Power In His Presence

DITTY 8: DISCUSS THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE PROPHETS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL WITH THE THRONE (GOVERNMENT), THE TEMPLE (RELIGION), AND THE PEOPLE (SOCIETY).

THE PROPHETS AND THE THRONE

Some prophets like Nathan served in the court of the king and thereby functioning as an adviser to the king. Many of these prophets served independent from the kings and this gave them the leeway for them not to me manipulated surreptitiously by the kings. The kings confided in them in matters that relates with directing them with regards to God’s will and purpose for them.

Though only Samuel served as a priest and a Prophet, he installed Saul and David by anointing them.

They guard the throne from being unscrupulous and devious. Like Samuel, he served as a Priest and a prophet and his work entailed offering sacrifice to ablute any sin that has found its way into the throne via the king. They at frequent times warn the kings from their negative ways. They are the mouth-piece of God in revealing His plans to the kings of their day. Ezekiel was called as a watchman to the nation. A watchman’s role was to for see the evil that is in the offing and he will in turn inform the king about the impending doom or danger and again he will also stress on what the king must do to either avert this doom or the way to overcome it. They serve as God’s blessings and judgment to the people. Gad and Nathan served as prophets to the king (David). Elijah and Elisha served as critique and advice for the kings. In addition to serving the kings of their day, they served the Judges too and alongside that, they addressed Israel’s worship.

THE PROPHETS AND THE TEMPLE (RELIGION)

They also have the role of protecting the worship of Yahweh among the people. They enforce the worship of ONE God “the great shema”. The prophets protected the religion of Judaism in its most comprehensive sense, which includes a belief in the being and perfections of Yahweh, in the revelation of His will to the Israelites, in their obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in their accountableness to God. They also enforced true godliness or piety among the kings and the people. They made sure that righteousness is exalted in the nation especially, in their worship of Yahweh and Him alone. Like Elijah, they protected the monotheistic practice of Israelites. They also totally extirpate idolatry from among the people and they bring to book the culprits. They protect the tabernacle of God from being defiled and treated with contempt. They criticized vain worship (Amos 5:23-24) and priestly failures (Amos 7:10; Malachi 2).

THE PROPHETS AND THE PEOPLE

The prophets serve as mediators between God and the people. They represent the presence of God before the people. They are the voice of God to the people. They reveal God’s will and plan to the people. They also presents the supplications and plea of the people to God. They see to it that the typical Israel traditions and cultures are upheld in high esteem by the people. They serve as intercessors for the nation. They remind the people of the precepts and commandments of God and teach them about the way of right standings with God. Samuel served as leader pre monarchy to defeat the Philistines (I Sam. 7). The prophets’ messages called Israel to honor God. Their prophecies were not ONLY general principles but also specific words corresponding to Israel’s historical context. They called the people to covenant faithfulness which reveals an awareness of the law (Isaiah 58:6-9; Ezekiel 18; Micah 6:6-8; Hosea 6:6). They relayed God’s message to the people by deed as well as by word.

REFERENCE:

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Easton Bible Dictionary

Faussete Bible Dictionary

CHOOSE A KING FROM THE NORTH. SUMMARIZE HIS REIGN AND THE EVALUATION OF IT. WHAT COULD HE HAVE DONE DIFFERENT IN ORDER TO HAVE A POSITIVE EVALUATION FROM GOD?

JEHU

The founder of the fifth dynasty, of the kingdom of Israel, son of Jehoshaphat. 2Ki_9:2. He reigned over Israel 28 years. His first appearance in history is, when he heard the warning of Elijah, against the murderer of Naboth. 2Ki_9:25. In the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, Jehu rose to importance. He was, under the last-named king, captain of the host in the siege of Ramoth-gilead.

During this siege, he was anointed by Elisha’s servant, and told that he was appointed to be king of Israel, and destroyer of the house of Ahab. 2Ki_9:12. The army, at once, ordained him king, and he set off full speed for Jezreel. Jehoram, who was lying ill in Jezreel, came out to meet him, as it happened on the fatal field of Naboth. 2Ki_9:21-24. Jehu seized his opportunity, and shot him through the heart. 2Ki_9:24. Jehu himself advanced to the gates of Jezreel, and fulfilled the divine warning on Jezebel, as already on Jehoram. He then entered on a work of extermination, hitherto, unparalleled in the history of the Jewish monarchy.

All the descendants of Ahab that remained in Jezreel, together with the officers of the court and the hierarchy of Eastward, were swept away. His next step was to secure Samaria. For the pretended purpose of inaugurating anew the worship of Baal, he called all the Bailouts together at Samaria. The vast temple raised by Ahab, 1Ki_16:32, was crowded from end to end. The chief sacrifice was offered, as if in the excess of his zeal, by Jehu himself. As soon as it was ascertained that all, and none but, the idolaters were there, the signal was given to eighty trusted guards, and sweeping massacre removed, at one blow, the whole heathen population of the kingdom of Israel. This is the last public act recorded of Jehu.

