Judges 18

Judges 18:14

Then the five men who went to spy out the country of Laish said to their kinsmen, "Do you know that there are in these houses an ephod and household idols and a graven image and a molten image?  Now therefore, consider what you should do."

When I first read this, I thought that the men had finally gotten their heads on straight, and realized that this man was wrong, and they needed to cleanse the land as much as they were able before going into battle.  They would go to Micah's house, destroy the idols, and perhaps kill the Levite for his apostasy.  At the least, they would drive Micah out, and start things off with a good offering to God.

I was quite disappointed when they instead just took the items for themselves, to use in false worship for an entire tribe.  One family or clan of nonbelievers would have been understandable, since they were there already.  But to take that and run with it, keeping the idols and making the priest their tribe's priest, was a great disappointment.  I was a bit surprised when God allowed them to win their victory.  In the past, I would have thought he would see to it that they were defeated for their idolatry.

Judges 17

Judges 17:10

Micah then said to him, "Dwell with me and be a father and a priest to me, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, a suit of clothes, and your maintenance."  So the Levite went in.

I once heard recording of a sermon preached on this verse, called "Ten Shekels and a Shirt," talking about how foolishly this Levite sold himself away to be an idol's priest.  I find myself reflecting on that more here, because it seems like the Levite should have known better.  However, I do see a couple questions about this.

First, did this Levite not know that he was doing wrong?  As a Levite, he should have been raised to worship God and serve at/for the Tabernacle.  However, it says that he came from Bethlehem in Judah, so I wonder if he was raised properly/normally.  In this time the system seems to have broken down, so it's possible he really didn't know he was breaking God's Law.

The second question I have is about how good a deal is this?  I understand paying his maintenance:  be my priest, all room and board covered, fair enough.  But what about the suit of clothes?  Was this to be a special suit for his so-called priestly duties, or just an everyday change of clothes?  Also, how much was an extra ten pieces of silver a year actually worth?  Was this a good over-expenses pay, or just enough to get by?

Judges 16

Judges 16:16

It came about when she pressed him daily with her words and urged him, that his soul was annoyed to death.

Sometimes sin is fairly simple, something that we do not even think about being wrong until after we have done it.  Those incidents are the ones that we will kinda wince at when we realize that we messed up, and will try to make quick amends for.  Then there are sins that we fall into, the ones that become bad habits.  Those we kick ourselves over time and time again, and never seem to get better.

But there is also a third type of sin, the one that rather than taking the path of the quick raindrop or the ever-present lake, comes as a gentle stream.  Always there, always moving and abrading, but doing it so slowly that its effects are unnoticed.  The bad habit of a friend or co-worker that annoys us daily.  The background hum of a bad lightbulb that causes a headache over the hours.  These will slowly grind at us, wearing away our resolve, until one day we snap and sin in a way that we never would under more short-term temptations.  For these, the only answer I have ever found to be truly helpful is a steady "dose" of prayer, to constantly build up what is being worn away.  Without that rebuilding, failure is only a matter of time.

Judges 15

Judges 15:7

Samson said to them, "Since you act like this, I will surely take revenge on you, but after that I will quit."

Another case where I have to say that I see a personality split in someone God has chosen.  Here we have Samson taking revenge on those who took revenge on his sorta-wife, who are taking revenge for Samson's taking revenge on his sorta-father-in-law.  Confused yet?

I can understand the series of reprisals, even if I don't agree with them.  That's how most people live their lives, repaying wrong for wrong, and it tends to escalate.  I try not to do that sort of thing, but I do understand it.  However, Samson's saying that after this he will stop does confuse me.  Given that the cycle did continue after this, what is he stopping?  He kills those who killed his wife, so where's the stop?  Is it that he stopped from going on to kill every Philistine?  Did he only kill some unidentified group, but not the whole village?  Where is the supposed stop?

Judges 14

Judges 14:4

However, his father and mother did not know that it was of the Lord, for He was seeking an occasion against the Philistines.  Now at that time the Philistines were ruling over Israel.

I'll admit, this is one of those points, where I have to scratch my head and wonder what God is up to.  Why does He need an excuse to go after those subjugating His people?  This isn't the UN, where you need an excuse to start a war, or everyone comes down on you.  He's God, there's no one to tell Him that He's doing something wrong, especially since He can't do wrong!

I guess it's more a matter of Him needing Samson to have a reason to go after the Philistines.  He has the strength that God gave him when needed, but he needs a reason to use it.  And I suppose a young troublemaker would be a good point to gather friction around, if you're going to guide a nation into revolt.  I just guess that it bugs me he uses a wedding to an outsider as the wedge, rather than something simpler like a raid or more "normal" oppression.

Judges 13

Judges 13:14

She should not eat anything that comes from the vine nor drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; let her observe all that I commanded."

Why is she commanded to avoid wine or grapes?  I understand that Samson was to be a Nazirite, but what is avoiding alcohol part of the Nazirite commands?  If so, I don't recall it ever being mentioned.  I know that not cutting hair is a key element of the Nazirite vows, but I don't recall anything about alcohol.  And if it were, it's something that Samson is known to have violated, and the blessing of his strength was not removed.



I would understand today a woman not drinking, because we now know so much more about things like birth defects and fetal alcohol syndrome.  But back then, those were unheard of, and surely God would protect someone He had chosen from that kind of medical issue.  So what is the point of not drinking?

Judges 12

Judges 12:3

When I saw that you would not deliver me, I took my life in my hands and crossed over against the sons of Ammon, and the Lord gave them into my hand.  Why then have you come up to me this day to fight against me?"

I'm not sure what the Ephraimites were thinking this day.  They come to Jephthah angry that he did not summon them to fight against Ammon, but he says he did call them and they did not answer.  From the text, I can't tell who's telling the truth here.

Whoever was correct, this is clearly a situation that got out of hand because of bad communication.  If Jephthah didn't call the Ephraimites as he said he had, then he used this as an excuse to kill tens of thousands.  If he did call them, and they didn't respond, then they have no right to be coming up now to punish him for doing what they would not.  I can't tell who's correct, but if either side had taken a step back, many deaths could have been prevented.

Judges 11

Judges 11:26

While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?

Forget warfare; Jephthah was properly a diplomat.  First, rather than go marching off to war, he sends messages to the opposition first.  Then he finds out they're going to war to reclaim lands they once had, and he proceeds to calmly tell the history of their original conflict, and how the land had been lost to Israel.

Then here, he drops the minor detail that, you know that land you lost?  That was 300 years ago.  It's not yours anymore by any stretch.  So if you're going to go to war, fine, but at least have a better reason than a 15-generation grudge.  If you had been supposed to have it, surely you could have taken it back a century or two ago?  Now you're just here to make trouble, so that's how you will be treated.

It does raise a valid point, though, that negotiations should always occur, even when you doubt their likelihood of success.

Judges 10

Judges 10:15

The sons of Israel said to the Lord, "We have sinned, do to us whatever seems good to You; only please deliver us this day."

This is a prayer that I can relate to.  I will fully admit that I am one of those people who tends to focus on God being a God of Justice rather than a God of Love.  This is one of those prayers that I have prayed, in one form or another, many times.

Here, the Israelites are not trying to weasel out of their errors, or blame them on someone else.  They are admitting right off the top that they've messed up.  They sinned, they know it, and they know God knows it.  Next, they accept whatever punishment God decides is needed.  This they leave totally up to Him, as is the truth.  Next, they ask for God to spare them from their oppressors, even if that means that He should later decide that the price should be their own deaths.  At God's hand they can accept it, but not by these heathens.

Judges 9

Judges 9:54

Then he called quickly to the young man, his armor bearer, and said to him, "Draw your sword and kill me, so that it will not be said of me, 'A woman slew him.""  So the young man pierced him through, and he died.

I have to admit, I never quite understood the stigma of being killed by a woman in circumstances like this.  From what it sounds like, this was essentially a case of "bad luck."  A millstone isn't an easy thing to aim from the top of a tower, so it's doubtful that she was intending to hit him.  She was just doing a general defense job, trying to hit someone, and God directed her stone.

The other thing that annoys me here is that the armor bearer actually did as requested, and killed him.  This I don't like.  To die in battle, even a siege, is one thing, but to kill your own commander and master is another, regardless of the circumstances.  I don't think I could have done it, had I been in his place.  Of course, that's probably why I'm not him, because then God's promise would not have been fulfilled the same way.

Judges 8

Judges 8:27

Gideon made it into an ephod, and placed it in his city, Ophrah, and all Israel played the harlot with it there, so that it became a snare to Gideon and his household.

