Joe's Bible Notebook

Elijah's Farewell Tour

2011-05-07T09:06:00.004-04:00

Before the prophet Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, he did a three city tour of the countryside.

Starting from Gigal (or on their way there, at least), Elijah headed to Bethel;
From Bethel, he traveled to Jericho, and
From Jericho, Elijah crossed the Jordan river

At each stop along the way, Elijah would tell Elisha to stay behind, but Elijah would consistently respond "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." Also at each stop, Elijah and Elisha would meet a company of prophets who would reiterate to Elisha that the LORD was going to take Elijah away. When they left Jericho, fifty prophets from the city accompanied them to the Jordan.

I never gave it much thought previously, but on Mount Carmel during the challenge to Baal, Elijah had proclaimed that "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left." [1 Kings 18:22] Later, at Mount Horeb, Elijah complained to God that all the LORD's prophets had been killed but him. [1 Kings 19:10].

Perhaps God was taking Elijah on this little journey to show him that there were indeed prophets of the LORD left in Israel.

Don't Feel Sorry for Eli

2011-03-12T11:19:00.014-05:00

The story of God's judgement on Eli the priest and his lineage is a sobering one. I've always felt a little sorry for ol' Eli, and I know others feel the same way. Recent re-readings of this story, though, have caused me to change my mind--I don't feel sorry for Eli at all, and neither should you.

For those unfamiliar with Eli, let me summarize his story: Eli was a priest of Israel. His two sons were also priests, but they would disrespect the priesthood by doing wicked acts such as stealing from the sacrifices given to God and sleeping with women at the temple. God told Eli to restrain his sons, but he did not. As a consequence, God pronounced that Eli's sons would be killed on the same day and that Eli's offspring would always die young and never be prosperous. Furthermore, the priesthood would be taken from Eli and his family and given to someone else. And indeed, that is what happened.

At Least Eli Tried to Stop Them

One reason I felt sorry for Eli was because it was his sons, not him, who were being bad and Eli even attempted to stop them. You get the impression that Eli was too much of a softy to get tough with his boys. I don't think Eli was a softy, though. Consider how harsh he was with Hannah:

As [Hannah] was praying to the Lord, Eli watched her. Seeing her lips moving but hearing no sound, he thought she had been drinking. "Must you come here drunk?" he demanded. "Throw away your wine!" 1 Sam 12-14 (NLT)

Compare that rebuke with the gentle reprimand he gave his sons:

Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him? 1 Samuel 2:23-25a (ESV)

Eli Cared for the Ark of the Covenant

Another reason to sympathize with Eli was because he seemed genuinely concerned about the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible says Eli "was deeply troubled about the Ark of God" after it had been taken into battle and that, "at the mention of the Ark of God [being captured in battle], Eli fell backwards from his seat by the gate and broke his neck, for he was an old man and heavy."

But why did Eli care so much about the Ark? Was it because he loved God? Maybe, but I think he loved something even more: his own livelihood.

Israelites were required once a year to bring the best of their herds, livestock, and harvest to the temple for a big feast, which they and the priests would eat before the Lord. The Bible indicates Eli was a fat man, so you know he was eating his fair share of the sacrifices. If there was no Ark of God, there was no reason for the Israelites to visit, and thus no more feasting for Eli and his family.

Eli's daughter-in-law understood the ramifications of the Ark's capture, too. When she heard the news, she went into premature labor and in her dying moments named her newborn Ichabod (which means "No Glory"); "'Glory has departed from Israel,' she said, 'because the Ark of God is taken.'

Basically, the Ark was Eli and his family's sugar momma, and when it was taken by the Philistines, they knew the gig was up. In fact, the city of Shiloh, where they lived, ceased to be Israel's religious center after the Ark's capture.

Eli Acknowledged the Sovereignty of God

The final reason I had felt sorry for Eli was because he seemed godly. When he was informed of God's judgement, his response was "It is the LORD. Let him do what seems good to him." (1 Sam 3:18, ESV). On the surface, this seems like the response of somebody who knows God. Whereas a heathen might get angry at God or protest, Eli respectfully acknowledged God's sovereignty and levied no complaint.

Now when I read Eli's response, I think "You fool!" His response was not one of godliness, but one of sloth. Eli knew what he needed to do--restrain his sons. Eli also knew that God might change his mind about this decision, too. After all, God had changed his mind already:

"Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.'" 1 Samuel 2:30 (NIV)

So instead of Eli taking action which could have preserved the blessing that God had originally pronounced upon his lineage, Eli instead did absolutely nothing. How pathetic.

