The Anvil – God’s Word

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door,

            And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;

Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor

            Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“How many anvils have you had,” said I,

            “To wear and batter all these hammers so?”

“Just one,” said he, and then, with twinkling eye,

            “The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s Word,

            For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,

            The Anvil is unharmed—the hammers are gone.

— Anonymous

St. Augustine on Scripture

“How amazing is the profundity of your words! We are confronted with a superficial meaning that offers easy access to the unlettered; yet how amazing their profundity, o my God how amazingly deep they are! To look into that depth makes me shudder, but it is the shudder of awe, the trembling of love”

—St. Augustine, Confessions XII, 14, 7.

"Theodramatic" Theology?

Here is a very insightful summary by Guy Davies of Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine. He focuses especially on the implications a “theodramatic” view of Scripture, redemption and theology has on preaching (among other crucial aspects). Interesting and fresh!

THE PRIMARY RULES OF ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

Two years ago, when Beaner was studying critical thinking, I made this simple list for her curriculum. Whether one is studying Scripture, engaging in apologetic conversation, reading the newspaper, or listening to a commercial on the radio, knowing the basic rules for identifying an argument (or lack thereof) is crucial.

Proverbs teaches us that, “The first one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him” (18:13). And how often do the Scriptures warn us against being deceived, the root of the primeval, archetypical sin? Moreover, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only expressing his opinion” (Prov 18:2).

How, then, are we to discern between mere opinion, conjecture or arbitrariness and reliable patterns of reasoning? It’s only a start, but being able to discover and identify premises and conclusions is essential. So, here are some general guidelines and helps for that end...

1. Premises and conclusions are not identified by their content or their location in the paragraph.

2. The appearance of the following words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that what follows will be a:

PREMISE
a. since
b. for
c. because
d. as
e. whereas
f. inasmuch as
g. seeing that

CONCLUSION
a. therefore
b. thus
c. hence
d. so
e. consequently
f. accordingly
g. it follows that
h. as a result
i. I conclude

These terms may or may not be present; in other words, the rule is not absolute. But the presence of one of these words before a premise or a conclusion is the rule, not the exception. Argument identification can be greatly enhanced by learning the various forms of valid arguments. (We’ll look at that in a future post.)

3. An enthymeme is a kind of argument that is so clear from the context that it assumes the reader/hearer will supply some premises or the conclusion.

One example of the enthymeme that is lucid is Jesus’ argument that “My kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36. Yes; this verse contains a complete argument. It goes like this:

P1. “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.”

P2. [The supplied premise: And it’s not so that my servants are fighting]

Therefore,

C1. My kingdom is not of this world.

P2 is supplied by the reader/hearer thus completing the the pattern of thought. That this is enthymemic is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is employing a particular from of argument, known as the modus tollens (one we’ll look at in the future), which is made complete with the assumed/supplied premise.

4. A sorites is a set of interlocking arguments in which there are propositions that may be both a conclusion in one and a premise in another following argument. This method doesn’t have a great showing in our culture; this due to the fact that media saturation, the ridiculous institution known as public “education,” and the misological attitude that has prevailed Western society of late, has degenerated our abilities to follow a lengthy, escalating discourse (esp. a written one). Nevertheless, if you read the Bible or any theological or philosophical works anterior to the 20th century, then you’ve been exposed to the sorites. Paul’s letters, especially Romans, provide great examples, as does Hebrews.

I hope you'll find these points helpful.

One Problem with Popular Apologetics

“Today we are going to enter the courtroom of your mind, and on trial is the Bible. In the next twenty minutes, I’d like to present a case for the authenticity of the Scriptures. And at the end, I’ll ask you for a verdict: ‘Is it worth trusting?’ ‘Is it believable?’ Well, court is now is session...”

These were Chip Ingram’s opening remarks Monday morning on his hugely popular radio program, Living on the Edge.

This is part of an apologetic series that Ingram’s doing on the program. Ingram’s comments immediately evoked a particular passage of Scripture when I heard them. That was Gen 3:1, “Hath God said...?”

Should the very question that brought about humanity’s rebellion against God be the means through which people are saved from their rebellion?!?

I understand the well-meant crux of the Ingram’s evidentialist’s reasoning. He fears the charge of circular reason or question begging if he were to, in keeping with the tone and message of the Bible itself, simply appeal to the Self-attesting and absolute nature of God’s Word.

But Ingram has not saved himself at this point. He cannot avoid appealing to some authority in making his case. If one were to ask him what might suffice as a proper criterion for judging the truth claims of the Bible, he would suggest logic. However, the next question is, of course, “Why do you believe logic is the proper means of evaluation?” What could be his response? “Well, it’s only logical to do so.”

In making this move, though, Ingram has fallen prey to the very logical problem he was hoping to elude. Once the chaff is winnowed from the arguments, all appeals to other criteria a reducible to the intellectually anathemized, “The Bible is true, because it’s God word; it’s God’s word because it says so.” For a succinct statement of this problem check out Steve’s summary here. Or you can see the same point in a larger context here.

Here are some other questions that Ingram’s evidential method begs:

Does human reason function properly independent of an attitude of submission to God?

Is unregenerate man’s problem with God’s Word intellectual or moral in nature?

Is human reason unscathed by sin?

This is to name only a few.

The Bible’s answer to these is an emphatic NO!

“Let God be true though every one were a liar!” (Rom 3:4).

Any thoughts?

“Talking Back” to Mcloughlin

This post is one of many editorial letters that we have written in response to a particularly zealous and outspoken atheist who lives near Lynchburg. He’s another Village Atheist who parrots the hate-filled verbiage so common with popular level writers, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. In many of his letters, he’s not been above calling Christians and Christianity “a virus that is infecting our species.”

The introductory paragraph offers some context, so I hope you find it helpful.


The following is another response to a past letter submitted by David Mcloughlin. The dilemma he proposed in that letter was that Christians are inconsistent in maintaining that Exodus 21:17, for example, which reads, “Whoever curses his mother or his father shall be put to death,” is an inspired word from God, and yet at the same time aren’t killing their children for—as he puts it—“talking back.” Nevertheless, is this a true dilemma?

Mcloughlin’s challenge, in large measure, depends on a wrongheaded understanding of the term “curse,” taken to mean “talking back.” Indeed, especially in modern English parlance, “curse” can denote verbal abuse; however, this verse is simply a negative expression of the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and mother...” (Ex 20:12). In this case the term “curse” is the opposite of “honor,” which is surely not meant to convey mere verbal honor. Rather, “curse” means to repudiate, disesteem, despise, disregard.

This meaning of the term is clearly evidenced by a statement made by God in I Samuel 2:30. Therein the same Hebrew words behind the English words “honor” and “curse” are used in an ancient literary devise known as a parallelism: “[F]or those who honor (same Hebrew word used in the fifth commandment) me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (or “disgraced,” the same word for “curse” in Exodus 21:17). The force of the statement depends on “honor” and “lightly esteemed” (“curse” in Exodus 21:17) being antithetical, contrary to one another; and “lightly esteemed” and “despise” being synonymous. Therefore, the term “curse” has to do with one’s attitude toward and treatment of one’s parents, not merely “talking back.”

We see that a right understanding of the term “curse,” as how one treats parents, not what they say, eliminates half of Mcloughlin’s argument. But what about the seemingly difficult penal stipulation, “Whoever curses...shall be put to death”? What are we to make of this?

