Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[22Ματθαῖος37]

If we are obedient to God, is there any reason why we are not still
entitled to the blessings promised in Deuteronomy 28:2-14?

[jimwalton]

The short answer is that we are not entitled to the specific blessings promised in Dt. 28, because it’s not our covenant—it was not made with us. This was the old covenant made with Israel. This was written to physical Israel and the blessings are physical blessings promised to Israel. What God promises to us is what is listed in Ephesians 1 and the spiritual blessings, because we are the spiritual Israel.

The principle is still good, however. The text calls for obedience to the Lord, and that principle still applies: we will be blessed if we obey, but not with these particular items. God blesses us with all the spiritual blessings in Christ.

[22Ματθαῖος37]

Is anyone still entitled to those blessings? Who?

[jimwalton]

Great question. I always promise to be totally honest with people, and to be totally honest, this is a huge dispute with many Christians on either side of the issue. It is unresolvable. There are only opinions. Sorry I can't give you a better answer than that, but if I did, it would only be an opinion with no particular biblical authority in it, and I'd rather not do that.

[22Ματθαῖος37]

Not of any critical importance, but I'm still having trouble with the concept of the blessings being blessings only to a "nation" and somehow not individually directed and also not applicable to Christians

Deut 27:11-12 says "Moses also charged the people on that day saying, when you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people . . " The plain language seems to suggest this is a blessing to "people" (i.e. in addition to any blessings to the "nation").

Counterpart to blessings at Mount Gerizim were simultaneous curses at Mount Ebal (Deut 27:13-26) and every curse is specifically and individually directed (i.e. "cursed is the man" and "cursed is he" - there's 12 of them in verses 15-26).

Blessings are in most cases very individually directed as well (e.g. "the offspring of your body", "the produce of your ground", "your basket", "your kneading bowl", "your barns", "all you put your hand to", etc.). Hard to read these as not being addressed in a personal and individual way as opposed to generalized national blessings.

The principle seems easy that if you are obedient to God he will bless your life and the fruits of you labor, etc. and I am having trouble understanding why that cannot be as true today as it was when the blessings were originally enunciated.

Sometimes it almost seems like Christians get into a persecution complex and don't want to accept that along with their spiritual uplifting, their physical day to day lives can be enhanced and bettered through faith as well. If God is the "Father" and we are his "children", what loving father would not want his children to succeed spiritually, physically, financially, etc. if they honored him and were obedient to him? Similar to Commandment #5 that you should honor your mother and father so that you will lead a long life and it will "go well" with you. Am I off the wall here?

I also wonder why Galatians 3:29 does not potentially bring those blessings to Christians? What kind of "heirs" are Christians then? The definition of "heirs" has always been historically rooted in the concept of the passing down of not only intangibles (heritage, nobility, etc.) but also physical aspects (land, wealth, etc.).

Not trying to stir up trouble for you - - just trying to figure some things out.

Jim - Thanks for your responses thus far!

[jimwalton]

> I'm still having trouble with the concept of the blessings being blessings only to a "nation" and somehow not individually directed and also not applicable to Christians

The societies of the OT were definitely community-oriented. Many elements of ancient life were seen in light of the whole rather than as individuals, as opposed to what things are like here in America where we are radically individualistic. You'll notice in Joshua 7 than when Achan sinned (at the end of Josh. 6) it affected the whole country. Many of the commands, injunctions, or judgments of the OT are directed at Israel or at other nations. A quick scan through Isaiah will reveal the truth of that.

> The plain language seems to suggest this is a blessing to "people" (i.e. in addition to any blessings to the "nation")

Not so. Dt. 27.9 shows that Israel is "the people." So it's not as if he is speaking to individuals within the nation, but to the nation as a people group. While it's obvious that a nation is made up of individuals, and the individuals are who must obey, He is addressing and mandating them as a nation, a "people of God".

So also with the curses. The curses here are not statements of what will happen to the one breaking the covenant, but statements calling down unspecified curses on particular types of covenant-breaking conduct. This section constitutes a solemn oath entered into by the people (the nation as a whole, as evidenced by the repetitive corporate "amen" at the end of each) concerning secret violations. Such oath-taking ceremonies regularly accompanied international treaties. They were pledging themselves as a nation, as God's people, to follow the covenant.

> I am having trouble understanding why that cannot be as true today as it was when the blessings were originally enunciated.

Blessings are true today. The New Testament is full of them. Jesus' beatitudes at the beginning of Mt. 5 are a perfect example, but there are many others. God does intend to bless us, and he does bless his people.

> Sometimes it almost seems like Christians get into a persecution complex and don't want to accept that along with their spiritual uplifting, their physical day to day lives can be enhanced and bettered through faith as well.