I wish I properly understood how it is we get to this point.  We are giving something for the use of God, and somehow we always seem to be able to twist it into something that is completely useless.  He creates an ephod, an item for determining God's will, and yet it corrupts the entire nation.

I'm especially curious what they mean by playing the harlot with it.  Is it somehow used for prostitution?  Is that the way the people fell this time?  Or is it simply a metaphor, referring to how they made the ephod the focus of their worship, instead of the one for whom Gideon had made it?  Whichever it was, it's sad that even Gideon could not stop himself from losing sight of God, instead using something he had created himself as a substitute.

Judges 7

Judges 7:2

The Lord said to Gideon, "The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, 'My own power has delivered me.'

We often take credit for the things that we do, when we probably should not.  Since God rarely shows us direct miracles, we often simply use the abilities that we have been given to accomplish significant works.  When we do, it is common to simply accept what has been done, without looking beyond the surface to consider where those abilities originate from.

I often with that every once in a while, God would open my eyes to see all the subtle ways He shapes my path, the places where He has nudged events to work toward His goals.  I think I would be amazed if I were given even a small glimpse of His guiding hand, and how impossible it would be for me to do much of anything outside His guidance.  I'd even settle for His showing me how He has guided me away from events where He did not want me to go.

Judges 6

Judges 6:31

But Joash said to all who stood against him, "Will you contend for Baal, or will you deliver him?  Whoever will plead for him shall be put to death by morning.  If he is a god, let him content for himself, because someone has torn down his altar."

Apparently, Joash was a believer in the Lord, and not of Baal.  If he had been one of those who worshiped Baal, he probably would not have raised this argument.  He would have just been hopping mad like the rest, and killed Gideon himself.

However, the argument used here is a clever one, designed to battle the Baal worshipers with their own beliefs.  He says that a god would not need men to do his justice for him, and this is true.  If the act is truly offensive to a god, to the point where the offender deserves death, the god would certainly be capable of punishing him himself.  In fact, one of the ways we know of that God is supreme is that He has done just this.  But since Baal is not real, there is no offense, and no one to bring justice.

Judges 5

Judges 5:2

"That the leaders led in Israel,
That the people volunteered,
Bless the Lord!

I have to admit, this is a little cryptic to me.  I can't quite be certain whether they're blessing God for the people's faithfulness, or for His bringing the people together.  For the first, they would be thanking Him for the victory they have been given, for everyone did their jobs properly.  They had faith that God would see them through safely, and so they did their duties together.

The other way, they're thanking God for His direct influence in bringing everyone together.  Rather than the people having faith, God worked directly on them to do their jobs correctly.  I have to admit that in the current political situation, this idea would be very appealing.  The leaders aren't leading the people?  Hey God, whack them into shape and get them moving in the right direction.  The people are apathetic?  God, could you install some backbones right away?  It would make for a much simpler, though less free-will, situation if God always pulled/pushed/forced people to do what He wanted them to be doing.

Judges 4

Judges 4:4

Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

This verse jumped out at me because of the timeline it implies.  I always thought that the judges were people who God raised up when the nation had gone astray and been subdued, and He called them up from relative obscurity to rescue the people and then lead them.  First they beat the oppressor, then they would judge and lead the people.  However, this verse suggests that Deborah was a judge before being called to lead.  It appears that she had been leading the people for some time before God called her to start the uprising against the Canaanites.

This makes me wonder, was there always a judge, and they simply weren't always called to rebel against the outsiders?  Did they have judges when times were good, even after the previous liberating judge had died?  Did God call them up specifically, or were at least some already in positions of power and God afterwards directed them?  Was the position of judge the lower equivalent of king, where the people always had one, and if so, was it normally a person selected/appointed by God or the people?  Were some judge positions inherited, as would later be the case with Samuel, or did the people/God appoint from all possibilities?  This small verse makes me reconsider the entire purpose of the position.

Judges 3

Judges 3:31

After him came Shamgar the sons of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad; and he also saved Israel.

And?  What, you mean that's it?  No more information?  He's one of the famous judges of Israel, and he gets one tiny little verse?

Okay, if you're not going to say, I have to just ask questions.  First off, was he a judge at the same time as Ehud, or truly after?  It doesn't say the people fell back to sin before he came along, so was he during that same time frame, and just defeated a different enemy?  Or was he a savior during the time after Ehud, when things were going good, and perhaps he won a defensive victory?

And how do you kill 600 people with an oxgoad?  Come to think of it, what exactly is an oxgoad?

Judges 2

Judges 2:22

in order to test Israel by them, whether they will keep the way of the Lord to walk in it as their fathers did, or not."

It's sad to see how similar a path the Israelites have now set themselves on as to how we now tend to be.  They had it made, promised peace by God Himself.  All they had to do was follow the instructions He had given them.  They needed to drive out the inhabitants of the land, and then settle in and follow the Law.  But they failed at the first part, which led them to fail at the second part.

With that failure, God decided to change the deal.  Instead of protecting them from all enemies, He would use those enemies to test the people, to show them how bad things could become, and remind them that He was still there, if they should choose to ask Him for help.  It was their choice, but He was always at hand, ready for them.  We're the same way today.  We intellectually know that God is there for us, but we tend not to think about Him that way until we're in trouble.  If we could just remember Him in the good times the same way, we would save ourselves a lot of pain and trouble.

Judges 1

Judges 1:21

But the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

I'm very confused at this point in the book, which is never a good thing when you're at the beginning.  A few verses earlier it says that Judah and Simeon had captured Jerusalem, and burned it.  Yet here it says that Benjamin did not drive out the people of Jerusalem.  So what's going on?

I see two possible answers, neither of which really satisfies me.  The first is that we're not dealing with events in chronological order.  That would mean that while Benjamin didn't drive out the people, Judah came in later and did.  Looking at everything else happening, I guess this is possible, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.  Granted, we're dealing with a new author, so it's possible that this is what's happening, but it seems odd.

The other option would be that Judah sacked Jerusalem, but the people escaped, returned, and rebuilt.  This, however, makes even less sense.  Why would Benjamin not go after the defenseless people when they were vulnerable, trying to rebuild their city?  Forcing them out should have been simple, barely requiring an army.  So why not do it?

Joshua 24

Joshua 24:22

Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the Lord, to serve Him."  And they said, "We are witnesses."

I don't really know why this verse caught my attention.  It just kinda leaped off the page at me.

I suppose that part of it is that Joshua had just told the people that they wouldn't be able to keep this promise to serve God, but they insisted that they would.  He then binds them by a type of oath, something that we don't really use today.

Honestly, I think this is something that should come back.  We are taught in the New Testament that we should not need to take oaths, but most of us fail at that charge in one respect or another.  If we were to force ourselves to look at what we say with this type of seriousness, where we are specifically checked on what we say to make sure we mean it, and then it's binding, I think many fewer issues would arise with Christians breaking their word.

I know that I try to mean what I say, but especially in terms of serving God, I often fail.  I'm much better at keeping my promises to people here than I am my promises to God.  I'm going to try to keep this verse in my head, and run it through whenever I'm promising something.  Hopefully, that will help my true sincerity and belief to increase.

Joshua 23

Joshua 23:11

So take diligent heed to yourselves to love the Lord your God.

Love isn't an emotion that I have a great deal of experience with.  Part of my learning how to control my ADD was to suppress the most . . . call it passionate . . . of my emotions, at both ends of the spectrum.  My emotions don't seem go much past enjoyment/affection on one side, and irritation on the other, without significant outside drive.  I know that many people have problems describing love, but others seem to do much better about it than I.

However, I have read and heard a lot about love, and one thing all the good information I've received has emphasized the importance of being active in it.  Love isn't something that just kinda happens, at least not over the long term.  Instead, it has to be worked at, and worked on, to last.  I checked the dictionary, and another term for "heed" is "careful attention."  The idea of being diligent and careful about loving someone is an issue I can understand, even though I haven't experienced it much.  However, I've been loved through hard times by my parents, so I can appreciate the effort necessary, and it is even more important dealing with God.  Without our love of God, we would have no hope of accepting Christ and truly meaning it.

Joshua 22

Joshua 22:25

For the Lord has made the Jordan a border between us and you, you sons of Reuben and sons of Gad; you have no portion in the Lord."  So your sons may make our sons stop fearing the Lord.'

