Joshua 20-21

This passage starts by talking about 'cities of refuge'. These are places where an Israelite can run to, if they have unintentionally killed someone. God hates murder, not death - this is partly why war is (sort of) acceptable, whereas intentionally looking for somone to kill in malice is evil. In the passage, it speaks of a situation where a man who has killed by mistake (industrial accident perhaps) then runs to the city of refuge and stands before the elders, giving account of why he needs sanctuary. The elders are to protect the manslayer, and not to hand him over to anyone who comes looking for him, but instead must hold a trial. Numbers 35 looks at this in great detail and is a brilliant example of an early civilisation lawbook - holding that it is the sin and the actions of the man that need to be judged, not how high the man comes in the pecking order. 

The role of the elders and their open acceptance and protection of someone who has killed unintentionally seems to me to talk of community. The manslayer is to seek protection and to have it granted - but not as a half-citizen, fleeing from the wrath of one wronged, dodging the law and hoping for freedom. Instead, he is to openly be accepted and to become part of the society. He is to be fairly judged and not simply under the testimony of one witness. All of this is done in the context of community and indicates the emphasis that the Israelite people where to place on community. 

I find it interesting that the city of Hebron (Kiriath-arba) is given into the care of the Levites. It had been in the centre of so much warfare, strife and division that its being handed over to the Levites is somehow funny. 

Verse 21:45 ends on a particularly sunny note;- 'None of the good promises the Lord had made to the house of ISrael failed. Everything was fulfilled.' After all the lists of everything that has occured, what has been divided, when and how; it feels like a positive full stop to end the passage there. 

Psalm 51:14-19

This is continuing the theme of penitence. Asking that God save him from his guilt - David has an almost tit-for-tat attitude - not in a malicious way, but he honestly acknowledges that when he knows that God has granted salvation from David's evil deeds, that he will turn his repentance into thanksgiving. Perhaps we are missing something in our worldview in the 21st century? Perhaps we should remember that God is a God who saves us from all evil and forgivess us our sins and debts against him. Perhaps we should pray like David - that we seek God's salvtion, and that when we find it - or when it is granted us - we know that we will worship Him. Perhaps David's realistic view of his sin and his God is something we've forgotten - David doesn't hide and hope that God won't notice the bad things he's done - once convicted, David sets our wholeheartedly to ask for forgiveness and worship his good and gracious God. 

David also recognises a pleasing sacrifice not as being the biggest or best that a man can do for God, burn for God or give to God - instead, he sees that God loves a humbled heart - one that sees himself as broken, needing God desperately. Again, do we see ourselves like this before our Holy God?

This psalm ends on an upbeat petition. These are songs - and they were sung by huge crowds - this people have sung that God doesn't want empty sacrifices (acknowledging that a physical sacrifice is not God's ultimate desire) but that God desires a people whose heart is soft and humble before him - they are asking for God to build them up in righteousness, and their sacrifices will come from a right heart. 

Proverbs 21:13-14

Verse 13 is typically confusing - an evil man being trapped by rebellious speech is dtraightforward enough, but the righteous man escaping from trouble doesn't make quite as much sense - what does he mean? That righteousness are saved even though they are rebellious? And does that feed into my understanding of righteousness being conveyed by God's grace, rather than by anything that we can do? 

Maybe not - maybe I'm reading too much into this. In the wider context, the surrounding parables are to do with contrasting righeous people against wicked people - and this seems to be another of those times. 

The second half of 14b makes enough sense - the work of a man's hands will reward him - being morally neutral, one could see this as being 'you reap what you sow'. And fair enough, I suppose. The first half is just confusing, and I'm going to leave it there for now. 

Luke 18:24-43

Jesus looks on the rich man and sees in him someone who cannot leave his wealth behind to follow God. He challenges him to do so and when the rich man is unable to, the young man leaves, saddened. Jesus then uses hyperbole to show the impossibility of rich men getting to heaven. The people of the time would have been shocked to hear that the rich aren't able to get into heaven - they (as many do now) would see wealth as being a reward from God - and clearly God would only reward the righteous?

Jesus then gives the disciples hope - those who have given away that which they have in this life will be rewarded in the kingdom of God. 

Jesus then gives a preveiw of his impending death and resurection, and then ends this passage with the kingdom of God coming in the form of sight being restored to sight - through the faith of the blind man.