JULY 2014

    In many ways, Deuteronomy 30:15 is a summary of the complete Bible and of the entirety of God’s relationship with mankind. God lays before humanity, but especially His covenant people, the path of life and the path of death. This is a choice which will reverberate throughout the OT especially in the Proverbs and the prophets.    “Look” is the imperative form of the Hebrew verb raah, meaning “to see.” But it is more than just “to see,” that is, to notice casually, but rather, “look” implies that one is intentionally apprehending certain truths or a broader reality. Like a parent does when trying to help a child to focus, God arrests the attention of His people in this summation of the Law: the choice between life with God or death in defiance of Him.

    The phrase “I set” or “I have set” means that God is personally involved with this transaction. Moses had mediated most of the interaction between God and His people so much that this section of Scripture would assume Moses’ name (as in “the Mosaic Law” or the “Books of Moses”). However, here, God is clear that Moses is a conduit of God’s will, but not the source of it; God Himself is laying these options before His people for blessedness or for destruction. He personally offers His people a means for life and success, and He takes their acceptance or rejection of Biblical covenants and truth personally. We are not merely accepting or rejecting a philosophical system or a legal code; we are either accepting or rejecting God Himself (Deut 28:20; Judg 2:11-13; Jer 22:8-9).

    “Before you” is the interpretation of the literal phrase “before your face.” Here, the other half, namely the human half, of the relationship is acknowledged. The word “you” is second masculine plural: the Mosaic agreement is the first covenant God has forged with a group of people rather than just one person. “Before your face” (the Hebrew phrase lepaneyka, used 103 times in the OT) is used in a few ways.  First, it is used of something that is clear and evident to someone else (Gen 13:9; 20:15; Deut 1:21; Judg 4:14; 2 Sam 5:24; Ps 79:11; 119:169-170).  It is also used of someone who wants to be in close relationship with someone else (2 Sam 7:16; 1 Kings 3:6; Ps 19:4; Ps 86:9; 102:28; Ps 141:2; Is 9:2; 38:3).  Occasionally, we even see a combination of the two uses (Gen 24:51; Ex 17:6; Deut 1:38; 9:3; Ps 88:2), emphasizing that someone has a clear choice before them about being in proximity to or in relationship with someone. I believe that Deut 30:15 represents both: a clear choice for a life of meaningful fellowship with God. Similarly, the Gospel of Christ presents a clear and unambiguous choice to people today about how to have true relationship and fellowship with the Almighty God through faith in Christ. Most people don’t understand or accept that.

    Moses says that this option is before the Israelites “today,” implying that the choice before them had specific ramifications for the immediate future. The word “today” here may not necessarily be a literal date on the calendar as much as a specific and definite time period, making it synonymous to the word “now,” providing a sense of urgency. This is not an extended offer that the Israelites could come back to at a later time if they turned it down now without having to suffer some unpleasant consequences first. They were called upon to chose the Lord and to follow Him from that day forward.

    Lady Wisdom is also portrayed in Proverbs as providing her wisdom on a limited time basis (1:23-29). One gets the feeling that people, including believers, can go so far down the road of ungodly decisions and foolish living that the capacity to exercise wisdom forsakes them entirely. That sense of a “limited-time offer” seems present in Jesus’ parable in Luke 12:16-21, and may be behind verses like Psalm 32:6 (“Therefore, let everyone who is godly pray to You in a time when You may be found; Surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him”) and Isaiah 55:6 (“Seek the Lord while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near”) as well.

    But there is much more to this verse; this article is definitely a two-parter. In part two below, we will follow-up on the specifics of that choice that was presented to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 30:15.

CONSERVATIVE CORNER: An Exegesis of Paine

    We would not be the first to argue that a smaller and less tyrannical government with less power and less expense is just “common sense.”

    The following excerpts are from the beginning of Thomas Paine’s 1776 work Common Sense. In that book, Paine argues that it was no longer sensible for the American colonies to be ruled from a distance by the small country of England. Rather, the colonies should be self-ruled.

    Paine’s context is hauntingly similar to our own. The sections of Pain’s Common Sense that we will discuss in this article are worthy of serious meditation and exegesis.

    Before we get to the juicy stuff, we will first consider how Paine distinguished between a society and a government:

“Some writers have so confounded [or “confused”] society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher” (Thomas Paine, Collected Writings, 6).

    Paine here notes that there are two very different aspects of civic life. One is society, which includes schools, businesses, roads, and churches. These entities are all caused because we want them; they serve our general and particular interests. They can promote healthy and mutually beneficial interaction between individuals, families and groups.    However, the founders were not so naïve that they believed that such interaction always goes without hitch or fault. Thus, government’s role focuses on, as Paine puts it, “restraining our vices.” Government should allow free access to the enjoyment and interaction of society, but when vices creep into that interaction, then (and only then) government may intervene.

