2 Chronicles 18:1-19:4

Passage paralleled in 1 Kings 22:1-40

Introduction

God has graciously revealed Himself to us. He approached Adam and Eve before the fall. It was also He who came looking for them after the fall. Since He breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, it has been interesting to see how we respond to His Word.

The account of Micaiah is no different. There are people revealing, receiving, responding, rejecting and refuting the Word of God...all in this section.

Commentary

v 1
Though Jehoshaphat and Judah are generally presented in more favorable terms than Israel and their counterparts, this narrative starts out in a negative tone. For one, Jehoshaphat has disobeyed the Word of the Lord. A king was not to multiply wives for himself (Deuteronomy 17:17), even if for political gain. Secondly, Ahab is not the kind of man the Lord is pleased to see a king align with. He was the most evil king Israel had seen to that point (1 Kings 16:30). One is left to consider, "With an introduction like this, things are not going to end well."

v 2-3
Despite Ahab's wickedness, he is able to convince Jehoshaphat to align with him. Certainly, their relation through marriage played a factor. Clearly, they are fellow decendants of Abraham and are brothers, despite their political separation. However, verse 2 places Ahab inducing Jehoshaphat to join him in very close proximity to his lavishing him with sheep and and oxen and surrounding him with people. He is not bribing Jehoshaphat, yet he is clearly winning him over with things. Once Ahab requests military assistance, Jehoshaphat is quick to comply.

v 4-5
For some reason, Jehoshaphat wants to hear from the Lord. He has already declared his allegiance to Ahab, yet, he asks the the king to seek the voice of the Lord. Ahab's response is to bring 400 prophets before Jehoshaphat. The prophets declare that it is the Lord's will to fight, for He will give the enemy into the king's hand.

v 6
We do not know what distinguished these prophets, but Jehoshaphat could tell they were not of the Lord. Perhaps their reputation preceded them, and Jehoshaphat knew of their idolatry. It's conceivable that their "divine revelation" required ritual or statements foreign to the typical practice. It is even possible that these prophets were calling out to foreign gods, for Ahab certainly had no problem with false dieties (1 Kings 21:25-26). By whatever means, Jehoshaphat could tell these were not genuine prophets of the Lord. His question, "Is there not yet a prophet of the Lord here that we may inquire of Him?" speaks volumes. It is not only telling that the 400-man throng did not include a prophet of the Lord, Jehoshaphat's question even wonders if one can be found. Ahab has driven the prophets of the Lord out of his presence. Not only would Jehoshaphat like to hear from a prophet, we wonders if one can even be found.

v 7-8
Ahab tells Jehoshaphat that one such prophet does remain. However, this prophet is not within the 400, for Ahab does not like him. In fact, Ahab states that he hates this prophet for he never says anything good about Ahab. One of the most evil kings in the history of Israel is offended when a prophet of the Lord does not speak well of him. Rather than hear truth, Ahab preferred to have his ears tickled. We have no reason be believe Micaiah had been rude or malicious. He simply spoke the Word of the Lord.

It is not that Ahab has merely heard of this prophet, but he knows directly who he is. For one, this prophet had spoken in his preference multiple times, thus Ahab declares he "never prophesies good concerning me." He also knows the prophets name is Micaiah, son of Imla. Jehoshaphat gently rebukes Ahab's attitude, telling him that he should not say such things.

Yet, to appease Jehoshaphat, Ahab dispatches an officer to retrieve Micaiah.

v 9-11
As the officer pages Micaiah, we are given a description of the scene. Micaiah already had a "strained" relationship with Ahab, but these three verses point out other issues that could cause some intimidation.

1. Royal Pageantry--Ahab and Jehoshaphat were each seated on their thrones. As kings over separate dominions, they would find it necessary to display their splendor before one another, as well as any on lookers. Therefore, these kings sit upon their thrones in full royal garments.

2. Room for Prophets--How could 400 prophets gather before these kings? The author explains that Ahab has constructed a makeshift throne room in the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria. The gate would be considered a place of prominence, while the threshing floor would provide a large expanse. Therefore, all 400 prophets could stand before these kings, leaving room for "entertaining displays."

3. Blasphemous Display--Zedekiah creates an impromptu visual aid for the kings. When the text says that he fashioned for himself iron horns, we should assume this means the horns were positioned on his head. Therefore, Zedekiah is using a prop to transform himself into a bull, goring the Arameans. Surely, Zedekiah would look foolish as he swerves around on the threshing floor, pretending to gore the enemy. But his display goes beyond stupid and is actually blasphemous. He claims the inspiration for this illustration is from the Lord, for God has told him that Ahab will gore the Arameans. Sadly, the other prophets join in as well, declaring that the Lord will give Ramoth-gilead into the hands of the king.

v 12-15
As the messanger approaches Micaiah, he informs him of their uniform testimony to the king. He encourages Micaiah to "get onboard," sharing a favorable message like the others.

Micaiah's faithfulness to the Lord is seen in his simple reply, "As the Lord lives, what my God says, that I will speak."

Once Micaiah approaches the king on his throne, Ahab cuts right to the chase, "Should we battle or refrain?" It is surprising to find Micaiah's words in unison with other prophets. Has Micaiah given into the pressure of the majority? Hardly.

It is clear from the Ahab's response, that Micaiah's tone must have been inconsistent with his words. Though his words may appear complimentary, the king senses his insincerity. Perhaps Micaiah has responded this way before, since Ahab appears familiar with this practice. Either way, it is rather ironic that the evil king thinks it is his place to instruct a prophet of God to speak the truth.

v 16-17
Micaiah shares that he has received a vision. All of Israel is scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. Yet, he is not left to interpret the vision alone, for he states that the Lord spoke to him. The Lord gives meaning to the vision when He tells Micaiah, "These have no master." Not only that, but once the king is dead the people return home in peace.

Ahab gets the point, for he looks over to Jehoshaphat and says, "Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"

v 18-22
But Micaiah's vision is not only of Israel, he was given a peek into heaven as well.

The scene--As Micaiah stands before these two thrones, he tells Ahab and Jehoshaphat that he has seen another throne. It is the throne in heaven, with God seated upon it, surrounded by the host of heaven.

The scenario--The Lord wants Ahab dead. Micaiah makes it known that the conflict with Ramoth-gilead has originated with the sole intention of enticing Ahab to fight, and fall.

The solution--It is interesting here that the Lord entertains advice from spirits. It is not that He needs to hear from others, nor that He is out of ideas. It is important to remember that this is the predetermined plan of the Lord, He is not responding to the conditions around Him, rather He is initiating these actions.

A spirit comes forward and declares his plan. He will entice Ahab by becoming a deceiving spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets. (This was the Lord's plan all along, to entice Ahab to fight and die in the hands of the Arameans.) The Lord responds to the spirit that he should go and do it.

In front of these 400 false prophets, and standing before the very king who could take his life, Micaiah summarizes the vision. He says that the words of the prophets come from a deceiving spirit and that disaster awaits Ahab. Surely, Micaiah has been faithful to speak only that which the Lord has told him (v 13)!

v 23-27
Micaiah knew his message would not be well received. Now he gets to deal with two interactions:

1. Zedekiah--Since Zedekiah was the ring leader of this circus, it is no surprise that he took the greatest offense. After hearing that God desires Ahab's defeat, and that he used false prophets to accomplish his task, Zedekiah certainly felt chided for his "iron horns." But rather than humble himself, Zedekiah responds in anger and mockery. Zedekiah's response is meant to discredit Micaiah. If Micaiah is really a prophet, he should have seen Zedekiah's violence coming. But since Zedekiah was able to slap him, he assumes that Micaiah did not anticipate his actions. He futher points this out by asking Micaiah to give the "spiritual dynamics" of Zedekiah's actions. In essence, he is saying, "If you know so much about what is happening spiritually, describe for me what the spirits wanted when I slapped you."

Zedekiah's slap would have been intended more for insult than for physical injury. Therefore, Micaiah response would be right in accord with the instructions of the Lord. He does not strike back, but he does state that Zedekiah will know who is right, some day. The day is coming when Zedekiah will have to hide, for the king will be gone and the enemy will be pressing upon him. In that day, Zedekiah will know that Micaiah's prophecy was true.

2. Ahab--Ahab did not like Micaiah (v 7), and was not pleased with his message (v 17). Now we see Ahab's negative reaction to Micaiah's message. Micaiah is to be "returned" to Amon the governor. This suggests that Micaiah may have already been under a form of probation/punishment for other "unfriendly" words about Ahab. Undoubtedly, Joash, Ahab's son, would treat Micaiah unfavorably as well. However, Ahab does not simply trust him to his sons discretion. He also gives direct commands. Micaiah is to be punished in prison, with just a minimum of his necessities provided.

