[Assignment] "We face this as caregivers. In our pastoral role we seek to support others for whom God seems silent, or distant, or even fully absent. But I'm asking us to be more vulnerable with each other in this discussion. Have you experienced the silence/distance/absence of God in your spiritual journey? How have you managed that? What has helped you?"
We know that God never leaves us nor forsakes (abandons) us. So what is he doing? Why is he silent?
What has helped us:
1. Press into God. When God seems silent and distant - pursue Him relentlessly. Pray, fast, read scripture, and do whatever it takes to change your daily lifestyle and routine to build more God-time into your day. Build quiet time into your day as well. I spent about a week in complete silence while driving in my car (which I drive often). I used this time to think, pray, listen, and dedicate to God. I combined a fast Easter weekend with my desire to hear from God. I woke up earlier (most days) to spend more time with God and took more opportunities throughout the day to pray. I was open with some trustworthy people to pray for us as well. Sometimes when we press into God and pursue Him, it still feels like He is moving away from us. This means we must be persistent in our intent and activity. However, we cannot think we will manipulate God by our faith-works, so our earnestness must be sincere. We must bear in mind the humble words of Jesus in Gethsemane, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26). We must be faithful in taking opportunities and making the most of our time with God, but we must also yield and consecrate our future to Him. We must trust that God’s ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are not ours (Is. 55). This gives us hope that God’s perspective is the ‘big picture’ and we only have a glimpse.
2. “Do what’s next.” This was the best, most simple piece of advice we recently received. When those times come that God seems distant, it is often that our world seems more chaotic and problematic. In those times we must seek the counsel of God (as said above) and trust that God will enable us to make the right decisions. Then, when we are faced with making decisions and moving forward, we look at what we can do (what we have the capability of doing) and go about doing it. We must be as discerning as possible and there is no excuse for carelessness. However, I have recently discovered that these are times when God wants faithful and obedient action from us.
3. Resist the Devil. I don’t know that I would say it that way when counseling someone, but we must resist those human urges to be angry, scared, frustrated, anxious, etc. Actually, we must keep those emotions within their proper perspective by taking our emotions and talking them over with God and a trusted partner (spouse, mentor, family member, friend, etc.). The negative aspect of emotion is easy to slip into and stay stuck in so we must develop healthy and appropriate ways of managing those emotions. In this way, we are resisting the Devil that would want us to stay faithless, hopeless, and frustrated (remember - steal, kill, destroy - Jn. 10).
4. There is power in praise. This could be combined with #3, but it deserves its own number. A book I read years ago transformed my thinking (“Prison to Praise” and/or “Power in Praise” by Merlin Carothers). When things get tough, the more things we can find to thank God for (give Him praise) – the better we are. Praise helps us be optimistic. It takes the focus off of our problems and puts the glory on God. It’s been said that ‘you get what you focus on’ and we don’t want our problems to get the glory.
This, of course, is not "Mike's Four Easy Steps to Hearing God" but a combination of all these (some more, some less) has been some of what my wife and I have learned over the years. By the grace of God we are not consumed!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Word Study from Joshua - Charam/Cherem/Herem
"Charam"
There are 52 occurrences of the word charam. It is most commonly translated “accursed.” However, according to Strong’s Concordance, other uses of the word suggest it to mean to consecrate, utterly destroy, devote, forfeit, and utterly slay. In Hebrew the word suggests "separating" or "devoting to God." We may understand it to be a term for setting apart or secluding, “specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction)” (Strong’s Concordance #2763). The word “charam” would be similar to the concept of consecration in this way. Just as qadhosh, means "holy" or "consecrated to the service" of God, it is not liable to be used for ordinary or secular purposes. So, the root of cherem means "devoting" to God anything which would, if it were spared, would corrupt or contaminate the religious life of Israel. As a result, the idea of destroying or exterminating is the surest way of avoiding such contamination. As the secondary definition implies, the word may also mean “to slit” (one’s nose, lip, ear, etc.) in such a way as to disfigure or mutilate (especially their face). Again, the term implies a separation. Matthew Henry’s commentary notes that:
“The great severity Joshua used towards those he conquered. He gave no quarter to man, woman, nor child, put to the sword all the souls (v. 28, 30, 32, 35, etc.), utterly destroyed all that breathed (v. 40), and left none remaining. Nothing could justify this military execution but that herein they did as the Lord God of Israel commanded (v. 40), which was sufficient not only to bear them out, and save them for the imputation of cruelty, but to sanctify what they did, and make it an acceptable piece of service to his justice.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Joshua Ch. 10)
Englishman’s Concordance notes that the most often use of the term is the dedication to destruction of the cities of the Canaanites and other neighboring cities. In this way, Israel was “exterminating” the inhabitants, and destroying (or appropriating as spoils) their possessions. From the NASB translation, we can see that the most common interpretation tends to imply complete (“utter”) destruction. The reason for this thinking is that everything that might affect the unique character of Israel was banned. Those things from pagan cultures might cause syncretization among the community. Therefore, all idols, idolatrous cities, and idolatrous persons must not be allowed to influence the community.
The NASB notes the various usages of the word throughout the Old Testament:
annihilate (1), covet (1), destroy them utterly (1), destroy utterly (1), destroyed them utterly (1), destroying (1), destroying them completely (2), destruction (2), devote (2), forfeited (1), set apart (1), sets apart (1), utterly destroy (11), utterly destroyed (22), utterly destroying (3).
In terms of quantity and clusters of usage, there are six instances for the word he·ḥĕ·rîm:
Joshua 8:26 “…until he had utterly destroyed all….”
Joshua 10:28 “…of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every….”
Joshua 10:35 “…of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day….”
Joshua 10:40 “…survivor, but he utterly destroyed all….”
Joshua 11:12 “…of the sword, [and] utterly destroyed them….”
