CHAPTER 5
CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT: THE DISRUPTIVE TRUTH OF
ISRAEL’S HOLY WAR
After the exodus event and Mt. Sinai, Israel began the long struggle in her
special “father-son” relationship with God. Having been chosen out of the pagan
world and having been given the only true combination of values, ethics, and
law for a nation, Israel stood as a “stranger” among the other nations of
mankind. This new manifestation of the Kingdom of God as the lordship of Yahweh
was especially disruptive to the rapidly paganizing Noahic civilization.
For the next four centuries from Sinai to the prophet Samuel Israel
would be literally at war with her neighbors. Critics of biblical religion
gleefully cite this period with its genocides and atrocities as proof of the
dangers of our faith. Religious fanaticism! Bigotry! How could a God of love
condone, even command, such bloody conflict? Why was there such total
intolerance of “other religions”?
From Exodus to the end of the book of Judges you will read of dozens of
battles between Israel and surrounding pagan society. Some battles Israel wins;
some she loses. When Israel tries to settle down to a peaceful coexistence her
neighbors, absorbing their religious beliefs, God Himself stirs up new battles
and continues the war. Why can there be no peace between the Kingdom of God and
the pagan Kingdom of Man?
I urge you to pay close attention to the events of this period. Saints
down through the ages have always looked upon this period of history as
illustrative of our struggle to grow spiritually in a hostile world. These
portions of Scripture reveal principles of sanctification. In analyzing them
you will discover why there is such fierce wrath, such a strange holy war,
between Israel and the gentiles. Moreover, you will discover that you need to
follow in Israel’s footsteps as you deal with the world spirit around you and
in your very own flesh. Holy war! Far from being shunned, these passages of the
Bible need to be read and reread again, over and over throughout your Christian
life.
SEVEN BATTLES; SEVEN LESSONS.
Although many important historic events occurred throughout the books
of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, I will mention here only seven of
them. Each was chosen to show you a vital principle. These principles then form
the backdrop for the Christian doctrine of sanctification.
Covenant-Breaking at Sinai and the Need for a New Heart and a Faithful
Intercessor.
Even while God was revealing the stipulations of the Sinaitic Covenant to Moses
on the mount, His nation of vassals below was in wholesale rebellion against
Him, even making idols to worship (Exod. 32-34; Deut. 9-10). We must spend time
to understand what happened at the foot of Mt. Sinai and why the Holy Spirit
caused it to be remembered in Israel’s history.
Do you remember the nature of the Law? Do you recall that Israel’s law
was not just a public law-code but a private personal address to the heart by
the Lord? Ultimately the law described what a proper relationship with the Lord
would look like in a national culture. Servanthood to the Lord began not with
one’s neighbor but with one’s own inner being. Inner, private obedience would
eventually manifest itself in national life as outer, public obedience. But the
converse would also hold true. Inner disobedience could not remain private for
long. Eventually it would manifest its evil in public disruption, apostasy, and
lawlessness.
What happened at the foot of Sinai, therefore, was an open display of
the hearts of the people. They were not ready for what Moses was about to bring
down to them. They were impatient with God’s sovereign timing (Exod. 32:1).
They dwelt upon the fleshly presupposition that man can know good and evil by
himself, that man can define his existence and create the final interpretation
of all things. Like liberal theologians today, they believed that the exodus
event was solely the work of Moses the man (32:1) and that they could create
their own theology to explain life (32:1, 4). They did not give thanks.
God therefore revealed that to follow Him as Lord they must have a
“circumcised heart” (Deut. 10:16). The inner organ of spiritual life must be
surgically modified as the outer organ of physical life is surgically modified
in circumcision. Yahweh’s demands upon His servants, unlike the demands of
manmade public law codes, were too great spiritually for fallen flesh.
Enthusiastic obedience to Him simply would not come “naturally”.
Until the new heart was realized in experience, what kept the
unfaithful servants still inside God’s Kingdom? The response of Moses to the
Mt. Sinai defection answers the question. Yahweh, being righteous and just,
responded to Israel’s idolatry with great anger (Exod. 32:7-10; Deut. 9:12-14).
Since the nation had broken covenant, He proposed to annihilate her and begin
anew. With the covenant broken, there remained to Moses no basis of appeal in
the Word except the prior Abrahamic Covenant which expressed God’s election
plan. Upon this prior groundwork, therefore, Moses faithfully and effectively
interceded on behalf of Israel (Exod. 32:11-13; Deut. 9:26-29). Thus,
preservation of unfaithful servants during the time of their sanctification
inside the Kingdom of the holy God requires a faithful intercessor who will
petition on the basis of God’s gracious election.
Declaration of Holy War and the Final Judgment. Probably the best known
controversial area of the Bible was the command given by Yahweh to Israel to exterminate
certain enemies of God Himself (Exod. 23:20-33; 34:11-17; Num. 33:50-56). In
the original Hebrew this declaration of “holy war” was called herem, a
dedication of enemy objects to God for total annihilation. Yahweh”s command for
holy war corresponded to demands in the ancient suzerainty-vassal treaties for
the vassal to render military aid to the suzerain. Vassals were required to
fight their suzerain’s wars as part of their loyal service to him.
