Presence Ministry

Credibility is most certainly (and quickly) gained through physical presence. The old saying is quite true, quote it with me, “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.” As cliché as it is, it still holds true. In parenting, many parents have bought into the lie of quality time. This is sad, because what kids need (and are formed by) is quantity time. Time with a person is both formation and instructional. The only way to get to know a person is by spending time with them, and in a variety of settings and experiences. It is true in parenting as it is true in ministering.


The ministry of presence can speak more to a person than words. This is especially true in crisis and grief situations. Within the first few months of coming on staff at my church, the father of one of my teens suddenly died from a massive heart attack. I had very few words to offer to this teen for comfort. In fact, she really didn't need any more words. She needed to know I was there for her. I stayed with her and the family as much as possible (and as was appropriate for the situation).


Looking at the example of Jesus, the disciples spent almost all their time with Jesus. As disciples and under-studies, they knew the way to truly know the teacher was to commit to time with him. Even though they scattered during the crucifixion, the results speak for themselves when their fear and mourning turned to furious, faithful zeal after the resurrection. What they knew about Jesus was fueled by their faith.


Physical presence gains credibility because of what it says to the other. It effectively says, “I have no better place to be than here right now.” It conveys value and worth to the other by saying, “Being with you is well worth my time and effort.” It distinguishes the other by affirming them and saying, “You are important to me; you are loved.”


Our role as a shepherd, then, is one of solidarity with the people. This is different than being “one of them;” instead it is “one with them.” Our people need to see us around them, doing things with them, and being one present with them in the Spirit.

Study of the importance of barley in the Bible

Barley

Barley (se`orah) is one of the most important of the cereal grains in the Bible. It is also the hardiest of them all. In the Bible (as in modern times) the failure of this crop was a national disaster (Joel 1:11). The Israelites successfully practiced agriculture in Palestine, so they grew it as a primary food product. The land lent itself for barley growing and was described as "a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey" (Deuteronomy 8:8). Barley was and still is used as an ingredient for bread, second only to wheat. It was usually the food of horses, cattle, and/or donkeys (1 Kings 4:28). However, barley was frequently baked into a bread used for food for the poor, common people – especially in country districts (Judges 7:13; 2 Kings 4:42). It was also a valuable grain (as barley millet) that was useful for making malt, from which beer, ale, and whisky could be made.

This bread was the principal basis of food among the Hebrews. Meat, vegetables, and liquids served only to supplement the meal. As the chief food of the poor, this primitive bread was unleavened and was called "mazzot." The shape of the bread was commonly a round, circular loaf which would be conducive for traveling. It was with five barley loaves and two fish that Jesus fed the five thousand (John 6:8-13).

Barley bread is mentioned seldom in the Bible, especially when compared to the more refined wheat bread. Wheat bread was the superior product, but as barley bread was the food of the poor, wheat was not always affordable or available. As a result, the most commonly occurring form of bread was made from a mixture of both barley and wheat, especially the latter, “spelt” or "kussemet," being particularly used in special cases (Ezekiel 4:9). In ritual, barley flour seems to have been used exclusively for the meal Offering of Jealousy (Numbers 5:15).

Several varieties of barely were grown in the area of Palestine. It was sown in the autumn, after the "early rains." Later in the year, the harvest was a well-marked season, corresponding with the month of Nisan (April), the time of Passover. On the second day of Passover, the Hebrews offered a sheaf of barley as the first-fruits of the harvest of the year. Also, the unleavened nature of the bread made it able to be used during the Passover ritual as the “bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3).

Originally the ears of barley or wheat were simply roasted. However, in order to make barley bread, the earliest and most simple way of preparation was by crushing the grain. This consisted of pounding it in a mortar until it produced coarse flour. In order to obtain finer flour, the grain was often pulverized and ground between two stones in a mill. As far back as can be traced, the Israelites used a mill for preparing this finer flour. Furthermore, each household prepared its own flour. This helps to explain the prohibition against taking a hand mill in pledge from the poor (Deuteronomy 24:6). Consequently, the work of grinding was the task of the women, the female slaves (Isaiah 47:2; Matthew 24:41), and/or of captives. The women were also the ones who baked the bread.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that barley bread serves to represent the hardness of the Old Testament (Old Covenant) Law – especially as it has a role in Holy Communion. Taking into account the hardness of the bread and the hardiness of the flour, the bread seems to represent the incredible burden of keeping the Law and the hardness of the peoples’ heart, who are still led by carnal desires. This would certainly be a worthwhile comparison to the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

