holy-war-jan-feb-2014 by Modern Reformation

VOL.23 | NO.1 | JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2014 | $6.50

H O LY WA R ?

Read, Hear, and Learn Together with Study Kits from White Horse Inn. NEW STUDY KITS EVERY TWO MONTHS. Our new study kits, designed for group or individual use, combine WHI radio and MR magazine resources with group study questions and include leader and group guides and complete WHI audio and clips selected for use during discussions.

DOW NLOAD NOW AT WH ITEHO R SE IN N.ORG/ST UDY.

features VOL.23 | NO.1 | JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2014

The Gospel According to Joshua BY JUST I N TAYLO R

Rahab the Prostitute, Heroine of Faith BY JOSHUA J. VAN EE

Joshuaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Missing Wall

Holy War in Joshua: Texts of Terror?

BY R ACH E L M. BI LLI NG S

BY MICHAE L S. HORTON

34 MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

Theology On Tap.

DID YOU KNOW THAT WHITE HORSE INN RADIO ARCHIVES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE? Join the conversation with the White Horse Inn hosts on The Gospel According Joshua series. This 8-part series will explore the concept of Holy War in the Old Testament. How can we criticize jihad when our own Bible reveals a God who commanded the ancient Israelites to slaughter man, woman, and child during the invasion of Canaan? Tune in to find out!

VISIT W H ITEH O R SEI N N.ORG/JOSHUA.

departments 04 05 12 16 43 50 52

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR BY RYA N G LO MSRUD

INTERVIEW ›› Is God a Moral Monster? Q& A WI T H PAUL COPA N

CHRIST & CULTURE ›› The Church Meets the

Humpty Dumpty Zoning Ordinance BY C.R. WILEY AND DAVID STOCKER

THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD: THE NEW TESTAMENT ›› Part I: A Mother’s Gift BY Z ACH K E E LE

BOOK REVIEWS N.T. WRI G HT, ST E PHEN T. UM A ND JUSTIN BU ZZARD, AN D R OD DREHER

GEEK SQUAD ››

Christendom

BY RYA N GLO MSRUD

BACK PAGE ›› Divide and Conquer BY I A I N M. DUG UI D

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Executive Editor Ryan Glomsrud Managing Editor Patricia Anders Assistant Editor Brooke Ventura Marketing Director Michele Tedrick Design Director José Reyes for Metaleap Creative, metaleapcreative.com Department Editors Ryan Glomsrud (Letter from the Editor & Reviews), Michael S. Horton Designer Tiffany Forrester Copy Editor Elizabeth Isaac Proofreader Ann Smith Modern Reformation © 2014 All rights reserved. ISSN-1076-7169 Modern Reformation (Subscription Department) P.O. Box 460565 Escondido, CA 92046 (855) 492-1674 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org Subscription Information US 1 YR $32. 2 YR $58. US 3 YR $78. Digital Only 1 YR $25. US Student 1 YR $26. Canada add $8 per year for postage. Foreign add $9 per year for postage.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

LETTER from the EDITOR

RYAN GLOMSRUD executive editor

“Do you suppose we’ll meet any wild animals?” Dorothy asks her fellow travelers in the Wizard of Oz. Oh, only “lions, and tigers, and bears,” the Tin Man responds. The Israelites might well have sung a similar chorus about their entrance into the Promised Land, although “Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites, oh my,” doesn’t have quite the same ring. In this issue we take up the Old Testament book of Joshua and consider it from several angles. The first is biblical theology. Justin Taylor explains that the death of Moses signaled a major change in the history of Israel. Going through Joshua, God brings his people into the much-anticipated land that was promised. As the story unfolds, we see God’s power, presence, and covenant faithfulness to the people of Israel. Next, Joshua Van Ee, assistant professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, explores the remarkable contrast that can be drawn between Israel as a faithless nation and Rahab the prostitute, a foreigner who was nonetheless a woman of faith, who gave shelter to the people of God. Rahab even comes to be mentioned three times in the New Testament: in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:5), as a hero of faith (Heb. 11:31), and as a believer who demonstrated her faith in good works (James 2:25). While Israel’s faith wavers, she acts the hero because she was

a recipient of God’s grace. The second angle concerns apologetics: the archeology of the Promised Land and the sobering question of religious violence in the Bible. Scholar Rachel Billings introduces the debates surrounding the excavation of the ancient city of Jericho and the famous walls that came tumbling down. Was there such a place? Did Israel simply make up the story at a later date? These are important issues for careful Bible readers to explore, but in proper perspective. Next, Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton addresses the spectrum of interpretations of “holy war” and religious violence in the Bible. Is the story of Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land a picture of a religious-motivated genocide? That’s how many critics of Christianity and Judaism understand it. The same topic is of central concern in the interview with Paul Copan, professor of philosophy and ethics. Horton makes clear that the history of redemption is an unfolding story and that context is crucial. Also in this issue, we extend our series with Rev. Zach Keele on “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” looking now to the New Testament where the story is fulfilled. Additionally, Pastor C. R. Wiley and architect David Stocker offer an essay in cultural criticism, exploring the implications of city zoning ordinances for the church in our modern world. Challenges to the faith abound from within and without. As we use Scripture and theology to reflect on these issues at the start of a new year, let us never forget the Lord’s promise (Josh. 1:5): “Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. . . . Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

“SO I WILL BE WITH YOU.”

INTERVIEW

IS GOD A MORAL MONSTER? Q&A with PAUL COPAN

PAU L C O PA N is professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University and author of several books, including When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics; True for You but Not for Me: Overcoming Common Objections to Christian Faith; and most recently, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

INTERVIEW

“Sure, God condemns homosexuality in the Old Testament, but he also condemns hot dogs and orders the stoning of disobedient children.” We hear this on pop “news” programs a lot. At the outset of Is God a Moral Monster? you write that you were motivated to address this issue because of misrepresentations of violence and ethics in the Old Testament. Can you give us some examples of what you mean?

Since 9/11, the New Atheists have not been content to simply blast Islam; now all religion is seen to be evil. Many of the arguments used are derived from examples of violence in the Old Testament: for example, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or even more strongly, the command to kill the Canaanites. They use terms such as genocide and use strong emotional language to say that if this is the kind of God the Christians worship, then they don’t want to have anything to do with him. So I use the title Is God a Moral Monster? The phrase “moral monster” actually comes from Richard Dawkins. There’s a long quotation where Dawkins calls God “a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak, vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” That’s how he views the God of the Old Testament. Dawkins describes Israel’s campaign against the Canaanites as “bloodthirsty massacres carried out with xenophobic relish.” We often hear people talk about the wars recorded in the book of Joshua as a form of ethnic cleansing. What’s wrong with this particular way of characterizing these texts?

a. For one thing, it’s not ethnically motivated.

To throw “ethnic” in there makes it sound like something you’d hear about in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia—that is, motivated by tribal or ethnic divisions. Indeed, the condemnations

are not solely for the Canaanites; God brings judgment on all kinds of people in the Old Testament. And it’s not as though Israel can do no wrong. He warns that if Israel is wicked like the Canaanites, then they too will be vomited out of the land. That’s an important point. We’re told that the Israel that God brought out of Egypt was a “mixed multitude” (Exod. 12:38–39): Moses married an Ethiopian; Rahab and her Gentile family are added to Israel’s ranks; and King David descends from Ruth the Moabite. Israel was supposed to show concern for aliens and sojourners in the land, and so forth. Are you arguing that there are plenty of these passages, but that the New Atheists don’t really address them?

Exactly. There is little concern for ethnic differences based on, say, skin color or tribe. When we read about this, it’s very much connected to idol worship and God not wanting his people Israel to be contaminated by the immoral and idolatrous practices of those who are in the land of Canaan. THE G OD OF T HE COVE NA NT When I read xenophobic, nation-glorifying histories of particular cultures, the one thing I don’t expect is exactly what I find in chapter after chapter, book after book of Israel’s history— namely, that God in fact declares war on Israel for violating the covenant. If you’re trying to write your own national history and using God as a mascot, you’re hardly going to have your God turn on you, are you?

And it’s very interesting that God himself in this covenant, which he makes with Israel in Deuteronomy, tells them that he’s not choosing them because they’re some select people. He reminds them that they’re a stubborn people, that they’re rebellious and wicked, that they

have done wrong. God does not select them for their moral qualities. This actually highlights God’s mercy. Why do you think God called the Israelites to kill and destroy the Canaanites instead of him wiping them out with fire and brimstone as he did with Sodom and Gomorrah?

There was a close connection between the deity of, say, the Canaanites and the land in which they lived and the people with whom the land was identified. To expel the people was actually an indication that the God who was driving them out was greater than the god of that land to whom those people were connected. So you see commonly that there is a driving-out language or a dispossessing language used that doesn’t include killing.

“GOD WANTS HIS PEOPLE TO BE REMINDED THAT THEY’RE NOT TO PUT THEIR TRUST IN POLITICAL ALLIANCES, IN HORSES AND CHARIOTS AND SO FORTH, BUT RATHER IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

You observe that God didn’t allow Israel to have a standing army and that Israel’s wars were not for professionals, but for amateurs and volunteers. What is the significance of this?

Joshua in sweeping terms that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites, just as we might say that a sports team blew their opponents away or slaughtered or annihilated them. The author or editor likewise followed the rhetoric of his day. Is that the best solution to the problem? For example, when Joshua says that none of the Anakim was left in the land (Josh. 11:21), was this an exaggeration or hyperbole, or did it have to do with the field of battle—in other words, a total defeat of all the Anakim soldiers?

a. It’s a reminder that if Israel is to inhabit

a. It seems to reflect the very language of the

the land and to be victorious over her enemies, it is not by any virtue that the Israelites have by trusting in their own armies and their own strength; rather it is clearly through the working of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, that this victory comes about. So you see that with Gideon, for example, when he amasses thousands of people, God says he’s only going to work with three hundred to show the greatness of his power over the Midianites. God wants his people to be reminded that they’re not to put their trust in political alliances, in horses and chariots and so forth, but rather in the name of the Lord.

UNDE R STA N D I NG O L D TESTA M E N T R H ETO RIC You write that God told the Israelites that the process of driving out the Canaanites would be a gradual one (Deut. 7:22), but then we’re told by

ancient Near East where you do have strong exaggeration. You will have, for example, a war text like the book of Joshua, which resembles these ancient Near Eastern war texts, where you have people described as having been utterly destroyed, yet you will see survivors. Even at the end of the book of Joshua, Joshua mentions that there are many nations still living among the Israelites that need to be driven out. In fact, as we read Judges, the next book in the canon and literarily connected to Joshua, we see that there are groups of Jebusites and so forth—that is, part of the Canaanite people who cannot be driven out. This is something we need to come to terms with. What I therefore try to do in my book is deal with the language of exaggeration and hyperbole common in the ancient Near East.

In Deuteronomy 20, for example, we have a difficult passage that people love to quote: “You shall MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

INTERVIEW

save nothing alive that breathes, but shall devote them to complete destruction.” Man, woman, child, infant, ox, donkey and sheep—everyone and everything has got to go. Doesn’t this sound like jihad? Is our God no different from the Allah of Islamic terrorists?

This is one of the questions emerging on university campuses and in much of the popular and scholarly literature, so I think it is important for us not to take for granted a Christian consensus. We need to be able to address these sorts of concerns. What we see is that even in Deuteronomy 20, Moses uses this language of leaving alive nothing that breathes, to “utterly destroy.” But it’s interesting that, as I mentioned, the same term is used when we get to Jeremiah 25: the word herem is used of the people of Judah, where God says he is going to utterly destroy them, that he will leave their cities an everlasting desolation. But as you get to the end of the book you see that this actually does not happen. You do see Judah incapacitated by the Babylonians and their religious, economic, and political system utterly destroyed, that they are now vulnerable in the hands of their enemies—deported and displaced. It’s basically ruination for the nation, even though there are many survivors who are either in Judah or deported to Babylon. So again, that term “utterly destroy” is being used in not such a literal fashion, but it has that sense of disabling, incapacitating, and so forth. Pastorally speaking, would you suggest that instead of standing over these texts in judgment, we allow them to accuse us? We are the Amalekites and the Canaanites. We are the ones God should drive out of the land; and in the book of Revelation, we’re the ones who shouldn’t have our robes dipped in blood. We’re not the ones who should be part of the choir singing “Glory to the Lamb”; we should be among the slaughtered. Should this drive us to our knees in gratitude for

God’s grace and mercy in Jesus Christ rather than turn us into, finally, judges and murderers of God?

a. This is a sobering reminder that it’s easy

to become triumphalistic and high-minded about our own status as Christians yet fail to see that there but for the grace of God go I. So I think that when we have an understanding not only of God’s judgment but also of God’s mercy and grace, we can have a clearer perspective of these issues.