My first thought when I read this was skepticism.  It seems absurd that suddenly a nation would decide that some of their people are not part of the nation, just because of a physical boundary like a river.  After all, didn't the entire nation start out east of the Jordan, and have to come west from there?  Why would that river which figured so prominently in their taking the land be a factor in deciding who was the Lord's people?

But then the rest of my mind caught up, and I realized how probable this would become.  The people were known to be fractious.  Rather than looking at them as a large family, it's more accurate to think of a clan.  These people tended to first look out or their immediate families, and the tribe would likely take precedence over the rest of the nation.  If they were given the proper motivation, either out of zeal or ambition, a smooth-talking leader could easily convince a large part of the nation that the rest had separated from them, not the other way around.  Or, maybe the eastern tribes would actually forget their past, and fall away of their own accord.  Either way, a division based on a major river is not as hard to comprehend as I first thought, and the leaders of the eastern tribes should be given credit for considering the possibility.

Joshua 21

Joshua 21:44

And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He has sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand.

The faithfulness of the Lord still amazes me many times.  At this point, the Israelites aren't doing so well overall.  They've left several of the nations they were commanded to destroy intact, able to come against them in the future.  Yet despite this, God gives them the peace that He had promised He would, and keeps their enemies at bay.

I still wonder why God did not keep the pressure on them.  If He had not given them peace until they finished the job, what would have happened?  Would they have fought on, pressing against the remaining inhabitants until the job was done?  Or would they have broken, abandoned God because they did not think they could succeed?  It's at points like this where I have to remind myself that God does know the big picture better than I do, and He knew what would happen with this incomplete work.

Joshua 20

Joshua 20:9

These were the appointed cities for all the sons of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them, that whoever kills any person unintentionally may flee there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stands before the congregation.

I always had a couple of questions about how these cities worked.  First off, who is the avenger of blood?  Is this some kind of designated person, a relative of the man who died?  Is it determined by a certain kinship, or is it some kind of self-proclaimed position?  Is it even a formal type of position, or just meant to designate anyone who would come seeking revenge?

Second, how does the hearing work against the killer?  Is it held at the city of refuge, so that the killer's protected status is not endangered?  If so, how do they arrange for the correct people to be there at the hearing?  Is the congregation that of the killer/victim, or of the city?  If the hearing occurs in the killer's/victim's home city, how is the killer's protection guaranteed?  I wish we had more on this process.

Joshua 19

Joshua 19:47

The territory of the sons of Dan proceeded beyond them; for the sons of Dan went up and fought with Leshem and captured it.  Then they struck it with the edge of the sword and possessed it and settled in it; and they called Leshem Dan after the name of Dan their father.

I've spent several previous chapters noting how the tribes did not fulfill God's command to clear the land of its inhabitants.  Here, I have to give credit to the one people who seemed to still remember that command.  The people of Dan here showed courage and faith to continue the task that God had given them, and eliminating the inhabitants.

Indeed, if I'm reading this correctly, it appears that they were actually starting to embark upon the greater command God had given them.  It's suggested that the Leshem was beyond the original territory that the Israelites had been planning to take.  However, God had promised them all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, which would essentially cover all the way to modern-day Iraq.  The Israelites were only planning to take a small part of that, yet here Dan begins the expansion.  They've apparently done their part in clearing out the land given to them, so they start to work on expanding their borders, driving out more of those God has promised to them.

Joshua 18

Joshua 18:3

So Joshua said to the sons if Israel, "How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?

I wonder why the other tribes had delayed breaking out and settling the land.  The text doesn't really give any indication as to why they've held off, but I'd like to hope that it's because they knew the task was not complete.  They still had work to do before God's command would be finished, for not all of the inhabitants were gone.  However, Joshua here is basically telling them that the campaign is over.

As much as I'd like to think I'm guessing right, I really don't believe it.  It's been too consistent through the last few chapters that the people are done fighting, and are simply now waiting for the order to disperse.  There's no disagreement expressed against the idea that things are done.  The people are simply awaiting orders, and now Joshua has given them.  Whatever else may be true, it's clear that Joshua believes that the fight is over, and calls on the Lord to decide who should settle where.

Joshua 17

Joshua 17:16

The sons of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the valley land have chariots of iron, both those who are in Bethshean and its towns and those who are in the valley of Jezreel."

Talk about failing the Lord.  Here the sons of Joseph bring a dual indictment against God.  First, they complain that the territory they have been given through God's direction is insufficient for them.  They want more land, and think they deserve it, that God messed up the lots.  Then, to make matters worse, they say the reason they need more is because they can't get rid of the Canaanites who are there.  They believe that the Canaanites' chariots and military power make them too hard to conquer.

This is coming from a people who have just made a lightning offensive on the area, and won every battle?  Have these people no confidence in God's provision or His ability to give them victory?  I'd like to be able to look upon them with scorn, in a lot of ways, but I know I'm just as bad.  I constantly forget the blessings that God has given me recently, and behave as if I were fighting alone.  I constantly let Him down in my struggles.  I often wish I had the physical, personal evidence that these people did, but obviously that isn't automatically enough.

Joshua 16

Joshua 16:10

But they did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so the Canaanites live in the midst of Ephraim to this day, and they became forced laborers.

Again, the people failed to do as God commanded, and left some of the inhabitants alive.  However, this time it wasn't a failure to conquer them, as it has been with Jerusalem.  Here it appears that the Canaanites were defeated, just not destroyed or forced out.  Instead, some kind of treaty was made, and they became workers for the new inhabitants.

This brings back some earlier issues that I've discussed before.  Leaving the inhabitants alive was not allowed by God, presumably for two reasons.  First, God brought back the Israelites to punish the inhabitants for their evil, and the punishment was not carried out if they still lived.  Second, their remaining exposes the Israelites to their false religions, allowing for contamination of the truth that God had given them.  The Israelites are setting themselves up for what will later befall them.

Joshua 15

Joshua 15:63

Now as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sons of Judah could not drive them out; so the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah at Jerusalem until this day.

Why couldn't the Israelites drive out the Jebusites?  This is the first time that a failure to eliminate the inhabitants is mentioned, where there was no sin or lack of trying.  It seems that the tribe of Judah tried to take Jerusalem, and failed.  Why did God allow this?

I personally have two theories, though I don't really believe the first.  That first theory is that God intentionally left them be so that David could take the city later, and who his prowess.  However, I don't believe that because it doesn't fit with the command to drive everyone out, and who knows what contamination to the people the Jebusites caused in the mean time.  My second theory is that Judah didn't try long/hard enough.  We know that Jerusalem was a city with very good defensive positioning.  To assault it was nearly impossible without first tricking them into coming out to fight, which would mean they had to besiege it.  I'm guessing that they gave up the siege too soon, and that God would have given them the victory if they had persevered.  Since they did not, they now have to live with the consequences for generations.

Joshua 14

Joshua 14:11

I am still as strong today as I was in the day Moses sent me; as my strength was then, so my strength is now, for war and for going out and coming in.

As He had done for Moses before, God has preserved Caleb physically.  Forty-five years gone by, and he still has the same health as before.  It's likely that Joshua has been similarly "preserved."

God didn't really have to do this.  He had promised that land to Caleb, but He could easily have made it so that the people as a whole conquered it, and then Caleb was simply given possession.  But that's now how God arranged things.  He gave Caleb the strength to go himself and drive out the inhabitants, so that he would also know that God had saved him for this time.  When God wants someone to do something, He gives him the tools necessary.

Joshua 13

Joshua 13:13

But the sons of Israel did not dispossess the Geshurites or the Maacathites; for Geshur and Maacath live among Israel until this day.

God had commanded the people to destroy all the inhabitants of the land, but they apparently didn't do this.  They had made a treaty with the one tribe, against God's will, but all others were to be destroyed.  How different would the Israelites' history have been if they had followed this command, and removed all others from the land?  How much of the trouble and testings they went through would have proven unnecessary if they had?  Would they have clung to God better, with fewer outsiders to pollute their culture and religion?

We today are called to be set apart in the world, yet we are surrounded by the world.  We can't disconnect from it like they should have, but we are called to the same purity.  I hope we learn from their mistakes, and don't allow the evil influences to infiltrate our lives.

Joshua 12

Joshua 12:24

the king of Tirzah, one:  in all, thirty-one kings.

After the quick conquest described in the past chapter, it's easy to overlook the significance of what the Israelites did.  They've now taken out 31 kings, which means 31 nations.  Given that these were small, fractious nations, it's not as significant as some might think (31 "kings" would be most of the western hemisphere, for example), but still is notable.