Crunching the Numbers

2011-01-08T10:30:00.008-05:00

Moses took a census of Israel in Numbers 1 and in Numbers 26. Here's a chart comparing the number of males aged 20 years or more of the twelve tribes (Levi excluded, as per the Lord's command).

Some observations...

Manasseh flourished the most; it's male population increased 63.7% (+20,500).
Simeon lost 62.6% of its male population (-37,100), more than any other tribe.
At the first census, Ephraim was the larger half-tribe of Joseph; by the second census, Manasseh was the larger.
Judah was the largest tribe at the time of both censuses.
Manasseh was the smallest tribe at the time of the first census. By the second census, Simeon was the smallest.
Judah had the smallest population change percentage-wise, 2.5% (1900 males). Dan had the smallest population change overall, 1700 males (2.7%)
Overall, Israel's non-Levite population increased by 8150 males (1.4%).

Apparently, I'm a Synergist

2009-12-11T18:44:00.008-05:00

I recently had a discussion with a fellow named John Hendryx on Facebook—a friend of a friend. I had commented to my friend about how I had rejected Calvinistic theology because I find God's grace to be resistible. Unbeknownst to me, Hendryx (according to Wikipedia) is a "leading Calvinist thinker" and purveyor of the Reformed theology dubbed Monergism. Not surprisingly, Hendryx took issue with my comment, resulting in a short, unfruitful debate on the matter.

I'm not going to describe Monergism in full here; you can read the website for all the gory details. I'll quote from the website's "Our Faith" page to highlight the crux of their beliefs:

Union between Christ and his people was planned already in eternity, in the sovereign pretemporal decision whereby God the Father selected certain sinners as His own...
This pretemporal choice was not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will, for there is no person which fits that description. This decision was based upon God's sovereign good pleasure alone...
All of God's elect will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit during their life, at a time of God's choosing. This regeneration is a spiritual resurrection given to sinners who are spiritually dead. It infallibly results in faith, repentance and obedience. This regeneration is accomplished by the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit (Jn.6:37,44; Eph.2:4-5; Ps.110:3)...
We teach that all those who believe are justified and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise unto the ultimate day of redemption. Therefore, if a person has been effectually called and drawn to Christ, he will never lose that salvation since it was based wholly on the finished work of Christ and God's election, not on the strength of the believers [sic] commitment or obedience. (Jn.10:27-30;Rom.8:28-30).

To paraphrase in my own words: according to Monergism, you're either saved or not saved by God's choice alone. There are no other factors, including an individual's choice or efforts to influence this divine decision. If you're one of the lucky ones who is elected, you're forced to repent and obey by the irresistible Holy Spirit; if you're not, you are forced to remain disobedient and unrepentant. It is not "Once saved, always saved," but essentially "always saved."

Synergism is what Monergists label the opposing belief that an individual's response to God's grace factors into his or her salvation. Like I mentioned earlier, I've abandoned Calvinism, so by association I disagree with Monergists (whether this makes me a official "Synergist" or not, I'm not sure, but I'm not a Monergist, for sure). But I do agree with Monergists that any theology or belief set needs to have a strong Biblical basis. In fact, Hendryx made this very point in an article he wrote criticizing a Synergist named Thibodaux for not having enough Biblical basis for a theological belief called prevenient grace (which is opposed to the Calvinist belief of irresistible grace):

...I want to point out that Biblical error most often arise when a theology is based on an isolated text rather than looking at it carefully in context and within the whole counsel of Scripture. This is certainly the case when Thibodaux quotes John 6:44 to try and prove prevenient grace by it.

This text appears within the article in bold, red lettering, which must mean Hendryx is emphatic about what he's saying. Almost immediately after stating this, however, Hendryx continues:

When these to [sic] phrases from [John 6] verses 65 and 37 are placed side-by side Jesus can be seen to be forming a syllogism which means the conclusion follows of necessity from the premise. So what is the syllogism?
Together these two verse verses (37 and 65) make clear whether Jesus is speaking of an effectual grace or one which simply puts man in a position to choose. Take the time to read them together. Jesus says: no one can believe in me unless God grants it and all to whom God grants in Me will believe in me. Jesus' intent could not be more clear and leaves no room for Thibodaux's synergistic interpretation of verse 44.