It first needs to be recognized that the temporal, retributive action of this command is part of a larger covenantal framework, were God has become the King of the new theocratic nation Israel, by means of his graciously delivering them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 20:2). After the peoples’ voluntary agreement to the terms of the covenant, it was ratified by blood and became the law of the community, under their new King (Exodus 24:7—8). Secondly, with the exception of first degree murder, there is evidence that there were “ransom/redemption” options available for those who committed crimes worthy of capital punishment under the covenant (e.g., Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31). Moreover, the “cursing” child was not subject to the whimsical disposition of the parents, for there was a due process. This is clear from the “rebellious son” section in Deuteronomy 21:18—21.

This passage indicates three important points. The first is that it is adult children that are in view. In both Jewish and pagan cultures official right and responsibility under the Law (or laws in pagan contexts) came at an age which inaugurated manhood (e.g., the bar mitzvah in Jewish tradition). Therefore, the breeching of this commandment entails much more than sassy talk from a small child. Moreover, in the ancient Near East, the eldest son of the household was given full rights over the family’s estate long before the death of the parents. It was then the responsibility of the “firstborn son” to insure the provision and well being of the parents and the whole family. This is largely what is meant by “honoring” the parents; with “cursing” its opposite. This is exactly how Jesus himself interpreted both Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. He quoted them in order to demonstrate that the Jewish leaders of his day had “left...rejected...made void the word of God,” namely the two commands we are considering, in order to hold on to a tradition that prevented adult children from caring for their aging parents (Mark 7:1—13).

Secondly, there was a due process in which the entire community was involved, because the foundation and structure of the entire community was in jeopardy through such flagrant disregard of the covenant which bound them to one another and their covenant King, Yahweh. Last, and thirdly, titling a son of the covenant “a glutton and a drunkard” was an official and legal charge that warranted death. This much is clear and is important for understanding certain words of Jesus himself.

The Old Testament Law was not merely a legal code, it also pointed to something progressive, something beyond itself. Jesus, in Matthew 5:17 said that he came to “fulfill” the Law. Now in Matthew the term “fulfill” always has prophetic connotations; that is, the Law pointed forward to something greater, namely Jesus himself. So also in Matthew 11:13 Jesus states: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (the Baptist).” In 11:19 Jesus indicates what law he had in mind—Deuteronomy 21:18f—the ‘rebellious son’ passage. For he quotes his opponents as laying against him the official, legal charge of being “a glutton and a drunkard,” presenting it as further justification for their desire to put him to death. Jesus’ radical deeds and claims failed to “honor” the Jewish elders’ traditions and disrupted the Jewish community. Thus, Jesus was declared the “rebellious son.”

This part of Deuteronomy (21:15—23) was crucial for the New Testament authors’ understanding and exposition of Jesus’ work and function in God’s unfolding plan of redemption. Verses 15—17 concern the inheritance rights of “the first born.” Something important for understanding Jesus’ relationship to both the Father and his creation/new creation (see: Psalm 89:26f, Romans 8:28; Colossians 1:15—20; Hebrews 1:5—6; Revelation 1:5, etc). Then just after the “rebellious son” passage is the law regarding hanged criminals (Deuteronomy 21:22—23). These verses became precedents for understanding the Cross of Jesus, for Paul cites v. 23 in Galatians 3:13 saying, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” Hence, Deuteronomy 21 helps to interpret even the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross for all who believe him.

Finally, in one historic confession of the faith it is recognized that while the judicial penalties of the case laws (Exodus 21—23) were for the theocratic structures of ancient Israel, they still have “general equity” applicable in the modern world (WMC XIX:III). For instance, our topic is expressed as such in I Timothy 5:3—8. Here Paul says that children and grandchildren should demonstrate their godliness by caring for their widowed mothers, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is simply understanding and applying the “general equity,” that is, the principle meaning of the Old Testament laws we have been considering, and taking them from the temporal realm to the eternal, in light of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ.

This has shown that Mcloughlin’s hope of exposing Christians as living with contradictory beliefs is absurd. The term “curse” has next to nothing to do with “talking back.” Adult children rightfully caring for their aging parents is what is in view with regard to the punitive statutes. Because of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and his resurrection, those who trust him alone for their redemption can consistently live out the principle equity of such laws in the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Mcloughlin’s challenge has no bearing upon the Bible’s inerrancy or Christian life and practice. In other words, it is irrelevant to the discussion of both! Nevertheless, surly the question is reversible.

Mr. Mcloughlin, given your perspective, the evolutionary process of time and chance acting upon “eternal” matter, what justification do you have for even questioning parents killing their young. What is the basis for morality in the context of your view of the world? If “survival of the fittest” is the case, then it seems that both the “reality” and logical consistency of your worldview would demand the death of the younger and weaker, in order to eliminate their competition for food, mates, etc. Perhaps you should deal with the “beam” that is stuck in the eye of your own worldview before questioning the “speck” in that of others!

John 3:16...”so”?

One would think that after nearly 2000 years we’d have John 3:16 figured out. This beloved and most memorized summary of the Gospel has shaped Western culture for millennia. Recent paraphrastic versions of this verse, however, seem to be shaping the Gospel to fit the culture.

The bone I’m picking here has to do with the little term “so,” which translates the Greek, houtō.

Solid modern translations follow the King James Version’s ambiguous rendering—“For God so loved the world.” Undoubtedly, this is partly to retain the ring and resonance of how millions of saints have read it, heard it, and ingested it for centuries; and this is great. I also appreciate the ambiguity of the “so.” Ambiguity leads to one of two things. On the down side, it allows room for the reader (or worse, preacher) to impose their misunderstandings into the text. Nevertheless, the up side is that ambiguity often drives the reader to do some study of their own, to dig and try to spiral into the mind and heart of the author, which is where the meaning resides.

So, what does this “so” mean? And how could it make that much difference?

The immensely popular paraphrase, the New Living Translation has sought to expunge any ambiguity for the reader by making clear that the “so” is qualitative or quantitative in its connotation. It reads,

“For God loved the world so much that...”

This emphasis on the magnitude, depth and breadth of God’s love for a world of wayward rebels is as theologically faithful as his love is wide. For instance, John, writing in his first Epistle, makes this point when he says,

“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the Children of God; and so we are” (3:1).

But the question remains, Is this what John was meaning in 3:16?

If the New Living Translation’s emphasis on the “so” isn’t enough to convince, then consider the Amplified Bible’s indulgent treatment of the verse.

“For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that...”

Okay, come on, the “dearly prized” is a bit over the top, don’t you think?. But this does reveal a shift in emphasis on the part of the translator. It seems to place the stress of the verb, “loved,” on its object, “the world.” This gives the sense that the world as such is inherently lovable, an object worthy of God’s love. Whether or not someone thinks this observation is fair, there’s little question that 99% of Western readers hear Jn 3:16 this way.

However, the term “world” (Gk. kosmos) never carries these connotations in John’s writings. John uses “world” in one of two ways. It’s either “the world,” and that the world is so big; e.g., the “world” doesn’t have the capacity to shelve the books that could be written on the words and deeds of Jesus, the Son (Jn 21:25). Alternately, it more often means “the world,” and that the world is so bad and thus antithetical to God’s love (1 Jn 2:15—17); it’s in a constant state of cosmic treason against its Creator. Nowhere does John give us the sense that the world is something that is so “dearly prized” by God.

So, back to “so.”

In the 20-plus times that John uses the term, houtō always carries the instrumental sense, e.g., “in this way or manner..” Likewise, the reader could supplant “so” with its synonym, “thus.” “God loved the world ‘thus’...” In this sense, with “so” John is communicating the “how” of God’s love for the world; it emphasizes what it was that God did to make the “Way” (Jn 14:6) for his love for us and our reciprocation of responsive love to him. The English Standard Version offers this alternate reading in a text note.

