service genset jogja
1 Kings 1:5-6

A Charge to Fathers

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 9, 2023

David was quite the hero in his life. He was chosen to be King and anointed by Samuel. He slew Goliath while yet a young man. He conquered all of Israel’s enemies and united the kingdom after Saul’s death. But he couldn’t raise his family. I once met a woman who was telling me that her daughter was a drug addict in the ghetto and made her living by selling herself to get drugs. Her son was a lazy bum who was always begging for money. She said, “If I had known what my children would turn out to be, I would never have had them.” I prayed with the woman and tried to console her but the disappointment with her children could not be assuaged. I think David was more disappointed in his children. It appears he was too busy with the affairs of the state to raise his children. His sons not only disappointed him, but they attempted to usurp the throne from him. In 1 Kings 1:5-6, we read about it, “Now Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, ‘I will be king.’ And he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him.  His father had never at any time displeased him by asking, ‘Why have you done thus and so?’ He was also a very handsome man, and he was born next after Absalom.”

Adonijah was not David’s eldest son. Amnon and Absalom were both older but they have both died by this time along with another brother, Chileab (called Daniel in 1 Chronicles). Since he’s not mentioned of him we can assume he died young. Amnon raped Absalom’s sister and Absalom murdered him in return. Absalom was killed in the war against his father’s troops. Adonijah was the fourth son in David’s list of sons. We don’t know much about his mother Haggith but she is referred to as his wife, so her descendant might have a claim on the throne if so designated by David. But Adonijah decided to designate himself. According to one writer, Adonijah’s behavior “refers not to the preparation of an armament for war, but to a kingly retinue which should attend him wherever he went. The runners were a bodyguard, and the word is applied to those guards who kept the door of the king’s house. By such a step Adonijah let his intention be known and found out who was likely to be on his side.” The mention that he was a handsome man brings back memories of King Saul. The outward appearance of a person is never a good measure of his or her character.

 It seems that the key to understanding David’s domestic problems lie in Verse 6. David never “displeased” his son. This means to “…show that David had not disciplined Adonijah as he was growing up. So Adonijah’s behavior now is the result of this lack of correction and discipline by his father.”[1] He never told his children “no.” For the sake of their future and the welfare of society as a whole, the first thing every child should learn is the meaning of the word “no.” As every father soon learns, we cannot discipline our children without displeasing them at times. I like the way David Howard explains this. He writes, “That’s because our children are sinners, just as we are, and sometimes they must be made to suffer consequences for their wrong actions. Being a father is not a popularity contest; sometimes good fathering requires that we make unpopular decisions and that we do indeed interfere with our children’s lives. We need to interfere to protect them from self-destructive behaviors. We need to interfere when they hurt others. We need to interfere when they displease God.”[2] Notice also in this passage that the text does not seem to hold Haggith responsible for the rebellion. David is the father and the one pointed out in error. David did not step up and take the responsibility that was his: to provide the proper limits to his son’s behavior. His position as the king did not excuse him from stepping in and disciplining his children.

[1] Slager, Donald. 2008. “Preface.” In A Handbook on 1 & 2 Kings, edited by Paul Clarke, Schuyler Brown, Louis Dorn, and Donald Slager, 1–2:24. United Bible Societies’ Handbooks. New York: United Bible Societies.

[2] https://bcsmn.edu/king-david-a-permissive-father/

Tags:
Permalink
2 Samuel 1:10-12

Love Your Enemy!

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 8, 2023

An Amalekite brings David word of Saul and Jonathan’s death in battle. David and his army react in a way that’s different than one might expect since Saul had put it in his heart to destroy David. 2 Samuel 1:10-12 tells us what the Amalekite reported to David, “I stood beside him and killed him because I was sure he could not live after falling. And I took the crown on his head and the armlet on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord. Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so did all the men with him. And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and Jonathan, his son and the people of the Lord and the house of Israel because they had fallen by the sword.” In 1 Samuel chapter 31, we read that archers so wounded Saul that he asked his armor-bearer to finish him off before the Philistines arrived. But the armor-bearer would not do it. Verse 4 says, “Therefore Saul took his sword and fell upon it.” Did Saul commit suicide, or did the Amalekite kill him?