This is an army that has been in exile for 40 years, with no support base to be seen, and relatively few battles fought.  Now they have taken the territory of over thirty peoples and united it into a single domain, and from all appearances they've lost very few people in the process.  This is now a large country for the area, and in a key strategic location.  In some ways, they've become a new superpower, especially with God on their side.

Joshua 11

Joshua 11:20

For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

It always bugs me when I come across a passage where God says He has caused someone to seek their own destruction.  For some reason, my reaction always bothers me, though.  Today, in my opinion, most Christians tend to get overly hung up on God being focused on love.  I've always been one who isn't bothered by the fact that God does not save everyone, or that He knows who will live.  In the Old Testament times, this is even more true, but the Jews were His chosen people, and the rest were essentially stuck.

But it still bothers me when the text describes God as forcing someone to do something against their own best interests, like when Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, or here where the kings would not consider peace.  I guess I just don't like the idea of God choosing someone's path for them, apparently removing their free will.  While I accept that not everyone will be saved, I still believe that everyone should have that choice, conscious or otherwise.  The idea that God does not give that choice to some is disturbing.  I realize that this is Old Testament times, as I said above, and these people are essentially doomed already, but that doesn't mean I like dwelling upon the results.

Joshua 10

Joshua 10:11

As they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the Lord threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones that those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.

This just impresses me.  This, and a couple other miraculous things God did in this battle, show His direct intervention for Israel like never before.  This is the fourth battle of the invasion, and for the first He very clearly was with them, and gave them the city without a shot being fired.  For the second, they messed up, so God went against them and they were defeated despite numerical superiority.  For the third, they corrected their error, and God gave them victory in a much more conventional battle.

Now for the fourth battle, they are counterattacking, and defeat their enemies handily.  However, God doesn't just want these people defeated, able to run back to their cities and fort up.  He wants them smashed, so He steps in more directly.  Here He kills more with hailstones than the Israelite army had.  He makes sure their ranks are decimated during the retreat, so that their cities will be so understaffed that they can't provide any effective defense.

Joshua 9

Joshua 9:23

Now therefore, you are cursed, and you shall never cease being slaves, both hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God."

The basic sentiment of this verse is repeated several times in the chapter, but this one caught my attention.  First, it refers to the people as cursed, and gives their punishment.  Today, if someone makes an promise based upon false pretenses, most people would simply consider the promise invalid.  However, the Israelites kept the promise, because it had been sworn to God.  Even the treachery of the other side did not remove them from being bound by their word to God.

However, the liars did not get off unpunished.  They are described as cursed, and the punishment will be perpetual, to all their descendents, because they lied.  However, they are given a specific duty, and it's one that will keep them in proximity to the Temple.  Even though they are not believers, and have lied, they are made to work around God's holy place.  Normally, wouldn't someone cursed be forbidden from approaching the temple?  Their mere presence would be seen by many as a pollution of the place's purity.  But that is where they are assigned.

Why do this?  I have two theories.  First, it means that the Israelites themselves would not have to do this low duty, which frees them for other works.  Second, their constant proximity to the Temple would allow them to learn the ways of God, and perhaps come to believe and/or worship Him as the Israelites do.  While this is just theorizing, I hope that I'm right, and that these treacherous people eventually came to know God as the one true God.

Joshua 8

Joshua 8:26

For Joshua did not withdraw his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

Why did Joshua keep his hand outstretched?  Before, it appeared that the javelin being extended was simply the signal for the ambushers to attack.  When Moses held his hands up, it was guidance from the Lord, and they would lose the battle when he put his hands down.  No similar inference is made here, so why does he do it?

I guess that either he takes God's command to extend the javelin as an indication that he is to continue to do so until the conquering has been completed, or else he did it as a show of command for the people to not stop the slaughter.  My personal feeling is toward the latter, since even bloodthirty men can grow tired of it after a time.  By keeping the javelin extended, he's showing that they're not done yet, and there is still work left that God has commanded them to do.

Joshua 7

Joshua 7:19

The Joshua said to Achan, "My son, I implore you, give glory to the Lord, the God if Israel, and give praise to Him; and tell me now what you have done.  Do not hide it from me."

This last Sunday, the lesson in the E&E class I'm in was regarding worship.  We talked about the different types of worship, but I don't recall this being on the list.  From how I'm reading this, Joshua is saying that confession is a form of praise.  How does this work?

I can only speculate here, and this is not my area of expertise.  But my guess would be that we don't confess to someone who we don't trust, or that has no bearing on the situation.  When we confess to the one we have wronged, it is because we know we have done wrong.  That knowledge comes from God Himself, because He created the law we broke.  Also, we are asking forgiveness, which He has the power to grant (not that He did in this case).  We are acknowledging God's sovereignty over us, which is a form of praise.

Joshua 6

Joshua 6:20

So the people shouted, and priests blew the trumpets; and when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the city.

Back the engineering side of my brain.

The walls fell flat.  That's, of course, miraculous, but the significance is probably missed by most people.  When a wall is normally destroyed during a siege, it's basically crumbled to destruction.  It's taken apart, piece by piece, until there's not enough left to hold together.  That didn't happen here.  Instead, the wall came down as a unit, in one piece.  The only breaks were probably at joins between sections, vertically split, to allow for it to come apart in collapse.  It might be better to say it was knocked over, rather than fell down.

Also, the men were able to walk in, each going straight ahead.  Again, that's not normal.  When a wall is breached, only a small part is clear.  The men must all funnel through that breach, causing a bottleneck where the defenders can still rally a defense.  As anyone out there who has seen The Two Towers should realize, a breach can still be fought for.  However, in this case, there was no breach.  There was just no wall left.  The defenders had no bottleneck to try to hold, they just had no wall left, and it would have suddenly looked much like our modern cities.  With each man able to walk straight ahead, you're fighting an open-field battle, which means the larger force is almost certain to win.  Since it says the walls fell down flat, it's even possible the stones of the wall embedded themselves into the ground so that the Israelites didn't even have to climb up and over them to go in.

Joshua 5

Joshua 5:8

Now when they had finished circumcising all the nation, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.

The other day I had my engineering brain going.  Today, it's tactical brain.

As was previously mentioned in Genesis, circumcision as an adult basically takes you out of it for a few days.  In those days, you're not good for much of anything, far less fighting.  If the Canaanites had realized what was happening and launched an attack in those couple days, they could have obliterated the Israelites without much difficulty.  From a tactical viewpoint, it would have been much safer for them to have been circumcised before crossing the Jordan.

However, God saw to it that they were safe.  The word of their crossing had gotten out, and the inhabitants were terrified.  Rather than band together and attack immediately, they pulled in their horns and forted up in their cities.  God used their fear to give the Isrealites the time they needed.  He used this as the staging ground to consecrate the people to Him more directly, while showing that He would protect them in danger.

Joshua 4

Joshua 4:6

Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?'

Children somehow seem more inquisitive in Jewish culture than ours.  I've participated in a couple of Passover celebrations, and the child is always the one asking key questions.  Looking around, and remembering back to when I was a kid, it seems that today's children aren't that inquisitive.  They may see something unusual or interesting, but it gets filed away as "cool."  There isn't that next step of analysis, to ask why.  Now, I will grant that my own childhood is far enough away that my memory is spotty, and since I have no kids of my own, maybe I'm just missing those moments where they do ask why.

However, it is important to ask those "why" questions.  Without them, there is only the present, being lived without regard for the future or past.  I fall into this trap too often myself, or else look to the future with crazy hypotheticals that will never happen.  Too rarely do I look upon something and wonder how it came to be, or why it is there, much less what will become of it.  Even those times when I do look back, it is difficult for me to then take that knowledge and apply it forward.  In this case, the "why" is so that those who come later, weren't there, will know what God did, and through it believe in His power.  Where else do I see God's evidence, and yet not see?

Joshua 3

Joshua 3:16

the waters which were flowing down from above stood and rose up in one heap, a great distance away at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan; and those which were flowing down toward the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, were completely cut off. So the people crossed opposite Jericho.

OK, my nerd/engineer brain engaged on this verse.  What caught my interest is the description of how the waters stopped.  When I think of crossing the Jordan, the picture that comes to mind is similar to that of crossing the Red Sea in "The Ten Commandments."  I see a big wall of water on both sides of this skinny little dry ground.  Maybe the river just stops flowing, and goes into stasis with a dry line through it.

However, that's not what happened.  Instead, the water is still flowing, but God has created a supernatural dam upstream to hold back the waters.  The water is piling up higher and high up at Adam, and downstream from there, the river is more or less drying up naturally, as the water downstream from Adam continues to flow.  Meanwhile, the water is getting deeper/taller upstream, waiting for when it will be released, while downstream the river is just steadily drying up.  I wouldn't want to be near that river when the "dam" goes away...

