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.”
Saturday, March 17, 2012
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.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Response to Chardon Scool Shooting (Intro to Chaplaincy class)
Assignment:
A tragic timely event to discuss--the school shooting this week here in Ohio. Here's the question I'd like you to think about--Imagine you are the chaplain for the facility where the shooter is now being held. First, what do you feel as you anticipate your meeting with him (he hasn't asked for you, but you are by job description expected to go to him)? How will you "be present" to him? Second, shift the scenario and imagine you are the parents of the shooter. What feelings and thoughts now come to you? Try to be concise, but candid.
As the Chaplain:
I would understand that he is being judged by others. Therefore, I would have to be intentional to communicate that my purpose is to not be judgmental. In this way, I would need to prepare myself to show him the respect and dignity due to all people.
When present with him, the active listening we’ve been discussing would be vitally important. Being empathetic, but also honest and truthful about the reality is important. I would recognize that he is hurt and broken. He needs to experience healing and restoration from whatever he feels is so lacking. He needs to see any kind of hope – hope that extends from his past and into his future.
From a spiritual perspective, I recognize that worldly people engage in worldly and sinful activity. The only ‘antidote,’ of course, is Christ. Ephesians 4:17-19 highlights ways in which we can understand why he would do such a thing, “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity [a.k.a., worldly desires], with a continual lust for more.” The ways of the world are darkened to the light of Christ, I would want to help build a bridge from the darkness to the light.
As the parent:
I would be utterly heart-broken. I would probably be running so many “what-if’s” through my mind about things I could/should have done differently. I would likely feel like I have failed in many regards: failed to spend time with him, failed to ensure he felt loved and nurtured, failed to make sure his ‘love tank’ was full (5 Love Languages), failed to ‘know’ him – really ‘know’ him, and more.
I would feel angry. First at myself, for all the above reasons, and then for my son, who ‘should know better’ and appalled at this terrible decision. I would feel angry over those kids at school and the many situations that perpetuated his hurt.
I would feel incredible remorse and guilt for all the above reasons, yes, but primarily for the families of the deceased. Despite the bleak future that awaits my son, at least he is still alive and has some hope yet for a changed future. The dead have no more hope.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Don't Forget the Ark-Bearers (Joshua class)
Joshua 3-4
It is certainly true that the presence of God as symbolized through the Ark of the Covenant takes center stage in these chapters. It is less about the beginnings of the military conquest and more about the faith journey of Israel. As B&W say, the Ark was “a symbol of ‘sanctuary-presence’ of the Divine Warrior” (180) and the “Divine King’s portable palace” (159). Then, as Dr. Coleson notes, “Israel knew God led them because they saw the Ark going before them” (Joshua 3, pg. 2). The Ark clearly holds its rightful place of prominence in the on-going story of Israel.
But we must give another thought to those Levite-Priests who were charged with bearing the Ark in and to its place of prominence. It’s as if we can see a foreshadowing of Jesus’ words in Luke 12:48, “from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The Levite-priests were charged with the high responsibility of bearing the Covenant-Ark before the entire nation. While the nation of Israel looked to the Ark for faith, hope, and encouragement, they not only saw the Ark, but also those who were carrying the Ark. With this position comes the high demand for faithful obedience.
The faithful obedience of the Ark-bearers communicates to Israel (and to us) the importance of actions that require trust in God’s word. In 3:6, they begin their journey of faith by preceding the nation toward the Promised Land. They were the vanguard and the trailblazers. In 3:8, they are commanded to “go and stand in the river.” Dr. Coleson says, “By carrying the Ark into the water first, the priests would show their faith, or at least their obedience. We may go further and say that when God clearly directs God's people to act, obedience is faith.” (Joshua 3, pg. 3).
As the Ark-bearers made their procession forward, the waters of the Jordan would not recede until the soles of their feet touched the water (3:13). This shows the kind of trust and commitment necessary for Israel to enter into the Promised Land. After all, they have “never traveled this way before” (3:4). Israel (and all of God’s people) must be willing to take God at His word and be invested with a whole commitment that what He says is true. In this way, the priests physically displayed their obedience to God while at the same time communicating God’s faithfulness to His word and His people.