This should be the expected response, not only for Micaiah but for us as well (2 Timothy 3:12). Micaiah does not plead his case, nor does he insult the king. (He has already stated that God wants Ahab dead, what more must he really say?) Therefore, he merely appeals to the authority of the Word of God.

Micaiah is so confident of the Lord's word that he tells Ahab, "If you are still alive, then it must not have been from the Lord." Micaiah is willing to entrust himself to Him who judges righteously. If Micaiah's vision is truly of the Lord, then Ahab will not be returning with the people.

Micaiah is also aware of the other prophets. He calls out to the 400 prophets to listen. They are all to take heed, for in short time, the Lord will reveal who His true servants are.

v 28-32
While Ahab did not appreciate Micaiah's counsel, and chose to enter into battle, he did take some precaution. Ahab eschewed his royal robes, disguising himself as a charioteer. Though he many not have believed this disguise would hide him from God, he may have thought he could atleast thwart God's desired process. If the enemy did not know he was king, perhaps he would survive unscathed.

Yet, it is also intersting to note Jehoshaphat's response. While Ahab largely disregarded Micaiah's prophecy, Jehoshaphat appears to completely ignore it. Clearly, Jehoshaphat is merely a participant in a battle instigated by the Israeli king. What would be the benefit of wearing his robes and presenting himself in royal splendor? Surely Jehoshaphat saw his folly when the Aramean army began to pursue him.

We are told a two part procedure that led to Jehoshaphat's escape. First, he cried out. It is possible that his cry was overheard by the pursuing army and the realized he was not Ahab. However, the text seems to indicate that he may have cried out to the Lord, Who then responded by diverting the army away from him. God graciously spared Jehoshaphat's life. At this point, it becomes clear to the Arameans that Jehoshaphat is not Ahab, and they quit their pursuit.

v 33-19:1
These verses encapsulate God's sovereign work. Each step which Ahab took, in an attemp to thwart God's plan, was actually a meticulous fulfillment of every minute detail. Consider the following:

God predetermines that Ahab should die in battle. (2 Chron 18:19).
The Lord predetermines that false prophets will encourage this battle (2 Chron 18:21).
Ahab enters into the battle inconito, yet God uses a "random arrow" to strike Ahab (2 Chron 18:29; 18:33).

But there's more...

When one compares this to the parallel passage, we see a few other details:

Ahab's disguise caused him to be riding a chariot (1 Kings 22:30).
Ahab's wound was immediately fatal, thus causing him to bleed upon his chariot (1 Kings 22:35).
When rinsing the chariot off, dogs licked the blood of Ahab...as had been prophesied (1 Kings 22:38; 1 Kings 21:19).

The Lord prearranged for Ahab to meet his death at the hands of the Arameans. He would be encouraged to fight by the predetermined plan to use his false prophets. Ahab would die in such a way as to be slow and messy, thus fulfilling God's Word regarding the death of Naboth. One must conclude that no human agent is responsible for any of these actions.

Similarly, though Jehoshaphat was dressed as a king, he was not attacked or injured during the battle. Chapter 19, verse 1 tells us that he returned home safely.

v 19:2-3
Jehoshaphat is visited by another prophet. This time, Jehu comes out to meet him. Jehu challenges Jehoshaphat that he should not be loving those who hate the Lord. These words sound quite familiar to John's. Despite the fact that Jehoshaphat removed Asheroth poles and had set his heart to seek God, the Lord was displeased with his participation. Jehu warns that participation with Ahab could evoke God's wrath upon Jehoshaphat.

It is beautiful to see the gospel light shine forth in this passage. Though Jehoshaphat could bring wrath upon himself, he escapes that wrath because he has set his heart to seek God. The wrath that was placed upon him has been absorbed by another, and there is some good visible within Jehoshaphat! (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Exposition--"Hear the Word of the Lord"

We live in a world of "information overload." It is possible to hear from a host of sources, regarding an infinite number of topics, all within a few clicks of a mouse. Of course, with multiplied sources comes multiplied, and often conflicting, messages. How do we know who to trust or who speaks rightly?

Of course, the church is not immune to this problem. A quick glance across the denominational landscape will show churches with varying opinions on baptism, eschatology and ecclesiology. But once you enter the doors of a particular church, the multiple perspectives do not end. As each member of the Body comes together, they appear to bring their own unique perspective and points of emphasis. Though the church has the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints, there is a variety of opinion regarding the practice of that faith.

Most concerning, we are told savage wolves will come in, they will be evil imposters. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies. We are no longer talking disagreement between "secondary doctrines" nor are we simply speaking of methodology. Instead, the Scriptures tell us that within Christ's Body, there will be some who advocate heresies which can condemn their listener to hell.

Clearly, the church must be discerning and know which voice to hear. We must acknowledge that our own hearts are deceitful and wicked. Left to ourselves, we are incapable of discerning the truth from a lie.

Micaiah stood before Ahab and declared his impending death. How should Ahab have recognized that Micaiah was speaking the truth?

Micaiah was outnumbered 400 to 1. In our modern era, politicians rarely lead by conviction, but instead lead according to popularity polls. If the voters are satisfied, then the elected official procedes with his course. However, if the constituents shift, so should the politician. Similarly, many in the church stick their finger in the air, to test where the winds may be blowing. They determine truth by the size of the seminar or book tour. However, Micaiah, the solitary prophet, was the only true voice.

Micaiah was not viewed a nice. Micaiah shows a steadfast devotion to the Lord (v 18:13), yet Ahab perceives that as meanness (v 7). In fact, the deceit in Ahab's heart causes him to despise Micaiah. This is understandable, for Micaiah was speaking of the Light and Ahab's deeds were of darkness (John 3:19). Ahab preferred the darkness, for then his evil deeds could remain hidden. He perceived Micaiah's loving work of revealing truth to be repulsive and rude. Left to our flesh, we are just as susceptible to deception.

Therefore, we must gauge the integrity of the message according to a different standard. If the number, nor the perceived attitude of the speaker may be our litmus, God certainly offers us another standard.

What it can't be.--Ahab should have known that his false prophets were of no value. Though they claimed to speak the word of the Lord (18:10-11), there words were empty and destructive. This should not be of a surprise. For why would we consider men who do not commune with God to be the voice of God? They cannot accept nor understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are left in their natural state. How foolish of us to seek the truth from those who do not know the Truth.

What it is.--Contrary to the natural man, the Sprit can direct us toward truth. Micaiah is identified as "a prophet of the Lord" (18:6-7). But how can we know that his words are accurate in this regard?

The centrality of Micaiah's message is the revelation of God to him. We see that his message will only be motivated by what God says (18:13). HIs understanding of the vision is only rooted in the Lord's explanation (18:16). His focus is not on Ahab, nor is it on himself...instead he calls for all to "hear the word of the Lord" (18:18).

Micaiah's message was trustworthy because of its close proximity to the word of the Lord. Micaiah was not sharing his own thoughts or opinions, nor was he seeking the wisdom of other men. Micaiah had spoken with God and was simply sharing God's message. This caused Micaiah to have an unshaken conviction to the word, despite the negative reaction (18:24, 27).

But God does not speak through prophets today, but through the His Son (Hebrews 1:1). Paul instructs Timothy that the way to spot false teachers and imposters is through the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:13-17). The Bereans were not dazzled by Paul's resume, but checked his message against the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12). This commitment to the word of the Lord is what allowed Micaiah to declare, "If you indeed return safely, the Lord has not spoken by me" (18:27).

Micaiah believed his words could be tested. If Ahab returned, clearly Micaiah was mistaken. He was not relying on opinion or a hunch, he was sure that the word of the Lord cannot fail. Ahab did not share this same conviction to the word of the Lord...

...and he was proven wrong.

Conclusion

There are many voices that compete for our ears today. We cannot assume the majority opinion is always right, nor is the minority opinion a guarantee of accuracy. Age is no promise either. Any of us can be prone to wanting our ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Like Jehoshaphat, there is good in the believer (2 Corinthians 5:21), yet he is still prone to deception. The sacred writings are what leads a person to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 3:15-17), how could they ever lead us astray?

When we stray from the Word, we stray from the message of the Cross. When we stray from the message of the cross, we stray from Christ. When we stray from Christ, we stray from the Truth. This is how we search our hearts.

This is how we test the validity of the message.

Acts 1:1-8

[The following post is a continuation of some ECM observations. Click on the label "emerging church" to catch some of the other posts.]

ECM and Specifics--Thy Kingdom Come

If you've spent any time talking to someone from "emerging" circles, you've heard the word "kingdom." The phrase "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" (this post will not attempt to explore any difference in these phrases) are certainly Biblical terms. Using this term is certainly not a bad thing, for Jesus used it often. Many who speak of the "kingdom" merely claim to be adopting Jesus' language.

However, like a Sicilian squealing "inconceivable," I'm just not sure they know what the term means. The more they use the word, the less it denotes. One has to wonder if this is intentional, for in my experience, those who use it most seem less capable of giving a definition. Is the word attractive because Jesus used it, or because it can be a bit hazy?

[Side note: The above paragraph used a cultural reference (gasp), suggesting maybe some have painted me with too large a brush. I do not hate culture, nor can culture even be avoided. Everyone lives within a culture, just everyone isn't obsessed with American "pop culture." I would also point out that it was merely an illustration and that now we will be turning to the New Testament, not the works of Rob Reiner.]

Perhaps Acts 1:1-8 can provide some definition. Consider the following:

1. "The first account I composed..."

Luke makes reference to the Book of Luke, Chapter 1. Acts, therefore, is a continuation of the first book he wrote to Theophilus. In the introduction of Luke, Luke explained his intention. Luke desires to compile a history for Theophilus (v 1). Luke worked hard to gather all the eyewitness information and record it in a sensible order so Theophilus could follow along (v 2-3). He did this so that Theophilis could know the exact truth of what he had been taught (v 4). Truth was available, and Luke's written account should make that clear to Theophilus.

2. "until the day He was taken up to heaven..."

Luke makes it known he is picking up right where he left off. He ended the book of Luke with the ascension and begins the book of Acts just before the ascension. We're not missing any major portion of the story.

3. "by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles..."

Christ spent His last moments with them instructing. These instructions were not advice or helpful aids, Jesus was giving them commands (orders [entellomai] means a strong command each of the four times Luke uses it). He was telling the apostles what they were to do. However, we must not see that this time of clear instruction has ended, for Jesus Himself said, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away..." (John 16:7). Are we really to believe that Jesus gave the apostles clear teaching for them to obey and then left us with less? The Spirit Who led Christ in instructing the apostles has now given us His completed revelation and resides within us. Jesus said we are better off now with our instruction than the intense training these apostles received for 40 days.

4. "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God..."

During these forty days, Jesus presented Himself to the apostles, gave them many proofs of His resurrection (undoubtedly, much of the proofs involved teaching from the Old Testament), and spoke to them about the kingdom of God. We're not given much description for what that looked like, but the disciples response later will help us understand.

5. "He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem..."

The kingdom of God is sandwiched between clear instructions. Luke lays out that He has commanded them, spoke about the kingdom of God and then commanded them regarding the Holy Spirit. He told them to stay in Jerusalem. He told them the baptism of the Spirit was coming. He told them it would be a matter of days. His instruction is very clear. Why would we assume He got foggy during the kingdom of God sections?

6. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

The disciples are all gathered together and ask Jesus, "Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Clearly, the disciples were fired up about the kingdom. Jesus had been speaking to them about it for forty days and now they have one big question: "Now?" There are also a couple of other things to note from their question: a.) It could be immediate. The disciples do not ask Jesus if the long, slow development of the world into a multi-millennia program is about to start. From what Jesus had taught them, we must assume the kingdom was described in a way that meant it could imminently arrive. b). It would be by Jesus. The disciples did not believe they would be restoring the kingdom. They asked Jesus if He was going to do it. However Jesus chose to speak of the kingdom, we have to assume that over these forty days it was presented in such a way that the disciples believed it was the Lord's work. They do not even ask if "we" are going to restore the kingdom, having some role within the restoration. All responsibility is placed on Jesus' shoulders. c). He would restore Israel. These apostles, trained on a crash course in the kingdom, came away believing He would restore Israel. This is key for two reasons. The word "restore" means to return to its former state. (This is the same word Luke used to describe Jesus healing a man's hand.) Apparently, when Jesus spoke of the kingdom, it sounded a lot like the kingdom of the Old Testament. Thus, they also believed the kingdom was coming to Israel.

7. "It is not for you to know times or epochs..."

One could easily say the disciples got it all wrong and their question exposes their dense nature. Certainly, they had a track record of misunderstanding Jesus' teaching. Yet in this situation, Jesus only addresses one point of error: timing. He does not say, "Enough with the Israel talk, fellas, I'm done with her." He does not say, "No guys, this kingdom is a spiritual-inside-the-heart thing. It doesn't look anything like the kingdom used to." He doesn't even say, "Me? No guys, you are the ones who will usher in the kingdom!" To the idea of Jesus ushering in a kingdom much like what Israel had experienced before, Jesus simply says, "It's not for you to know when." If they were wrong about their expectations of the kingdom, Jesus did not set them straight.

8. "And you shall be my witnesses..."

Witness is not really a kingdom related term. It's connotations are that they could testify to Christ's life (especially to His resurrection) and to His teaching. It also is the same word (martus) which can be translated "martyr" (Acts 22:20, Revelation 2:13). Christ commissions them for the role of being His witness.

While there are certain elements of the kingdom that are hard to understand, it is amazing how this confusion can turn "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) into "this world is My kingdom." However, many today consider the kingdom already here, or that it is our responsibility to usher in the kingdom. Rarely is this conflict noticed.

But of all groups, shouldn't our fellowship notice this the most. Within our Statement of Faith (which is silent on issues like creation, complimentarianism and is surprisingly brief about God the Father), we articulate:

11. SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

Our fellowship takes a decidedly premillennial perspective. We determine that Israel and the Church are separate. We determine that Christ is returning before the Tribulation (let alone before the Millennium). We also determine that Christ will establish His kingdom rule. (On a side note, I also find it strange that those who know our fellowship and are attracted to this language have not read Greatness of the Kingdom, possibly the gold-standard book of our fellowship's history.)

Today, many employ kingdom language to describe good works that are happening on the earth. Helping the poor, dealing with political injustice and cleaning up the environment are considered kingdom work. Most startling, these works can often be severed from gospel proclaiming ministry and even implimented by unbelievers and yet still considered of the kingdom. Surely, in the kingdom the poor will be cared for, the environment will be clean and justice will defintely be on hand. Therefore, it is wise fo the believer to pursue these God pleasing issues today.

However, to believe we can usher the kingdom in through these efforts, or to belive this is all there is to the kingdom is to miss much of God's future plan. Christ alone will usher the kingdom into existence at God's appointed time. Yet, these details are ignored or misrepresented, despite the fact that it provides the clearer language in Scripture.

If people really wanted to adopt Jesus' language, they'd spend much more time speaking of these future elements. We could probably speak of the kingdom less, but speak more clearly about how the Word describes it, and people would understand it better. After all, the kingdom isn't totally "inconceivable."

James 3:1

[My caveats had caveats, and it was making me naseous. So if you want to read that I'm not mean, actually like people and just want to honor God, you can read those caveats here.]

ECM and Language--Does it REALLY Matter?

Some will claim we just can't know what the Bible is saying. Others will claim the Bible may speak with authority, but we should not. Still others may just find criticizing offensive.

But occasionally you'll run into a people who doesn't mind critique. They welcome a dialogue about Scripture, for they do believe you can find truth within it. But as you begin to discuss specific words, they think you've crossed a line. It's one thing to evaluate the entirety of the message, it's quite another to start breaking down exact words. We should be concerned with the message, not the words used to convey the message. But can the two actually be separated?

You may be thinking, "Who claims the words don't matter? That's ridiculous." But if you examine the amount of coarse language, overstatement and redefinition of words, it is clear that some communicators are not concerned with the integrity of words. But teaching should not be done loosely:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.--James 3:1

A couple of points:

Prevent it!

Become (ginesthe) is in the present middle imperitive plural. James is discouraging the church as a whole from having many teachers. It should not be an easy thing to teach in the church. A man should consider it carefully, but should also have a church there to protect him from the office if they see he is unqualified. James is so serious he does not merely tell the church to watch teachers carefully, he tells them to guard the position carefully.

Strict Judgment

James says that the teacher will face a stricter judgment. James does not say the teaching will face scrutiny, but that the teacher will be judged. This must be understood as life and doctrine.

Specifically, there are three areas that concern me:

1. Coarse Language

This is not an attack of Mark Driscoll, and I wouldn't even mention his name except I know some would immediately assume him. Though I have been offended by words Mark has said, I have found he is typically repentant about these words and has a church body that calls him to accountability. What is scary though, is that at times, I have heard people viligantly defend that Mark said nothing inappropriate even when he admits that he did. (Of course, there have been times he has been accused of being inappropriate when he has simply said what the Bible says. Thankfully, I have not heard him apologize for these situations.) However, some seem to think that unless a pastor uses a word you can't say on TV, then his speech has been fine. This just isn't our standard. The words that come out of our mouth matter, for they reveal the condition of the heart. If define relevant as not being any different than the world, then I guess this could be one way.

2. Overstatement

Our soundbyte culture appears obsessed with shock value. It generates the maximum amount of effect for the minimal amount of time and effort. People (preacher included) are just too impatient to allow accurate statements to have their effect. Certainly, God's Word is so counter cultural that at times it will shock us to our senses. An example in more "fundamental" circles of the past would be to condemn all drinking instead of just drunkeness. However, today it typically swings the other way. A preacher is likely to proclaim as liberty those things which actually are not (like language: see above). Doctrines may even be amplified (or diminished) beyond their scope, just to "make a point." The teacher responds that he is simply trying to see the people come to action, but couldn't the same argument be made for Ananias' slight exaggeration?

Fuzzy Teaching

True to our postmodern era, words are easily redefined. A preacher may use the same words, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing by them. Many of these words are terms to dictate doctrine. A preacher may claim to adhere to a doctrine, but he is choosing to redefine it. Also, a teacher may present a "new concept." He does not either confirm or deny the concept, he simply presents it. When questioned, he has the ability to release himself, telling the critic he didn't really support the position. He's just doing his part to keep the listener fully informed. But our call is not simply to let them know what doctrines are out there. Our call is to teach them how to obey Christ's commands. This must be done through direct, passionate, clear teaching.

We should be careful with teachers and they should be careful with their teaching. In the next three posts we'll carefully at some specific topics.

Matthew 13:13

[The caveats were gettting out of control. Therefore, I encourage you to check a former post to see that I desire to not be mean, rude or condescending.

I don't think all of the ECM is guilty of these issues. But the ECM has brought some of these issues to light. These issues, however, are prevelent in other areas of our fellowship as well.

If nothing else, I'm thankful that these issues caused me to look deeper into some passages.]

ECM and Teaching--Can We Use Authority?

In the last post, I suggested that Scripture teaches that it is perspicuous. Many today espouse a "hermeneutic of humility" that contradicts this point. Others, claim the Bible is clear and understandable (again, do not assume this means some texts are not difficult), yet they find that clear teaching is not as effective. Either people are turned off by past preachers who hammered every topic with iron clad confidence (even in areas where the Bible is silent), or our learning style has changed. Therefore, many preachers today choose to be vague. Ambiguity is in, clear directives are out. Many advocates of this teaching style claim a pretty prestigious line of teachers. In fact, aren't they simply teaching like Jesus did?

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.--Matthew 13:13

Therefore, if we present a captivating story, it will draw our audience in. They may not comprehend all of the details and perhaps they may even misunderstand elements, but at least they will be listening. Is it concerning that people may not understand? Certainly. But Jesus acknowledges this tendency and yet prefers to use parable as a teaching method. Isn't it a good idea to follow in His footsteps?

Let's consider a few details about the text:

1. Christ's Idiosyncratic Ministry--Christ did not speak in parables to help them understand His teaching, the text suggests He used parables to keep them from understanding Him. It has not been granted that the audience would know the mysteries of the kingdom. There are a number of reasons for this:
a. God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:14-18). God is glorified to reveal that He will grant understanding to some and not grant it to others.
b. Predetermined Plan (Acts 2:23). The Israelites had to reject their Messiah so that He could offer His life for their sins. Only by being rejected could Christ become our reconcilliation.
c. To Fulfill His Word (Isaiah 6:9-10). Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. Not only is His crucifixion God's predetermined plan, His speaking in parables is one of God's predetermined forms to keep the crowd from listening.
Christ's ambiguous teaching was for our benefit. However, the sacrifice has been made, and there clearly is no longer any need for us to prevent people from coming to repentance. I am shocked that so many who claim "humility" fail to see this giant distinction between their ministry and His.

2. Non-Missional--Therefore, the parables were actually to prevent people from understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom. One must acknowledge that Jesus chose non-propositional story telling as a Kingdom stagnating teaching method. The Kingdom was not expanded (though it was further initiated) through this literary device.

3. Solved Mystery--Jesus is not content to leave His elect in mystery. Consider:
a. Mystery--Many people perk up when they read the phrase "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." However, they seem to ignore that His disciples were granted to know these mysteries. Jesus did not desire for them to remain mysterious.
b. Knowledge Granted--Jesus tells the disciples that it has been granted to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They are not smarter or more clever than the others, they have simply been chosen.
c. He Teaches Clearly--Lost in Jesus' admission to using parables is that He does so while clearly teaching propositionally. He explains why He teaches in parables, explains that they are different and then explains the parable...piece by piece. His propositional teaching, only available to the disciples (v 10), was the means through which God desired to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
d. Good Soil--When Jesus is explaining His parable, He declares that the seed that fell on the good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it (Matthew 13:23)! His very parable was about people who would understand His teaching (and that the majority would not).

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. But he had a unique mission and even desired that some would misunderstand. Those who choose to model their teaching after this typically ignore these issues. Furthermore, they tend to neglect that Jesus explained many of His parables to His disciples. They often consider His parables ambiguous and claim to be following His pattern. However, they also tend to ignore that His teaching had amazing authority! In fact, the crowd observes His authority in teaching just after He has told them that the wise man hears His words and obeys them.

But the proponents of this "new humility" will counter, Christ maay have taught with authority, but certainly we cannot. We have no authority! This would be humble if only it did not place the person in direct conflict with Christ. For His instructions were:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."--Matthew 28:18-20

He does not call us to teach them all I have commanded, but teach them to obey all that I have commanded. This cannot be done in vague terms. A person must be introduced to Christ's commands and introduced to practical application. But how can we do this? Don't forget...

He has all authority.

And He is with us to the end.

It's time for us to teach like it.

Joshua 10:1-15

Introduction

In Joshua 9, Israel is tricked into signing a covenant with the Gibeonites. Israel is culpable for this, since they did not seek the counsel of God. The people are rightfully upset with Joshua and the elders for making a hasty decision. But the leadership is careful to keep the Israelites from breaking their covenant. They instruct the people that even though they were tricked, they are still bound to their word and must protect the Gibeonites. The Israelites make the Gibeonites work for them, but they spare their lives.

In some ways, the covenant was still theory. They could send the Gibeonites back to their land and continue on their conquest mission. It's not like they would be living in the Israelites way just yet. Of course, God desired to use the covenant to ordain His purposes and calls the Israelites to honor it almost immediately.

Commentary

verses 1-2
Report gets back to Adoni-zedek and he is not pleased. This king of Jerusalem has received word that Jericho has fallen and that Ai was also destroyed. Of course, Israel has already wiped out Sihon and Og on the east side of the Jordan and now their success continues to the west.

News about the Gibeonites only adds to the problem. We are told that Gibeon was a great city, a royal city even. It was a greater city than Ai and all its men were mighty warriors. Not only does Adoni-zedek lose the Gibeonite army as a potential ally, he may now have to fight against them.

It is important to see that his response to the information is fear. It is not hard to picture the inhabitants of Jericho shutting themselves within the walls from fear. However, this text also tells us that some respond to fear by fighting. Adoni-zedek is not gathering an army to fight against the Israelites because he is confident of victory. To the contrary, he is terrified, but his fear motivates him to fight.

verses 3-5
Adoni-zedek sends word to the four other larger cities. He calls for their leadership to form an alliance with him to fight against the Gibeonites. Though their alliance with Israel is certainly his reason for wanting to fight, we are not told if he knew the fight would then extend to the Israelites. It appears that his action is aimed soley at the Gibeonites, for he is willing to gather, camp out and fight against them before the Israelites arrive. It is also noteworthy that none of the kings refused his request. They all aligned themselves in opposition to Israel.

verse 6
The Gibeonites immediately get word to Joshua. Their tone is desperate yet they do not ask for Israel's protection. "Do not abandon (literally, do not let your hands drop)," "come up quickly," "save us," and "help us" are all in the imperative form. The Gibeonites understand that they do not need to request Israel's aid, for their treaty obligates that Israel come to their defense.

verses 7-9
We are not sure of the exact timing of Adoni-zedek's attack, but once Joshua receives word, he is able to gather troops, march 15-20 miles with those troops and be ready to fight the next morning. During this time, the Lord again tells Joshua not to fear and encourages him that He will give the enemy into his hands. Joshua may have wondered if this battle was a judgement for entering a treaty with the Gibeonites, but God reassures him that this battle is an opportunity for God to show his provision to the Israelites. Because of Joshua's quick action and the encouragement of God's words, the Israelites are able to advance to Gibeon overnight. Even if Adoni-zedek had considered Israel's participation, certainly he did not expect it to happen so soon.

verses 10-11
God immediately begins to fulfill His promise to Joshua. Verse 10 lists four verbs that are all in the singular tense. God confounded the army. God slew them with a great slaughter. God pursued them as they fled. God struck them down. None of these verbs are attributed to Joshua or the Israelites. God alone gets the credit.