Language in Scriptural Interpretation

(Engaging the book "Treasure the Word: A Layperson's Guide to Interpreting Scripture," Joseph Coleson, ed. (Wesleyan Publishing House, 2009))

In his chapter “Language,” David Thompson relates the various ways language and culture are interconnected. In order to understand and intuitively interpret the language used in Biblical writings, the student must pay careful attention to the meanings of the terms. These terms, however, cannot be divorced from their social and historical context. In his first two sections, “Language and Intentional Interpretation” and “Playing by the Rules: Language Games,” Thompson deals with these exact issues arising in Biblical language.

The ability to read Biblical text in its original language does not mean a person is intuitively interpreting it. By having a whole host of resources, history, and other information (especially stored in our minds) helps a person to gain mastery over the text. Thompson says that “the extent of our capacities to enter the thought-world of the text” better enables a person to intuitively interpret in ways faithful to the original intent and to the original culture (pg. 162).

The broader the gap between the culture of the text and the culture of the reader, the more difficult the process can be.  This is particularly true when referring to the study of words. Thompson refers to the “game rules” each culture has in its language. Each culture has its own way of relating words to the things or concepts to which they refer. These language rules are typically learned in childhood and include pronunciations, composition, sentence structure, and how certain terms are differentiated from other terms. By analyzing terms, language rules, and the culture within which they are established, a person is able to more clearly understand the language.

This section of Thompson’s chapter is critically important to the study of Biblical text. In fact, it is some of the most difficult work required for intuitive interpretation. This is why it ought to capture our attention. For many who desire to understand Biblical passages, there is a temptation to jump straight to the summaries regarding the contemporary meaning and applications of the text. This is a great error. Looking at the terms alone misses the critical import of the cultural context within which the terms are used. Since words have meaning, and that meaning is culturally derived, a critical study of the words should not be performed without a critical study of the culture. This can lead the student to rather unfortunate misinterpretations. The result of developing a more clear understanding of the original language and culture will help the student to more faithfully interpret the text. It is from a faithful interpretation of the text, then, that the student is then able to draw more faithful applications when relating the text to a modern day audience. Therefore, this is work that should not be skipped when attempting to interpret Biblical text.

Thompson takes the reader through this process within the chapter by focusing on interpreting Deuteronomy 6:5 and comparing it to Mark 12:30, which has a slightly different interpretation of the same verse. By first addressing the terms used (love, Lord, God, heart, soul, and strength, along with the repeated qualifier “with all”), he shows the importance of understanding the terminology of each.

These terms also exist within a contextual framework – a time, place, purpose, and people. He helps the reader to understand that Deut. 6:5 serves as a general summary of the ten commandments given at  Horeb and a reaffirmation of the covenantal history between Yahweh and His people. At the same time, however, it serves to anchor the forthcoming future exhortations by Moses in Moab.

Without a proper understanding of the book of Deuteronomy being written as a political treaty between the suzerain king Yahweh and His vassal people Israel, a student would wrongly interpret terminology within Deut. 6:5. Specifically the word love, has the biggest potential for misinterpretation. The sense in which it is used here is in keeping with the political/covenant setting that means to preserve the treaty. To love, then, involves faithfully keeping the covenant without any other political allegiance.  It is a love that is obedient and can be commanded. This is a very different understanding than our contemporary usage of the word. This word “love” is then applied to loving with all the heart, soul, and strength.

When love is applied to the “heart” here, it refers to the obedience of a person’s thinking, planning, and reflecting, amongst other intellectual matters. It also includes attitudes, emotions, and feeling. The inclusion of “mind” in Mark 12:30 would help to explain and differentiate between another culture’s understanding of the heart as being primarily emotional and attitudinal versus the mind being primarily cerebral or intellectual. The term in Deut. 6:5 includes both aspects whereas our contemporary culture would separate them. For Mark, then, this seems to be a necessary distinction to make.