Of all the Bible’s stories, the conquest most strikes scorn and terror
into the pagan heart. The common response is given in a piece of literature I
once received from the Arab political group, the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO): “Under the leadership of Joshua, the Hebrews invaded the
state of Canaan. Crimes of the most heinous nature were perpetrated against the
inhabitants, as readers of the Old Testament know.”[1] The evangelical Old
Testament scholar, Dr. Meredith Kline, expands upon this response:
“If Israel’s conquest of Canaan were to be adjudicated before an
assembly of nations acting according to the provisions of common grace,
that conquest would have to be condemned as an unprovoked aggression and,
moreover, an aggression carried out in barbarous violation of the requirement
to show all possible mercy even in the proper execution of justice.”[2]
Biblical holy war is waged against the damned--those who have rebelled
to the maximum of the grace which God chooses to extend. The iniquity of
Canaan, by the time of the exodus event, had become “full” (cf. Gen. 15:16;
Lev. 18:24-27; Deut. 9:5; 18:9-14). The ethical principles of holy war,
therefore, are not the same ethics for life in the world under common grace. As
Kline notes:
“The unbeliever is the believer’s neighbor today; but the reprobate is
not the neighbor of the redeemed hereafter for the reason that God will set a
great gulf between them. God, whose immutable nature it is to hate evil,
withdrawing all favor from the reprobate, will himself hate them as sin’s
finished products. And if the redeemed in glory are to fulfill their duty of
patterning their ways after God’s, they will have to change their attitude
toward the unbeliever from one of neighborly love to one of perfect hatred,
which is a holy, not a malicious passion. . . .It will only be with the frank
acknowledgement that the ordinary ethical requirements were suspended and the
ethical principles of the last judgment intruded that the divine promises and
commands to Israel concerning Canaan and the Canaanites come into their own.”[3]
We must keep in mind, in thinking through this matter, that since the fall God
has been under no obligation whatsover to preserve and sustain human existence.
During the conquest period, Israel was directed to annihilate certain defined groups
of pagan culture who had reached the absolute limit of rebellion against God.
God for a limited time suspended the ethics of common grace to reveal the
ethics of final judgment. Interestingly, holy war was carefully distinguished
from ordinary warfare which permitted gracious overtures of peace (the rules of
engagement in Deut. 20:16-18 which apply to the Canaanites are distinguished
from the rules of engagement in 20:10-15 which apply to non-Canaanite
populations). How all this applies to the Christian life, I will discuss in the
following section on sanctification.
The Kadesh-Barnea Fiasco and the Necessity for Holy War. The third event
of the conquest happened as Israel approached Kadesh-barnea on the southern
border of the Promised Land (see Figure 5.1 and Num. 13-14; I Cor. 10:1-13;
Heb. 3:7-19). The people were supposed to secure the land, waging holy war in
obedience to God’s Word and trusting that He would give the victory as He had
promised. Instead, the people succumbed to fleshly unbelief by interpreting
their trial out of context from God’s plan for them (Num. 13:31).
Discouragement, fear, and depression soon followed. Yahweh became so angry at
their rebellion against His Word that He forever marked off that generation as
the wilderness generation who would never enter the land. For thirty-eight
years Israel had to wander in the wilderness until a new generation grew up
which could take the land properly by faith (see Num. 14:23; Heb. 3:10-11,
18-19).
Figure 5.1 Map
showing the area of the Promised Land (hatched) according to Gen. 15:18; Num.
34:2-12; Deut.1:7. The earlier attempted invasion was from the south (A). Later
Joshua waged a three-pronged campaign from the east (B1, B2, and B3).
The principle here is that in a fallen world God’s final blessings can come
only when evil has been eliminated. Hence the Lord’s Prayer asks that “Thy
Kingdom come; Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). The
Kingdom program of God requires holy war by its servants in order for them to
secure the promised Kingdom blessings. The war in some form always follows
spiritual advances in the believer’s life. This is the story of the New
Testament epistle to the Hebrews as well as of nearly every other epistle.
Victory at Jericho and the “Works” of Faith. As a fourth event during
the conquest period, I have selected Israel’s stunning victory at Jericho. It
occurred after the forty years of wilderness wanderings and after Moses died
(Josh. 2-6). Israel’s new commanding general, Joshua (his name means
“deliverer” like the name Jesus), decided upon a three-campaign strategy (see
Figure 5.1). His first major objective had to be the central fortress-city of
Jericho which acted like a gate to the land on the eastern side. On the eve of
the attack Yahweh appeared in person to Joshua and gave him one of the most
peculiar set of tactics an army has ever used (Josh. 5:13-6:5). Yahweh led the
attack in the presence of the Ark. [4] The army shouted by faith that Yahweh
had already given them the city (note the past tense of the verbÑ6:16),
whereupon the city was demolished (6:20-21). Archeological evidence for this
event exists, although the chronological debate tends to obscure its effect
(see Appendix B).
The victory at Jericho provides an unusually clear insight into the
relationship of our faith and the works it does. Faith, as I showed in Chapter
2 when discussing the call of Abraham, depends upon God’s gracious initiative
and requires His illumination and inclination of the heart. Nevertheless, it
does not replace the created order already existing. The human mind still
thinks, the mouth still speaks, and the body still acts. What is different is
that the thinking, the speaking, and the acting are done while looking to Him
to do what He has promised. Faith humbly accepts the two-level view of reality
and shuns the autonomous temptation to act as god. Plans take into account His
Word and remain “open” to His amendments; they are not made as though they
depend upon man’s alleged independent powers to define meaning (“to know good
and evil”).
Note the logic in the conversation between Yahweh and Joshua in 5:13-14. Joshua
starts off in classical military fashion, challenging the Stranger’s
allegiance. Is it to him as commander of the Israelites or to the Canaanite
enemies? The Stranger replies that He is not “under” either Joshua’s or the
Canaanites’ authority; He Himself is the ultimate authority to which both
Joshua and the Canaanites are to submit. Joshua immediately recognizes and
submits (5:15). After that grand act of submission, faith shows itself in the
altered order of battle.
In faith the army of Israel employs tactics that fit the Lord’s plan but which
do not at all appear sufficient to destroy Jericho. The tactics were necessary
but not sufficient. Thomas Scott comments:
“When the Lord effects His purposes by such means and instruments as we
deem adequate, our views are apt to terminate upon them, and to overlook Him
“who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.” To obviate this
propensity, the Lord sometimes deviates from the common tract and works by
methods or instruments which in themselves appear not al all suited to produce
the intended effect; nay, sometimes have no real connection with it (Num.