“Or For this is how God loved the world"

The Holman Christian Standard Bible is not so cautious. It translated the verse this way:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son...”

Therefore, whether one thinks that Jn 3:16f are the words of Jesus or they’re John’s concluding summary of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, the “so” of v. 16 is telling us the Way of God’s plan to rescue from death a wicked world in rebellion against its Maker, the “How” of his plan and purpose.

For those who have always assumed the qualitative sense of “so,” as “so much,” the above observations and subsequent interpretation could come as a shock. If so, first consider Nicodemus’ experience, if indeed this is what the words meant. Yahweh’s supreme demonstration of love wouldn’t be cloistered to a people within the walls of the temple nor even the boundaries of Palestine, as Nicodemus assumed; the crowning act in redemption has the entire cosmos in its scope, Jew and Gentile. In Jesus, the Son, his being incarnate, being “lifted up” unto death and subsequently raised from the dead, every tribe and tongue and people and nation—all those born of God, born again—will enter the Kingdom. This is the mirthful new wine of the New Covenant and the provisional categories of the Old Covenant (infinitely less Second Temple Judaism) is an old wineskin. God loved the world in this way: the Son!

Does this interpretation somehow diminish the emphasis on the quality or quantity of God’s love in this passage? On the contrary! If John means “the world” in the sense that it’s so bad, as I’ve briefly argued, and he meant “so” in the sense of “thus, how, or in this way,” then this interpretation would help to make clear that God does not love the world, individually or collectively, because he finds it so lovely. But, rather, in spite of the world's unloveliness, he gave and delivered up to death his only Son. “In this way,” then, God in Christ was faithful to his command to us: “But I tell you, love your enemies...” And love has no greater one than this, does it?

Isaiah and His Sons: Signs for Israel

I. “How did God use Isaiah and his sons as “signs” to Israel?

A. “What is in a name?” Well, Yahweh’s message to king Ahaz and all the people of Judah. The names of both Isaiah and one of his sons carried, in summery form, Yahweh’s message of comfort and encouragement for a frightened, faithless king and his kingdom. If the message were heeded and acted upon by faith (7:9) it also carried Yahweh’s promise of deliverance; however, it was not so acted upon. The names of the prophet and his two sons were to counsel and evoke faith in the Judahite peoples, beginning with their leader. The name of Isaiah’s second son was an invitation for the Assyrian’s invasion of Syria and Israel, and a warning of to Ahaz and the nation. Thus, these three became living, breathing, personal object lessons for a faithless generation.

Isaiah’s name is a particular form, known as theophanic. This is a personal name that includes one form or another of the deity’s name and a predication ascribed to it. Isaiah, in the Hebrew takes this very form: Isaiah = yesh a ‘yâh (lit. “Jah has saved” or “Yahweh is salvation”). Thus, the prophet’s name was to be the controlling presupposition of Ahaz’s attitude in the current national crisis. Had Ahaz laid hold of this message by faith, resting solidly upon Yahweh’s salvific power, it would have produced in him a controlled confidence in the face of national calamity. “Isaiah” then is no mere name; but the foundational Rock upon which all else is to be “established” (7:9).

Corollary to Isaiah’s name is that of his first son and his compound name; Shear-jashub. Shear-jashub literally means: “a remnant shall return.” As part of Isaiah’s first prophecy to Ahaz, this son’s would have been bitter sweet to the faithless ears of Ahaz, as it promised both an invasion and the nation’s survival, at least in part.

Finally, there is the name of Isaiah’s second son. With it came a gloomy second prophecy to Ahaz. Upon rejecting Yahweh’s promised goodness, made available to Ahaz by faith, he then receives a second message from the prophet through the name of another, yet to be born son; Maher-shalal-hash-baz. In 8:1, Isaiah is instructed to create a titilus with the same message inscribed on it; the meaning of the message being: “quick to the plunder—swift to the spoil.” In v.4 there is given further interpretation as to the meaning; before this second child could utter intelligible speech Judah’s enemies would be “spoiled” and taken as “prey.” Moreover, v.8 warned the incredulous king of Judah’s suffering as well.

Therefore, Isaiah, a prophet with “connections” (probably cousin to the king?) and his two sons became a constant living object lesson and message to a nation in dire risk of Yahweh’s forward providence and judgment due to their faithlessness and pagan alliances.

II. “What is the significance of “signs” to/for Israel?

A. In the religio-historical context of the ancient Jewish worldview a “sign” was an interruption of God’s ordinary revelation through providence by means of an inspired occurrence, whether symbolic, actions or words, bearing either judgment or grace or both, all of which is pointing beyond the “sign” itself, to the spiritual reality Yahweh is revealing through it. For example, in the Garden there was the “sign” of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The tree, while not having any mysterious or magical power, was a sign that pointed to the spiritual reality of Adam’s probative obedience and Yahweh’s commanding allegiance in all areas of life, both great and small. Even so, any pious, reflective Jew could have not seen lighting, heard a peal of thunder, or heavy smoke without their mind reverting back to the “signs” of Yahweh’s covenantal presence at Mt Sinai.

Sign’s were attestations to God’s intervention into the flow of redemptive history revealing more of himself to his people and/or their adversaries. This series of signs culminates and climaxes in the Person of Christ and the place of his cross.

Polygamy in the Bible and a Biblical View of Polygamy

I. Why did David take more wives and concubines from Jerusalem?

A. Endemic Practice: The practice of harems and concubinage was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East during the time of King David. One finds in the Pentateuch, a volume written to a people saturated in Mesopotamian and Egyptian culture, polygamy treated as what “is the case,” however, never maintained as what “ought to be the case.”

B. Political Expediency: For a king, gathering wives from domestic and/or foreign territories was often a means of ratifying international treaties and policy (see: 1 Kings 11:1 – in the political life of Solomon). It was customary for the Sovereign to demonstrate his position over his subjects by the volume of his harem; the vassals never being aloud to amass one of greater size.

2 Sam. 3:1—5, in this record of the war between the house of Saul with the house of David, the author uses David’s growing harem to emphasis the increasing strength of David’s house and the decrease of the house of Saul.

C. Political Default: The last point is likely to have been bolstered by David inheriting, from Saul, the King David was succeeding, his “master’s house” and his “master’s wives” (see: 2 Sam. 12:7—8)

D. Yahweh’s Law for the Kings of Israel: All of this points to the prophetic nature of the words of Deut. 17:14. Here it is said that Israel would demand a “king...like all the nations around them.” Much of the practical operations of even godly kings like David were directed by the cultural situated-ness of Israel within “all the nations about them.” The reciprocal problems of much of the entire Monarchial epoch were derived from Israel’s kings (including David, “a man after God’s own heart”) disregarding the law of Yahweh, which prohibited the king’s practice of polygamy. Deut. 17:17—“And he (the king) shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away (from Yahweh)...” Surely this is most evident in the life King Solomon, David’s son (see: 1 Kings 11:1).


II. Does this mean it is okay to practice polygamy?

A. Elementary Hermeneutics: This question can be easily answered by making two fundamental interpretive distinctions: 1. Narrative/Didactic, and 2. Descriptive/Prescriptive. In principle these may seem virtually identical, but there are subtle, yet important differences which need addressed.