    The next paragraph is the critical heart of Paine’s perspective regarding government; the wise reader will peruse it a few times before proceeding:

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”

    The most pertinent point here comes right at the beginning of this paragraph: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in it its worst state an intolerable one.” At best, a government is necessary to thwart the vices that seep into people's interactions with one another.  Conservatives do not want to eradicate government; we want absolutely no more government control than is absolutely necessary and that the Constitution permits. But, while conceding that government is necessary because of human vice, Paine recognizes that a government can also become oppressive, tyrannical, unsympathetic, and “intolerable.” In its attempt to restrain vice and maintain order, it may become so suffocating that it suppresses the rights of individuals to enjoy the benefits of society.

    Paine would go on to argue that it was not “common sense” for the thirteen colonies to continue to be ruled and managed by a tiny country that was far away and that was largely ignorant of and indifferent to the advantages and challenges of the New World. For Paine and others of his ilk, by 1776, the government that had shielded and nurtured the colonies had become insufferably suffocating to the liberties and opportunities of individual citizens.

    Of course, unlike England, Washington D.C. is not across an ocean, but it is contained within our national borders. However, philosophically, it is very distant from the typical citizen. It is an ocean away from the average teacher, small business owner, and factory worker. Washington gets bent out of shape about the environment while the average American struggles to pay their mortgage. D.C. wants to champion progressive social agendas while most Americans can’t even champion the tax code. Congress sends ridiculous amounts of money to foreign countries who loathe us, while the typical parent labors to afford college tuition for their children. D.C. is an ocean away philosophically even though it is within the contiguous forty-eight. Our country’s capital has ceased to be a necessary evil and its taxes and agendas have swelled to an invasive and intolerable degree.

    Paine mentions that the average citizen sees it necessary to “surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest.” This, of course, is a reference to taxation; the only way for government to exist is for it to tax its citizens. It is funded entirely by us. Most of us are happy – or at least willing – to help fund a basic government that protects it citizens, defends our borders, and manages relationships with foreign countries, which are some of the few powers the Constitution permits our government to exercise. But when government takes upon itself other responsibilities, such as curing global diseases, or unnecessarily involving our military in foreign skirmishes, or helping other nations become more industrial, that places an oppressive tax burden on US citizens. When people in Washington talk about the billions of dollars needed to battle famine, global insurgency, or climate change, they are talking about your money; government has no money or possession of its own. When government gets so large that it administrates the education system, health care, and even tries to control aspects of industry, then that government is so big and expensive it necessarily moves down the continuum from being merely necessary to being rather intolerable.

    Many of you remember that we did a series called “Why Marburg Matters,” which you can find in our Eclectic Archive here. That series described the drama and difficulty of a meeting in 1529 in Marburg, Germany between several protestant leaders, including Luther, Zwingli, and Melanchthon. The meeting was supposed to forge unity and help different Protestant leaders consolidate their efforts; the end game was a desire to present a united front against the medieval Roman Catholic Church as well as against the Hapsburg Empire.    Unfortunately, unity among these Protestant leaders was more elusive than it should have been. This series of articles, and the subsequent chapter in Reformation Faith explores the reason why the meeting at Marburg failed, and especially Martin Luther’s role in thwarting unity.

    The book Reformation Faith: Theology and Exegesis in the Protestant Reformations, edited by Michael Parsons, is a compilation of chapters by different authors that explores the theology, the exegesis and the history of the different strains of the Protestant Reformation. My chapter is chapter 12 entitled “Returning to Marburg to Rethink Martin Luther.” The chapter contains much of what was in the series of articles in the web journal, but also adds more information and research. For instance, some of the additional research that went into the chapter includes gaining a greater appreciation for the debates about the Eucharist by reading from other Reformers, especially Zwingli, Melanchthon, Müntzer and Karlstadt. Specifically, I set out to examine the tone that was used in those writings and to compare these writers to Luther’s more acerbic and offensive tone. His relatively unique tone alienated would-be allies through his writings and also frustrated unity with other Christian leaders at Marburg. In fact, our last installment in the series “Why Marburg Matters,” references more about Luther’s divisive, and often vulgar, rhetoric; check out the article entitled, “The Colorful Martin Luther” from the April 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. 

    Anyway, this chapter in Reformation Faith is my first official print publication, and I am pretty excited about it. I haven’t read all of the other articles in this volume yet, but I’m sure that they are of high quality as each one contributes its own perspective and research on the phenomenon known as the Protestant Reformation.

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: The Choice of Your Life, Deut 30:15, Part 2

    In the first part of this article above, we examined some of the dynamics of the choice that God set before the Israelites through Moses before they entered the Promised land. In this second part, we will examine some of the substance of that choice. As we will see, the choice is literally one of life and death.

