Skip to main content

What I wish I said about Deuteronomy - Covenant and Affection

ORRIGHT. With a bit of time, I've thought of everything I wish I'd said about Deuteronomy last weekend at the TLC conference (*slaps forehead*).
The main idea of Deuteronomy is: "love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,", and "love your neighbour as yourself". I said this in the first talk, but I didn't work it into the talks enough (*slaps forehead again*).
I should have talked more about the interaction between covenant love and affective love. The LORD brought the Isralites into a relationship with himself as a formal transaction. In rescuing them from the Egyptians, he's made them to be his people - in his place, under his rule.
In response, he calls them to love him with their whole selves. This is his covenant with them. It's a relationship that is both formal and emotional. Like a marriage. It's a formal transaction; but it's not just formal, it's affectionate as well. In my talks, I should have made more of this interaction between covenant and affection. I even talked about how the Prophets use the marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between the LORD and the Israelites - but still didn't think of this relationship between covenant and affection! (*slaps forehead yet again*).
So, Deuteronomy is all about how to respond in love (= with our whole selves, body & soul) to the God who saves us in order to bring us under his rule (= covenant). I even talked about how Gal 3:15 says Christ took our curse in order that Abraham's blessing (= being God's people, in God's place, under God's rule) might come to the Gentiles - but still didn't think of covenant and affection...! (*slaps forehead a fourth time*).
I should have titled my talks:
1. Why the LORD is worthy of all our our love (he saved the Israelites - and us - by his grace, through faith);
2. What it looks like to love of the LORD and our neighbour (the detailed laws of Deut 12-27);
3. looking forward to the time when we really will love with our whole selves (the promise of the new covenant in Deut 30-31).
I had the elements of all of these in the talks, but I didn't bring them out enough (*takes tablet for headache brought on by repeated slappings of forehead...*).
Relax - I don't think anything I said was wrong. It's just that I could have said it better - clearer, deeper, more comprehensive. Anyway... I hope I can do better next time.
Uh - anyone want an overview of Deuteronomy in three talks...?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...
Post a Comment
Read more