A. 1. Narrative/Didactic: This distinction is simply one of literary genre. Gordon Fee defines narrative as “purposeful stories retelling the historical events of the past that are intended to give meaning and direction for a given people in the present.” All of the 19 cases that record polygamy in the lives of biblical characters are found in the genre of narrative. In the lives of men most significant in the biblical plot line, the records of their multiple wives demonstrate the grief and inter-familial strife caused by violating the monogamous order instituted by Yahweh (Gen. 2:24; Deut. 17:17; Mt. 19:4—5). Paul informs his readers that these historical (OT) records were written as pedagogical examples through which we may infer the often disastrous results of “desiring evil as they (OT kings, etc.) did” (I Cor. 10:6). Moreover, the historical OT narratives also include some of the kings of Israel causing their children “to pass through the fire;” as a burnt offering to the Pagan deity Molech. Therefore, it would be absurd to assume that the records of polygamy in the OT narratives were condoning the practice, just as it would be to assume that the practice of idolatrous child sacrifice was to teach religious piety!

Didactic is a term that comes from the Greek word meaning to teach or instruct. Didactic literature teaches and explains God’s desires and demands. It is from this genre of the Bible that we find several passages that clearly condemn the practice of polygamy (Deut. 17:17; Mal. 2:15ff; Mt. 19:4—6; 1 Cor. 7:2; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; 5:9; Tit. 1:6). However helpful the genre distinction may be, the fact that some didactic material is found within narrative (i.e. the Gospels [narrative] contain nearly all of Jesus’ teaching [didactic]) is cause to make a more subtle distinction that should have employment within both genres. Is scripture simply describing the practice of polygamy as it occurred in history or is it prescribing the practice to the modern reader?

A. 2. Descriptive/Prescriptive: This distinction, at first glance, seems too obvious to warrant attention, yet many movements in church history testify that it is often ignored. The heretical cult of Mormonism, which in its more “fundamental” strains, holds that polygamy is a biblically supported principle of Christian life and practice. However, when asked to offer a defense for their claims they depend solely upon the Bible’s “descriptions,” while ignoring all of scripture’s “prescriptions” for the biblical/covenantal concept of marriage.

B. Conclusion: If these basic hermeneutical distinctions are made, a fair reading of the Bible will demonstrate that monogamy, not polygamy, is God’s ordained and prescribed marital practice for all people.

III. How do you explain such passages to un-believers?

I have decided to illustrate my apologetical approach to handling objections based on the records of polygamy in the Bible by way of diatribe, a fictitious dialogue with an imaginary opponent. The setting is a college mezzanine. The conversation takes place over two or three cups of coffee during a break between classes. The opponent’s name is Antagoneus Christou (i.e. Antagonist of Christ), he is a atheist philosophy major from Athens, Greece.

KS: “Hey Antagoneus! How are you doing...did you have a good weekend?” I said while pulling a chair from the table.

AC: Looking up from the book he was reading, “Hey...yea...it was good, how about yours?” He said with a curious grin growing on his face.

KS: With suspicion I answered, “Yea, it was great, thanks for asking...your all smiles, I have never seen anyone chuckle while they were studying the Stoics, what’s so funny?”

AC: “Oh, no, it’s not the book, it’s you fundy Christians.”

KS: In an attempt to keep things light I responded, “Well, joy is one of the fruit of the Spirit, but I have a feeling that is not at all what you are talking about.”

AC: “No, that’s not what I am talking about.” Not appreciating my humor. “You know that girl I’m dating?”

KS: “Beth, right? Yea, she was in my first year Greek class. What about her? Is she a Christian?”

AC: “Not really, but she decided she needs to try to get a grip on life, or something like that, and out of the blue thought going to church would do the trick, so I went with her to keep her of my back.”

KS: “Antagoneus, that is great to hear! What did you think?” I asked with hopeful anticipation.

AC: Springing at the chance to offer his critical analysis, “That is why I am laughing. It is all a joke!”

KS: “I’m sorry, what is a joke?”

AC: “Well the whole sermon, the preacher guy just stood up their throwing around empty authority claims about the ‘sanctity of marriage—one man, one woman—Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve;’ you know the rhetoric...this guy is probably one of those dudes you listen to on your MP3 all the time...” He said, as though he had been waiting for months to unload his grand discovery on the next unwitting Christian he saw.

KS: “Antagoneus, you haven’t told me what the ‘joke’ is. From the sounds of it, the pastor’s message was biblical. So apart from your general disdain for the Bible, what’s the ‘joke’?”

AC: “Good grief, I’m no Bible scholar but I can read, and one doesn’t have to read too far to find that the Bible teaches polygamy in several spots, and then to hear this guy talking about ‘one man—one woman’...dude, it’s a total contradiction.”

KS: “So let me see if I understand you. You think that polygamy is wrong, is that right?”

AC: “Yea! And...”

KS: “Sorry, but hang on a second. Your saying, Polygamy is wrong. The Bible records polygamy. Therefore, according to your reason, the Bible can’t be true. Is that a fair take on your analysis?”

AC: “See, it’s obvious! I’ve been trying to tell you that Christianity is illogical, here is more proof!”

KS: “Well as I remember, every time you try to make your case against the faith it back fires on you.”

AC: “Perhaps, but this is too clear cut, so you can’t evoke the Bible to get yourself out of this one. If you can’t explain this—I got you this time.”

KS: “Let me say this. For me this is not a game of intellectual tag, there is far more at stake than winning this argument. Second, even if I didn’t appeal to the Bible in our discussion, you already have.”

AC: “Oh really?!? How so?!?”

KS: “For starters, you are assuming the Bible’s truthfulness to argue for its falsity. Unless the Bible was trustworthy in its historiography, you have no case against it.”

AC: “Fine, I’ll give you the history, but what it records is immoral and shows it is not divinely inspired like you are always saying.”

KS: “Okay, now we are back to your first premise—‘polygamy is wrong, immoral’—right?”

AC: “Duh! Everyone knows that to be the case. You Christians don’t have morality cornered. This is something everyone knows!”

KS: “I agree completely! Since ‘EVERYONE knows it is wrong, you should have no problem telling me why, right. I mean it should be obvious. So, why is it wrong and universally so.”

AC: “Because everyone thinks so. That is how society works, convention.”

KS: “You’re just begging the question. ‘That is the way it is—because that is the way it is.’ AC, that is not an argument. Besides, if your atheism is case, why should I care what anyone thinks or feels about right and wrong? In an atheistic world there is no absolute, universally binding ethic to which I should conform; everyone can do what is right in his own eyes! So, given your worldview, who are you to impose your personal morality on me, the Bible, or anyone for that matter?”

AC: “Hey, that is what I say to Christians! Why do I feel like I’m being set up here?”

KS: “Because you are, but you are the one doing the setting-up. I’m arguing that unless the Bible is true, inspired by God, you could not say that polygamy is ‘wrong’ is any meaningful sense. On the atheistic worldview ‘wrong’ is nonsensical. However, if God created man and woman and design their union to be a covenant between the two and no more, then it makes perfect sense to say it is wrong to go beyond that universally binding decree of our Creator. You see, you want you’re cake—morality, and eat it too—maintain your personal moral freedom from God; you want autonomy. Your problem is that the idea of morality, in marriage or anything, is irrational apart from a holy God who determines what is right and wrong based upon his perfect nature and character. So the heart of the issue is that you’re trying to personally assume a position of moral judgment that belongs only to God.”

AC: “So you don’t think polygamy is wrong? That preacher sure did.”

KS: “Of course polygamy is wrong. I’m simply trying to show that unless you assume what scripture teaches concerning polygamy, i.e. that it is wrong, you have no grounds to say that it is morally wrong, thus you have to assume what the Bible teaches concerning marriage to argue against what the Bible records concerning polygamy, but then you want to take credit for the high morality you steal from it. My next question then is, why do you think you have a natural bend against the Bible? I mean you didn’t charge Dr. Jones with condoning genocide when he taught on the holocaust last semester, why don’t you want to give the Bible the same generosity; allowing it to record certain facts of history without charging it with condoning those facts?”