1 Samuel 15:8 “…alive, and utterly destroyed all….”
There are five instances for the word ha·ḥă·rêm:
Deuteronomy 3:6 “We utterly destroyed them, as we did….”
Deuteronomy 7:2 “…you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy….”
Deuteronomy 13:15 “…of the sword, utterly destroying it and all….”
Deuteronomy 20:17 “But you shall utterly destroy….”
Joshua 11:11 “…of the sword, utterly destroying [them]; there was no….”
However, is it possible that the common interpretation has been wrong? It is interesting, then, that Dr. Coleson makes such a convincing argument against a common mis-interpretation of the word charam as it relates to Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land. As he states, “Joshua does not claim Israel conquered all the land of Canaan easily and at once, does not claim Israel annihilated all the Canaanites--or even most of them--and does not claim Israel settled the land in its entirety early on” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction). Within the narrative of the conquests of the Israelites, there is interpretive room for the submission of, capture, and/or deportation of those people who were conquered. There is no real evidence that God commanded or that Joshua committed the extermination of complete cities or people. As Coleson points out, “Indeed, upon careful reading with the benefit of knowledge of this very real ancient Near Eastern genre of military reporting, we will see that Joshua reports neither God’s ‘literal’ commanding of, nor Joshua’s ‘literal’ carrying out of, genocide upon the people of Canaan. That charge finally may be laid to rest; not even all the people of Jericho perished at its fall (see Younger 1990; Hoffmeier 1996:41-42)” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction).
What has been widely interpreted as “genocide,” “extermination,” “annihilation,” etc. is very likely mis-interpreted. As Coleson says, “God did not command, nor did Moses and Joshua commit, genocide upon the Canaanites or upon any group of them” (Coleson, Joshua 10, pg. 2). The command to “utterly destroy” is an example of hyperbole. For instance, when kings went to war, they were to achieve total victory. This victory, though reported as annihilation, was actually the complete surrender of the will of the enemy. Annihilation was a hyperbolic term for victory over the enemy. In this way, those who were conquered were annihilated in their ability to further resist the invaders. Thus, for the Israelites, they did not commit genocide; rather, their victories in the Promised Land prevented their enemies from further resistance. None of the Canaanite peoples were able to prevent Israel from inhabiting their country. It is not likely (or probable) that the Israelites literally killed every enemy soldier along with all the civilians in the cities.
Where does that leave the reader? It may be helpful to bridge both understandings. With the perspective that God did not command genocide and how unlikely it is to kill every living person in the army and city, one can adopt the view of charam as hyperbole in (at least most of) these verses. We may also combine, however, the interpretive views of charam by many as “ban,” “devoted,” and “separated.” As Israel conquered pagan cultures, there would have been an end (a “ban”) on continued use of idol worship. As a testament to the power of God and his faithfulness to his people, these conquered people in the region would have been “devoted” to God as glorifying to him by their subjection. Finally, as a precaution against inter-mingling and corruption, I would speculate that there would be separation between Israel and their captives.
[Appended: Response Posts]
"'The basic meaning [of herem] is the exclusion of an object from the use or abuse of man and its irrevocable surrender to God' (Harris 1999, 324-325)."
This is a great definition. There is the element of surrender, which I believe is important in the study of this word as it relates to the total surrender of the people's wills to Israel. It also includes the element of destruction, which communicates the reality of being conquered. I also appreciated the "exclusion...from the use or abuse or man." I feel this speaks to the "ban" definition of the word. Idolatry is certainly a mis-use (intentionally misspelled) and an abuse of faith not directed toward God. These idols, and the subsequent worship thereof, must be surrendered to God.
I think it is appropriate to translate this word to not necessarily imply genocide or extermination. It would seem that in order to institute new worship and religious practices (in place of deeply entrenched, idolatrous ones), there must be a breaking (surrender) of the wills. In this way, I think we can view the conquest of the Canaanite region as God's gracious activity to bring pagan cultures under the tutelage of God's chosen vehicle of redemption - Israel.
One of the things that I noticed from our studies from the last two weeks is that the Gibeonites were the only ones who acted out of some kind of faith toward God. Albeit their tactics were not pure, but I don't think we can fault non-believers too much for that reason. They are operating from whatever amount of faith they have. I would take this as being a condition upon which they would be "worthy to remain." We can contrast this to the remainder of those conquered cities who did not act if faith, but rather fear. They were utterly conquered and their will to fight or resist was destroyed.
One of the things we can note from the Gibeonites was their willingness to give up their lifestyles in order to preserve their lives. They knew Israel's God and the promise given to Moses. As such, they were motivated by faith (even if by holy fear) to protect their lives. The other cities sought to protect and preserve their idolatrous cultures and were thoroughly defeated.
God is a jealous God and will not allow or tolerate the presence or worship of other gods and idols among His people. He will not allow His holiness (nor the objects of his holiness) to be contaminated by the sins of idolatry. In this way, he will also not allow his people (as objects - or even representatives - of his holiness) to be contaminated by idol worship.
The people of the Cannanite region were known for their idolatry and worship of other gods. The complete conquering of these people (and the destruction of their idols) sends the message that Israel's God is the Almighty, Most Holy One. Charam, from what I studied, not only included the complete conquering of the armies and cities, but also the surrender of the wills of the people. This leads me to believe that the surrender of the will would precipitate an acceptance of Israel's God.
When viewed in this way, not in terms of massive genocide or extermination, the breaking of the will of the Canaanite region people would be a tool for God's grace and adoption. By instituting Israelite law, then, there would be a ban on any idol worship and a way to teach/show these conquered people worship of the One, True God.
These defeated cities were a testament to the power of God. In a way, they were 'devoted' to God in the sense that the victories Israel accomplished were designated to glorify God. Their destruction was not only the defeat of their armies, but also in their inability to continue resistance. Their wills were crushed and their idolatrous ways stripped. A new Law was in town.
