. It has always been interesting to me, because Moses had interceded so many times on behalf of the children of Israel, and had asked for very few things for himself, that after years of traveling, when Moses finally got to the promised land, and finally saw what it was they had all been believing for, that Moses still couldn't walk across the threshold. The obvious reference is the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:8-12) and I am left with the awareness that sometimes intercession works, sometimes it doesn't, and in the end, it’s all for the glory of God!
- Is there something God has called you to do?
- Is there a prize to be given at the end?
- Does it have conditions?
God is really forgiving in any way I can fathom, and in many dimensions I can’t, but one of the enduring consistencies I always walk away from scripture is the realization that, even when he is doling out punishment, or granting requests, or calling to action, he is consistent. God is sometimes sneaky. Not in an underhanded way, but in a specific way.
We know that Jesus will come, as a thief in the night, and so this aspect of God’s character should be no new thing. The reality is that one aspect of God’s will for our lives is that His thoughts are above ours. And I think another way to look at that is to say He thinks differently than anyone you’ll ever meet. And sometimes those thoughts look sneaky. But His character has not changed.
In addition, there are few promises given by God that do not have conditions. This isn’t because He is limited, but because WE are. And so it is of import to be aware what your own obligations are when you wish to honor God, or intercede for someone.
So my call to action for you today is simple:
What promises are you claiming in His word?
What are the conditions attached to those promises?
Learning what they are will bring in you closer union with Him and will likely increase the chance that you’ll honor them.
Conditional Absolute
I start today's post with an observation from Deuteronomy 2:14.
I knew that Aaron died a few verses before, in Numbers, and I thought to observe his passing as signal for a few reasons, one of them being he was the first to die of the generation that would need to pass before the children of Israel were to make it to the promised land.
I believe this was further verified in Deuteronomy 2:14, where it states the people (who I take to mean the children of Israel) took 38 years to travel from Kadesh-barnea the brook Zered, "...until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host..." So Aaron might have been the first, might have been only one of the first (although at 123 years of age, without the active blessing of God, he likely would not have lasted the remaining years.)
Another is that of Moses, in Deuteronomy 3:25, where Moses is pleading with God to let him go over to the promised land. It has always been interesting to me, because Moses had interceded so many times on behalf of the children of Israel, and had asked for very few things for himself, that after years of traveling, when Moses finally got to the promised land, and finally saw what it was they had all been believing for, that Moses still couldn't walk across the threshold. The obvious reference is the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:8-12) and I am left with the awareness that sometimes intercession works, sometimes it doesn't, and in the end, it’s all for the glory of God!
God is really forgiving in any way I can fathom, and in many dimensions I can’t, but one of the enduring consistencies I always walk away from scripture is the realization that, even when he is doling out punishment, or granting requests, or calling to action, he is consistent. God is sometimes sneaky. Not in an underhanded way, but in a specific way.
We know that Jesus will come, as a thief in the night, and so this aspect of God’s character should be no new thing. The reality is that one aspect of God’s will for our lives is that His thoughts are above ours. And I think another way to look at that is to say He thinks differently than anyone you’ll ever meet. And sometimes those thoughts look sneaky. But His character has not changed.
In addition, there are few promises given by God that do not have conditions. This isn’t because He is limited, but because WE are. And so it is of import to be aware what your own obligation are when you wish to honor God, or intercede for someone.
So my call to action for you today is simple:
What promises are you claiming in His word?
What are the conditions attached to those promises?
Learning what they are will bring in you closer union with Him and will likely increase the chance that you’ll honor them.
I knew that Aaron died a few verses before, in Numbers, and I thought to observe his passing as signal for a few reasons, one of them being he was the first to die of the generation that would need to pass before the children of Israel were to make it to the promised land.
I believe this was further verified in Deuteronomy 2:14, where it states the people (who I take to mean the children of Israel) took 38 years to travel from Kadesh-barnea the brook Zered, "...until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host..." So Aaron might have been the first, might have been only one of the first (although at 123 years of age, without the active blessing of God, he likely would not have lasted the remaining years.)
Another is that of Moses, in Deuteronomy 3:25, where Moses is pleading with God to let him go over to the promised land. It has always been interesting to me, because Moses had interceded so many times on behalf of the children of Israel, and had asked for very few things for himself, that after years of traveling, when Moses finally got to the promised land, and finally saw what it was they had all been believing for, that Moses still couldn't walk across the threshold. The obvious reference is the waters of Meribah (Numbers 20:8-12) and I am left with the awareness that sometimes intercession works, sometimes it doesn't, and in the end, it’s all for the glory of God!
- Is there something God has called you to do?
- Is there a prize to be given at the end?
- Does it have conditions?
God is really forgiving in any way I can fathom, and in many dimensions I can’t, but one of the enduring consistencies I always walk away from scripture is the realization that, even when he is doling out punishment, or granting requests, or calling to action, he is consistent. God is sometimes sneaky. Not in an underhanded way, but in a specific way.
