|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:19:12 GMT -5
d. The writer chose to demonstrate Moses’ faith by drawing from key episodes in his life. He provided only a brief statement for each, knowing that his readers were well aware of Moses’ story in the Pentateuch and they would fill in the surrounding details. The first two things he mentioned were part of the same larger episode that focuses on Moses’ faith as he embraced his Hebrew identity and calling and renounced the life he’d known since he was a little boy.The final episode brought that commitment to its climax, as Moses returned to Egypt after forty years in Midian to liberate Yahweh’s people and so fulfill His oath to Abraham (11:28). The writer mentioned only the Passover event, but this was itself the climax of a lengthy, multi-faceted confrontation between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt, carried out through Moses and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:18-12:36). The Passover story began when Moses, tending his flock, found himself at Mount Horeb in the land of Midian. There the Lord confronted him and identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the God who had pledged to take their descendents as His people and give them the land of Canaan.Though the long years of silence and inaction had perhaps given the impression that He’d forgotten or abandoned them, that wasn’t at all the case; He was well aware of their affliction and never lost sight of His covenant and its promises. Nor had He forgotten His determination to use Moses as His agent of deliverance, and now the time had come to fulfill that intent (Exodus 3:1-10). Surprisingly, Moses responded by pushing back. Here he was experiencing an encounter with the God in whom he’d long placed his faith, and this God was telling him that now, after forty years of waiting, it was time for him to fulfill his calling as Israel’s deliverer. One would expect Moses to react with confident enthusiasm, but instead he expressed doubt and reluctance, even to the point of petitioning God to entrust the task to someone else (Exodus 3:11-4:17). Given Moses’ history of faith, this seems entirely out of character, and some have reasoned that he was responding out of humility, not faithlessness. This may have been partly true (ref. 3:11, 4:1, 10), but the Lord’s anger at his reluctance shows that Moses was motivated by fear and doubt as much as humility (4:13-14). Yahweh refused Moses’ pleadings, and appointed Aaron to stand alongside him. Thus the brothers prepared to leave Midian for Egypt, unaware of all that awaited them there. But Yahweh did instruct Moses in general terms concerning their mission and how the new pharaoh would respond to their demands and mighty works. They were going to experience a long and difficult confrontation in which Pharaoh would only strengthen his resolve to withstand them. But the Lord would finally prevail in a climactic judgment, sending His angel to slay the first-born sons of Egypt, including Pharaoh’s own son (Exodus 4:18-23). Moses and Aaron had only the slightest sense of the ordeal before them, but God had granted them to know how things would turn out. He would triumph over Egypt and liberate His people through a mighty act of retribution and deliverance – an act that Israel would forever commemorate in its Passover observance; the act that the Hebrews writer pointed to as his climactic example of Moses’ faith. When Moses and Aaron arrived in Egypt, they assembled the elders of Israel and told them of the Lord’s concern and intent for them. Initially, they believed and rejoiced, but after the two men met with Pharaoh and he increased the Hebrews’ labor and suffering, they began to doubt and refused to listen to Moses (Exodus 4:29-6:9). That circumstance set the stage for numerous confrontations between Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh that played out in a series of ten supernatural plagues inflicted on the Egyptian people and their land. Those judgments were devised to show that this conflict was not between human beings, but between the Hebrew God and Egypt’s deities, epitomized in the divine Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s resolve wavered as Yahweh’s judgments escalated, but each time his arrogance and confidence in himself and Egypt’s power drew him back, even as the God he believed he could withstand held him in his defiance (cf. 4:21, 7:1-14, 8:1-11:10). Finally, the confrontation reached its climax with God’s tenth and final plague –the plague of the death of the first-born that He’d disclosed to Moses before he left Midian (Exodus 11:1-8, ref. again 4:21-23). Not only would this plague break Pharaoh’s will, it would serve as the supreme demonstration of Israel’s unique status among humankind. While the angel of death made his way throughout Egypt, not missing or sparing a single household, the Hebrews would remain entirely untouched. The Egyptians would know then that there is a God above all gods, a God who cannot be resisted and who has regard for His people. And yet the God of Israel is the Creator-God – the God of all men. One day the Egyptian people – as all tribes, tongues, and nations – would realize that He had distinguished Abraham’s descendents, not as despising and rejecting all other people, but precisely for their sake. The Creator of all men had set Israel apart to be His instrument for gathering all mankind to Himself, including Egypt (cf. Isaiah 19:19-25 with Psalm 22:26-28, 72:1-8; also Isaiah 45:18-25, 49:1-13). It was this tenth plague that the Hebrews writer referred to, but he notably omitted any mention of the Egyptians who suffered under it. Rather, he focused on Israel’s responsibility in it, and specifically the way it implicated Moses’ faith: “By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the first-born might not touch them” (11:28). Here again, the writer gave only a brief summary, but the surrounding details are critical to his point. First of all, when God first spoke of this plague, He emphasized that it would be the final one; it would not fail to secure Israel’s freedom and deliverance. Thus He instructed Moses to go and tell his Hebrew brethren to approach their Egyptian neighbors to request from them articles of gold and silver (Exodus 11:1-2; cf. 3:19-22). The text doesn’t explain this, but it looks back to God’s oath to Abraham that his descendents would end their oppression plundering their oppressors (Genesis 15:13-14). But this wealth wouldn’t be for the people per se, but for their worship. Yahweh was gathering Egyptian wealth to construct His sanctuary in the wilderness (Exodus 25:1-9), as it would prefigure the final, everlasting sanctuary He was going to build in the last days through His messianic king (cf. 1 Chronicles 18:1-11, 29:1-9; Haggai 2:1-9; Ephesians 2:11-22). Of course, neither Moses nor his fellow Hebrews understood the full significance of Yahweh’s instruction; at the time, His ultimate design remained shrouded in the darkness of His own secret counsel. But what He was asking them to do was nonetheless an act of faith. God had only given Moses the bare assurance that this final plague would secure Israel’s deliverance, and it was on that basis alone that he was directed to go to his brethren and instruct them to petition their Egyptian neighbors for their silver and gold. By this point Moses had little credibility; his efforts had only increased the people’s suffering. Yet he was now required to tell them to go to their oppressors and ask them to hand over their wealth, and do so because God was going to deliver them by one more plague, even though the previous nine had failed. - It surely required great faith for Moses to bring this message to his Israelite brethren. But what of their faith in receiving it and following his instruction to go to their Egyptian neighbors? First of all, it was Moses, not God, who brought this word to them, and their experience with him thus far had caused them to seriously question his claim that God had sent him to be their deliverer. Nonetheless, the Exodus account states that the Israelites did follow his instruction (ref. 12:35-36), but it gives no indication of when this occurred. Did they petition the Egyptians before or after the plague of the first-born? The timeline and text strongly suggest that they did so before that fateful night (ref. 12:29-36), especially as the narrative repeatedly emphasizes that the people of Egypt honored the Hebrews’ request because God granted them favor in their sight (cf. 3:21-22, 11:2-3, 12:35-36), not because He had broken the Egyptians’ will by killing their first-born sons. If it’s true, then, that the Hebrews approached their neighbors before the final plague, this indicates that they, too, acted in faith. They were powerless slaves petitioning their masters to hand over their wealth and other goods; who could possibly imagine that would go well? Certainly they had every reason to expect that the best outcome would be returning home empty-handed, but still alive. And they wouldn’t have known that God had turned the Egyptians’ hearts toward them until they actually approached them and made their request. Only faith in their God and confidence that Moses was His man would lead them to do this. The Israelites acted in faith toward their Egyptian neighbors, and Moses displayed the