Can Christians invoke these “texts of terror,” these holy war texts for, let’s say, whatever enemy we as Christians happen to have, whatever geopolitical force out there is against us, or maybe in defense of America? Can we appeal to these texts to justify just wars even as holy wars?

a. No, we certainly would not use those texts

to justify holy wars. Those would have to be on principles of common grace available to all people. The texts written about the Canaanites or Amalekites were unique and part of God’s unfolding salvation history for particular persons who were surrounded by signs that vindicated the commands given by Moses and by Joshua.

We have to admit that there’s a long history of Christendom, crusades, and so-called holy wars for so-called holy land. But the New Testament treats the old covenant theocracy as limited in both time and space, as a type of future things and as now “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). The Quran doesn’t recognize any distinction between old and new covenants, type and reality, promise and fulfillment. The example of Mohammed is normative and he had his Medinan (tolerant) and Meccan (jihadist) periods. So, is it fair to say that when medieval knights cleaved the skulls of Muslims crying, “Christ is Lord!” they were violating Scripture, while Islamic terrorists today are living out the Quran in daily life?

a. That is a nice overview of what is taking

place. In the Bible, we do not have warrant for sacralized violence today; there is no divine sanction given to violence as a means to advance the Christian faith or to expand God’s kingdom, whereas in Islam there is.

UNDE R STA N D I NG COVENA N T CO N TEXT How important is it to distinguish between what God is doing in the old covenant from what God is doing in the new covenant? In other words, to see the old covenant as a play within a play—as in Hamlet—that is pointing to something. It’s not the real thing; it’s the anticipation of something that’s far broader, fuller, and more final. But we’re living in this time between the two comings of Christ, where it is a day of common grace and just wars, not holy wars.

I think that’s an excellent point. When we look at the development of Israel as a nation transformed into an interethnic people of God, not bound by ethnicity or geography, the picture does indeed change. In the New Testament, we see more of an emphasis on not wrestling against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers—not that spiritual warfare wasn’t taking place in the Old Testament. In a sense, spiritual warfare was displayed in the battles against Canaan or when God opposed Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt. It was a clear demonstration of the superiority of the one true God over these false

gods that the Egyptians were worshipping. And so we see, in a sense in ancient form, a picture of spiritual warfare that continues. So there is that continuity, but the way in which it is waged is going to be different, given the constitution of the people of God, the true Israel today. So yes, we do see a certain progression taking place. But we are reminded in both testaments that there is a spiritual battle going on that is destructive both spiritually and morally if we capitulate to those powers, and that God is moving his purposes forward through his people in the Old Testament, preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. And then in the New Testament and beyond through Jesus Christ and the new Israel he’s established, we set back the powers of darkness in the way we live as salt and light in the world. As we read in Ephesians—in our attitudes and in not letting the sun go down on our wrath— we are not to give Satan a foothold in our lives. By having reconciling, forgiving relationships, we set back the powers of darkness in our everyday lives. This is how spiritual warfare is conducted indirectly. Though, I would argue, there is certainly a place for exorcism, for battling malevolent powers that act directly on human beings just as Jesus encountered in his ministry in Israel. Would you say that the real difference is not between two different Gods, but between two different covenants—the old covenant and the new?

a. Absolutely. There is no question about the

unity of the God of Scripture. There is no dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, but God is working in different ways under these two covenants. The first covenant is a precursor, a preparation for what is to come for the second. It sets the context for the new covenant in Jesus Christ through which all of these other events, pictures, and institutions—the priesthood, sacrifices, and so forth—make sense in light of what Christ accomplished. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

WHITE HORSE INN

WEEKEND VAIL, COLORADO

DO WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD?

E V E R Y D A Y voices are being raised in the public square that claim all religions are essentially the same. If you don’t know how to defend your faith, you are in danger of being swallowed up by the “coexist” spirit of the age. Join us for the second annual White Horse Inn Weekend where we will equip you to answer the question, “Do We All Worship the Same God?”

SESSIONS & SPEAKERS

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

SATURDAY, JULY 26, 2014

The Trinitarian Witness of Scripture

The Forgotten Spirit

The Islamic Opportunity

MICHAEL HORTON

HICHAM CHEHAB

The Uniqueness of Nicene Christianity

The Mission Field Next Door

From Jerusalem to Nicaea MICHAEL HORTON

ROD ROSENBLADT

Trinitarian Worship

The American Religion

What’s Practical About the Trinity?

KEN JONES

WHITE HORSE INN PANEL DISCUSSION

Is God a Religious Pluralist?

The False Hope of Hinduism

GREG KOUKL

ISAAC SHAW

KIM RIDDLEBARGER

ISAAC SHAW

R E G I S T E R T O D AY WHITEHORSEINN.ORG/WEEKEND

J U LY 24-26 2014 11

CH CR HIRSITS T && C UCLT U LT U RUER E

THE CHURCH MEETS THE HUMPTY DUMPTY ZONING ORDINANCE by C. R. WILEY and DAVID STOCKER

ear the end of World War II, Winston Churchill remarked of war-torn England, “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” Churchill understood buildings as more than pretty pictures on souvenir postcards. We learn many things from the bricks, stone, mortar, sidewalks, streets, and plazas in many cities. Our buildings, rooms, corridors, streets, sidewalks, landscapes, and skyscapes affect and influence us in profound ways. All those things around us that we take for granted— the width of a street or sidewalk, the distance to a pub or a grocery store, or the height of an apartment building or townhouse—may seem of little importance to Christian living in this fallen world. But, in part and in whole, the things we build speak to us and reveal our deepest convictions. So what do our cities say to us? Do they speak to God’s goodness and mirror his wise rule over all creation, or do they deny it? What do they say about the community of men, imaging forth the Trinitarian community of the Godhead and the host of heaven? One of the authors of this article is a pastor and the other is an architect, and both are Presbyterians with a love for the Reformed faith. We also love art and architecture, but we see a disconnect between the patterns of community written on our hearts and the patterns of community written on our twenty-first-century streets and highways. The scale of humanity, the interaction of different classes of people in mutually enriching ways, the family as the first institution, the rhythms of work and rest, the harmony of God’s works and the works of man and of the church as the final institution— all these and more echo the message revealed in the Bible. In the first instance, many cities not only ignore all this, but they also actively suppress them, just as all sinners suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). THINK O F W HAT A H AB C O U L D HAVE ACCO M PL I S H E D WITH M O D E R N ZO NING ! In 1 Kings 21, we are told that King Ahab wanted Naboth’s vineyard. There were only two ways for King Ahab to get it. The first was the voluntary

method. King Ahab asked Naboth for his vineyard and offered him compensation. Naboth turned him down. The second way was the coercive method. Jezebel arranged for Naboth to be falsely accused and stoned to death, whereupon his property was seized by the king. The Lord told Elijah to tell Ahab, “Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?” (21:19). The end result was God’s wrath upon King Ahab and his offspring. The story of Naboth’s vineyard raises two questions for us as we consider the built environment. First, why wouldn’t Naboth sell Ahab the land? And second, would it have been any less of a theft if King Ahab had just changed the zoning, taken it by eminent domain, or raised the property tax rate to force Naboth out? The first question is answered by Deuteronomy. The land Naboth possessed was the inheritance given by God to his ancestors. Naboth saw himself as a temporary superintendent. It was land held dear, a patrimony to pass on. For the twenty-firstcentury Christian, it is easy to see that we have given up our inheritance, exchanging a world made with people in mind for a modern world of machinelike efficiency. The second question is one that also must be considered. In 1926, in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Amber Reality, the Supreme Court decided that a city could use zoning laws to force prescribed land uses on property owners as an extension of their policing powers. This led to an explosion of zoning ordinances across the country as modern leaders seized upon the opportunity to make a world in their own image. One can easily argue that these changes led to the dismantling of depth and richness of a world built for community. For example, zoning laws separated the uses of home and work and of faith and family. Buildings previously integrated MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

C H R I S T & C U LT U R E

into the community, especially churches, were The truth, while being temporarily suppressed, is pushed to the perimeter of the city, not in search never contained. By the 1970s, urban theorists— of needy souls but in need of the required number such as Jane Jacobs in her book The Death and of parking spaces. With this blow struck, today’s Life of Great American Cities and Christopher communities have largely gone the way of King Alexander in A Pattern Language—began to point Ahab’s family: “Dogs will eat out the inhumanity of our cities. those belonging to Ahab” As a countermeasure, Jacobs and (21:34). In other words, modAlexander attempted to identify ern cities are places where systems and patterns present in people get eaten, not places vibrant living cities. Their work where people thrive. influenced a generation of archiThe silence of Christians tects and planners. Certainly, what about these matters delivers has been produced has been a step a loud message to the world. in the right direction. Their contriIt says that we have little butions to city planning have even HERMAN WITSIUS regard for the promotion and been received with open arms by protection of our common many Christians. But one danger humanity in all the ordinary is that they continue to use King things of life, such as at the Ahab’s coercive methods to achieve heart and center of our cittheir ends and so the results are ies. It also suggests that an mixed. These are not communities atomistic and materialistic finally motivated by love of neighunderstanding of social life bor; they are still modern beneath is a matter of indifference the surface, but covered over with a The Space Between: to Christians. The result of Thomas Kincade-type facade. A Christian our silence is that churches Genuine life is always organic, Engagement with the are relocated physically far springing up by the power of God. Built Environment away from the center of the According to Scripture, governBaker Academic, 2012 city. Many observers have ments are tasked with honoring described twenty-first-cenand protecting life, not necessartury cities as “cities with ily reproducing it. When they try, no there there.” For the the results are often artificial and Christian, the missing there ugly. Modernity is guilty of many is the promotion of human crimes against humanity, and the wholeness and the presence reason is that modern man doesn’t of gospel-churches at the know what a human being is. The center of cities. modern condition breaks things Sidewalks in the down into their smallest material Kingdom LE A R N I NG TO parts; but as with Humpty Dumpty, Baker Academic, 2012 SE E AG A I N modernity doesn’t know how to put things back together again. And in the process, it kills what it seeks Romans 1 says that “the to understand. That’s why modern wrath of God is being revealed from heaven cities are generally so charmless and inhuman. against the godlessness and wickedness of peoEverything is sorted into classes: financial disple, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” tricts here, industrial zones there, bedroom

FOR FURTHER READING

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON EUCLIDIAN ZONING

uclidian zoning has several economic effects.

The New Urbanism has become popular among

These effects can be seen clearly in cities with

developers and planners who have created towns

exclusionary zoning like Detroit. The first effect

like Seaside, Rosemary Beach, and Celebration. Two

is felt immediately, and the second effect becomes

books, Sidewalks in the Kingdom and The Space

more evident as economic conditions change.

