Joshua: Desultory Musings, Marcionism, & Liberals

Joshua: Desultory Musings

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.”

Thoughts on Josh.11.23 and 13.1

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).

Calvin's Commentary on Joshua

http://books.google.com/books?id=qOeT6QmKXs8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+calvin+commentaries&hl=en&ei=P3WSTJSwA8SblgeRkvSmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Calvin's Commentary on Joshua is a commendable read. Sagacious, terse, grammatico-historically oriented, and--as expected--quite theocentric and covenantal.

Arminius was probably right--that Calvin alone was probably "heads and shoulders" above all previous church fathers, including Augustine.

Arminius's proposition is worth entertaining and examining more fully--a huge, but worthy task.

Many comment on Calvin through received tradition and secondary sources. It is far better to return to the sources--at fontes. Calvin is readable and lucid--for Theologians and Pastors, even serious Churchmen, he is not inaccessible.

We recently read some comments about the UK, to wit, that no one appreciates the biblical narrative--to do so invites ridicule. Rather overstated we suspect, but probably with some truth. Reading Calvin alongside an English Bible is edifying.