same faith in standing before Pharaoh one last time (Exodus 11:4-8). Again, the timing of this encounter is uncertain, but the text indicates that the final plague Moses announced took place that very night: God was going to move through the entire land of Egypt and take the first-born of every womb, “from the first-born of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the first-born of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the first-born of the cattle as well” (11:5). After he left Pharaoh’s presence, Moses and Aaron returned to their brethren to prepare for the coming judgment by carrying out the Passover ordinance. Yahweh’s death-angel would “pass over” their houses when he went through the land, but only if they had done what He required of them (12:3-13). And so it was that Moses, in faith, “kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood.” The Hebrews writer’s statement is straightforward, but he employed a surprising grammatical form with his verb (“kept”). He used the perfect tense, when the aorist would more likely be expected. It seems, then, that he was emphasizing, not the episode as such, but its enduring effect and significance. - God Himself brought the same emphasis, declaring through Moses that the Passover episode would inaugurate a new reality for the Hebrew people – a kind of new birth out of death, which they were to affirm by reordering their calendar around their deliverance and restoration (Exodus 12:1-2). They were to perceive the Passover event as initiating their birth into the covenant union and communion pledged to their fathers. Israel was being“born” through a mighty deliverance achieved by God’s complete triumph over the subjugating power – a triumph effected by the death of the firstborn. In a very real way, Israel’s identity and life as covenant “son” were bound up in this triumph, and thus God commanded that the Passover be a matter of perpetual remembrance and celebration, lest the people lose sight of their God and their calling (cf. Exodus 4:22-23, 12:14-20, 24-27). -The Passover observance came to symbolize Israel’s integrity and covenant faithfulness (cf. 2 Chronicles 30, 34-35; Ezra 6:13-22), and so also the destiny God had appointed for them. Even as Yahweh’s prophets condemned the nation’s increasing unfaithfulness and warned of impending exile and captivity, they also promised a latter day – another Passover – in which God would again arise on behalf of His people, lead them out of their bondage, and restore them to Himself as faithful sons and daughters (ref. esp. Isaiah 51:9-16; cf. also Isaiah 35; Jeremiah 31:1-14). The prophets spoke of a future day of deliverance and ingathering that they saw only dimly and with little definition, but the Hebrews writer surely recognized that this new Passover had occurred with the death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah. Jesus Himself understood this same significance in His sacrificial death, and so chose Passover as the context for it and for His explanation to His disciples (Luke 22:1-20; John 13-17). Thus the writer’s grammar is profoundly important, as is his individual emphasis on the Passover and the sprinkling of blood. The former refers to the ritual of selecting, slaying, and consuming the sacrificial lamb; the latter to the application of its blood as the means for averting death (Exodus 12:13, 21-23). Moses observed these commands in faith, trusting God’s deliverance, and he continued to do so in the wilderness (Numbers 9:1-5) as he clung to His covenant promises that reached beyond Canaan to the fulfilled Passover in the Messiah (cf. 3:5).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:20:07 GMT -5
8. The next example of faith follows closely from the previous one; the Passover event that secured the liberation of the Hebrews saw them shortly afterward camping near the shore of the Red Sea. And if the Passover episode tested the Hebrews’ faith, the incident at the Red Sea did all the more. The latter also very much implicated Moses’ faith – indeed, it depended on it, but the Hebrews writer chose to treat this example of faith collectively: “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though through dry land…” (11:29). a. Once again the author provided his readers with only a summary statement, trusting their knowledge of the story to give them the background context for grasping his meaning. That story follows the Passover account in the book of Exodus, and several of its particulars are worth noting here.
1)The first is the fact that God Himself led the Israelites out of Egypt. He didn’t communicate directions to Moses, but led His people by His manifest presence, going before them in a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire when they traveled at night (Exodus 13:21-22).
2) The second thing to note is the path Yahweh chose in leading the Hebrews toward the promised land of Canaan. The most direct route from Goshen in Egypt to Canaan was northeast along the Mediterranean coast, but this would take them through the land of the Philistines (the region of modern day Gaza), and God voiced His concern that the prospect of war with the Philistines would cause the people to turn back to Egypt. Thus He directed them southeast toward the Red Sea and the Sinai desert (13:17-18).
3) The Exodus account gives the impression that the Philistine threat was the sole reason God chose this route, but there were other, more significant factors at play. First and foremost, He had told Moses at their first encounter at Mount Horeb in Sinai that He was going to bring the Israelites back there to “worship Him,” which hinted at His intent to ratify the covenant relationship at that mountain (ref. again Exodus 3:1-12; cf. Exodus 19:1-8). But Yahweh also had in mind another great test of faith and demonstration of power – a work by which He would complete His triumph over Egypt and its gods. The plague of the first-born broke Pharaoh’s will, but the judgment at the Red Sea was going to decimate his power and bring his kingdom to its knees.
4) Finally, knowing that Pharaoh had men watching Israel’s movement, the Lord led them in a manner that would cause him to believe that they were wandering aimlessly, shut in by the Sinai wilderness. Pharaoh was already regretting his decision to release his slaves, and this circumstance would surely encourage him to send out his army to retrieve them. This is exactly what happened, and Yahweh reinforced Pharaoh’s resolve to get the Israelites back (14:1-4). And so, even as Pharaoh was preparing his army, the Lord was leading Israel to camp at a place that would leave them backed up against the sea with no escape (14:5-9).
b. While Israel was making camp by the sea opposite Baal-Zephon (likely, the Gulf of Suez), Pharaoh was advancing his forces toward them. When the people saw the Egyptian chariots heading toward them, they panicked and began to rail against Moses for leading them to their deaths. Their joy in their liberation evaporated, and the mud pits of Egypt suddenly seemed attractive. But it was Yahweh who had led them to this place, so that their anger and disbelief were actually directed toward Him, even as they cried out to Him for help (14:10-13). Moses responded by rebuking their fear and commanding them to stand fast and wait for the Lord’s deliverance; the One who’d brought them out of Egypt with a mighty triumph would not now forsake them on the shore of the sea. Moses charged the people to trust in their God, while also petitioning Him on their behalf (14:13-15). Yahweh’s response in the narrative (“Why are you crying out to Me?”) seems to suggest His displeasure with Moses, but the context indicates that He was simply calling him to action: Moses, you need to stop pleading with Me and direct the people to move forward toward the sea. And,as for you, lift your staff high with your hand stretched out so that the people can see you, and I will divide the water so that they can pass through the sea on dry ground. Then I will cause the Egyptian army to pursue you onto the seabed, and I will be honored through the judgment I bring against them, such that the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh, the faithful God of the hosts of Israel (14:16-18).
c. The Lord apparently gave this instruction as the evening was approaching, for after speaking to Moses, He moved the cloud of His presence from in front of the Israelites to the rear of their camp, thereby forming a barrier between them and the Egyptians who were setting up their own camp some distance away. Thus He protected them throughout the night, even as He pushed aside the sea water with a strong east wind while Moses stood with his staff raised. While the Egyptians were held at bay, the Israelites began to advance across the dry seabed, with the cloud of Yahweh’s presence lighting their way (14:19-22).
d. So it was by faith that the children of Israel went down the bank into the sea, walking toward the eastern side of the gulf with a wall of water on either side (Hebrews 11:29). Only trust in their God could motivate them to take such a huge risk; if the sea were to break loose, they would be instantly drowned. But their faith stood upon Moses’ faith – not just because he had led them to this miraculous moment, but because his faith was the instrument Yahweh used to provide them their path through the sea.
