Lecture 29.docx

Alright, well in the prayer we talked about judges, but before we come to judges, let's just complete our discussion of Joshua. And in Joshua chapter 2 we have what I might call the lay person's greatest interpretive challenge with the book of Joshua. I'm not so sure that they're going to ask you ab...

Alright, well in the prayer we talked about judges, but before we come to judges, let's just complete our discussion of Joshua. And in Joshua chapter 2 we have what I might call the lay person's greatest interpretive challenge with the book of Joshua. I'm not so sure that they're going to ask you about the nature of Israel's conquest nor even the land promises and their relationship to the Abrahamic covenants. As I preach through Joshua and I've done it twice in my pastoral history, I think people got interested in that as we got into those issues, but they weren't really live issues. Obviously, as we talked about last time, they do talk about God's commandments against the Canaanites. But really where your people live, move, and have their being is in trying to deal with the historical narrative of Joshua chapter 2. Certainly no one denies the fact that here we see Rahab's great declaration of faith. Rahab is motivated according to our own words recorded in verse 9. I know, she tells the spies, I know that the Lord, I know that Yahweh has given you the land and that the terror of you has fallen on us and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. Notice I know Yahweh has given you the land. I know that we are going to be defeated. I know that we Canaanites are going to lose the land and you Israelites are going to gain it. I know that this is what is going to take place. Now it is interesting to contrast what she says then in verse 9, the rest of verse 9, with the original spies. Isn't it significant? She is saying this to spies, two spies that have been sent by Joshua to get reconnaissance of what is taking place in Jericho. By the way, at the end of the day, he really didn't need that information because his strategy is going to come from the Lord himself in chapter 5. But he didn't know that. And so the Lord himself had called and commanded Moses to send out spies to spy out the land. And so Joshua, there is no indication. Here he had a direct commandment from the Lord, the head of Moses. But again, he is following the pattern of Moses. As we talked about last week, here is another place we see that Joshua is a second Moses. Moses sent out spies. Joshua sends out spies. And he has learned a lesson. He sends them out secretly and asks them to return with the information. It is not a public sending and they are not going to come back and give their report to the whole nation. I think Joshua has learned enough of what might take place from Numbers chapter 14 if the whole nation hears what the spies might find out. But certainly he is acting here like a Moses and certainly is not a prophet. He doesn't know what the Lord is going to do in a few days as recorded in Joshua chapter 5. So it is interesting that we can see some echoes of that spying mission of Numbers 13 and 14 that had taken place approximately 40 years earlier, 39 years earlier. And it is interesting that 10 of the spies that come back, in fact all of the spies, that outwardly the Canaanites looked as though they were undefeatable. That they were tall, they were in fortresses, they had armaments that the Israelites did not have, that if we go in and try to take Canaan we will be destroyed. Right here is Rahab giving a whole different slant that the spies of Numbers 13 did not see. They looked at the outward circumstances and said, we are defeated. But internally the Canaanites had heard what God had done to the Egyptians and they were defeated. As Rahab says, all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. We are afraid of you. We know that we do not have the strength to withstand your God. For verse 10, we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea. And notice what you did to the two kings of the Amorites. We heard what took place 40 years ago, we heard what took place a few months ago. And when we heard again verse 11, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you. Therefore, Rahab appeals for mercy, that she be spared, that her life be spared. Now remember the average Canaanite did what? Knowing that Israel's God was the supreme God, Israel's God had given the Israelites the land and the Canaanites were a defeated foe, their fear did not lead them like Rahab to appeal for mercy. They withstood Yahweh. Rahab and her family are the only Canaanites that are recorded in the book of Joshua as through their knowledge of Yahweh coming to a living faith in him. And of course, because God is the one who knocks down the walls in chapter 6 and only that portion of the wall where Rahab's house was found was left standing, it truly was Yahweh himself who delivered her and her family. It wasn't the spies, it wasn't Israel. In fact, the spies do not make any guarantee to Rahab. All right, that's all background but it's not the issue. The issue is not Rahab's faith, not Rahab's appeal for mercy and for sparing of her life, but it is the fact that she tells a lie. This was a little earlier on as the spies come, they come to our house in verse 1 and in verse 2 it was told, the king of Jericho saying, Behold the men from the sons