Judges--A Tale of Failure

Judges 1:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%201&version=NIV

            Judges is a different sort of book than Joshua.  In Joshua, we have indications that the Conquest is not complete, but the thrust of the book is that the Lord keeps His promises and gives Israel the land.  In Judges, the focus is on human failure—and will we witness human failure in this book!  So, Judah is successful in establishing its territory; they even go so far as to burn Jerusalem, which is not even part of their patrimony.  But nobody else finishes the job.  Benjamin won’t even expel the Jerusalemites, although we’ve just read that Judah did the hard work of conquering the city!  The low point seems to be Dan, who don’t just fail to take their land; they actually get repulsed back into the hills.  (The success of Judah might explain their later history:  they resist the temptations to idolatry longer and more successfully than the northern tribes, perhaps because at the beginning they drove out the Canaanites.)

            There are some hints in Judges 1 about why the job isn’t finished.  First, there is the passing comment about Judah maiming Adoni-bezek.  They cut off his thumbs and big toes, rendering him humiliated and unfit for military service.  The thing to notice, though, is that he says he did the same thing to 70 of his enemies.  Israel is starting to behave like the very people she is conquering.  Second, there is the statement in verse 28 that Israel enslaved the Canaanites.  Two problems with that.  1) The Israelites were supposed to destroy them or drive them out, so they’re compromising on God’s command.  2) They were supposed to remember that they had been slaves.  How ironic is it that they began to act like the oppressor?

Leaders Must Lead

Joshua 23:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+23&version=NIV
            In today's chapter, Joshua addresses himself to the "elders, leaders, judges and officials" of Israel.  In other words, he addresses their leaders.  He says to them the same thing he is going to say to all the tribes in tomorrow's reading:  Get rid of the idols, finish the job of pushing the Canaanites out, and stay faithful to your God.  If the leaders won't do these things, what chance does the rank and file have?
            That's an important lesson in many areas of life.  In the wake of the tragedy in Boston this week, I was pleased to hear reports yesterday of how closely and seamlessly federal, state, and local authorities were working together.  (It's possible that people were exaggerating the cooperation, but let's imagine the best and assume that the reports were true.)  If you want a city to rally, it helps if those in charge are unified and not bickering.  Same thing in politics:  if our leaders did a better job of working together and finding common ground, it would probably have an effect on the rest of our society.  Same thing in the church:  people can smell a fake; pastors do well to practice what they preach.  Imagine a pastor who preaches about forgiveness but has a reputation for holding grudges--there goes his credibility!
            In short, Joshua (and a bunch of other places in the Bible) recognizes that leaders must lead.  In their attitudes, their words, and their actions they must be the first among their countrymen (fellow Christians).  That's an important lesson for those already in leadership--to live up to their position--and it's a lesson for those who aspire to leadership--that they start building credibility beforehand.

An Ambiguous Witness?

Joshua 22:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=josh%2022&version=NIV

The Transjordan tribes--Reuben, Gad, half of Manasseh--return home with Joshua's commendation still ringing in their ears.  They have done what they promised in helping the other 9 1/2 tribes conquer the land west of the Jordan.  How strange, then, that the people of Israel would immediately suspect the worst of them when they built an altar on the banks of the Jordan.

It seems to me that there are two cautionary tales here.  First, the people of Israel should not have assumed the worst possible thing about their brothers.  When Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh explain, "We were afraid you'd forget that we were Israelites, too," everything is cleared up.  I wonder how often we would be better off if we didn't leap to conclusions about people and their motivations?  At least the people of Israel had the good sense to ask what the 2 1/2 tribes were thinking before they made war on them.  It seems to me that we moderns too often make war with our words and in our hearts before we fully understand other people's motivations and points of view.

The second caution here is in the behavior of the 2 1/2 tribes, who were certainly not sensitive to the way that their actions might be perceived--either by the remaining tribes or by future generations.  Paul is clear, especially in 1 Corinthians and in Romans 14, how others perceive our actions needs to shape and control our actions.  While we don't want to find ourselves held captive by the misunderstanding or the refusal to understand of other people, we also don't want to barge ahead as if their impressions were unimportant.  Christian love compels us to explain why we do what we do and to hold back when we risk creating a rift. 

Additionally, although the generation that built the "witness" altar didn't intend it as a counterpart to the Tabernacle, as I read, I wondered how their children would take that.  Given Israel's historic struggles with idolatry, I'm not sure an altar that's not supposed to be used as an altar will really stand the test of time.  It's important, too, that our witness not be ambiguous.

Avenger of Blood

Joshua 20-21:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=josh%2020-21&version=NIV

            The notion of the avenger of blood is apparently ancient.  The difficulty is that the term is literally, go’el, which seems to mean at its root “next of kin.”  Apparently, the next of kin had various responsibilities, one of which included avenging the unjust death of a family member.  Admittedly, I didn’t look high and low, but I couldn’t find a place where the Lord commanded that the go’el be an avenger of blood.  It seems to me, then, that the notion of the avenger of blood is one of those things that was in the culture around Israel (like polygamy) and that the Lord was taking steps to limit the effects of the practice by establishing a means by which an unintentional killer could escape the cycle of vendetta that plagued the ancient world.

            Aside:  one of my favorite Doonesbury cartoons is from the time of the Iraq war.  It goes something like this.  An American officer is scouting an insurgent location with an Iraqi chieftain.  The Iraqi says to the American, “I can’t promise to bring him in alive.  He murdered a member of my family, and I am duty-bound to avenge him.”  The American asks, “When did this happen?”  The Iraqi says, “1387.”  Clearly vendetta needs to have some limits placed on it!  (Wait a sec; here’s a link:  http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/01/13/).

