03/08/08: Joshua 16-24
I thought most of (the end of Joshua) was sort of boring--the division of the land.
Ted: Yes, it is boring for the average readers like you and me. But, historically, the precise divisions of the land are very critical. God gave the Israelites all of that land as part of an everlasting covenant. Later they forfeited the land (due to disobedience). But, as of 1948, the land became Israel's again. Anyone who says that the land doesn't belong to descendants of the original Israelites (for instance, Islam insists on this) is absolutely wrong.
Basically, all of human history is leading up to end-time events, which will involve various factions (mostly Islamic) trying to wipe out the Israelites. If they're gone, then God's everlasting covenant of land with them becomes null and void, by default. Therefore, prophecy dictates that the enemies of the Israelites will attack, run over, and destroy most of them. But a remnant will remain, and that remnant will receive the land promised to them, by God, when Jesus returns back to earth to destroy their enemies.
I thought the interesting part was the altar the people who stayed on the other side of the river had built.
Ted: Yes, I think the average reader initially tends to side with the 9½ tribes on the west, thinking that the 2½ tribes on the east have "flipped their lids" and have decided to return to idol worship. But after they explain why the built the altar, their reasoning makes total sense.
Also I saw a famous quote, "But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."
Ted: I bet most people don't even realize that this actually comes from the Bible--specifically, Joshua 24:15.
Ted: Yes, it is boring for the average readers like you and me. But, historically, the precise divisions of the land are very critical. God gave the Israelites all of that land as part of an everlasting covenant. Later they forfeited the land (due to disobedience). But, as of 1948, the land became Israel's again. Anyone who says that the land doesn't belong to descendants of the original Israelites (for instance, Islam insists on this) is absolutely wrong.
Basically, all of human history is leading up to end-time events, which will involve various factions (mostly Islamic) trying to wipe out the Israelites. If they're gone, then God's everlasting covenant of land with them becomes null and void, by default. Therefore, prophecy dictates that the enemies of the Israelites will attack, run over, and destroy most of them. But a remnant will remain, and that remnant will receive the land promised to them, by God, when Jesus returns back to earth to destroy their enemies.
I thought the interesting part was the altar the people who stayed on the other side of the river had built.
Ted: Yes, I think the average reader initially tends to side with the 9½ tribes on the west, thinking that the 2½ tribes on the east have "flipped their lids" and have decided to return to idol worship. But after they explain why the built the altar, their reasoning makes total sense.
Also I saw a famous quote, "But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."
Ted: I bet most people don't even realize that this actually comes from the Bible--specifically, Joshua 24:15.
03/07/08: Joshua 13-15
Chapter 14:
Caleb exclaims that he's 85 years old like it's noteworthy--are average ages beginning to fall by now, compared with the hundreds of years people would live previously?
Ted: I think that the lifespans of people were dropping. For instance, Moses died at 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7), and Joshua died at 110 (Joshua 24:29).
In the case you cited, though, I think that Caleb was making the point that even at his age (85 is no "spring chicken"), he still was as strong at that time as he had been the day Moses sent him out to scout out the promised land as a young man, and he also was just as vigorous to go into battle as he had been back then (Joshua 14:10,11).
Caleb exclaims that he's 85 years old like it's noteworthy--are average ages beginning to fall by now, compared with the hundreds of years people would live previously?
Ted: I think that the lifespans of people were dropping. For instance, Moses died at 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7), and Joshua died at 110 (Joshua 24:29).
In the case you cited, though, I think that Caleb was making the point that even at his age (85 is no "spring chicken"), he still was as strong at that time as he had been the day Moses sent him out to scout out the promised land as a young man, and he also was just as vigorous to go into battle as he had been back then (Joshua 14:10,11).
03/06/08: Joshua 10-12
Chapter 12:
Why is Manasseh a half-tribe? What does that mean anyway?
Ted: It is confusing to me as well. First of all, we know that Joseph was the son of Jacob who provided for his father and brothers (after they had mistreated him) when the Israelites went to Egypt. As a result, Joseph was doubly blessed, and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh each were considered to be a tribe (Numbers 1:10). Even in their arrangement in the tribal camps, the people of Ephraim and the people of Manasseh had their own separate places in the camp (2:18-21). Thus, since the people of Manasseh were "half" of the tribe of Joseph (with Ephraim being the other "half"), then they can be considered the half-tribe of Manasseh.