of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land. And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab saying, Bring out the men who come to you and who have entered your house, for they have come to search out the land. Now the narrator tells us the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. Yet she says to the king, Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. She knows exactly where they're from, from her own words, the betrayer in verse 9 and following. And more than that, because the narrator has told us that she had hid the two men, she goes on to compound, I don't know where they are from, and it came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, the men went out and I did not know where the men went. Interestingly, I don't know where they came from, I don't know where they're gone. I can say it sounds like a politician, but that would be to make politicians look good. But here she is, I don't know where they were from, I don't know where they're gone, I don't know anything. And pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them. But the narrator adds in verse 6, she brought them up on the roof and hid them in the stalks of flax, where she had laid in order, she had laid in order on the roof. So the men pursued them on the road to the Jordan. And as soon as they, if pursuing them had gone out, they shut the gate. Obviously to keep the spies from returning, but the spies were still in the city. Well if a lie are words that do not conform to reality, Rahab told a lie. I say that because Ruhstras, and he really gives no further explanation, says, well what Rahab really said should not be called, considered a lie. Well I don't know what your definition of a lie is. If your definition of a lie is words that are opposed to reality, Rahab told a lie. And she knowingly told it. She knew what she had done. She knew what the truth was. And she uttered words that do not conform. She knew who the men were from, she knew exactly where they were. And the narrator makes it very, very clear, beginning of verse 4 and again in verse 6, that what she said, the words he records are directly in opposition to the reality of the events that he states took place historically. You can also go with Davis, and again his, both Wister and Davis have written great commentaries. No one would say this is an easy situation to deal with. But he says the emphasis of the narrative is on Rahab's testimony, not her lie. And it's true. If you see all of the words, verses 9 to, all the way down to verse 13, that are basically dealing with her testimony and appeal for her life, we see those amount of words compared to the words she says at the end of verse 4 and in verse 5. Obviously, more words are given to her testimony, more words are given to her faith and her ultimate salvation than are given to her lie. So we can all agree with Davis, yeah, the emphasis of the text is on her faith. It's on her testimony. It's not on her lie. The problem is we're not dealing with emphasis. We still have to deal with the reality that there is a lie that has been told. So D and E really are non-answers to the dilemma. Now obviously we have met this problem before. We've met the problem in Exodus chapter 1, the two midwives that feared the Lord and, you know, so at least bent the truth to Pharaoh. And of course we have the dilemma we will not deal with, but also in 1 Samuel chapter 16 where even the Lord himself confirms to Samuel that he can say that he is going to Bethlehem to conduct sacrifices when really the main reason he was going was to anoint David as king. And since that did not sit well with Saul, Samuel was afraid to go and so the Lord himself says well say you're going to offer sacrifices. Now obviously as a Levi we've seen previously when we get to Samuel that he did offer sacrifices, but that was not the main reason he was going. So there's almost a sense there that those words are designed to deceive just as the words of the midwives were designed to deceive Pharaoh and certainly here the words of Rahab were designed to deceive the king of Jericho. So there are lies that lead to deception. And of course it's within a judicial context, but when you take a look at the ten words, the ninth of those words is you're not to bear false witness, you're not to give false testimony in court. In other words your words should conform to what happened historically. Alright so D&E are non-answers and so how has the lie of Rahab been understood? Majority position both within the Jewish and Christian tradition is A. And I would say all things taken, the same thing true in Exodus 1 and even in 1 Samuel 16. Certainly here it is the faith that is commended which does not mean the lie is condoned, though obviously the lie itself also springs out of Rahab's faith. Why is she protecting the spies? Why is she deceiving the king of Jericho? What's her decision? Is she now submitting to the authority of the king of Jericho or is she now bringing herself under the authority of Yahweh, God of Israel? And the answer is very very clear, a faith commitment has now been made to Yahweh. That is why she is protecting, this is why she is guarding and saving and delivering these men. And so the usual position is that the lie is not condoned, the means is not justified by the end. Nevertheless in a fallen world and some would even bring up at this point that Rahab, salvation really is not completed for Rahab until chapter 6 and then she will become a functioning part of Israel. So there's a sense in which that she is still being governed, if you could put it this way, by Canaanite ethics, that she is expressing herself as an unregenerate individual in the best way she can and so this is not giving any condoning to believers that they should lie. It's the faith that is commended, the lie is not condoned. And again I would say all things taken into account is probably is still the best explanation, though you're probably hearing some tenderness in my statements and I'm not coming dogmatically down because again the text does not give us enough detail to say this is the final decision. Historical narrative is all this way, it tells us what happened not what should have happened. I know some bring up well if Rahab would have told the truth in some way God would have done a miracle, that's something we cannot know. It didn't happen so we'll never know whether God would have or not, would have, should have, etc. don't fit into historical narrative. The Kaiser toward Old Testament ethics argues b that certainly in the law there were sins of a high hand and sins not of a high hand, in fact we made it very clear in Leviticus chapter 4 that certain sins could be confessed and a sacrifice offered if they were not sins of a high hand, if they were sins of a high hand, that sacrifice is not suffice. We got into the further debate where even the faculty members were not completely agreed on the day of atonement and I believe when he confessed all of Israel's sin it was all whether sins of a high hand or not, deliberate sins and undeliberate sins. And so Kaiser says within the law itself we can see that there are different kinds of sins, particularly the high handed sin and the sin that is done in ignorance. There are greater sins and lesser sins and also the fact that the consequences are not the same for every given sin in Torah. And Kaiser is right. Yes, we realize essentially any sin is missing the mark for Israel, any sin is a transgression against what God has said and it points out the sinfulness and the iniquity of his people, but that does not mean that every sin is equal as far as the degree in which it shows the rebellion, the audacity of a man and reaps the equal consequences. Now obviously one sin is enough for eternal consequences, we understand that, but the temporal consequences that come to sins are based upon their greater or lesser degree of intensity as far as also the disruption of fellowship, the chaos that takes place in one's relationship with God and others. That there are lesser and there are greater sins and Kaiser argues in this context that yes the lie is a sin, but the reason why God overlooks the lie in this context is because Rahab is forced to tell the lie because of the greater sin of the king of Jericho who refuses to respond to Yahweh with her testimony showing he obviously came to understand the greatness of Yahweh's authority compared to his gods and the fact that as king of Jericho he should have submitted to the greater God, but he didn't, he is resisting by seeking to find and probably to ultimately execute the spies, this is a war situation and he is showing his rebellion against Yahweh that is the greater sin and so Rahab and it's almost, this almost ties in also to point A is okay why is this sin but it's not just faith, why is the sin condoned, why is the sin allowed, why is the sin held against Rahab by Yahweh because he is showing his rebellion against Yahweh, he is showing his rebellion you know by Yahweh because on the divine scale it is a lesser sin and in fact she is forced into that sin by the greater sin of the king of Jericho. Or and EBC 1, Magved is the, I believe the one who wrote that, and he brings up well yes it was a lie but to see it is just recognized as a part of war, so yes the lie deceives but that's basically war ethics, she tells the truth she is going to die and he would bring up Joshua chapter 8, the Lord's own strategy that is given to Joshua of Israel, the Israelites feigning retreat to draw the army out feigning the fact that the enemy retreat to draw the army out feigning the fact that just like chapter 7 that the Canaanites were too strong for them but really that's a ruse, it doesn't conform to reality. Now it's really not a lie because you know the Israelites didn't cry out saying oh we are beaten, we are beaten, back off, back off, I mean they are just acting that way but there is a sense in which in war, by the way we are getting ready for the final games of the world series where stealing is a vital aspect of strategy, all is fair in love in baseball games, so they will try to steal signs, they will try to steal bases, it's part of the contest and you will ask well wait a minute how can you be a Christian and steal second base? It's just part of the ethics of war and God himself at times as not only Joshua chapter 8 but also as I brought up for a second time, he was a Christian, he was a Christian in Samuel chapter 16, again that's war, that's going to be warfare between Saul and David and so defeat, deceit is part of the process of a wartime ethic. The problem is that we have to judge the narrative by Torah and Torah doesn't say the fact that there is two ethics, one for peace time and one for wartime. Now certainly in the historical narrative in the Old Testament what we are familiar with as far as warfare strategy is concerned, obviously deceit is an ongoing part of strategy in the ethics of war but does that give a allowance for Rahab to deceive in this situation? Now I would say B and C, though I do not hold to either one I still think the best explanation is A, I think both B and C add some added dimension that need to be thought through. I think both B and C are the best explanation and I think in the end just strengthen the fact that probably the best way to say it is A, faith is commended but lies are not condoned, lies aren't even condoned in war although we realize that in the light of the great sin of rebellion against God that works itself out into a war and a battle conflict situation we realize that many many times as fallen individuals living in a fallen world even the best of men, the best of women at times can be forced to take a strategy that might be less than what is completely condoned as far as the word of God is concerned. I use this as an only way to say that the best of men are the best of women. I think that is the ultimate illustration. None of us obviously were forced in the same situation as Cory Tim Boone whose family as you know hid Jews during World War II in Holland. They did that knowing they were breaking the law but why did they do it? A higher law and I don't think any of us in this room would discount the fact that the law and we know Romans 13 well and we have to be careful. Romans 13 is given as commands of scripture except we do have the example of the apostles Acts chapter 5 saying very very clearly when told by the Sanhedrin which was the governing authority of their day in Jerusalem at that time you shall no longer speak of the resurrection and the apostles saying what? We have to obey God not you. Now I think we are very quick and glib to discount Romans 13 because there is a higher law and we have to be careful but there is and I don't think any of us would deny in the Tim Boone family situation that their responsibility to God in not turning over Jews to be brutalized and only put to death by the Nazis was a higher law that says you shall not obey the government Romans 13 so they have already made a decision. I know vis-a-vis an Acts 5 Romans 13 situation as New Testament believers and have come to the clear conscience that God says that hiding Jews is alright. Now in hiding Jews what happens if they get a knock at the door? And there you have a Nazi official saying are you hiding Jews? Now that point to not tell a lie they have to say oh yeah we have a dozen of them right up in the attic why don't you go get them? I mean that's not telling a lie but I know that if I have made the decision that Tim Boones has made and I have got some Jews up in the attic the last thing I am going to say when asked are you hiding any Jews my answer is going to be without even a thought. No. And you will say well at that point when God calls you a count what is your answer going to be? Well my answer is going to be look that was an act of faith. I know it was a lie. I am not sure I believe in the ethics of war. I am not sure I believe necessarily that there is the greatest sin and the lessest sin. It was a sin. It might be a lessest sin but it was a sin. But it was motivated by my desire to obey God and not man. You are probably going to have a hard time preaching all of this and pray that God might deliver you from ever having to make these kind of decisions. But we live in a fallen world and there are times to use a kaiser's argument that if we do believe there is a greatest sin there is a higher law of obeying God which means we have to obey a law of man there might be some serious consequences and one of which is you are forced into a situation where do you tell the truth or do you tell a lie? And these are consequences and if you want to be part of the ethics of war in this broader context then that is certainly possible as well. But again as I said I don't see anything in Torah that says certain things, certain laws are for peace time and certain laws are for war time. I realize that they give the laws concerning how to conduct battle. Obviously that is for war time but it is not dealing with these kind of issues that we are dealing with in chapter two of Joshua. So gentlemen I say that not that you have to necessarily take my answer but if you are going to preach Joshua you better be ready when you get to Joshua 2 because I can tell you right now the people in the pew are going to be waiting for you to answer this question about was Rahab's lie permissible in this situation or not. And if you skirt that issue I mean at least Davis acknowledges there is an issue and gives an answer which is a non-answer. The text is all about her testimony not about her lie. At least it is an answer. But if you go through the whole of chapter two and never bring the issue up you are going to lose a certain amount of credibility with your people. Thank you for the blessing. Thank you for all the wonderful insights on the comparison and contrast with the spying episode here and Numbers 13 and 14 and thank you for all the wonderful insights you are showing me of how this fits in the book of Joshua. But if you don't deal with Rahab's lie or at least make a statement about it I think the people rightfully so are going to say papas to how