Finally, in 3:17, we should, as Christian leaders, place ourselves in the position of the priests as they stand in the middle of a ‘heaped up,’ flooded river with all their friends, family, and neighbors passing by. The people are looking to God in faith, hope, and trust, but they are ‘seeing’ them. I can imagine a scene reminiscent of when Aaron and Hur helped to hold up Moses’ arms while Joshua fought the Amalekites (Ex. 17:10-13). For Israel to fight the battles of faith that lie before them, they need the assurance of the presence of God. With that, however, God invites people through whom he can minister through – and the Levites help to fulfill this position to their people.
It’s not difficult to see the application for us today. As Christian leaders, we want people to see God in and through us. We don’t want to be the objects for their faith, but we are certainly the representatives and emissaries through whom God is inviting us to raise Him up. There is nothing within us that is valuable or useful except our faithful obedience and trust in God’s word and nature. We must remember that with this high responsibility that has been given to us comes the high demand of living wholly committed to God. There will times when we are asked to go and “stand in the river.”
It is certainly true that the presence of God as symbolized through the Ark of the Covenant takes center stage in these chapters. It is less about the beginnings of the military conquest and more about the faith journey of Israel. As B&W say, the Ark was “a symbol of ‘sanctuary-presence’ of the Divine Warrior” (180) and the “Divine King’s portable palace” (159). Then, as Dr. Coleson notes, “Israel knew God led them because they saw the Ark going before them” (Joshua 3, pg. 2). The Ark clearly holds its rightful place of prominence in the on-going story of Israel.
But we must give another thought to those Levite-Priests who were charged with bearing the Ark in and to its place of prominence. It’s as if we can see a foreshadowing of Jesus’ words in Luke 12:48, “from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The Levite-priests were charged with the high responsibility of bearing the Covenant-Ark before the entire nation. While the nation of Israel looked to the Ark for faith, hope, and encouragement, they not only saw the Ark, but also those who were carrying the Ark. With this position comes the high demand for faithful obedience.
The faithful obedience of the Ark-bearers communicates to Israel (and to us) the importance of actions that require trust in God’s word. In 3:6, they begin their journey of faith by preceding the nation toward the Promised Land. They were the vanguard and the trailblazers. In 3:8, they are commanded to “go and stand in the river.” Dr. Coleson says, “By carrying the Ark into the water first, the priests would show their faith, or at least their obedience. We may go further and say that when God clearly directs God's people to act, obedience is faith.” (Joshua 3, pg. 3).
As the Ark-bearers made their procession forward, the waters of the Jordan would not recede until the soles of their feet touched the water (3:13). This shows the kind of trust and commitment necessary for Israel to enter into the Promised Land. After all, they have “never traveled this way before” (3:4). Israel (and all of God’s people) must be willing to take God at His word and be invested with a whole commitment that what He says is true. In this way, the priests physically displayed their obedience to God while at the same time communicating God’s faithfulness to His word and His people.
Finally, in 3:17, we should, as Christian leaders, place ourselves in the position of the priests as they stand in the middle of a ‘heaped up,’ flooded river with all their friends, family, and neighbors passing by. The people are looking to God in faith, hope, and trust, but they are ‘seeing’ them. I can imagine a scene reminiscent of when Aaron and Hur helped to hold up Moses’ arms while Joshua fought the Amalekites (Ex. 17:10-13). For Israel to fight the battles of faith that lie before them, they need the assurance of the presence of God. With that, however, God invites people through whom he can minister through – and the Levites help to fulfill this position to their people.
It’s not difficult to see the application for us today. As Christian leaders, we want people to see God in and through us. We don’t want to be the objects for their faith, but we are certainly the representatives and emissaries through whom God is inviting us to raise Him up. There is nothing within us that is valuable or useful except our faithful obedience and trust in God’s word and nature. We must remember that with this high responsibility that has been given to us comes the high demand of living wholly committed to God. There will times when we are asked to go and “stand in the river.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)