To summarize, Hendryx scoffs at Thibodaux for attempting to prove a theology by a single verse of Scripture (John 6:44) but then goes on to explain that a contrary theology is clearly proven by exactly two verses of Scripture (John 6:65 and 6:37). Theologians are a funny bunch. Now, I'm sure Hendryx actually has considered the rest of the Bible in the formulation of his theology, but he does seem especially fond of these two particular verses; he brought them up frequently in our Facebook discussion.

Taking the Time to Read Them Together

I want to follow Hendryx's suggestion and take some time to read these two verses together.

'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never turn away.' ... So, he said, 'This is why I told you that on one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father.' (John 6:37,65 REB)

To Hendryx's credit, his pet verses have some good qualities:

They are the words of Jesus Himself.
They come from the same chapter of the same book, and they're both part of the same narrative, so there is a contextual relationship.
They use absolute words like "will" and "no one." Certainly there's no room for debate with words like these spoken by the mouth of God, right?

But despite these admirable qualities, I must admit that I disagree with Hendryx's assertion that "Jesus' intent could not be more clear":

I have to assume that God "granting" something is equivalent to God "giving" something. They could very well be, but there is room for debate, at least.
I also have to assume that "coming to Jesus" is equivalent to "believing in Jesus" if I were to agree with Hendryx's analysis. I can buy that, but it's certainly not explicit by this text alone. Without knowing more context, Jesus could very well be speaking literally here about disciples joining him as He goes about His earthly ministry.
I'd further have to regard "believing in Jesus" as possessing an unalterable salvation. The verses say that Jesus would never turn away those who come to him, but say nothing about the possibility of believers turning themselves away. The notion that believers cannot turn themselves away must originate elsewhere.

Maybe Jesus' intent in this passage is clearer to you than it is to me.

More Than Meets the Eye

I want to apply Hendryx's focus-on-a-few-verses-exclusively Bible interpretation approach but with different verses:

In very truth I tell you, whoever has faith in me will do what I am doing; indeed he will do greater things still because I am going to the Father. Anything you ask in my name I will do so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in my name I will do it. (John 14:12-14, REB)

Note that these verses share the same qualities as John 6:37,65--better qualities, even. There are three verses instead of two; it's also the words of Jesus; the passage originates from the same chapter in the book of John and is part of the same narrative; the verses are contiguous, not disjoint as with Hendryx's two verses; absolute words like "will" and "anything" appear more frequently than in Hendryx's verses; Jesus begins by saying "In very truth I tell you" and ends by repeating Himself, both indications that Jesus is really trying to get a point across.

I find Jesus' intent in these verses to be even clearer than His intent in John 6:65 and 37: Jesus will do anything you ask in His name; it is not might do some things, but will do anything. And from the context provided in the first verse, it's not unreasonable to think that "you" can refer to "whoever has faith in Jesus." (even if the "you" is referring to Jesus' disciples exclusively, then at the very least this Scripture is saying that whoever has faith in Jesus will do greater things than Jesus did, and Jesus did a lot of great things: healing diseases, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead...).

But is what Jesus said here true? Can we Christians ask anything of Jesus and He will do it? The Bible seems clear--absolute words like "will" and "anything" cannot leave room for debate or qualification, can they? But our experiences may raise questions. I know I've asked for things in Jesus' name and haven't received them. I'm sure Hendryx could claim having similar experiences. Jesus did not lie, of course, so the only explanation is that we're not seeing the whole picture. In cases like this, we can go to the Bible to get more perspective.

But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord. (James 1:6-8, NASB)

You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4:2-3, NIV)

Interesting. Jesus plainly said that He will do anything we asked in His name, but these passages indicate that there are, in fact, conditions involved. I know that Monergists dislike the book of James (Martin Luther did not consider it canonical) so I'll throw in a quote from 1 John, a letter written by the very same author of Hendryx's pet verses:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. (1 John 3:21-22 ESV)

This echoes what Jesus was saying in John 14 but with additional information: to receive whatever we ask we must not be condemned by our heart, we must keep God's commandments and do what pleases Him. Only then can we expect to receive anything we ask for in Jesus' name.

So even though it seemed like we should have been able to take John 14:12-14 at face value, our experiences suggested that there was additional information we were missing. By reading more of the Bible we found that information. For Jesus to do what we ask, we must have unwavering faith, correct motives, a non-condemned heart, and obedience to God's commandments.

The Whole Counsel

This examination of John 14:12-14 shows that even verses that apparently leave no room for further debate, qualification, or explanation can indeed be further debated, qualified, and explained by Scripture. John 6:37 & 65 are no exceptions. I haven't taken the time to provide further qualification or explanation for these verses (and any others Monergists may rely on), but I intend to in future posts. My hope for now is that you would at least agree that we must consider the "whole counsel of Scripture" when attempting to understand the Bible and not just look at a couple of spliced-together verses exclusively.

Joab's Fate

2009-08-27T23:12:00.013-04:00

The news reached Joab. Since he had supported Adonijah but not Absalom, Joab fled to the LORD's tabernacle and took hold of the horns of the altar.
It was reported to King Solomon: "Joab has fled to the LORD' s tabernacle and is now beside the altar." Then Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada and told [him], "Go and strike him down!"
So Benaiah went to the tabernacle and said to Joab, "This is what the king says: 'Come out!'"
But Joab said, "No, for I will die here."
So Benaiah took a message back to the king, "This is what Joab said, and this is how he answered me."
The king said to him, "Do just as he says. Strike him down and bury him in order to remove from me and from my father's house the blood that Joab shed without just cause. The LORD will bring back his own blood on his own head because he struck down two men more righteous and better than he, without my father David's knowledge. With his sword, Joab murdered Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army. Their blood will come back on Joab's head and on the head of his descendants forever, but for David, his descendants, his dynasty, and his throne, there will be peace from the LORD forever."
Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up, struck down Joab, and put him to death.
1 Kings 2:28-34

I've always felt that Joab was slighted here. As commander of the army, he was a key figure in Israel's military successes for over three decades. In that respect, Joab's life shouldn't have ended in such a way. But in another respect, Joab was not the most loyal subject of David--he definitely followed his own agenda at times.

Joab assassinated Abner, the commander of the army under Saul and Ishboseth, even though Abner had allied himself with David. This was the primary reason David felt Joab deserved to die. David never took initiative in the remaining 32 years of his kingship to kill Joab, but commanded Solomon to do so instead.
Joab secretly killed Absalom even though had David explicitly charged the army not to keep his son alive. Of course, killing Absalom was arguably beneficial to David's kingship, but it wasn't beneficial to David personally, who had already suffered the loss of a son to murder.
Joab killed the newly appointed commander of the army, Amasa, in order to get that political position back.
Joab only took a partial count of Israel because he abhorred David's command to take a census. Note, however, that Joab did not find David's command to indirectly murder Uriah the Hittite abhorrent enough to disobey the king.
Joab supported Adonijah's attempt to ascend his father's throne; David had decided to give the kingship to his other son, Solomon.

Perhaps Joab is analogous to Christians who mostly serve God but deep down they're more interested in serving themselves. Or maybe this is just one of those cases where the morality isn't as clear as the reality:

A king is delighted with a servant who acts wisely, but he is furious with one who acts shamefully.Proverbs 14:35

Guess Who?

2009-07-02T13:33:00.011-04:00

Can you identify the person who is spoken of in this passage?

You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all.

If you guessed Jesus, you're wrong. This was spoken of King Nebuchadnezzar by Daniel when he was recounting and interpreting the king's dream about a statue with a head of gold. The head of gold represented King Nebuchadnezzar; in fact, the very next line of the above passage is "You are the head of gold."

But compare this with Colossians 1:15-20, a quote that is really about Jesus.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

First of all, if you thought that Nebuchadnezzar's description is pretty impressive, how much moreso is Jesus'. Nebuchadnezzar had dominion on earth, but Christ was the creator of that dominion. Nebuchadnezzar may have ruled over all men and beasts, but Christ was before them all and in Him holds all of things together.

What Would You Say?

2009-02-26T08:58:00.004-05:00

So I tell you this: every sin and slander can be forgiven, except slander against the Spirit; that will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, for him there will be no forgiveness, either in this age or in the age to come.Matthew 12:31,32 (REB)

I tell you this: every thoughtless word you speak you will have to account for on the day of judgement. For out of your own mouth you will be acquitted; out of your own mouth you will be condemned.Matthew 12:36,37 (REB)

There's a lot of good teaching about the power of your words and quite often it is supported by references to passages in Proverbs and James. But I found these to passages in Matthew to be strikingly supportive of this as well. Just consider: the only way you can commit the unpardonable sin is by your words. Furthermore, we are ultimately acquitted or condemned on the day of judgement by what we say.