Between: A Christian Engagement with the Built

The first effect of exclusionary zoning is to create a

Environment by Presbyterian pastor Eric Jacobsen,

high bar for entry into a neighborhood. It says the price

are worthy reads on the subject. Jacobsen lays a

of entry is the ability to afford a set amount of land.

strong foundation for Christians to consider regard-

Generally, the higher the density the lower the land

ing the claims of the New Urbanist perspective.

cost. Therefore, the poor are effectively segregated

Jacobsen presents a distinctly Christian view on

from the rich by an all-inclusive policy decree. Detroit’s

the New Urbanism and looks to the Word of God to

zoning laws stipulated that on larger R1 lots only one

attempt to develop a theology of the city. He takes

living unit could be on a property. That excludes any

great pains to present the problem of the American

ability for an R1 landowner to provide a garage apart-

city and how the New Urbanism might be a tool to

ment or quarters on the property. Prior to zoning, a

tackle those problems.

large landowner often had extra quarters to either pro-

One criticism of the New Urbanism is that it is just

vide housing for domestic help or provide extra income

another tool for the central planner to attempt to force

for the property. This type of housing was the “afford-

“acceptable” behavior on a population. In this case,

able housing” of the day but is now illegal in Detroit.

pedestrian access and sustainability are given a pref-

The second effect of exclusionary zoning is much

erence over the automobile. The underlying idea is

like a price control in which there are either shortages

still a modernism that sees cities as mechanisms cre-

or surplus because of the inability to adjust prices.

ated by government. It attempts to create complexity,

For housing, there are either shortages or surpluses

but its results often come out as faux cities. It is white-

because there is little or no ability to adjust use. In

washed to create an illusion of a sinless Mayberry. A

Detroit, there is an oversupply of housing and no abil-

better understanding of cities would be that they are

ity to change use. Since it is costly to maintain housing,

both beautiful and fallen. We can give thanks for the

eventually maintenance is deferred or ended and the

beauty, but we must also remember that behind the

property self-destructs. This is the current picture of

picket fences, front porches, and clapboard siding are

one Detroit neighborhood.

hurting families.

communities over there, shopping centers—you get the picture. But where are the people? And where are the institutions that connect people and God? First, we need to see that cities are complex and organic, springing up freely—not mechanisms made by governments. Second, we need to reclaim the inheritance of older cities like London or Geneva where there was a visible presence of the community of Christ, the church. As Christians, we must resist trading with King Ahab for better parking, freeway access and more land for the surroundsound auditorium. Third, we need to expose King Ahab’s plots to marginalize the church in urban life. We are in for a fight—zoning commission meetings

can be very pugilistic! God’s creation is designed for community from the interaction of the largest city down to the smallest subatomic particle. Everywhere we look, we see reflections of his glory and signs of his plan for human flourishing. The gospel brings us into community and fellowship with the living and Triune God, who then empowers us to reflect that fellowship in communities far and wide.

C. R. Wiley is senior pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Manchester in Manchester, Connecticut. David Stocker is an architect in Dallas, Texas.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

THE

G R E AT E ST STORY EVER TOLD

The New Testament

PART I

A MOTHER’S GIFT

“

by ZACH KEELE

O U ’ R E P R E G N A N T ! It’s a boy!” This

is one of the sweetest reports a woman can receive in her life. The notice that she is going to be a mother, to have a child of her own, is a potent joy.

These tidings were like angels singing to Eve after Abel was stolen from her. It was a joy too good to be true for 90-year-old Sarah. After the positive pregnancy test, Rachel blessed the Lord: “God has taken away my reproach.” And at the hearing of such wonderful news, it is common for the mother-tobe to begin fashioning a gift. She stitches in love a blanket. The woman weaves together a keepsake to adorn her child, a perpetual reminder that the child is hers and she is his mother. Yet the pregnancy newsflash is not always joyous news for the ears. If the woman does not want to be pregnant, if she is not married, the news can read as an obituary. The woman’s premarital improprieties will be found out. In the ancient world, a premarital pregnancy could be a shameful shackle the woman might never escape, and this yoke would have pressed hard on Mary. She was an engaged teenager who ended up pregnant. What would people think? Imagine that conversation between Mary and Joseph: “Joseph, I’m pregnant.” “Who’s the father?” “Uh, God.” With hand to forehead, Joseph would be thinking this is the worse lie ever. Gabriel had appeared to Mary before she conceived, but the angel did not

tell Joseph what was taking place until after she was pregnant. Now, Joseph was a stand-up guy; he was kind to Mary, but he was still going to divorce her. Yet a quiet divorce stings loudly. And if upright Joseph was responding in this manner, it is reasonable that Mary’s less noble relatives were fuming. Did Mary’s dad chew her out for bringing shame on the family? In any case, when traversing the minefield of premarital pregnancy, the woman is less preoccupied with making a gift for her baby. The baby is an unwelcome burden, not a reason to rejoice. But not so with Mary; as the golden words of Gabriel warred with the scornful scowls of people and society, she wove a gift for her son. She did not sew a blanket, but she stitched together a poem, a song. Like a lyrical Beethoven, Mary spun together the silken lines of what has come to be called the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55). And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

T H E G R E AT E S T S T O R Y E V E R T O L D

He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever.” HAN NA H’S S O NG For this poetic gift, Mary took inspiration from her spiritual ancestor Hannah. She dusted off in the attic of her memory another baby blanket stitched with elegant verse. Like Mary, Hannah was a woman under scorn with the curse of barrenness. Peninnah’s ridicule pelted her unceasingly. Elkanah’s insensitivity left Hannah’s wounds open and festering. In her tearful prayers, Hannah looked for the Lord’s deliverance in a son. After the Lord granted her a son, Hannah dedicated Samuel to the Lord and left him with a poetic keepsake. Hannah’s heart exulted in the Lord; she rejoiced in his salvation: for the Lord is the God who breaks the bows of the mighty and binds the feeble with strength; he feeds the hungry, gives the barren mother seven children; he is the Rock who raises the poor from the dust and lifts them from the ash heap; the Lord brings low and he exalts. And yet the crescendo of Hannah’s musical prayer hits the note of kingship, the exaltation of the Anointed One. Her prayer was clearly a thanksgiving for Samuel, Hannah’s “horn” (1 Sam. 2:1), but this gratitude blossomed into hope in the Lord’s anointed king. In faith, Hannah beheld her boy as the king-maker in Israel. From Samuel’s horn, the head of David was anointed as the king after God’s own heart. In faith, Hannah beheld Christ from afar, and her poetic baby blanket became the hope of Israelite mothers that their sons would be

linked to the Anointed One. With Hannah’s poem handed down from mother to daughter, new mothers swaddled their sons in her faith, praying that their sons would see the Lord’s deliverance from this dusty curse. It was for this family heirloom of faith that Mary reached. Society scorned her as a licentious woman. Her people lay under the affliction of exile waiting on the Lord’s salvation. Those who ridiculed Mary told her to mourn, but Mary listened to the angel. Hannah gave her poem to the king-maker, and then Mary sewed one for the king. Instead of wallowing in sorrow, Mary magnified the Lord: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Like her ancestor, Mary praised the Lord as the one who reverses fortunes—the Lord brings down the mighty and exalts those of humble estate. Mary knew that the hope of all Israel had dawned on her: “From now on all generations will call me blessed.” She was going to be the mother of the Messiah. She was going to give birth to the long-awaited son of David. The finale of the Old Testament ends with waiting on the Lord, longing for the time of his remembrance. Again and again in the Old Testament, hope and expectation focused on a son being born. And as the New Testament opens, the waiting on the Lord is over—his promises are coming to fulfillment. Mary’s son, conceived out of wedlock, was the best gift ever—the gift of her faith that her son was her Savior. Her boy was her Lord. Just as Hannah passed her song on to Mary, so Mary passes hers to us. Its lyrical stitches give voice to our faith that all God’s promises are “yes and amen” in Christ. With our spiritual grandmothers, we can magnify our Lord, who became low and humble even unto death to lift us out of the dust of death and to seat us with him in the heavenly places. With such a marvelous poem, let’s not relegate it merely to one season, but glorify the Lord with it year round.

Zach Keele is pastor of Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Escondido, California.

One Subscription, 22 Yearsad of Archives. AS A SUBSCRIBER YOU’LL RECEIVE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE MODERN REFORMATION DIGITAL ARCHIVE — FOR FREE.

VI S I T M O DE R N R E FO R MATIO N.O R G TO SUBS CR IBE TODAY, AN D RE AD M OD ER N R EF O R MATI O N O N YO UR TABLET O R CO MP UT E R TOMORROW.

Partner With Us.

HELP OTHERS KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHY THEY BELIEVE IT. Through your monthly support as a partner of White Horse Inn you will help others rediscover the riches of the Reformation. Our partnership benefits include a subscription to Modern Reformation, private partner podcast or CDs, books, and invitations to special events.

TO B E C O M E A PARTNER , VISIT W H ITEH O R SEINN.ORG/SUP P ORT.

features

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOSHUA

RAHAB THE PROSTITUTE, HEROINE OF FAITH

JOSHUAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S MISSING WALL

34 HOLY WAR IN JOSHUA:

TEXTS OF TERROR? MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

by JUSTIN TAYLOR illustrated by FRANCESCO BONGIORNI

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOSHUA

everal years ago, when a friend recommended the television show 24, I went

to my local video store (back in the day when there was such a thing) and found the relevant section. I noticed that the first few episodes were checked out, so I grabbed an episode halfway through the first season in order to see if my wife and I would like it. When I arrived home and put the DVD into the player, we instantly discovered that this show—which depicts a 24-hour real-time The book of Joshua is the same way. Even if we start narrative—cannot at the first verse of Joshua, we are still entering a midway point in the overarching story. We have to be sampled partway go way back—to the very beginning. through. Having not IN T HE BE GINNING started from the When the storyline of Scripture begins, we see our beginning, we were sovereign Lord joyfully creating the heavens and the earth for his own glory. He populates this new world with creatures, culminating his good work hopelessly lost. with the very good creation of Adam and Eve, man and woman, designed in his own image to be his representatives who will be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the creation (Gen. 1:26, 28). With his vice-regents ruling the Garden of Eden, the Lord enjoys his Sabbath rest. But it all went tragically wrong when his very good imager-bearers exchanged the truth of God for a lie, worshiping the creature over the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Acting in unbelief about the goodness and sufficiency of God’s Word, they trusted in the MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

demonic lie of the serpent and rebelled—and Adam’s people (the whole future human race) fell along with their covenant representative. The only glimmer of hope, as Adam and Eve were displaced east of Eden, was that an offspring of the woman would one day crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The sin-stained stumbling in Genesis 1–11 set the backdrop for a new act of the divine drama, beginning in Genesis 12. Yahweh had previously covenanted with all of creation to offer eternal life for perfect obedience (Gen. 1–3) and not to destroy the entire world again with a flood of judgment (Gen. 9). Now, in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, Yahweh initiates a new covenant, a covenant of grace, to be established with a childless man from Ur of the Chaldeans. Yahweh promises that Abraham will have numerous descendants (Gen. 12:2; 15:5) who will live in the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:7; 17:18–21), experiencing covenant blessings in order to bless the surrounding nations (Gen. 12:1–3). Abraham believed these promises by grace alone through faith alone, and he was reckoned as righteous (Gen. 15:3; Rom. 4:3). The rest of the Pentateuch (i.e., Genesis through Deuteronomy) is a narration of the gradual fulfillment of these covenant promises. Isaac becomes the miraculous heir of Abraham, and the descendants multiply and become a great nation. And when Yahweh approaches Moses to deliver his people from oppressive rule in Egypt, he promises “to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (Exod. 3:8, 17). But after their deliverance, the Israelites became more prone to grumble than to worship. They spend forty years wandering through the wilderness as sojourners and exiles, still east of Eden, waiting to inherit the Promised Land. CRUCI A L O PE N I NG L E S S O NS Even though Moses had led Israel to the eastern bank of the River Jordan, his disobedience to the Lord meant that he would not be the one to lead them into the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 34 already narrates the death of Moses, but Joshua 1:1–2 tells us twice that Moses is dead. The point

“PRECISELY BECAUSE GOD WILL BE WITH JOSHUA WHEREVER HE GOES, JOSHUA IS FREE TO BE STRONG AND COURAGEOUS INSTEAD OF FRIGHTENED AND DISMAYED….HIS RESPONSIBILITY IS TO KEEP GOD’S WORD ON HIS LIPS AND IN HIS HEART DAY AND NIGHT, BEING CAREFUL TO DO ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN IT.” is underscored: This is the end of the era and the beginning of new leadership. The book of Joshua will signal a major change in the history of Israel, bringing to completion what has come before (Genesis–Deuteronomy) but setting the stage for what is yet to come (Judges–Kings). After all these years, Moses’ assistant, Joshua of Nun, will now lead God’s people to rest in God’s land under God’s rule and reign. We see in the opening instructions from Yahweh to Joshua several key principles. First, we see the sovereign power of the Lord. Notice the subject of the verbs: Joshua and the people are to cross over the Jordan “into the land that I am giving . . . to you, just as I promised Moses” (Josh. 1:2–3). God sovereignly gives the gift of land for Israel to inherit. In it they will witness “victorious rest”1—Godward satisfaction and contentment as they no longer wander and face attack by God’s enemies (11:23; 14:15 21:44–45; 22:4; 23:1). Second, we see the indispensable presence of the Lord. Moses had candidly declared to the Lord, “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us

HOW WAS THE LAND DIVIDED?

he “sons of Israel” were twelve tribes—composed of clans and families—who traced their ancestry to the sons and grandsons of Jacob (Gen. 35:22–27). The land was allotted to the Galilee tribes (Asher, Issachar, Naphtali, and Zebulun), the Transjordan tribes (Reuben, Gad, and East Manasseh), the Joseph

tribes (Ephraim and West Manasseh), and the Southern tribes (Benjamin, Judah, and Simeon), and the migrating tribe of Dan, who failed to drive out the Canaanites from their allotted location (Josh. 19:47).