20:6-9; Ezek. 37:1-10; John 9:4-7).”[5]
In other words, the
plan comes down from the Creator above Who has the (Q)ualities of Omniscience,
Omnipotence, and Sovereignty. Man the creature has only the finite replica of
those qualitiesÑknowledge, energy, and choiceÑand trusts in Him while on the
creature level the plan looks so incomplete, so insufficient!
Very simply, however, the “works” of faith are the thoughts, words, and
deeds of a man who self-consciously acknowledges their insufficiency and who
does them out of obedience to the One he trusts. Like Joshua’s amended order of
battle, they are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.
The Defeat at Ai and the Danger of Pseudo-obedience. Immediately after Israel
enjoyed victory at Jericho, the nation was defeated at Ai (Josh 7). The defeat
occurred, not because Yahweh was defeated, but because Israel had sinned in
only partially obeying orders. Although the Hebrews obeyed the order to wage
holy war, one of them, Achan, disobeyed Yahweh’s direct command to give all the
remains of war to Him (6:17-7:1). The terms of the suzerain’s blessing upon his
vassals were now violated. The vassals were taking matters into their own
hands, wanting to determine outcomes themselves. Instead of victory, panic and
rout met the armies of Israel (7:5). Only after Israel had dealt drastically
with the sin of Achan (7:6-26), did Yahweh give them victory at Ai (8:1-29). As
in each of the preceding four events, here, too, a truth concerning the
spiritual struggle emerges.
As the “son” of God Israel was to have a father-son historical experience with
Him. The Sinaitic Covenant which spelled out that relationship clearly showed
that the relationship was to start and end in the depths of the human heart.
Hebrew hearts were to be circumcised. Private inner obedience to God was to
precede and form the basis of public outer obedience. At Ai, however, Achan
tried to imitate the public outward obedience without the private inner
obedience of the heart.
Notice how his sin infected the entire nation, including Joshua. Elsewhere in
the book of Joshua there is a clear-cut pattern of: (1) “Yahweh said” (3:7-8;
4:15-16; 5:13-6:5; 8:1-2); (2) “Joshua did” (3:9-13; 4:4-7, 17-18; 6:6-11; 8:3-8);
and (3) “the people did” (3:14-17; 4:8-14, 19-20; 6:12-27; 8:9-29). This
pattern is missing in 7:1-5. Clearly, the Holy Spirit is warning us through the
Ai event that it matters more to God that we obey Him from the heart than that
we mind the externals. Without private obedience, public appearances are mere
pseudo-obedience. God will not honor “faking” it with superficial and phony
social righteousness while our hearts rebel against Him.
The Longest Day at Aijalon and Divine Compensation. The sixth event I
have selected for study is the famous day when the sun stood still while Israel
battled in the valley of Aijalon (see the arrow marked “B-2” in Fig. 5.1).
Joshua’s three-campaign strategy had entered its second phase. The central area
had been secured, and it was time to move southward.
Circumstances were exactly right to facilitate launching a southern campaign.
Tricked into a league with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:1-27), Joshua now faced a
Canaanite coalition of southern kings who were alarmed over the Gibeonite
“treachery” in defecting over to the Hebrew side (10:1-5). Since Joshua was
determined to keep Israel’s word to Gibeon, he marched the army westward and
southward all night. With minimum food and no sleep the Hebrew army was highly
vulnerable to enemy counter-attack. Its only hope lay in annihilating the enemy
before it could regroup in the hills near the valley of Aijalon.
Since Joshua and his army faced a grace situation brought on by their obedience
to Yahweh, Yahweh demonstrated His faithfulness to His servants: He suddenly
unleashed His own special weapons involving nature forces. Giant stones rained
down with accuracy far exceeding most artillery and missiles of today so that
“they were more who died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel
slew with a sword” (10:11). Not one Hebrew solder is reported to have been
killed by the stones; yet hundreds of enemy soldiers only a few feet away were
struck down! Moreover, God kept light over the area long enough to enable
Israel to pursue the scattering, fleeing remnants of the enemy force. With the
sun, earth, and moon locked in relative zero motion, truly “there was no day
like that before it or after it” (10:14).
The various “explanations” of the sun’s and the moon’s standing still which
attribute the phenomenon to group psychology or optical illusion are
unconvincing in light of the notice in 10:14. As always, the pagan mind seeks
to reinterpret everything so it fits into some version of the Continuity of
Being whereby God (if He exists) and man are both only actors inside the
mysterious universe that is bigger than all of them. The physical universe,
paganism holds, couldn’t possibly be controlled by the Word of God because to
admit that would be to admit the Creator-creature distinction. In recent years
some startling suggestions have been made about what Joshua 10 implies about
the universe.[6]
The spiritual truth to learn from the long day at Aijalon is that God always compensates
for the weakness of those who obey Him. As long as we are faithful to do what
is asked, God will stop the universe, if necessary, to come to our aid! Just as
God has numerous means to frustrate the disobedient, so He has numerous means
to bless the obedient. Joshua was deceived, but he kept his word. . .and God
kept His! Holy War is ultimately His concern, not ours, so it may be
accompanied by total surprises from our viewpoint.
The Sentence of Doom at Bochim and the Postponed Kingdom. Joshua’s
three-campaign strategy secured a strong foothold on the Promised Land, but
much unconquered territory remained (see Figure 5.2). The conquest under Joshua
dominated potentially all the land because the backbone of enemy resistance had
been broken (Josh. 11:15, 23; 21:43-45). Only small enclaves remained; but
since these enclaves remained, ultimate, literal fulfillment of the land
promise of the Abrahamic Covenant had not yet occurred (Judges 1; Heb. 4:8).
The national, united army dissolved into its tribal components as each tribe
claimed its own part of the land (Josh. 14:1-22:34). Thus the land was never totally
conquered.