In Joshua 12:6, it shows that the land to the east of the Jordan was given to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. However, 13:7 refers to "half of the tribe of Manasseh," and 13:8 says "The other half of Manasseh...." Furthermore, 13:29 reads, "This is what Moses had given to the half-tribe of Manasseh, that is, to half the family of the descendants of Manasseh, clan by clan...." So, from these examples, it would seem that the "half tribe of Manasseh" means "half of the tribe of Manasseh."
Yet, Joshua 14:1-3 indicates that, in the land of Canaan (west of the Jordan), "nine-and-a-half tribes" received their inheritance, because "two-and-a-half tribes" had received their inheritance east of the Jordan. From this, it would seem that the entire tribe of Manasseh--that is, one of the two tribes of Joseph (14:4)--had received its inheritance east of the Jordan.
However, Joshua 21:5 mentions the "half of Manasseh," and this is in land west of the Jordan. The same thing is true in 21:25. Joshua 22:7 "cinches" it by showing that half of Manasseh received land on one side of the Jordan, and the other half of Manasseh received land on the other side. Therefore, "half-tribe of Manasseh" means "half of the tribe of Manasseh," which itself was one of two tribes (along with Ephraim) in the tribe of Joseph.
Why is Manasseh a half-tribe? What does that mean anyway?
Ted: It is confusing to me as well. First of all, we know that Joseph was the son of Jacob who provided for his father and brothers (after they had mistreated him) when the Israelites went to Egypt. As a result, Joseph was doubly blessed, and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh each were considered to be a tribe (Numbers 1:10). Even in their arrangement in the tribal camps, the people of Ephraim and the people of Manasseh had their own separate places in the camp (2:18-21). Thus, since the people of Manasseh were "half" of the tribe of Joseph (with Ephraim being the other "half"), then they can be considered the half-tribe of Manasseh.
In Joshua 12:6, it shows that the land to the east of the Jordan was given to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. However, 13:7 refers to "half of the tribe of Manasseh," and 13:8 says "The other half of Manasseh...." Furthermore, 13:29 reads, "This is what Moses had given to the half-tribe of Manasseh, that is, to half the family of the descendants of Manasseh, clan by clan...." So, from these examples, it would seem that the "half tribe of Manasseh" means "half of the tribe of Manasseh."
Yet, Joshua 14:1-3 indicates that, in the land of Canaan (west of the Jordan), "nine-and-a-half tribes" received their inheritance, because "two-and-a-half tribes" had received their inheritance east of the Jordan. From this, it would seem that the entire tribe of Manasseh--that is, one of the two tribes of Joseph (14:4)--had received its inheritance east of the Jordan.
However, Joshua 21:5 mentions the "half of Manasseh," and this is in land west of the Jordan. The same thing is true in 21:25. Joshua 22:7 "cinches" it by showing that half of Manasseh received land on one side of the Jordan, and the other half of Manasseh received land on the other side. Therefore, "half-tribe of Manasseh" means "half of the tribe of Manasseh," which itself was one of two tribes (along with Ephraim) in the tribe of Joseph.
03/05/08: Joshua 7-9
Chapter 7:
Did they stone/burn Achan's entire family?
Ted: Yes. In Joshua 7:25, it says that "all Israel stoned him"; then it adds "and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them." They stoned Achan, then they stoned the rest of his family, and then they burned their bodies. Notice that God attributed Achan's sin to all of the Israelites (7:1). Without this sacrifice of Achan's family, God probably would have sent another plague through the Israelites and killed thousands of them (such as in Numbers 16:46-49).
Remember, it is blood that makes atonement for one's life (Leviticus 17:11). Often after an animal was sacrificed as a sin offering, it was burned (for instance, 23:12). In the case of Achan's sin, it had to be the death of people, rather than animals, that would appease God's anger.