There are other aspects of Thompson’s work with Deut. 6:5 that help the reader better understand and interpret. It was a fascinating work to follow, and, as he admits, a still incomplete process toward a fully orbed understanding of the Shema. The paraphrase he constructed was enlightening and clearly empowers the reader to be able to make a well-informed bridge from Biblical text to contemporary culture. 

Effective Leaders

For a long time I have believed the statement that success is very tolerant. Many people find success in a variety of ways – just look at infomercials. One fitness program works better for one person than it does for another. Or we may look at business and Network Marketing industries. Some people succeed very well in one company or industry versus others. These success stories come in all varieties of shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and strategies. One of keys, I believe, are implementing the behaviors consistently. People can find success in both Zoomba and Chuck Norris’ Total Gym because of the set of behaviors they have committed to in order to get the results they desire.


In terms of the effectiveness of pastors, I do not see any difference. Pastoral leadership requires a definitive and unique set of behaviors. As a result, to achieve ‘success’ or to be an effective pastor means we must commit to employing those sets of behaviors.


I think it is important to remember from the research that the information gathered in the table are averages. The average age of the effective pastor was 42. This means there possible would be some very effective leaders in their 50’s or 60’s as well as in their 20’s or 30’s. We should not think that we have to wait until we are in our 40’s that we will somehow attain effectiveness. In similar fashion, we ought to consider the other elements contained within the table (tenure, years of experience, etc.).


In the business world, I have met some effective leaders of every age and background. One of the basic mantras I have heard is “Know what works; do what works.” This speaks directly to skills and behaviors. We have to know what skills it takes in order to be successful and effective in our particular realms of vocation. We then have to commit to the behaviors – to work the plan, so to speak.

Effective Pastors vs Less Effective Pastors

Yes, I think it is very healthy to talk about the differences between effective pastors and less effective pastors. First, it at least causes self-reflection and introspection. From reading this article, I must ask myself, “Am I being an effective leader?” and “How many effective behaviors am I employing?” Asking these questions of ourselves is important for our own personal and professional growth.


Secondly, it is challenging. Though it may sting to think of ourselves as being less effective, it ought to reveal those places where our leadership is weak(er) and need to be addressed. Inviting others to judge our effectiveness is never easy, but necessary. I recently went through my first annual review at my new church. Those who were impacted by my areas of ministry responsibility were involved and they confirmed some things that I already knew were lacking. It also exposed a couple of areas that I did not realize needed to be addressed. Even more, it helped me to further define and clarify what the people I am leading and working with need from me.


Thirdly, and closely related to challenging, it ought to be humbling. The intent is not humiliation, but rather a sober judgment that none of us is perfect, that we all have blind spots, and we all can and should be willing to grow. My recent review was not enjoyable – they never are for me. I realize, however, that they are at the same time helpful. I was able to see that I was not performing to the best of my ability and make the best utilization of my team. We will, of course, do best when we serve within our strengths and empower others to serve within their strengths – especially when they complement our weaknesses.


This distinction doesn't necessarily concern me. Like anything, humans are capable of misusing and abusing. There will also be opportunities for manipulations and power-plays. However, I believe there is more good to come from this than there is evil.

Genesis 3:16-17; 5:29 - "Issabon"

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain” in 3:16, 17 and 5:29. Coleson defines the word as “arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards” (Coleson, ph. 137). It is a word connected to God’s announcement of the curse upon the woman, “I will greatly multiply your pains/toil,” and “with labor/toil you shall produce children” (emphasis added). There is an interesting juxtaposition between the issabon of the pronounced consequences here and the work God had blessed in the garden. It stands in contrast to the satisfying and rewarding work God had appointed them in the garden (cf. 1:28; 2:15).

This term, additionally, is assigned to the man in verse 17. The relationship the man will now have with the ground will be “arduous toil” (emphasis added). It will be an increased labor with diminished returns. Where before the man’s and woman’s work “tending the garden” had not been toil, that all now changes. Both will have great pain, anxiety, and labor in their work.

It is clear that God is showing culpability in these two announcements of the curses. They both share in similar “pain.” Both have an equal stake to claim in their fall. With the introduction of the issabon, we see a fracturing of the created order and of relationships. The woman’s relationship in child-raising will become toil and anxiety-filled, and her pains will be multiplied. The man’s relationship with the ground has become fractured. What once would have been pleasurable, temporary work is now toil daily unto death. I’ll develop this further in the other forum.

[Additional Development]

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain.” It occurs three times in Genesis chapters 3-5: 3:16, 17; and 5:29. In fact, these are the only instances the word issabon occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Coleson points out that issabon “refers to arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards.)” (Coleson, pg. 137). So, again, we see that what was once pronounced by God as good, that which was blessed and approved, and all that was intended to be fulfilling for humanity has become perverted. Actually, it is humanity’s relationship with them that has become perverted.

Fast forward to Genesis 5:28-31. The name of Noah comes from the root nuah, which means rest. Lamech’s statement in v.29, “this one will bring us relief,” uses a similar root naham, which means comfort (bringing relief). Lamech’s hope was that Noah (rest) would bring relief from their work – their toil (issabon).

Since the fall, humanity’s work has been frustrated. The use of issabon has a consistent connection referring back to the curses imposed by God on humanity. As we will remember from that fall, humanity’s desire has been misplaced. The man and woman both desired something other than God. Now with the curses imposed, we see that humanity will always be conflicted in its desires. In one way, we will seek the desire for relief from the curses. This can, and at many times does, conflict with our desires for God.

Additionally, as a result of the fall, our relationships have become fractured and perverted. Our desire for relief from issabon competes with our desire to be intimately connected with God. Our relationship with the ground has become fractured. Our desire for fruitful and enjoying work competes with our issabon work for survival. Also, our relationships with each other have become fractured. The joys and blessings of child rearing now compete with their own issabon.

What is the relief from the issabon? I would suggest on-going covenant faithfulness to God through Jesus Christ would be the starting point.

Genesis 40:15, 41:14 - The Pit

The Pit of Despair

(For all those "Princess Bride" fans).

The word “dungeon” or “pit” (bor) is used twice in chapters 40-41 (40:15; 41:14). However, these are not the first instances of the word in Joseph’s narrative. More than that, it is a word and a metaphor that has come to characterize much of Joseph’s life experiences.

The narrator uses “dungeon” to describe the prison-like life experiences Joseph has been through so far. It is the same word used for the ‘pit’ into which his brothers threw him. Then, from this same pit, he was removed when he was sold into slavery (a different form of ‘prison’ or imprisonment, though not explicitly dealt with in this text). Arnold notes that “from the pit in Canaan, to Potiphar’s house, to this prison, Joseph is innocent and has been treated unjustly“(pg. 339). How ironic it is that the pit becomes a symbol of innocence in Joseph’s life.

Joseph would have to wait for his freedom for another “two whole years” after the cupbearer was released and given freedom. One day, however, Joseph is brought up from the pit and ushered into freedom. To be presentable before the king, he is shaved and exchanges his prison clothes for new ones. This symbolizes his new life and freedom from the prison. His old life of imprisonment was over; he is now starting a new life. Arnold notes that his transformation from “Hebrew slave and prisoner to clean-shaven Egyptian courtier” is an important distinction. It will come later in the narrative when Joseph’s brothers will not recognize him.

So that the title is not misleading, I don’t see any indication within the text that Joseph actually did despair at all in the pit in chapters 40-41. Given the prior knowledge that “the Lord was with” Joseph would be an indicator that he would not need to do so.

Genesis 39:5 - "The Blessing of the Lord"

Gen. 39:5

“The blessing of the Lord”

“…the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field.”

Arnold briefly points out the “blessing of the Lord” is a subjective genitive. This means that the Lord is “the subject of the act of blessing others” (pg. 331). Another way to read this would be that Joseph receives ‘the Lord’s blessing.’ For Joseph, it can be understood that he receives from the Lord a variety blessings. But what does the blessing of the Lord mean? What does it include?

In verse five, it states that all Joseph “had” (both in house and in the field) received the blessing. Noticing this, apparently, Potiphar place everything he “had” under Joseph’s charge. As a result, Potiphar “had” no concerns because everything that Joseph “had” received the Lord’s blessing. As it says earlier in v. 5, “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” But what exactly is this blessing?

I think we are given the answer to “what” the blessing is at least indirectly in v. 2 – “The Lord was with Joseph.” It is the presence of the Lord himself that is the blessing. The “Lord’s blessing” is the Lord. What greater blessing could there be? The subject is the Lord, the word "blessing" is a noun (not a verb). So it must be a noun-something of the Lord. The evidence within these verses suggests the possible answer is the Lord's presence.

The first five verses follow this way: “The Lord was with Joseph” (verb, v. 2, v.3), “The Lord caused…” (verb, v. 3), “The Lord blessed…” (verb, v. 5a), and finally the culmination is “The Lord’s blessing was on all…” (noun, v. 5b). Whatever it may be that is blessed or whatever may be the result of the blessing is a result of the presence of the Lord with Joseph. This has later implications when the recurrence of the Lord's blessing, causing Joseph to prosper also in prison, to build his confidence in the Lord.

Genesis 32:22-32 - Peniel

Peniel

Arnold writes about the etiological interest of the author to explain why certain things are the way they are. This text specifically notes Peniel (or Penuel). He suggests that Peniel (and Mahanaim on the other side of the Jabbok River) defended the last likely crossing-point of the river. In 1 Kings 12:25, Penuel becomes a military outpost for Jeroboam I (cf. pg. 279).

Likely a redaction to fit Israel’s monotheism (cf. pg. 284), Jacob names the location “Peniel,” which literally called “the face of God.” This gives the reader the reason behind the name “Peniel” – because Jacob wrestled with “the face of God” there. Etiologically speaking, we may note a “defensive” thread at Peniel. Jacob wrestled and defended himself there, and later that location was to become a military outpost.

The fact it is recorded that Jacob “saw the face of God” and lived would have been miraculous to the first audience. It was a popular assumption of ancient culture that no one could see God and live. However, instead of death, Jacob gets a blessing. Jacob was at that location preparing to meet Esau face-to-face, fearing his death. In fact, it appears that he waited until the very last possible moment to cross the river of inevitability. Instead of death, however, he saw God’s face and yet lived! What a cause for celebration and remembrance! If God is for Jacob, who can be against him?

In this narrative, we see Jacob trying to take every human measure to appease and change the heart of his brother. What he didn’t know is that God’s plan was to change Jacob. He did not need to defend himself based on his own strength or cunning. Instead, he needed to trust the relentlessly saving God. So, to commemorate his new life (as Israel) and his seeing the face of God, he names the place Peniel. His last-resort, fear of death defense has been turned into a blessing whereby he saw God’s face and experienced new life.

Genesis 22 - The Akedah

[In Judaism, Genesis 22 traditionally is titled, "The Akedah," "The Binding (of Isaac)"; it is a particularly important text in Judaism and Islam, as well as in Christianity. (In the Quran, as you know, the binding is not of Isaac, but of Ishmael.) Because it is of such great importance, Genesis 22 will be the sole focus of our forum discussions this week.]

Rite of Initiation

Arnold refers to the argument that views Gen 22 in light of an ancient rite of initiation, which involves the symbolic killing of a child (Arnold, pg. 209). This is a very profound way of looking through cultural lenses into the Akedah. As Arnold notes, this is a very convincing viewpoint. It does, however, hold its limitations, which will not be discussed here. However, two thoughts came to my mind in reading this section:

First, students of leadership will be acquainted with the phrase that goes something like, “in leadership, it gets lonely at the top.” Perhaps this is the grass roots inspiration for the phrase. The binding and offering of Isaac was just as much for Abraham as it was for Isaac. Both needed this experience in order to grow and fulfill the plans God had for them. It was a means for them both to become the leaders God had intended. In this way, the two leaders, having satisfied the requirements of the initiation (so to speak), needed to part ways in order to each prosper. Their positions of leadership had changed dramatically. For Abraham, “his future rests only with the ‘voice’ he must follow” and not in his promised son (pg. 209). For Isaac, he now embarks on his own journey toward becoming a patriarch in his own right and “ancestral promises of his own (26:1-5)” (pg. 209).

Second, some of Arnold’s treatment of the Akedah dealt with the foreshadowing of Christ. From the wood on Isaac’s back, to the walk up the mountain, to his binding, and his being Abraham’s “only son,” there are certainly many connections that we can make today. My thinking in this same vein turns to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:29-30 (see also Matthew 19:29), “I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” This verse reminds me of Abraham. God commanded him to “Go” in Gen 12:1, so he left his homeland. In 22:2, God (and the writer) uses the same word to go offer his son. In verse 19, we read that Abraham and Isaac part ways. After parting, God confirms the promise of Abraham that he will indeed be a father or many nations; that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars and sand. Abraham is surely blessed for his obedience.