Bound

2008-11-09T20:04:00.015-05:00

During David's reign there was a famine for three successive years, so David inquired of the LORD. The LORD answered, "It is because of the blood shed by Saul and his family when he killed the Gibeonites." The Gibeonites were not Israelites but rather a remnant of the Amorites. The Israelites had taken an oath concerning them, but Saul had tried to kill them in his zeal for the Israelites and Judah.2 Samuel 21:1-2 (HCSB)

There's a lot more to this passage, but it's too much for a single blog post. So I'm just going to look at the first two verses.

First off, I want to comment about the location of this passage within the Bible. The previous chapters give a seemingly chronological (and rollercoaster-like) account of David's reign in Israel. This passage, however, doesn't necessarily procede these events; it appears to recount an incident that occured "during David's reign." My guess is that this happened shortly after he was formally recognized as King by all of Israel, following Ishboseth's death. Otherwise, it would be odd to experience a famine for something that had happened over 30 years ago.

Chronology aside, here are some interesting things to take away from this:

The famine was a caused because of wrongdoing by the deposed King of Israel.
The wrong committed was the violation an oath that Joshua had made with the Gibeonites.
The oath was made under false pretenses. Joshua didn't realize the Gibeonites were living in the land they were taking control of.
Joshua and the leaders of Israel made the oath without consulting God.
Had not Joshua made the oath, the Gibeonites would have been destroyed by Israel during their conquest of the promised land.
Saul lost his Kingdom because he did not kill all of the Amalekites as God had instructed him to.
Saul had killed the Gibeonites out of zealousness for his country.
The famine was not stayed by Saul's death nor by David's righteousness.

To me, this is a classic example of Matthew 18:18, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Here you have a people group destined for destruction that were instead sworn to safety by human intervention, resulting in a heavenly change in destiny. This is evident because God now punished Israel for killing the Gibeonites, whereas before the oath, God was moreso endorsing getting rid of the Gibeonites. What had been bound on earth was bound in heaven. (For another example, read the account of 1 Kings 20 when King Ahab spared the life of Ben-hadad, king of Aram.)

Also, this is a sobering example of the power of oaths. First, the oath was made well over a hundred years earlier by men long dead. Secondly, the oath came about by means of deception--had not the Gibeonites lied, then most likely Joshua would never had made the oath. Thirdly, the oath effectively reversed the original decree of God, that Israel force out the inhabitants of the promised land. Nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised that in lieu of this evidence that a judge might declare that the oath is not binding. But God definitely considers it binding.

Shechem's Redemption

2008-08-28T08:09:00.013-04:00

Then the Lord spoke to Joshua. He said, "Tell the people of Israel to choose the cities to go to for safety, just as I directed you through Moses. Anyone who kills a person by accident can run there for safety. So can anyone who kills a person without meaning to. The one who is charged with murder will be kept safe from the nearest male relative of the person who was killed. Suppose the one who is charged runs for safety to one of those cities. Then he must stand in the entrance of the city gate. He must state his case in front of the elders of that city. They must let him come into their city. They must give him a place to live there. Suppose the nearest male relative of the person who was killed comes after him. Then the elders must not hand him over to that relative. That's because he didn't mean to kill his neighbor. He didn't make evil plans to do it. He must stay in that city until his case has been brought to the community court. He must stay there until the high priest who is serving at that time dies. Then he can go back to his own home. He can return to the town he ran away from." So the people of Israel set apart Kedesh in Galilee. It's in the hill country of Naphtali. They set apart Shechem. It's in the hill country of Ephraim. They set apart Kiriath Arba. It's in the hill country of Judah. Kiriath Arba is also called Hebron. Joshua 20:1-7 (NIRV)

In an earlier post, I recalled an incident where the entire population of the town of Shechem was slaughtered by Simeon and Levi because its prince had raped their sister, Dinah. With that fresh in my mind, I was reading through the book of Joshua when I came to the chapters discussing the allotment of Canaan to the tribes, particularly the cities of safety (or, "cities of refuge", the term I'm more familiar with).