AC: “Well if it is the perfect, authoritative word of God like you always say, why is it full of so much ‘sinful’ stuff?”

KS: “That, I think is one of the best arguments for its inspiration. What other sacred writing is so honest about its own writers? All the competitors of the Bible either present its writer(s) as so godlike, or God so manlike that there is little distinction between man and God. That is not the case with scripture. If Yahweh, the True Living God of the Bible were not the One who is, no man would ever ‘project’ a deity like him.”

AC: “Good point. So what does the Bible ‘teach’ about the polygamy it records?”

KS: “Well there are a number of passages we can look at, but first I think we ought to talk about why it is you have this hostility towards the word of God and look at what the Bible teaches about that, then we can look at the polygamy issue. Does that sound reasonable?”

AC: “Fair enough...but I have a feeling we need to get a refill on the coffee...”

KS: “Great. I’ll buy!”

Birthright/Firstborn in Genesis

I. Definition and Examples:

I. A. Definition:

In Genesis the birthright speaks of a cumulative set of patriarchal privileges, honors and responsibilities that where bestowed upon the firstborn of a father. This would include: 1. a double portion of the inheritance from the father’s amassed estate. The portions of the inheritance where subject to gradation, depending on the number of sons (e.g. if there where two sons the estate would be divided into three portions, the firstborn receiving two. If there were three sons, the estate was split into fourths – eldest receiving two, and so on). 2. The birthright gave the firstborn the leadership and authority of the father, in the father absence or death. 3. The birthright also entailed the continuation of legal representation of the family name, as well as the spiritual blessing and leadership of the patriarchal priesthood.

I. B. Examples from Genesis:

I. B.1. Jacob and Esau

The first mention of “birthright” in the OT is imbedded in circumstances of the flagrance and spiritual negligence of Isaac’s son, Esau. In the NT Esau’s actions with regards to forfeiting his birthright for the “lust of the flesh” earn him the titles of a “fornicator...and profane person” (Heb.12:16). There is nothing in Genesis indicating that the transaction between these two brothers was not legally binding, thus making Jacob the rightful heir to the blessing. The “trade” itself was certainly in accord with the purposes of God (cf.Gen.25:23; Rom.9:10-13). Nevertheless, Rebekah and Jacob’s deceptive means of acquiring the blessing were clearly unacceptable to God. Rebekah, as a result of her plan to see her favored son blessed, is never to see him again. Also is God’s exacting and extracting the deceptive nature from Jacob. At Peniel Jacob receives a new nature and name (cf.Gen.32:22-32).

The birthright (as defined above) and patriarchal blessing are inextricably linked together. However, in Gen.27:36, 38 Esau, in his irrational rage, makes a distinction between the birthright and the blessing. While Jacob receives the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant (27:27-29; cf. Gen.12:3), Isaac’s “quasi-blessing” in vv.39-40 should be understood as a prophetic word rather than “another blessing” of the birthright. The words of Isaac in v.40 would come to see their fulfillment in the progeny of his two sons. This is gradually realized at a national level over the span of approximately 1080 years (cf. “Two nations are in your womb...” Gen.25:23), with Esau’s people, the Edomites, finally breaking loose of the “yoke” of Jacob’s sons, Judah (see: II Kings 8:20).

I. B. 2. Rachel and the Teraphim (household gods)?

There is speculation surrounding Rachel’s act of thievery in Gen.31 and the teraphim or “household gods,” yet there is nothing conclusive offered by scholars as to the exact significance of the idols and the rights to an inheritance. Morris holds that, “It is also possible, as implied in some of the Nuzu tablets excavated around 1930, that teraphim were associated with the inheritance and property rights of their owner. If so, Rachel may have stolen them with the thought that possessing them would somehow help validate the legitimacy of her husband’s title to the flocks he had acquired while serving Laban and represent the inheritance she had a right to expect.” (Morris, Henry M, The Genesis Record, Grand Rapids: Baker. 1976. P.483). If indeed Rachel had taken and hid these idols in order to help insure Jacob’s right to the herds, which Yahweh had multiplied to Jacob from Laban’s stock before Jacob fled, it then seems strange that Rachel failed to disclose the “gods” as Jacob’s (or her own) “title deed” – as leverage to his rightful ownership of the livestock during the confrontation between the two men.

However helpful such background studies may be to our understanding of the historical events recorded in scripture, Laban’s idols and any representative value they may have had in his pagan context does little to augment our grasp on the biblical theme of “birthright.”

I. B. 3. Reuben and others

The patriarchal authority being exercised by the “firstborn” in the stead of the absent father can be seen in Reuben’s restraining, though still contemptible, actions over how the brothers should deal with Joseph (see: Gen. 37; 42:22). Reuben also served in this same capacity as the brother’s leader when going back into Egypt for grain (42:37). Yet, because Reuben the firstborn slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah (35:22), he, like Esau, forfeited his birthright due to the “lust of the flesh.” Next in line to receive it was Simeon and Levi; due to their malicious murder of the whole house of Shechem (Gen.34) the birthright fell on Joseph (48:22) and Judah (49:8-12), from whose tribe came our Lord (Lk.3:33; Rom.1:3; Heb.7:14).


II. “Birthright” elsewhere in the Pentateuch

II. A. Deut. 21:15-17

In surveying Genesis, one sees a degree of arbitrariness in the approbation of the birthright. The unconditional right of the firstborn to the inheritance does not seem to have divine imperative at this point in redemptive history but was rather a commonality in the cultures around them. Deut.21:15-17 then offers the first preserved (e.g. canonical) records forbidding a father’s favoritism over his wives and/or children, when endowing the blessing and duties to the firstborn.

Syriac tablets have revealed that the “birthright” program was certainly not restricted to the people of Yahweh (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, vol. I, Chicago: Moody Press. 1975. pp. 609-10). These same discoveries have also shown that the capricious bestowment of the blessing based solely on the father’s favoritism too was not exclusive to Israel, but rather commonplace in the ancient world. Gen.4:4 and 25:6 imply that there were more divine directives concerning the “firstborn/birthright” – both words being derivatives of the Heb. Term “BeKOR” – thus explaining the universal observance of the custom in the near east. However, it was not until 1400 B.C. that God gave apodictic statutes concerning the perpetuation of the birthright inheritance (Deut.21:15-17).

III. Spiritual implications.

III. A. In the Hagiographa: Elijah and Elisha

One does not have to skip forward to the NT to find a spiritual appraisal and application of the “birthright.” In the lives of Yahweh’s prophets, Elijah and Elisha, the template of the birthright/firstborn concept is found to be used in the passing on of the prophetic office. In II Kings 2 there are many “sons of the prophets” (both in Bethel v.3, and at Jericho v.5), yet for Elijah, Elisha has priority over them all – Elisha is a firstborn of sorts. In vv.9-10 Elisha asks for the “blessing,” and this blessing entails a “double portion,” just as did the corporeal “birthright.” Elisha, though not Elijah’s biological son (see: I Kings 19:19-21), refers to Elijah as “My father, my father...” (v.12). Elijah’s mantle is the physical object in the account and is representative of the birthright’s inheritance and responsibility (vv.8, 14), with the “Spirit” being the blessing (vv.9, 15).


III. B. In the New Testament: Jesus and the Church

The birthright/firstborn program is a concept which spans both the Old and New Covenants. In Ex.4:22 and Jer.31:9, Israel is call by Yahweh “my firstborn,” however, in the NT Jesus is revealed as the “The Firstborn” – the Father’s True Son and Heir (comp. ‘Israel the vine’ in Ps.44:2; 80:8; 92:13; Song 6:11; 8:11; Is.5:2; 60:21; Jer.2:21; Eze. 15:2; Hos.10:1, to Jesus, “the True Vine” in Jn.15:1-27).