Three Insights from Genesis 12:1, 15:1, and 17:1

12:1 – “The Lord said to Abram” marks the beginning of divine speech.  This is God’s word to Abram that is designed to grasp a hold of our attention and take notes. This should be true of anytime God speaks, but this certainly held a special bookmark for writer’s audience. God’s command to Abram is to “Go.” He is to leave three things (collectively understood to mean ‘homeland’), and to go to one thing: “The land that I will show you.”

As Arnold notes, this is the “first of several lexical links between Gen 12 and 22, the first and last times Yahweh speaks to Abaram” (pg. 130). These “bookend” chapters serve to tell the story of Abraham to show the importance of “divine command followed by radical obedience” (pg. 130). The life and legacy of Abraham reveal the faithfulness of God. God’s plan is to create a new “family,” a new “household.” The obedience and dependence of Abram to “go” makes possible the fulfilling of God’s promise.

15:1 – “The word of the Lord came to Abram….” Arnold notes how this phrase is used in prophetic literature and is only found here in all the Pentateuch. He then describes the intent to show Abram as a prophet. I have never thought about Abram/Abraham as a prophet, but Arnold draws some very interesting (and convincing) connections. Again, Arnold notes that God’s words to Abram are prophetic because they are not only just for him, but for his promised children, and the whole nation of Israel.

Prophecy is understood in a dual sense of both saving and judging. I think the vision given to Abram includes both elements. I would suggest:

God says to him, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield, your very great reward.” The shield is a defensive weapon and is understood metaphorically for protection (saving?). God says he is a “very great reward.” The reward for Abram’s faithfulness and obedience is the fulfilling of the promises of God.

A reward is given to those who faithfully and obediently fulfill some type of expectation. The converse of reward is punishment…or judgment. Therefore, I don’t think it is too far of a stretch to see the prophetic within this verse. In fact, looking at the verse this way gives more strength to Arnold, who has little to say in regard to “reward.”

17:1 – The opening verse of chapter 17 is an extremely important verse. It reveals much about the nature and character of God as well as His expectations for those who would follow after Him. As Arnold notes, the writer opens this chapter by referring to God as “Yahweh.” This makes the point that the same God who revealed Himself to Moses and the Israelites at the giving of the covenant is the same covenant-making God with Abram. God is revealing Himself to Abraham as He similarly was revealed to Moses. Arnold says that God is “pulling back the curtain on himself as it were, allowing himself – even presenting himself – in theophanic certainty. How does God reveal himself to Abram? As El Shadday, “God Almighty.” Here, we see the connection between Yahweh and El Shadday is the same God of the Israelites, the covenants, and all of Israel’s ancestors. “God Almighty” was a special revelatory name understood by Israel’s early ancestors and Yahweh is God’s revealing name about Himself to the Israelites. The writer connects them here, signifying God’s nature and identity.

Putting the writer’s and God’s words together to make Yahweh, God Almighty, is helpful in communicating and understanding the majesty and transcendence of God. (This is only a helpful insight; nothing more.) It gives Abram assurance of God’s promises and covenant. Thus, how God reveals himself to Abram is almost as important as the mandate (imperative) that is given to him.  God says, “walk before me, and be blameless” (v. 1). What else should we expect from such a Holy God? That God would say ‘walk blamelessly before me’ (pg. 169) seems a minimal expectation for Yahweh, God Almighty. Yet, El Shadday demands that we live our lives characterized by “unobjectionable acceptability” (pg. 169). In this way, we constantly live for God by gratefully (and graciously) accepting His will while maintaining the highest integrity with how we conduct ourselves. I believe this establishes a precedent in scripture. I don’t believe this was imperative meant just for Abram/Abraham, but for all of Abraham’s descendents and all who would become believers.

Genesis 11:8-9

Gen. 11:8-9

I wonder if it may be beneficial to note a few similarities between God splitting up humanity and the animals after the flood (Gen. 9:2) and the dispersing of humanity at the tower of Babel. Ultimately, in both situations, God had the best in mind for all parties. It is out of His grace that He causes division.