The centuries following Joshua’s death saw a decline in Israel’s obedience to
Yahweh and a subsequent decline in her victory over the inhabitants of the
land. Again and again during this period there was a cyclic pattern of apostasy
(Jud. 2:11-13), chastening defeat (Jud. 2:14-15), and merciful restoration by
local leaders called “judges” (Jud. 2:16-19). Finally, Yahweh uttered a
sentence of doom at Bochim (Jud. 2:1-5, 20-23). The spiritual decline of the
nation led Yahweh to forsake His original promise to drive out the inhabitants
of the Promised Land. Later prophecies would inform Israel about her coming
Messiah who would end the struggle and fulfill the promises. As of this event,
the Kingdom of God coming through Israel has been postponed.
Figure 5.2 Map
showing the actual area (hatched) of Promised Land conquered by Joshua and
later efforts in the Judges period (Josh. 13; Jud. 1). Comparison with Figure
5.1 shows how much land remained unconquered when the sentence of doom was
pronounced in Judges 2 at Bochim.
The failure of Israel in this seventh “battle” example reveals a major
historical truth about the advance of the Kingdom of God against the Kingdom of
Man. A nation of fallen people, in spite of many of them being circumcised in
heart and being in a special covenant relationship with the Creator, cannot
accomplish the task of eliminating evil in the world. Let’s review the previous
six examples.
BATTLE
LESSON
Covenant-Breaking at
Sinai
Need for a new heart
Need for an
intercessor
Declaration of Holy
War
Preview of Final Judgment
Fiasco at
Kadesh-Barnea
Necessity for Holy War
Victory at Jericho
“Works” of Faith
Defeat at
Ai
Pseudo-Obedience
Longest Day at
Aijalon
Divine Compensation
Sentence of Doom at
Bochim
Postponed Kingdom
From these and the other events of the period of the
conquest and settlement, we learn what life is like on the leading edge of the
Kingdom of God as it intrudes into the paganized Noahic civilization. Taken as
an isolated series of events, set within an unbelieving framework, this holy
war does appear in utter moral conflict with ethics taught elsewhere in
Scripture. The PLO propaganda seems right: “an unprovoked aggression carried
out in barbarous violation of. . .mercy.”
The Bible-believing Christian, however, knows that
each part of the Bible must be taken within the framework of the whole.
Remember my discussion of creation and the early chapters of Genesis?
Objections to that part of the Bible that were built upon autonomous pride had
to be unmasked. Similarly, objections to the conquest and settlement have to be
exposed also. Such objections assume that the ethical norms of common grace
(borrowed, by the way, from the Bible first of all) imply everlasting tolerance
of evil. Yet if evil is everlastingÑa favorite axiom of paganismÑthen there
is no hope whatsoever.
The conquest and settlement with its stubborn
opposition to any peaceful coexistence is simply the revelation of what
salvation looks like in a fallen world when it is worked out to its final
conclusion. If God is going to fulfill His promise of preparing an eternal home
for the saved, those who reject Him have to be removed. God chose a small-scale
version of His ultimate elimination of evil from the earth in the conquest
events. He revealed that the war is His, not Israel’s. Two mutually opposed
ultimate principles cannot coexist. Either Satan and his followers win
everlasting freedom for themselves from the Creator, or the Creator asserts His
Omnipotent, Sovereign, and Holy nature against them.
The scary part of holy war is this: all rebellion
against God is finally doomed to complete judgment. In the end, God’s Kingdom
will triumph (“His will be done on earth as it is in heaven”). What is the
believer’s role in history while the struggle goes on? The answer is found in
the truth of sanctification.
THE TRUTH OF SANCTIFICATION
Sanctification is the doctrine of how the saved become holy in God’s sight, how evil
is removed from us without destroying us and how we become fully righteous in
His sight. Many foolish ideas about sanctification abound in Christian circles.
Because the foundation of justification by faith alone is widely ignored,
ignorance compounds to bizarre heights. Spiritual progress is too often viewed
in psychological terms as though the matter was merely a human
social-adjustment problem. Endless books present their author’s “secret” to the
Christian life, usually built out of his own personal experience. Thus we now
see everything from “the Devil made me do it” (blame shifting to the demonic)
to “do anything you want as long as you show love” (the “gay Christian
movement”).
Regardless of how saintly we think we are, we cannot construct the
truth of sanctification out of our personal experience as the starting point.
Sanctification—removal of evil and replacement by holiness—isn’t ultimately a
merely personal issue. It is a cosmic issue involving the whole created
universe. It involves nothing less than Satan’s and through him, Adam’s,
challenge to God’s very authority. It concerns the greatest of all questions: the
problem of evil.
Therefore in this section I will utilize the backdrop of the conquest
and settlement history to show various aspects of sanctification. Instead of
starting with our own specialized and limited personal experience, we will
learn of sanctification from the larger perspective of biblical history which
we can only indirectly experience. Sanctification entails warfare, and warfare
is an art that cannot be learned effectively from the direct, immediate
experience of the soldier. It can be mastered only indirectly from studying
many experiences of war throughout history. One of the greatest living military
strategists, B.H. Liddell Hart, wrote:
“Even in the most active career, especially a soldier’s career, the
scope and possibilities of direct experience are extremely limited. . . .Direct
experience is too limited to form an adequate foundation either for theory or
for application. At the best it produces an atmosphere that is of value in drying
and hardening the structure of thought. The greater value of indirect
experience lies in its greater variety and extent. [7]
To Hart’s words we
may add that for the Christian needing lessons in a warfare involving unseen
powers of evil and a strategic plan only comprehended by God Himself, how much
more should we pursue the study of His Word in this matter! Let’s look at some,
not all, aspects of sanctification.
Phases of Sanctification. Traditionally, sanctification has been divided
into three phases—positional (past), experiential (present), and ultimate
(future)—corresponding to the three phases of salvation. Let’s use what we have
learned from the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants to understand these phases of
sanctification.
