Mustard for new Bible dictionary
Category Archives: Joshua
Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira wanted to look sold out to God like so many others in the heat of revival. Others, moved by God’s Spirit, were selling property to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 4:31-35), including a disciple named Barnabas (4:36-37). But instead of being sincere in their devotion, Ananias and Sapphira faked it—and God struck them each dead (Acts 5:1-11).
It wasn’t because they didn’t give everything—what they did with the money was still their own choice (5:4). (It was not like the Qumran sect, where everybody who wanted to join contributed their goods, though they could get them back at the end of a year if they decided to leave.) It was because they pretended to be what they were not. God does not want pretend revival; hypocrisy can corrupt the entire movement, if not exposed and expunged (Luke 12:1-2). Like a little yeast that spreads throughout the loaf (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9) or cancer that metastasizes throughout the body (cf. 2 Tim 2:17), fake commitment can infect the entire community and turn real revival into fleshly imitation revival, a toxic substitute for the real thing.
Some of the wording of Acts 5 recalls wording from Joshua 7. Achan kept for himself some of the things from Jericho that had been devoted to the Lord for destruction. Perhaps because of Jericho’s devotion to false gods, everything in Jericho was spiritually polluted, and had to be destroyed (Josh 6:17-18, 21; cf. Exod 22:20; Deut 7:25-26; 13:17), except perhaps for what could be purified by fire and consecrated to the Lord (Num 31:22-23; Josh 6:19, 24). By violating this ban and bringing what was spiritually impure into the camp, Achan removed God’s hand of protection, leading to the deaths of other people (Josh 7:5).
The situation could be remedied only by destroying what was corrupted—now including Achan. Achan’s family surely knew about him hiding the loot under the tent floor, yet they went along with him in the secret, valuing the wealth or family ties above God’s commandment. In contrast to Rahab, who hid Israelite spies on her roof and rescued her family, Achan hid loot under his tent and brought death to his family. After the assembly executed them, they burned them with fire to remove the spiritual impurity.
Obviously church discipline in the New Testament is different: its harshest form involves exclusion from the community, but not physical execution, and the excluded person is welcomed back if they repent. As for spiritual impurity, Jesus showed repeatedly that holiness can remove impurity, rather than the reverse (e.g., Mark 1:41; 2:16-17; 5:30; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34), a reality that continues among those in whom Christ lives. Of course, that does not permit voluntary participation in things associated with idolatry or evil spirits (1 Cor 10:20-21).
Yet God struck dead Ananias and Sapphira, presumably for the same reason that he struck dead Aaron’s two sons who offered strange fire on the altar (Lev 10:1-2) or Uzzah who, probably more innocently, touched the ark to steady it (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chron 13:9-10). (It is not only readers today who are unhappy about this; David was upset about Uzzah [2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chron 13:11], and Aaron was naturally upset about his sons [Lev 10:16-20]. One of his grandsons, Phinehas, afterward proved quite zealous for holiness [Num 25:7, 11].) God’s holiness is not to be trifled with.
Now, God striking people dead is not common in the Old Testament, and it is even rarer in the New Testament. This is the only example in the Gospels and Acts, where God’s character is regularly revealed in Jesus as he compassionately heals the sick and delivers those who are demonized. But it still has something to teach us, especially when we pray for revival. In deeper intensity with the Spirit, we become more aware of God’s holiness, and more aware of what it means to be consecrated to him. We desire to honor his holiness, to draw deeper in his presence. Just as poison is bad for the body, some things are spiritually toxic for our personal or communal spiritual welfare. A life or community sensitive to God’s holiness will be allergic to spiritual toxins.
Ananias’s and Sapphira’s death struck fear into the hearts of everyone, even the Christians (Acts 5:11). As a result of this and other signs, people were scared to join the movement unless they were really serious about following Christ—no fake devotion was welcome (5:13). No nominal Christians in that setting! But because Jesus’s movement was pure and without hypocrisy, more people ended up joining the movement in the long run (5:14).
May we desire ever deeper holiness, and may those around us be drawn to such holiness. That comes not by legalism—that’s just fake holiness. It comes by the Spirit, who reveals to us the holy and awesome God, maker of heaven and earth, who has graciously chosen to dwell among us.
The Sin of Achan (2 minutes)
Achan’s sin risked destroying what God was doing in Israel. It brought judgment against his people, and others died because of his sin. He contrasts starkly with the figure of the Canaanite Rahab. See the brief discussion in:
Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part III: not God’s ideal
(Continued from Part II; see also Part I) Why didn’t more Canaanites join with Israel, as did Rahab and, in a sense, the Gibeonites? Most people understood their gods as ethnic gods, gods of their peoples. Becoming part of another people, especially the enemies of one’s people, was viewed as being a traitor. Although foreigners did find refuge in Israel in various periods (e.g., Ruth 1:16; 1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 6:11; 8:18; 12:9-10; 15:18; 18:21; 20:7, 23; 23:39; 24:16, 18; Jer 39:16-18), there were cultural barriers that made full integration difficult (cf. Gen 23:4; Exod 2:22; Ruth 2:10) and, on a corporate level, usually unthinkable. Again, the one example of this, in Gen 34, was aborted by betrayal from the Israelite side. It was not that God did not have a better purpose, but that the world was not ready for it. Crossing those cultural boundaries happened much more often in the later Jewish Diaspora, and particularly (moving past the covenant requirement of physical circumcision) in the Diaspora mission recounted in Acts.
Israel conquered peoples who fought against Israel instead of surrendered. Under the circumstances, this conquest may have been the best available means to procure a land for a nation to flourish as a vehicle for God’s plan in history. But even if it was the best available means, as followers of Jesus we recognize that it was never God’s ideal.
Jesus noted that some statements in the law were divine concessions to human weakness (e.g., Mark 10:5)—God sometimes accommodated people at their level of understanding. That does not mean that God was not active among them, but that he also communicated in ways that were intelligible to them culturally, stretching them toward his ideal without usually stretching them to the breaking point.
Jesus tells us God’s ideal: Love even your enemies (Matt 5:43-44; Luke 6:27, 35). Loving our enemies is not a “technique” that always makes them like us. Sometimes those who love their enemies, or at least choose not to harm them, get killed. That happened to Gandhi. That happened to Martin Luther King, Jr. And most relevantly here (and not irrelevant to models used by Gandhi and King), that happened to our Lord.
Jesus proved this new way of peace by how he loved his enemies—when we were his enemies: “God proves his love for us this way: while we were sinners, Christ died for us. How much more now, having been made right in God’s sight through Jesus’s sacrificial blood, we shall be saved from God’s anger through him. For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were put in right relationship with him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been put in right relationship, shall we be saved through his life” (Rom 5:8-10). Jesus announced a different kind of kingdom established a different way—not only confronting, but loving, our enemies. Like our Lord Jesus, we must trust our heavenly Father, who raises the dead, to bring his own plan to fruition.
(Also of interest: Slaughtering the Benjamites, part 1 and part 2)
Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part II: Switching sides
(Continued from Part 1)
Reading through Joshua in Hebrew several years ago I had to keep putting it down. As a follower of Jesus, the prince of peace, I could not stomach the slaughter I was again encountering afresh. Revulsion is an appropriate response for those who understand God’s loving heart for people; as God said later, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek 18:23, NIV).
But my most recent read through the Hebrew text of Joshua has been different, and also appropriate in another way. Jericho’s walls collapsed, and Israel won battle after battle. Yet other peoples in Canaan continue desperately gathering armies against them. As I kept reading, I found myself repeatedly thinking, “Why are these kings so stupid? Don’t they realize that they cannot war against Israel’s God? Why don’t they switch sides?” (I have to confess, that though I should read from the standpoint of the history of God’s people, I sometimes find myself as a person of non-Israelite descent wishing that more Gentiles in the Old Testament turned to the true God.) These peoples knew the stories about this powerful God fighting for Israel (Josh 2:10-11; 9:24; cf. later 1 Sam 4:7-8; 6:6)!