In causing “fear and dread” among the animal kingdom, God separates Noah from the animals he and his family have been taking care of for the past year. In my speculation, this may be a protection against complacency and dependence of the animals upon the humans (as in domestication). So God causes a division among them so that both may be able to fulfill their original blessings in Gen. 1.

The scattering at the tower of Babel sneaks of some similarities, I think. Here, God confounds/confuses the language of the builders, which causes division among them. This is out of grace that God does this. For sure, without such a gracious action humanity would again find itself in a Gen. 6:1-2 scenario. With such pride (hubris), nothing would stop humanity. Therefore, God confounds their language and scatters them. Dr. Coleson notes the repeating of the adverb “there” twice in verse 9, “because there Yahweh confused the speech of all the earth, and from there Yahweh dispersed them across the face of all the earth” (Coleson, pg. 294). Similarly, as God caused a protective separation of humanity and animals, here God is protectively separating humanity from itself. In fact, by doing this God is further enabling humanity to fulfill His blessings to Noah and his sons instructed at the departure of the Ark.

Coleson also notes that “the place that generation had refused to leave became the place to which most of them never again returned” (Coleson, pg. 294). Perhaps we can take into consideration that the speculation of God dividing humanity and animals after the flood was to protect the animal kingdom from complacency. Perhaps, then, we may be able to draw a line here to show that similarly God is protecting humanity from such a similar complacency within itself. Perhaps humanity would become too proud and contented with its own existence that it would once again push God out into the margins.

Genesis 2:7 - 'enzer kenegdo

“The adam first needed to learn what could not be ‘ezer kenegdo in relation to him…” (Coleson, 103). I am finally justified before my wife regarding why I need to find every other solution to a problem other than her suggestion! Apparently, it is a design issue with how men are created! All kidding aside – and to the best of my knowledge I have never actually experienced the aforementioned scenario – it is very interesting to consider the reasoning behind God’s actions. I do have difficulty in deciding whether or not to take into consideration all my beliefs, biases, and science behind the study of male thinking, processing, etc. I’m not sure whether to think if that has any validity prior to the fall or not…or whether it matters at all. Developmental theories and social sciences have had a lot of good to say about why and how people act the way they do. On the other hand, they are not God.

 In Genesis 2, we see God bringing all the animals before the lone adam, yet nothing suitable was found. Dr. Coleson points out that adam needed to first experience aloneness and all the things that were not ‘ezer kenegdo, before he could fully appreciate who it was. In order to fully appreciate the presence of another, it was necessary for the lone human to experience solitude (Coleson, 102). In order to fully appreciate the one who was a perfect match, adam needed to experience all the things that were not a match.

Leaving the sciences behind and dealing with the text itself, it is apparent that God had a plan, a method, and a purpose for doing those things He did. That should brings us a great deal of comfort and confidence. From this story we see an extension of the grand creation picture that God can take something where there is a void, fill it, bless it, and call it good.

---

What is the premise? God knew all along who would be adam’s created equal.  God knew because God had it all planned out. Adam needed to fully experience God’s plan. To me, verse 20 stands out from among the surrounding verses. Before I read the commentary, this verse sparked my interest and I was glad that it confirmed my suspicions about the reading of verse 20 of adam as the better subject. Surrounding this verse, there is a picture of God’s activity surrounding adam. In verse 18, in fact, God tells us that He will make the ‘ezer kenedgo. Whether or not adam knew is a different story, but we see later that it is not likely that adam knew. Again, though, in verse 19, God is credited with the creation of ‘forming’ and takes the initiative to bring the creation to adam. In verse 20, however, the subject changes and adam is credited with as the subject of activity. I get the sense from 20b that adam was actively looking for the satisfaction of his aloneness with each animal. That none was his equal is significant in the plan of God. Then, verse 21 picks up immediately with the activity of God to report His planned solution to this dilemma.

From these short verses, we can clearly see that God’s plan was to create an equal of, for, and with adam. Again, we see that the plan of God has a process and organization. We know that this plan is going to be for adam’s benefit and blessing (being prefaced by six “good’s” and one “very good”). What started out as being incomplete would soon be made complete.