            Anyhow, what we have in the assignment of cities of refuge is one more attempt to make Israel less like the nations around her and more like the Lord who has chosen her.
            Notice, too, that 5 of the 6 cities of refuge are also Levitical cities.  It’s just possible that the Levites, as the caretakers of the tabernacle and the teachers of Israel, were also supposed to more fully reflect the mercy of the Lord in their civic arrangements.  That is, the Levites, set apart for God's holy purposes within God's holy people, were to show God's desired life even more fully than the rest of the nation.
            So, lesson #1--God's people stand apart from the culture of the world.  The world holds grudges; God's people are characterized by forgiveness.  The world can't make a convincing case against promiscuity; God's people cling to purity and faithfulness.  The world chases 'stuff;' God's people pursue generosity and contentment.  We do well to be thoughtfully aware of the ways in which the culture we live in projects values counter to our faith and we do well to try to live by God's values.
            Lesson #2--as we will often observe in the Scriptures, those who are called to leadership are called to a higher standard.  Those who would lead God's people must recognize the example that they set and learn deeply what it means to forgive, to remain faithful, to give without thought of reward (Luke 6:35).

Ephraim and Manasseh--Wanting More

Joshua 16-17:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=josh%2016-17&version=NIV

            Two things struck me today.  First, I noticed the complaint of the Ephraimites and the Manassehites that they hadn’t gotten enough land.  “We’re big,” they complained.  “Take the forest land,” Joshua replied.  “It’s not enough,” they complained.  Then, the second thing I noticed was that neither Ephraim nor Manasseh fully conquered the land assigned to them.

            There’s probably a lesson there for us American Christians.  We live in a land of plenty and culture of desire.  We are often dissatisfied and want more.  (One of my favorite bands is the Dave Matthews Band, and one of their earliest, biggest hits was “Too Much.”  Check out the lyrics here, if you’re interested.  I think it catches something of our cultural spirit: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dave+matthews+band/too+much_20036550.html.  Here’s the song on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPECzpKn4U)  But it is an open question to what extent we bring what we already have into submission to the will of God.  It’s a commonly thrown around statistic that the average American church-goer gives between 2-3% of their income to the Lord, and my experience of congregations suggest that that’s about right.  Kind of a far cry from the tithe!  (I know that New Testament Christians are not bound to the tithe.  Still it’s not a bad gauge of where our generosity is at.)

            So, when we’re feeling all discontent, perhaps we should first ask to what extent we are using what we already have for God-pleasing purposes.  After all, why would Joshua give Ephraim and Manasseh even more land, if they weren’t using what they had for the Lord’s glory

Allotting the Land

Joshua 13-15:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=josh%2013-15&version=NIV

            Here are a couple of links to maps that illustrate today’s reading.  These two illustrate the allotments given to the various tribes.

http://mappery.com/map-of/Promised-Land-Hebrew-Settlement-Map

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/maps/map_canaan_tribal_portions.html

            While much of today’s reading is pretty dry—most of us have enough trouble with modern geography, much less ancient, local Israelite geography!—a few things do stand out.  First, notice the repeated emphasis that Levi did not receive an allotment (13:14, 33; 14:4).  I’m not sure what to make of that:  we knew it already.  On the other hand, it’s clearly pretty important to the Lord that Levi is dedicated to His service.  (Here’s a random thought:  I wonder if the old practice of parsonages is related?  I wonder if the idea is that those dedicated to the Lord’s service ought not be pre-occupied with homesteads and land?  I have heard from several sources that when the housing market crashed a few years ago the number of pastors taking Calls declined significantly . . .  Like I said—random.)

            Another thing to notice is Caleb’s statement in 14:10, that the Lord had kept him alive ‘these 45 years.’  45?  The story would suggest that it’s only been 40:  spies reject God’s plan, 40 years in the wilderness, and the rapid conquest of the land.  However The Lutheran Study Bible has this footnote:  “It had been 38 years since the spying episode and 7 years since entering the land” (363).  Seven years!  You wouldn’t get that from a casual reading of Joshua!  Just goes to show that the biblical writers want to emphasis certain things.  In Joshua’s case, the book wants to emphasize how the Lord gave the land to the people in fulfillment of His promises.  Yet, there are these subtle comments that remind us it wasn’t all at once and it wasn’t all complete.  (That latter part will set the stage for the book of Judges next week.)
--reposted from April, 2011

Once Again, the Canaanites

Joshua 11-12:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=josh%2011-12&version=NIV

            Again, we are faced with divinely-sanctioned violence of an almost unimaginable scope.  The verse that struck me was Joshua 11:20, “For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.”  I’ll admit, ‘without mercy’ was hard for me.

            I’ve made the case repeatedly, and I think it stands up well, that the Lord had a unique concern for ‘sanitizing’ the promised land of all vestiges of idolatry that would entice and ensnare Israel.  That’s certainly part of the story of how the Lord had Israel deal with the Canaanites.

            Beyond that, it might help if we put passages like this into an ‘eschatological’ framework, that is, from the perspective of the final judgment.  The Scriptures are clear: on the last day, there will be a great judgment and those humans who have rejected the Lord and His ways will be condemned.  What we see in the Canaanites is, in a sense, the firstfruits of that judgment.  I suppose the value of that insight is simply this:  if we are offended by the destruction of the Canaanites, we will also be offended by the final punishment of unbelieving humanity, and the solution to that is to get busy in mission so that they are fewer numbered among the goats (Matthew 25:32-33).