e. The Lord restrained the Egyptians throughout the night as the vast multitude of Hebrews slowly made their way across to the other side. But at the right moment He released His restraint and Pharaoh’s army took off in pursuit, racing their chariots down onto the seabed. The Israelites were most likely still crossing, which would have emboldened the Egyptians to risk their own lives; they must have attributed this great miracle to the Hebrew God, and He would surely hold back the waters until all of His people were safe on the other side. But if this assumption is correct, it’s hard to imagine that the Egyptian chariots wouldn’t overtake the Israelites who were crossing on foot. Many scholars locate the crossing at a place where the Gulf of Suez is about three miles wide,and such a short distance would surely allow the Egyptians to reach the Hebrews while they were still crossing. This, along with the need to have the entire Egyptian force on the seabed, is the likely reason God intervened to frustrate the army’s movement and throw them into chaos (14:24-25). Though the Egyptians sensed divine intervention, they were powerless against it. As they frantically scrambled to escape the sea floor, God instructed Moses to again stretch out his hand toward the sea, and the two walls of water collapsed down on them, utterly consuming Egypt’s military might – and Pharaoh’s glory – in an instant (14:26-28). Such a spectacular phenomenon must have left the Israelites overwhelmed and speechless, and while they rested and regathered their strength, they watched the now calm sea begin to deliver its victims onto the shore in front of them. Their faith in Yahweh and Moses His servant had moved them to walk down onto the seabed between two quaking walls of water, and He’d rewarded their faith with an experience of power and protection that filled them with overwhelming awe. If they believed Him before, they were now utterly convinced that this God was indeed the God of their fathers, and He would surely fulfill all that He had promised them. Thus Moses and all the people raised their voices in song to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, acknowledging and praising Him as the faithful Lord who keeps covenant, whatever may come. Nothing can distract or deter Him, and He wields His invincible power against all enemies and forces arrayed against His purposes and will and the people through whom He carries them out.These glorious truths filled the Israelites’ song, which the Scripture immortalized as the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:1-21). But just as the triumphal deliverance the song celebrated anticipated a greater one yet to come, so it was with the song itself. The Song of Moses would one day find its own fulfillment in the Song of the Lamb (Revelation 15:1-4; cf. 5:1-14, 14:1-3). God preserved and delivered Abraham’s offspring because His covenant with him pledged a particular descendent – a “seed” who would also be the son promised to Eve (ref. Galatians 3:16). The Abrahamic family was Yahweh’s beloved covenant “son” (Exodus 4:23), but as it would realize its sonship in truth through a particular son to be born into it. Israel was to become Israel indeed through the unique Israelite who would fully and faithfully embody Israel’s identity and calling as son, disciple, servant and witness on behalf of all the earth’s families. This was God’s design from the beginning, but it presupposed the failure of the Abrahamic household. So also the song celebrating the bond between covenant Father and son carried a tone of foreboding (cf. Moses’ other song in Deuteronomy 32), for that bond was but an ideal whose realization awaited the son promised to Abraham; in that day, the Song of Moses would find its true substance in the Song of the Lamb. But for now, the covenant son’s faith and faithfulness would prove fickle and fleeting. Within days, the voices celebrating Yahweh in worshipful song would become unclean vessels given over to grumbling and accusation (Exodus 16-18).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:21:05 GMT -5
9. From the Red Sea episode, the Hebrews writer jumped ahead forty years to the time of Israel’s entrance into Canaan and its confrontation with the Canaanite city of Jericho. In that regard, he mentioned two distinct examples of faith: the faith of the Israelite people (and Joshua) in relation to the fall of the city, and the faith of the Canaanite harlot Rahab and the deliverance it secured for her and her family (11:30-31). These two instances of faith pertain to the same circumstance, and so belong together. And yet, each has its own unique dimensions and qualities, making it appropriate to treat them individually. That is the approach taken here.
a. The first example of faith, then, pertains to the Israelite nation as it existed at the end of the forty years of wandering and testing in the wilderness. That nation wasn’t the same community of Hebrews that departed Egypt following the Passover and plague of the first-born. Many children had been born during those forty years, but more importantly, Yahweh had responded to the people’s relentless unbelief by prolonging their time in the wilderness until all of the adult generation who’d come out of Egypt perished (Numbers 13-14). Only Caleb and Joshua among that generation survived to enter the promised land; even Moses himself wasn’t permitted to set foot in it (Deuteronomy 32:48-52). Israel’s time in the wilderness was defined by faithlessness, and this likely explains the Hebrews writer’s decision to omit it from his narrative. It was only when the faithless multitude had perished that the covenant household was ready to take possession of the inheritance promised to their fathers. The account of Israel’s entrance into Canaan is recorded in the book of Joshua, and the text notably highlights two further matters of preparation. Yahweh’s pledge of the land of Canaan was His pledge to be a father to covenant children – to gather Abraham’s offspring to Himself to be with Him in the place of His own habitation. Thus entrance into Canaan was a covenantal and relational phenomenon rather than a geographical one; Israel was entering Yahweh’s holy habitation as elect covenant son to dwell with the covenant Father in His house, and thus the people needed to be fully consecrated to their covenant identity and calling. And so, immediately after crossing the Jordan River into the promised land, God required that all male Hebrews be circumcised and the entire multitude celebrate His Passover (Joshua 5:1-12).As their deliverance from Egypt had been a kind of new birth from death into life, so that new life was now to attain its goal in their intimate cohabitation with their covenant Lord and Father (ref. again Exodus 15:17). The sacred observance that forty years prior heralded the Israelites’ journey toward their inheritance now heralded their reception of it.
b. The Hebrews writer here associated the Israelites’ faith with the collapse and conquest of Jericho, and so it’s appropriate to consider this ancient city and its significance as the first point of Israel’s possession of Canaan. The scriptural text doesn’t provide many details about Jericho itself, but it does hint at an impending battle there by stressing its proximity to the Jordan River (cf. Numbers 22:1, 31:12, 33:48; Deuteronomy 32:49, 34:1-3; etc.). The best indication of the city’s greatness comes from Joshua’s account of its remarkable fall (Joshua 2-6).
Jericho was located just northwest of the Dead Sea about five miles west of the Jordan River. The text describes it as a walled city, which suggests that it was a city of some importance. Protective walls were common in the ancient Near East, but tended to be associated with more significant cities because of the cost in material and labor to build them. Even if the resources were available to accomplish such a project, only a serious legitimate need justified the expense; most towns and villages were not worth that level of defense. But Jericho was worth it, so much so that its walls were constructed in a way that made them nearly impregnable. It’s quite possible that Jericho was one of the cities seen by the twelve spies Moses sent to Canaan shortly after Israel departed from Mount Sinai (Numbers 13:1-3). Those men returned marveling that “the people of the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very great” (Numbers 13:28). One thing that seems clear – the people of Jericho felt no threat whatsoever from the Israelite multitude who now were amassing east of the city. Jericho was an extraordinarily fortified city,and this was justified by the fact that it was an important mercantile city situated on a major east-west trade route. Vast amounts of money and goods passed through it, making Jericho a vibrant and prosperous Canaanite city whose wealth and commercial success needed to be protected.Jericho’s strategic and financial importance is perhaps part of the reason the city had its own king and military force on site, and its bustling prosperity was well suited to a thriving prostitution trade, among whom was a prostitute named Rahab (Joshua 2:1). Jericho was the first city the Israelites confronted as they made their way into Canaan, and the city’s proximity to the Jordan River partly explains this. But God could have had them cross the river farther north, which would have led them to other Canaanite cities. The way He dealt with Jericho, and the effect He intended it to have, indicate that this crossing point and path into Canaan wasn’t random, but intentional and calculated. Israel’s first test of faith in believing God for the inheritance He’d promised was a supreme test: He was requiring them to confront one of the most fortified and militarized cities in Canaan, and to believe that they would somehow pass through impregnable walls to carry out their conquest.
c. This, then, was the challenge of the Israelites’ faith, and the Hebrews writer stressed that their faith was instrumental in the collapse of Jericho’s walls. It was also implicated in the strange phenomenon of their repeated parade around the city. The account of this is found in Joshua 6, and the text records that Yahweh directed Israel’s fighting men to march around the city each day for six days, with a procession of priests carrying His ark in the center. On the seventh day, they were to circle seven times, after which the priests would sound a long blast on their trumpets. That would signal the men to give out a great shout, at which point the city walls would come down, allowing them to enter Jericho and sack it as the Lord prescribed (6:1-5). This weeklong spectacle seems to have been an act of psychological warfare directed against Jericho’s king and warriors (ref. Joshua 2:8-11, 22-24, 5:1-2), but it was also an act of faith on the part of the Israelites.