Some questions worth pondering: Can, or should, our theology allow for God instituting the death and destruction of those vehemently opposed to Him (through paganism and/or idolatry)? How does the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah participate with our understanding? Knowing how Israel would struggle against sycretizing with idolatrous people, could these “exterminations” not be God’s gracious act toward His people to protect their culture, their character, and the integrity of their faith? How do we reconcile the love, patience, and mercy of God with His holiness, character, and justice? Do passages such as Ezekiel 33:11 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 belong in our discussion?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Kherem (Kharam) - Joshua 7 (Joshua Class)
JOSHUA 7:12b “. . . they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.”
JOS 7:13 "Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.”
I figured Achan would receive a lot of attention and I really wanted to pursue something else, but I kept coming back to these verses and the kherem. We will remember in 6:17, 18, and 21 that Jericho and all its items therein were to be ‘devoted’ to the Lord, lest they would bring destruction upon themselves (“the camp” in 6:18). Joshua made it explicitly clear that those ‘devoted things’ (kharam and kherem) would bring destruction. Those things were to be considered as impure, and as such, needed to be purified by fire and burned (6:24). The city was to be an offering to the Lord (cf. 6:17, “For the Lord has given you the city!”), and to take anything away would be robbing God. This dedication was to further show the Israelites that God was in control and that this victory belongs to God’s work, not human work. A curse is then placed on the city after it is burned (6:26). The actions of Achan, then, are a clear indictment against him. He has disobeyed (rebelled), he has become ‘impure,’ he has robbed God, not to mention his greed and placing himself above his community. In effect, he has become accursed.
This setting brings us to 7:12 where the Israelites have become “liable to destruction.” The kherem has become kherem for the Israelites. They have become contaminated by the impurity. The destruction of the ‘devoted things’ has become the destruction of the people. This is the reason for God’s words to Joshua that he “will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction” or “. . . destroy the accursed from among you.” This ‘accursed’ would have to include not only those items themselves, but also the perpetrator who has become accursed with them. This word from the Lord is a direct contradiction to the frequent use of the promise “as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.” For this kherem to continue in the camp of the Israelites, Joshua will not enjoy the same fellowship with the Lord.
What is the antidote to impurity, contamination, rebellion, and sin? Holiness – consecration to the Lord is the solution. I think it may be important to think about possible reasons that God would command the Israelites to “sanctify yourselves.” I’m speculating, but in 3:5 the Lord gives the same command to “Consecrate yourselves….”and then in 5:2 they are to be circumcised, which are both ritual purity rites. Given the communal nature of the sin contamination (it was applied to “the camp” in 6:18), it seems to me that God demands the corporate purity and holiness of his people to accomplish his plans. These times of purification put God in his proper place as Almighty and his people in their place of humility (as in being humble). It affirms to us that the Lord is at work, not us. “[We] cannot stand against [our] enemies until [we] remove [sin].”
I have been pondering some thoughts lately as I look at the influence of Christianity in North America (or lack thereof). I don’t want to get off topic, but I wonder about those things within our own camps that may prevent God from fully working in our midst. In what ways do we (or should we) be calling our people to “Consecrate themselves?” (Rhetorical question, and I am in full alliance with Dr. Coleson’s note that while God does the sanctifying, sometimes people are called do sanctify themselves, Joshua 7, pg. 5). There is assuredly sin in our congregations (as I am sure there were other sins in the Israelite camp). However, there is an exceptional (extraordinary) nature to the ‘devoted things’ that must be purified and purged from our midst lest we be “liable to destruction.” The kherem we tolerate or perpetuate in our congregations will become, for us, kherem – our own self-destruction.
[APPENDED]
In response to a thread discussing the sin of Achan as it relates to how the sins of fathers are passed on to the family (either by sin nature or by nurture).
I did some study on this with my post this week as well. In 6:18, there is a clear command from Joshua to “keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it.” So, Achan went into his rebellion/disobedience with full knowledge of the community-destructive nature of such an action. This community, unfortunately, includes his own family. Then, in 6:26 there is a curse pronounced over the city (and, as I believe, whatever had not been consecrated to the Lord). So those items that Achan took, became a cursed possession (either literally or, at least, figuratively). At any rate, “all the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD” and to take any of these items is to rob God (cf. Malachi 3:8-10) and to violate the covenant. So those things that were to be devoted to destruction became destruction for Israel.
I wonder if, when the Lord commands, “Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves…,” the household of Achan did not (or could not) consecrate themselves for whatever speculative reasons. Just a thought. Or, I wonder if by hiding them under the tent, Achan, by his actions, implicates his family unknowingly. Thus, the sins of the father effect (and affect) the children.
There is another interesting thing I thought of. It may have no correlation or significance, but I thought about the way sin is confronted here versus how it is confronted in Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-17. In the Joshua passage, the tribe is brought forward first, then the clan, and then the family, and finally the individual. In Matthew 18, we are to seek out the individual first, then take the individual before two or three others, and then before the community. To put it this way, in Joshua there is an A-B-C equation. In Matthew, there is almost a C-B-A process (though not a perfect or direct correlation).
I’m not sure what to do with this, if anything. I guess it’s just more of an observation. One thing we can be sure of is that individual sin effects (and affects) the community. So, to preserve and protect the community, we must make sin-dealing a process that is God-inspired and God-directed.
MATT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
JOS 7:13 "Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.”
I figured Achan would receive a lot of attention and I really wanted to pursue something else, but I kept coming back to these verses and the kherem. We will remember in 6:17, 18, and 21 that Jericho and all its items therein were to be ‘devoted’ to the Lord, lest they would bring destruction upon themselves (“the camp” in 6:18). Joshua made it explicitly clear that those ‘devoted things’ (kharam and kherem) would bring destruction. Those things were to be considered as impure, and as such, needed to be purified by fire and burned (6:24). The city was to be an offering to the Lord (cf. 6:17, “For the Lord has given you the city!”), and to take anything away would be robbing God. This dedication was to further show the Israelites that God was in control and that this victory belongs to God’s work, not human work. A curse is then placed on the city after it is burned (6:26). The actions of Achan, then, are a clear indictment against him. He has disobeyed (rebelled), he has become ‘impure,’ he has robbed God, not to mention his greed and placing himself above his community. In effect, he has become accursed.
