There is an end-game, in a
manner of speaking, to the story that is being told through the Scriptures. There is a purpose to which it all points, and
it is not simply to create a means by which people can live a certain way on
earth and go to heaven when they die. In all honesty, if that was all
there was, then one would have to wonder at the reason for all the hoopla of
God’s sending and working through of Abraham, Israel, Jesus, and the
church. What does that do to Jesus’ Resurrection? What was the
point of that? Was He resurrected and ascended into heaven just to prove
that He was God? When this occurred, did it happen simply so that we
could equate His Resurrection with our going to heaven? It all seems
rather extravagant and un-necessary if God, when it all wraps up, will have
done nothing more than saved some, condemned others, and destroyed the
world. That idea sits at quite a remarkable distance from that which seems
to be a primary focus of Scripture, which is the movement of exile and exodus
and God’s ongoing effecting of rescue of His covenant people from subjugating
forces.
Once we get our minds
attuned to the theme of God’s rescue, which is wrapped up with the
responsibility of His people to respond according to their understanding of
their covenant God and His expectations for them as they represent Him in and
for the world, we will find it on page after page of Scripture. In fact, we can march right through the
Scriptures to determine if these assertions about exile and exodus and the
attendant theme of rescue from subjugation powers (that is inherent in the idea
of exodus) truly does play out at the level which makes it a (if not the)
dominating theme of the Word of God, as through it, God reveals His plans and
purposes for the world of His creation. Indeed, it can not be too often
said that we find these things, once we are looking for them as part of the
wider context and narrative, with rapidity and regularity.
In Joshua, which is
the primary historical record of the entrance of Israel into their land of
promise, and presumably of the end of their Egyptian exile as the conclusion of
their exodus, we encounter Rahab, who, though living in Jericho amongst her
people, is truly in exile from that for which God had purposed her.
Without re-tracing the entirety of her story, we find that upon the fall of the
city, her and her family are spared. Prior to God’s intervention on her
behalf through her “encounter” with the Israelite spies, she stood under the
same sentence of condemnation as did the rest of Jericho. Exile from life
was the end which had been apportioned for her. The gracious and promised
sparing of her and her family represent their exodus into the covenant
community of the people of God. Rahab and her family experience
redemption and salvation, which are congruent terms to exodus and deliverance
from exile.
When we encounter
Achan and read about his sin, God makes it a point to speak of Israel, saying
“they have violated My covenantal commandment” (Joshua 7:11). Israel had
just been victorious over the great city of Jericho, but had been routed and
defeated by the small city of Ai. Thoughts of another period of foreign
subjugation probably began to seep into Israel’s collective
consciousness. Perhaps their God was not powerful enough to do all that
had been promised to them? Perhaps the victory at Jericho was a
fluke? Israel, in violation of the covenantal commandment in relation to
what was to be done with Jericho in its entirety, once again, though in the
land, found themselves in exile from God’s promise to subdue the whole of the
land before them. Israel had been tasked by God to purge the land of
evil, yet Achan was seizing upon that which God had said was to be devoted to
destruction. Once the evil had been purged from their midst, exodus into
the victorious carrying out of God’s purposes to purge wickedness and evil from
the land was resumed, and this temporary re-exile was reversed.
When Joshua
designates the cities of refuge, according to the command that had been given
by God through Moses, we are presented with a picture of exile and
exodus. When the person that was guilty of manslaughter fled to the city
of refuge, he would be in a state of self-imposed and unfortunate exile.
Provisions, however, were made for his eventual exodus, so that he “may return
home to the city from which he escaped” (20:6b).
No comments:
Post a Comment