(Apparently the compilers of the lectionary believe the
sensibilities of the average reader to be easily offended, they left out verses
23-29 in the reading. An old cinematic
trick, fade out on those parts and fade back with the suggestion that something
unseemly happened in the interlude.)
Did you see the other odd parallel to the life of Moses, the
less obvious one in those first verses?
"Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he stretched out the
javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction."
Remember back to Exodus 17, before
they come to Mt Sinai when they are fighting their first battle (as they are
here at Ai because God had given them Jericho without a fight) against the
Amalekites and Joshua fought the battle while Aaron and Hur held up Moses'
arms. After that battle the covenant is
struck at Sinai and here Joshua renews the covenant by writing on the stones of
the altar erected at Mt Ebal a copy of the law of Moses. They are obeying the Law by offering
sacrifices it commands. Then, the people
are divided between two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, just as they were in
Deuteronomy 27 in obedience to the command given in Deuteronomy 11. These
little parallels may seem insignificant to us but they would have been obvious signs
to the people that Joshua was a leader like Moses, that is the reason those
little details make their way into the text.
There is nothing insignificant in God's world, it is full of signs and
meaning. Do we have eyes that look for
significance?
A verdict had to be established on the testimony of more
than one witness and their testimony had to agree. We know, because the Gospels tell us, that
Jesus indeed said something about destroying and rebuilding the temple in three
days but did He actually say, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
rebuild it in three days.’? What He said
was if they destroyed the temple He could rebuild it in three days. The first part of their testimony wasn't
true, He wasn't offering to destroy the temple at all. Jesus, however, doesn't defend himself
against this false accusation and allows it to become the spark that ignites
the flame. His statements to the high
priest regarding whether He is the Christ and that from now on they will see
Him at the right hand of power make clear that He is claiming equality with God
and if so, and if it is untrue, it is certainly blasphemy. Now, they have something for which to convict
and crucify Him.
Is Paul saying that we should abstain from things we have no
reason to believe are "unclean" or sinful for us? I am certain that he isn't suggesting we
should allow the conscience of the most "Puritan" among us to dictate
what we do but he is saying that we should be careful that these things not
cause that other brother or sister to stumble.
Love should be the guiding principle in all that we do and nothing is
too small to consider in this regard.
Eating and drinking may be a small thing to us but for that other it
might be a great stumbling block and we should be willing to forego our own
freedom for the sake of the other when necessary. Small things, small acts of love or obedience
can have great consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment