Question 1: In light of the seemingly contradictory nature of the statements in Joshua 11.23 and 13.1, share how a careful reading of both Joshua and Judges provides a more balanced view of the conquest.
The assumption of the question is under review, namely, that a contradiction exists between the two statements. Our class textbook makes that assumption. That assumption is not warranted. It is unnecessary. The verb and direct object in 11.23 “took the whole land” does not require an actual possession by Joshua.
The evidence for this is:
1) “So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)” If one is careful, the verb “took the entire land” is handily and easily qualified by the epexegetical clause: “he gave it as an inheritance to Israel.” It is an “already-but-not-yet” construction. The promises stands, but the inheritance is future. This leaves plenty of room for the future efforts and developments—as an inheritance—in the Conquest afforded in Joshua 13.1, the land allocation of Joshua 13-21, and the book of Judges. Joshua 11.23 speaks of giving the land as “an inheritance,” a bold and sure confidence in the promise made to Abraham, yet affording room for further conquest and subjugation.
2) Joshua 1.2-3: “Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.” This is promissory, “I will give you every place.” This is the dominant theme of Joshua, God’s faithfulness to His promise made to Abraham. We are not required to believe an actual fulfillment during Joshua’s time—despite significant successes. Rather, the account indicates that a future “historical process” was underway and would be realized in history, e.g. Joshua 13.-21; Judges, and the golden age of David and Solomon.
3) A close reading of Joshua 12.1-23 is a summary of the city-state kings conquered by Moses and Joshua. The summary approximates the preceding accounts of the northern, central and southern subjugations but with some additions. This summary—with additions—indicates an incomplete Conquest. The author of Joshua, presumably, was not unaware of these additions. He understood that more actual work was required (e.g. Judges, 1-2 Samuel)
4) We believe that 13.1 itself is evidence—a further qualification and delimitation of 11.23. The author was not, presumably, unaware of this delimitation. He openly and fearlessly makes the point—God “had” given and “would” continue to give the land to Abraham’s descendents. 13.1 provides the title-deed for the land allocation and the operational order to fulfill the full realization of the promise.
5) Professor Kelley drew an analogy to the term “salvation” in the New Testament. There is a past, present, and future aspect to the term. “I am saved” refers to the remitted and forgiven penalty of sin, an accomplished fact—past tense. Typically, this refers to justification by faith alone in Reformation theology, an actual pardon and acquittal. (We must forego extended developments of these themes here.) A second sense of the term “saved”: “I am being saved” refers to the power of sin, that is, an on-going process which is present and continuous through the ordinary means of grace: God’s Word, the sacraments of baptism and the Table, and prayer. This is commonly called sanctification in Reformation theology. The third sense, “I will be saved” refers to the future and total deliverance from the presence of sin, a future event that involves the Second Advent of Christ, the renewal of all things, the Final Judgment, the resurrection of the body, and the new heavens and earth. This is commonly called glorification. St. Paul can speak with past tenses—with confidence—for each of these realities in Romans 8.28-38, although there are present and future dimensions in the term salvation. (Nt.1)
While this illustration was helpful, we believe that (1)-(4) above alone resolves a simple and seeming tension between 11.23 and 13.1. We think the tension resolvable and resolved. We think the tension is more imagined than real.
Note:
(1) This may be apocryphal, but the story sticks somewhere in memory from some reading somewhere. I cannot put my fingers on the actual citation. But here is the story, for better or worse. An Anglican Bishop, Archbishop Trench, happened to spot a Salvation Army band playing on a London street corner. One of the organizers spotted the “collared” Bishop. She made the assumption that Archbishop Trench, obviously an Anglican cleric, “could not be saved.” She approached him and asked, “Are you saved?” The Bishop furrowed his brow thoughtfully and asked, “To what sense of the NT verb, “to save,” are you referring?” The woman was taken aback. The Bishop began to outline the past, present and future senses of the Greek term, again making inquiry as to the woman’s question. The Bishop assured the woman that he was saved, was being saved and would one day be totally saved. Two possible morals to the story: 1) Know NT Greek and the NT. 2) Be cautious about assumptions re: old school Anglican Bishops (from the past at least, although we have questions about the modern ones).
No comments:
Post a Comment