ASHER

NAPHTALI MANSSEH (EAST)

Sea of Galilee N ZEBULU

ISSACHAR

Mediterranean Sea

MANASSEH (WEST)

EPHRAIM

AMMON

GAD

DAN

JUDAH

SIMEON

Dead Sea

BENJAMIN

REUBEN

MOAB

EDOM

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

up from here” (Exod. 33:15). Yahweh now says to Joshua, “Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you” (Josh. 1:5). We see this through the ark of the covenant, which represents the presence of the living God, as the priests carry it across the Jordan (ch. 3) and then around the walls of Jericho before its walls come tumbling down (ch. 6), culminating with Israel setting up “the tent of meeting” in Canaan as “the land lay subdued before them” (18:1). Third, we see the necessity of covenant faithfulness. Precisely because God will be with Joshua wherever he goes, Joshua is free to be strong and courageous instead of frightened and dismayed (1:6–7, 9). His responsibility is to keep God’s Word on his lips and in his heart day and night, being careful to do all that is written in it (1:7–8). Because Israel’s presence in the land is dependent on their covenant faithfulness before a holy God, Joshua leads the people in two covenant renewal ceremonies, one on Mount Ebal (8:30–35) and one at Shechem (ch. 24). As the narrative progresses from the marching orders in this opening prologue, we witness Joshua and the Israelites fulfilling God’s commands and receiving his promises, first as the Israelites cross over the Jordan into the Promised Land (chs. 1–5), then as they take (chs. 6–12) and allot the Promised Land (chs. 13–21), and finally as they recommit to serve and worship as God’s faithful covenant subjects within the Promised Land (chs. 22–24). NOT Q U I T E E D E N

Just as the book begins by noting the death of Moses, so the book ends by noting the death of Joshua (ch. 24). This sets the stage for the book of Judges, with its repeated cycles of apostasy and leadership failure, where we read that “in those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25). Israel was once again like sheep without a shepherd. Though they have been given so much, they continued to be

JESUS AND JOSHUA

n Hebrew, the name Joshua is rendered both as Y’hoshua and Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek

form of the name is Iésous (pronounced yaysoos). So in the original Greek of the New

Even with Joshua’s good leadership, Israel was not immune from sin. Achan’s disobedience had severe consequences (ch. 7), and we see that Israel at times failed to drive away the enemies of God from the territories (13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:11–12; 19:47). At the end of the book, as Joshua is an old man, he gathers the leaders of God’s people together and reminds them of their covenant-keeping God: “Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (21:45). The very next word, however, is “but . . .” He goes on to warn what will happen if they choose covenant disobedience over faithfulness, and the amount of time spent on warning in chapters 23–24 is a foreshadowing of their failure to come.

Testament, if you look at Hebrews 4:8, you’ll see Joshua’s name as Iésous. In around 5 BC, when the angel Gabriel visited an unsuspecting teenage virgin in Nazareth named Mary, he proclaimed: “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Iésous” (Luke 1:31). When the angel delivered the birth announcement to Joseph, he added that this Iésous “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Note the difference: Whereas Joshua points to the God who saves, the angel is explaining even here that Jesus himself will be the God who saves.

CARAVAGGIO, THE ANNUNCIATION, CIRCA 1608-1610 (OIL ON CANVAS).

“THE ONLY GLIMMER OF HOPE, AS ADAM AND EVE WERE DISPLACED EAST OF EDEN, WAS THAT AN OFFSPRING OF THE WOMAN WOULD ONE DAY CRUSH THE HEAD OF THE SERPENT.” “like Adam,” transgressing the covenant (Hos. 6:7). Israel needed a perfect prophet, a perfect priest, a perfect king—a covenant-keeping leader who could not fail to bring them to God. Joshua was a godly man, who walked with the Lord and sought to obey his will. But he was still a sinner. His leadership was essential, but he was still dispensable. He was important, but he was not eternal. He was a descendent of Abraham and a son of Eve, but he was not the ultimate “seed of the woman” who will crush the head of the serpent and provide salvation forevermore. THE O N E WHO I S TO C O M E Israel needed not just someone who could instruct the priests to enter the Jordan carrying the ark of the covenant, but one who would enter the Jordan with the very presence of God in order to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15–17). Israel needed someone who could not only dispel God’s earthly enemies but could cast out the satanic ruler of this world (John 12:31). Israel needed someone who could not only appoint twelve men to represent the land inheritance and set up memorial stones, but one who would appoint emissaries to carry forth his eternal message to all the earth (Matt. 10:1–15; 28:16–20). Joshua sets the stage for Jesus to enter in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4).

Some interpreters look at Joshua and Jesus through the contrast of physical fulfillment and spiritual fulfillment. Joshua, they note, is promised covenant prosperity: protection from God’s enemies and success in all his endeavors (Josh. 1:5–8). Jesus, however, gives up physical comfort and protection in order to serve as our final sacrifice. Joshua leads the conquest of a physical land through physical war; Jesus rules a spiritual kingdom where we fight with spiritual weapons as “sojourners and exiles” (1 Pet. 1:21). This observation is true, so far as it goes. It helps us to remember that in this world we are not promised physical safety or success. It reinforces the crucial truth that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). But the physical-spiritual contrast is ultimately inadequate. We must remember that the story is not finished. There is another act to come in this divine drama. Christ will return and he will physically (as well as spiritually) defeat all of his enemies once and for all. “Unlike the wars of old that led only to more bloodshed and misery, Christ’s global judgment and victory when he comes again will truly be the war to end all wars (Matt. 3:11–12; 24:27–25:46; Rev. 17:1–20:15).”2 We will enter into the Promised Land, which is no longer restricted to a strip of land in the Middle East but is now expanded to include the whole earth (cf. Matt. 5:5; Rom. 4:13). Christ himself will wipe every tear from the eyes of our new resurrection bodies as we live securely in his presence forevermore (Rev. 21:4). One greater than Joshua has appeared and will one day return again. And on that day, all will see that the battle truly does belong to the Lord.

Justin Taylor is senior vice president and publisher for Books at Crossway. He runs the blog “Between Two Worlds,” hosted by the Gospel Coalition, and is coauthor with Andreas Köstenberger of The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived. 1 Michael Williams, How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens: A Guide to Christ-Focused Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 33–36. 2 Michael Horton, “Notes on Joshua,” ESV Gospel Transformation Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013).

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

RAHAB THE PROSTITUTE, HEROINE OF FAITH

hat do we know of Rahab the prostitute? In the Old Testament , her name occurs only in Joshua 2 and 6. (The other references to Rahab—e.g. Psalm 87:4—are not to Rahab the prostitute. The names are spelled differently in the Hebrew.) In the New Testament, Rahab is mentioned in three somewhat prominent passages: Jesus’ genealogy (Matt. 1:5), among the “heroes of faith” (Heb. 11:31), and as one who had both faith and works (James 2:25). In the Joshua account, what first grabs our attention is the exciting storyline. There are spies, danger, deception, concealment, and escape. Rahab is quite the heroine, saving the spies from the king of Jericho and his minions. And her efforts are rewarded with safety for her family. What is more fascinating, however, is the nature of this heroine. In a way, Rahab is the opposite of Israel. Israel was called to be holy; Rahab was a prostitute and sold her body to satisfy the lusts of men. Israel was a nation chosen by God for blessing; Rahab was a Canaanite, in the line of those cursed, with God’s judgment being stored up against her and her family. The terminology for adultery and idolatry— physical and spiritual fornication—are often interchangeable in the Old Testament. Just before Israel entered Canaan, they had been seduced by foreign women to worship false gods. Thus Rahab as a Canaanite prostitute would seem to embody the dangers facing Israel as they entered the land. But what happens when holy, chosen Israel meets Rahab the Canaanite prostitute? The expected roles

by JOSHUA J. VAN EE illustrated by FRANCESCO BONGIORNI

get reversed. Israel’s actions are questionable while Rahab saves the day. Rahab’s faith contrasts with Israel’s wavering. Why do the spies go to a prostitute’s house? Even more, why did Joshua send spies at all? Are these strategic moves as they try to gain intelligence, or are they actions that display sinful lusts? The opening verses should make us question whether Joshua and Israel are being obedient, strong, and courageous as instructed in Joshua 1. At first, the text leaves us guessing as to what the spies were doing with Rahab. (What would you think if someone told you he spent the night with a prostitute?) But as we read on, our fears are alleviated. But the relief comes from Rahab, not the spies. We never learn what they wanted to do, only what Rahab does. The spies are totally passive, at the mercy of Rahab. She hides them, provides them information, and helps them escape. All the spies do is nod their heads. An expedition doomed either by the immorality or incompetence of the spies has been saved by Rahab. Rahab also makes a surprising declaration. She has heard of God’s great deeds and believed in him as God. She is ready to be a traitor to her own people in order to be allied with God’s people. In contrast, Joshua and Israel, who actually saw God’s acts of deliverance, struggle in their faith. The purpose of the spying trip seems to be to assure Joshua. The spies’ report sounds very similar to God’s words to Joshua in chapter 1. Didn’t God already say he was giving Israel the land? And we cannot miss what the spies agree to do in order to escape. They make a covenant with a Canaanite! Israel was not to make any covenants with the Canaanites. Instead, all were to be devoted to destruction. As we read on in Joshua, we find that

Rahab and her family are not the only Canaanites to be spared. The Gibeonites deceive Joshua and the Israelites into making a covenant with them. They, like Rahab, are allowed to live among Israel. The Gibeonite account is more explicit in indicating that the covenant was against Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s command, but the same issue is raised with Rahab. Rahab highlights Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s struggles. The contrast between Rahab and Achan is particularly forceful. On paper, Rahab was all wrong while Achan had all the external marks. Rahab was to be devoted to destruction; Achan was an inheritor of the blessings of promise. In the end, however, their roles are reversed again. Rahab and all her family were given life, living among the people of God. Achan and all

his family were devoted to destruction. Rahab was one under condemnation who was saved by grace. She, in many ways, forced her way into the covenant community, grasping for herself the promises and blessings to which she had no right. It is no wonder the New Testament writers find in her an example of faith. But her account also highlights one of the glories of the New Testament age. The good news she believed is now proclaimed freely to all, promiscuously even to the promiscuous!

