Deuteronomy 28

Rebekka · Jul 15, 2015

Deuteronomy 28 is used in various churches to make Christians aware that if they are disobedient to God, curses will follow.
How, if so, does that text apply to Christians today? After all, Zjesus died for our sins and there's forgiveness of sins through that?
Then why is that text still used to submit people into obedience? God wants us to please Him but not out of fear but because we love Him!

URAVIP2ME · Jul 15, 2015

Rebekka said:
Deuteronomy 28 is used in various churches to make Christians aware that if they are disobedient to God, curses will follow.
How, if so, does that text apply to Christians today? After all, jesus died for our sins and there's forgiveness of sins through that?
Then why is that text still used to submit people into obedience? God wants us to please Him but not out of fear but because we love Him!

First of all, the ' fear of God ' is Not meant in meaning being afraid, nor being in fright, but ' reverential fear ' such as a loving child would have wholesome fear of displeasing a loving parent.

Yes, Jesus died for all - 1 John 1:7 - but Not all will repent - 2 Peter 3:9 - that is why Matthew 20:28 says Jesus' ransom price for us covers MANY and does Not say all.

Those who commit the unforgivable sin - Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6 - are classed as being wicked who will be destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7

Nietzsche · Jul 15, 2015

Rebekka said:
Deuteronomy 28 is used in various churches to make Christians aware that if they are disobedient to God, curses will follow.
How, if so, does that text apply to Christians today? After all, Zjesus died for our sins and there's forgiveness of sins through that?
Then why is that text still used to submit people into obedience? God wants us to please Him but not out of fear but because we love Him!

The word 'fear' is largely a translation problem. Not an error, just a situation where that particular word has different emphasis. 'Fear' here would be more akin to "reverence" or "awe" rather than "afraid".

Rebekka · Jul 15, 2015

That passage is used though to I still fear into Christians and therefore give them a negative picture of God. Also, it's used to give people the wrong impression that God can be manipulated and has to bless them.

savethedreams · Jul 15, 2015

1) Do Christians still use Deuteronomy book or did Jesus ' do away' with law and matters of the old testament?

2) What is the purpose of 'fear' in God's perspective?

Muffled · Jul 18, 2015

Rebekka said:
Deuteronomy 28 is used in various churches to make Christians aware that if they are disobedient to God, curses will follow.
How, if so, does that text apply to Christians today? After all, Zjesus died for our sins and there's forgiveness of sins through that?
Then why is that text still used to submit people into obedience? God wants us to please Him but not out of fear but because we love Him!

I beleive it does not apply to a person who has Jesus as Lord because one always obeys one's Lord. Some people who call themselves Christians think that by following Jesus that they are just following a new law. For them all the law including Deu. 28 is valid.

I don't know the context but I believe many pastors are preaching to both the saved and unsaved in their congregations.

I believe both are true. God wants us to love Him and also wants us to have a healthy respect for His power.

Muffled · Jul 18, 2015

Nietzsche said:
The word 'fear' is largely a translation problem. Not an error, just a situation where that particular word has different emphasis. 'Fear' here would be more akin to "reverence" or "awe" rather than "afraid".

I believe I have to admit that I am in awe of God who can open up the ground and swallow people into it.

Nietzsche · Jul 18, 2015

Muffled said:
I believe I have to admit that I am in awe of God who can open up the ground and swallow people into it.

Well yes. But the way the passage reads in modern English implies one should cower before God, when in actuality it means something more along the lines of reverence.

Muffled · Jul 18, 2015

Nietzsche said:
Well yes. But the way the passage reads in modern English implies one should cower before God, when in actuality it means something more along the lines of reverence.

I beleive I can't imagine someone not shaking in their boots before the all powerful God but in my estimation the word fear means to change ones ways because one does not wish to face the consequences of an angry God.

Nietzsche · Jul 18, 2015

Muffled said:
I beleive I can't imagine someone not shaking in their boots before the all powerful God but in my estimation the word fear means to change ones ways because one does not wish to face the consequences of an angry God.

This isn't really a debate though. The word used for 'fear' is "Yirah", which doesn't have the negative connotations that the English "fear" does. Or rather, in this context it doesn't. This isn't me laying my own interpretation onto the Bible, this is me telling you what this word means in this sentence.

Tumah · Jul 18, 2015

Nietzsche said:
This isn't really a debate though. The word used for 'fear' is "Yirah", which doesn't have the negative connotations that the English "fear" does. Or rather, in this context it doesn't. This isn't me laying my own interpretation onto the Bible, this is me telling you what this word means in this sentence.

Points for recognizing the difference. The word for fear (PaḤaD) is found later in this same chapter in verses 66 and 67.

I wonder though. Isn't it weird when the condition for the curses in Deut. 28 is "not doing all the things of this Torah" and Christians only do some of the things, that they would still want to consider themselves bound by this treaty?

Nietzsche · Jul 18, 2015

Tumah said:
Points for recognizing the difference. The word for fear (PaḤaD) is found later in this same chapter in verses 66 and 67.

I wonder though. Isn't it weird when the condition for the curses in Deut. 28 is "not doing all the things of this Torah" and Christians do some of the things, that they would still wantto consider themselves bound by this treaty?

We don't take kindly to people pointing out inconsistencies. You need Jesus, ya'hear?

Kolibri · Jul 25, 2015

I've heard the comparison used recently of 'fearing' gravity. If we 'respect' gravity it helps us. If we 'disregard' it, we get hurt. Likewise, if we respect our loving parent, we experience less pain. If we disregard our loving parent to an extreme degree we might find ourselves without a roof over our heads so our parent can provide a safe haven for those that do show loving regard for others.

psychoslice · Jul 25, 2015

I think that people will cherry pick anything in the bible to support their belief system, for me personally the book Deuteronomy is a backward thinking belief that may have served a purpose back years ago, but should not be used today.

Kolibri · Jul 25, 2015

Tumah said:
that they would still want to consider themselves bound by this treaty?

Around 50 C.E. there were people in the Christian congregations that were pushing for a mandatory keeping of parts of the Law. But their motive was self-serving.

"All those who want to make a good impression in the flesh (or "who want to look good outwardly.") are the ones who try to compel you to get circumcised, doing so only to avoid being persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ. For even those who are getting circumcised do not keep the Law themselves, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may have a cause for boasting about your flesh." - Galatians 6:12-13

If though a Christian worships the same God under a different arrangement, and sees that God as a Person with his own value system, then the Law remains of much value. The Law may not be binding, but the Law is based on principles that have not changed. The Law also was so complete in setting a high standard of morality that no man could attempt to follow it completely without realizing that it is impossible not to be personally convicted by it. It encouraged those living by it to recognize how pitiful our condition as imperfect is. Deserving of death, we need someone to pay our debt we cannot otherwise avoid.

Hear this all you peoples.
Pay attention, all you inhabitants of the world, (or "system of things.")
...
None of them can ever redeem a brother
Or give to God a ransom for him,
(The ransom (or "redemption.") price for their life (or "soul.") is so precious
That it is always beyond their reach);
That he should live forever and not see the pit. (or "grave.")
...
Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever,
Their tents to generation after generation.
They have named their estates after themselves.
But man, although honored, will not remain;
He is no better than the beasts that perish.
...
They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. (or "Sheol.")
Death will shepherd them;
The upright will rule over them in the morning.
Every trace of them will fade away;
The Grave rather than a palace will be their home.
But God will redeem me (or "my soul.") from the power (lit. "hand.") of the Grave,
For he will take hold of me.
- Psalms 49:1; Psalms 49:7-9; Psalms 49:11-12; Psalms 49:14-15

Tumah · Jul 25, 2015

Kolibri said:
Around 50 C.E. there were people in the Christian congregations that were pushing for a mandatory keeping of parts of the Law. But their motive was self-serving.

"All those who want to make a good impression in the flesh (or "who want to look good outwardly.") are the ones who try to compel you to get circumcised, doing so only to avoid being persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ. For even those who are getting circumcised do not keep the Law themselves, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may have a cause for boasting about your flesh." - Galatians 6:12-13

If though a Christian worships the same God under a different arrangement, and sees that God as a Person with his own value system, then the Law remains of much value. The Law may not be binding, but the Law is based on principles that have not changed. The Law also was so complete in setting a high standard of morality that no man could attempt to follow it completely without realizing that it is impossible not to be personally convicted by it. It encouraged those living by it to recognize how pitiful our condition as imperfect is. Deserving of death, we need someone to pay our debt we cannot otherwise avoid.

Hear this all you peoples.
Pay attention, all you inhabitants of the world, (or "system of things.")
...
None of them can ever redeem a brother
Or give to God a ransom for him,
(The ransom (or "redemption.") price for their life (or "soul.") is so precious
That it is always beyond their reach);
That he should live forever and not see the pit. (or "grave.")
...
Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever,
Their tents to generation after generation.
They have named their estates after themselves.
But man, although honored, will not remain;
He is no better than the beasts that perish.
...
They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. (or "Sheol.")
Death will shepherd them;
The upright will rule over them in the morning.
Every trace of them will fade away;
The Grave rather than a palace will be their home.
But God will redeem me (or "my soul.") from the power (lit. "hand.") of the Grave,
For he will take hold of me.
- Psalms 49:1; Psalms 49:7-9; Psalms 49:11-12; Psalms 49:14-15

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the reason Christians would quote Deut. 28's curses which were contingent on not following all the Scriptural commands (v. 15) is because they feel that even though they are not bound to follow Scriptural commands, they could still pick the ones they want to do and then apply the curses to anyone who doesn't do those specific ones. Is that correct?