But God is not interested in simply protecting the Israelites in the battle. He is executing judgment upon these rebellious nations. Therefore, as the attacking army scatters, God pursues and strikes them with hailstones. Some of the deserters have fled up to 20 miles away, and yet the Lord finds them and eliminates them. In fact, so great is the Lord's work that more enemy men died as a result of hailstones than died at the edge of an Israeli sword.

verses 12-13
While these verses encapsulate one of the more famous works in the book of Joshua, there are some difficult details. There are textual questions as well as the overall question, "What happened that day?" Starting with the textual issues:

1. Who is quoted in verse 12?--At first glance, it appears that Joshua calls out "O sun, stand still..." However, the text says "Joshua spoke to the Lord" and later says "and he said." Could this "he" possibly be referring to God and not to Joshua? I believe it could for the following reasons:
a. Again, the construction is odd for the "he" to be referring to Joshua. It is just as possible that "he" is referring to God, to Whom Joshua was speaking. Of course, this is not enough evidence on its own, but coupled with...
b. Joshua speaks to the Lord, yet the quote is directed to the sun and moon. No portion of the quote is actually directed at God. Furthermore, Joshua would have no authority to command the sun and the moon.
It appears likely then, that Joshua called out to God for aid, and God commanded the sun and moon to stand still.

2. Just what is Jashar quoting?--"Is it not written in the book of Jashar?" could either refer to the portion of the verse preceding this statement or following it, but it is unlikely that it would be both. Either Jashar gives the detailed account or the summation of the events. However, the statements compliment one another, therefore it is not a critical issue to discern.

The other question that is asked, "What happened with the sun and moon?" There are a few options:

1. The sun and moon literally sat still.--Science tells us that the sun does not move in the sky but instead that the earth rotates. That the text says, "the sun stood still" should not trouble us, for even today we use such figurative language as sunset and sunrise. To make the sun and moon stop in their place, it would seem this would require the earth to stop spinning. Is this possible? I have no idea, but believe God is certainly capable of the impossible.

[Some have tried to verify that this did take place. There are urban legends in circulation about NASA using computers to calculate future positions for the earth. According to this legend, it is only after the data regarding Joshua and Hezekiah are entered into the computer that the computer program finally worked. Of course, there is not concrete evidence for the story. Also, the believer puts himself in a precarious position if he places too much stock in these stories. Honestly, if we believe the Lord caused the earth to stop, we should not depend on NASA to prove it correct or not.]

2. God made it look like the sun and moon stood still--God may have allowed the earth to continue rotating but could have allowed the sun and moons light to appear coming from a constant source. Whether refracted light or an additional light source fixed in the apparent location of the sun and moon (I'm not a scientist, so I'm done speculating), God causes it to look like the sun and moon hung in the sky.

3. God produces light--Perhaps the language allows for some poetic license. Joshua and Jashar may simply be stating that light continued even though it should have been dark. Certainly, the critical element for Joshua was the continuation of light to allow the armies to fight. God can certainly produce light with His word or even just by His own radiance.

4. It was just a long day--While others speculate the entire account is poetic. They claim that the moon stood still represents the hike to Gibeon and the sun standing still represents the long day of fighting. They do not require anything to have literally happen, other than that Israel saw a tremendous victory that day. The sun still set and the moon still faded, but Israel was very efficient during that day.

Personally, I find number 4 to be the least compelling. The burdern of proof is on saying the text does not mean what it says, and I find the evidence for complete poetry to be slim. This also leads to my assumption that option 3 is a bit weak. The reference to the sun and moon, rather than to just light, seems to suggest something was happening (or appearing to happen) with these celestial bodies. As for choosing between option 1 and 2, I find myself completely overwhelmed to try to discern which is the most probable solution.

verse 14
The author states that this day was a unique day. Immediately following the account about the sun and moon, one might expect this response. However, the author says that is not what truly made the day amazing. The amazing feature is that "the Lord listened to the voice of a man." This is the only time "listened" (shama) is attributed to the Lord. Throughout Joshua, "listened" is attibuted to individuals (or Israel corporately) with an obedient inflection. It is not just that they audibly heard something, they heeded it and obeyed. In essense, the author is saying the day was unique because the Lord obeyed Joshua. (More within "Exposition.")

verse 15
Though the text says the Israelites returned to Gilgal, it is unlikely that they did this before the following (10:16-42) verses take place. To literally fall in this way chronologically, Joshua and Israel would have pursued their enemy, then returned to Gilgal (about 20 miles away) to again depart to deal with the kings and their neighboring cities. There are two possible explanations:

Scribal Error--Since verse 14 ends "for the Lord fought for Israel" and verse 42 ends "the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel" some assume a scribal error took place. Somewhere along the line, a scribe's eye traveled down the page and inserted verse 43 and the position of verse 15. This does not devestate the inerrancy of Scripture, for that doctrine holds that the original autographs were without error. Furthermore, if verse 15 should not be in the text, this does not change anything about the perspective of the text and no doctrine is questionable from this.

Literary Device--Just as Genesis 1 tells of the creation and Genesis 2 presents it again from a slightly different perspective, the author of Joshua may have been presenting the battle from two perspectives. First, he gives a broad sweeping overview of Israel's conquest. Next, he takes us through detail of defeating the kings and their cities. This may be done to draw a distinction with Joshua 11:18, when Israel's conquest took a considerable amount of time. The author may be employing a literary device to help the reader see the speed of their conquest. Basically, he would be saying, "Once the initial battle was over, the whole conquest of southern Palestine was over."

Either way, it is doubtful that the army marched 20 miles to Gilgal, then marched back to attack the cities and deal with the kings.

Exposition

Many people are familiar with the sun standing still for Joshua. This is truly a startling concept as we try to wrap our minds around what happened. The believer should not be troubled if he cannot offer the perfect scientific explanation. If he is challenged that the language is in error (for the sun does not travel in the sky, rather the earth rotates around a fixed sun), he should simply remind the challenger that we still use this language today (sunset, sunrise). We do not need to run to science for the explanation. God created light with His command, therefore, He could have done any number of things to give the appearance of a sun and moon fixed in the sky.

But so often, as we try to wrap our minds around the sun standing still, we miss the truly mind-boggling event...

The Lord obeyed Joshua.

Unfortunately, this is not a mind-boggling concept today. Many people on television or radio claim to know promises of God that obligate Him to respond. The see God as a marionette and they are pulling the strings. Pray this prayer. Give this amount of money. Claim this verse for yourself. Then God must respond to you as you desire. We live in a world that is very slow to obey God, but very quick to tell Him what He must do.

No way has this perspective grown more than in prayer. Prayer has become the believers opportunity to tell God what we think He ought to do. Men stand up and preach that we must command God to act. We have to stand up to Him and call upon our rights. If He does not answer, you are to contend with Him, wearing Him down until you get what you want. But this is not the way Jesus tells us to pray:

Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, `Give me legal protection from my opponent.' "For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, `Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.' "And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"--Luke 18:1-8

A few things to note:

Jesus tells the parable to encourage persistence in prayer. He tells us to keep it up and not lose heart.

The widow had rights. She came to the judge demanding that he do his job. Should we assume Jesus is telling us we have rights and we should demand them?

Contrast, Contrast, Contrast. We understand that this parable contrasts a widow/judge with believer/God. Points of note are:
Judge did not fear God. Jesus later describes this as being unrighteous.
Judge did not respect man. He has not respect for objects made in the image of God.
Judge is unwilling to act. God is not lazy or slack in accomplishing His purposes.
Judge speaks to self. Due to the Trinity, God may not be speaking to His creation, but He is speaking within community of Father, Son, Spirit.
The widow's annoyance finally got results. God does not act because He finds His children annoying.
Judge can be worn out. God cannot be worn out.

Jesus is telling us to come to the father and lay our requests continually before Him, not because we can wear Him down, but because he loves righteousness and His elect. Therefore, the believer comes before Him with a God pleasing confidence that God will work to His best for us (Hebrews 11:6).

We cannot call God into a place of obedience to us, but we can pray with assurance that He cares about justice and His children. He listens and is delighted to respond, not because He is at the end of our string, but because He delights in His own nature. Even in salvation, He responds because He is delighted to see righteousness and loves His elect. His character is revealed and He is glorified. After all, a God who is at the whim of man could never have commanded the sun and moon and delievered His people!

Neither could He deliver us from our sin.

2 Peter 3:14-16

[Pre-caveat caveat: This post is the result of a series I did regarding Scriptural interaction with some emerging church trends. However, the truths of the text certainly expand beyond the emerging scope.]

[Understand that as I work through these posts, I am not saying these issues relate only to the emerging church movement. I also am not saying that every emerging church has these issues, some will not. All I am saying is that the emerging church movement (or ECM for my lazy fingers to type) has been a recent and/or prevalent catalyst for certain topics. I also understand that the ECM discussion may stir up topics for me that others do not see as germane. I am not claiming to be an expert and will confess that in many ways I feel like an outcast in my own generation.

If it appears I am painting the ECM with too broad a brush, I would encourage you to consider it should be even broader. Any atempt to address specific churches, pastors or teachers has typically resulted in me being considered mean, rude or non-brotherly. Instead, if an element of a movement causes us see an area of a concern, we should see if that broad brushstroke doesn't also cover some of our own ministry. Quite frankly, much concern I have about elements within the ECM are problems we have long had within our own fellowship of churches.

Furthermore, it is not my desire to be mean, pugnacious or divisive. I believe we are called to refute error when we see it. However, I do not believe this has to be personal, rude or demeaning. Justin Taylor has an excellent series of quotes from John Newton (1, 2, 3) regarding refutation. I hope I exercise the positive dimensions expressed in those quotes when addressing controversy. If you spot words or ideas in conflict to the standards addressed by Newton, please bring them to my attention.

Understand also, that I do not believe that modernism is glorious. Modernism has major problems too. I have no explanation for God's sovereign choosing of me, so I am baffled, yet grateful for His divine continuous working in this world. I do not believe science has all the answers and I do not deny that there is mystery in this world. These posts are in no way an attempt to call people back into modernity. I believe Christ's message trandscends all era and times, therefore I would not call myself a modernist either. Understand that this is not a nostalgia quest for me.

Understand also, that it makes me nauseous that I find it necessary to introduce a post with such a caveat.]

--sigh.

ECM and Clarity--Is it humble?

Have you ever had a person come to you with a "word" from God? "God told me you should buy this house! God told me you should apply for that new job!" even "God told me you should serve in this ministry!" Don't you just chafe at that? How do they know God told them that? Furthermore, if it is about me, why wouldn't God come and say that to me? Why did He need to go through that person?

But could the person speak with conviction regarding other issues? "God says it is wrong to lie. God says you should wait until marriage to become intimate. God says you should do that which is honoring to your parents." Can each of these things, grounded in Scripture, be said with clarity and conviction? Certainly, a person can say these things with confidence, for God has not only told them, but He has told all of us in His Word. These words come with authority, because they are not based on a person's feelings, emotions or thoughts, they are based on God's revealed Word.

Though Israel, the apostles and the early church all saw the Scriptures as authoritative, we eventually had to fight the battle over whether Scripture really has ultimate authority in the life of a believer. Once that battle was behind the chuch (as far as formally articulated positions) the next battle came over inspiration. Some were wiling to accept that the Word has authority, they just weren't sure what portions of the Book counted as Scripture. The church was again called to articulate a clear statement affirming that all Scripture is God-breathed. But with authority and inspiration being settled, the question has moved to perspicuity. Can we really know what the Scriptures are saying? Aren't some passages really hard to understand? Can those passages have any authority?

It may be of comfort that even an apostle acknowledged that portions of the Bible can be hard to understand. Peter said:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.--2 Peter 3:14-16

Some observations:

1. Paul's letters = Scripture--This does not mean every thing Paul ever wrote is Scripture. However, Peter is saying that the letters the church had received from Paul are Scripture. He says that men distort what Paul says like they do the rest of Scripture. In one brief statement, Peter made it known that he considers Paul's letters to be on equal footing as the rest of Scripture.

2. Some things are hard to understand--Peter acknowledges that Paul makes some difficult statements. He does not say it is easy to read or discern. He does not say that it takes no effort. Peter says that Paul has written the letters to the churches and some of the content is quite difficult.

3. Peter loves Paul--Peter refers to him as a brother and beloved. This is after Paul has corrected Peter! (Galatians 2:11). Peter does not consider Paul's difficult writtings to be the by product of sin in Paul or a poor character trait. Peter says he loves Paul and that he is his brother.

4. Paul is smart--In fact, Peter says that Paul's letters are a by product of the wisdom given him. Some portions are difficult, not because Paul was a poor writer or lacked knowledge. The text is difficult because he had been given profound wisdom.

5. Paul's letters are useful--Peter only brings up Paul's letters because they help make Peter's point. Peter is expressing why the end times have not played out to completion. In this statement, with subsequent application for the church, Peter appeals to Paul's letters. He does not say, "This is what Paul was trying to say when he said..." Instead, he says "regard the patience of our Lord as salvation" just like Paul told you to do! He's not making a statement of clarification, he's making a statement of compliment. He is aligning himself, and his reader with a perspective they have already heard, understood and applied to their lives.

6. The untaught and unstable distort Paul--Peter does not excuse the church for misunderstanding Paul. Instead, he condemns those who misunderstand what Paul says. Peter says the reason the miss the passage is due to their own instability and ignorance. Peter expects his audience to do otherwise.
a. Unstable--Peter is really claiming that God will not grant them wisdom. They may ask for that wisdom, but they doesn't really believe God will grant it. In reality, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. James says that the man who asks but doubts God's ability to supply shouldn't expect it.
b. Untaught--Peter is claiming that the Spirit is inactive or disabled in His ability to instruct them. The Spirit may have inspired it. He may have preserved it. But He is not functioning as a teacher. (The Spirit of God residing silently should be a troubling concept.) Peter then is claiming that they lack the annointing of the Holy Spirit.

7. Missing the point can be destructive--Peter says that those who distort Paul do so to their own destruction. In fact, they do not just distort Paul, but they do this to the rest of the Scriptures. Since the problem is with the person and not with the author, their distortion extends beyond Paul to all of Scripture. They miss the point with Paul because they cannot handle the Scriptures at all.

In a nutshell, Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings are Scripture even though they are difficult. However, even though he considers them difficult, he expects the reader to understand them, for we have the Spirit to illumine the text. In fact, those who misuderstand difficult passages of Paul also misunderstand the rest of Scripture too. The complexity of the text does not diminish its authority.

While this is the traditional approach to Scripture, there is a new hermeneutic on the rise. It's called a "hermeneutic of humility." It's adherants claim that they, unlike so many arrogant Bible teachers of the past, are humble, admitting they don't know what the text means. They condemn a former perspective that believed the text has a particular meaning (authorial intent) that can be known and discerned by the reader. We should be more ambiguous, for direct statements are purely arrogant. But one cannot hold this perspective without being in bold defiance:

1. Of Peter the Apostle--As we've already seen, this perspective disputes what Peter said. You can only practice this hermeneutic of humility if you are willing to say Peter got it wrong.

2. Of the Apostle Paul--Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures he has had from childhood (that would be the Old Testament only) were sufficient to produce a faith leading to salvation in Jesus Christ! Therefore, Paul did not see Old Testament passages as veiled and too difficult for Timothy to comprehend. In fact, he next directs Timothy to the fact that all Scripture is inspired and useful.

3. Of Jesus Christ--Jesus tells a group of untrained and uneducated men that the only reason they can comprehend the parable is that God reveal it to them. Paul corroborates this idea when he says that the Word of God is not comprehendable unless God reveals it to us (1 Corinthians 2:6-16). In fact, never once does Jesus excuse the Israelites for misunderstanding Scripture, but He criticizes them for not reading and comprehending the Scriptures.

Hermeneutic of Humility advocates often cite Deuteronomy 29:29:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

They simply tell you they are celebrating the secret things of God. But is something which is difficult to understand the same as a secret? If I tell you something, even if it is difficult to comprehend, you could no longer say I was keeping it secret from you. Therefore, Moses is telling us that there are aspects to God which have not been revealed to us. There are things about God which He has not revealed, but has kept secret. However, it is inconsistent to then claim that God kept those things secret by revealing them in His Word. In fact, Moses says that the things revealed should now be proclaimed! Moses actually has confidence in the Israelites ability to understand the Scriptures, for he states that they should observe it! How could they obey what they do not understand?

And that appears to be the crux; obedience. Today, the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is called into doubt, not over texts which are difficult to understand, but by texts difficult for our society to obey. Male headship is considered too vauge to know for certain, despite very clear text. Again, homosexuality is a topic too hazy, despite concrete statements. We can't know about the length of hell even thought Jesus said it is eternal. But this same humility is not exercised to ask Did Jesus really go to Capernaum? (as John MacArthur points out). This hermeneutic is not employed for all Scripture, but rather, only those Scriptures which our society finds hard to accept.

Because unregenerate society finds a text difficult to comprehend, we are encouraged to reconsider our approach. This is encouraged even though Scripture tells us they will be incapable of understanding.

A person dismisses the text because they claim they are exercising personal humility. However, they are really bringing God into a place of humiliation; stating that He is not capable of making His Word discernable to fallible men. We're not told it will be easy, but we are told God is capable. Peter says it will be difficult, but he also expected the people to understand.

We can speak with authority because we can speak the Word of God. And when God spoke, He did not mumble.

Joshua 12:1-24

Introduction

"Thus the land had rest from war." These are the last words of Joshua 11 and they mark the end of the conquest narratives. Chapter 12 serves as a list of the geography and kings who have been conquered...a long list. But is there anything within this long list of destroyed cities and dead kings?

Commentary

verses 1-5
The author again lists the conquest narrative east of the Jordan. This account is described in Numbers 21:21-35.

verse 6
The author reminds us that Moses was in command when they were east of the Jordan. This verse reminds us of a few details:

1. Moses, the servant of the Lord--Throughout the book of Joshua, Moses is given this description. However, Joshua is typically called "the son of Nun" or simply Joshua (as in the next verse). Not until Joshua 24:29 does Joshua receive this honor. Therefore, "the servant of the Lord" is not an office that Moses or Joshua filled, but rather a description of a life lived in service to God.

2. Faithfulness of Reubenites, Gadites and 1/2 tribe of Mannesseh. They had already received their land, yet agreed to fight for all of the tribes. Verse 6 speaks as a reminder of their faithfulness to the entire nation, though their land already had peace.

3. Rightful claim The Jordan river will cause some conflict within the tribes during future events. Therefore, the reminder that Moses gave these tribes land east of the Jordan reminds that their claim is legitimate.

verses 7-8
In verse six, the reader is reminded of Moses' leadership role in the exodus and initial conquest east of the Jordan. Here, the author validates that Joshua has served a similar role in the remaining conquest. Joshua had this authority placed on him, and he has served faithfully in that task. Similar to verses 1-5, the author begins to lay out boundary markers for the land which Israel has conquered.

verses 9-24Next, the kings who have been defeated are laid out in the text. Some of these accounts are recorded earlier in the book, others are only mentioned at this place. After each king, the author states "one" (echad). Coupled with his closing statement, there is no doubt that 31 kings have been defeated. They have not simply been ignored or subdued, the kings have been completely defeated.

Exposition--Is it just a boring list?

When you tell someone that your church is preaching through Joshua, people usually pause and ask a question. "Are you going through all of it, or just certain sections? There is a lot of killing and war in Joshua, making it a difficult text to preach. Then we enter into a section of lists; kings and land markers. Is there any profit to these texts?

In light of 2 Timothy 3:16, do we believe all Scripture is God-breathed? Furthermore, for a fellowship that claims, "The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible" (or, at least used to) we should see that Joshua 12 has something to offer us.

While no one may quote Joshua 12 during a wedding ceremony and I doubt you'll see a wall placard declaring Joshua 12 at your local Chrisitian Kitsch...er Bookstore, I do believe this passage offers some wonderful truths. As listed in the "Commentary" section, there are wonderful principles of leadership, trust, faithfulness, and God's favor displayed in this chapter. Yet, even without mining the intricacies of every city and ruler (which would certainly prove rewarding), even the exhaustive lists have something to say...

The Book of Joshua has nothing to hide.

In reading various commentaries about Joshua, some "scholars" suggest unique dates and authorship for Joshua. They claim the book was not written until the Babylonian exile by an unknown author. The Jews were disappointed to have lost the land and therefore fabricated an entire history to keep them hopeful and unified. Their children would never be motivated to reinhabit Canaan if they were simply told, "Your mother and I once had a nice house down there, but we lost it during he deportation." However, if the Israelites could construct a story, they could then tell their children, "God gave us that land. Perhaps, someday you will get the opportunity to claim back what is rightfully ours!" According to these scholars, through oral tradition, leaders developed this entire fictitious account, some of which comprises the book of Joshua.

However, chapter 12 becomes a sticking point for this theory. One glance at chapter 12 quickly exposes that this does not read like a fairy tale. Cities are named and geography is listed in detail. Kingdoms are mentioned as overthrown. The author lays out each king, followed by "one," followed by the summation of "31" to acknowledge these kings were literally defeated. There is just far too much detail (detail, which if wrong would expose your fraud) for this story to be considered a fable. It reads as an eye witness account.

Peter encouraged his readers to make the same observation of his work (2 Peter 1:16-21). Consider the following points of comparison:

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales...

Neither Peter nor Joshua read like fairy tales. Contrary to Scientology, Joshua was not originally science fiction then adapted for life lessons.

but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty...

As stated before, the cities, rulers, topography, etc reveal that the author had intimate knowledge with the Israelites, the era, the land and the other people groups at the time Joshua was recorded. The text just lists far too many details that could be proven fictitious if the story was fabricated.

and we ourselves heard this utterance...

Isn't it interesting that Peter states his claim as an eyewitness, but he chooses not to validate it with some obscure, minute detail that only the disciples knew. He doesn't pick something casual such as Jesus' favorite food or a joke that would always crack Jesus up. Instead, he goes straight to the supernatural. Peter makes his eyewitness appeal to such breath-taking events such as the transfiguration.

Likewise, Joshua is not just a war account. It does not simply lay out patterns of battles the Israelites won. To this point, the author has not shyied away from divine details. The Jordan is split, shouting and marching fell the walls of Jericho, God revealed the secret sin of Achan and even hailstones killed the opposing army. Joshua is full of supernatural detail.

Many times, people claim the supernatural detail as their big obstacle. They'd be willing to believe the book of Joshua if not for all of the "far fetched" (or so they perceive) accounts. But to the believer, these miraculous accounts are what validates that it is the Word of God. The author is not embarrassed to acknowledge God's work in their midst. He intertwines details of cities and kings in the midst of God's marvelous works.

the prophetic word made more sure...

Scripture is also unique due to its prophecy. At times, God has revealed his foreordained plan (in detail) to man. When this has happened, we see the plans of God do not fail. Scripture is obviously not the product of man when we see God's forecast come to be.

Similarly, chapter 12 serves as the fulfillment of earlier prophecy. God began the book of Joshua telling him that Israel would be victorious. Often, as an enemy would approach, God would remind Joshua that He is with him and would grant the victory. Prophecy serves as a validation that God's Word is true and will come to pass.

men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God...

It's important to remember that the Holy Spirit oversaw Joshua 12. Scripture is not something God would later endorse, judging the books to be good enough. He was involved in the process and even willed for the lists in chapter 12 to be recorded.

Conclusion

Our faith can not be built upon fiction and fable. Paul stated, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." No matter how great a feel-good story the resurrection may be, or any level of "inspiration" a person may find in it, if the resurrection did not literally occur, then we still fail to be justified before God. Our faith hangs on the literal nature of the resurrection.

But did you realize the character of Christ is dependant upon the validity of the book of Joshua? Some claim the name of Christ yet scoff the accounts in Joshua. However, the story of Jericho (one regularly under attack) is directly tied into the person of Christ. Who can forget the one woman in the city who was saved due to her faith? As Rahab finds refuge with the Israelites, chapter 6 ends with her living in their midst. In the book of Ruth we read that Boaz plays the role of kinsman-redeemer. Matthew 1:5 tells us that Boaz's mother was Rahab. Of course, the following verse presents David the king. The thread running from Abraham to Jesus Christ runs through King David. The thread God chose to sovereignly tie Abraham to David runs through Rahab! If the story of Jericho is fiction, then the lineage of Christ is a farce. But Joshua 12:9 serves as a reminder that Jericho was truly overtaken by the Israelites and that Christ is the Son of David.