First of all, Yahweh was requiring His people to believe Him for another mighty act of power. Only the Lord’s direct intervention would see the massive wall of this great city fall to the ground (note Joshua 5:13-15). Many scholars believe an earthquake achieved this, and the Israelites themselves may have speculated that this was how Yahweh was going to fulfill His word. (After all, hadn’t He used the sea and its power to give them victory over Pharaoh’s army?) But even that sort of natural phenomenon would have to be divinely orchestrated, for a typical earthquake would have no substantial effect on Jericho’s wall system. It would take a massive and violent shaking to take it down. But Yahweh was also requiring the Israelites to demonstrate their faith publicly in a way that subjected them to repeated humiliation.He directed them to parade themselves before the people of Jericho as a ragged, ill-equipped force, walking the length of the city wall in slow procession carrying a strange gold box on poles with a handful of priests announcing their presence with ram’s horn trumpets. And they were to do so in complete silence, as the priests’ shofars drew the city’s soldiers and residents to the walls to see the spectacle playing out on the plain below them. Then, after circling the city while taunts and jeers rained down on them, the Israelites were to turn away and return to their camp. The people of Jericho knew about Israel’s astonishing triumphs over Egypt and various kingdoms east of the Jordan, and it must have troubled them to see the Israelite fighting men outside their city wall. At the same time, their defenses had protected them against many attacks, and this rag-tag force appeared more comical than threatening. The Israelites must have felt the same way; the last thing they could claim was that they came across as a formidable fighting force, despite their superior numbers. They knew their strange show wasn’t likely to intimidate the king and his warriors. Quite the opposite, from a human standpoint their claim on Jericho must have seemed like a spectacular fool’s errand. It would be hard to endure such humiliation even once, but Yahweh required them to endure it repeatedly over the course of a week. It would take greater resolve with each passing day to depart the camp and make their way back to Jericho, knowing what lay ahead. But more than mere resolve, the Hebrews writer insisted that it was faith that empowered the Israelites to stay the course. They continued on in this strange display by keeping Yahweh’s ark and promise in sight. He hadn’t sent them out alone; He circled Jericho with them and endured the same mocking scorn. Israel’s God was with them, and He would surely keep His word.
d. The sixth chapter of Joshua recounts the episode of Jericho’s fall, and the Lord did exactly what He promised as the climax of Israel’s faithful obedience to His instructions. Jericho’s wall fell and the fighting men went in and took the city, slaying all the city’s living inhabitants (man and beast) except Rahab and her family, and burning the city to the ground. When the destruction was complete, Joshua made the Israelites take an oath to never rebuild it; doing so would come at the cost losing one’s children (6:15-26).
This raises the question of why God imposed such severe judgment on this particular city. He was giving Israel the entire land, and other cities would fall to their swords, but not to the extent of this absolute destruction that included every living thing (cf. Joshua 8:1-2, 11:1-14; etc.). God had instructed Moses to destroy all the peoples of Canaan, but His goal wasn’t the death of human beings as such, but the destruction of all of the idolatrous ideas and practices of the Canaanites. The sanctuary land needed to be purged of its spiritual uncleanness in order to be a fit dwelling for Yahweh and His covenant children. Moreover, any remaining uncleanness would inevitably defile His children and draw them away from Him (ref. Deuteronomy 7:1-6, 20:10-18; cf. also Haggai 2:10-14). This principle, then, underlies the concept of the ban. This concept refers to people and things that God sets apart to be destroyed, and so it is the negative component of consecration (consecration referring to a thing’s utter devotion to the Lord). People and things can be consecrated for worship, service and fellowship, as in the case of the Israelite people, their priesthood, their sanctuary, and their offerings. Certain spoils of conquest were also devoted to Him in this way (cf. Exodus 3:21-22 with 25:1-8; ref. also Joshua 6:15-19, 7:1-26; 2 Samuel 8:1-12). But God also consecrates (sets apart) things and people for destruction. This was the case with the Canaanites and their idolatrous cultures and practices. He’d taken the land of Canaan to be His holy dwelling place, and this meant that everything within it was devoted to that end; anything that defiled, contradicted or opposed this ordination had to be eliminated (note Exodus 23:27-30, 33:1-2). This applied to the Canaanite peoples, but also the Israelites who were drawn into their corruption (Numbers 33:50-56; Deuteronomy 7:16-26, 18:9-14, 28:15ff). Jericho was one of the most glorious examples of Canaanite culture and power, and so was eminently suited to being the first-fruits – the first and the best – of Canaan’s devotion to the Lord. It served as the first of that consecrated offering and heralded to both Israel and the Canaanite peoples that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, was going to bring in the rest of the harvest. He’d gathered in by His own mighty hand this splendid flower of Canaan’s power, and that same hand would complete the harvest. e. One final consideration is the role of Israel’s faith in this triumph. Some have reasoned that faith was the effective mechanism that brought down the wall of Jericho, if not the direct cause. The account in Joshua might seem to suggest such a cause-and-effect relationship, especially as the wall’s collapse followed immediately upon the people’s boisterous shout (6:5, 20). Indeed, the Hebrews writer’s statement appears to make the same sort of suggestion: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down.” But a more careful look shows that Israel’sfaith/faithfulness (which stood on Joshua’s faith, as with Moses before him) played no causal role in what transpired at Jericho. The Israelites’ enacted faith was simply their manifest ownership of God’s revealed purposes and work; their faith enabled them to bring God’s ordained future into the present, and soperceive the substance of what their senses could not detect (11:1)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:22:41 GMT -5
10. The writer drew his next example of faith (11:31) from the same episode, namely the fall of Jericho. But this example is unique in that it involves a person outside of the Abrahamic covenant family. The same can be said of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (11:4-7), but they lived before Abraham was born. Abel died without offspring, but Enoch and Noah were in the line of descent that led to Abraham. And so, while technically they weren’t part of the Abrahamic covenant household that originated with Abraham himself, they were part of his family as progenitors. Rahab, on the other hand, had no familial connection with Abraham; she was a Canaanite. This makes her unique in the Hebrews writer’s catalog – not just because of her lineage, but also her crucial contribution to the concept of faith and the role it plays in God’s intent for the human race. First of all, the writer’s inclusion of Rahab shows that he regarded her faith as being of the same nature and quality as the other individuals in his catalog. There is only one sort of faith that is truly faith, and this faith isn’t in any way associated with ethnicity, heritage or life circumstance; it is purely a matter of one’s essential relationship with the God who created all human beings in His own image and likeness. Rahab possessed the same kind of faith as Joshua and the Israelites, but her faith also had the same content: she, too, believed that the God of Israel was going to deliver her city into His people’s hands; He would surely fulfill His promise to give them Canaan as their inheritance.
a. Consistent with all of his examples, the writer gave only a brief summary of Rahab’s faith. He took the same approach he used to describe the faith of her Israelite counterparts, which was to affirm her faith by pointing to its outcome: “By faith Rahab did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.” He was referring to Rahab’s deliverance when Jericho was sacked, but as it was the outcome of a previous circumstance. That circumstance was Rahab’s interaction with Israelite spies. The second chapter of Joshua recounts this episode, and Rahab enters the story when the two men sent by Joshua to spy out the city took lodging in her home (2:1). Rahab was a prostitute, and she likely plied her trade out of her residence, which has led some to question the spies’ scruples. But the text indicates that they sought lodging with her as cover, not for her services. They were strangers in Jericho, and the city’s residents were especially vigilant with the Israelites camped just across the Jordan in Shittim. Taking up lodging with one of Jericho’s prostitutes was the best way for the spies to not draw attention to themselves.For countless merchants and travelers passed through Jericho, and many undoubtedly sought the diversion of female company during their stay. Staying with Rahab was a shrewd decision, but someone evidently recognized the two men as Israelites and reported them to the king as spies sent to assess the city and determine its weaknesses. The king immediately sent soldiers to Rahab’s home to arrest them, but she explained that she didn’t know who the men were or where they were from, but they’d only just left in order to exit the city before the gates were shut for the night. She encouraged the king’s men that they should be able to overtake them on the road if they went after them right away (2:2-5).