Rom.8:29; Col.1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6, and Rev.1:5 all call Jesus God’s firstborn. In all of these passages the meaning of the Greek πρωτοτοχος or “firstborn,” refers to Christ being the first (unique) in priority with relationship with the Father. First, chief, principle in rank over all creation (Col.1:15), and re-creation (vv.17-18; cf. Rev.1:5). Only in Lk.2:7, concerning “Mary’s firstborn son,” does this word speak of Jesus being first in respect to ordinary physical generation and/or to having had a beginning (contra JWism/Arianism).

In Heb.12:23 the congregation of believers is called the “church of the firstborn.” Here believers are seen as “firstborn” through their union and covenant identification with Christ – thus Jesus is then the “first” among “many brethren” (Rom.8:29b). The author of Heb.12 is not concerned with contrasting varying ranks of hierarchy within the family of “sons and children” (v.5), but the distinction between true “sons (children)” and “bastards” (v.8). Therefore, Paul can rightly say in Rom.8:17, “And if children (by adoption in Christ, cf. v.1), then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...” Because of this Paul also proclaims, “For all the promises of God (from Genesis to Revelation) in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (II Cor.1:20)!

Thoughts on the Importance of Handing Down the Faith to the Next Generation: Reflections on Joshua 24: 1-28 / Judges 2:6-23

Paul surely enjoins us to this type of study when he says: “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did” (I Cor.10:6). I believe that Paul would be thrilled to find us mussing the dire lessons from Israel’s history, as would Stephen (Acts 7), as also would Jude (vv.5-7, 11). Indeed, the whole scope of the NT revelation in built upon and is inexplicable apart from Yahweh’s words and deeds concerning ancient Israel.

Surely no other texts in scripture bear greater witness to the old coinage, “the Christian faith is always and only one generation away from extinction.” The texts given for the topic of our discussion provide an example of the negative consequences of one generation failing to obey and hand down the covenant faith to the next.

Also to be noticed is the thematic parallel between Joshua and the time of the Judges, and Jesus (the names Jesus and Joshua are identical in the Greek - ιήσους) and the dispensation of the Church age. As the first Joshua was the successor of Moses’ prophetic leadership (Josh.1:5, 17; 3:7) – Jesus was the Prophet like Moses who was to come (Deut. 18:14-20). Joshua’s obedience initiates a period of temporary rest and the secured possession of the land (Josh. 21:43-45; 24:31). The writer of Hebrews contrasts this with the eternal rest and inheritance provided by Jesus’ obedience and faithfulness (Heb.4:8-9; 9:15; cf. Eph.1:11-14; Col.3:24). Thus, the gospels may be likened to a fulfillment of the victorious time foreshadowed in Joshua’s conquest and capturing of the Promised Land, and the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles seeing the realization of the Kingdom of God on the macro level.

While pages could be filled with like similarities between the Joshua’s revelational epoch and God’s supreme revelation of his Son, it suffices here to say that there are certain key points in our texts which find there fulfillment in Christ and his kingdom possession and expansion. The principles that can be gleaned bear hard on our contemporary crisis of a weak and waning commitment to the New Covenant by the rising generation of young people.

While these passages offer little positive instruction for the church today, there are plenty of exemplarily concepts, all negative, which should be recognized and allowed to teach us what to avoid, rebuke us in our own similarities with Joshua’s generation, correct us in our failings to perpetuate the faith, and train us by way of contrast for the good work of fostering a generation of Christians that will take hold of the Kingdom violently and with force (II Tim.3:16-17; Mt. 11:12).

I. A. Compromise – The Slippery Slope

While the fathers’ (Joshua’s) generation finds a degree of positive commendation for their faithfulness to the covenant during the life and leadership of Joshua (Josh.24:31; Judg.2:6, 22), one does not need to scour the text to see obvious antecedent failures on their part which lead to the ultimate apostasy of the next generation. The Covenant renewal in Josh.24 tends to blur the distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. While bearing all the essentials of a Divine covenant, the unification present in Joshua’s reinstatement of the Covenant is caused by a concentration on the momentary perils facing the nation – all the while assuming, never usurping the covenant mediated through Moses.

The focus on idolatry is manifest throughout the recitation of covenant terms and Israel’s history. Israel as a nation was a result of Divine grace (Deut.7:7-8). In the preamble of the covenant, Yahweh begins by reminding the fathers of the first spiritual exodus – his graciously delivering Abraham out of his idolatry across the Euphrates (Josh.24:2). Likewise, the condition of the covenant renewal is two sides of the same action; to serve and obey Yahweh “with all faithfulness” is the positive opposite action when one does truly “throw away the gods of their forefathers” (v.14; cf. I Thess.1:9). Last, in the ratification of the covenant (v.23), Joshua’s words again presuppose that there was still an element of syncretistic idolatry among the wilderness generation (v.23). There is no question that their inability to abandon the pagan deities of the past precipitated much of the apostasy in the future generation.

Judges 2:6-23 must be understood for what it is. This second part of the book’s prologue does not contribute to the chronology of the book. It is rather an indicative summary of the entire period between the death of Joshua and the inauguration of the Monarchy, a time frame of approximately 300 years. It reveals the redundant pattern of apostasy, foreign oppression, cries of suffering, and Yahweh’s gracious deliverance; a theme seen over and again throughout the book. Therefore, to posit too clean of a break in the religious devotion between these two “generations,” as from one father to the next son, is probably misguided. The gradation of depravity in the nation could better be likened to “turning up the volume” or a trickling effect rather than a static “flip of the switch.”

The rising indulgence in idolatry during the Judge’s generation can also be followed back to the pragmatism of the fathers’ generation. While in the Deuteronomic covenant (ch.7) Yahweh demanded the utter destruction of the pagan nations dwelling in the land Israel was about to inhabit, the fathers failed to see the wisdom in such a plan and had more practical or pragmatic inclinations as to handling the people around them. Six of the twelve tribes saw fit to ignore Yahweh’s decree of antithesis between them and the world around them. Rather than utterly destroying the people (with their respective religious – philosophical – ethical perspectives), they chose to make use of them as slaves (Judg.1:27-36). Surely the Israelites perceived something Yahweh had over looked; namely the value of the human capitol that would have been wasted through the annihilation of the Amorites, Canaanites and others. In hindsight the conventional wisdom of man is shown to be utter foolishness in challenging the omniscient knowledge of God (I Cor.1-2). There was a pragmatic way that seemed right to Israel, but the end of that way was death to faith of many following generations (Prov.16:25)! Deut.7 was to be the staple diet for Israel in regard to their international relations. Its observation could have been their preservation – no compromise!

I. B. Contemporary Compromise

There is little question that the previous “generation” of the church had its share of syncretistic compromise with the ideologies of the world. And a “new generation” is rising which is on the brink of apostasy because of it.

While Joshua’s generation never made the wholesale dive into paganism, its theology was under the constant strain. One could say there was always a precarious element of “fence riding” happening. A survey of the last century of church history demonstrates that something similar has occurred. The secularization of our society has made no small impact on Christianity. The “sacred – secular” divide is no less prevalent among evangelicals today than it is in the world at large. Such polar thinking is lucid across the board.