Walt Kaiser has a great discussion on this question. He writes, “Although there have been attempts at harmonizing the two accounts, the effort always seems to fall short of being convincing. For example, Josephus tried to make the accounts fit as early as the first Christian century. Josephus claimed that after Saul’s armor-bearer refused to kill Saul, Saul tried to fall on his sword, but he was too weak to do so. Saul turned and saw this Amalekite, who, upon the king’s request, complied and killed him, having found the king leaning on his sword. Afterward, the Amalekite took the king’s crown and armband and fled. While everything seems to fit in this harmonization, there is one fact that is out of line: the armor-bearer. The armor-bearer was sufficiently convinced of Saul’s death to follow his example (See 1 Samuel 31). It is my conclusion that Saul did commit suicide, a violation of the law of God, and that the Amalekite was lying in order to obtain favor with the new administration.”[1]

Even though Saul acted as David’s enemy, he was still a child of God’s people, Israel. When Saul fell in battle, that meant the nation fell in battle. Mayer: There was an excellent reason for David’s sorrow for his dear friend Jonathan and the people of God, but how he could truly be sorrowful for Saul does not so easily appear. For much good came of Saul’s destruction. First, an end was put to tyranny under which the commonwealth had suffered. Second, David was rid of his deadly enemy, who always fought against his life. And third, the expected time now came of fulfilling the promise to David concerning the prophecy of taking the kingdom from Saul. Yet it is not to be thought that David feigned this great sorrow, even for Saul. Although Saul hated David, David still loved Saul just as Christ bids us love our enemies.”[2] David’s life is filled with allusions to Christ’s life. David was the “anointed one,” and through him would come the ultimate anointed one, Jesus. There are many instances in David’s life where we can see Jesus. In this story, David foreshadows Christ’s command to love our enemies. David slaying Goliath wasn’t his most extraordinary deed.

[1] Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. 1996. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

[2] Cooper, Derek, Martin J. Lohrmann, Timothy George, and Scott M. Manetsch, eds. 2016. 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles: Old Testament. Vol. V. Reformation Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Tags:
Permalink
1 Samuel 1:3

Offering a Sacrifice

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 7, 2023

It was time for Samuel’s father, Elkanah, to make his annual pilgrimage to offer his sacrifices to God. 1 Samuel 1:3 tells us, “Now, this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas, were priests of the Lord.” The phrase “used to” doesn’t imply he doesn’t do it anymore, as we might use that phrase. It means that it was his custom to go up. Going up is important, but Shiloh was north of Jerusalem and in the same mountain range. Going up does not refer to going north. It refers to climbing the hills. Shiloh was 20 miles north of Jerusalem and would have been a long walk. Elkanah went to Shiloh because the Ark of the Covenant and the priests were located there then.

He sacrificed to “The Lord of Hosts.” This is the first time God is referred to as “The Lord of Hosts” in the Bible. Some argue that it means He is the commander of the Army with a great number of soldiers. Others see it as referring to the Angels at God’s command. The article in the Lexham Bible Dictionary sees it as both. The phrase “Lord of Hosts” is “A phrase describing Yahweh’s role as the Lord of the heavenly armies, the commander of the cosmic forces, the head of the divine council, and the leader of Israel’s army.”[1] I like that some translations translate it as “The Lord Almighty.” The New International Version and Today’s English Version do that.