Joshua J. Van Ee is assistant professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido, California.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

by RACHEL M. BILLINGS illustrated by FRANCESCO BONGIORNI

JOSHUAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S MISSING WALL

he story of the excavation of Jericho, the site of Joshua’s famous battle, has

long symbolized the tensions that can arise between archaeological explorations and faithful readings of the Bible. The story begins at the dawn of the twentieth century, when some European scholars first undertook a formal scientific excavation of the site. Perhaps not surprisingly, the excavators initially dated a wall to Joshua’s time, presumably expecting to find It was an easy enough mistake to make, since the one because of the archaeology of the land of Israel was still a rising field in which new discoveries were constantly biblical account. refining scholars’ understanding of the dating and sequence of previous finds. John Garstang, a British scholar, felt dissatisL a t e r, h owe ve r, fied with the earliest excavators’ failure to find the they revised their Jericho of Joshua’s fame and revisited the site in the 1930s. He arrived during what became known c o n c l u s i o n s t o as the “Golden Age of Biblical Archaeology,” an era when the discipline grew exponentially in the and depth of its knowledge. Excavators of reflect an earlier breadth the time are often described as having had “a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.” While these date for the wall. archaeologists tried to maintain a scientific stance, their Christian convictions often remained visible behind their archaeological interests. Even so, in his 1940 book The Story of Jericho, Garstang saves the topic of Joshua’s Jericho for the seventh of his eight chapters (though realistically, he anticipates that the reader has only been wading through the previous chapters to reach this one). Here Garstang details his successful discovery of the remains of MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

city walls dating to the time of Joshua’s conquest and, not only that, but fallen city walls, just as in the biblical story! Although Garstang assumes an interest in the biblical account, he believes that his discovery rests on pure science. In fact, he takes at least as much interest in trying to establish a nonmiraculous cause for the fall of Jericho’s walls as he does in matching the archaeological evidence to the biblical account. These divided loyalties embody

the peculiar admixture of biblical affirmation and archaeological “science” that characterized the archaeology of Palestine in Garstang’s day, as the phrase “biblical archaeology” suggests. Jericho would only briefly fill this role in the popular imagination, though, before further refinements in archaeological technique would reverse Garstang’s findings. Jericho’s next key excavator was Kathleen Kenyon, one of the developers of an excavation method that went on to become the new standard for archaeologists in Israel. This method was particularly suited to the archaeological sites of the biblical lands, which often consist of layers of successive occupation built one upon another. o modern readers, there is an ethical problem with the Over time, the accumulated ruins biblical commands found at various points in the Old form a mound, with the most recent Testament to wipe out the Canaanites. Why would Israel’s level of occupation at the top and God, the God of Jesus Christ, order his own people to kill another the oldest at the bottom. Kenyon’s people group—even a sinful people—in method involves systematically order to take their land? Several factors excavating squares laid out on a grid, can help us understand this perplexing leaving a “wall” of soil remaining and sometimes ill-used injunction. between each square. In this way, a First, if we think of this command cross-section of the layers of occupaas “religiously motivated violence,” we tion in each square can be viewed in forget that Israel couldn’t talk about warthe “walls,” and the findings in each fare, land ownership, or rulership without square can be related to these varitalking about its God, and neither could ous layers. its opponents. Israel’s blending of religious and political language The way the story is often told, would have been perfectly normal in its own cultural context. it seems that Kenyon approached Second, talking about total slaughter of enemies was common Jericho with a much looser in Israel’s ancient Near Eastern milieu, even when annihilation did v i ew o f t h e B i b l e ’s re l a t i o n not actually occur. This rhetoric served to inflate the importance ship with historical fact than did of successes in battle and to exaggerate the power of those who Garstang. Surprisingly, then, her accomplished them. 1957 book Digging Up Jericho Third, we need to consider that the most distinctive language seemed more comfortable speakabout wiping out the Canaanites is distributed in texts that were i n g a b o u t J e r i c h o ’s b i b l i c a l likely written a long time after Israel’s settlement of the land. As a connections than Garstang’s did— result, their message has little to do with actual Canaanites. Rather, picturing the Patriarchs strollthe sweeping scope of these statements both emphasizes the coming past the mound during their pleteness of Israel’s devotion to its own Lord, as Nathan MacDonald travels—even as she eschews a “litand R. W. L. Moberly have written, and serves as a warning to Israel eral” historical reading of biblical of the consequences that will follow if it chooses disobedience. accounts. Her redating of Joshua’s All three of these points beckon us to move past the immewall appears to owe less to inherent diate “shock value” of these biblical commands and to focus on bias than to a find that is basic, ubiqhow they might be speaking to us from within their cultural and uitous, and vital to chronology in the literary context. archaeology of the Middle East: pottery. That’s right—broken pottery is strewn everywhere across Israel’s

A CANAANITE GENOCIDE?

GUSTAVE DORÉ, JOSHUA SPARES RAHAB. 1866 (ENGRAVING).

“ARCHAEOLOGY WILL NEVER FURNISH PROOF OF THE BIBLE’S INSPIRATION OR AUTHORITY FOR ITS READERS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WRONG THING TO ASK OF IT.” archaeological sites, and in some sense, it’s the most mundane find possible. Within its original context, however, it will often be the key to dating an occupational layer. That’s what happened in Kenyon’s case. In the years between Garstang and Kenyon, the publication of evidence from additional sites had refined the ability of archaeologists to date layers of a site’s occupation by their association with specific types of pottery. In this way, Kenyon determined that “Joshua’s wall” as identified by Garstang had been destroyed at least a hundred years before Joshua ever entered Canaan. Evidence of a later wall may once have existed at the site, she concluded, but severe erosion had eroded away any trace of it. Various hypotheses have arisen since her time to explain the wall’s absence, generally proposing that the city of Joshua’s time reused earlier fortifications. Both confirmations and revisions of Kenyon’s date for the wall have been offered as recently as the mid-1990s. Kenyon’s verdict remains, in any case, the baseline of archaeological opinion, and no alternative theory has been securely established. But I have good news for you, faithful readers of the Bible. It’s not that material evidence doesn’t matter for our understanding of God’s Word. It’s that material evidence can’t serve as our basis for knowing God. Archaeology will never furnish proof of the Bible’s inspiration or authority for its readers, because that is the wrong thing to ask of it. Indeed, as John Calvin affirms, we lack any need to find “rational proof” outside of Scripture to demonstrate that God speaks therein. Rather, it is the “testimony of the Spirit” that provides this proof, for “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word” (Institutes

1:7:4). And thank goodness for that, since our understanding of archaeological discoveries is always changing and open to revision as new finds are made. We can appreciate the dynamism and excitement of discoveries about life in ancient Israel even as we retain our confidence that God’s speech in Scripture does not depend upon pottery sequencing and reliable archaeological data. While we acknowledge that the stories in the book of Joshua depict apparently historical people and places, we must resist the pressure to “get behind” the biblical text and reconstruct the historical details of biblical events. For it is not by a scholarly reconstruction of “behind-the-text” history that God speaks, but by the biblical text itself. We live in the “meanwhile,” when much has yet to be understood, discovered, even conceived of. In this “meanwhile,” we sometimes must be content with our inability to see how certain stories in the Bible match up with what archaeologists find in the ground. We must keep our focus on the biblical story that unfolds before us—a story that primarily aims to teach us about God’s action on behalf of Israel and Israel’s response to God. A quirk of erosion doesn’t change that. The book of Joshua depicts a complex interplay between God’s gift of the land of Canaan and Israel’s obedient response in receiving this gift, not just an account of Israelite warfare. Battles occur, yes—but only occasionally and set in an expansive context of iterations of the importance of the Book of the Law, ceremonial actions, moments of hesitation, ethical dilemmas, and exhortations to obedience. In fact, I’ve argued recently that the main message of the book of Joshua is summarized in a statement near its end, that “Israel served the Lord during all the days of Joshua” (Josh. 24:31). This statement requires the reader to puzzle through how Israel ends up as obedient in each dilemma it faces in the book of Joshua, thereby schooling the reader in obedience as well. Although we don’t at this point have certainty about exactly how the archaeology of Jericho corresponds with the book of Joshua, for those whose ears are open, God’s call upon us through this book remains as clear as it ever has been.

Rachel M. Billings is an independent scholar in Holland, Michigan.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

by MICHAEL S. HORTON illustrated by FRANCESCO BONGIORNI

HOLY WAR IN JOSHUA: TEXTS OF TERROR?

ddressing over a thousand Israeli school children, University of Tel Aviv

professor George Tamarin told a story of “General Lin.” Using religion as a pretext for “ethnic cleansing,” the general, who presided over the Chinese kingdom three millennia ago, ordered a massacre of men, women, and children throughout China. When asked for their response, only 7 percent of the children listening to Professor Tamarin agreed that the general’s actions were The story, however, was in fact taken from the book morally acceptable, of Joshua, with only the names and nation changed. But then when asked about Joshua’s campaigns, while 75 percent astonishingly, the results were reversed: 66 percent “totally approved” of the Israelite conquest of disapproved of such the Promised Land while 26 percent disapproved. Tamarin was sacked from his chair at Tel Aviv. This approach points up the tension over the violence. 1

different ways that the Old Testament’s “holy war” campaigns are to be understood. The interpretation of the book of Joshua is especially key. T HE SP E CT RU M OF INTE RP RETAT IONS One approach is to say that these “texts of terror” are simply ideologies wrapping themselves in religious myths, the invocation of God for a nation’s own aggressive ambitions. This jibes with our modern experience. Crusaders cleaved the skulls of “infidels” with the cry, “Christus est Dominus” (Christ is Lord). After all, the followers MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

of Mohammed were occupying the “holy land” where Jesus once walked. Christendom’s kings fancied themselves David, driving out the Canaanites from God’s land. Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade with the rousing speech, “If you must have war, bathe in the blood of the infidels.” From there you have the pattern for the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the conquistadors of Latin America, British colonialism, the “Manifest Destiny” of the United States and South Africa, the slave trade, and a host of other tragic chapters in Western history. At the other end of the spectrum are those today who invoke these texts as somehow still in effect, as if any nation could enter into covenant with God and engage in holy war. If not a “Christian nation” like the United States, at least Israel still enjoys this “most favored nation” status with God. The land is holy, and therefore holy war is entirely justified when the sovereignty of its borders is in jeopardy. Many professing Christians today stumble over these texts. How can we reconcile the God who commands the extermination of men, women, children, and even pets and possessions with the God we know in the face of Jesus Christ? One answer is to say that these “texts of terror” are somehow useful, but only if allegorized. They are later interpretations by exiled Jews of an imagined past, designed to generate an internal “jihad”—the conquest of the dark forces within each individual soul. Only in that exegesis can these texts be “redeemed” as empowering the moral earnestness to drive out the demons within. For example, Baylor University’s Philip Jenkins argues this case in his book, Laying Down the Sword (HarperOne, 2012). Another response among professing Christians is simply to conclude that the God of the Old Testament who commanded the holy wars of Joshua is different from the God we meet in Jesus Christ. Nazarene scholar C. S. Cowles argues this view in his essay, “The Case for Radical Discontinuity” in Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003). The extreme interpretations seem to be the most popular, especially as part of the ongoing culture wars in the United States, and they have enormous political as well as religious implications. My purpose here is briefly to explain why both views—(1) rejecting the “holy war” God of the Old Testament or (2) invoking these texts as timeless

truths even for our own day—reflect a serious misunderstanding of biblical interpretation at the most fundamental level. I want to argue my case under two theses. First, the God of “holy war” is the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. Second, these texts of holy war are neither to be allegorized nor invoked as normative for new covenant believers, much less modern nation-states. T HE SI S 1 : THE G OD OF T HE O L D T E STAME NT I S T HE G O D OF T HE NEW T E STAME NT How do we reconcile the God we meet in Jesus Christ with the God who commands the destruction of men, women, and children—and all of their possessions? One option is simply to conclude that we can’t. Either God never commanded these holy wars in the first place, or we can only conclude that they contradict the revelation of God in Christ. Jenkins, known especially for his book The Next Christendom, argues in Laying Down the Sword that the events reported in Joshua and elsewhere never really happened. Later writers, living in Babylon, imagined these scenarios as a way of calling the exiles to subdue their inner demons. In other words, these “texts

