If I had to list a Top 5 of theological puzzles, I would definitely include the challenge of merging the Old Testament God of military conquest and the New Testament Jesus, Prince of Peace. It seems fairly clear that God calls Israel, as a people, to engage in warfare (at times the complete decimation of people groups who seem to be minding their own business) while protecting and providing victory for them in the process, and executing judgment on those who refuse to do so to accomplish His purposes. It also seems clear that Jesus calls His disciples to live peacefully with all people, even those who personally, aggressively and violently stand against them. So which is it. Can we find a harmonious conclusion?
Obviously, I cannot and will not be able to provide THE answer to this gargantuan question, but I came across a text in my personal reading that may shed some light.
I was reading this morning in the Old Testament book of Joshua. In Chapter 5 Joshua and the Israelites are preparing to take possession of the land they have just entered. Early in the chapter the men are circumcised because none of the males have undergone this covenantal ritual since they were in Egypt. All of those men are gone at this point, having died in the desert. The new generation have not been so consecrated.
Near the close of the chapter, just before the attack on Jericho begins, Joshua has a strange encounter with a "man" described as "the commander of the Lord's army." He is bearing a sword and Joshua asks:
"Are you for us or for our enemies?"
The response he receives is brief, and Joshua does not question it.
"Neither, but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come."
I would have desired a little clarification on such a neutral response. But Joshua's reaction is to fall in worship before this being and ask what message from the Lord he has come to share.
"Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy."
If that sounds familiar, see Exodus 3:5. Joshua honors the command, and we are ushered directly into the story of Jericho's fall.
This intriguing encounter provokes several thoughts.
- The "commander" clearly reveals that God is not willing to take sides and declare any of the Canaanite people groups as enemies, at least at this point.
- The issue for the commander/God is clarifying that God is present in this place, thus making the place holy. Something "holy" is something set apart for the purposes of God.
- The question Joshua poses initially might well be one that God could ask of Joshua, the Canaanite peoples, and/or us: Are you for Me or against Me?
- This encounter occurs before any of the Conquest takes place, almost suggesting that it sets the theological tone for the actions of Israel in each military encounter.
The account of Jericho's fall is quite non-militaristic at first, utilizing marching hordes, trumpets and shouts. Once the walls fall, the violence begins, Joshua commanding the people to totally decimate every living thing in the city (Joshua 6:17).
The exception is Rahab and her household. Because she aided the spies during their covert mission, she and all in her home were spared during the mayhem. This draws me back to the encounter of Joshua with the commander of the army of the Lord. God does not select people groups for violent judgment. He is looking for faithfulness among ALL peoples. Rahab is the remnant figure among the Canaanites, spared because of her understanding of the holy ground on which she stood. The destruction of those who continued to reject God is a judgment called and led by God.
Could it be that God was seeking, not the decimation of people groups, but the surrender of these people? Was the seven-day period an opportunity for the people of Jericho to open their gates and receive Israel and Israel's God? We may never know, but it is difficult to suppose that God ever moves with violence against people as His first tactic. It seems reserved for a people in complete rebellion.
I can't say that some of these insights I have gained from this section of the Scriptures solve the tension mentioned at the beginning of this post, but there are some clues here that might make a bit more sense of it all.
I hope to explore more of these issues as I continue through Joshua and generally explore this theological Gordian knot.
No comments:
Post a Comment