But Rahab had actually hidden the men under bundles of flax laid out to dry on the roof of her home. After the soldiers left, she went back to the spies and explained that she could get them out of the city by letting them down on a rope dropped from her window, which was in the outer wall. But before doing so, she pled with the men to save her and her family when the fateful day came and the city fell. Rahab was fully convinced of that outcome, and not because she feared the strength and skill of the Israelite army; indeed, she knew as well as anyone that Jericho was nearly invincible. Forces more impressive than Israel had failed to breach the wall, and the city was well prepared for a prolonged siege. No, Rahab’s confidence in Israel’s victory was her confidence in Israel’s God. The word of His astonishing triumph over the Egyptians had spread far and wide, as had the news of Israel’s victory over other kings and armies as they made their way toward Canaan. Even more, the talk was that Israel’s God had granted these victories as part of His determination to give His people the entire land of Canaan, which included the great city of Jericho. Rahab was sure that Yahweh, the Israelite God, would prevail and the city would fall, but she also hoped that, through His servants, He would show mercy to her and her family (2:8-13).
b. And so Rahab’s faith was her resolute confidence in the God of Israel, whom she perceived to be the one true God (2:11). If He was determined to give His people the land of Canaan, nothing would prevent that outcome. He’d made that intent known to the Egyptians, and the word had spread throughout the region. Likely most in Jericho had heard of this God and His designs, but Rahab was unique in that she believed the reports. And her conviction was shown to be faith by the fact that she acted upon it; her actions demonstrated that she was thoroughlyconvinced of the things she claimed to believe (ref. James 2:14-26). Thus her faith delivered her and her household from the slaughter and devastation, and the Joshua account records that she joined herself to the Israelite community from that day forward (6:25). Indeed, Yahweh rewarded her faith by grafting her – a Canaanite prostitute – into the line that would yield David and eventually His incarnate Son (Matthew 1:1-5). Rahab wasn’t the only non Israelite in the messianic line; Rahab’s son Boaz married a Moabite woman named Ruth, who became David’s great-grandmother. But Rahab was unique in that she was a pagan woman of ill-repute, an unclean woman despised by those around her. And yet God saw fit to reveal Himself to her and have her be part of the human essence of His beloved Son – the human Son who embodies all of the fullness of His own divine nature and character. Could there be a more profound glimpse into the Creator’s loving and gracious restorative intent for His world? c.One last consideration is implied by this episode, but neither the Hebrews writer nor James addressed it directly. And that is the matter of Rahab’s lie and its implication for her faith. Both James and the Hebrews writer associated Rahab’s faith with her protection of the Israelite spies, but her lie to the king’s men was fundamental to this protection (ref. again Joshua 2:1-5). This raises the question of how her lie is to be understood in the context of her faith. Christian scholars and ethicists through the centuries have sought to resolve this difficulty in various ways. This is especially challenging where the Decalogue (which forbids false witness in its ninth commandment) is regarded as the core articulation of God’s moral and ethical standard for human beings. On the one hand, then, the Scripture recognizes false witness as a fundamental sin that brings people under God’s just condemnation. (In Roman Catholicism, willful lying is often included in the catalog of “mortal sins” that require absolution from an ordained priest.) On the other hand, Rahab’s lie was a key component of the protective care that was her act of faith. These two considerations frame the difficulty, and any acceptable solution must uphold the truth of both of them. The easiest solution is to separate Rahab’s lie from her faith. - One way to do this is to associate her faith with her inward motivations and not her actions. In other words, faith moved Rahab to protect the spies, whereas circumstance pressed her to commit the sin of lying. But James disallows the separation of faith and action. And in the case of Rahab, he defined her faith in terms of her “work” of welcoming and protecting the spies (2:25). That work of faith had her lie at its center. - Another approach employs the concept of “the greater good”: Yes, Rahab’s lie made her guilty of sin, but she lied in order to protect someone else. She wasn’t lying for her own sake, but for the well-being of the Israelite spies. Thus God judged her sin according to its context; her guilt was tempered by her motivation and goal. But the difficulty disappears with a closer consideration of the Bible’s understanding of the sin of false witness. First and most basic, the Scripture defines all sin as a violation of the obligation of love (Matthew 22:35-40; John 15:12-17; Romans 13:8-10). So also, the Decalogue commandment regarding lying prohibits false witness against one’s neighbor: You shall not testify against your neighbor as a false witness (Exodus 20:16). The issue here isn’t factual correctness as such, but testimony that harms another in an unwarranted way; testimony that violates the obligation of love. Viewed from this perspective, it’s clear that this commandment pertains to facts as much as untruths. Anytime testimony works to the detriment of another, it is a violation of the ninth commandment, which also has its fullness in the “law” of love (cf. Exodus 23:1-3). This is why God condemns flattery, even though the flatterer is typically truthful in his commendation. He speaks what is true, but with ulterior motives; his testimony is false because it is driven by guile; it is false because he is false. In that way he bears false testimony contra his neighbor. This understanding, then, places Rahab’s “lie” in an entirely different light. She said things that weren’t factually true, but she spoke out of love for the Israelite spies and commitment to their God. Far from being self-serving, Rahab’s words jeopardized her own life to protect the lives of the spies. Her “lie” need not be separated from her faith; it was an act of love that truthfully expressed her faith.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:24:14 GMT -5
The writer concluded his treatment of Israel’s legacy of faith with a sweeping summary. He mentioned a few other figures in Israel’s history and gave an overview of their works of faith, and then concluded by underscoring the suffering that is faith’s reward in this world (11:32-38). From the historical standpoint, his previous examples spanned the time from the beginning of human history until Israel’s conquest of Canaan. This last group of individuals fill out the balance of the Israelite salvation history, stretching from the time of the Judges through the era of Israel’s prophets. Thus the author spanned the sweep of Old Testament revelation in his consideration of Israel’s heritage of faith. He began with the faithful son of the first man, and closed with the prophets who ministered in faith as they looked to the singular prophet and preeminent man of faith – the man who would embody in himself all of Israel’s heritage of faith. As a first observation, it’s important to note the writer’s emphasis on the negative as well as the positive fruit of faith and faithfulness. He spoke of the positive fruit first, and then turned immediately to the sorts of difficulties God’s faithful experienced in times past – difficulties that his readers were themselves experiencing because of their faith. These Jewish Christians knew well that all of the faithful profiled in the epistle experienced suffering as well as triumph, and so it was with them. Faith/faithfulness triumphs in great spiritual victories, and sometimes even temporal ones, but that triumph always comes at the cost of contradiction, opposition and suffering. By God’s design, His children grow and attain maturity in their sonship through the things they suffer. As it was for the unique Son, so it is for all of the children who share in His life and are perfected in His likeness (ref. 5:7-8; cf. also Philippians 1:29 with Romans 8:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:1-18). Christians through the centuries have pondered the writer’s choice of these men as his concluding examples. David and Samuel are obvious choices, for they were hugely significant figures in Israel’s history and notable men of faith. The others, and three of them in particular, seem unusual and unlikely choices: Jephthah and Barak by virtue of their relative obscurity and evident failures, and Samson because of his ungodliness and rebellion. In a list of Israel’s faithful judges, these three names would likely not be at the top. In the end, it’s impossible to know why these particular men came to mind, but the scriptural account of their lives perhaps sheds some light. - First, the Scriptures describe Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson as judges empowered by Yahweh’s Spirit (Judges 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 14:6, 19). This doesn’t suggest the Spirit’s permanent indwelling in the New Testament sense, but it does highlight them as men whom God used mightily as He shepherded His covenant people. This distinction might have caused them to stand out to the writer’s thinking. - Second, the biblical accounts of these men are captivating and well known to the Jewish people. That might help explain their mention here, but most especially as their stories suit the writer’s emphasis and larger goal. These men whom God chose to lead Israel as judges struggled with doubt, fear, unbelief, and disobedience, and yet they all ultimately triumphed in faith. Their stories, then, provided strong encouragement to the readers to run their own race with endurance, trusting the One to whom their faith looked (ref. 12:1-2).