does this apply to me. Because if God winks his eye at Rahab's lie does that mean he winks his eye at mine. So they are sitting there thinking about that and you can be talking all about battle strategy and literary structure and everything else. But at least like I said at least Davis in his exposition at least he made a statement about the lie and you need to as well. Alright so that is just a long word from a preacher and getting ready for preaching. And then not quite as significant but you should be aware of it since I starred for you Howard as the outstanding interpretive commentary on the book of Joshua. And Howard takes a different viewpoint that most commentators on the long day of Joshua chapter 10. This is where the Gibeonites have entered into the covenants with the Israelites though practicing deception. Yet of course with the oath being given by Joshua they are to be loyal to covenant oaths just as Yahweh is loyal to covenant oaths. So they do not put to death the Gibeonites but make them servants and they have now entered into an alliance with them a covenant with them. And so when the other Canaanite kings of the south heard about this they gathered an alliance to attack Gibeonites not the Israelites. And the Gibeonites call for Joshua to come and defend them. 10 6 the men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua to camp at Gilgal saying do not abandon your servants come to us quickly. Alright we are in covenant alliance together come to our aid. So verse 7 Joshua went up from Gilgal he and all the people of war with him and all the very valiant warriors and the Lord said to Joshua do not fear them for I have given them into your hands not one of them shall stand before you. And so obviously the Lord confirms that Joshua is to go and to do battle against the Canaanites who are attacking the Gibeonites and so verse 9 Joshua came upon them suddenly by marching all night from Gilgal and the Lord confounded them before Israel and he Yahweh slew them with great slaughter and pursued them by the way of the ascent of Bethor and struck them as far as Akhaza and Micadah. Now obviously this is through the Israelites but it is shown that Yahweh is the one who is winning this victory over the Canaanites and of course in verse 11 what we see is that Yahweh is you don't need human armaments when you got Yahweh casting down hell stones from heaven pretty good armament pretty good military strategy and so that actually killed more than the sons of Israel killed with a sword. Yahweh was the great avenger he was the great soldier in this context. And during the battle verse 12 when Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites and said in the sight of Israel oh sun stand still at Gibeon oh moon in the valley of Agilon so the sun stood still and the moon stopped until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jasher? So this book which records it is non-biblical not canonical that records the narratives of Israel's battles including this great battle and debate but most would go along with the new American standard that there is a poetic structure taking place at the end of verse 12 and in the beginning of verse 13. It probably is an epic poem that is found in the book of Jasher but certainly it seems after that that we are dealing with straight narrative statements. We are back to narrative discourse at the end of 13 and the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down and there was no day like that before it or after it when the Lord listened to the voice of a man for the Lord fought for Israel not only casting down the hailstones but also in some way stopping and this is probably phenomenological stopping the earth so that the moon to the west and the sun to the east behind the army were frozen and of course with the moon still in the sky as the sun is coming up it is in the early morning when it is cool. Why is Joshua pleading for the sun to stop? Because if the sun continues to come to the height it is going to be burning hot it is going to be hard for the Israelites to continue to chase the Canaanites so that is why he calls basically time out stop everything except the movement of the armies. Stop the sun stop the moon. I think it is phenomenological I do not think it happened with the sun and the moon but I just think something stopped with the earth on its axis. So in some way I believe A1 is literal the earth stopped rotating. The sun's light was lingered the sun's light was blocked a special sign was involved all possible but it seems the best explanation is that for a time time stops except it continues so they can go and complete the defeat of the Canaanites. They can run the miles necessary to track them down and to put the rest to death that Yahweh has not yet killed by the hell stones. But because we do have a poetic statement in verses 12 and 13 how it argues that this should be taken as figurative not literal. Well figuratively the Joshua saw the great power of God it was like the sun and moon standing still. It was almost like you know God gave special grace. I know maybe in the end he has said it in the Bible but it is not the same thing. It was like the sun standing still and not giving a seat anymore. So he sees it is not as literal but as figurative. My statement would be yes even though we have a poetic statement given nevertheless the author confirms it with a narrative