I found this way of reading Joshua confirmed when I reached Joshua 11:20 (NIV): “For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally …” God hardening hearts is another question that provokes discussion, but note here the point that God was destroying them through Israel because they waged war against Israel. These enemies had an alternative: they could have changed sides and been welcomed.
How do we know that? Because a few people did just that. To survive, the Gibeonites came over to Israel’s side. Nevertheless, they chose to do it deceptively, and thus ended up with a servile status only somewhat better than typical ancient prisoners of war. But Israel defended them as allies against the other peoples (Josh 10:6-8); later, God himself avenged them when an Israelite king broke the treaty with some of them (2 Sam 21:1-6).
Another approach, however, would have been better: had they embraced Israel’s God, they would have been welcomed among God’s people, as the law commanded (Exod 12:48-49; Num 9:14; 15:15-16), and as the Book of Joshua recognized (Josh 20:9). (See discussion of Rahab, below.)
By giving up condemned practices and proclaiming allegiance to the true, powerful God doing miracles for Israel, they could have lived and should have even found welcome. Israel was forbidden to mistreat a foreigner among them (Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:33; Deut 24:14; 27:19). Because most foreigners were displaced from their homelands in an agrarian society based on land ownership, their condition was vulnerable. Thus God would watch out for them as for others in need (Deut 10:18), and he commanded his people to do the same (Lev 19:10; 23:22; 25:35; Deut 24:19, 21; 26:12-13). Indeed, Israelites were to love a foreigner among them like a fellow Israelite (Lev 19:34)—i.e., as one of the neighbors they should love like themselves (19:18; cf. Luke 10:27-29, 33).
Justice was to be the same for both foreigner and descendant of Israel (Exod 12:49; Num 9:14; 15:16; Deut 1:16); indeed, Israelites themselves had some foreign blood (cf. e.g., Gen 41:50; Exod 2:21-22). Thus, for example, when a son of mixed parentage was to be executed for a crime (Lev 24:10-14), the LORD made explicit that the same punishment was to apply regardless of one’s parentage (Lev 24:15-16).
The chief example of this strategy in Joshua is the action of Rahab. The Israelite Achan betrayed Israel’s God, hid some of Jericho’s loot under his tent, and brought death on himself and his family (Josh 7:1, 21-26). (Because the family would have known that he hid the loot under the tent, their silence showed their complicity and hope to profit.) By contrast, from fear of the LORD (2:9, 12) Rahab betrayed Jericho, hid Israel’s spies on her roof, and brought deliverance for herself and her family (2:4-6; 6:17, 25). Her descendants continued to live safely in Israel after that time (6:25), and Matthew’s Gospel lists her as an ancestor of King David and of the Messiah (Matt 1:5). Like some of their Jewish contemporaries, early Christians cited Rahab as an example of faith (Heb 11:31; James 2:25).(Some betrayed their people to save their own lives but chose to relocate; cf. Judg 1:24-26.) (Some betrayed their people to save their own lives but chose to relocate; cf. Judg 1:24-26.)
Centuries earlier one people had wanted to unite with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Jacob’s sons posed one condition on this people, the people of Shechem: they had to accept circumcision. Painful as this was for adults, this city agreed. Simeon and Levi, however, betrayed their covenant and butchered the city’s men, to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah and to prevent any counterattack (Gen 34). Jacob, meanwhile, was furious with these young men, his rash sons (34:30), and even cursed them for this years later when giving out his blessings (49:5-7). If the Canaanites knew this story, it might deter them from conversion. This time there had been no rape, however, and Israel’s defense of Gibeon should have made clear that they would now stand by their allies.