For sake of our topic consider the ultimate source back of the vast majority of the “Christian” parenting material. We are instructed to bring up our children according to the basic presuppositions atheistic pop psychology. The fundamental works of Freud, Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner are baptized as it were with lick and paste Bible verses, after which the theories of these pagans are considered redeemed and safe for Christian consumption. Sadly, there is little that is distinctly Christian about most of today’s “Christian” psychology. In this and many other areas we have failed to recognize the distinct, sanctified (set-apart-ness), and antithetical nature of the church’s calling: “...you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their alters.” (Judg.2:3) “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God?” (James 4:4). Failing to maintain the antithesis between the world and the church has lead to the shaky circumstances we are experiencing with today’s youth (cf. Deut.7:1-6).

The rising generation is right in much of its criticism and skepticism of what has become church-ianity. They often see the modern church as merely an arbitrary authority which must be questioned and scrutinized. Much of this antipathy can be traced back to a past generation of compromise. Years of synthesizing a worldly philosophy of life and things into popular Christianity has blinded this generation to whatever integrity, community, and authenticity that may remain in the church today. This is reflective in the statistics. Consider these findings from George Barna’s research group @ www.barna.org:

• Boomers emerge as more likely and Mosaics as less likely than any other generation to be born again (33% of Mosaics, 38% of Busters, 53% of Boomers are born again, compared to 48% of Elders). (2006)
• Mosaics are the least likely age group to indicate that faith is a very important part of their life. Only 51% of Mosaics say their faith is very important in their life, compared with 62% of Busters, 73% of Boomers and 79% of Elders. (2006)
• 61% of Mosaics, 67% of Busters 77% of Boomers, 74% of Elders believe that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator that rules the world today. (2006)
• Mosaics (born between 1984 and 2002) are the generation least likely to strongly agree that they have a personal responsibility to tell others people about their religious beliefs.

It appears we are beginning to see the slippery affects of worldly compromise in our own generation. The church needs to, if only for practical reasons, heed the words of Paul in Col.2:8 in order to recover from the damaging effects of adopting and using worldly paradigms. Unfortunately, this verse has lead many to believe that it is impious to do philosophy. However, this is naïve and far from Paul’s point, for everyone does philosophy – Paul is warning us how not to do it. By the church’s failure to self-consciously adopt and stringently maintain a philosophy in all of life (psychology, science, education, etc) which is after the teaching of Christ we have inevitably synthesized “deceptive philosophies” that are based on “the basic principle of the world.” This causes us to miss the “fullness of God” (v.9) and “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (2:3) in the process and outworking of our everyday lives.

The skepticism of today’s generation is not to be duped by such a double standard. Perhaps the greatest questions of this generation are “how am I to get along in life, make sense of my experience, make decisions, etc?” The compromise of the church, with one foot in the Bible and one in the world, leaves the youth wondering what makes the Christian faith any better at answering their fundamental problems, when the church itself must seek answers elsewhere. They then turn “elsewhere,” find the same answer’s the church offers yet without the moral constraints of “God, values, rules, absolutes, and authority.”

Therefore, if we are to learn anything from failings of Joshua’s generation concerning preserving the trans-generational covenant faith of Christ, we must begin by kicking the world out of our own lives, families, the church, and ultimately out of the world itself! We must take our very thoughts captive to Christ and make no treaty of compromise with the philosophers of the world (II Cor.10:5; Deut.7:2). Maintain the antithesis!!

II. A. Personal Experience Not Enough

Judges 2:7 tells us that “The people served Yahweh throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things Yahweh had done for Israel.” Much of the faithfulness of the former generation flowed from their experiencing first hand the awful and might wonders of Yahweh during the wandering years. After having been sent away by Joshua, “each one to his own inheritance” (Josh.24:28), it seems that the experiences of Yahweh’s Majesty which had been displayed in the wilderness grew dim. Judges 2:10 betrays this suspicion, considering that the next generation “knew neither Yahweh nor what he had done for Israel.”

In the later generation, this pattern is perpetual. God would raise up a Judge for the deliverance of the people, anoint him with power, and deliver the people in miraculous ways for them to become sated in their comfort and immediately dismiss the One who did it from their thoughts – with the passing of that generation’s Judge. This pattern takes the covenantal condition of Deut.8:10-11 and turns it upside down and backwards. Had Israel maintained the principles of Deuteronomy 8 as they stand alone, the period of the Judges and the lives of their children and children’s children would have been radically different – for the better.

II. B. Moses to Joshua: A successful passing of the faith

The passing of the baton from Moses to Joshua provides a positive case study for avoiding “wilderness existentialism” and providing a solid foundation for the next generation’s faith. If we are to ask what the key to Joshua’s success was, we would find the answer at the very beginning of his call to leadership. God’s calling of Joshua, and all the “courage, strength, prosperity, and success” (Josh.1:8-9) he experienced rested atop of what Moses “gave him” (1:7). The anchor of Joshua’s success, in fact the whole trajectory of Israel’s victorious conquest of Canaan rested not on the experiential sensationalism of the “wilderness wonders,” but rather on “careful observation of the law Moses handed down to Joshua (the words of God precede the works of God). Joshua operated his whole life from this Word, not turning to the left or to the right of it. Joshua kept the law ready in his mouth as well as in his mind by continuous meditation on it.” All these things were the precondition for “God being with him.” (Josh.1:6-9).

All of this is not to undermine the value of Yahweh’s activity in their redemption. Joshua, when establishing the two “parties” of the covenant, uses God’s gracious acts throughout Israel’s history in order to identify his character and worthiness, the Israelites unworthiness, and the peoples’ subjection, servitude, and surrender to Yahweh’s rightful rule over them (24:2-13). However, as mentioned earlier, Joshua was not seeking to augment the covenant of Moses so much as the peoples’ commitment and faithfulness to the covenant that they (that same generation themselves, immediately, and personally) received from Moses – as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.

The group Joshua was hoping to incite to covenantal faithfulness was the same one who received the Deuteronomic covenant, therefore, Joshua and his audience was to presuppose many conditional keys from the covenant exposition found in the book of the law (i.e. Deuteronomy). Many of the precepts were God’s axiomatic design for the generational perpetuation of faith in himself; individually and as a nation collectively. Many of these principles are found in the opening chapters of Deuteronomy.

Deut.6:1-2 gives the prescription that could have prevented the “fathers’ failing.” Moses tells the fathers of the didactic nature and pedagogical necessity of the written word when he says the law (not experience) was given “so that you, your children and their children after them may fear Yahweh your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give.” It is the word of God, not some surreal experience that is to “be upon our hearts, impress on our children, and make the center piece of all our activities” (6:6-9). Further, the word of God, in part, is designed to precipitate our children’s (and grandchildren’s) inquiry into our former experience of God’s Person, presence, and deliverance in our lives (6:20-25). Therefore, the simple observation of Deut.6 could have provided the sure foundation necessary for their next generation’s faith, as proved in the lives of Moses and Joshua.

II. C. We Need Principle, Not Pragmatism

The practicality of the Hebraic’s idea to leave and use the indigenous peoples of the land, in spite of Yahweh’s decree for wholesale destruction, is indicative of how much of the church operates today. In topics ranging from evangelism and church growth to homiletics and theology, the controlling axiom is: “will it work – it is true if it ascertains the desired effect.” Church growth is no longer measured by the depth of the body of believers, but by their breadth – it’s quantitative rather than qualitative results that determine choosing mechanisms or program implementation. The shallow superficiality of “sign this card and you are saved for ever” is betrayed by the indiscriminate line between “Christians” and non-believers, with non-believers often out doing Christians in several ethical categories. The next generation is looking for something radical, something worthy of their reckless devotion; they are not seeing this in the last generation of Christians. To engage the mind of today’s youth with the Living faith of the Christian hope, these young people demand from those that come before them an authentic faith – one that operates on biblically consistent principles, not worldly pragmatism.

