| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9725 Registered: 12-2003  |
I've been reading A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament edited by Roy B. Zuck, published by Moody Publishers, for our monthly Building Spiritual Foundations class with Elizabeth Inrig. This Friday we are looking at the theology of the book of Joshua. I just read a paragraph I want to share because it explains so well what God was doing in the OT when He commanded Israel to wipe out pagan nations: In the book of Joshua, God waged war with sin wherever He found it. The Ras Shamra tablets, discovered at the site of ancient Ugarit in northwest Syria, throw light on Canaanite culture and have helped us understand its vile character. When God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites, He was using Israel like a broom to sweep a filthy society off the map. The Canaanite spectre had hatched in Noah's tent (Gen. 9:20-27), had evolved for generations, and now in Joshua's day would be tolerated by God no longer. In judging the Canaanites God was performing surgery on the human race to remove a malignancy. After waiting centuries for the Canaanites to repent—which they should have done as a result of godly influences among them, like that of Abraham and Melchizedek—God's severe treatment of these people was entirely justified. But God was not unnecessarily brutal in dealing with His enemies as were the Assyrians, for example. In the paragraph immediately following, author Thomas L. Constable says this: God's love for Israel led Him to purge out the sin in the camp so that it would not destroy the whole nation. God evidently dealt with Achan as severely as He did in order to give His people a clear demonstration of His hatred for sin at the beginning of this new era in their national life. (This new era was Israel's beginning to take and inhabit the Promised Land.) Then Constable adds this footnote: Compare God's dealings in a similar fashion with Ananias and Sapphira at the beginning of the church age (Acts 5). I was quite compelled by the explanation of God's actually wiping out evil nations and deep sin as a protective surgical strike that would save the nation and even, perhaps, the human race. God's judgment on sin is expected and not unique in the history of Israel. The flood, the expulsion from the garden after the fall, even the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years so the first generation of Israel would die without entering the land were examples of God's judgment against sin. Seeing it as protective, surgical, and salvific makes it look very different than when one looks at the OT violence "agnostically". Our human tendency is to say, "Live and let live!" But God's perspective has always been that if people are allowed to sin successfully forever, they will not only self-destruct but destroy innocent people as well. Just wanted to share this passage with you all! Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 425 Registered: 1-2006  |
Colleen Have you wondered about the spies (Caleb and Joshua's buddies) report of giants in the land? Were these the result of the sons of God and the daughters of men, again, after the flood? The book of Job refers to the sons of God as angels, I think. I don't want to start a bunch of speculation, but did Zuck mention anything? Bob | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9728 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good question, Bob. So far I haven't found it...it just dealt with overviews of the theology of Joshua. It is an interesting question--Supposedly those nephilim and the giants were destroyed in the flood (they show up in Genesis 6 and the flood is Genesis 8), but Goliath was said to be a descendent of the Anakites who were of the race of giants. I've wondered about this, also. Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 278 Registered: 8-2008 |
For some reason, it's okay for us to kill millions of Germans to end the horrors of Nazism, but once God does the same thing with the Canaanites, we have a bone to pick with Him. Funny that. Look at what happened when Saul didn't kill off all the Amelekites. Hundreds of years later the Amelekite ("Agagite" - son of Agag, king of the Amelekites) Haman decided to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian empire. Strange how we seek to judge God based on our assumption that we know exactly how things would have worked out over the next few millenia had He done things differently. As for Ananias and Saphira, unfortunately our Bibles are full of these arbitrary, man-devised cut-off points called chapters and verses, which slice the text into pieces based on no logical pattern that I've ever been able to detect. Consequently, we have divorced Acts 4:32-37 from Acts 5:1-11 when it is quite clear that the concepts are very related (esp 4:36-37). When you put these passages back together, the meaning is quite clear. Ananias and Saphira were taking the Godly practice of genuine charity, and twisting it so that they could look good in the flesh to others in the church. But, as greedy self-righteous types, they didn't want to have to give up much to do it. They wanted people to honor them for doing what Barnabas did, without actually having to give up everything that Barnabas gave up. Truly, they had a form of Godliness (an outward attempt to look righteous), but denied the real power thereof. They were trying to establish their own righteousness before men, rather than realizing the Gospel is about repenting of our own righteousness. They were behaving exactly like the Pharisees, attempting to use what appeared to be Godly acts for an un-godly and fleshly purpose. They threatened to become a cancer on the early church, to invade early Christianity with the malignancy of religiosity. I don't feel sorry for them one bit. Interesting trivia: The name "Anakin Skywalker" in Star Wars is derived from the Biblical Hebrew word for giant, "Anakim." (Actually several name references in Star Wars to various different religions and mythologies. Lucas is all new-agey.) | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 102 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thank you for your post, Colleen. I still don't understand all of God's violent acts, but those points do help. I'm choosing to trust Him with the rest of my questions and admit I just don't "get" it all right now. So, on a different note, who is supposed to be doing the "surgical removal" of evil people currently? I don't think God is doing that anymore, is He? Does He leave that job to Christians or to the U.S. like Bskillet mentioned about WWII? I, for one, sure hope not... | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 279 Registered: 8-2008 |