The basic idea is that if someone accidentally killed a person, he could flee to a city of refuge to protect himself from the deceased's relatives, who presumably would attempt to avenge the death. I'm not sure this killing-your-kinfolk's-killer was an ancient cultural rite or just a common practice, but in any case, God provides an end to the cycle by allowing the killer to avoid this fate by living in one of the cities of refuge (provided, of course, the killing was judged unintentional).

Shechem was designated as one of such cities, which I thought was redeeming, so to speak, given that a massive, vengeful slaughter occurred there some 450-odd years earlier. But the "redemption" doesn't end with that; Shechem was also designated as a Levitical city, too. Levites were chosen by God to serve as his ministers and priests, and consequently weren't assigned any territory in Israel. They were, however, assigned towns among the other tribes' territories to live in. So not only was Shechem a city of refuge, but it was a town of ministers of the Lord.

There's still more redemption for Shechem by the end of the book of Joshua:

And Joseph's bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph's descendants. Joshua 24:32 (NIV)

The town once destroyed by the sons of Israel (the man) was later redeemed, in my opinion, by the sons of Israel (the nation), by declaring that it be a city of refuge, a city of the Lord's ministers, and the burial place of Joseph.

Achan and the Family Stoned - Joshua 7:24-26

2008-08-24T16:09:00.041-04:00

Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the cloak, and the bar of gold, his sons and daughters, his ox, donkey, and sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and brought them up to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? Today the LORD will trouble you!" So all Israel stoned him to death. They burned their bodies, threw stones on them, and raised over him a large pile of rocks that remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from His burning anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor to this day. Joshua 7:24-26 (HCSB)

Achor is the Hebrew word for "trouble," and admittedly this passage is troubling to me. In Joshua 6, Israel conquers the city of Jericho, the first city after entering the Promised Land. God instructs them to put the entire city "under the ban"--that is, destroy everything: men, women, virgins, children, babies, cattle, donkies, etc. The only things they were allowed to spare were gold, silver, copper/brass/bronze and iron vessels, which had to be put into the Lord's treasury. (Also Rahab the prostitute's house was spared because she aided the spies Joshua had sent to Jericho earlier.) Achan, however, decided to take some silver and gold for himself, along with a cloak. This, in turn, caused the Lord to temporarily abandon Israel, leading to their defeat in an attempt to capture the city of Ai.

Joshua was himself troubled by the loss; after asking the Lord, he discovers that Achan had some banned items in his possession. This culminates in the passage above, where they recover the items and stone/burn Achan and his whole household. Rough stuff.

What troubles me is the severity of the punishment. Not so much Achan's death, but the death of his entire household, especially in light of this passage:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16 (NIV)

That's why I was pleasantly surprised to read the Revised English Bible's take on the passage.

Then all the Israelites stoned [Achan] to death; and they raised over him a great cairn of stones which is there to this day. So the LORD's anger was abated. Joshua 7:25b,26a (REB)

In this rendition it doesn't explicitly mention that his entire family was burned to death, just that Achan himself was stoned. It briefly gave me hope that his family didn't get killed after all. Of course, there is a footnote about how some manuscripts include the verse about his family, and every other translation I've looked at does indeed include that particular verse directly in the text. Furthermore, later on we encounter this verse:

Remember the treachery of Achan son of Zerah, who defied the ban, and the whole community of Israel suffered for it; he was not the only one who paid with his life for that sin. Joshua 22:20 (REB)

Achan wasn't the only one who died; there were also the thirty-six that died during their attempt to take Ai, and the evidence does seem to include his family, too. Ah well. Instead of wishing that the family wasn't killed, I've attempted to come to terms with their death.

Judah Cleansing

Notice that Achan was from the tribe of Judah, the tribe from which Jesus Himself descended. This is likely over-speculative, but maybe God was interested in ensuring that the line of Judah was "pure" enough to be worthy of being the family tribe of God Incarnate. The first two sons of Judah, Er and Onan, were apparently bad eggs, and God put them to death. I don't recall any another examples of this kind of immediate punishment for general wickedness in the Old Testament; God is patient and merciful...even the country of Judah's most wicked king, Manasseh, had the longest reign (55 years). Perhaps God wanted to set the Judah clan off on the right foot? Achan, then, could be another example of ensuring Judah kept on a righteous course. But I believe there is less speculative justification for the severity of Achan's punishment.