“THE OLD COVENANT LAW IS CLEAR: GOD IS NOT ISRAEL’S MASCOT. THE LAND IS NOT ISRAEL’S, BUT GOD’S. ‘YOU ARE BUT TENANTS IN MY LAND,’ YAHWEH DECLARES. A NUMBER OF JESUS’ PARABLES CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD AGAINST THIS BACKDROP.”

of terror” are allegories for personal conquest of spiritual ills. My friend Roger Olson reviewed his colleague’s book in 2012.2 Olson’s main critique is that Jenkins is not Christocentric enough: Better in that regard, in my opinion, is the chapter “The Case for Radical Discontinuity” by Nazarene scholar C. S. Cowles in Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003). There Cowles asks “Can we image [sic] the God revealed fully and finally in Jesus ordering the killing of children and infants? At any time? In any place? For any reason?” (pg. 31). His implied answer is “no.” Of course, he goes on to argue for continuity between the Old Testament and the New and Jesus, but he emphasizes discontinuity without endorsing Marcionism. I’ve read Cowles’s essay, and I think Olson is being too kind to his fellow Arminian by saying that he presses the ancient view yet “without endorsing Marcionism.” The fact that Cowles has to say that he doesn’t exactly side with the heretic who identified the God of the Old Testament with the demonic Creator-God of the Jews suggests special pleading. In point of fact, Cowles does verge on—if not explicitly follow—the hermeneutical assumptions of Marcion. There is indeed discontinuity between old and new covenants, but Marcion and Cowles are dead wrong in their stark opposition between Yahweh and Jesus. I understand Olson’s sympathy for Cowles at this point. His critique of Calvinism has always been philosophical—particularly centered on theodicy (the problem of evil). He wants an answer and is distressed at the Calvinist recourse to “mystery.” The bottom line is that he cannot believe in a God who would decree things that seem to contradict human concepts of justice. This is clear even in his (more judicious) critique of the God of the Old Testament. Olson suggests that the God revealed in Jesus Christ simply could not have countenanced the slaughter of apparently innocent people in Canaan. Olson writes: I am not going to declare unequivocally about the historicity of those texts; I will bracket them out and say “I just don’t know what to MARCION DISPLAYING HIS CANON, CIRCA 150-500 AD (RELIEF).

UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

n the mid-second century, Marcion and his followers argued that the Old Testament “Yahweh” was the evil counterpart to the

good Redeemer-God of the New Testament. The church condemned this view as heretical.

make of them” and “I cannot picture Jesus, who is the God I worship and adore, commanding those things.” And “I look forward to finding out from God himself, from Jesus himself, what I am supposed to think about those texts.” For now, all I can say is, they do not speak God’s voice to me. I do not understand them. They are dark and obscure and frightening. I run to Jesus. That was Luther’s approach, too, but he held onto a “hidden God” behind Jesus who commanded the slaughter of the innocents and who uses the devil to carry out his commands (“The devil is God’s devil!”). I do not believe in a “hidden God” behind Jesus. With Barth I affirm that Jesus is God for us and all we need when contemplating the character of God. On one level, Olson’s instincts are right: The only true God is the one revealed in Jesus Christ. On another level, he is wrong—and the logic that leads to Rob Bell’s Love Wins lurks behind his own argument. In other words, it’s a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ that leads to such a false choice. It was John the Baptist—the one who announced Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

of the world” (John 1:29)—who added that “the ax salvation or destruction. It’s a foreshadowing of the is already laid to the root of the tree,” with the ethLast Judgment. nic descendants of Abraham and Joshua consigned And this is the main point I want to make briefly to the flames of God’s wrath if they do not “bear concerning this first thesis: “The wages of sin is fruit”—namely, trust in Christ as the Messiah (Luke death” (Rom. 6:23). The pagan occupiers of God’s 3:7–9; Matt. 3:12–13). The old covenant law is clear: land deserved death. In fact, God waited patiently God is not Israel’s mascot. The land is not Israel’s, all of these centuries between Abraham’s day and but God’s. “You are but tenants the conquest before the thorough in my land,” Yahweh declares housecleaning (Gen. 15:16). We (Lev. 25:23). A number of Jesus’ need not rehearse the heinous parables can only be understood sins—idolatry, child sacrifice, cruel against this backdrop. violence, and injustice. All we need No nation would write this to know is that if we were occupystory. If it is unfaithful, it too will ing that land, we too would deserve be driven from God’s land like the death. To judge God’s command as nations whom God has driven out unrighteous is to reveal an inability from before his people. He is not to accept the seriousness of God’s the ideological cipher for their holiness and our sin. “ethnic cleansing.” A “mixed mulJesus talked about hell more titude” left Egypt and it’s all about than anyone else in the Bible. He fidelity to the God of the coveannounced a universal “holy war,” nant. Anyone who joins himself where the sheep and goats will be to Israel by circumcision is part separated (Matt. 25). The enemies of the theocracy, while unfaithof God will be arrayed against the PHILIP JENKINS ful Israelites are executed (like Lord and against his Messiah on the Achan), and eventually Israel last day, but when the Son appears Laying Down records its own expulsion from in glory they will cry for the rocks to the Sword the land for violating the terms fall on them and crush them rather Baker Academic, 2012 of the covenant. It has nothing than face “the wrath of the Lamb” to do with “ethnic cleansing” or (Rev. 6:14–17). Anyone who has genocide, but with the fact that trouble with the very targeted and child-sacrificing, violent warlimited “holy wars” under Joshua riors, and unjust oppressors are will have greater trouble with Jesus squatters on God’s land. It is Christ. He will come again “to judge time for the serpent to be driven the living and the dead”—Gentiles from God’s garden. The tragedy and Jews, men, women and chilis not the holy wars, but Israel’s dren. There will be no mercy in that half-hearted and incomplete fulday as Jesus comes with his saints C. S. COWLES fillment of this command. Like in the war to end all wars. Adam, they failed to drive out the The book of Joshua is a preShow Them No serpent. Like Adam, they allowed v i ew o f c o m i n g att ra c t i o n s. Mercy: 4 Views on the serpent to seduce the people I t wa s a m e rc i f u l l y l i m i t e d God and Canaanite to serve other gods who are not campaign compared with the uniGenocide gods: “Like Adam, they broke my versal judgment of Jesus Christ, Zondervan, 2003 covenant” (Hos. 6:7). the greater Joshua. And yet, we The law of Israel is a sword of must not skip over the glaring holy war drawn first toward the fact of history: “That in Christ people of Israel themselves (Josh. 5:2–9), then God was reconciling the world to himself, not even toward Joshua (vv. 13–15). No one is safe once counting their trespasses against them, and occupying God’s holy land. Everything is devoted to entrusting to us the message of reconciliation”

FOR FURTHER READING

“JESUS AND THE APOSTLES CLEARLY TEACH THAT THIS OLD COVENANT IS ‘OBSOLETE’ (HEB. 8:6, 13). THAT IS WHY WE ARE LIVING IN THE NEW COVENANT ERA.” (2 Cor. 5:19). The Great King received his own sword into his side, bore our guilt, and his body is the holy land where the wicked are justified, sanctified, and glorified forever through faith alone. THES I S 2 : NO M O DE R N NATION— I NCLU D ING IS RAE L (MUC H L E SS THE U. S. ) CAN E NG AG E I N H O LY WAR This does not mean we can invoke the old covenant holy wars as a literal basis for modern nation-states, including Israel. Not even the church can use the temporal sword to defend the gospel. There are no nations in covenant with God: whether Israel, Britain, or the United States. “Christendom” is a serious error of biblical interpretation. No nation will ever again be identified with God’s saving purposes in history. The church is not geopolitical. It has no military. It appeals to rulers as persecuted witnesses to Christ, not as victorious rulers of the earthly cities. No nation is in covenant with God today, not even the modern nation of Israel. Even Orthodox Jews emphasize that the modern state of Israel is not the revival of the old covenant theocracy. Not until there is a revived cult in Jerusalem, with a rebuilt temple and its sacrificial system, and the total exclusion of non-Jews, will there be a revived theocracy. However, Jesus and the apostles clearly teach that this old covenant is “obsolete” (Heb. 8:6, 13). That is why we are living in the new covenant era. In this time between the times—that is, the

intermission between the two advents of Christ, first coming in humility and salvation, and the second time in judgment and final deliverance—the Spirit unites to Christ people from every nation to the true Israel, Jesus Christ. All who are “in Christ” are alive, united into one new person, whether Jew or Gentile; all who are “in Adam” are dead, whether Jew or Gentile. This means, of course, that there can be no “replay” of Israel’s holy wars. These Old Testament events were types and shadowing pictures of yet further events to come: (a) The spiritual warfare of the gospel conquering the unbelief and spiritual blindness that covers the world for Jews and Gentiles alike, and (b) The final conquest of Jesus Christ with his saints at his return. Christ has driven out the serpent from the garden and crushed his head. In the new creation there will be “nothing that defiles” in its precincts (Rev. 21:27). But for now, “God sends the rain on the just and the unjust alike” (Matt. 5:44–45). In this sermon, which intentionally contrasts with Moses’ delivery of the law on the plains of Moab, Jesus announces that we are living in an era of common grace. All lands are common and therefore all wars are common. This distinction is the basis for “just war theory,” as Augustine especially articulated it. There is no holy war, because there is no holy land. Despite the brochures that centuries of Christendom and dispensationalist evangelicals have made so popular, the land of Israel is not “the Holy Land,” but common land. Whatever arguments may be made for the integrity of an Israeli state today, they have nothing do with biblical law or prophecy. However precious God’s purposes remain for the Jewish people (which should be affirmed based on Romans 9–11), Israel is a common nation. There is nothing in the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 that fulfills biblical prophecy. The new covenant anticipated by the prophets was always a fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham of a worldwide family united to the Father by faith in his Seed—Jesus Christ. Now we are living in a productive period of the kingdom’s expansion, not through God’s direct MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

intervention through a particular nation, but by the conquest of the nations through the preaching of the gospel. It is “the day of salvation,” not of judgment. But there is a day of judgment, the Day of the Lord, when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead. B RING I NG I T AL L TO G ET H E R Here is the bottom line when trying to find some equivalence between Islam’s “holy wars” today and

the Bible’s concept. First, the former has no sense of history or a distinction in covenants. Particularly, there is no distinction between the way in which the covenant of grace is administered differently in old and new covenants. Therefore, “holy war” is invoked today as in every era, according to Islam. Jesus very clearly announced “regime change” from the covenant mediated by Moses to the one that he mediates as Abraham’s greater seed (see esp. Matt. 5). So when Muslims practice holy war or jihad, they are consistent with their normative

texts. When Christians do so, as they have, they are ignoring Jesus. The God of the Old and New Testaments is the same; it is the transition from promise (type) to fulfillment (reality) that changes. The everlasting promise, secured by Christ’s obedience and mediation, remains secure for all transgressors who trust in Christ. This is the point of Paul’s contrast in Galatians 3–4 between “two covenants”—the law and the promise, and the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem. It is also a familiar contrast throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews (e.g., Heb. 11:16; 12:18–24). With Christ as the faithful servant and mediator, the new covenant “is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6). There are distinctions without antitheses. The distinction is not between the God of the Old Testament who commanded Joshua’s holy wars and the God of the New Testament known in Jesus Christ. HOW DO WE R E S P O ND? The conquest recounted in Joshua has been invoked by Christian empires and nations and, in reaction, criticized as incompatible with the God we meet in Jesus Christ. How do we respond? First, since according to God’s righteous standard all people are sentenced to death (Gen. 2:17 with Rom. 1:18–3:20), the real wonder is that God commanded such a limited holy war. Second, Yahweh holds Israel to the same standard (with the same threats) by which he destroyed the pagan cities (Lev. 18:28; Deut. 13:5; 17:7; Josh. 7:11–12; Mal. 4:6). Third, exclusively under the old covenant was the church also a geopolitical nation. With Yahweh as the direct head of state, his ordinary providence and common grace may be suspended by extraordinary miracles; holy war is Yahweh’s to wage, not Israel’s or the church’s to invoke at will (for example, see Gen. 49:5–8 and 1 Chron. 22:8). In fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise of a worldwide family in Christ, the new covenant church is distinct from all geopolitical states. God’s common grace encompasses believers and unbelievers alike (Matt. 5:43–48), and Jesus affirms Caesar’s political authority even over Judea (Mark 12:17; cf. Rom. 13:1–7). In this phase of his kingdom, Christ conquers the earth (not just Canaan) in saving grace by his Word and Spirit (Eph. 6:12–17).