Joshua 2

Joshua 2:4

But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.

Once again, the Lord's work is done through sin.  A harlot (prostitute) takes in spies (treason, though I don't blame her for that part) and lies about them.  Yet this woman is chosen as a direct ancestor of David, and through him Jesus.

These stories where people sin "to do God's will" always bug me, but I think this one may be near the top of my annoyance list.  In most of the cases, it's somebody sinning because they thought God wasn't going to help them, so they had to take care of it themselves.  This one at least makes some sense, because Rahab isn't an Israelite, doesn't know the Law, and is doing this to save herself and her family from God's direct condemnation.  However, I have to wonder what would have happened if she had told the truth?  Would the spies have escaped, or been caught and executed?  If they had gotten away, how?  What would have happened to Rahab as a result?  Would God have saved someone else from Jericho, or would David's genealogy just have been a bit different on the descendants list?

Joshua 1

Joshua 1:7

Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go.

At first glance, it appears that the semicolon between the first and second parts of this sentence is misplaced.  The second and third parts go together.  They both talk about remaining faithful to the Law, so it would make sense that they would be linked.  But what does being strong and courageous have to do with it?

I have a theory on this.  The strength and courage that God is referring to here is not what we might first think of.  It's not the strength of arms, or courage in the face of battle, at least not exclusively.  It's also the strength of character, the courage to face adversity and remain true to the commands we have been given.  It's about keeping your promise to God, even when the way would seem easier if you just took this shortcut.  It's about continuing to rely on him, even when you outnumber the enemy.  If your courage falters, or your moral strength withers, you will turn from God's path, and you will fail

Deuteronomy 34

Deutermonomy 34:7

Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.

Today, when we think of Moses, we tend to think in terms of something like Charlton Heston in "The Ten Commandments," a man who is not quite "old" yet, but well on his way.  Certainly not a man who was still as able as he was in middle-age.  Even if he kept the same level physically as when we was called at the burning bush, he had been near 80 at the time.

However, in this case, it appears that he was perhaps still physically in his 40's or so.  He was still able to see fine, which I can attest from personal experience isn't the simplest thing even for young people today.  And he still had the vigor, the energy we would say, of someone much younger.  He didn't hobble about with a cane or a walker, and I don't think he needed his staff for support.  If he had been commanded to lead the armies of Israel, he probably could have acquitted himself well.

This was apparently not normal for people of his age at the time, as we have seen before that people's lifespans decreased after the flood.  120 may have been the record-holder on earth at that time, though we certainly don't know that.  God gave him the physical abilities to do what He wanted done, and he died in fine form, without being debilitated or broken.

Now it's up to the people to carry on without him.

Deuteronomy 33

Deuteronomy 33:5

"And He was king in Jeshurun,
When the heads of the people were gathered,
The tribes of Israel together.

First off, the easy part.  According to a footnote in my Bible on verse 26, Jeshurun means Israel.  I guess it's some kind of rarely-used name or translation.

This verse speaks of a good time in Israel's history, when God was their direct ruler.  He was their king, with no human ruler over them.  The people still had leaders, but God was in charge.  I guess the heads of the people were more like city councilors or judges today, where they saw to administrative affairs and local issues, and ruled on disputes, but they did not make the law.

Also, when God was the king, the people were united.  Israel was a single nation, gathered in one place, while God was in charge.  There are two sides to this coin that would be told out through history.  First, when God was obeyed and in charge, the people were there, unified.  They were secure and satisfied as long as they recognized God's authority.  However, at the same time, when God was ignored, or "deposed," the people were scattered.  This would be seen through in Israel's later history, but not for centuries.  When they refuted God, He in turn abandoned them to others, and they lost their land and unity.

Deuteronomy 32

Deuteronomy 32:27

Had I not feared the provocation by the enemy,
That their adversaries would misjudge,
That they would say, "Our hand is triumphant,
And the Lord has not done all this." '

I forget who it was that originally penned "There, but for the grace of God, go I."  Whoever it was, I've used that old saw enough in my time, either spoken or mentally, to have probably robbed it of some of its meaning.  However that works, this verse brings another aspect of our being spared to light.  An aspect we probably don't consider frequently enough.

Humans are generally not known for thinking in monotheistic terms, when it comes down to it.  From the times of the primitives, man has always worshiped something or other as supernatural, and given that something credit when things go their way.  If you beat the other guy, you give praise to your god, and go on and on about how he has been proven superior to the other guy's god.  However, they don't think about the other guy's god having decided that they had screwed up, and needed to be taught a lesson.  After all, why would your god give you over to the other guy's god, instead of using his own direct power to straighten you out?

Instead of "but for the grace of God," this verse shows it as "but for the foresight of God."  Rather than his being gracious, he's applying his knowledge of human nature.  If God had destroyed the Israelites, who would have been left to worship Him?  The other side wouldn't have decided that God was supreme if they defeated His people.  Instead, they would say that He had been weak, unable to even save His people from them.  So this restraint on God's part is a method of...well, not self-preservation, but maybe self-worship preservation.  If He got rid of everyone who failed Him, using others as His tools, there would be no one left for Him to consider worth saving before long.

Deuteronomy 31

Deuteronomy 31:8

The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you.  He will not fail you or forsake you.  Do not fear or be dismayed."

This is one of those verses that I always hate when someone talks about.  No matter how serious they are when they say it, or how many illustrations of its truth are used, it always seems to come across to me as trite.  One of those things that a "good Christian" is supposed to say whenever the slightest uncertainty arises.  I always hate those, and have never been able to figure out if I hate them so much because of how silly it sounds when viewed from a non-believer's perspective, or just because it's used so often that it's been cheapened to the point where it loses its power.

However, right now this is of some comfort to me.  The company I work for has been bought by a place in Milwaukee, and I don't know what's going to happen to my job once the acquisition process is complete.  On top of that, my roommate will probably be moving out by the end of the year, after my other roommate's temporary absence became permanent, so when I let my guard down on such things, I'm feeling rather lonely and vulnerable.  This verse does help, especially in the context of being said to Joshua as he faced a new experience.  I can only pray and hope that my path be as clear as his was.

Deuteronomy 30

Deuteronomy 30:14

But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

Interesting that this would be in the first chapter I read, after I've been on a long hiatus from this study.

I use a different Bible for this study than I do for other things like church.  This Bible normally sits on my top bunk, no more than 6 feet from where I am while typing this out.  I spend much of my time at home on this computer, sitting right where I am now.  6 feet away, the book I promised myself I would read daily.  Yet it's been almost a month and a half since I last picked it up for that purpose.

I know that's not the purpose of this verse.  It means that the word is with us, in us, where we always know it.  Yet the principle is the same.  I always knew where that Bible was sitting, every day, yet I decided not to pick it up and use it.  Some days that was a conscious decision, other days I didn't even think about it.  Yet all that time, the word was near, with parts of it in my mouth and on my heart, but I chose not to avail myself of it far more often that I should have.  Now I have to reverse that decision, and start making it an unconscious decision to use it instead.

I just with knowing that goal and getting there weren't as widely separated as they are.

Deuteronomy 29

Deuteronomy 29:5

I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot.

Amazing what God can do when He wills so.  Every day we deal with things getting old, and wearing out.  Our clothes, our cars, our homes, our possessions.  Not a month goes by where we don't notice that something is getting rather beat up, and will probably need to be replaced soon.  It's a constant source of annoyance, and sometimes a significant financial drain.

For the Isrealites, for these forty years, time almost stood still.  Friction did not cause threads to unwind or fray from their weave.  Molecular transfer did not wear down the soles of sandals as they contacted the ground.  Moths and other creatures did not eat away at anything they could.  For those forty years, it's as if entropy didn't exist.  Everything stayed as it was, not needing repair or replacement.  And all so that God could sustain them without the need for some more visible miracle, or the slaughter of more people to gain the supplies they needed.  Just so He could show His power to them, in one more subtle way.

Deuteronomy 28

Deuteronomy 28:62

Then you shall be left few in number, whereas you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, because you did not obey the Lord your God.

The ultimate failure to God would be to not obey Him, especially when you have seen His powers and grace towards you.  You will go from being a huge nation to non-existence, subsumed by those around you.  Yet this is nearly what happened to the Israelites.  Their land was taken, their people decimated and scattered, their culture nearly lost.