This is also the first time that the sons of Eli, Hophni, and Phineas are mentioned. They seem to be representative of the apostate nature of Israel and the priesthood during the period of the Judges. But Elkanah is not like them. Bergen writes, “Far from being yet another decadent Israelite in the period of the Judges, Elkanah is consistently portrayed as one who is devoted to the Lord. His piety is suggested first by the fact that ‘year after year’ he ‘went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty.’ According to the Torah, every Israelite family was to make the journey to Israel’s central Yahwistic worship center. By leading his family in annual trips to Shiloh, Elkanah is shown to be a man both submissive to the Torah and strong in his domestic leadership.”[2] But Elkanah did not go to Shiloh to see Hophni and Phineas. He came to bring an offering to God Almighty. He came as Phillips says, he came to “renew his covenant fidelity.” Elkanah wanted to prioritize God in his life, not the religious system under which he lived. “However little Elkanah knew of true religion at a time like this, he knew enough to come as a sinner, seeking grace from God by means of the shed blood of a sacrifice.”[3] This is precisely how we should come as well. The sacrifice and the shed blood have already been offered for us in Jesus Christ.

[1] Acosta, Dempsey Rosales. 2016. “Lord of Hosts.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[2] Bergen, Robert D. 1996. 1, 2 Samuel. Vol. 7. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[3] Phillips, Richard D. 2012. 1 Samuel. Edited by Philip Graham Ryken and Richard D. Phillips, Duguid Iain M. 1st ed. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

Tags:
Permalink
3 John 1:5, John 3:19

Rejecting Apostolic Authority

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 6, 2023

In the course of complementing his readers in Gaius’ church, John speaks well of all their efforts. 3 John 1:5 says, “Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are.” Their efforts involved welcoming and caring for some unknown believers who were sent from John. This is understood in the context of one Diotrephes, who will be described in verse 9 as being one “who likes to put himself first.” Notice that John refers to the members of Gaius’ Church family as being “beloved.” He then tells them that their efforts on behalf of the strangers he sent to them are “faithful things.” It appears that Diotrephes was not supportive of John’s messengers to the church. John will even say that Diotrephes rejected the authority of the Apostles and his own role specifically.

First of all, John is telling his readers that they are “beloved.” It could mean that John loves them or that they are beloved in general, or it could be a reference to the fact that they are loved by God. Paul uses this language a lot and specifically tells the Thessalonians, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you” (1 Thessalonians 1:4). John is reminding his readers that they have received God’s love freely through Jesus Christ. Jesus once told his disciples that they had not chosen him, but he had chosen them. God is always the first to act in love. Christ is the demonstration of God’s love to the whole world, but not all will receive it. Those who receive God’s love can love God and others in return. John says we “love because God first loved us.”  In fact, unless one receives God’s love, there is no love in Him. One can be religious and never come to understand God’s love and, therefore, never be able to return that love or show it to others. It appears that Diotrephes was religious. He had some high standards, but he did not have love. He seems to oppose Gaius’ care for the companions that John sent to them.

John calls what Gaius did for the messengers that he sent a “faithful thing.” Most commentators purport that Diotrephes’s problem was a theological one. This is normally drawn from the fact that John did war with the Gnostics, who rejected Jesus’ coming in the flesh. The messengers from John presented, with the authority of an Apostle, the truth regarding the incarnation, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Jones observes, “While 3 John makes no overt statement about theological difference, the stress on faithfulness to the truth by Gaius and the subsequent connection between his faithfulness and hospitality and the lack thereof by Diotrephes tips the scales in favor of theological difference. Those expelled by Diotrephes likely recognized the authority of the Elder, made the confession of Jesus come in the flesh, and hence were amenable to receiving exponents of their common view. Diotrephes, for his part, did not merely want his own shop but was determined to barricade his community from the viewpoint of the Elder and those for whom he spoke.”[1]

Although this is probably correct, it seems to be more of an issue of rebellion against authority on Diotrephes’ part. Faithfulness, as mentioned here, very likely represents acceptance of John’s authority as well as that of the other apostles. The Apostle knew that they would face this because Jesus told them that they would face rejection even from people from their own towns and families. As Heer says, “There will always be those who will reject the messenger and the message of God. Knowing that rejection would happen, Jesus encouraged His disciples to move beyond their feelings of rejection to the next place where their message and ministry would be received. Many ministers need to ‘shake the dust off’ in dependence on the authority of Christ, upon whom rests the ultimate matter of acceptance and rejection.”[2] John’s encouragement to Gaius and the other “faithful” members should be ours as well. Remember, submission to authority was Satan’s number one sin! He was not satisfied with the role God had given him and sought to usurp God’s own authority. Satan worked in Adam & Eve to reject God’s authority as well. Satan continues to work out in “rebellion” as well. The authority of the Bible, the Apostles’ teachings, is under attack in our society. It goes against our natural inclinations. We want abortion. It speaks against it. We want sexual freedom. It speaks against it. The list could go on. John wrote in his gospel, John 3:19, “The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

[1] Jones, Peter Rhea. 2009. 1, 2 & 3 John. Edited by Leslie Andres and R. Alan Culpepper. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated.

