March 14, 2006 - Deuteronomy 23-25 and Mark 14:1-26
There are many things in the Bible that are still difficult for me to understand, even though I have been reading and studying it for years. I do not look at that as a bad thing at all. I believe that it shows that God is God, and I will never attain to His level of wisdom and knowledge. I will never have it all figured out, so I will need to submit to His wisdom and trust Him forever. That is how it ought to be, and that is how I want it to be in my life. However, it will be good to get to heaven and ask some questions about the Bible, too.
Chapter 23 contains a few of those hard things to understand. I had not remembered the verse about an illegitimate child and his descendants being excluded from the assembly of the people in Israel. Doesn't that seem strange? What did the child have to do with it? Why should the descendants be kept out of the assemblies of the people? As I asked God to show me His wisdom here, I believe He did bring a few things to light that help me. First of all, this does not mean the child and his family can't be saved, it is just that when Israel gathers they are excluded. This exclusion was to show others the lasting consequences of disobeying God's laws. Remember, what we read yesterday about not getting a divorce. One case was when a man forced himself on a lady. He was to marry her, and he could not divorce her. Therefore, if the people obeyed that law there would be no illegitimate births in Israel. The other case was excluding any Ammonite or Moabite from the assembly. One of Jesus' ancestors, Ruth, would have been excluded, and not only excluded, but she would not to be treated well either. (v.6) I know this was a punishment for how they treated Israel, but you can see that it does not mean they could not be saved or have any part in God's plan. It was a way of pointing out God's displeasure each time the assembly of Israel came together three times a year.
Then, in chapter 24 it has always puzzled me as to why God did not allow a wife to return to her first husband after a divorce. I believe it has to do with keeping order and making sure that people did not divorce too quickly without thinking through all of the consequences. However, in the New Testament we see how Jesus brought the full meaning to these laws. He made it clear that he did not want divorce for any reason. He made it clear that all peoples could come to Him, and they were one in Him. Therefore, I am confident that God had a very good reason for these things that I can't fully understand, so I should trust Him.
Chapter 25 contains the description of a brother marrying his brother's wife, when the husband died, so that the name of the brother could be carried on in Israel. Why was that such a big deal to the Lord? Doesn't that go against one man and one woman for life? I must trust that God had a good reason for emphasizing the family names in the Old Testament. There is no such need now, since we are one in Christ.
Then, in Mark 14 we read about Judas agreeing to betray Jesus after the incident where Jesus was anointed for burial in Bethany. It makes it plain that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born. (v.21) However, we might ask a question at this point. Why did God's plan call for Jesus to have one disciple who would never really believe in Him and who would betray Him in the end? That is God's wisdom, so I trust Him in His plan. I believe He did that to emphasize that we all have a choice to trust Jesus. Judas was right there with Jesus for 3 years, and he never trusted Him as Lord and Savior. What does that say to us? It is a heart matter. It is not a matter of environment. A person must choose to surrender his or her heart fully to Jesus, and that is a difficult commitment. I pray that you have come to know Christ. I pray that you have surrendered to Him today.
Tomorrow, I intend to read Deuteronomy 26-27 and Mark 14:27-53.
Chapter 23 contains a few of those hard things to understand. I had not remembered the verse about an illegitimate child and his descendants being excluded from the assembly of the people in Israel. Doesn't that seem strange? What did the child have to do with it? Why should the descendants be kept out of the assemblies of the people? As I asked God to show me His wisdom here, I believe He did bring a few things to light that help me. First of all, this does not mean the child and his family can't be saved, it is just that when Israel gathers they are excluded. This exclusion was to show others the lasting consequences of disobeying God's laws. Remember, what we read yesterday about not getting a divorce. One case was when a man forced himself on a lady. He was to marry her, and he could not divorce her. Therefore, if the people obeyed that law there would be no illegitimate births in Israel. The other case was excluding any Ammonite or Moabite from the assembly. One of Jesus' ancestors, Ruth, would have been excluded, and not only excluded, but she would not to be treated well either. (v.6) I know this was a punishment for how they treated Israel, but you can see that it does not mean they could not be saved or have any part in God's plan. It was a way of pointing out God's displeasure each time the assembly of Israel came together three times a year.
Then, in chapter 24 it has always puzzled me as to why God did not allow a wife to return to her first husband after a divorce. I believe it has to do with keeping order and making sure that people did not divorce too quickly without thinking through all of the consequences. However, in the New Testament we see how Jesus brought the full meaning to these laws. He made it clear that he did not want divorce for any reason. He made it clear that all peoples could come to Him, and they were one in Him. Therefore, I am confident that God had a very good reason for these things that I can't fully understand, so I should trust Him.
Chapter 25 contains the description of a brother marrying his brother's wife, when the husband died, so that the name of the brother could be carried on in Israel. Why was that such a big deal to the Lord? Doesn't that go against one man and one woman for life? I must trust that God had a good reason for emphasizing the family names in the Old Testament. There is no such need now, since we are one in Christ.
Then, in Mark 14 we read about Judas agreeing to betray Jesus after the incident where Jesus was anointed for burial in Bethany. It makes it plain that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born. (v.21) However, we might ask a question at this point. Why did God's plan call for Jesus to have one disciple who would never really believe in Him and who would betray Him in the end? That is God's wisdom, so I trust Him in His plan. I believe He did that to emphasize that we all have a choice to trust Jesus. Judas was right there with Jesus for 3 years, and he never trusted Him as Lord and Savior. What does that say to us? It is a heart matter. It is not a matter of environment. A person must choose to surrender his or her heart fully to Jesus, and that is a difficult commitment. I pray that you have come to know Christ. I pray that you have surrendered to Him today.
Tomorrow, I intend to read Deuteronomy 26-27 and Mark 14:27-53.