“THE NEW COVENANT ANTICIPATED BY THE PROPHETS WAS ALWAYS A FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISE MADE TO ABRAHAM OF A WORLDWIDE FAMILY UNITED TO THE FATHER BY FAITH IN HIS SEED—JESUS CHRIST.” Like the twelve spies Joshua sent into Jericho, the twelve apostles were sent to preach the gospel of Christ’s kingdom. Yet Jesus rebuked James and John for wanting to execute holy war on a Samaritan village that rejected the message (Luke 9:51–56). Jesus similarly instructs the seventy-two to fulfill their mission by preaching, not by force (Luke 10–12), giving them “authority to tread on serpents.” However, it is Satan and his demonic hosts—the real enemy behind the earthly enemies— whose heads are finally crushed (Luke 10:17–20; cf. Rom. 16:20). Jesus promises, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18b, emphasis added). Yet when Christ returns, it will be to judge the whole earth, together with his saints as his army (1 Cor. 6:2). Anyone who has trouble with Joshua will have even greater qualms about Jesus Christ, since he promises to bring global judgment: the war to end all wars (Matt. 3:11–12; 24:27–25:46; Rev. 17:1–20:15).

Michael S. Horton is editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation. 1 Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/faith--reasonhow-joshua-claimed-a-20thcentury-victim-1288505.html. 2 Source: http://www.patheos.com /blogs /rogerolson /2012/10/ what-about-those-old-testament-texts-of-terror-a-review-of-an-almostnew-book-by-philip-jenkins/.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

Know what you believe and why you believe it. BRINGING THE RICH RESOURCES OF THE REFORMATION TO THE HALLWAY OF MERE CHRISTIANITY. C. S. Lewis famously remarked that “mere Christianity” is like a hallway where real conversations between Christians of different convictions can begin and develop over time as we emerge from our various rooms to speak of Christ and his gospel to one another. For twenty years, White Horse Inn has hosted this conversation both on our radio show, White Horse Inn, and in our magazine, Modern Reformation.

TO L E A R N M OR E , O R BR OW SE O UR R ADIO AND MAGAZI N E ARCHI VE S, VISIT US AT W H I T E HORSE IN N.ORG.

book reviews 48 “They had no grand gestures of philanthropy or goodness to their name, but rather they were always faithful in small things.”

45 MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential BY N. T. WRIGHT HarperOne, 2013 200 pages (hardback), $22.99

“

find it impossible,” says N. T. Wright, “to imagine a growing and maturing church or Christian doing without the Psalms. And that is why (to be frank) a fair amount of contemporary Christian music has worried me for some time” (165). In this latest offering from Tom Wright, both individual Christian devotion and corporate worship are subject to redirection by the Word of God in the Psalter. But this is not your standard appeal to the Psalms for pointers on biblical worship, or a plea to increase spiritual intimacy by way of the Bible’s poetic devices. Instead, Wright’s book brings a surprisingly fresh approach to the Psalms through a range of covenantal considerations, narrating the history of the divine work of redemption in Jesus Christ, utilizing an articulation of the overlapping dimensions (earth/heaven, time/eternity, matter/spirit) of our one reality as a foil by which to call the church to dwell in the crossroads where the Lord stands for us. The book itself is the result of a plenary address presented at the 2012 Calvin College Symposium on Worship (available on YouTube). It begins with a conceptual approach to presenting the suitableness and efficacy of the Psalms for saving, sanctifying, and liturgical graces by arguing that the Psalms entreat us to live at the crossroads where human time, space, and matter intersect with God’s time, space, and matter. Wright puts it this way: “The Psalms, I want to suggest here, are songs and poems that help us not to just understand this most ancient and relevant worldview but actually to inhabit and celebrate it—this worldview in which, contrary to most modern assumptions, God’s time and ours overlap and intersect, God’s space and ours overlap and interlock, and even…the sheer material world of God’s creation is infused, suffused, and

“THE PSALMS…ARE SONGS AND POEMS THAT HELP US NOT TO JUST UNDERSTAND THIS MOST ANCIENT AND RELEVANT WORLDVIEW BUT ACTUALLY TO INHABIT AND CELEBRATE IT.” flooded with God’s own life and love and glory” (22). Consequently, God’s Word and the sacraments matter deeply, but so does everything else that takes place in the worship environment and the individual Christian’s devotional and vocational life. Wright has a masterful ability to convey these weighty theological truths through memorable turns of phrase easily digestible by nontechnicians and even children. Readers will find the “time, space, and matter” device convincing and effective in conveying the worldview content of the Psalms and how that worldview is in fact our reality, notwithstanding the dictates of competing philosophies. Subsequent chapters unfold the mystery of living an authentically human life in the midst of the crossroads where God himself is present speaking and acting through the Son but also the Spirit. The psalmists are persons seeking grace, longing for mercy, basking in the presence of God, and struggling with sin, anger, pride, loneliness, and a myriad of other emotions and states of mind. The Lord ministers to us through divine hymnody:

“The Psalms give every indication that they stand intentionally at the intersection of God’s time and human time, with all the tensions that brings as well as the yearning for resolution” (29). The resolution is life in Christ. Christ is the resolution. Christ is the solution. The christocentrism of The Case for the Psalms is altogether laudable: “[The Psalms] resonate with Jesus because he was the one who stood, by divine appointment, precisely at the intersection of God’s time and ours, of God’s space and ours, of God’s matter and ours” (30). Wright boldly reiterates the Jesus hermeneutic of Luke 24:44 and John 5:39, arguing that the story the Psalms tell is the story Jesus came to complete. Indeed, they are most properly understood as the story of Jesus Christ himself representative of Israel as their rightful king, but also all those who come under the scope of his sovereign dominion. There is no shortage of scriptural substantiation to Wright’s presentation of the Jesus hermeneutic. He guides the reader through approximately one hundred of the one hundred and fifty psalms through which we see that God’s (re)solution to the human predicament is the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Applied to the believer, Christ challenges the reader of the Psalms to a different way of understanding—namely, living within the narrative of the crossroads that he occupies. Early in the book, Wright juxtaposes an Epicurean depiction of “god” so prevalent today that does not at all comport with the Hebrew Scriptures or Christian theology. The God of the Bible is not an aloof Epicurean concept or deist ideal. YHWH makes himself known as the orchestrator God, not an interventionist. He is presently active in the world today, supremely in the church, applying the means of grace, and sanctifying his saints. Readers will be inspired by Wright’s articulation of the doctrine of divine providence and then be directed to worship and the means of grace. The Case for the Psalms addresses devotional and liturgical dimensions of Christian thinking and living and is to be used in both areas. But it is

also substantially theological in categories that resonate with Lutherans and Calvinists. Wright makes a proper distinction between worship as a response and duty (law) and what the Lord does for us (gospel). So, too, Reformed theological categories of covenant are amply present and, indeed, set the framework for Wright’s presentation of Jesus’ fulfillment of Adam’s covenantal responsibilities, as well as Israel’s. Wright concludes with an autobiographical account of his own history with the Psalms, testifying to the effect that they have been formative at daily and key junctures within his life. They only could be so, he says, because the rhythm of his devotional life revolves around engaging the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in and through the Psalter, encourand that practice was encour aged, reinforced, and exemplified through corporate worship: Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of faith). To be sure, this is a welcome addition to his recent general reading audience publications under the HarperOne imprint, including the commendable Simply Jesus (2011) and How God Became King (2012). Laypersons, pastors, and neophytes to Christianity will find it useful, tasteful, and undeniably inspirational.

John J. Bombaro (PhD, King’s College London) is senior priest at Grace Lutheran Church, San Diego, and teaches at the University of San Diego. He is the author of Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality (Pickwick, 2012).

Why Cities Matter: To God, the Culture, and the Church BY STEPHEN T. UM AND JUSTIN BUZZARD Crossway, 2013 176 pages (paperback), $11.90

hy Cities Matter: To God, the Culture, and the Church, by Stephen T. Um and Justin Buzzard, announces a lofty goal on its back cover: To be “a comprehensive analysis… MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

[that] answers questions including why cities are so important, what the Bible says about cities, how to overcome common issues and develop a plan for living missionally in the city.” In the first two chapters, Um and Buzzard seek to articulate what cities are and why they are important. Their tools of measurement would seem to be census information about population and economics. The cities are where the people are—and where people will be in greater numbers—and the church needs to follow. This point has merit. The last century has witnessed increased urbanization, and the new urbanites need the church no less than their ex-urban fellows. However, Um and Buzzard argue that cities are especially valuable for economic and cultural reasons. In their first chapter, “The Importance of Cities,” they describe “what makes a city a city” in terms of power and culture—by —by which they mean primarily economic influence. While they acknowledge that “places with higher economic output” do not necessarily have “more intrinsic value,” they insist on the very same page that “economic importance” and “concentration of power” illustrate “the importance of cities in our world today” (29). As a natural outgrowth of Um and Buzzard’s emphasis on the economic significance of cities, Why Cities Matter focuses much of its attention on the middle and upper-middle class, professionals, and the upwardly mobile. The majority of their examples and anecdotes (e.g., pages 21–22, 32–33, and 93–94) deal exclusively with young members of these groups. Cities, however, are not simply the home of

young professionals. The working poor, the unemployed, the aging, and the uneducated also live in cities, though they are conspicuous here by their absence in Um and Buzzard’s account. This unbalanced treatment of the people who live in cities creates an almost disquieting narrative. It suggests that the people who count (most) are the young, the beautiful, and the powerful—these are the people you want in your urban church, and the reason that cities matter. The disadvantaged, jobless, dropouts, and misfits young and old may exist, but where are they in this account of the city, especially since there is a concentration of these demographics in the city? This subtle focus seems to reveal more of contemporary culture’s perspective than Scripture’s. Um and Buzzard do not simply present these qualities and classes as evidence, but explain the mechanics of urban matsignificance. Cities mat ter because they have a creativmonopoly on creativ ity and innovation, two terms that permeate depenthe book. These terms demonstrate the depen dency of Why Cities Matter on questionable cultural assumptions. Their use rests on the presumption that innovation is self-evidently virtuous in the age of the iPhone and Google Glasses—appealing to modern Americans who have never entirely abandoned a vaguely progressive and postmillennialist notion of history. However, Scripture does not clearly support the idea of innovation as a good in itself. If anything, in addressing theology and doctrine the New Testament demonstrates the importance of holding fast, which doesn’t mean that innovation

“IN SUM, THE AUTHORS INSIST THAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH HAS SOMETHING TO SAY TO THE CITY— SOMETHING IMPORTANT, SOMETHING ‘COUNTERCULTURAL.’” is bad; but it does suggest that Christians ought to be sensitive to the ambiguities of innovation and hesitant to accept it uncritically as an intrinsic good. Fortunately, the authors do acknowledge on pages 52–53 that the products of the city’s “engine” of creativity and innovation can be sinful and destructive. Chapters 5 and 6 deal most directly with the topic of human sinfulness and the doctrine of sin. The question to be asked here is whether the authors present a complete picture of sin in all its aspects, and whether they give the impression that they are wary to rub against the cultural grain as a result. They make much of idolatry as a frame for understanding sin (which makes sense given the influence of Tim Keller on their work), insisting that “until we identify the idols in our lives, we will feel enslaved, exhausted, and unhappy.” But with this emphasis predominating, the result is an incomplete picture of the human condition. Absent from Um and Buzzard’s account, except in the most passing references, is any sense of sin as an act of rebellion against God. What’s missing isn’t simply the ethical dimension of sin, but recognition that sin affects anyone outside the individual. The language of idolatry, as it is employed here, reinforces this. It keeps the focus on the individual’s internal state and minimizes both the way that sin affects

other people and the extent to which many sinful acts are directed against others. How then can we promote churches that preach a countercultural gospel and model a healthy community if we can’t free ourselves from individualism in our account of that very gospel? Many of the specifics of Why Cities Matter make sense in light of a few key remarks in the book’s introduction. There the authors complain that “much Christian literature about the city has focused on inner-city problems,” and that “cities have been portrayed as places of problem, rather than places of opportunity and blessedness.” They describe one of their goals as showing that “the city is a wonderful, dynamic, exciting, and healthy place for people to live, work, and make a difference.” In short, Um and Buzzard want to make cities look attractive. The book is about opportunity, the opportunity of the city for the upwardly mobile. Perhaps this explains the one-sidedness of their exploration of the dynamics of the city. Topics such as the working poor don’t fit well with the aims of the book. In sum, the authors insist that the Christian faith has something to say to the city—something important, something “countercultural.” Unfortunately, Um and Buzzard prove not to be very countercultural. They rely on measures of economic success and power in their arguments about the unique opportunities that cities now afford the church, giving undue attention to the successful and upwardly mobile in the process. Further, they seem to take innovation as a self-evident good in their explanation of why cities are important. Finally, it even strikes this reader that they focus on a therapeutic understanding of sin in their discussion of the gospel challenge to these cities, one that only halfheartedly challenges narratives of autonomous individualism. In my view, Why Cities Matter doesn’t make a compelling case because it uncritically accepts the same contemporary orientation to the city from which many urban problems themselves spring.