The way the writer listed these final individuals also supports this perspective. For he didn’t present them in historical order as with his previous examples, which suggests that he was viewing them more collectively than individually. As examples of faith, they together underscore the truth that faithfulness involves suffering as well as triumph: They were men who faced great adversity and opposition and were compelled to make difficult, even agonizing decisions. Yet through the discipline of their enacted faith, they glorified God and advanced His purposes in the world. At the same time, these men bore this collective witness as individuals, so that their inclusion here carries the heritage of faith forward from the conquest of Canaan to the close of the Old Testament era. The author listed the six men (and Yahweh’s prophets) as a collective, and he described their works of faith and faithfulness in the same way (vv. 33-37). Again, his Jewish readers knew the Scriptures and Israel’s long story, and so would have recognized how these descriptions applied to each of the men. But most readers today don’t share this familiarity, so that a brief survey is in order. With the exception of Barak and David, all of the men named here were judges in Israel. The judges were God’s appointed rulers during the period between the conquest of Canaan and the emergence of the monarchy. Israel was a true theocracy at that time, having no human king. Instead, Yahweh ruled His people through human leaders He commissioned at critical times of need. This period spanned some three and a half centuries and ended with Saul’s installation as Israel’s first king. Israel served no human king during the time of the judges, but even Yahweh’s kingship was in question. The book of Judges records this period in Israel’s history, and the book’s central feature is a conspicuous cyclical pattern consisting of complacency, rebellion, apostasy, subjugation, repentance, deliverance, and restoration. In the book’s account, this pattern recurred through seven distinct cycles associated with numerous judges (including Samuel). Each cycle brought divine retribution against Israel executed through Gentile oppression. The subjugation and suffering that resulted eventually provoked the people’s repentance, and when they cried out to Yahweh, He raised up judges – female and male – to deliver them and restore the covenant relationship. Thus the judges were military, civil, and religious leaders commissioned by God to secure His kingdom and administer His rule. But Israel’s wayward bent continued unabated, so that the people tended to follow their King only while His judges led them with a firm hand. With the passing of each judge, the nation drifted again into idolatry and apostasy until Yahweh gave them into the hand of their enemies (Judges 2:11-19; cf. also 17:6, 21:25).
a. Gideon was the fifth (or fourth) of Israel’s judges, and God raised him up to deliver the nation from the Midianites. God had defeated the Midianites through Moses, but lately He’d made them His weapon against His unfaithful people. For seven years Midian had oppressed Israel, sweeping into Canaan at harvest time and plundering the produce and livestock to the point that the land was devastated. Moreover, their attacks forced the Israelite people to flee from their homes to protect their own lives (Judges 6:1-6). When they cried out to Yahweh, He heard and sent His angel to appoint Gideon to be their deliverer (6:11-14).
Like so many other great men of faith, Gideon had an unimpressive background. He was descended from an unimportant family within the tribe of Manasseh, and was himself the youngest son of his father (6:15). Even more, he was a member of an idolatrous household, for his father was a worshipper of the Canaanite deities Baal and Asherah (6:25). As the son of an apostate father and a man of no consequence, Gideon was a most unexpected champion for Israel’s God. But Yahweh sought just such a man, that His people would know that He was their deliverer. Whatever their unfaithfulness to Him and His covenant with them, He would remain faithful; He cannot deny Himself. And in His hand, Gideon proved faithful, first by destroying the implements of his father’s idolatry (viewed as a capital crime by his neighbors), and then in leading a tiny force, whose size God had determined, against a massive army (6:25-7:25).
b. Barak served alongside Deborah, who preceded Gideon as Israel’s judge. Barak wasn’t himself a judge, but he played a similar role in that the Lord called him to deliver Israel from their Canaanite oppressors. Yahweh sent Deborah, who was a prophetess, to commission Barak for this calling, and he consented on the condition that she accompany him in battle. Deborah agreed to his demand, but warned him that he was forfeiting the honor in victory; the Canaanite commander would be delivered into the hands of a woman (Judges 4:1-9). Though hesitant and unwilling to obey God without Deborah’s aid, Barak acted in faith by engaging the Canaanites in battle with only ten thousand foot soldiers. And through his faith, God granted Israel a marvelous victory as every member of Sisera’s forces was slain at the point of the sword (4:14-16). Even Sisera himself fell to the God of Israel, and soon after the Canaanite king (4:17-24). This great triumph was commemorated as the Song of Deborah and Barak (5:1-31).
c. Samson judged Israel near the end of that era. He was succeeded by Eli and Samuel, who, being the last judge in Israel, served as the transition into the Israelite monarchy. (It was Samuel who anointed both Saul and David as Israel’s king.) Other than perhaps Samuel, the Scripture gives greater attention to Samson’s life than any of Israel’s judges. That account is recorded in Judges 13-16, and Samson’s story is remarkable on many fronts. First of all, Samson was uniquely distinguished from birth. He was conceived miraculously in a barren womb, and God directed that he be permanently consecrated as a Nazirite (ref. Numbers 6:1-21; cf. also 1 Samuel 1:1-11; Acts 18:18). Samson’s consecration reflected God’s intent that he be His instrument for initiating Israel’s deliverance from the mighty Philistine kingdom (Judges 13:1-5). From birth, Samson was “holy to the Lord,” and yet he pursued his own interests as he came of age; set apart by Yahweh to liberate Israel from the Philistine yoke, Samson was determined to yoke himself to a Philistine wife. He spurned his consecration and his God, but Yahweh’s will stood fast (14:1-4). Samson’s self indulgence cost him dearly, but he yet fulfilled his calling – not as a mighty warrior, but a broken man drawing on the Lord’s provision (16:1-31).