With the Abrahamic Covenant God began His separatist, exclusivist, missionary,
counterculture in history. Revelation after 2000 BC was channeled through
Abraham and his progeny instead of the former revelation to all cultures
everywhere. We studied in Chapter 2 how this change gave rise to the so-called
“heathen problem” (what about those who are supposed never to have heard?). God
rejected human civilization as it became progressively paganized in the
centuries after Noah. Resulting from His covenant-writing with Abraham was
clear revelation of election, justification, and faith. God publicly bound
Himself to three specific promises: (1) survival and miraculous growth of
Abraham’s progeny, (2) eternal title to specific real estate on planet Earth
for this progeny, and (3) divine blessing upon all nations of mankind through
this progeny.
Israel’s “positional” sanctification, or her standing in God’s plan, can be
pictured as an open circle, detailing the three great promises:
This covenant
defined meaning and purpose in history (election). Israel would forever be at
cultural odds with its environment. The covenant showed that in spite of
falleness somehow God considered it meeting His righteous standards in order to
be party to a covenant with Him (justification). Israel could never hope to
generate righteousness apart from God’s way. And what is so often missed in
interpreting Israel’s existence, is that its proper response to God’s calling
was a faith created in its heart by God’s Spirit. This position cannot be
changed unless God ceases to exist!
The Sinaitic Covenant, rather than specifying what Israel could expect of God,
revealed what God expected of Israel. If the Abrahamic Covenant was written in
the indicative mood, the Sinaitic Covenant was written in the imperative mood.
One stated positional truth; the other stated commanded behavior. The
difference between the two covenants compares to the difference between two
ancient Near-Eastern legal documents: the royal grant and the suzerainty-vassal
treaty. Dr. Moshe Weinfeld explains:
“While the Ôtreaty’ constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his
master, the suzerain, the Ôgrant’ constitutes an obligation of the master to
his servant. In the Ôgrant’ the curse is directed towards the one who will
violate the rights of the king’s vassal, while in the treaty the curse is
directed towards the vassal who will violate the rights of his king. In other
words the Ôgrant’ serves mainly to protect the rights of the servant,
while the Ôtreaty’ comes to protect the rights of the master.[8]
In the Abrahamic
Covenant, comparing to Weinfeld’s Ôroyal grant’, God cursed Abraham’s enemies
(Gen. 12:3); in the Sinaitic Covenant, corresponding to Weinfeld’s
Ôsuzerainty-vassal treaty’, God cursed Israel (Lev. 26; Deut.28:15-48).
Israel’s experiential sanctification, then, can be pictured as circle of
obligations owed to God because of her calling in Abraham. Consider the
Abrahamic open circle like the Sun shining into darkness below. The Sinaitic
Covenant would then be the circle of light in the darkness below:
At any given moment
in history Israel might or might not live in the light of her obligations. If
she rebelled and left the light to try and dwell in darkness, God would discipline
her in the darkness.
The two phases of sanctification, then, can be distinguished. The third phase,
ultimate sanctification, was to occur when Israel in experience would fulfill
its position entirely, or when Israel would forever dwell in the light of her
eternal calling. Until that future time (of the New Covenant to be discussed in
Part IV of this series) Israel would always be “in” the eternal position in
God’s plan but not always in the circle of light. Her experiential sanctification
would remain incomplete. The sentence of doom at Bochim revealed this conflict:
the land promise would never be attained by Israel apart from certain future
developments involving the New Covenant and the coming Messiah.
An analogous situation occurs with the New Testament believer as a member of
the Church. There are provisions flowing out of the Abrahamic Covenant through
the New Covenant in Christ that define our positional sanctification (details
will be given in Part VI of this series). These provisions reveal what we can
expect of God. Nothing can change that position for all eternity. It undergirds
and gives meaning to everyday experiences in our Christian lives.
Likewise, there are the commands of the New Testament that define what God
expects of us. Although the Church position differs from that of Israel, the
principles of present, experiential sanctification remain the same. [9] At any
given moment we might or might not live in the circle of light laid down by the
New Testament. If we rebel, He will discipline us as our Shepherd and Father.
The life of faith depends upon us putting these two phases of sanctification in
proper perspective. We are to obey what God asks of us in the lower circle
of light while we trust Him to provide what He promises in the open circle
above. Serious problems arise whenever we try to do what He has already
done, or whenever we passively assume He will do what He wants us
to do. The focus of the rest of my discussion is how these two phases relate in
the remaining aspects of sanctification.
Aim of Sanctification. It should be clear from the Mr. Sinai revelation
and the subsequent conquest experiences that the main aim which Yahweh had for
His vassal nation was the development of loyalty to His commands,
loyalty in every area of life (Deut. 6:5). At this point, if you have paid
attention to the framework from creation onward, you should suspect that this
aim of increasing loyalty is not directed inherently at against sin although it
obviously entails the separation of good and evil.
Before the fall man was required to learn obedience to God. Obedience was the
crux of the test given to Adam and Eve. Man was created to reign over creation
for God (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15; Psa. 8). Being a responsible creature made in
God’s image, man could not acquire obedience by instinct: he had to learn it by
experience. This principle is clear from the biblical statement that even
Christ, the God-man, in His sinless humanity had to learn obedience (Heb. 5:8).
Learning obedience by historical experience, then, does not inherently involve
sin.
After the fall, of course, sin does become inseparable from sanctification, but
from the beginning it was not so. Before the fall, to cite a simple example,
Adam was required to till the ground to produce fruit for God. After the fall
he was to continue the same work except that great impediments were introduced.
Thorns and thistles, non-productive plants, would diminish his production and
cause him to expend more energy to produce the same amount of fruit. God’s
demand for him to subdue the ground still was applicable, but after the fall it
became impossible to fulfill the command without great struggle. The fall thus
introduced impediments to sanctification; yet it never changed the aim of
sanctification, loyalty to God.
What is amazing is that through Christ as a genuine member of the human race
good and evil are finally separated by the original command given to Adam: to
subdue to earth in obedience to God. Christ accomplished this command
perfectly, doing the groundwork for the ultimate separation of good and evil as
well as becoming the model of perfect loyalty and righteousness.