(Continued in part 3)
Slaughtering the Canaanites, Part I: Limiting factors
The conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua was supposed to be the sequel to the exodus: an oppressed people, now liberated, overcome insurmountable odds to make a home for themselves in a hostile country. Today, however, many criticize the book as a blueprint for genocide. Still more troubling, some people in history have actually taken the book as a model for carrying out holy war. (The slaughter of the Canaanites never set well with most non-Israelites, however; in the first century, some Jewish writers with audiences outside the holy land avoided the topic or transformed its focus.)
How we read and apply the book, then, makes a life-and-death difference. In reading it, however, several factors should be taken into account. The most important factor for Christians I reserve for the end (in part III).
First, Old Testament scholars now emphasize the genre of Joshua’s conquest accounts. Ancient conquest lists functioned as triumph boasts, but they were understood to communicate only part of a story. Thus Egyptian records could say, “We subdued these cities”—and Egypt’s army had to march into those cities the next spring for a new offensive. Sometimes they declared, we “utterly annihilated” peoples, but the peoples continued to exist; the boast simply means they defeated their warriors. Likewise the Israelites sometimes defeated enemies “completely”—and then some of the enemies escaped (Josh 10:20). As in some other ancient conquest lists, Israel reportedly took all the land (10:40; 11:11, 16, 19)—yet much land in fact remained to be taken (13:1-7). Only a minority of cities were actually destroyed (11:13), cities defeated at one point often had to be retaken (cf. 8:17, 22, 24; 12:16; Judg 1:22-25), and Israel settled mostly in the hill country. Both the Book of Judges and archaeological evidence (if we have in view the right period) show us that Joshua’s conquest lists, like others of the era, summarized victories in glowing terms not always intended completely literally.
Second, God did not allow Israel to take the land until “the sin of the Amorites” living there “has … reached its full measure” (Gen 15:16, NIV). That is, God was executing judgment on the Canaanites through the invasion. If God could destroy most of humanity in a flood or could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah through fire, he could also send judgment through other means that he chose, including invasions. For example, God later judged Israel and Judah through Assyria and Babylon, although the agents of his judgment intended the violence only for their own purposes and would in turn be judged for their sin (Isa 10:5-14).
Whether we like it or not, God has the right to judge humanity; whether we like it or not, every one of us will sooner or later face death in one way or another, and must answer to him for our choices. Once Canaan’s sin “reached its full measure,” God had the right to execute capital punishment on the society, and chose to do it through Israel. This is why God’s orders clearly restricted this punishment to the land in question. “Holy war” and devoting things to deities for destruction were concepts understood in cultures surrounding Israel. But Israel could fight such a war only under God’s direct orders (though we also see a “just war” in Gen 14:14-16 to free slaves; cf. 2 Sam 30:7-8, 18-20).
Third, God knew what would happen to Israel if they shared the land with the Canaanites—what did in fact happen later. At this time Israel was virtually alone among surrounding cultures in being monotheistic and aniconic (no deity-images). Israel would be very susceptible to “progressive” outside influences from apparently stronger cultures. Based on thousands of remains of cremated babies at Carthage (a Phoenician settlement elsewhere) and other evidence many scholars speak of Canaan’s special depravity. Many Canaanite towns’ annual revolts against Egypt, once Egyptian armies were no longer in sight, also suggest that nothing less than total war would subdue them firmly.
Fourth, most of the peoples in the land chose to fight Israel, ensuring these peoples’ destruction (Josh 11:20). Pacifism has much to be said for it as an expression of sacrificial Christian devotion, but ancient Israel did not yet have the foundations for such an approach. Had Israel sought to settle in the land without fighting, their enemies would have annihilated them. God does perform miracles, but often through what is already at hand (e.g., Exod 14:21); in this case, God promised Israel victory but also summoned them to do their part and fight for it.
Nevertheless, if there is any continuity at all in the biblical picture of God, the slaughter of the Canaanites cannot ever have been God’s ideal. (This discussion is continued in Part II and Part III. One may also consult works such as a recent book by Paul Copan: http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751)