d. Jephthah is the fourth man mentioned by the writer, and he, too, was a judge inIsrael. The account of Jephthah’s life is found in Judges 11-12, and he stands out among Israel’s judges as the son of a harlot (11:1) and a man whose younger years were marred by intemperate and ungodly conduct and personal associations (11:2-3). But he is most known for his oath that had such grave implications for his own daughter. Before going into battle against the Ammonites, Jephthah pledged to Yahweh that, if He granted him victory, he would give to Him in a burnt offering the first thing that came from his house when he returned from the battlefield (11:30-31). He never imagined that he’d be offering his daughter and only child, and yet Jephthah didn’t waver when he was confronted with that obligation. And neither did his daughter; both were fully committed to honoring the Lord by carrying out the vow (11:34-36). It’s difficult to know whether the Hebrews writer was associating Jephthah’s faith with this act or his courageous defeat of the Ammonites. Christians throughout the centuries have wrestled with this story, and some Christian (and Jewish) traditions have taught that Jephthah fulfilled his vow, not by killing his daughter (Torah forbid human sacrifice), but by consecrating her to the Lord. This view finds support in the Hebrew concept of the holah (“burnt offering”), but also in the daughter’s petition to be allowed to mourn for two months over her virginity (11:37-38).It’s certainly possible she was lamenting going to her death without having known a husband. But the context supports the conclusion that she was mourning her perpetual virginity, because her life going forward was to be fully consecrated to the Lord. Thus the writer’s commentary in 11:39: “And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man.” Even assuming this outcome, Jephthah still seems an unlikely choice for the Hebrews writer. In addition to his strange vow, Jephthah also went to war against his fellow Israelites (men from the tribe of Ephraim) when they confronted him about the Ammonites (Judges 12:1-6). The text suggests that this was a defensive war, and yet Jephthah’s forces ended up killing 42,000 men of Ephraim. But in the end, Jephthah must be regarded as a man of faith; after all, didn’t Yahweh set him apart and empower him with His Spirit to judge His people Israel (11:29)? And yet, there are others among the judges who would seem to be more obvious choices for a roll-call of faith. Why not Deborah or Othniel, Caleb’s nephew? But perhaps Jephthah’s flaws were precisely the reason he was chosen. The Hebrews author was writing to encourage his readers to persevere in faith as they struggled against their own weakness, doubt and fear. What better way to encourage them than to highlight the triumphal faith of weak and flawed men – men whom they and all Jews celebrated? These had triumphed, not because of anything in themselves, but because they entrusted themselves and the course of their lives to the God who is ever-faithful, the God whose purposes and promises stand. This is the God whose determinations had now become yes and amen in the Messiah – the One to whom these Hebrews had entrusted themselves in faith.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 12:25:35 GMT -5
e. Among the six named individuals, David and Samuel are the most prominent, so it’s not surprising that the writer mentioned them in his closing summary. The first four lived out their faith during the era of Israel’s judges, which ended when Saul was crowned king in Israel. Samuel was the last of the judges, and God appointed him as the primary figure in the transition into the Israelite monarchy. His leadership as God’s final judge included appointing Saul as Israel’s first king, and then later stripping the kingship from him and transferring it to David (ref. 1 Samuel 8-16). But none of this was ever Samuel’s intent; he believed that Yahweh was going to continue to rule Israel through judges, and so appointed his two sons to fill this role as he became advanced in years (ref. 1 Samuel 8:1). Samuel didn’t expect to be replaced by a king; indeed, he was greatly displeased by the people’s desire for one. He recognized that Yahweh was Israel’s King, so that their request amounted to rejection of the form of rule He’d ordained; God had given them judges to lead them, and they sought a king like the other nations. The Samuel account makes clear that this was the case. The people of Israel were rejecting their judges by seeking a king, and they were doing so consciously and intentionally. They understood that having a king would nullify the role of judges in Israel, and this was exactly what they wanted. Yet it wasn’t particularly this form of leadership that they were rejecting, but the men whom Samuel had appointed to lead them. Yes, the Israelites wanted a human king like the other nations, but their driving motivation was their displeasure with Samuel’s sons. Israel’s elders, on behalf of all the people, believed that disaster awaited the nation if Samuel’s sons continued to lead them (1 Samuel 8:1-5). Thus there was a personal dimension to Samuel’s negative reaction. He almost certainly was aware of God’s intent to have a human king rule over His kingdom; He’d stated that explicitly to Moses and it was recorded in Israel’s Torah (ref. Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Yahweh had predicted the people’s eventual desire for a king, even while He was ratifying His regal relationship with them, and He didn’t renounce it. Rather, He prescribed what sort of man that king needed to be. Indeed, God’s purposes in and through Israel required that they have a human king. Long before Israel arrived at Mount Sinai, Yahweh had pledged regal offspring to their covenant fathers (Genesis 17:1-16, 35:9-11), later granting the royal scepter to Judah’s descendents (Genesis 49:8-10; cf. also Numbers 24:15-19). And He did so with a view to His foundational oath of a regal Seed through whom He would establish His everlasting reign over all creation (Genesis 3:15). Yes, the messianic revelation was still germinal at the time Samuel lived, but it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t know that Israel’s destiny involved a regal ruler out of Judah. And if he did, his displeasure wasn’t directed at the concept of a human king in Israel, but the occasion that provoked the peoples’ petition: Their desire for a king was an indictment of his sons, and Samuel interpreted this as an indictment of himself. This is evident from the Lord’s response when Samuel brought this matter to Him: “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:6-7; cf. 10:17-19, 12:6-18).
Yahweh discerned in the peoples’ petition something more than their refusal of Samuel’s sons; they sought a human king in the place of their covenant King. Israel’s desire for a king was the culmination of a long process of unbelief and idolatry that began in Egypt. Their desire for a man to rule them amounted to repudiation of their divine Lord and Father, and yet their rebellious longing accorded with His own design; Israel’s ordained future involved a human king, and thus Yahweh instructed Samuel to give them what they sought (8:7-9). This episode suggests Samuel’s concern for himself and his own reputation, and not simply concern for God. It also indicates presumption and lack of judgment on his part respecting his sons. It wasn’t Samuel’s prerogative to appoint judges; that right belonged to the Lord. And he appointed his own sons who were unfaithful and ungodly men. Perhaps he wasn’t aware of this, but he ought to have been since his sons’ scandalous reputation was common knowledge (8:3-5). It seems clear, then, that Samuel’s own failures contributed to the longing for a king. Yahweh had ordained that development, yet chose to use human failure and unfaithfulness to bring it about. Samuel was part of that tragic circumstance, and yet the Hebrews writer simply commended him as a man of faith. Once again, he gave no specifics, except to include Samuel in the group of individuals whose faith and faithfulness he described in general terms in verses 33-38. But a survey of the scriptural account of Samuel’s life yields some important insights into his faith and his prominence in the salvation history. First of all, Samuel, like Samson, was apparently consecrated as a life-long Nazirite. He was conceived in his mother’s barren womb on her promise that she would set him apart to Yahweh for his entire life (1 Samuel 1). After he was weaned, Samuel served alongside Eli, the priest, and the Lord soon distinguished him as a prophet by speaking to him directly. Though only a young boy, God directed His fledgling prophet to inform the priest he served that His judgment was coming on his house (1 Samuel 3). Over time, Yahweh insured that all Israel recognized Samuel as His prophet, and He used him to call the nation to repentance after He allowed the Philistines to seize His ark. And later, Samuel interceded on Israel’s behalf when they again took up arms against the Philistines, this time achieving a conclusive victory (1 Samuel 4-7). Despite his poor judgment regarding his sons near the end of his life, Samuel served Yahweh and His people all of his days, just as his mother Hannah had pledged when she pleaded with the Lord for a son. Samuel was a faithful man, albeit a flawed one, setting him firmly in the company of all those listed in the Hebrews writer’s catalog of faith (ref. Psalm 99:5-6; Jeremiah 15:1).