description which should be taken I can put it this way the Holy Spirit led the narrative to speak of this as a historical event. Even if Joshua's words in the end are to be understood as some kind of epic poetry nevertheless the author seems to interpret it in a narrative statement as though this historically is what took place. And I assume the author's insight and so I take it literally not figuratively but you can read it. I was already reading it and I think it is a very good example of the author's insight and so I take it literally not figuratively but you can read his arguments and his commentary. And once again you better make that decision before you preach the text. Not again that most people you preach to have any doubt on literal or figurative. And of course we can't explain all of the natural processes involved in it. We just know that Yahweh well the same Yahweh who can throw hailstones down from heaven that strike the Canaanites and kill them and we assume that that is like hell stones and pretty big hell stones and certainly that certain climactic phenomenological processes are necessary for this to take place. I mean you just usually don't get these kind of big hell storms on a normal storm so something has to take place that is outside of the normal and natural and the same thing with the sun and the moon standing still. Something is outside of the normal and yet we know that God is able to control that and we don't have to explain how he did it. We just have to accept the fact that he did. So I take it again with majority commentators as being literal against how it takes it figuratively. But don't ask me to explain how God did it because the text doesn't tell us I don't know. I do believe it's phenomenological. I think in the end it's not literally the sun and the moon stopping as much as it is the earth stopping and so the sun and the moon get frozen in their place until the earth begins again. So I do take A1 as being the best explanation. Well what about preaching Joshua? As I've said, the first thing that a lot of individuals spend time preaching the first half of Joshua. Twelve messages on Joshua 1-12. A message on chapters 13-21 and then a message on chapter 22, 23, 24 because and if you've read chapters 13-21 it's like preaching out of a telephone book. Lists of names are not the most exciting thing to preach. But I would say this gentlemen, you're going to have to slow down and even when you have names you've got to communicate the significance of why these lists of all of the towns that were given to certain tribes. Why is this important? If you're a member of that tribe your plot of the land is very, very important. It's very important you know what boundaries were given to your tribe and what towns were given to your tribe to inhabit because this is basically your mount marching order. This is where you are to complete the conquest and God held Israel accountable for not being obedient. So you will have to take some time and slow down and I say that to my own shame because I'm one of those who sped through. I think in the end I had three messages on chapters 13-21 and what you've communicated by that is it's not as important as what went before or what comes after. So be careful. So give equal time and that certainly gives you a chance again and again to talk about God's grace and giving the land of the land as a gift to Israel and the continual reminder, Caleb's faithfulness as opposed to the unfaithfulness of disobedience of Judah and Ephraim and Manasseh preparing us already in Joshua for what we're going to meet in the book of Judges. So just a reminder that everything in Joshua is not glory. Everything in Joshua is not wow, look how God gave them the victory. That's what we want to hear. But already mixed in with the victory we're starting to see some of the failures and some of the disobedience of the tribes of Israel, even second generation Israel which is going to crescendo as we come into the period of the Judges. So preach Joshua and yet be sure to balance and be sure to keep the book in balance as you preach it and certainly the tools I've given to you I think you'll find valuable and helpful in doing that. Alright any final questions, comments you have about Joshua before we turn the page and go to Judges? Just jumping back really quick about the lies because I know this is also something that we'll tend to face when talking to people. So could it be said that in the event of court in Boone that the consequence of telling the truth in that situation she had a greater fear of God and so it's not so much that she's worried about saving her own skin as it is fearing God and she did tell the truth that now 20, 30 he was hiding and now he's put to death. And so the lies that motivated out of self preservation like in Genesis 20 when Abraham lies about his wife or. So you draw a distinction between lies that are told for self preservation as opposed to lies and that does fall what I was saying in making a decision that there is a higher law God is to be obeyed even that means disobeying the human authorities. Once that decision is made that is she was her family was Rahab acting out of that greater fear that greater commitment they fear God rather than men and does that therefore change the lie well I could I would put it this way it doesn't change reality of a lie it's a lie is still a non-truth