Paul paints word pictures of the church which presents it as an organism – a Body (Rom. 12:5; I Cor.10:17; 12:13, 27; Eph.1:23; 2:26; 3:6; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:23, 30; Col.1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15), however, today it is often treated as a machine. Church bulletins are littered with numbers, dates, meetings, and programs...programs...programs. It is as though there is little more to it than getting the correct program in place, downloading the material, entering the numbers, turning the crank, and out comes Christianity. While this description is admittedly hyperbolic, the principle behind the illustration is almost ubiquitous in the American church as a whole. Until the church recognized Christ’s body for what it is, there will remain very little attraction for the rising generation. The faith in Christ as presented in the scriptures is a family that one is “born into,” a Body one abides in, is grafted into, grows up in, becomes a crucial member of; it is a living breathing organism – none of the biblical concepts fit into the mechanical model.

II. D. Contemporary Sensationalism

We have seen in the lives of Joshua’s generation that the sensational miracles and wonders of the wilderness were in themselves insufficient to communicate the truth of the covenant faith from one age to the next. In the last 50 years of American history the despair and meaninglessness of life without Christ has culminated in this generation. This universal despond has lead many to Christ seeking the meaning of their life in this world. There comes with the masses the unbelieving world’s answer to the problem as well – some mystical, super-natural, erratic, personal experience. We find this emphasis on contemporary “wilderness wonders” predominately in the area of worship, where the pursuit of some experience greater than the last becomes the anthropocentric, narcissistic object of the service. Sadly, when such experiences are not achieved through spiritual thrill seeking, the believer is left bewildered and/or guilt ridden, which often leads to severe introspection or worse, abandoning the little faith in Christ they may have once had. This too reflects the sad results of the inability of Joshua’s generation to establish the next in a commitment that offers any sustention.

I think we should also be more careful with the use of speakers who have extraordinary testimonies when evangelizing our young ones. It is not uncommon at youth rallies and the like to have a speaker invited who in an ex-con that has killed three people, was addicted to heroin, crack, and sex, worshiped Satan through animal sacrifice and didn’t pay his taxes who then, by God great grace, came to Christ six months ago. As wonderful and true as these types of stories may be, for kids who have grown up in godly homes such a conception of “conversion” can lead to disillusionment, and often reveal more about the speaker than Jesus. For most people, their conversion will not be a “Damascus Road” experience. Some people fall in love with Jesus as young children and cannot give you the specific date when they were “converted.” Sensational testimonies, while a wonderful witness to the life changing power of the Living Christ, if overdone, can cause our youth to seriously question whether or not their own experience with Christ, as mundane as it might be, is authentic.

III. A. From the Mouth of Babes

Near Eastern back ground studies reveal that the laws of kings were more than mere penal code of obligations and retributions, their law was meant in part to reflect the intrinsic wisdom and knowledge of the king himself (see: Deut.4:6-8). Therefore, the covenant law given to Israel was in some measure a revelation of the infinite wisdom of their King, Yahweh. This concept becomes very important when examining our topic.

In God’s infinite wisdom and decree, he has determined that young, supple hearts would desire him. Is it any wonder then that in the scriptures the admonition to engender a foundational faith in our children is so common it almost becomes cadence? From “the King’s wisdom” in Deut.6 to Paul celebrating Timothy’s exposure to the Holy Faith from his infancy (II Tim.3:15) this is seen. Timothy’s “salvation” and a readiness of “faith in Christ Jesus” were greatly cultivated by his family steadily steeping him in the “holy scriptures.” This is not some conceptual abstraction, but is something that is confirmed by our own experience. Again Barna’s results demonstrate the “wisdom of our King.”

B. Probability of accepting Christ, segmented by age

• Nearly half (43%) of all Americans who accept Jesus Christ as their savior do so before reaching the age of 13 (2004)

• Two out of three born again Christians (64%) accept Jesus Christ as their savior before their 18th birthday. (2004)

• One out of eight born again people (13%) made their profession of faith while 18 to 21 years old. (2004)

The command of our Lord, the lives of our children, and the hope of the church’s victorious future makes paramount the necessity of building the Kingdom of God with the very stones he gives us – our kids!

IV. Conclusion: Lessons Learned from Joshua’s Generation

To reiterate Paul’s words (I Cor.10:6), there is a generous amount of wisdom to be gained by the mistakes made by those in our text. I will summarize them.

A. There is first the calling and duty of us as parents and grandparents to develop and maintain a distinctly Christian faith. The constant guarding of our own concepts of God, ourselves, and the world in general is the primary point of reference for constructing a Christ honoring foundation for our young ones. Failing to do this crippled the generation of Joshua, and is no less important for us today. Christ calls the leaders of the covenant family to a life uncompromised by worldly principles and ideologies. We are to be a “holy people,” set apart from the world, demonstrating through authentically changed lives that the life Christ gives is altogether other from anything this world can offer. If Joshua’s generation had observed and obeyed only Deut.7 while in the land, world history would have be different. We can make no covenant with the world, to do so is to violate our covenant with the Lord. Maintain the antithesis!

B. Certainly there are moments in every Christian’s life when Christ’s presence through the Holy Spirit so fills the being of the believer that words cannot describe it. Truly, the love of God is spread abroad in our hearts and such subjective experience is fundamental to a deep intimacy and living, loving knowledge of Christ. Still the fact remains that such experiences apart from the guidance, discernment, and determinative control of the scriptures is unintelligible at best and at worse, down right dangerous. The discipleship of our children is the highest calling any parent has. Whether that parent is a pastor, youth leader shepherding forty young people, or a stay at home mother, there is no other responsibility more binding on the parent than “raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.” Deut.6, for us today no less than Joshua’s generation, offers the foundational precepts for building a generation of hard following, faith-filled young people. The Word must precede the wonder!

C. In the 16 years I trained dogs one of the most frequent asked questions I would hear is, “my dog is ___ years old...is he too old to train?” My answer was always the same, “Is he dead?” “No” they would reply. “Then no, he is not too old.” Of course training an older dog does have its difficulties, but young ones can be so fickle that you wished they had a couple of years of growth under their belts. I see an analogy in this when applied to passing the faith to our children. The bottom line is that the younger we start the sooner the foundation is built. While no child is too old, we learn from scripture to begin as young as possible, and make the truth of the Bible the very center of our lives and theirs!

V. Other Examples from the Times: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

A. Good ones:

1. Manoah > Samson: While much of Samson’s adult life is marked with carnality, his parents did every thing required of them. Adam had a perfect Father, yet this didn’t go so good for him.

2. Naomi > Ruth: A beautiful prelude to NT redemption, conversion, and adoption – a picture story of the New Covenant. Here is a good example of the spiritual parent getting a late start, yet what a fruitful relationship it became!

B. Bad ones:

1. Eli > Hophni and Phinehas: While Eli typified the state of the nation at the time, his sons typified him. Like father – like sons.

2. Samuel > Joel and Abijah: Because of the undoubtedly overwhelming administrative duties, this case becomes one of the finest warnings for parents who find themselves “too busy” for discipling their children; particularly those bogged down with pastoral responsibilities.

C. Ugly:

1. Gideon > Abimelech: While Gideon’s ephod does raise some questions concerning the latter part of his life; there is not enough evidence that he was inciting the people or his family to idolatry. Much like Samson’s story, at some point the actions of the child must reflect his own, not his parents, self-determination. For this one bad apple, Gideon had 70 sons that were martyrs, not too bad of a track record?!?