Deuteronomy 16-17 is another of those passages that covers several topics, and it has led me to these three reflections about Passover, justice, and kingship.
First, there is this curious little phrase associate with the unleavened bread of Passover—bread of affliction. I didn’t study it extensively, but my concordance tells me that this is the only place this particular form of the phrase occurs. When we were in Exodus and bumped into unleavened bread the first time, I explained that bread with yeast appears to ‘bloat’ so there was some sense in which yeast was associated with decay. That makes good sense of, say, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, in which yeast is associated with malice and wickedness. Here, though, we have a different image. Now, I’m just thinking out loud, but my experience with unleavened bread is that it’s kind of tough and hard to eat. So, perhaps there’s a second aspect to the feast of unleavened bread—“You left in a hurry, and the bread you ate on the way out was like the slavery you were leaving—tough and hard to swallow.” It’s not a bad thing to remember what we were (look at St. Paul in Eph. 2:1 or Col. 1:21); as a matter of fact, remembering what we once were sustains our joy in what we now are.
The second thing that stood out for me today was 16:19-20: “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow.” This call for impartial justice, to set things right according to the values of the Lord, is sharpened in 17:6, which declares that you need at least two witnesses. It is sharpened even more by 17:7, namely, the witness has to be the first to throw a stone in punishment. It’s one thing to work behind the scenes, to slander and besmirch, another; it’s a whole other thing to be the instrument of punishment. It would take a pretty cold person to take part in the execution of another if one had exaggerated or made up one’s testimony against that person!
Finally, I was struck by the fact that the Lord gave them permission to set up a king—like the other nations. After all, in 1 Samuel, when they actually ask for a king, the Lord takes it as rejection of His reign (1 Sam. 8:7). So, then, why does the Lord give them permission beforehand? Perhaps it’s like parents and teenagers: we know they’re going to make choices of which we don’t approve, but if we see it coming we can we can maybe mitigate the damage they do. Imagine the conversation, “You want a tattoo? Well, you’re 18; I can’t legally stop you, but maybe I can influence where you get it and how big it is . . .” Or, “I can’t completely restrict the music that you’re listening to, but maybe I can keep you from embracing the worldview in those songs and keep you from listening to it so loud that you hurt your ears.” It does seem an odd thing that the Lord would allow something He wasn’t pleased with, but I suppose that’s the price of human will: He can’t make us act appropriately without destroying what He made us. So, He says, “You’re probably going to want a king; make sure he’s one of you and that he follows my laws, ok?”
--reposted from March 14, 2011
--reposted from March 14, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.