The effect of the fall upon development of loyalty to God can be pictured as
follows:
BEFORE THE
FALL
AFTER THE FALL
Aim of
Loyalty Aim of Loyalty
Impediments
(evil & its consequences)
You already learned
a similar truth when you learned about the positive and negative aspects of
justification in Chapter 3. Remember that justification was not just
“forgiveness”? Forgiveness alone would result in our “price” in God’s eyes
changing from minus to zero but not becoming positive. Justification, you will
recall, added righteousness to make our “price” positive. To regain access to
God we can’t return to the probationary period of Eden; we have to attain the
positive obedience that Adam should have gained originally. Sanctification is
like justification in this regard. It is not merely doing away with evil in our
experience; it also includes gaining loyalty or positive experiential
obedience. The higher Abrahamic Covenant with its justification controls the
lower Sinaitic Covenant with its sanctification.
One can see clearly the wisdom of God’s lessons to Israel at Ai and Aijalon. At
Ai Israel fought against evil, yet in such a way that the primary aim of
sanctification was not being fulfilled. God, therefore, frustrated such
pseudo-obedience in order to focus attention, not upon the command to fight
evil, but upon obedience to the basic spirit of His commands. At Aijalon God
rewarded obedience by a spectacular display of His power to focus attention
again upon the issue of loyalty. The record of historical revelation is filled
with God’s rewards and punishments used to train men to develop loyal
attitudes. Every experience and every technique which are taught in the name of
sanctification must, then, be evaluated by whether one’s loyalty to God is
furthered or hindered. Merely fighting evil or having great spiritual
experiences is not the aim of sanctification.
Means of Sanctification. The third aspect of sanctification concerns the
means used to produce loyalty to God. We know that the modus operandi of
the Kingdom of God is faith (see Chapter 3) so sanctification must require faith.
Faith is a response by the sinner to God’s gracious offers. The question
arises, then, what are the comparative roles of law and grace as means of
sanctification? Sometimes it is said that in the age of Israel, men were
sanctified by law, and in the Church age men are sanctified by grace. [10]
Actually, both law and grace, when they are properly related to faith,
are involved in sanctification. These are two means of sanctification.
1. Law. Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God
(Rom. 10:17), biblical faith always requires verbal revelation. We saw the
necessity of revelation in Chapter 4 through the Mt. Sinai event. Biblical
faith develops only as it trusts that the Creator-Savior will behave according
to His contractual terms. These terms occur in many different covenants. We
have seen three so far: the New World Covenant in Noah’s day, the Abrahamic
Covenant, and the Sinaitic Covenant.
The word “law” can refer generally to all revelation in all the covenants taken
together, it can refer to the first five books of the Bible, or it can refer to
the Sinaitic Covenant in particular. It is when “law” refers to the Sinaitic
Covenant in certain New Testament passages, that it is contrasted with “grace”
(Rom. 6:14; 7:1-6; Gal. 5:18). That is a special usage that I will discuss in
Part VI of this series. For now, I mean by “law” revelation in general,
including both indicative statements and imperative commands. In the New
Testament there are hundreds of commands directed toward believers which form
the “law of Christ”.
Elimination of all law in this general sense is antinomianism pure and simple.
Antinomianism supports licentiousness in all its forms. It can manifest itself
in a false mysticism and religious emotionalism where “something more” than
God’s own inerrant Word is insisted upon. One such writer boldly stated: “We
are not to say. . .that the Word is sufficient.” [11] in spite of Paul’s clear
statement that the Scriptures are sufficient (II Tim. 3:16-17). Elimination of
law creates a false interpretation of grace where grace is seen as an
eternal “laxity” in the holiness of God. It also manifests itself
intellectually in the various forms of irrationalism—undisciplined speculation
and existential depression. Antinomianism underlies the frantic search for
happiness seen in drug-, sex-, and musically-induced ecstasy. Antinomianism is
a synonym for the pagan lust for “total freedom”.
We, therefore, grow spiritually by being confronted with the Word of God in our
heart: it teaches proper content for our thinking; it convinces
us of its truthfulness; it rebukes areas of one’s life which need
changing; and it instructs us in new godly patterns of life (II Tim.
3:16). God the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scriptures to the heart (I John
2:27), and the Father administers discipline to enforce the lessons (Heb.
12:6-13). The Word of God as “law” is the means of instilling God’s authority
or lordship over us. During the conquest and settlement, you have seen how
Joshua, for example, was expected to meditate on the particular Sinaitic
Covenant terms (Josh. 1:7-8). Every seven years Yahweh’s vassals had to appear
before His palace (Tabernacle) to hear the Old Testament Law read in order that
they might fear their God (Deut. 31:10-13). Parents were to teach their
children the law in the home (Deut. 6:6-9). And when the Law was not followed
the God’s blessings were withdrawn (Bochim). Law is one of the two means of
sanctification.
2. Grace. To even speak to sinful creatures, God must exercise
grace. We saw in the last chapter at Mt. Sinai God as the great king recited
His previous gracious deliverance of Israel (Exod. 20:2). The act of law-giving
was gracious. Man through the law became more aware of his sin (Rom. 3:19-20;
7:7-14; I Tim. 1:9). The experience at Mt. Sinai quickly taught man the
necessity of a new heart which could only be created by a God of grace. It also
taught him the necessity of a priestly intercessor if he was to remain saved
during his sanctification. This gracious assurance of God’s attention toward us
is needed by faith.
Israel’s position before God was previously established through the groundwork
in the Abrahamic Covenant (positional sanctification). That gracious covenant
preceded the details of the Sinaitic legal terminology. That sovereign gracious
covenant established the meaning of Israel’s existence. It guaranteed the
survival of Israel against a paganized civilization wholly aligned against this
chosen nation. In like manner, God’s grace toward us in Christ established the
meaning of everything that happens in our lives. It pursues us even when we
fail Him just as it pursued Israel when the nation disobeyed. God’s imperative
commands to us “float” on a sea of gracious provisions as Paul taught in Romans
6-8. Without these provisions constantly buoying us up in the face of our
impotence to obey God with our flesh, our faith and our sanctification would
cease. The daily ups and downs are contained inside the gracious elect plan of
God that lays out our existence from eternity to eternity.