And when we see that our past is built upon fact, we have greater strength to see our future hope is built on fact too!

Titus 1:9

[Pre-caveat caveat: Though the following post was written in response to items surfacing in the emerging/emergent church movement, the principles are based out of Titus 1:9]

[Understand that as I work through these posts, I am not saying these issues relate only to the emerging church movement. I also am not saying that every emerging church has these issues, some will not. All I am saying is that the emerging church movement (or ECM as my lazy fingers will from here on type) has been a recent and/or prevalent catalyst for certain topics. I also understand that the ECM discussion may stir up topics for me that others do not see as germane. I am not claiming to be an expert and will confess that in many ways I feel like an outcast in my own generation.

Understand also, that I do not believe that modernism is glorious. Modernism has major problems too. I am baffled and grateful for God's continuous divine working in this world; for my own salvation has no other explanation. I do not believe science has all the answers and I do not deny that there is mystery in this world. These posts are in no way an attempt to call people back into modernity. I believe Christ's message trandscends all eras and times, therefore I would not call myself a modernist either. Understand that this is not a nostalgia quest for me.

Understand also, that it makes me nauseous that I find it necessary to introduce a post with such a caveat.]

--sigh.

ECM and Criticism--Is it Biblical?

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if in one sweeping post I could evaluate an entire movement and breakdown whether it is Biblical or not? If you came to this post expecting that to happen, you will be disappointed. I am far too verbose, the topic is way too broad, and let's be honest, your attention span is far too short to answer that question in one incredibly long post. Yes, I understand that the question "Is the ECM Biblical?" is not even a fair question to ask. (Don't make me start writing retractions again.) But if you look closely, that wasn't the question. Blog titles must be relatively short (It looks really odd on the FGBC blogpage if I use long titles) and therefore can affect clarity. I am not saying that I am critiquing the ECM on the basis of its biblicity. I'm asking:

Is even criticizing something, like the ECM, a Biblical practice?

In the past, this blog has received significant heat from some. I will admit that my posts are not strictly positive and complimentary. Typically, if I critique something on my site, within a day I will get a comment from someone that says, "Why do you have to be negative? If you didn't like the book/author/sermon/speaker/event/host/seminar/program/curriculum/etc just don't do it. You don't have to say it was bad. You simply could just point to what you consider a positive alternative." While this is not the fault of the ECM, I have received this comment every time I have said something non-complimentary about emerging/emergent. I am told the proper response would be to leave well enough alone and continue to serve in my specific sphere. If someone else wants to minister in that way, it's none of your business! I'm told I don't have to participate, but that I should just get out of the other guy's way.

I'm sorry, I just can't do that.

No seriously, I can't.

And pastor/elder, neither should you.

You see, I'm not claiming that I find it impossible for myself to do that. Contrary to my impression left on some, I do not crave confrontation. I think I generally have a healthy and normal attraction to peace and comfort. I do not go looking for a fight. I can not link my compulsion to speak where I see error to heredity, environment or even to sin (though my response may not always be pure). I chock it up to calling.

And no, I am not alluding to that ultimate Christian trump card. I am not stating that God gave me a vision in the evening, calling me to defend issues and point out error. I'm not trying to claim some experience or even burning in the bosom that compells me to refute error, but which--since it was entirely personal--is conveniently impossible to challenge. I have received a very real, very tangible, very public calling to refute error.

Don't believe me?

Check it out:

For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.--TItus 1:7-9

A couple of observations about this calling:

1. Non-prioritized.

While many believe the opening statement that an overseerer must be above reproach (a concept repeated from verse 6) may be an umbrella introducing all of the other qualifications, it is clear as you work through all of the rest that this is not presented in any prioritization. Are we to claim that not being self-willed is more critical than not being controlled by substance? Obviously, each qualification is equally important.

2. Not on the curve

Paul does not say that an overseer must generally adhere to these qualifications. This is the standard. Therefore, meeting 80% of the qualifications is not a "passing grade." Like the fruit of the Spirit, this is a list where the standard is to hold all of these qualifications. (Obviously, no man is able to claim absolute perfection in any of these areas. However, he must see enough sanctification in his life for others to acknowledge they see him as qualified in these areas.)

3. Disqualified by being qualified?

These qualifications cannot be mutually exclusive. Contrary to the climate of our current culture, it is possible to refute errant doctrine without being quick-tempered, self-willed, pugnacious and out of control. Of course, it is possible to disagree with someone and fail to preserve these other qualifications (I have lost my cool before and failed to meet above standards). However, we must acknowledge that the action of refuting unsound doctrine is not disapproving action in itself. Just as we would expect any elder to be able to exhort in sound doctrine, Paul says he must hold fast to the teaching well enough to refute those who contradict as well.

I should also explain the term "doctrine." I am not speaking only of head knowledge and facts. Doctrine is not pleasing to God unless it plays an active role in the believer's life. Therefore, when I speak to doctrine, I am not simply saying that a person must affirm facts. They must follow those facts. A person can claim to understand the sovereignty of Christ, but if they lack obedience, it is not accurate for them to affirm Him as Lord (Luke 6:46). Therefore, when an elder is called to refute unsound doctrine, he does not merely evaluate a verbal profession, but is called to examine whether the mode is consistent with the creed. Does the person practice what they preach? If they regularly act in a way that is contrary to a faith statement they make, it must be concluded that they do not understand the faith statement they claim to affirm. Therefore, the elder must be prepared to lovingly refute their method, exposing the error in their understanding, and calling them to consistent thought and action. This is doctrine.

Therefore, if the ECM (or anyone else) incorporates a method which contradicts a doctrine, the elder is obligated to speak up. In fact, his ability to contradict can only be evidenced if he does, and his refutation of unsound doctrine is the outworking of his faithfulness to the word.

I've been told this as a pastor before. "It's one thing to say what you believe. It's okay to say what another believes. It's even okay to say that you believe differently than someone else. You may even find it appropriate to lay out your case for why you have a belief. However, you really shouldn't say someone else is wrong." I have been told this by so many within our fellowship, that I've wondered if it has replaced "The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible" or even "Knowing Him and Making Him Known" (which wouldn't be tragic if the latter was lost).

Frankly, that's American advice, but it's unbiblical. It may sound consistently gracious, but it's self-contradictory as well. When I have received this "just do your own thing and leave the ECM alone" advice from others, I have noticed a few contradictions:

1. Impeded Vision?--Postmodernity is a response to modernity. It is a reaction. Therefore, much in the ECM is a reaction to "traditional church." In nearly every post, book, sermon or ECM lecture I have listened to, they must make their point for why they do what they do by stating how the traditional church is doing it wrong. From my observation, the movement has no problem pointing out the "traditional church flaws" but can get quite upset when they are questioned.

2. Brothers' Keepers?--Most in the ECM will acknowledge a desire to think more globally and outside of denominational borders. However, when one outside of their camp questions their practice, the thought is often raised that each man should mind his own business. This seems contrary to thinking globally. If I want to expand my thought from beyond my geography and I want to focus on the church beyond my denomination, shouldn't I also acknowledge my responsibility to my brother outside of my practice? If we are truly united in Christ, shouldn't we care about one another enough to confront one another?

3. Method free?--Many in the ECM are frustrated with an easy believism that seperates belief from action. However, many seem readily willing to divide methodology and theology. But Peter said that life and godliness are borne out of true knowledge of God. Therefore, the two cannot be so easily extracted. What you believe will impact the way that you live, and the way you live is a reflection of your beliefs. Certainly liberties extend to many things. God is so gracious in the freedom He gives His bride. However, a methodology can be a manifestation of a faulty doctrine and therefore should be open for examination.

In the past, I have been called arrogant, rude, mean and childish for challenging certain things. My judgment has been questioned and my motives have been doubted. This has not just happened with the ECM discussion. It's happened when I've questioned books, sermons or even celebrity statements. Apparently, my ministry would just go smoother if I would keep my mouth (or laptop) shut. Perhaps people are right. Perhaps my role as an elder would be more peacable and calm. Most would not deny that we must exhort in sound doctrine, even though this can occasionally disturb the peace of ministry. Yet we know that peace is not our guide for action, God's calling is.

And He has called us to refute that which is unsound.