[2] Heer, Ken. 2007. Luke: A Commentary for Bible Students. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House.

Tags:
Permalink
Ruth 1:3-5

What is God doing?

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 6, 2023

In Deuteronomy 7:3, the Israelites were prohibited from marrying Canaanite women. It doesn’t say anything about Moabites. However, we’re to find out later that marrying a woman outside the faith creates great problems in the home. As we learn from Solomon’s life, “…the greatest problem in such a marriage is the temptation to serve the gods of one’s foreign wife.” Ruth 1:3-4a tells us about the marriages of Elimelech’s sons to Moabite women. It says, “But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of one was Orpah, and the name of the other was Ruth. They lived there for about ten years, and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.” My Doctoral advisor from Dallas Seminary writes, “No doubt orthodox Israelites would have thought that marrying Moabite women was unwise. The Book of Ruth does not record the length of these marriages, but they were childless.”[1] We don’t know which son married which daughter until Ruth 4:10, when we learn that Ruth married Mahlon. That means Orpah married Chilion.

So, we find Naomi, a Jewess, alone in a foreign land, husbandless and childless. The name Naomi in Hebrew means “pleasantness or sweetness.” I think sweetness was the focus because later, we’ll see that she wishes to change her name to Marah, which means bitterness. We have a bitter childless widow alone in the world. She has no sons or grandsons and is alone in a foreign land with people who do not speak her language and do not worship the God she has been raised to believe in. Maybe she’s like the prodigal son. She and her husband had followed what they believed to be the most prosperous path for them at the time of famine, but things did not work out for them. What would she do now? She did not know what God’s plan was for her.

I’m sure many of us have gone through similar experiences. We’ve made decisions that have not turned out like we wanted them to and ended up lost and alone, struggling with God’s will for our lives. Jackman applied this to his preaching commentary. He wrote, “In any congregation today, many people will identify only too readily with Naomi’s experience. Some will have gone through similar traumatic times of bereavement. Others will have made life decisions they now feel very bitter about—the job move that led to being laid off, the marriage that broke up almost from the beginning, the disappointment of children who have overthrown their parents’ faith and are sowing wild oats. ‘Where did I go wrong?’ is very often followed by ‘why did God let this happen to me?’”[2] Like Naomi, we just don’t know what God plans. Instead of judging Naomi and Elimelech’s decision to leave the land, as many commentators do, I can relate to Naomi. It’s so encouraging to see that there would be a great redemption for Naomi in the woman that Mahlon married. As a matter of fact, through this Moabite woman Mahlon married, our redemption also comes. Naomi returns to her homeland and her God with Ruth. Ruth marries and gives birth to Jesse. Who marries and gives birth to David, through whom comes Jesus, our redemption from bad decisions and those of the whole world for whoever believes in Him.

 

[1] Reed, John W. 1985. “Ruth.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 1:419. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[2] Jackman, David, and Lloyd J. Ogilvie. 1991. Judges, Ruth. Vol. 7. The Preacher’s Commentary Series. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Tags:
Permalink
Judges 1:3, Romans 12:4-5

Working Together

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 5, 2023

The first four children of Leah, born to Jacob, were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. They grew up together. It’s natural for these four to stick together. In Judges 1:3, we see Judah make an agreement with his brother Simeon. “And Judah said to Simeon his brother, ‘Come up with me into the territory allotted to me, that we may fight against the Canaanites. And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you.’ So Simeon went with him.” Duane Lindsey sheds some light on their relationship. He writes, “The tribal military alliance of Judah and Simeon was a logical one since the allotted inheritance of the Simeonites was within the southern boundaries of the tribe of Judah. Also, Judah and Simeon had a natural bond as offspring of Jacob and Leah. Their common enemy was the Canaanites, probably used here as a generic term for all the inhabitants of Canaan in the area west of the Jordan River.”[1]