This setting brings us to 7:12 where the Israelites have become “liable to destruction.” The kherem has become kherem for the Israelites. They have become contaminated by the impurity. The destruction of the ‘devoted things’ has become the destruction of the people. This is the reason for God’s words to Joshua that he “will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction” or “. . . destroy the accursed from among you.” This ‘accursed’ would have to include not only those items themselves, but also the perpetrator who has become accursed with them. This word from the Lord is a direct contradiction to the frequent use of the promise “as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.” For this kherem to continue in the camp of the Israelites, Joshua will not enjoy the same fellowship with the Lord.
What is the antidote to impurity, contamination, rebellion, and sin? Holiness – consecration to the Lord is the solution. I think it may be important to think about possible reasons that God would command the Israelites to “sanctify yourselves.” I’m speculating, but in 3:5 the Lord gives the same command to “Consecrate yourselves….”and then in 5:2 they are to be circumcised, which are both ritual purity rites. Given the communal nature of the sin contamination (it was applied to “the camp” in 6:18), it seems to me that God demands the corporate purity and holiness of his people to accomplish his plans. These times of purification put God in his proper place as Almighty and his people in their place of humility (as in being humble). It affirms to us that the Lord is at work, not us. “[We] cannot stand against [our] enemies until [we] remove [sin].”
I have been pondering some thoughts lately as I look at the influence of Christianity in North America (or lack thereof). I don’t want to get off topic, but I wonder about those things within our own camps that may prevent God from fully working in our midst. In what ways do we (or should we) be calling our people to “Consecrate themselves?” (Rhetorical question, and I am in full alliance with Dr. Coleson’s note that while God does the sanctifying, sometimes people are called do sanctify themselves, Joshua 7, pg. 5). There is assuredly sin in our congregations (as I am sure there were other sins in the Israelite camp). However, there is an exceptional (extraordinary) nature to the ‘devoted things’ that must be purified and purged from our midst lest we be “liable to destruction.” The kherem we tolerate or perpetuate in our congregations will become, for us, kherem – our own self-destruction.
[APPENDED]
In response to a thread discussing the sin of Achan as it relates to how the sins of fathers are passed on to the family (either by sin nature or by nurture).
I did some study on this with my post this week as well. In 6:18, there is a clear command from Joshua to “keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it.” So, Achan went into his rebellion/disobedience with full knowledge of the community-destructive nature of such an action. This community, unfortunately, includes his own family. Then, in 6:26 there is a curse pronounced over the city (and, as I believe, whatever had not been consecrated to the Lord). So those items that Achan took, became a cursed possession (either literally or, at least, figuratively). At any rate, “all the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD” and to take any of these items is to rob God (cf. Malachi 3:8-10) and to violate the covenant. So those things that were to be devoted to destruction became destruction for Israel.
I wonder if, when the Lord commands, “Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves…,” the household of Achan did not (or could not) consecrate themselves for whatever speculative reasons. Just a thought. Or, I wonder if by hiding them under the tent, Achan, by his actions, implicates his family unknowingly. Thus, the sins of the father effect (and affect) the children.
There is another interesting thing I thought of. It may have no correlation or significance, but I thought about the way sin is confronted here versus how it is confronted in Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-17. In the Joshua passage, the tribe is brought forward first, then the clan, and then the family, and finally the individual. In Matthew 18, we are to seek out the individual first, then take the individual before two or three others, and then before the community. To put it this way, in Joshua there is an A-B-C equation. In Matthew, there is almost a C-B-A process (though not a perfect or direct correlation).
I’m not sure what to do with this, if anything. I guess it’s just more of an observation. One thing we can be sure of is that individual sin effects (and affects) the community. So, to preserve and protect the community, we must make sin-dealing a process that is God-inspired and God-directed.
MATT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Friday, March 9, 2012
Developing an initial mission statement of local church discipleship (Congregational Discipleship class)
Mission Statement: “The Discipleship Ministry at WCCN exists to advance God’s Kingdom through devoted followers of Christ, committed to fulfilling the Great Commission, by nurturing growth in biblical knowledge, wisdom, and Christlike holiness.”
First, our discipleship ministry exists to advance God’s Kingdom. The first and primary reason for our existence is purposed to spread the good news about Christ.
Second, to accomplish the advancing of the Kingdom, "devoted" followers of Christ are necessary. Devotion and commitment are especially needed in our culture. We need people who are compelled by the love of Christ to go outside the church to be ministers (we need them to minister inside the church, yes, but our mission is to send them out). Additionally, “followers” is intended to convey the communal aspect of discipleship. We are not trying to nurture and deploy islands. We are nurturing and deploying a network of people out into the world.
* “Followers of Christ” is important for unifying reasons. We all come under the banner of Christ, guided by his mission, teachings and lifestyle. Our authority, power, and commission come from him.
*“Commitment” conveys that we are committed – resolved in our task.
*“Fulfilling the Great Commission” – Again, our authority and help comes from Christ. The Great Commission is an essential discipleship mandate that we want to take appropriate steps to live out.
*We want to accomplish these things by “nurturing” certain things in people. We want our church to be a place where people are involved in significant ministry. A key component to significant ministry is using people’s gifts and abilities to teach, influence, and minister to others. Thus, we are an equipping church who wants to come alongside people and help them to grow in certain ways in order to employ them in ministry to others.