f. Samuel was the last of Israel’s judges and the point of transition into the Israelite monarchy. As noted, he was Yahweh’s servant in the process of Saul’s appointment as Israel’s first king, and he later voiced the Lord’s determination to remove Saul and transfer the kingship to David (1 Samuel 8-16). Thereafter Samuel stood with David as Saul sought to kill him (1 Samuel 19). Samuel had served Yahweh’s will with respect to both Saul and David. Both men were the Lord’s choice for the throne of Israel, but for very different reasons. He chose Saul as epitomizing the people’s perspective on what a king should be (1 Samuel 9:1-2); in that regard, Yahweh gave Israel exactly what they wanted, even though the people should have known that Saul, a Benjamite, couldn’t hold the scepter in Israel (ref. again Genesis 49:8-10). To all appearances, Saul seemed to be the ideal man to rule Israel, but the nation’s true King assesses men in a different way: Men judge by outward appearance; God looks on the heart. Hence the Lord gave Saul to Israel as their choice, but then selected David as His choice, a man whom even His prophet would have overlooked (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Saul and David represented two very different regal paradigms, and yet both men shared one thing in common: They were both sons of Adam, marred by the fall. Thus Yahweh responded to His people’s request for a king by warning them of what that would mean for them. Centuries earlier He instructed their fathers concerning the necessary qualifications of a potential king (ref. again Deuteronomy 17:1ff), and now He directed Samuel to make sure that hisgeneration understood that no such king would be found. Whomever they chose to rule over them, that individual would rule according to the “procedure of the king.” A ruler may possess great gifts, nobility, ethics and aspirations, yet he remains bound by the fall and its curse. In the end, no human authority can escape self-interest in the use of his authority and power (1 Samuel 8:9-18). Saul’s rule according to the “procedure of the king” was openly evident, and it cost him his kingdom (1 Samuel 13-15). But David also yielded to this impulse, though he was “a man after God’s own heart.” For, when he desired the wife of another, he used his regal authority first to take her to himself, and then to rid himself of the problem of her husband (2 Samuel 11). David, too, was guilty of the “procedure of the king,” abusing his power in exploitation, adultery, deception, conspiracy, and murder. And yet his violation transcended all of that; David betrayed his own calling as Yahweh’s regal “son.” As the epitome of Israel’s sonship, David’s reign was supposed to testify to the nations of Israel’s God and His rule over His people. For David’s throne wasn’t his own; he sat on Yahweh’s throne as His regal image-son, administering His rule. Thus Nathan’s indictment didn’t focus on adultery or murder, but covenant unfaithfulness. David’s failure had given just cause to the surrounding nations to blaspheme Israel’s God, rather than praise and embrace Him (2 Samuel 12:1-14). The “son” whose faithfulness would have testified truthfully of his covenant Father, instead bore false witness, leading those who didn’t know Him to despise Him. David brought the nations’ tribute into his kingdom, but not their hearts. So he united the tribes under his rule, but unto a sword cutting his house – his family and kingdom – into pieces (2 Samuel 12-20; 1 Kings 11-12). And yet, in all thisfailure, David was a man of faith – a faithful servant who fulfilled his purpose in his own generation, Yahweh’s beloved ruler from whom He would bring forth His messiah-king and establish His everlasting kingdom ( 2 Samuel 7).
g. The writer concluded his treatment of Israel’s faithful by mentioning the prophets. Since some of the named individuals were prophets (i.e., Noah, Moses, and Samuel), it’s likely he was referring to the group of men who appeared during the time of the monarchy and served as God’s mouthpieces through the nation’s division, exile and recovery. Some of these men penned scriptural content, but many others (such as Elijah and Elisha) did not. But together they comprised Yahweh’s prophetic witness in Israel – men who, alongside other faithful Israelites, “conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight, and gave women back their dead” (11:33-35a). These individuals achieved notable triumphs of word and deed, but often at great personal cost. Some of God’s prophets were imprisoned, and some were even executed. But all were maligned, mistreated and opposed by their own countrymen. So Jesus Himself, Israel’s consummate prophet, lamented that no prophet is honored in his own country by his own people (Matthew 13:54-58). In fact, Israel’s tragic legacy was the nation’s consistent effort across the centuries to silence the voices of those who spoke on Yahweh’s behalf, culminating with their execution of His incarnate Son (ref. Matthew 21:33-44, 23:29-39, 27:1-25; cf. also Luke 6:22-26; John 1:1-11, 8:31-59, 10:22-39, 19:1-16). Thus the writer juxtaposed the great achievements and triumphs of God’s faithful with their profound suffering – suffering that came upon them precisely because of their faithfulness: “… others were tortured, not accepting their release, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, wandering in deserts and mountains and holes in the ground.” This depiction of suffering described the lives of many of Israel’s prophets, but it also reached beyond them to a whole host of unnamed persons who proved themselves faithful by holding fast to their God in their own time and circumstances. This way of closing out his treatment was especially suited to the epistle’s readers because of the suffering they were enduring. Their suffering may not have been as spectacular as what the writer described, but it was just as real and challenging to their well-being and perseverance in faith. They needed to know that they weren’t alone in their suffering; indeed it is the common lot of all who hold fast to their Lord in this world. Suffering is inevitable for God’s faithful ones, but not as simply an unfortunate consequence of faithfulness. Rather, suffering is essential to faith’s triumph: Suffering and triumph aren’t unrelated features of a faithful life, but are inseparable and interdependent. There is no triumph of faith apart from suffering, because faithfulness always brings suffering. Triumph stands on suffering and is defined by it. This was true before Jesus’ coming, and it remains true since (cf. John 15:18-21; Acts 14:21-22; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 3:12).
And so, while the writer didn’t flesh out the relationship of suffering and triumph in the lives of those he mentioned here, his summary of their faith certainly implies it, and his Jewish readers would have been able to fill in the blanks. - Noah’s faith enabled him to experience unique triumph in escaping God’s destroying deluge so as to become His new “Adam.” But that triumph was simply the capstone of long years of faithfulness in hard labor and disciplined perseverance withstanding all odds and obstacles. - So Abraham enjoyed great blessing and privilege, but at the cost of earthly security and possession. He believed God for His promise to make him heir of the world, but Abraham lived out his faith in God’s promise as an alien on the earth with only a field of ground as his own possession. - Joseph’s faithfulness resulted in his ascent to become ruler over Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. This power enabled him to fulfill his calling to become “savior” of his family and the near eastern world, but as the outcome of a long road of injustice and suffering (Genesis 50:20). - So also Moses and Joshua’s faithfulness obtained for them the uniqueprivilege of serving as Yahweh’s mediators, but this brought with it the humanly unbearable burden of carrying a faithless and rebellious people. Indeed, this burden was so great that it cost Moses the very inheritance for which he led Israel for forty long years (Deuteronomy 31:14-32:52).
h. The writer’s intent was to encourage his readers in their suffering and strengthen their resolve to persevere in faith. Toward that end, he underscored that their struggle of faith wasn’t unique; all of God’s faithful through the ages had faced similar challenges and ultimately triumphed in their faith through their suffering. This dynamic of faith and suffering bound these Hebrew Christians to their faithful forefathers, but there was also a crucial distinction between them: Their forefathers’ faith was directed toward the God who had promised; theirs was set on the God whose promises were now yes and amen in Jesus (11:39-40). In both cases, the faith was the same; it was active and unwavering confidence that God has spoken and is faithful to His word. These Hebrews shared the same faith as their forefathers, but they had a greater obligation in it. For they believed the God who’d now fulfilled His word of promise. Their experience of God’s faithfulness transcended what their forefathers knew, for they had witnessed the “better thing” their fathers died in the hope of, the “better thing” by which all of God’s children are made perfect. These Hebrew believers stood on the shoulders of the faithful of past generations, but the dependence was mutual. The reason is that faith has its object in the God who is true in the Messiah. The faithful of the past held tightly to the assurance of His coming and kingdom, while those who look back on that day hold to the assurance of His appearing and the completion of His triumph in the renewal of all things.
|
|