Elimination of grace is the opposite pagan tendencyÑthat of legalism. To assert
that God’s grace is no longer needed for us to meet His righteousness is to
assert that His righteousness is within man’s reach. Elimination of grace
creates a false interpretation of law where law is seen as a legitimate
product of the finite human intellectÑdefining good and evil like a god.
Man now becomes the center of all works, all order, and all attention. The
battle is on to attain security--knocking down Jericho’s walls and stopping the
sun as it were--independently of the Creator. Legalism destroys dependency upon
God by destroying all gratitude for what He needs to do for us. Gone, then, is
the primary motivation in living a faithful life before God.. It manifests
itself in “self-help” techniques and the frantic search for “self esteem”.
Intellectually, it shows up in the various forms of rationalismÑin the
philosophical and socio-political spheresÑthat seek to build a utopian
civilization through man’s efforts alone.
Sanctification, because of its crucial reliance on faith, requires law and
grace together. Law in the Word of God establishes the authoritative framework
for faith and suppresses licentiousness; it is the tool of direction whereby we
interpret every experience. Grace toward us initiates every advance in personal
holiness, sustains our every failure, and suppresses legalism; it is the
fountain of all true motivation. Neither can be eliminated without destroying
the other.
Dimensions of Sanctification. A fourth aspect of sanctification requires
our attention. We must distinguish between the two dimensions of life in which
sanctification occurs: the existentially present moment and the long-term
progress due to the sum of many past moments. Failure to distinguish these two
dimensions confuses our daily perspective on our relationship to the Lord.
This picture of
spiritual growth is obviously full of ups and downs just as physical life
itself. In the area covered by the rectangle there is spiritual advance. In the
area covered by the oval there is spiritual decline. Generally, either there is
spiritual advance or decline at any given point. Nevertheless, overall there is
a general upward trend of sanctification.
One dimension to Figure 5.3 is the slope of the line at any given point
in time. We call this dimension the existentially present moment. It is the
moment when you and I chose to trust and obey or to be faithless and go our own
way. There is an “either-or” character here. The Bible has nomenclatures which
refer to this “either-or” dimension of sanctification: walking in the light (I
John 1:7), walking in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), abiding in Christ (John 15:1-7),
filling by the Spirit (Eph. 5:18), the word of Christ dwelling richly (Col.
3:16), etc. Either we consciously obey the known will of God for the present
moment as we understand it in our hearts, or we slip back into the bondage of
the flesh.
The other dimension to Figure 5.3 is the long-term growth. This
dimension is not “either-or” but a matter of degrees. In Figure 5.3 long-term
growth is the sum of all the positive contributions minus the sum of all the
negative contributions. Growth takes varying lengths of time, depending upon
how fast we learn the lesson of loyalty to God in each area as He makes it an
issue. God reveals His law-ethic pedagogically; He trains His covenant people
as a father trains his son, giving first the immediate objectives, then later
higher objectives. Growth could also, therefore, be pictured as an expanding
circle of light that I mentioned earlier in this chapter.
Such a circle expands with an ever-increasing radius, taking in more and more
area. At first with a small radius the circle encompasses only the most basic
of obligations to God and shows only rudimentary “subduing” of the earth. It
might be an area of the brain where prior to regeneration there was the most
basic of rebellion toward what was known of God. Now there is a spirit of
obedience and a developing habit of righteousness. Then, as growth continues,
more of the body is brought under righteous controlÑthe area of dominion
expands. Also as growth continues, awareness of more and more of God’s Word
challenges us to ever more difficult tasks as godliness builds (Heb. 5:14) and
replaces formerly godless habits (Rom. 8:13). Such long-term growth, however,
is a result of the moment-by-moment obedience; it cannot happen overnight.
By remembering these two dimensions, you can distinguish between
moment-by-moment abiding in the lower circle and the increasing size of that
circle. It is a perspective that nourishes a healthy patience with spiritual
growth without neglecting the present moment’s obligations.
Enemies of Sanctification. The fifth and final aspect of sanctification
to be discussed here concerns the impediments or enemies of sanctification
mentioned above. These impediments, it will be recalled, have come about due to
the fall. Originally, sanctification could have proceeded without resistance,
but after the fall sanctification is continually opposed by “the world, the
flesh, and the devil.” Since I will discuss these more fully in later parts of
this series, I will mention here only the purpose these opponents serve and the
basic response we should have toward them.
All things have a purpose because God is sovereign. His sovereignty
shapes the open circle of His redemptive program through Abraham. That means
that even the enemies of sanctification wind up furthering His plan for us! As
Joseph put it these enemies mean evil, but God means it for good (Gen. 50:20).
Just what good purpose these enemies serve can be seen in several incidents
that occurred during the conquest and settlement.
The declaration of holy war taught the principle that holy war provided a
preview of final judgment. Since holy war was merciless and since it is a
picture of sanctification in a fallen world, sanctification must proceed with
the same mercilessness against its enemies. Bible passages, therefore, that
speak of holy warÑe.g., the imprecatory psalms (Pss. 35:1-8; 58:6-11;
83:9-18; 109:6-20; 137:7-9)Ñare vital exhortations to a mental attitude
necessary for the struggle against the enemies of sanctification. These
passages, as well as traditional hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers”, are
often attacked today as not showing the “real spirit” of Christianity. When not
overtly attacked, they are a source of embarrassment to many Christians. Even
C. S. Lewis shows a very uncustomary fumbling discussion of the imprecatory
psalms. [12]
Such problems arise because a previous problem wasn’t handled correctly in the
minds of these critics. They have never embraced holy war itself in the
original conquest narratives. They have not seen the necessary place of holy
war in the Christian framework. As I discussed above, holy war is the
revelation of the final end of evil. Without it, evil remains. Thus holy war
finishes history.