Leslie A. Brown is a writer and teacher of U.S. history living in the shadow of one of America’s major cities. She intends to pursue graduate studies in history, with an emphasis on issues relating to childhood and parenting in twentieth-century America.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

BOOK REVIEWS

The Little Way of Ruthie Leming: A Southern Girl, a Small Town, and the Secret of a Good Life BY ROD DREHER Grand Central, 2013 288 pages (hardback), $19.61

n July of this year, the parody news network The Onion ran an article titled “Unambitious Loser with Happy, Fulfilling Life Still Lives in Hometown.” It was a marvelous piece of satirical journalism focusing on society’s disdain for people who “settle” for a “boring” life of meaningful relationships and healthy work-life balance. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time voicing her own disdain for “ordinary” lifestyles, it was a good jab at my own ideas of success and significance—an experience slightly akin to what Rod Dreher describes in his book, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming. Rod and his sister, Ruthie Dreher Leming, were the fifth generation of their family to be born in Starhill, Louisiana, a tiny town just outside of Baton Rouge. While Rod spent much of his time with his well-traveled aunts, reading books, and learning about Europe, Ruthie spent her time with her father fishing and hunting. While they do love one another, their personality differences make communicating that love very difficult, and when Rod leaves home for boarding school, and ultimately for New York to begin a career as a journalist, it marks a definitive transition in his relationship with his sister and father, both of whom feel rejected by his move. While Ruthie chooses to marry her high school

sweetheart, stay at home, and raise a family, Rod is living in metropolitan areas writing for The New York Post and making a name for himself in journalism. As time passes, they maintain their relationship, but on a superficial level. Although she does not want to discuss it, Ruthie resents Rod’s abandonment of their hometown. Dreher’s relationship with his family comes to a head when he and his wife Julie find out that Ruthie has malignant carcinoma—a form of lung cancer so advanced that she has only months left to live. During the remaining two years of her life, he and his young family fly back and forth to Louisiana, ostensibly to support his dying sister and her family, but ultimately to attempt to heal the breach. The resolution never comes lifeduring his sister’s life time—his attempts at genuine reconciliation are acknowledged and appreciated, but never fully realized. Yet in spite of their inability to move forward, their time together and his reacquaintance with his hometown allow him to neighsee her and their neigh bors in a new light. The monotonous, plodding community he ran away from is galvanized by his sister’s illness, and the community rallies to raise $43,000 to help the narLemings with Ruthie’s medical bills. The nar row-minded people who bullied him show up in droves to clean their home, help their aging parents, and take care of their children. In the wake of her untimely death, he comes to see his sister’s mundane, unremarkable life as something genuinely extraordinary and meaningful. She wasn’t brilliant, won no awards, and never walked a red carpet, but her life as a wife, mother, teacher, and

friend impacted more people in a more profound way than Rod with his high-powered, public career: The love that had sustained Ruthie through her cancer…came from somewhere. Like Ruthie, my mother and father have cultivated it, in this little patch of ground, all their lives. They had no grand gestures of philanthropy or goodness to their name, but rather they were always faithful in small things. As he reflects on the vast effects of simple fidelity to common responsibilities, he begins to question his own priorities and the life he’s built with his family in Philadelphia. His wife shares his concerns, and while they agree that the opportunities for themselves and their children are greater on the East Coast, they don’t compare with the value of living with their family and building on the strong roots of Starhill. Preparing himself for jibes about toothless, cousin-marrying relatives in the Appalachian Mountains, he breaks the news to his friends that he’s moving his family back home. The almost universal response is one of approval and encouragement, even envy. One friend writes: “Everything I’ve done has been for career advancement. Go for the money, the good jobs. And we have done well. But we are alone in the world,” he said. “Almost everybody we know is like that. My family is all over the country. My kids only call if they want something. People like us, when we get old, our kids can’t move back to care for us if they wanted to because we all go off to some golf resort to retire. This is the world we have made for ourselves. I envy you that you get to escape it.” Of course, it’s not all love and barbecue under the pecan groves. Rod’s complicated relationship with his family has consequences, and they bear themselves out in the transition to Louisiana. He has a hard time comforting his nieces who, due to their mother’s oft-voiced disapproval, don’t trust or like him. His father begins to drink and give way to melancholy, hurting both his son and his wife, and Rod begins to see the same destructive patterns that dominated his and Ruthie’s childhood emerging in his own sons. But there is also intimacy and

“THE LITTLE WAY OF RUTHIE LEMING ENCOURAGES US TO TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK AT OUR DEFINITION OF ‘HIGH,’ AND TO BEAR IN MIND THAT WHAT IS ENDURING IS NOT ALWAYS GLAMOROUS.” reconciliation, particularly with his father, who after a while speaks openly about his own deep regrets of sacrificing his wife’s happiness and his own dreams in order to stay in Starhill. As much as Dreher writes about the value of domestic stability and generational community, he is careful to articulate the danger in idolizing home and family. It was here that my admiration and respect for him as a writer grew—he paints accurate portraits of his family, but with loving strokes. He’s open about his own sins, but not unrestrained. He gives us a careful, nuanced story of his journey home, and I was grateful for the kindly, respectful manner in which he told it. Christians today are every bit as likely to feel the call of the big city and great aspirations. Joel Osteen, Oprah, and Tony Robbins tell us that God didn’t create us to be average but that he wants us to make our mark on this generation. While there’s nothing wrong with aiming high, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming encourages us to take a careful look at our definition of “high,” and to bear in mind that what is enduring is not always glamorous—that success does not always mean celebrity.

Brooke Ventura is assistant editor of Modern Reformation.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

GEEK S QUAD

CHRISTENDOM

by RYAN GLOMSRUD

rom Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the “earth” as it was then known, the gospel went forth in the early decades and centuries of the new millennium, and daily many were added to the community of saints. From the perspective of the Roman Empire, Christianity went from a persecuted movement on the fringe of society to a tolerated religious sect. But everything changed from the early fourth century with the conversion of a 40-year-old politician. In the words of one historian, Christianity was on the threshold of absorbing a whole society.1 TH E CO N V E R S IO N OF C O N STA N T IN E The politician in question, Constantine, was the son of a soldier and a well-seasoned politician by the time of his campaign to become sole ruler of the West, from Rome to surrounding regions.

As Constantine marched against other generals vying for power, he came to believe that he and his armies had the Lord on their side. Because of a prebattle vision, Constantine had his soldiers mark their shields with an X and a circle with a line running down the middle. This signified the emperor’s conversion, for he understood the Lord to have told him, “In this sign you will

Constantius II

337-361

Foundation of Constantinople

Edict against Christians

257

Sack of Rome 2

324

Constantine

410

306-337 325 312

Council of Nicaea

379-395 Theodosius I

Battle of Milvian Bridge

303

The Great Persecution

be a victor.” In effect, the shields represented an early Christian symbol for the first two letters of Christ, or “Christos” (XPI TO ) in Greek: a Chi (X or “X” in transliteration) and a Rho (P or “R” in transliteration). Indeed, Constantine took his victory on the field of battle that day—October 28, 312—and proceeded to CHI RHO enter Rome to consolidate his rule and inaugurate the religious transformation of the empire. The year following, the Edict of Milan granted religious rights to Christians in the West. By 324, Constantine was the ruler of Eastern and Western empires alike and chose as his new capital a small fishing village, slated now to become a great city, a new “Rome,” renamed from Byzantium to Constantinople after its new founder.

A “CHRI ST I A N” E MP I RE The conversion of Constantine was “preceded, for two generations, by the conversion of Christianity to the culture and ideals of the Roman world,” specifically the ideal of imperial unity. In a process of cultural coordination, Constantine, his son Constantius II, and Theodosius I progressively “forbade public sacrifices, closed temples,” and generally orchestrated the rise of a loosely theocratic “Christian” empire that came to dominate the lateancient and medieval world. “Christendom” was born; religion was not just tolerated and sanctioned, but actively promoted by the state.3 1 Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity AD 150–750 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989), 82. 2 Adapted from Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200–1000, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 39. 3 Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 74. See also Robert Louis Wilken, The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (Yale University Press, 2012).

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: FLAVITSKY, CHRISTIAN MARTYRS IN COLOSSEUM, 1862. COLOSSAL HEAD OF EMPEROR CONSTANTINE I, 4TH CENTURY AD. THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, CIRCA 1700. KERCH MISSORIUM OF CONSTANTIUS II.

MODERNREFORMATION.ORG

B A C K PA G E

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

FROM THE FATHER THE OLD TESTAMENT

IN THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

THROUGH THE SON THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE BIBLE

God’s hand in the history of Israel

TORAH

“And it came to pass in those days…”

The bold announcement of God’s Word to his people “Thus says the Lord your God…'”

Learning about God from the work of his hand in creation “Go to the ant…”

HISTORICAL WRITINGS

NEVI’IM PROPHETICAL WRITINGS

KETUVIM WISDOM LITERATURE

The Son fulfills the Father’s work in redemptive history (John 6:38) “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?”

The Son is the Messiah preached by the prophets (Luke 24) “You have heard it said… but I say it to you…”

The Son is the true wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:30) “Consider the lilies of the field…” (Matt. 6:28)

From “English Bible Survey” (unpublished course notes), by Iain M. Duguid, used with author’s permission.

TH E TH EO LO GI AN S ON THE CHRIST IAN LIFE SERIES Gaining Wisdom from the Past for Life in the Present

Coming in March! John Calvin, a legendary figure within Christian history, had much to say about the Christian life. Offering modern readers a clear look into the practical nature of Calvin’s theology, Michael Horton dives into the Reformer’s prolific writings, drawing not only on his Institutes and biblical commentaries, but also from his lesser-known tracts, treatises, and letters. Writing so as to allow Calvin to speak for himself as much as possible, Horton paints a compelling and nuanced portrait of this great Reformer, shedding valuable light not only on his own personal struggles and weaknesses, but also on Calvin’s confident trust and unwavering joy in the sovereign grace of God.

AL SO AVAIL ABLE IN THE THEOLOGIANS ON THE CHRISTIAN LIFE SERIES:

Pre-order Calvin on the Christian Life from crossway.org before February 28 and receive The Many Faces of Calvin, a complimentary e-book from White Horse Inn.

WHITE HORSE INN

WEEKEND VAIL, COLORADO

DO WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD? Equipping you to defend the bold claims of Christ in a world of religious pluralism. S E E PA G E S 1 0 - 1 1 F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N.

J U LY 24-26 2014