Principle of the First Offense

Whenever God establishes a new law, covenant, principle, commandment, or what-have-you, the first violator seems to get severely punished. God wants to encourage others not to repeat the error--what better way to do that than by putting to death the first offender? For example, the first Israelite who violated the Sabbath by gathering some sticks was stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). The first time Aaron's priestly authority was challenged, the earth swallowed the leader of the rebels and fire from heaven burned up the rest (Numbers 16:1-35). The first time someone tried to feign total fiscal commitment to The Way, he was put to death on the spot (Acts 5:1-5).

I think this passage sums up the first offense principle nicely (emphasis mine):

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or mother and doesn't listen to them even after they discipline him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his hometown. They will say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he doesn't obey us. He's a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city will stone him to death. You must purge the evil from you, and all Israel will hear and be afraid. Deuteronomy 21:18-22 (HCSB)

I don't think there were any recorded occurences of this happening, but I imagine if a rebellious son were put to death by his parents, their town would have much more obedient children.

Aiding and Abetting

The other way I try to justify the death of Achan's family is reckoning that they were also guilty themselves in this matter. After all, Achan did bury the loot in their tent, and I doubt he could have done that without the family knowing. Given how God doesn't want children punished for their father's sin, I can only assume that that they also sinned. Maybe that's not really comforting, but it's the best I can do.

Preparing for War - Joshua 5:2-8

2008-08-23T17:16:00.009-04:00

At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelite men again." So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelite men at Gibeath-haaraloth. This is the reason Joshua circumcised [them]: All the people who came out of Egypt who were males—all the men of war—had died in the wilderness along the way after they had come out of Egypt. Though all the people who came out were circumcised, none of the people born in the wilderness along the way were circumcised after they had come out of Egypt. For the Israelites wandered in the wilderness 40 years until all the nation's men of war who came out of Egypt had died off because they did not obey the LORD. (So the LORD vowed never to let them see the land He had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. Joshua raised up their sons in their place; it was these he circumcised. They were still uncircumcised, since they had not been circumcised along the way. After the entire nation had been circumcised, they stayed where they were in the camp until they recovered. Joshua 5:2-8 (HCSB)

To give you some context, Moses has just died and Joshua has taken over leadership of the Israelites. Prior to his death, east of the Jordan river, Moses charged Israel and Joshua to march into the Promised Land and conquer the nations living there. So Joshua and Israel just crossed over to the west Jordan in a miraculous fashion (God separated the waters of the Jordan and they crossed through on dry land--one of four such water-dividing occasions mentioned in the Bible) and now they're in the enemey territory at last and they take their first course of action--circumcising themselves!

Now, I can't really attest to what it feels like to be circumcised (I was a baby when I got the snip-snip), but I have a suspicion that it's painful. Even the Bible attests to that notion:

All the able-bodied men listened to Hamor and his son Shechem, and all the able-bodied men were circumcised. On the third day, when they were still in pain, two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords, went into the unsuspecting city, and killed every male. Genesis 34:24,25 (HCSB)

I won't get into the circumstances of this story, but suffice it to say, a whole town was circumcised and three days later two guys were able to come in and slay them all; it goes to show that circumcision can really take the fight out of you for a while. And this is why it amuses me that the first thing the Israel army does when arriving in enemy territory is put themselves into the same position the men of Shechem were in when they were destroyed by two angry brothers.

Of course, the Israel army would have certainly lost their all-important ally, the one and true living God, had they not done this. Therefore, it was a wise decision.

The other aspect of this story I find interesting is that the children of Israel were not circumcised during their sojourn through the wilderness. You'd think with the fervor in which Moses demanded the Israelites to obey the law, that'd he'd make sure Israelites would have circumcised their male children along the way--but I guess not. Although maybe that's not too surprising considering Moses' own track record with circumcision (no offense to Moses, God bless him):

On the trip, at an overnight campsite, it happened that the LORD confronted [Moses] and sought to put him to death. So Zipporah took a flint, cut off her son's foreskin, and threw it at Moses' feet. Then she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood," referring to the circumcision. Exodus 4:24-26 (HCSB)

This happened right after God commissioned Moses to confront Pharoah about the slavery of the Israelites--and He was prepared to kill Moses because he didn't honor the covenant of circumcision. So don't doubt for a moment that God would have allowed Israel to fail in their conquest had not they circumcised themselves.