I sometimes wonder how much this applies to us today, as Christians?  Are we under the same promise/judgement?  If we fail to honor God, as I have to say I frequently fail, will we also be scattered or destroyed, leaving only the few faithful to rebuild?  Or does this not apply to us, and we could theoretically become as washed out as we like, and still exist while having no impact?  It seems so often that we are drifting towards the latter.

Deuteronomy 27

Deuteronomy 27:26

'Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.'  And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

I realize that this is supposed to be a serious occasion, but this kinda made me laugh.  First, you've had a long list of things people should not do, or they will be cursed.  Then, you end with a curse upon those who do not follow those instructions.

If my reasoning is right, that means anyone who messes up is doubly-cursed.  Why bother?  What's the point in being cursed twice for the same action (or lack of action)?  And what kind of curse is this?  What's the penalty, besides separation from God (for which being cursed once would be enough)?  What happens when you are cursed for being cursed for breaking the law?  What's the point?

Deuteronomy 26

Deuteronomy 26:15

Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel, and the ground which You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.'

Looking at this verse alone, it almost sounds like a demand of the people.  However, that's not the case.  This is instead a request, entreating God to do as He had promised, now that they have followed His commands.

God made a promise to their descendants, and He gave them instructions on what they should do to ensure that those promises were kept.  Now, as they as supposed to have done, they are in the land, and now are calling upon God to follow through with His promises and give them the blessing and inheritance that God promised their forefathers.

Deuteronomy 25

Deuteronomy 25:3

He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes.

Both the punishment and the limitation are interesting to me.  First, this appears to be more of a civil court, rather than criminal court.  The previous verses talk about disputes between Isralites, not that some injury or theft has occurred.  So why is the punishment beating?  Am I misreading this, or was that considered fair play, given the differences in wealth or earnings?  Or was this the equivalent of today's punitive damages, perhaps?

Second, what is the significance of forty strikes?  I know that in Roman times forty lashes was considered a death sentence, but what does it mean here?  Why is more than forty strikes considered degraded?  And if the person has done wrong, why should he not be degraded for his transgressions?  Does the term degraded mean something different than what I'm thinking of?

Deuteronomy 24

Deuteronomy 24:5

"When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.

As I've seen friends marry, I've come to see how valuable and important this command is.  That first year is a time of great love and happiness, but it's also the time when you truly come to know your new spouse.  You learn the little things that can come to annoy you, and if those aren't resolved early on, they can become larger problems.

In modern society, I see this in many ways as being even more important.  In today's culture, you don't have to worry about war so much, but you do have to worry about work.  So many people today become consumed in their jobs that they don't understand how much rebalancing is necessary for a healthy marriage.  If they don't focus primarily on the marriage for that first year, it's not difficult to see how that can lead to divorce later on.  Also, one year is more than enough time to form a habit and become accustomed to that focus, without even realizing it.  This gives them the proper perspective for later on, when children enter into the family, and allows them to keep the family first.

Deuteronomy 23

Deuteronomy 23:7

"You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land.

Two very different groups here.  First, the Edomites, which if I recall correctly are the descendants of Esau.  Since the Israelites are descendants of Jacob, they truly are brothers.  There is therefore hope for the people, but only over time.

The Egyptians I find somewhat surprising to be mentioned here.  The Egyptians did welcome in their savior Joseph's family, but then they turned against them cruelly.  They spend generations, maybe centuries, enslaving the Israelites, and God must do terrible things to them before they release their slaves.  Yet they are here treated as the same level as Esau's people.  Is it that the debt has been paid for the Israelites' slavery?  Or have the Egyptians been so awed by God's power through the Plagues that they now revere God and would be willing to serve Him?

Deuteronomy 22

Deuteronomy 22:4

You shall not see your countryman's donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up.

If only we today had this mentality of helping our fellow man.  How many times to any of us go past a broken down car, or a person who is looking for something, and not think twice about it?

What if we believed that helping those who need assistance was a divine command?  What would that do for the general consideration for Christians, and the effect of our witness?  Also, how would it change us, make us more like Christ in our compassion?

Deuteronomy 21

Deuteronomy 21:6

All the elders of that city which is nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley;

This is an interesting issue.  A man is found dead, out in the open, no clues to who did it.  There must still be atonement, but there is no one known from whom to exact punishment.  What do you do?

God gives instruction for this case.  The nearest town is to make a sacrifice, but not in the normal way.  They don't slaughter the heifer, they break its neck.  They don't do it at the temple, they do it in an unused valley.  They don't give part of the animal to the Levites, but the Levites are part of the ceremony.  A life is still taken, but not in the normal way.  The atonement is made by the elders of that town, even though they are not guilty.

Deuteronomy 20

Deuteronomy 20:8

Then the officers shall speak further to the people and say, 'Who is the man that is afraid and fainthearted?  Let him depart and return to his house, so that he might not make his brothers' hearts melt like his heart.'

This is actually a very interesting instruction, and I believe its purpose is two-fold.  First, thinning the army this way makes it that much more unlikely that they could prevail themselves.  With a reduced army, God must give them the victory.

Second, fear is much like enthusiasm.  The two emotions seep into those around them, and cause them to do things they otherwise would not.  The war cry and gallant charge of war movies can actually work, because it causes the soldiers to push harder than they would otherwise.  By the inverse, a fearful man will at the least distract those around him, and quite likely demoralize them, so that they break sooner than they would.  By removing the fear from your army, you make it stronger.

Deuteronomy 19

Deuteronomy 19:8

"If the Lord you God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give you fathers--

This is an interesting verse, that explains something I'd always wondered about.  In the promises by God, it always seems the Israelites' territory is supposed to be much bigger than it actually is.  He speaks about giving them everything east to the Euphrates, and they never come anywhere close to that.

This verse shows why.  It starts with the critical term "if."  There's a condition on their land that was never explained before to my memory.  What I remember is just that they were promised the land, but never received it.  Now I understand that the expansion of their land beyond the Jordan area was only going to happen if they honored God and followed His commands.

Deuteronomy 18

Deuteronomy 18:8

They shall eat equal portions, except what they receive from the sale of their fathers' estates.

I have to admit, I'm kind of lost on this verse.  I don't know what he's trying to say, so I'm going to try to reason it out here.

First of all, what do they mean by the fathers' estates?  This is regarding the Levites, who have not inheritance among the people.  However, this is talking about those Levites who do not live/work at the temple.  So they must live in the other cities set aside for the Levites throughout the land.  Those people would have homes, and lands around them for their flocks, which means their fathers could well have estates.

The people talked about here are those Levites who have decided to leave their homes, and go serve in the temple, presumably on a long-term basis if they're selling their inheritance.  If they sell their inheritance, that means they would go to their service in the temple with money.  I guess that means that they are to use that money to pay for their expenses for as long as it lasts, rather than take a "salary" from the temple proceeds, and therefore ensure that all the Levites at the temple are on an equal footing.

Deuteronomy 17

Deuteronomy 17:18

"Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.

I think this is a wonderful tradition to have.  One of the best ways to learn something is to have to write it out.  Given the detail required to copy the Law at the time, it had to be exact, too, so the king had to be paying attention to what he was doing.  That means he would really have to read it carefully, and probably multiple times as he went back and forth.

Imagine if we had this today.  What would churches be like today if every pastor had to hand-copy the entire Bible?  Do you think we would get richer sermons for it?  Or how about politicians, if they had to hand-copy the entire legal code by the end of their first term?  The lawbook would be a lot shorter, that's for sure.

Deuteronomy 16

Deuteronomy 16:19

You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.

An interesting choice of words, distort.  Today, we think of twisting justice, or slanting justice, but distorting has some interesting meanings.  It says that the basic truths are still there, but that they have been reshaped in appearance.  It's not a substitution, but a bending, just enough to make something look different.

I like also the explanations of why a bribe is wrong.  To say it blinds the wise is definitely true.  A good person's judgment doesn't matter when they're being paid to provide the correct answer.  And having a correct answer automatically is definitely a perversion.  I also find it interesting how it is not said that a bribe should not be offered, but that it should not be accepted.  It is the responsibility of the judge to maintain correct standards, not the people who are in dispute.

Deuteronomy 15

Deuteronomy 15:6

For the Lord your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over man nations, but they will not rule over you.

You hear about the Jews being bankers and lenders in the Classical times, but I never knew why.  I'd forgotten about this passage.  They are commanded to be wise with their money, and that would put then in a position of wealth where they are able to lend money, which was how banking arose.