but certainly at this point I do think the Bible does call us to think about the motivation and. And I would think that we would all and that's that's I think you know the ten boom situation we understand the motivation. And so even though it's still a lie we are not willing to call that rebellion against God as much as you know a fallen you know a fallen believer in a fallen world in a intensely rebellious anti-God situation finds themselves on the horns of a dilemma. I mean it's it's it's like a pro you know proverbs. Oh and I'm the one where he's talking about adultery I think it's Proverbs four where we understand that if a man is hungry he steals the stealing is still wrong but we understand that that's an act of desperation we understand the motivation so the wise man takes that into account as opposed to someone who just steals for the pleasure of it. And so it is it is more an aspect I would see biblically of wisdom you know than it than it is and kind of try to find the exact verse of mine could be at the end of a chapter three. Where. Yeah but he brings up that the wise man takes into account you know the reason for the sin. Yeah because once Corey Ten Boom made the choice that I am going to disobey the law you know you've you've you've gone there and you can't you can't say well God I told the lie I did lie. You set yourself on a road that's going to multiply as far as the consequences are concerned. Yeah and I think she'd be rewarded for that I mean. Well I'll leave the reward in God's hand you know I'll I'm not going to give a reward or take away a reward that's you know that's the Lord's determination because the Lord who gives us his word understands more exactly how that word applies in every given situation than you and I think again we have to be careful you know don't go beyond the scripture. And that's I'm not sure that's the patches I was looking for in Proverbs three or four but we're aware of it where he talks about the fact that a man takes into account that all right if someone steals because they're hungry that's different than stealing just for the pleasure of stealing you know just because someone has what I don't have. Is it Proverbs six thirty. Yeah so it's right in there and you can certainly look it up so that's more of an issue of wisdom than it is legislation. Legislation is a lies a lie. But wisdom says wait a minute there are some there are some other criteria that enter into the ultimate evaluation of that lie vis a vis another lie. And certainly we're all going to say you know that that Rahab's lie can I put this way because you bring up Abraham's lie in you know Genesis chapter twenty we'll all well we'll all say that Rahab's lie in Joshua two was a better lie than Abraham's lie in chapter twenty. Now having said that what's your biblical rationale for saying that. And it is well wisdom dictates the fact that this situation is more intense and Rahab is making a decision based upon her faith in God fearing God whereas Abraham is fearing Abimelech is fearing the loss of his life cannot trust God in fact it's anti-faith as far as his life is concerned. So that's the reason we make that you know that evaluation because we're wise men and we think in terms of what motivated the action. What does it really mean to bear false witness against your neighbor. Is that some is that what the scripture is saying or is God saying no false testimony to judge or bring condemnation to your neighbor and have we as Christians reclassified that to be a catch all for all lie and I'm just going to say you know Psalms and Proverbs didn't exist at this point so what do you think about that. Well Psalms and Proverbs did not exist however God's wisdom did exist at this point. And what do I say have we taken you know the ninth commandment and taken it by application out of its immediate context and that's why I made that very very clear that the context of not bearing false witnesses in a judicial situation where your false testimony can result in serious consequences unmerited consequences for your neighbor and that's not doing good for your neighbor that's doing evil against your neighbor. So what I'm saying is that it is still false testimony. It is still saying something that does not conform to historical reality and I'm using that then as a foundation to say from the ninth commandment we can then take this principle and bring it to Joshua chapter 2 because Israel knows that principle and they can hear what this narrator is saying and realize what Rahab's words as recorded are not in harmony with the historical narrative that is given. What do we say about that? It's alright there is this harmony and I think to put myself into an Israelite who knows Torah immediately I'm going to go back he has to attempt words and say well here we have false testimony. Here we have words that do not comport to the historical evidence. So I think broadly it does fit under that category of law breaking and that's why some would say well at this point she is a Canaanite and she is not under. I mean that's a way to get around it why God was merciful to forgive her sin of lying because she is a woman of faith and to a certain extent the faith is one of the ways in which she can express her faithfulness to the Lord in this situation. So the lie is not condoned we're back to position A the lie is not condoned but the lie is not condoned. So I