    One alternative to the choice they were given included “life” and “goodness.”  The word for “life” is the masculine plural form of the adjective “alive” or “living” (chay). The precise form used here (chayyim, similar to the phrase l’chai’im from the song “To Life” in Fiddler on the Roof) is also used of the “tree of life” in Gen 2:9, reminding the Israelites during Moses’ day of another choice that God had given to humanity. A measure of the chayyim that Adam enjoyed is made available again to God’s people. The life-giving and life extending nature of God’s wisdom is also seen in Proverbs (3:1-2; 4:10, 13, 22; 6:23; 8:35; 9:11).

    The word for “prosperity” or “goodness” is simply the word tov, “pleasant, agreeable, good.” If the word “life” made the original audience think about the tree of life in Genesis 2, then the word tov would definitely remind the readers of Genesis 1, where God declares continually that the things  He had created were tov or “good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). That is, they were functioning in the way that they were supposed to; they were moving, productive, and beneficial.

    Both of these adjectives “living” and “good” are substantivized (that is, they are turned into a noun, or, given substance) by being preceded with definite articles. An English equivalent would be taking that word good and describing “the good.” Turning these adjectives into nouns indicates that God is referring to “the livingness and the goodness,” a set of realities that would be mutually beneficial to God and to His people – for God’s glory and His people’s blessing.

    On the other hand, if they rejected this offer to continue in fellowship with and obedience to God, they would be faced with death and calamity. The word here is the common word for death that was introduced for the first time in Gen 2:17. Again, this is a reminder that the decision which the first couple faced, is now being repeated in a new opportunity to not make the same mistake. They chose death; Moses wants his audience to choose life. The word for calamity often indicates “evil” or something bad; it is also used in Gen 2:17. The NASB translates this “adversity” and the NIV translates it “destruction.” The choice is clear, with no ambiguous grey: chose life and blessing or death and destruction.

    Two additional points need to be made about this verse.

    The first point is to note the allusions that Deuteronomy 30:15 makes back to Genesis 1, indicated by the words that are repeated in both. Granted, some of these are fairly common words, but some of them (like “to see” and “day”) are significant in Gen 1, and draw an evident link between Deut 30:15 and Gen 1.

    One example is the verb “to see” or “to appear”: the Hebrew word ra’ah, used 8 times in Gen 1, specifies times when God “saw” something that He had created (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) or in one case, the word describes when something that He created “appeared” (v. 9).

    Another word shared by Deut 30:15 and Genesis 1 is the word “to set” or “to place” (nathan). It is used in Gen 1:17 and 29 of God placing the heavenly bodies in the sky and of providing humanity with abundant food. Another is the word “day” (yom, as in “yom kippur,” the Jewish “Day of Atonement”). Of course, the word “day” forms the backbone of Genesis 1, used in verses 5 (2 times), 8, 13, 14 (2 times), 16, 18, 19, 23 and 31.

    Another is the word “living” or “life,” used in conjunction with the creation of animate life in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30. God loves life, and He wants His people to enjoy the fullness of life. I am reminded of Jesus’ statement in John 10:10 when He says “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” God’s intention is to bring glory to Himself as His own people enjoy the fullness of a dynamic fellowship with the living God. As mentioned previously, the word “good” or tov occurs seven times in Gen 1.

    God is setting before the Israelites an opportunity that is good, beneficial, and consistent with His intentions from the beginning of creation in Genesis 1. For those who already have a relationship of faith with God, the law provides humanity another chance of having healthy, blessed and mutually beneficial fellowship with God.

    One more point about this verse. It seems like they had already made the choice to follow and obey God through the Mosaic Law code. The Israelites, specifically the generation previous to the audience of Deuteronomy, had assented to obey God back in Exodus 19:8, 24:3 and 7. The current generation was also being called to assent to God’s will and God’s Law. Obedience to God’s word and staying in blessed fellowship with God is something that we have to constantly maintain and cultivate, both from one generation to the next, and in our own life, from one day to the next. Faith is like a garden that requires constant upkeep and attention. If we work hard on a garden initially, but then fail to maintain it, we should not be surprised when it grows weedy and wild. Our fellowship with God and with other believers is the same; these relationships must be constantly cultivated.

    The Israelites, too, had to do more than just affirm faith in God in one generation. Rather, each generation had to continue to believe in God and obey Him. They had the opportunity to maintain and grow their faith through festivals and feasts. Yet, the tragic reality of the Old Testament, is that most generations of Israelites didn’t cultivate their faith in God, and thus, the nation became infected with the weeds of false gods, injustice, and ungodliness. For the person who has the gift of God’s grace and eternal life through faith in Christ, Scripture helps us to have that sustained and joyous fellowship with God by abiding with Him in faith, obedience, and love. This is a dynamic decision that we need to continually make every day, as a result of true faith.