*“Biblical” – The Bible is our source for authority, teaching, living, etc. It is also essential and foundational. This is a confessional word that we will teach knowledge, help people to grow in wisdom, and assist them in Christlike holiness based off of the Bible.
*“Knowledge” – we want people to have a depth of knowledge of all scripture.
*“Wisdom” – we want our people to move beyond knowledge and into living out/owning biblical principles.
*“Christlike holiness” – At the risk of being redundant (Christlike and holiness), we want our people to live like Christ and to adopt the mission of Christ as their own. In that, however, we still want our people to know that holiness is part of that pursuit. A distinct marker of being like Christ should be (must be) holiness. The life Christ lived was a holy life so we want our people to do the same. It’s important enough to go ahead and include it.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
War, Huah, Yeah - Good God, Y'all
What is an exegetical and theological way of looking at "just war" or "holy war" in Joshua 6?
I think we like to have God’s plans and purposes fit neatly into our minds. If we can somehow categorize His thoughts, then we can find an appropriate theological stance to take on issues. As I have thought about the Christian discussion on war and warfare (i.e., “just war,” “holy war,” etc.) I have come to the conclusion (rather, confession), as in Isaiah 55:8-9, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts nor are our ways (especially ways of thinking) are not His ways. Later, in verse 11, God declares that His word will accomplish what He what He desires and for His purposes.
I also think that our modes of thinking like continuity. When we establish a belief, we like that belief to hold some consistency and permanence. In this way, when we decide (or declare) something to be right, true, or whatever, then we want that thing to always be right, true, etc. Our minds have difficulty thinking that (as I flirt with sounding post-modern) something may be true here, but may not be true (or right) over there. If it’s true, then it’s going to be true (period).
I wonder if our thinking this way impedes our understanding of God in some things.( I am NOT speaking anything about God not being true.) What I am saying is that God is sovereign – he makes the rules and he can do what he wants. Yes, I believe he cannot go against his own character and nature nor can he act contrary to his Word. God is ordered and in control, but he is not contained.
As I fit Joshua 6 into my thinking about “just war,” I see a much broader picture than whether or not God is pleased by killing people (cf. Eze. 18:32 – He is not). I think we must keep in our minds the character and nature of God – mainly that he is holy, just, merciful, gracious, and loving. IF what the commentaries offer us is true(ish), then I think we can see how God’s character and “just war” language are not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think we can see how they are compatible in Joshua 6. What I am proposing here is that for this time, in this instance, and for God's purposes, war/conflict/death/etc. may have been God's way of enacting his will for the Isrealits (and Rahab).
Some notes regarding the exegesis of Joshua 6:
6:3 – Israel was armed for protection and conquest (cf. 5:13-14 - Even the Angel of the Lord’s army had a sword)
6:3 – There would be no war cries for 6 days
6:4 – The Ark and the priests were to be hemmed in, behind and before, by the army, symbolizing God’s presence (and, I think, protection)
6:4 – The ram’s horn is used for worship and for battle
6:5 – When the walls crumbled, it allowed Israel easy entry into the city
6:25 – Rahab (and her family) was spared
Some notes regarding the theology of Joshua 6:
I think we see a mixture of messages here. There seems to be a relationship between God and war, at least as it concerns Israel and God’s will. Dr. Coleson makes very clear here that God was communicating the fact that He was in charge, and not the Israelites. He notes, “… the way Jericho was taken, and its devotion to destruction, together undercut the two primary human motivations for war: the lust for glory in battle, and the lust for wealth in the spoils of conquest” (Joshua 6, pg. 6). Therefore, it was necessary for the Israelites to know that God for God to work, our human motivations must be eliminated.
Dr. Coleson also goes into great detail to paint a providential and merciful picture of the sacking of Jericho. The Hebrew terms for those killed in verse 21 are “are very general, and could be understood to exclude babies and young children entirely” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). He continues on by saying that, “In all likelihood, only a handful of adult men and women, who had not taken refuge with Rahab, survived to face Israel’s warriors” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). In this way, the protection of Rahab and family, the walls crumbling from the earthquake, and the ambiguity of the terms for those actually slain do give us a picture for God’s mercy and grace. We must note, however, that the protection is only offered for those who believe in God. God is just and the fact that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (v. 25), shows us the “breadth and depth of God's grace and mercy” (Coleson, Joshua 6, pg. 7).
B&W add some interesting thoughts to this discussion as well. They note S. Gevirtz’s idea that it could be that by destroying Jericho, purifying it by fire and cursing its resettlement, they were actually consecrating it to the Lord (214). B&W point out this view is lacking in a motivational factor for this place at this time. However, it is worth noting since, up to this point, there have already been events in the story that depict consecration unto the Lord (cf. 3:5, 5:8, 5:10). It is possible that we may also view the destruction of Jericho as a monument, not unlike the stones of remembrance (cf. 4:2-9, 20-24). It might be said of Jericho that God “did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that [we] might always fear the LORD [our] God" (Joshua 4:24).
Parenthetically, it is also worth noting from B&W where they add that there could also have been a water-borne parasite infecting the spring at Jericho, which is their primary source of water. They also noted research that suggests a high infant mortality rate. Could it be the total destruction of the city and its curse could be a means of protection for others (including the Israelites) by keeping them away from this town and area? We do have an image of protection, of sorts, from the procession of the Ark around Jericho. The ‘honor guard’ of the priests and the Ark are surrounded and protected by the military forces. Clearly God does not need human protection, so what is the point? It may be just the opposite where God is the central figure to the conquests. In this way, it is the army who is being protected, not the other way around. So with this in mind, it’s not too far-fetched that, if the above research would be accurate, that the destruction and curse of Jericho may have been God’s providential grace at work.
I would like to propose that God and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they can be complimentary when viewed from God’s perspective. Remember, His ways are higher than our ways. Joshua 6 seems to say to us that God will accomplish His will and he will use the best means necessary to do it. It also communicates the extent to which he is faithful to those who are obedient and consecrated to Him (cf. 3:5, 5:8).