This should serve as a reminder that God can and should be trusted when we don’t understand the process. I’m not suggesting adam doubted, especially since I don’t think that is evidenced in the text. What is in the text is that we are surrounded by the activity of God – God who is not distant; rather, intimately connected to and concerned about every aspect of our lives.

1.) Is it significant that the narrator also used the verb yatsar ("form/fashion/sculpt") in v 19, as well as here in v 7?

It is certainly significant. This parallelism shows us several things to consider. First, and most obvious, it shows our connectedness to sharing the ground with the animals as part of the earth of God’s creating. It is a tri-symbiotic relationship of sorts – earth, animals, humanity. There must be a delicate balance maintained between these. By using yatsar, the writer is helping to show we are co-created from God, from the earth.

The word yatsar also connotes the formation of clay on a potter’s wheel. We know from before (Gen. 1:26-7) that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. In this way, we have been specially and specifically sculptured. Though we may share the potter’s wheel, no other creation was “formed” in God’s likeness nor given His breath. In this way, yatsar shows both commonality and distinctiveness, but I think it is more so to show our distinctiveness. Arnold notes that “Yahweh God” is designated as forming. In one way this speaks against Near Eastern theology, but on the other hand it is to display the importance of humanity as the climax of God’s creation story; which as he says is  “more powerfully and philosophically stated than any others” (Arnold, 57). So, yatsar should give us pause to consider that we are “remarkably and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Another parallel is where the forming comes from. We are formed from the ground –the clay. What is more important to note than just the clay in common is the connotation of how God formed us from the clay. Arnold speaks in regard to the careful creativity of humanity. He says that being formed as a living being means that we are “far from a divine afterthought” (Arnold, 58). We have been created with divine purpose.

Additionally, in verse 7, we read where God “formed” the adam (singular). In verse 19 we read the past perfect tense where God previously “had formed” animal life. Pages 103-4 of the commentary bring a salient point to light where this parallelism helps move us forward to God’s yet-to-be fulfilled conclusion. The result is to cause us to look forward to the “I will make…” of the ‘ezer kenegdo where we see God’s plan being fulfilled.

Therefore, it would seem that the use of yatsar is multi-purpose. It shows our connectedness with animals by being co-created from the ground. It shows our mutual connectedness to God, but even more it shows our distinct relationship with Him. It also shows that humanity is, ultimately, made for each other. God’s plan is for the adam and the ‘ezer kenegdo to delight in each other, in His creation, and in special relationship with Him. That’s a lot from one word!

Genesis 2:7

V7 – I really enjoy the literary devices already found throughout the beginning of Genesis. Here in verse 7, we see that Yahweh Elohim, who formed hā ʾādām from ādāmā, is forming/sculpting them from out of the earth/ground (ʾădāmā). What is more, God “breathes” His “breath” into humanity. As both readings pointed out, the play on words here is intentional.

This verse gives us a picture of the One, True Creator God who creates (almost) infinitely from the finite. From the primeval waters, God speaks and makes come forth the foundations of the heavens and the earth. From light, He creates the lights in their many kinds. From the water, He creates the marine world in all their various kinds. The same is true for the land. From the land comes the plant and animal kingdoms in all their various kinds. However, the crowning jewel of His creation, ʾādām (humanity), we now know that He also created from ʾădāmā (the earth/ground). It is from these finite entities (resources) of creation that God creates an almost infinite sustainability of life (they would be infinite until the world ends, I suppose, at His command).

In this verse, we see the writer weaving a theme through the creation narrative. The God who created all things in their various kinds, also created the ground from which humanity was created. However, from out of the ground only humanity was molded and crafted into His image and likeness – unlike any other creature or creation. Furthermore, what is especially distinct about this creation is the breath that God breathed into them.

The sense I get from what the writer is trying to convey in this verse is that we are intensely valuable. It is humankind that stands between the earth and the heavens (God). Our vocation is to enjoy our work on the earth; our calling is to delight in our Creator. While we are living (filled with the breath of life), we work as stewards of the earth. When we die (our finiteness ends), our bodies return to the earth, but our “breath” (soul) proceeds to infinity. There is a lot that is probably being drawn from to read into this verse (more than probably necessary), but it is certainly a crucial verse in the whole creation narrative.

God's Silence - Intro to Chaplaincy

[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!

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?

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.”

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.

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