Judah was the one son of the 12 from which the ultimate king of the nation would come. He was to be the leader of his people. Jacob chose him before his death and his will for Judah was recorded in Genesis 49:10. While blessing his children before his death he said, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” This explains why he was granted the largest piece of land according to the allotment of Joshua. Also, as Block observes, “Simeon was the smallest tribe by far. This tribe’s twenty-two thousand men of military age were less than half the average of the other eleven tribes, so it was probably too small to receive an independent territorial grant. Within a century or two, Simeon ceased to exist as a separate tribe.”[2] Simeon’s tribe was absorbed into the tribe of Judah and comprised part of the southern kingdom later.

Gingrich argues that it was a lack of faith on Judah’s part to seek an alliance with his brother Simeon. He says, “God commanded The Judahites to go against the Canaanites and He promised them victory. The Judahites’ request for help from the Simeonites reveals a lack of faith in the promises of God on the part of the Judahites.”[3] However, most commentators agree with me, as well they should! An agreeing commentator says, “The strength of two is greater than the strength of one. The wisdom of two is better than the wisdom of one. In cooperation, one can supply what the other lacks. One has courage, another has prudence. One has the knowledge; another knows how to use it. One has wealth, the other has the wit to use wealth. One has wisdom but is ‘slow of speech;’ the other ‘can speak well,’ but is foolish in counsel (Exod. 32.). No man has all the qualities which go to make up perfect action, and therefore no man should think to do without the help of his fellow man. It is a presumptuous state of mind which makes a man seem sufficient to himself, and an uncharitable state of mind which prompts him to withhold help from his fellow.”[4] Paul applies these ideas to Christians in Romans 12:4-5. He writes, “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them.”

[1] Lindsey, F. Duane. 1985. “Judges.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 1:377. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[2] Block, Daniel Isaac. 1999. Judges, Ruth. Vol. 6. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[3] Gingrich, Roy E. 2006. The Books of Judges & Ruth. Memphis, TN: Riverside Printing.

[4] Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. 1909. Judges. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

Tags: ,
Permalink
Joshua 1:4

Thy Kingdom Come

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 4, 2023

God charges Joshua with the responsibility to take the land that he had promised to Abraham in Joshua 1:4. He says, “From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory.” That is a huge piece of land and as Jackman observes, “The area described in verse 4 is enormous, though very much in tune with the original promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18–20. David Oginde comments, ‘In terms of current political boundaries, the promised land would thus cover modern Israel, the whole of Jordan, a large part of Saudi Arabia, half of Iraq, the whole of Lebanon, part of Syria and the whole of Kuwait!’ But as he points out, even at the height of the monarchy in the days of David and Solomon, Israel only occupied a small section of this total area.”[1] I can only imagine what the world would be like for democratic countries if Israel occupied all that land today. It would change the world in unimaginable ways.

David would expand Israel’s territorial control, and under his son Solomon, they would have authority over the whole land but would not occupy it. One commentator suggested that after Joshua conquered the land, he took ownership of the whole area as God had promised. At the close of Joshua’s book, we read, “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” So, the land was theirs. They had control over it but didn’t finish the job! And it was possessed by the various nations around them.

