21 July 2010
Psalm 119:49-72; Joshua 8:30-35; Rom. 14:13-23; Matt. 26:57-68

Now that they are in the land and have possession of some of it the time has come to worship the Lord who has been faithful and given them the land. They build an altar on Mt Ebal in obedience to the command to do so that had been given through Moses in Deuteronomy 27-28. They re-enacted the ceremony of reading blessings and curses that had been done in that same time in order to say that the law and the covenant are binding on us in this place, the earlier scene was essentially dress rehearsal for this moment when we begin living into the covenant. As the Lord has been faithful, so they remember that He has promised blessing for faithfulness and curses for disobedience. There is no unconditional promise of blessing and they agree to live into their covenant obligations.

Did the high priest have to put Jesus under oath to tell the truth? Is the point that if He swears under oath they will believe Him or have they already decided that He isn’t and the only point to the ceremony is to use this to convict Him? Clearly they have already determined that they evidence they have against Him won’t stand scrutiny and they know the Romans are going to demand something more than that Jesus said He could rebuild the temple in three days if they tear it down. That is hardly an offense for which the Romans will allow crucifixion. They immediately seize upon Jesus’ answer as blasphemy without attempting to discern whether it is true or not, that was already decided.

Sometimes people send me ridiculous false-equivalency emails comparing laws like two fabrics in a garment and food restrictions with homosexuality simply because we believe this conduct to be sinful. Their point is that we don’t enforce these others so why this one. Paul, in this epistle, makes clear that there is a distinction between these types of laws. In Romans 1 he lays out the rationale for why homosexuality matters and here he says why dietary laws do not, they are different categories of laws and thought. Jesus has already said that it isn’t what goes into a person that pollutes but what comes out of the heart. Food, likewise does not pervert a natural order or defile the image of God. Similarly, love isn’t the issue, sex is the issue. One is emotion and one is conduct. We are, however, even in respect to food and other things to keep in mind the conscience of the other and to not give offense. Does that mean that the “weaker” one determines what is acceptable for all? Not at all, it does, however, have an implication for us when we dine with the one who believes differently, we need to respect that belief so as not to cause them to stumble by our freedom.

Remember your word to your servant,
in which you have made me hope.
This is my comfort in my distress,
that your promise gives me life.