think that the lie is not condoned but the faith is commended. And you're right if I did not cut off a discussion we could spend the rest of the day discussing biblically how we should evaluate what is given here in the text. I'm just trying to help you understand here's the text where the narrator makes it clear this is historically what happened and yet he also records Rahab's words. So immediately as hearers we're on the horns of dilemma her words do not match the historical circumstances. Now whether you want to call that a lie or not or believe it comes under the ninth commandment or not still reading the narrative here in the narrative throws you onto the horns of the dilemma. What does the Holy Spirit how does he want us to evaluate the fact that the narrator says this is what happened Rahab says these words in that situation that do not match. Now I'm just giving you where my interpretive juices go to try to start to think through the issue but the text itself. I think you can have a non-believer who knows nothing about Torah. Josh I could have an English class a college English class read this narrative and say alright what questions do you have and I think even this postmodern society they would say I hear some conflict between what the narrator is saying happened and what the key lady in the event said. I mean it's amazing even in our non-Christian environment today that still jars us that there is a disconnect between the words and the events and the text has clearly brought that disconnect out. I mean the Holy Spirit led the author to give the exact words of Rahab. I mean to put on my Davis code at this point if I want to get Rahab off the hook as the narrator I just say well this is what she did and this is what the king of Jericho did and I don't even bring up Rahab is the one who put him on the wrong path. I mean there is a way around the dilemma if I just want to emphasize her faith. Now you are seeing why I'm not dogmatic as I should be on position A to some of my traditional friends. I don't think there is a slam dunk as cold and easy to understand as position A and some exponents of position A would have us believe. It is not that easy and sometimes we can come across as easy. The Lord condoned her faith, never commended her faith, never condoned her lie, that's easy let's move on I'll know you never have that dilemma it will never come into your life just academic. That's to a certain extent sometimes how we handle it and I don't believe that is exegetically well rounded and I think it can be past orally cold that you are never going to face this issue so it's just an academic question move on. So well one more. It makes me think about that first viewing the Ten Commandments after all the witnesses are Ten Commandments and applying the situation is this our Western presupposition that we would apply situational ethics to the Ten Commandments like we were trying to explain these to children or that's to be like any person whether they were in Rahab's day as he talked on Judges in the Amenuim which writings are not. Well certainly we are talking about situational ethics is this a Western issue and I would say no the rabbis have the same issue with the text that we are talking about so I don't see this as this is a Western issue that we want to have a strict categorization that although we certainly do we categorize much more precisely than does the Oriental mind I agree with that but no again I would say even without the categories that the rabbis without Western categories they still deal with this and came with the less and greater kaisa will go some took that approach that there are greater sins and lesser sins and Rahab's sin was a lesser sin in the light of the greater sin that he would bring up that's a rabbinic response to what is here in Joshua chapter 2 so I don't think it's just Westerners that read this and say oh there is an ethical dilemma. Because I think that this let me call it a moral dilemma rather than an ethical dilemma because ethical sounds Western you know I mean Asian people don't talk about ethics I got to be careful there some of those cultures you know don't have ethics like we do I mean Asian can lie right to your face and have a clear conscience because you know they were doing it to save face I mean you know they don't think through ethical situations like we do here in the West so let's call it a moral situation and not try to prejudge it in a Western category still I'm still saying that any individual even the natural man who reads or hears Joshua 2 is struck by the disconnect between the narrator's words and Rahab's words in this context I don't think that's a Western versus Eastern issue I think you better be ready to deal with that no matter what culture you find yourself in there's how to explain the disconnect. Now the explanations might tend to be somewhat different but the disconnect I would say is not a cultural situation and your rights this has gone on much longer than we can Dr. Grisani has a whole class on biblical ethics 15 weeks you can discuss this to your heart's desire so we have a class and if you want to discuss it further you can take that class with Dr. Grisani and this is one of the major passages that you will deal with and discuss both exegetically and then applying to ethical standards how do we understand that is applied to life that's the purpose of the class.