In a sense, this is exactly the opposite of what happened to Rahab, the prostitute, and her family. Because of her faithfulness, all of Rahab's family was spared along with her (Joshua 6:23-25). These examples portray two facets of God's character: wrath (as a punishment for unbelief and disobedience) and mercy (as a reward for faith and allegiance). Anyone who does not understand that God possesses both of these extremes simply does not have a grasp on the full, complex nature of God.
Did they stone/burn Achan's entire family?
Ted: Yes. In Joshua 7:25, it says that "all Israel stoned him"; then it adds "and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them." They stoned Achan, then they stoned the rest of his family, and then they burned their bodies. Notice that God attributed Achan's sin to all of the Israelites (7:1). Without this sacrifice of Achan's family, God probably would have sent another plague through the Israelites and killed thousands of them (such as in Numbers 16:46-49).
Remember, it is blood that makes atonement for one's life (Leviticus 17:11). Often after an animal was sacrificed as a sin offering, it was burned (for instance, 23:12). In the case of Achan's sin, it had to be the death of people, rather than animals, that would appease God's anger.
In a sense, this is exactly the opposite of what happened to Rahab, the prostitute, and her family. Because of her faithfulness, all of Rahab's family was spared along with her (Joshua 6:23-25). These examples portray two facets of God's character: wrath (as a punishment for unbelief and disobedience) and mercy (as a reward for faith and allegiance). Anyone who does not understand that God possesses both of these extremes simply does not have a grasp on the full, complex nature of God.
03/04/08: Joshua 3-6
In 5:13, who is this guy? What is he doing?
Ted: I think it was a physical manifestation of God (that is, the pre-incarnate Jesus). Remember in Exodus 4:24-26 that the Lord appeared and was about to kill Moses (or his son--it isn't really clear which). This was because his son was uncircumcised, thus breaking the Abrahamic covenant. Moses' wife Zipporah immediately circumcised her son, so the Lord let them alone.
In Joshua 5:13, the issue wasn't circumcision, because all the Israelite men had just been circumcised. However, God considered the new, promised land beyond the Jordan River to be holy and sacred. So He appeared, big as life and very intimidating. He instructed Joshua to remove his sandals. It's like God makes a "big deal" sometimes about being respected and honored, just to make a point that He is the one in charge.
Ted: I think it was a physical manifestation of God (that is, the pre-incarnate Jesus). Remember in Exodus 4:24-26 that the Lord appeared and was about to kill Moses (or his son--it isn't really clear which). This was because his son was uncircumcised, thus breaking the Abrahamic covenant. Moses' wife Zipporah immediately circumcised her son, so the Lord let them alone.
In Joshua 5:13, the issue wasn't circumcision, because all the Israelite men had just been circumcised. However, God considered the new, promised land beyond the Jordan River to be holy and sacred. So He appeared, big as life and very intimidating. He instructed Joshua to remove his sandals. It's like God makes a "big deal" sometimes about being respected and honored, just to make a point that He is the one in charge.
03/03/08: Joshua 1-3
What do you think "in a heap" means? Similar to what happens behind a dam? I wonder why the water pooled "far away"?
Ted: The water's being heaped up just means that it was "stacked" or "piled" up on itself. I think the word for "heap" is more correctly translated "wall." I've wondered myself why this was done far upstream from where the Israelites crossed.
Possibly it had something to do with the fact that the Jordan River was at flood stage (Joshua 3:15). Maybe wherever the water was heaped up, the water, continuing to flow from upstream to that point and needing somewhere to go, spilled out onto the land in that area and caused even greater flooding. Therefore, for the Israelites to avoid that extra flooding, they were told to cross further downstream where the flooding was less.
Ted: The water's being heaped up just means that it was "stacked" or "piled" up on itself. I think the word for "heap" is more correctly translated "wall." I've wondered myself why this was done far upstream from where the Israelites crossed.
Possibly it had something to do with the fact that the Jordan River was at flood stage (Joshua 3:15). Maybe wherever the water was heaped up, the water, continuing to flow from upstream to that point and needing somewhere to go, spilled out onto the land in that area and caused even greater flooding. Therefore, for the Israelites to avoid that extra flooding, they were told to cross further downstream where the flooding was less.
