An on-going effort against indifference, modern Montanism (think Costals), functional Marcionites (think abbreviated lectionaries, Sunday readings, mainline liberals), non-covenantalists (think Dispensationalist/Baptists) and more, including our own neglects and serious incompetences. Some day I'll have to tell the story of an imposed, very liberal set of Sunday School lessons--vigorously imposed by a liberal TEC cleric on the rest of us. He was a "flaming liberal," an ex-Southern-Baptist (trained in an SBC seminary)-turned TEC cleric and on a march and vendetta. The old boy just didn't do too well with this scribe; he always ran like a coward upon quiet cross-examination; I was gentler in those days; but fear gripped him. He was not too well received either. The material was--well--pure-breed and unabashed Marcionism without reference to the philosophic dualism. I chatted with RC about it and he noted that, early in his career, he reviewed all sorts of liberal SS materials; they were all Marcionitic. That meany God in the OT; how could anyone believe that a holy, infinite and Sovereign God of love, kindness and Gnostic niceness would be a life-taker and a heart-breaker? Oh no, can't be. One has to do one’s own homework these days.
Author: Unknown. The theories range from Joshua (Talmud) to post-exilic theories (varied).
Date/Context:
• References to “to this day” suggest a time between Joshua’s death
(24. 29-31) and Samuel (1050 B.C.)
• Sidon is still a leading city in Phoenicia (11.8; 19.28)
• Jerusalem remains unconquered (15.6ff.) but later conquered by David (2 Sam. 5.6-11)
• Gezer still not under control (16.10), but yields during Solomon’s time (1 Kings 9.16)
• Introduction to Joshua overlaps with the conclusion of Deuteronomy (Josh. 1.1; Dt. 34.1-12, notably, v. 5)
• Similarly, conclusion of Joshua (24.29-31) overlaps with introductory note to Judges (2.6-9).
• Broadly, probably from Joshua himself, to shortly after his death, until Samuel’s time
Interpretative Issue: Archaeology and Joshua
• Some believe that violent conquest (destroyed and burned cities) warrants a date of 1250 B.C. for the conquest
• Others, also believing in a violent conquest, citing Jericho, believe the conquest was around 1400 B.C. Such cite: 1 Kings 6.1; Judges 11.26; Ex. 12.40
Doctrinal Orientation:
• God’s fidelity to His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his descendants (Gen.12.7)
• Successful entry to the land (2.1—5.12)
• Dispossessions (5.13—12.24)
• Land allocations to the Twelve Tribes (13—21)
• While wide success, yet more is to be done (13.1; 23.5); fuller and wider occupancy awaits David and Solomon’s time
• While more is to be done, yet, essential fulfillment has widely occurred. Joshua 21.45: “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.”
No comments:
Post a Comment