Therefore, there is no room for “conscientious objectors” in this kind of war.
To seek to avoid holy war against the enemies of sanctification is to
perpetuate evil! The Kadesh-barnea fiasco underscored God’s demand that we
engage the enemy. Van Til put the matter well:
“We must oppose with all our hearts and with all our minds the ethical
program that those who deny Christ have made for themselves. That ethical
program is, at bottom, the flat denial of our ethical program. If they succeed
with theirs we cannot succeed with ours. . . Compromise that we engage in, as
we say, in order to win others for the kingdom, is strictly forbidden by
Christ. We should throw out the life line, but we may not allow ourselves to
drown along with those whom we wish to save. . . .An analogy from the nature of
war may serve to illustrate this point. As long as someone carries the flag of
our opponents, we must seek to shoot him. Yet we would like nothing better than
to have our opponents come to our side by a recognition of our flag. But this
can never be accomplished unless they swear off allegiance to their former
flag.”[14]
The purpose of the
enemies of sanctification, whoever and whatever they may be, is to teach us the
holy insistence of God in disrupting this present, abnormal, evil world with
His Kingdom of righteousness, and the prerequisite of eliminating evil prior to
eternal peace on earth.
And what of our response to these enemies, once we understand their
larger purpose? What was Israel’s response supposed to have been to its enemies
during the conquest and settlement? They were to operate by faith in Yahweh’s
promised program through Abraham that the land was to be theirs regardless of
the size, numbers, and ferocity of their opponents. Yet the Israelites were not
to heedlessly attack these enemies in their own strength and without submission
to Yahweh in their hearts. In like manner, we are to submit to the Lord and
fight only because it is His battle, not ours. We are to do so persistently
until the battle is over, trusting that His plan cannot fail.
Such a response is driven by a quiet, inner, powerful attitude toward God’s
will in our lives. Failure to attain such an attitude results in giving up
amidst spiritual struggle. Years ago a prominent Christian counselor wrote:
“In counseling, week after week, I continually encounter one
outstanding failure among Christians: a lack of what the Bible calls
Ôendurance’; they give up. . . .The work of the Holy Spirit is not mystical. .
. .The Holy Spirit Himself has plainly told us how He works. He says in the
Scriptures that He ordinarily works through the Scriptures. . . .He did not
give us the Book, only to say that we could lay it aside and forget it in the
process of becoming godly. Godliness does not come by osmosis. . . .It is by
willing, prayerful and persistent obedience to the requirements of the
Scriptures that godly patterns are developed and come to be a part of us.”[15]
Note that this God-centered attitude flows out of our occupation with the
things He has revealed in the “upper circle” that undergird what He commands us
in the “lower circle” just as it was in Israel’s history. Such an attitude
contains within it a profound strategy. The strategy of response to the enemies
of sanctification is not primarily to defeat the enemies, but to carry out the
program of our Father. The strategy, therefore, is an indirect one: not
directly attacking the enemy, but pursuing the will of God and loyalty to Him
that results in victory over the enemy.
Interestingly, indirect strategy against one’s enemies is the key to
all the wars men have ever fought according to Liddell Hart. This student of
military strategy, after surveying every major conflict for the past 2500
years, concluded:
“Effective results in war have rarely been attained
unless the approach has had such indirectness as to ensure the opponent’s
unwillingness to meet it. The indirectness has usually been physical, and
always psychological. In strategy, the longest way round is often the shortest
way home.”
Think of what you observed during the conquest narratives in Joshua and Judges.
The Canaanites were already defeated, not by the greatness of Israel’s army but
by the power of Yahweh through the Exodus (Josh. 2:9-11). The strange military
operations around Jericho and the miraculous cessation of solar and lunar
motion during the Aijalon campaign were all indirect stratagems that hinged
upon the inner heart loyalty to God rather than a direct confrontation with the
enemy. This indirectness ensured “the opponent’s unwillingness to meet it.”
END NOTES FOR
CHAPTER 5 1. Ismail
Shammout, Palestine: Illustrated Political History, trans. Abdul-Qadan
Deher (Palestine Liberation Organization, 1972), p.6. 2. Meredith G.
Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972), p. 159f. 3. Ibid.,
p. 163. 4. The close
identity of Yahweh and the Ark can be seen in passages like Numbers 10:35-36. 5. Quoted in
Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), p.
151. 6. The problem
of the longest day is not easily solved within the framework of modern historical
science. It may turn out, in fact, that this event provides shocking evidence
that the old geocentric view of the universe might be true after all since both
the sun and the moon together ceased their motion. This phenomenon is far
easier to visualize in a geocentric frame of reference than in a heliocentric
one. Additionally, the long day appears to correlate to tales of a long night
in the Western hemisphere, a point that led Immanuel Velikovski to remark years
ago how remarkable that so-called myths vary longitudinally! See his book, Worlds
In Collision (Garden City: Doubleday, 1950). 7. B. H.
Liddell Hart, Strategy (2nd ed.; New York, NY: Frederick A.
Praeger, 1967 [1954]), p 23f. 8. Moshe
Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the OT and in the ANE,” Journal of the
American Oriental Society, Vol. 90 (1970), p. 194. 9. See my
discussion of dispensationalism in Part VI of this series. 10. This position is often
associated with dispensationalism due to imprecision in terminology and unwillingness
of critics to listen carefully. See the discussion in Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism
(rev. ed.; Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995 [1966]), pp. 105-121. 11. Cited in Walter J.
Chantry, Signs of the Apostles (Carlisle, PA: privately published, 1973),
p.31. 12. C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms
(New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1958), pp. 20-33. 13. 14. Cornelius Van Til, Christian
Theistic Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1971).
pp. 118-119. 15. Jay Adams, “Godliness
through Discipline,” (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1973). 16. Liddell Hart, p. 25.