As to the total destruction of Jericho, one of the thoughts that came to mind was Mark 12:43-45:
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, `I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.
Could it be that the destruction and curse of Jericho had spiritual implications? Jericho may have been a foreshadowing to God’s view of sin. I don’t know anything about the spiritual condition of Jericho, but what I do know is that Jericho was not inhabited by God’s people. So, where there God’s people are (in Joshua’s time), the presence of God was manifest with them through the covenant-Ark. So, it would be necessary for the destruction and curse of Jericho (and its unbelieving inhabitants) to prevent any Israelites from settling there and possibly syncretizing. God will not share his presence with sin. Therefore, either one must go…and if it (sin) must go, it will must be completely eradicated or else it will only get worse (Mk. 12:43-45). This is not the only way to look at it, but as I have been thinking about these events in Joshua 6, it may be one such way.
Just in case the song is stuck in your head too - http://youtu.be/wrZkHKANrNw
I think we like to have God’s plans and purposes fit neatly into our minds. If we can somehow categorize His thoughts, then we can find an appropriate theological stance to take on issues. As I have thought about the Christian discussion on war and warfare (i.e., “just war,” “holy war,” etc.) I have come to the conclusion (rather, confession), as in Isaiah 55:8-9, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts nor are our ways (especially ways of thinking) are not His ways. Later, in verse 11, God declares that His word will accomplish what He what He desires and for His purposes.
I also think that our modes of thinking like continuity. When we establish a belief, we like that belief to hold some consistency and permanence. In this way, when we decide (or declare) something to be right, true, or whatever, then we want that thing to always be right, true, etc. Our minds have difficulty thinking that (as I flirt with sounding post-modern) something may be true here, but may not be true (or right) over there. If it’s true, then it’s going to be true (period).
I wonder if our thinking this way impedes our understanding of God in some things.( I am NOT speaking anything about God not being true.) What I am saying is that God is sovereign – he makes the rules and he can do what he wants. Yes, I believe he cannot go against his own character and nature nor can he act contrary to his Word. God is ordered and in control, but he is not contained.
As I fit Joshua 6 into my thinking about “just war,” I see a much broader picture than whether or not God is pleased by killing people (cf. Eze. 18:32 – He is not). I think we must keep in our minds the character and nature of God – mainly that he is holy, just, merciful, gracious, and loving. IF what the commentaries offer us is true(ish), then I think we can see how God’s character and “just war” language are not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think we can see how they are compatible in Joshua 6. What I am proposing here is that for this time, in this instance, and for God's purposes, war/conflict/death/etc. may have been God's way of enacting his will for the Isrealits (and Rahab).
Some notes regarding the exegesis of Joshua 6:
6:3 – Israel was armed for protection and conquest (cf. 5:13-14 - Even the Angel of the Lord’s army had a sword)
6:3 – There would be no war cries for 6 days
6:4 – The Ark and the priests were to be hemmed in, behind and before, by the army, symbolizing God’s presence (and, I think, protection)
6:4 – The ram’s horn is used for worship and for battle
6:5 – When the walls crumbled, it allowed Israel easy entry into the city
6:25 – Rahab (and her family) was spared
Some notes regarding the theology of Joshua 6:
I think we see a mixture of messages here. There seems to be a relationship between God and war, at least as it concerns Israel and God’s will. Dr. Coleson makes very clear here that God was communicating the fact that He was in charge, and not the Israelites. He notes, “… the way Jericho was taken, and its devotion to destruction, together undercut the two primary human motivations for war: the lust for glory in battle, and the lust for wealth in the spoils of conquest” (Joshua 6, pg. 6). Therefore, it was necessary for the Israelites to know that God for God to work, our human motivations must be eliminated.
Dr. Coleson also goes into great detail to paint a providential and merciful picture of the sacking of Jericho. The Hebrew terms for those killed in verse 21 are “are very general, and could be understood to exclude babies and young children entirely” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). He continues on by saying that, “In all likelihood, only a handful of adult men and women, who had not taken refuge with Rahab, survived to face Israel’s warriors” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). In this way, the protection of Rahab and family, the walls crumbling from the earthquake, and the ambiguity of the terms for those actually slain do give us a picture for God’s mercy and grace. We must note, however, that the protection is only offered for those who believe in God. God is just and the fact that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (v. 25), shows us the “breadth and depth of God's grace and mercy” (Coleson, Joshua 6, pg. 7).
B&W add some interesting thoughts to this discussion as well. They note S. Gevirtz’s idea that it could be that by destroying Jericho, purifying it by fire and cursing its resettlement, they were actually consecrating it to the Lord (214). B&W point out this view is lacking in a motivational factor for this place at this time. However, it is worth noting since, up to this point, there have already been events in the story that depict consecration unto the Lord (cf. 3:5, 5:8, 5:10). It is possible that we may also view the destruction of Jericho as a monument, not unlike the stones of remembrance (cf. 4:2-9, 20-24). It might be said of Jericho that God “did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that [we] might always fear the LORD [our] God" (Joshua 4:24).
Parenthetically, it is also worth noting from B&W where they add that there could also have been a water-borne parasite infecting the spring at Jericho, which is their primary source of water. They also noted research that suggests a high infant mortality rate. Could it be the total destruction of the city and its curse could be a means of protection for others (including the Israelites) by keeping them away from this town and area? We do have an image of protection, of sorts, from the procession of the Ark around Jericho. The ‘honor guard’ of the priests and the Ark are surrounded and protected by the military forces. Clearly God does not need human protection, so what is the point? It may be just the opposite where God is the central figure to the conquests. In this way, it is the army who is being protected, not the other way around. So with this in mind, it’s not too far-fetched that, if the above research would be accurate, that the destruction and curse of Jericho may have been God’s providential grace at work.