I also see God's promise to them about ruling over nations, though I guess I don't remember a time when this truly came into practice.  They certainly controlled their own land, but did they ever expand much beyond it into others' territory?  If not, why?  Did they not follow God's commands for this, and therefore forfeited this promise?

Deuteronomy 14

Deuteronomy 14:2

For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

I've been reading somethings recently about holiness, including today's E&E lesson, so this verse caught my attention.  Most of my reading has been about God's holiness, but that makes the contrast here all the more interesting.

God is by definition holy, and the standard of holiness.  However, this leaves a question:  how can holiness be a descriptor for anything else, since nothing in this world is holy or perfect due to the fall?  It's been interesting reading about holiness, because though I can't say I struggle with the concept, it is something that I have trouble accepting.

The basic answer is that God can give the ability for something/someone to be made holy, though a method He provides.  In the Israelites' case, it was through the sacrificial system.  Today, it is by our acceptance of Christ's blood.  By this process, our unholiness is covered, so that God chooses not to see it, and it is therefore not held against us.  Only by this designated process can anything be considered holy, not through any other method.

Deuteronomy 13

Deuteronomy 13:8

you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him.

I'm so very glad that we are no longer under this command as Christians.  I have had several friends turn from God's path, and many others who have strayed away.  The idea of having to kill them when they try to get me to join them would be both heartbreaking and sickening.

With that said, I think I at least understand why God commanded them to do this.  If purity is to be maintained, no trace of corruption can be allowed to stand.  Therefore any suggestion of sin must be removed as forcibly as necessary.  This is a time before grace as we now understand it, a time when they were under judgment for their works alone.  To save others, the evil must be excised.

Deuteronomy 12

Deuteronomy 12:5

But you shall seek the Lord at the place which the Lord your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come.

There are two reasons this verse caught my eye.  First, it foretells the establishment of the temple.  This is a very important part of the worship system, as it will be the official place of worship.  Although there will be places for the Levites throughout the other tribes' territories, they will still have a special place of worship.

Second, it answers a question about what will happen to the tabernacle once the land is theirs.  Currently, the people can easily worship at the tabernacle, because they're all together in one place.  Soon, it won't be that easy.  They will be scattered miles apart from each other, and they must know how they will worship.  Will they all have their own altars for sacrifice in every town or farm?  Or will they have to go to the nearest Levite town, and use those as worship hubs?  Or will the tabernacle continuously travel the land, like the itinerant pastors of the American frontier times?  No, the tabernacle will stay in one place, and they will come to it.  The religion will be kept intact because there will only be one place to worship, one place where God will speak from.  They will be kept together in both their culture and religion by coming together at a regular basis.

Deuteronomy 11

Deuteronomy 11:25

No man will be able to stand before you; the Lord your God will lay the dread of you and the fear of you on all the land on which you set foot, as He has spoken to you.

The thing that caught my eye here is that God promised that He will put in the natives the fear of the Israelites.  I expected that He would promise instead to put the fear of Him into them, so that they would know He was the one causing Israel's success.  After all, the Israelites have already tried this invasion once and failed, so why should the people be afraid of them?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this.  After all, at this point anyone who knows the Israelites are coming probably knows that their God is powerful, and has given them victory many times.  So maybe it's implied that this is the cause of their victory.  But I expected Him to be a bit more explicit in claiming the victory.

Deuteronomy 10

Deuteronomy 10:17

For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

 This really spells out well who God is.  First, he is the God of gods.  He is the one who is the creator of all the other things that we revere and worship, the one who has control over them and us, and everything else.  Second, he is the ruler of rulers.  He controls what leaders do, and they can do nothing without His permission, whether they happen to believe in Him or not.  Should ever God turn against a leader, that leader will fall very quickly.

Also, He does not show partiality.  This is kind of interesting, given that Moses just finished saying that God had chosen the Israelites over all other people.  For this, I have to assume He means that He is not unjust or cruel to one person and merciful to another without reason or purpose.  Also, I find the idea of bribing God rather humorous.  I know plenty of people try to do it, mostly by what we would call bargaining, but the idea of flat-out trying to bribe God with something that He made just strikes me as funny

Deuteronomy 9

Deuteronomy 9:4

"Do not say in your heart when the Lord you God has driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you.

A very important way of looking at events is shown here.  I know I easily fall into the trap of thinking that something good happens because I'm good, or because I'm following God's plan.  While I'm sure that's true sometimes, there are other instances where that isn't the case.  Instead, God is punishing someone else for their failures, and I just happen to be the beneficiary.

I do wonder how often this is true today for others.  It always seems like someone else is being blessed for their righteousness when good things happen, but I don't know what's going on in the rest of their lives.  Is it reward, or someone else's punishment?  I know we're not nearly as good as we like to think, but are we as blessed as we like to think, or are others punished more than we think?

Worse, when bad things happen are we being punished for our failures?

Deuteronomy 8

Deuteronomy 8:3

He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.

Most of us know the second half of this verse from Satan's temptation of Jesus.  While it is an important clause, I find the beginning to be very useful in putting the verse in context.  This shows what God was referring to in that bread.  He is showing here that man with just bread is hopeless.  Without God's direction, man will eventually run out of food and die.

However, with God's direction, we will be taken to the places we need to go in order to live and prosper.  The methods He uses to do this may be unusual or previously unknown, but they will guide us to the places we needs to go.  It's even possible that those places will not provide food, and that we might die, but that is God's path for us, and we must be willing to walk it if necessary.

Deuteronomy 7

Deuteronomy 7:22

The Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, for the wild beasts would grow too numerous for you.

Again, we get a look inside God's strategy for His people.  God could easily give them victory after victory, a nonstop march through the entire land with every town being cleared quickly, but he won't.  Apparently the land is not so heavily settled that predators have been driven out, and they would overrun the land while the Israelites were still setting up shop.

God knows the pace at which we can cope with new situations.  He knows how fast we can do something, and will not rush us beyond what we can take.  However, that doesn't mean that we necessarily know how much we are capable of, and He may push us faster than we thought we could go.  After all, the Israelites didn't think they would really stand a chance against one of the nations in the land, much less all seven.  They were pushed faster than they thought possible, and look what God gave them.

Deuteronomy 6

Deuteronomy 6:22

Moreover, the Lord showed great and distressing signs and wonders before our eyes against Egypt, Pharaoh and all his household;

 Interesting choice of words here.  First, the linking the terms "great" and "distressing" is an odd juxtaposition.  We all can understand what he refers to when he speaks of the great things that God did for the Israelites.  The lengths He went to to secure their freedom were certainly impressive.  However, we don't like to think about them as being distressing.  They certainly were, however.  Many were sick, many hurt, and of course many died in the Plagues.  Every one of them was meant to cause distress to the Egyptians, and they succeeded.

It's also interesting how they are described as "signs" and "wonders."  They were signs to the people, both Egyptian and Israelite, as they were the direct work of God for a specific purpose.  We don't think about the wonders so much, though.  That's not a term in our common vocabulary, probably because wonders as those don't occur normally.  But they were some of the most amazing, large-scale supernatural events to occur in ancient times, so wonders is certainly correct.

It's also interesting that these acts are described as being performed "before our eyes."  At this point, the original generation is dead, so any people who saw what happened had to have been young, not yet adults by our measure.  Yet they still remember what was done for them, and the amazing feats that God performed to cause their freedom.  Such memories live long and strong.

Deuteronomy 5

Deuteronomy 5:29

Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!

 It's interesting that God is the one saying this.  They are days away from their first major transgression when He would have been saying this to Moses, so it is not a command or a prophecy, but rather a lament.  Looking at it as a lament changes the tone from what one might think reading the verse alone.

On its own, this sounds like God is exhorting the people to follow His commands, and telling them what good things will occur if they do.  However, as a lament it is God bemoaning how they will fail, and how much better things might have been if they only had.  It is God crying for the people He knows He will lose, and wishing that they had only done what He had told them would lead them to the greatest reward possible.  I hope this is not the mourning that He has for us.

Deuteronomy 4

Deutermonomy 4:30

When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice.

 One of the most true prophecies in the Bible.  Time and again the people would stop paying attention to God, and time and again they would be overtaken by their enemies.  However, time and again they would eventually realize their mistakes, and time and again they would cry out to God, and time and again he would come to their aid.

Today, things aren't that different.  Even for those who have an excellent relationship with God, they always seem to go to a different level when things are not going well.  It is in strife that we seem to grow the most, but we never want the strife to occur, nor should we.  Still, it is significant that here God tell the people exactly what they will do, so many times in their future.  If only they/we had listened.