We know that Jesus will come, as a thief in the night, and so this aspect of God’s character should be no new thing. The reality is that one aspect of God’s will for our lives is that His thoughts are above ours. And I think another way to look at that is to say He thinks differently than anyone you’ll ever meet. And sometimes those thoughts look sneaky. But His character has not changed.
In addition, there are few promises given by God that do not have conditions. This isn’t because He is limited, but because WE are. And so it is of import to be aware what your own obligation are when you wish to honor God, or intercede for someone.
So my call to action for you today is simple:
What promises are you claiming in His word?
What are the conditions attached to those promises?
Learning what they are will bring in you closer union with Him and will likely increase the chance that you’ll honor them.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Honour as gift; Grace as defense
what did it mean for the Lord to ask Moses to put "some of thine honour upon" Joshua [Numbers 27:20].
Ponderings:
- is honor different than honour? (different spelling)
- how does one put some of our honour on someone else?
- what is this honour? is it general respect, meaning to introduce someone and give them a good send off?
- is it clothing?
- is it the holy spirit?
- is it to delegate one's authority or responsibilities?
- is it an assignment, prescient in nature, meaning to prepare Joshua for the position of honour Moses already had?
We clearly see the justification ("that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient") and it suggests the last (training Joshua as Moses's replacement) and this is further verified by the following passage, where it indicates that, "he (Joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel" (so Joshua will intercede on behalf of the children of Israel) and that "at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in". So we have the children of Israel respecting Joshua as they respect Moses. This is further validated in the last verse of the chapter, where Moses lays hands on Joshua, and "gave him a charge."
Of interest is the separate use of the word "honor" from Proverbs 11:16. In particular it says that "a gracious woman retaineth honour...."
So we have honour referring to something that can be given freely and from this proverb we see that honor can be lost.
Of interest is that there are 16 different words in the Hebrew and Greek that refer to honour. So the concept isn't simple, nor of simplistic nature.
The 'honour' referred to in Numbers 27:20 is that of "howd" (pronounced hode), meaning splendour, majesty, and vigour; also glory, majesty, beauty, comeliness, glorious, and goodly.
The 'honour' referred to in Proverbs 11:16 is that of "kabowd" (pronounced kaw-bodé) meaning dignity, reputation, reverence, glory, and abundance.
Clearly, there is an overlap, but it is interesting that the same word relates to such fundamentally different things.
From Numbers, I retain the idea that it relates to God asking Moses to prepare Joshua as his replacement. This means the children of Israel likely were given a great deal of time to prepare for Joshua to be Moses' replacement.
And from Proverbs, that if a woman is gracious, she will retain her glory and dignity.
So, if you are a man, keep your eye out for your Joshua, while hearkening to the Lord - for you never know when you'll need to be that strong man of Proverbs 11:17, who keeps his riches, and when you'll, instead, be needing to train you replacement.
And, if you're a woman, focus on grace - for, along with a multitude of counselors, it provides a safety net of God's wisdom.
Ponderings:
- is honor different than honour? (different spelling)
- how does one put some of our honour on someone else?
- what is this honour? is it general respect, meaning to introduce someone and give them a good send off?
- is it clothing?
- is it the holy spirit?
- is it to delegate one's authority or responsibilities?
- is it an assignment, prescient in nature, meaning to prepare Joshua for the position of honour Moses already had?
We clearly see the justification ("that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient") and it suggests the last (training Joshua as Moses's replacement) and this is further verified by the following passage, where it indicates that, "he (Joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel" (so Joshua will intercede on behalf of the children of Israel) and that "at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in". So we have the children of Israel respecting Joshua as they respect Moses. This is further validated in the last verse of the chapter, where Moses lays hands on Joshua, and "gave him a charge."
Of interest is the separate use of the word "honor" from Proverbs 11:16. In particular it says that "a gracious woman retaineth honour...."
So we have honour referring to something that can be given freely and from this proverb we see that honor can be lost.
Of interest is that there are 16 different words in the Hebrew and Greek that refer to honour. So the concept isn't simple, nor of simplistic nature.
The 'honour' referred to in Numbers 27:20 is that of "howd" (pronounced hode), meaning splendour, majesty, and vigour; also glory, majesty, beauty, comeliness, glorious, and goodly.
The 'honour' referred to in Proverbs 11:16 is that of "kabowd" (pronounced kaw-bodé) meaning dignity, reputation, reverence, glory, and abundance.
Clearly, there is an overlap, but it is interesting that the same word relates to such fundamentally different things.
From Numbers, I retain the idea that it relates to God asking Moses to prepare Joshua as his replacement. This means the children of Israel likely were given a great deal of time to prepare for Joshua to be Moses' replacement.
And from Proverbs, that if a woman is gracious, she will retain her glory and dignity.
So, if you are a man, keep your eye out for your Joshua, while hearkening to the Lord - for you never know when you'll need to be that strong man of Proverbs 11:17, who keeps his riches, and when you'll, instead, be needing to train you replacement.
And, if you're a woman, focus on grace - for, along with a multitude of counselors, it provides a safety net of God's wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)