I would like to propose that God and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they can be complimentary when viewed from God’s perspective. Remember, His ways are higher than our ways. Joshua 6 seems to say to us that God will accomplish His will and he will use the best means necessary to do it. It also communicates the extent to which he is faithful to those who are obedient and consecrated to Him (cf. 3:5, 5:8).
As to the total destruction of Jericho, one of the thoughts that came to mind was Mark 12:43-45:
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, `I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.
Could it be that the destruction and curse of Jericho had spiritual implications? Jericho may have been a foreshadowing to God’s view of sin. I don’t know anything about the spiritual condition of Jericho, but what I do know is that Jericho was not inhabited by God’s people. So, where there God’s people are (in Joshua’s time), the presence of God was manifest with them through the covenant-Ark. So, it would be necessary for the destruction and curse of Jericho (and its unbelieving inhabitants) to prevent any Israelites from settling there and possibly syncretizing. God will not share his presence with sin. Therefore, either one must go…and if it (sin) must go, it will must be completely eradicated or else it will only get worse (Mk. 12:43-45). This is not the only way to look at it, but as I have been thinking about these events in Joshua 6, it may be one such way.
Just in case the song is stuck in your head too - http://youtu.be/wrZkHKANrNw
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Joshua 5:9 - The reproach of Egypt
“Reproach of Egypt” – What is this? What does it mean?
JOS 5:9 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.' So the place has been called Gilgal to this day."
There are many ways already in the book of Joshua that parallel the Exodus events and Moses’ leadership. It is not surprising, then, that God is making it clear that as He was with Moses, so He is enabling Joshua to lead like Moses. We should also be reminded that the people swore an oath that ‘as they had been with (obeyed) Moses, so they would be with (obey) Joshua.’ Ironically, the people were not very obedient to Moses (or God) and so results the 40 years in the desert.
“The reproach of Egypt,” I believe symbolizes several things that would require explanation for people today. Most notably, we would need to explain Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Dr. Coleson begins several thoughts regarding this by stating, “The shame of your slavery in Egypt” is, literally, “the reproach of Egypt.” This phrase may have recalled to the older Israelites their enslavement in Egypt when they were very young, but “slavery” is not actually part of the phrase.” Since the text does not specifically state slavery, I think we are left with a broader, more inclusive “reproach.”
There are several possibilities as to what this “reproach” includes. It may be the ‘reproach’ with which the Egyptians reproached the Israelites through cruel mis-treatment, or the reproach itself of being slaves, the reproach involved in the taunts and jeers of the Egyptians who said that God had brought them out of Egypt to destroy them in the desert, which, therefore, would rest upon them as long as they were condemned to wander restlessly about and to eventually be extinguished in the wilderness. To this point Dr. Coleson adds:
It is important to understand the cultures of honor and shame that existed within the OT. There is certainly no shortage of reasons that Israel, the select people of God, should feel ashamed. These feelings possible stemmed from the same of enslavement, disobedience, being homeless and wandering, and a host of other reasons for failing to meet the standards and norms of what is deemed good, right, appropriate, and desirable. Israel had been held captive by and syncretized to the Egyptians. They had become a displaced people.
The greater importance for our study here, however, is that their reproach (shame) has been rolled away as a result of re-circumcision. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, “this reproach was rolled away from Israel with the circumcision of the people at Gilgal, inasmuch as this act was a practical declaration of the perfect restoration of the covenant, and a pledge that the Lord would now give them the land of Canaan for their inheritance.” If I understand Dr. Coleson’s commentary, he suggests that for Israel there is no more punishment necessary. They have been redeemed:
Now that Israel has safely crossed the Jordan and is hemmed into the Promised Land, there can be no more shame from thinking that they would perish in the desert as the Egyptians said. “With Israel now safely in the land of Canaan, their disappearance in the wilderness no longer was a possibility”…they have come out of ‘darkness’ and into ‘light’ to be seen by the nations (Coleson, pg. 2).
As I have been thinking about and studying this short passage, there are several things that stand out to me about the significance of the “reproach of Egypt” being “rolled away.”
JOS 5:9 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.' So the place has been called Gilgal to this day."
There are many ways already in the book of Joshua that parallel the Exodus events and Moses’ leadership. It is not surprising, then, that God is making it clear that as He was with Moses, so He is enabling Joshua to lead like Moses. We should also be reminded that the people swore an oath that ‘as they had been with (obeyed) Moses, so they would be with (obey) Joshua.’ Ironically, the people were not very obedient to Moses (or God) and so results the 40 years in the desert.
“The reproach of Egypt,” I believe symbolizes several things that would require explanation for people today. Most notably, we would need to explain Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Dr. Coleson begins several thoughts regarding this by stating, “The shame of your slavery in Egypt” is, literally, “the reproach of Egypt.” This phrase may have recalled to the older Israelites their enslavement in Egypt when they were very young, but “slavery” is not actually part of the phrase.” Since the text does not specifically state slavery, I think we are left with a broader, more inclusive “reproach.”
There are several possibilities as to what this “reproach” includes. It may be the ‘reproach’ with which the Egyptians reproached the Israelites through cruel mis-treatment, or the reproach itself of being slaves, the reproach involved in the taunts and jeers of the Egyptians who said that God had brought them out of Egypt to destroy them in the desert, which, therefore, would rest upon them as long as they were condemned to wander restlessly about and to eventually be extinguished in the wilderness. To this point Dr. Coleson adds:
More probably, this phrase refers to a scenario Moses had raised with God in his several intercessory prayers (Exod 32:12; Num 14:13-16; Deut 9:28). If Israel perished in the wilderness, Moses had argued, the Egyptians would hear about it. They would reason that though God had delivered Israel out of Egypt, He had not been powerful enough to bring them safely through the wilderness. This would bring reproach not only upon Israel, but also upon God. (Joshua 5, pg. 2)
It is important to understand the cultures of honor and shame that existed within the OT. There is certainly no shortage of reasons that Israel, the select people of God, should feel ashamed. These feelings possible stemmed from the same of enslavement, disobedience, being homeless and wandering, and a host of other reasons for failing to meet the standards and norms of what is deemed good, right, appropriate, and desirable. Israel had been held captive by and syncretized to the Egyptians. They had become a displaced people.