Why the conquest of all of the promised land has never been accomplished has been explained in several ways. God said he had left their enemies in the land to test them, to see if they will remain faithful. In another passage, it’s asserted that their enemies were allowed to retain control of parts of the land so that Israel would learn war. Israel sinned again God repeatedly throughout their history in the land beginning immediately with the period of the Judges. Another passage suggests that Israel wanted to keep them for slave labor. Further, they were afraid of animals and wild beasts that would dominate the land if they drove out the human inhabitants too soon. Regardless of the reason, failing to take and control the entire promised land ended up with the destruction of the home state of Israel for thousands of years. It would not be until 1948 that the modern nation of Israel was established following World War II. Now, 80 years later, Israel has become a thriving nation and the longest-established democracy in the Middle East. Yet many of its neighbors remain hostile, and a Palestinian movement seeks to develop its own nation within the borders of modern Israel’s territory. The land that surrounds modern Israel is occupied by the descendants that Israel failed to drive out. They have determined to drive Israel out even now. Israel is always at war with them in one way or another. But don’t forget, the Bible teaches that God will eventually fulfill the promise to give Israel full control over the Promised Land. Israel’s full territory will ultimately be ruled by the Messiah during the Millennium. God’s promises, partly fulfilled throughout history, will have complete, literal, fulfillment prior to God’s creation of new heavens and a new earth. The words of the “Our Father” will one day be answered.

[1] Jackman, David. 2014. Joshua: People of God’s Purpose. Edited by R. Kent Hughes. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Tags:
Permalink
Deuteronomy 1:3b-4

God Says “Amen!”

Filed Under: Devotions by Chuck
April 3, 2023

There are disagreements as to whether Moses got his name from his mother or Pharoah’s daughter, but one thing is for sure. He is the only figure in the Bible with that name. That makes him a very special character. From his encounter with God at the burning bush in the early chapters of Exodus, Moses became God’s spokesman. First, to the Israelite slaves and then to Pharoah himself. He was not excited about the role but fulfilled the calling with honor. He spoke with God’s authority both to Pharoah and then for forty years to the Israelites as they journeyed or wandered through the wilderness on their way to the promised land.

These words of Moses came after the defeat of the two Amorite kings, Og and Sihon. Interestingly, we don’t find any direct extra-biblical mention of these two kinds. But Biblical Archaeology is always turning up new things. I would love to see these two names discovered in ancient digs east of the Jordan where they lived. Bashan, Ashtaroth, and Edrei are known sites in that area. Sihon was the king who refused to grant Israel passage through their territory on their way to Canaan. Sihon was the king of the Amorites but we’re not sure of Og. So as Merrill observes, “The ethnic identity of the people of Bashan is unclear though Og himself is said to have been a Rephaite giant who required an iron bed.”[1] He required an iron bed because he was so big! He was one of the giants in the land from whom Goliath is a descendant. Put taking the land just to the east of the Jordan river opened access to the promised land to the Israelites. Moses needed to speak to them because he knew he wouldn’t be going with them and they would need final instructions on how they should live in the land.

After the Israelites, under Moses’ leadership, defeated the two kings of the Amorites, God told Moses to speak to the people again and gave him something specific to say to them. Deuteronomy 1:3b-4 says, “Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the Lord had given him in commandment to them after he had defeated Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth and Edrei.” Whatever God told Moses to say, he said! That Moses’ was faithful to deliver the exact words of God is very important. One Jewish commentator observed, “The theological question strikes us from the moment we open this fifth Book of the Bible: Moses is speaking with his voice to the people of Israel. Each of the other four biblical books are written in the third person, in God’s voice, as it were, recording the history, narrating the drama, and commanding the laws. This fifth book is written in the first person. Does this mean that the first four books are God’s Bible and the fifth Moses’ Bible?”[2] No, of course not and this short passage is one statement that affirms Moses’ words being inspired by God through Moses’ personality much like the authors of the New Testament. My Jewish commentator continued, “In the book of Deuteronomy, he spoke to his people, telling them not God’s words but his own, and God commanded him to write down the words of this Book as well for all eternity, God was granting the Divine imprimatur of Torah to Moses’ Book of Deuteronomy — and making it His (God’s) Book as well. Moses spoke and God answered Amen.” We say that about the books of the New Testament as well.

[1] Merrill, Eugene H. 1994. Deuteronomy. Vol. 4. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[2] https://www.jewishtimes.com/moses-spoke-and-god-answered-amen/

Tags:
Permalink
sewa motor jogja
© Chuck Larsen 2019. Powered by WordPress.