OneThatGotAway · Jul 25, 2015

I believe that if a man keeps Deuteronomy 28 that they will receive the blessings even today.
Because Psalms 19:7 says that the law of Yahweh is perfect and refreshes the soul.
And Psalm 119:77 says that the law is a delight.
A man will have to show that the law of Yahweh is no longer perfect, refreshing, or a delight.

Kolibri · Jul 25, 2015

Tumah said:
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the reason Christians would quote Deut. 28's curses which were contingent on not following all the Scriptural commands (v. 15) is because they feel that even though they are not bound to follow Scriptural commands, they could still pick the ones they want to do and then apply the curses to anyone who doesn't do those specific ones. Is that correct?

No. That is not what I mean. True, some people may do that. And it would be very unloving and inappropriate to do so. The curse only applied to those bound by the Law, and Jehovah had that Law removed at the moment of Jesus' death. The clause for the redemption from a Law that could not be followed curselessly was given at Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Someone that could live by the Law covenant perfectly had to become cursed in place of all the rest.

Most of the Jews in Jesus' day and thereafter continue to believe that the Law is still in effect when it is not. Illustrating that the new covenant arrangement would not be like the old and yet the old would not be easily set aside, Jesus gave this illustration:

"Nobody cuts a patch from a new outer garment and sews it on an old garment. If he does, then the new patch tears away and the patch from the new garment does not match the old. Also, no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the wineskins and it will be spilled out and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins. No one after drinking old wine wants new, for he says, 'The old is nice.'" - Luke 5:36-39

(This reminds me of Jeremiah 31:32, in that the new covenant "will not be like the covenant [made at the time of the exodus]".)

Anyhow, the curses were bound to those under the Law. Since that legal contract has been fulfilled with it's conditions satisfied, the curses written therein are logically also set aside. The promises given to Abraham and David however were not bound to that particular covenant. Those precious promises are already in the process of being fulfilled.

Kolibri · Jul 26, 2015

We still learn many things from the Law that apply to Christians. A few of these things are:

Jehovah is the true God and he does not share his rightful due in devotion with anyone else.
Sacred things are not to be treated as something ordinary/common.
Our sacrifices to Jehovah must be our "very best", our "firstfruits", not our leftovers - this was true regardless if it is a voluntary gift of sincere gratitude, an required offering to sue for peace, or in the treating Jehovah as an honored guest as we share in a peaceful relationship with him along with our spiritual brothers.
Jehovah, while allowing us much freedom, requires strict obedience.
Do not allow mundane, everyday concerns to prevent making spiritual concerns our priority.
Jehovah requires that we treat his name as sacred.
We need to be holy (clean) and set apart (sacred) as we imitate and represent our heavenly Father.
Sin always requires atonement, and some sins are too serious to have their penalty canceled out.
Penalties are to be more severe for those in positions of oversight.
Penalties are to be in proportion not only to the wrong but also to the ability to pay.
Showing love for our fellowman should be evident in all aspects of our life.
The right to produce children is something Jehovah holds in high regard.
Unintentional wrongs are not to be treated as severely as willful sin.
Jehovah cares deeply for orphans and widows.

This list of principles is by no means exhaustive.

Tumah · Jul 26, 2015

Kolibri said:
No. That is not what I mean. True, some people may do that. And it would be very unloving and inappropriate to do so. The curse only applied to those bound by the Law, and Jehovah had that Law removed at the moment of Jesus' death. The clause for the redemption from a Law that could not be followed curselessly was given at Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Someone that could live by the Law covenant perfectly had to become cursed in place of all the rest.

Most of the Jews in Jesus' day and thereafter continue to believe that the Law is still in effect when it is not. Illustrating that the new covenant arrangement would not be like the old and yet the old would not be easily set aside, Jesus gave this illustration:

"Nobody cuts a patch from a new outer garment and sews it on an old garment. If he does, then the new patch tears away and the patch from the new garment does not match the old. Also, no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the wineskins and it will be spilled out and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins. No one after drinking old wine wants new, for he says, 'The old is nice.'" - Luke 5:36-39

(This reminds me of Jeremiah 31:32, in that the new covenant "will not be like the covenant [made at the time of the exodus]".)

Anyhow, the curses were bound to those under the Law. Since that legal contract has been fulfilled with it's conditions satisfied, the curses written therein are logically also set aside. The promises given to Abraham and David however were not bound to that particular covenant. Those precious promises are already in the process of being fulfilled.

So that is the answer to the question I asked in context of the OP which stated that "Deut. 28 is used in various churches..."

Deuteronomy 28

New Member

Veteran Member

The Last Prussian

New Member

Active Member

Jesus in me

Jesus in me

The Last Prussian

Jesus in me

The Last Prussian

Veteran Member

The Last Prussian

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Servant of Yahweh God Almighty

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member