Deuteronomy 26 - Offerings of First fruit and Tithes | Bible Podcast, David Alley, Peace Christian Church

In this video listen to Deuteronomy 26 read by David Alley, followed by comments and prayer.In Deuteronomy 26 we have a key turning point in Moses' speech. The entire thing is a suzerainty treaty and we transition from the end of the terms, to the beginning of the outcomes for obedience/disobedience. Before the transition it refers to Abraham as “a wandering syrian” or in other translations “a wondering aramean” which is how this is commonly remembered.However Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees which to modern ears is neither Syrian or Aramean, but Chaldean. The answer here is simple - his family was from Aram as was seen in Genesis when Isaac was sent there to get a wife. But Terah had moved the family, including Abram to Ur of Chaldea, but was not ethnically Chaldean.Also before the key transition, it outlines how the tithe was to be spent every third year. It was to be given to the Levites, foreigners, fatherless, widows and the poor. Imagine a society where 10% of all revenue of an entire nation given every three years to the poor. Social care and concern in history began in the Law with the Lord our God.Now in 16-19 we start into the nitty gritty of a Suzerainty treaty, the arrangement a sovereign makes with a people who are becoming a part of his rule. This was something customary in ancient times, and God was making use of this as something many people would have been familiar with, to have a people whose monarch was God.Up until now we have had the terms, and in the following chapters we have the outcomes that will result from following these terms. It is very important to understand that the consequences of disobedience are what happens to people who do not follow God, even outside of a covenant. The implications of rejecting God are always catastrophic, but here it is formalised, and as we will see in chapters 27-28, it is also very prophetic.One key difference is that this treaty/covenant is relational in nature, whereas those of ancient near east treaties were not relational but power based.