The greater importance for our study here, however, is that their reproach (shame) has been rolled away as a result of re-circumcision. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, “this reproach was rolled away from Israel with the circumcision of the people at Gilgal, inasmuch as this act was a practical declaration of the perfect restoration of the covenant, and a pledge that the Lord would now give them the land of Canaan for their inheritance.” If I understand Dr. Coleson’s commentary, he suggests that for Israel there is no more punishment necessary. They have been redeemed:
“Moreover, the reproach of slavery had been “rolled away” when God liberated Israel, administering disastrous justice upon Egypt in the process. There was no reproach left to Israel (if ever there had been any) because of her sojourn in Egypt” (Joshua 5, pg. 2).
Now that Israel has safely crossed the Jordan and is hemmed into the Promised Land, there can be no more shame from thinking that they would perish in the desert as the Egyptians said. “With Israel now safely in the land of Canaan, their disappearance in the wilderness no longer was a possibility”…they have come out of ‘darkness’ and into ‘light’ to be seen by the nations (Coleson, pg. 2).
As I have been thinking about and studying this short passage, there are several things that stand out to me about the significance of the “reproach of Egypt” being “rolled away.”
- It was a Rite of Passage. Ceremonially speaking, circumcision allowed them to begin a new chapter in their history. According to the promise, they have also began a new chapter by fulfilling what had been promised long ago. In one sense, they have ‘arrived.’
- It was a Purification Rite. By being enslaved and syncretizing with the Egyptians, they had become, I think, a ‘defiled people’ – or at least people in need of purification. In this way, the allotted time and actions necessary for purification is now complete – the reproach is purified and re-consecration (or re-instatement) is necessary to rejoin fellowship with God.
- It was a Re-establishment of the covenant. This, I’m sure, is discussed in more detail in other posts.
- It was the end of God’s ‘wrath’ or judgment on being forbidden to enter the Promised Land. In this way the iniquity is pardoned by reaffirming their faithfulness and obedience to God via the covenant.
- It was to symbolize they are no longer enslaved to Egypt (or to anything other than God himself). They are now ‘enslaved’ to God via spiritual circumcision. [Though earlier noted, there is no mention of slavery in this verse, but contextually it is applicable.]
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Canon as a Model for Biblical Education (Congregational Discipleship class)
Assignment: Identify and read one of the recommended readings that informs a critical concern you possess regarding a biblical, historical, or theological understanding of faithful discipleship
"The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education" by Walter Brueggemann
The three-fold view of discipleship, as presented by Brueggemann in “The Creative Word,” shows how Israel utilized the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings in their educational processes. Even more, those who toiled over the order of canon presented the books in such a way so as to be an instructional method/process itself. Combined, we can see how the OT especially is a solid method of curriculum development.
The Torah is utilized by disclosing information about God. This information is both presented confidently and received at face value. This creates identity and community. ‘This is who God is, this is who we are, and this is what we believe – period.’ There is little room for doubts or subjectivism.
When the Prophets are taught, they challenge our old ways of thinking (about God, the Torah, etc.). They are intended to deconstruct what we thought we knew in order to create a new way of thinking about God. The Prophets challenge and disrupt our status quo. They are not concerned with scope and sequence (per se); rather, they are concerned about revelation and obedience. The Prophets move us into new ways of thinking and new modes of operating.
The Wisdom writings help guide us into making our own discernments about God and faith. They take the mystery of God and life and present us with just enough truth to equip us for making moral and ethical choices on our own. They help us to see the connectedness of life, i.e., cause and effect. The Psalms, as a result, are expressive of this canonical-educational process.
So, as we look at the method of discipleship curriculum of the canon, we see that Israel was not concerned with maintaining any status quo. In fact, dissonance, critique, and challenge are a vital part of the educational process. But it is not challenge for the sake of challenge. Instead, it is challenge that leads into wisdom that helps empower the learner to discern on his/her own from an informed faith perspective. I’ve not come across any curriculum with such promise and potential.
"The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education" by Walter Brueggemann
The three-fold view of discipleship, as presented by Brueggemann in “The Creative Word,” shows how Israel utilized the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings in their educational processes. Even more, those who toiled over the order of canon presented the books in such a way so as to be an instructional method/process itself. Combined, we can see how the OT especially is a solid method of curriculum development.
The Torah is utilized by disclosing information about God. This information is both presented confidently and received at face value. This creates identity and community. ‘This is who God is, this is who we are, and this is what we believe – period.’ There is little room for doubts or subjectivism.
When the Prophets are taught, they challenge our old ways of thinking (about God, the Torah, etc.). They are intended to deconstruct what we thought we knew in order to create a new way of thinking about God. The Prophets challenge and disrupt our status quo. They are not concerned with scope and sequence (per se); rather, they are concerned about revelation and obedience. The Prophets move us into new ways of thinking and new modes of operating.
The Wisdom writings help guide us into making our own discernments about God and faith. They take the mystery of God and life and present us with just enough truth to equip us for making moral and ethical choices on our own. They help us to see the connectedness of life, i.e., cause and effect. The Psalms, as a result, are expressive of this canonical-educational process.
So, as we look at the method of discipleship curriculum of the canon, we see that Israel was not concerned with maintaining any status quo. In fact, dissonance, critique, and challenge are a vital part of the educational process. But it is not challenge for the sake of challenge. Instead, it is challenge that leads into wisdom that helps empower the learner to discern on his/her own from an informed faith perspective. I’ve not come across any curriculum with such promise and potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)