We have to have a balanced and Scriptural perspective. While God promises blessings (Eph. 1.3 et al), he also promises a life of suffering (Phil. 3.10 et al). Sometimes we experience God's blessings, sometimes his discipline (Heb. 12.5-11), and sometimes great suffering (Heb. 11.35b-38 et al). There are no guarantees from God that life will be sunny and filled with health and wealth. Some do get to experience that, but others are persecuted, tortured, and martyred (http://www.persecution.com, The Voice of the Martyrs).

As far as Commandment #5, the promise of long life is a proverb, not a guarantee. Long life was believed to be the result of knowing God and following his ways, and being righteous. People who honored their parents were not being guaranteed a long life, but clearly such was seen to be a clear sign of God’s blessing. Anything that brought long life, in their minds, was a sign of God’s blessing for a life well-lived. While long life is not automatically a sign of God’s blessing, one could hope that as one lives God’s way, the result will be long life and prosperity. All things being equal, those who honor those God has put in authority over one in life will live longer than those who spur authority and rebel against it.

As to Galatians 3.29, the promise to Abraham that is the point of Galatians, and Paul's point, is that of salvation by faith. It is justification through Christ by faith, not by obedience to the Law. As Hebrews 3-4 makes clear, the "rest" we enter is not that of land, barns, crops, etc., but salvation and the heavenly rest in which God dwells. We share not in an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one (Heb. 3.14). The promise of entering God's rest still stands (Heb. 4.1ff.), but it's the kingdom of God, not the physical and material blessings of the old covenant.

What kind of heirs are we? We are heirs of a relationship with God (Gal. 4.1-7). We are justified on the basis of a relationship, and not anything else.

[22Ματθαῖος37]

I very much appreciate your replies - - thank you. I know you put a lot of effort into your replies to try to make them scripturally accurate but what bothers me about what I will call the "doesn't apply analysis":

1. If we just look at things strictly in light of historical perspectives, then an argument can just about always be made that very little in the Bible applies to us today or it means something different than the plain language indicates.

2. Example: If you take the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and put it in the historical perspective of the militias needing to muster arms for the common defense, one could easily say (as has been repeatedly argued by the anti 2nd Amendment contingent) that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not apply to individuals (i.e. just like the Deuteronomy blessings to the "people" do not really give the individual "people" anything).

3. It escapes me that somehow "the people" get blessed, but because the blessings were supposed to be to a "nation", "the people" really don't get the blessings flowing to them individually even though they were openly and publicly promised to them.

I am not beckoning a reply here and please do not feel you need to reply, especially if you are wondering if your efforts are being wasted on me. I do appreciate your replies, your efforts and your deep thinking.

This is a great forum!

God be with you!

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the response. I'll reply because I want to!

We always do have to be careful as we interpret and apply Scripture. Sometimes it gets tricky figuring out what still applies to us and what doesn't, and if it does, how does it. We know that the Bible, like the law, history, or any literature, needs to be interpreted. Scholars work full time on this stuff, and sometimes even they disagree.

We know that certain pieces of the OT still apply. In Matthew 5 when Jesus was quoting the OT, he didn't take those away. He did add to them, but didn't negate what was there:

Don't murder—that still applies, but watch your anger too.
Don't commit adultery—that still applies, but watch your eyes, thoughts, and heart.
Don't divorce—that still applies, but there are other things to consider too.

But then we get to a text like Mark 7.19, where Jesus declares all foods clean, an obvious "doesn't apply analysis". Ah, so now that we know some still apply and some don't, now we have to try to interpret which is which. We evidently don't have all of one (none of it applies) or all of the other (all of it still applies).

So we don't just look at things strictly in the light of historical perspectives. There are contextual studies, linguistic analyses, NT teachings, hermeneutics, etc. We never interpret Scripture lightly or casually, but despite our efforts, sometimes Christians disagree about how to interpret some texts.

> It escapes me that somehow "the people" get blessed, but because the blessings were supposed to be to a "nation", "the people" really don't get the blessings flowing to them individually even though they were openly and publicly promised to them.

Individual people DO get blessed—their farm is productive, or their family is healthy, or their flocks are abundant. Those are individual blessings. But it's also true that sometimes as the nation prospers, that trickles down to the individuals. (That happens in America—when the economy is robust, my personal life is better: bank interest rates, prices in stores, etc.). So the people DO get blessed when the nation is blessed. But the promise is to the nation, and it will affect individuals, in the same sense when too many individual ignore the covenant, it affects the nation. It's all integrated and mutually dependent.

So what I am saying is that since God was issuing blessings to the nation, that's how we have to read it. Individuals will also be blessed through that, but the blessing was a covenantal blessing to God's covenant people—the nation of Israel. Does this (Dt. 28) pass to us as Christians? No, but God certainly pours out plenty of blessings on us as Christians, both as a Church (corporate) and as believers (individual). He also issues warnings to us as a Church (Rev. 2-3) and as individual believers.