Deuteronomy 3

Deuteronomy 3:21

I commanded Joshua at this time, saying, 'Your eyes have seen all that the Lord you God has done to these two kings; so the Lord shall do to all the kingdoms into which you are about to cross.

This links nicely with my previous chapter comments.  Then, I was speculating that if God had taken them through the land where their distant relatives have settled after driving out the native inhabitants, if they would have been more trusting as their turn came up.  Here, God has now shown them that he will give them victory, and is telling Joshua that more is to come.

This also seems to be the passing of the baton from Moses to Joshua.  His name has come up before as Moses' successor, but this seems more concrete somehow.  I guess it comes down to the phrase "you are about to cross."  Moses doesn't include himself in this, confirming that he is not going to be allowed to make the journey.  That leaves Joshua to go it alone, as it were, and he is being commanded to proceed.  Moses knows his time is over, and it's time for Joshua to take what he has seen and turn it into his own faith.

Deuteronomy 2

Deuteronomy 2:21

a people as great numerous, and tall as the Anakim, but the Lord destroyed them before them.  And they dispossessed them and settled in their place,

Moses/God is definitely rubbing the Israelites' noses in their fathers misdeeds with this aside.  He does this a couple times in the chapter, breaking the flow of the history each time.  The only reason I can think of to do so is to remind the people of how their parents messed up.

Their parents wouldn't invade the Promised Land because they were afraid of the Anakim.  However, here God is, reminding their kids about how He had promised land to others of Abraham's kin, and they had faced opposition just as powerful as that which the Israelites had balked at going against, but God had given them victory where the Israelites got nothing but exile for their doubt.  I wonder, if God had decided to take them through these lands as a long way around to the Promised Land, would they have still rebelled?

Deuteronomy 1

Deuteronomy 1:22

"Then all of you approached me and said, 'Let us send men before us, that they may search out the land for us, and bring back to us word of the way by which we should go up and the cities which we shall enter.'

I read this and went, "hold on."  I remember when the spies were sent, and there's not a word about the people asking for it.  God commanded Moses to send the spies.  This makes me ask what's going on here.

While some might take this as revisionist history, I have to assume that we're getting another part of the story.  If I'm stitching things together correctly, the people asked for spies to be sent, and Moses inquired of the Lord.  God said to do it, and off them went.  The rest we know.

Numbers 36

Numbers 36:8

Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers.

Again, the rules of special inheritance crop up for clarification.  The rule set down here, that women who inherit must marry within their tribe, does make logistical sense.  I can picture the situation a few generations in if this were not set up.  There would probably have been enough women inheriting from their fathers and then marrying outside their tribe to have really fuzzed up the tribal boundaries.

However, I can think of many people who would consider this rule oppressive, being forced to marry from inside your tribe.  But that's not how the people of the time normally thought.  Clan structures were very intricate at the time, and marriages were often arranged.  So a woman marrying a distant (or occasionally not-so-distant) cousin wasn't unheard of.  Whatever it might have done for the bloodline as we look at it in modern genetics, it did keep the family strong.  Also, given contemporary travel methods (foot or animal), keeping the family close together was almost a necessity.  So I personally have no disagreement with how this command worked out.

Numbers 35

Numbers 35:30

'If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

I find this an interesting legal decision. The testimony of one person for murder is not sufficient.  There must be at least two people for condemnation.  Today, one person's testimony is often sufficient for a conviction, even if that person is a child.  With modern forensics, there are many cases where no witness is necessary.  However, back then, it took at least two people to prove murder.

Why require two, and not one?  The simple answer would be that one is much easier for a murder to lie, and say someone else did it.  However, if you have two people giving the same testimony, lying would be a conspiracy, which is always harder to pull off.  It's easier to find gaps in their stories, or one may chicken out.  It can still be abused, as we see later on in the Bible, but by having two or more witnesses, the likelihood of false conviction is greatly reduced.  God gave the people remarkable forethought on this command.

Numbers 34

Numbers 34:18

You shall take one leader of every tribe to apportion the land for inheritance.

Since I'm getting over being sick, this was a nice chapter to start with, because I only have one little question:  why do you need a leader for each tribe?  If Joshua and Eleazar are deciding the tribes by lot, what do these leaders do?

I'll freely admit I don't understand the lot process all that well.  I've seen several explanations, and have no idea which one is correct.  However, for none of them are many people required.  All the versions I've heard really only require one person, maybe two.  So what are the leaders for?  Do they just take the results back to their people, to let them know?  Or was it that the tribe would be chosen, then that tribe would get to decide their location, like my dorm did when we moved buildings?  I honestly have no idea what the answer is to this question, but it does pique my curiosity.

Numbers 33

Numbers 33:55

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.

Somehow, statements like this never before caught my attention in the way it just did.  Usually, when I read about how the Israelites were supposed to drive the people out of the land, but failed to, it's just a reminder of how they messed up, and suffered the consequences because they didn't listed to God.

This time, however, the broader implications hit me.  This isn't just about obeying God, though that's certainly also true.  It's about why we need to keep ourselves from sin in general.  If we allow ourselves to accept sin, it weakens us.  It makes us more complacent to permit other sins, or to enlarging the one we're committing.  If we are to be as God has called us to be, we must allow no compromise.

Numbers 32

Numbers 32:17

but we ourselves will be armed ready to go before the sons of Israel, until we have brought them to their place, while our little ones live in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land.

This is a very honorable agreement that the two tribes come to.  They are able to leave their families behind instead of dragging them off to the war camp, in exchange for leading the charge to war.  They have, at this moment, now gained the most, so they are taking the most risk.  Meanwhile, their families are able to start building lives years before the other tribes.

One thing that confuses me is how they need to live in fortified cities because of the inhabitants.  Weren't they commanded to eradicate all the inhabitants?  Or does that command only apply somehow to those across the Jordan?  While I'll grant that they didn't do any better beyond the Jordan than before, why were any spared, much less in a condition to threaten the Israelites?  Are they worried about outside raiders, perhaps?  I don't think so, but I guess it's possible.

Numbers 31

Numbers 31:49

and they said to Moses, "Your servants have taken a census of men of war who are in our charge, and no man of us is missing.

If I'm reading this right, they are saying that they did not lose a single man in battle.  11,000 went off to war, and 11,000 came back.  It's not clear if there were any people wounded, but their fatality rate was 0.0000%.

This is amazing.  To put this into context, the average casualty rate in warfare during American Colonial times was about 20%.  After the Civil War, casualty rates were about 10%, decreasing until WW1 to well under 1%, after which it jumped back up to 1%.  Since then the numbers have been even lower.  Mortality rates among casualties vary widely, but could probably still be averaged as 30-50%.

However, never has there been a battle fought in memory for which the fatality rate has been zero.  With the ancient weapons of the time, primarily what gamers today would call "melee weapons", casualty and fatality rates are much higher than today's "ranged weapons" like guns.  If two people fight on the battlefield back then, one of them is going to go down, and probably be killed.  But for all victories to be one-sided, with no losses, can only be considered a miracle of amazing mercy.

Numbers 30

Numbers 30:5

But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.

I'm not quite sure what kind of vows they're talking about here.  I can think of several types that might apply:  vows of chastity, or commitment to a particular man, or to some task she shall perform, or some type of commitment of service to God all would seem possible.  I'm honestly not sure which type it might be, given how vague the text is, but I'm guessing that the service to God is the most likely.  Perhaps serving in the temple, or doing some particular undesirable duty.

Whatever the vow was for, it's interesting that an unmarried woman does not have final say.  Her father must agree, or at least not immediately object, for her vow to be binding.  Until the time of her marriage, a woman is not apart from her family, but subservient to her father's will.  Later in the chapter, it says the same thing about husbands to their wives.  So while God does permit women equality in some circumstances (like inheritance when there are no sons), they are not completely independent.

Numbers 29

Numbers 29:1

'Now in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall also have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.  It will be to you a day for blowing trumpets.

What is the significance of the seventh month?  All the festivals and events I can recall are linked to some specific occurrence, or to remember how something happened.  But this just seems to be called for no particular reason.  It's like if God were to say to us that July would be a month of holidays, just because it's time for a break.

I wonder what the significance of the trumpets was.  I'm assuming this is the origin of the Feast of Trumpets, which is one of the feasts I don't know much about.  From what little is written here, it doesn't look like anyone knew much about it.  What do the trumpets represent?  Are they just to call the attention of the people to God, as a way to start the month with many holy days?  If so, why not blow the trumpets on each of the special days, rather than just the first?