Oh, I didn't say He leaves that job to the U.S. I don't believe in the whole "U.S. is God's chosen nation" paradigm. Just can't find it in the Bible. What I said was that people generally believe we were justified in killing millions of Germans to end Nazism, but somehow God was unjustified to do that to the Canaanites. Usually, when people judge God harshly, it is for Him doing the exact same sorts of things they feel completely justified in doing themselves. Now I will point out that I don't believe it was coincidence that the world had a Churchill at the exact moment it needed him, or an Eisenhower for that matter. (Message edited by bskillet on April 23, 2009) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9729 Registered: 12-2003 |
God has said vengeance is His. He's not instructing any nation today as His own representative on earth. The church is His representative on earth today! But He's not instructed the church to decimate the evil. The OT prophecies, Thessalonians, Revelation, Romans--these all tell us that God isn't done doing dramatic interventions in the affairs of nations. He will yet accomplish His purposes and bring justice to the nations. And I agree with Bskillet that God, being sovereign over the nations and all men, has placed people to accomplish His will at strategic times in strategic places. Colleen | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 103 Registered: 3-2009 |
I do see your points Bskillet & Colleen. Thank you for elaborating. | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 329 Registered: 10-2008 |
I appreciate the initial post from A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. As an "Evangelical" Adventist I had always struggled with OT violence decreed or administered by God. As an Evangelical Adventist my emphasis was on a "loving" God. And my mind couldn't wrap itself around the idea that a truly "loving" God would decree total destruction of a people group. As my eyes become more and more adjusted to the "true" "full" gospel I realize that all of us should die...we are all under wrath... and it is only God's "mercy" and "love" that we weren't decimated right after Adam's sin. God is "long suffering" and there comes a time when His love must meet out judgment. A Holy God and sin just don't mix - it can't. The quote mentioned above reminds me of the phrase that "a bad apple destroys the bunch". I believe scripture uses the expression of leaven. Sin is like leaven and affects the whole loaf (1 Cor. 5:7-8). Israel was to eat unleaven bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (The day after Passover)...as a reminder of God's great love for them as they exited the bondage of Egypt - and their pagan environment (Ex. 12:17-20). The cross-reference for Ex. 12:17 is Ex.7:4...In Ex. 7:4 it refers to Pharoah not listening and therefore God had to bring Israel out of Egypt by great acts of judgment. God gave Pharoah ample time to understand and let Israel go. But we cannot deny that God must meet out judgment - that is the reason for the cross. Sin had to be paid for... And bringing this into the present time...Those who do not have faith in the "Payment for sin" will perish. God will judge. It is amazing He provided a way of escape through Jesus and didn't just destroy Adam and Eve at the beginning. Keri | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4632 Registered: 9-2006  |
What gets me is some people think that the God of the old Testament is different from the God of the new. Or they say, Oh it doesn't mean this or that so they make up their own rules. Or they think that just because they don't believe something therefore it must not be true. And for what? River | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 97 Registered: 3-2009 |
I just received in the mail, last night, a letter from who knows who, I don't care. I read a little and threw it away. It was some kind of new prophet, receiving dreams from the Lord. The theme was that the Bible was written by two gods. The Lord Jehovah and the devil as god of this world. The whole system of sacrifices and all the OT laws, etc were the lies of the false god. Oh, the sincerity and urgent note in that writing! The devil IS prowling around like a roaring lion seekomg who to devour. Lord helps us and protect us! Hec | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1934 Registered: 8-2004  |
The idea that the 'Creator God' is a lesser being and separate from the 'Ultimate One' is as old, at least, as the Gnostics. It is sad to see people going for it still today. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 356 Registered: 2-2003  |
I was just about to say that! Or Marcion from the second century came to mind. He just kept the bits of the Scripture he liked, which was most of Paul's writings and most of Luke's gospel, and rejected the rest. Once heresies have been largely forgotten, they tend to get recycled. Adrian | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 284 Registered: 8-2008 |
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that most Christians really don't understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Testament was written through the lense of the Old Covenant, by a people who live under the OC, and were thus under condemnation by the Law. It was not that God changed, but the Cross changed the nature of our relationship to Him. The Old Covenant was master-to-slave, so that is the nature of the Old Testament writings. The New Covenant is Father-to-child, and that is the nature of the New Testament writings. |