The remaining twenty-seven years of his long reign are passed over in a few words, in which two points only are material:

n He did not destroy the calf-worship of Jeroboam.

n The TransJordanic tribes suffered much from the ravages of Hazael. 2Ki_10:29-33

He was buried in state in Samaria, and was succeeded by his son, Jehoahaz.

WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENT

Destroying the golden calves erected by Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel was the hallmark which would have distinguished him from the other kings who reigned before him. He really did well in extirpating the worshippers of baal and the destroying the idols in his day but the only benchmark “the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat” was overlooked by him and consequently adored and he smiled at the calves erected by Jeroboam.

REFERENCE:

International Standard Bible Dictionary

Torrey’s bible Definitions

READ DR. ISBELL’S ARTICLE “HISTORY AND WRITING.” ACCORDING TO HIM, WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL TEXT DISCLOSING? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE BIBLE WITH HISTORY?WHAT THE BIBLICAL TEXT DISCLOSES

The text of the bible offers a moral evaluation of kings and events and not a chronicle or an annal that merely recorded what happened. The biblical narrative does not prove or disprove anything the stories presented in the bible. The biblical text is less concerned to be used as a source of “history” than it is to offer a prophetic, a moral, and a Yahwistic interpretation of the true meaning of history. The biblical writers also tell us openly that what we are reading in the Bible was not intended to be balanced and fair to all sides. The biblical text and data present dry facts and figures some of which can be checked and cross-referenced. These facts, though certainly integral to the literal artistry of the narrator, are not the most important element of the stories about each person in the bible.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE BIBLE WITH HISTORY

The bible doesn’t must not be approached as what scholars believe to be “meeting the standards of history”. The authors and editors of bible narratives were simply not sophisticated enough to understand what is meant today as “history”. It is often read that the lack of sophistication of the ancients that stands in the way of our ability to perceive the true meaning of their writings just because we are so modern. The writers of the bible may have thought they were writing history, but of course we know they were not.

The authors of the bible did not intend to write “history” as we might define the word in the modern world. They knew that they had not included many facts that historians might ask about, they readily inform us openly that we must research other literature if such facts are our aim, and they even mention by name the sources they consider most appropriate for learning these “facts”. The biblical narrative of the exodus is not “historical”. It is not a kind of historical evidence that can be used to prove or disprove anything. The book of the Prophet Isaiah was not concerned to give a complete historical background for Isaiah’s messages but anxious to record that the prophet offered advice of a religious nature to two kings facing political and military disaster.

REFERENCE:

“History” and “writing”, by Charles David Isbell, Director of Jewish Studies, Louisiana State University; August 2003.

IS DAVID THE FIRST KING OF ISRAEL? WHY OR WHY NOT?

David is NOT the first king of Israel biblically or historically but Saul was. Many scholars have their bases of accepting the very fact that David was the first king because he became a king after God’s own heart. This reason doesn’t in any way nullify the very premise that Saul was the first officially crowned king of Israel. Though it is supposedly believed that David was a lad or even not born when Saul became king, but if God really wanted him to be the FIRST KING, He would have made provision for that.

Saul, from the Hebrew word pronounced shaw-ool, meaning asked, was the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was the first king of all of the tribes of Israel (the kingdom later split into “Israel” and “Judah” after the death of Solomon. Saul’s reign, a pivotal time in Bible History, is dated from approximately from 1010 B.C.

Saul was chosen the first king of Israel after the sons, and potential successors, of the high priest Samuel were rejected by the people as corrupt (1 Samuel 8:1-9). God permitted the establishment of the monarchy, but in speaking to Samuel, The Lord said of it:

“Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. According to all the deeds which they have done to Me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking Me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7-9 RSV)

After being selected by God (1 Samuel 9:15-17), Saul was secretly anointed by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:1) before being publicly chosen by lot:

“Now Samuel called the people together to The Lord at Mizpah; and he said to the people of Israel, “Thus says The Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.’ But you have this day rejected your God, who saves you from all your calamities and your distresses; and you have said, ‘No! but set a king over us.’ Now therefore present yourselves before The Lord by your tribes and by your thousands.”

“Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. He brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the family of the Matrites was taken by lot; finally he brought the family of the Matrites near man by man, and Saul the son of Kish was taken by lot. But when they sought him, he could not be found. So they inquired again of The Lord, “Did the man come hither?” and The Lord said, “Behold, he has hidden himself among the baggage.”

“Then they ran and fetched him from there; and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward. And Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom The Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people.” And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!” (1 Samuel 10:17-24 RSV)Anointing by oil is the ONLY sign which distinguishes someone from being an ordinary person to being a KING in those times. If Saul wasn’t the first king as some scholars believe, God wouldn’t have commanded the Prophet Samuel to anoint him.

Saul’s kingship was firmly established upon his victory at Jabesh-Gilead, after which he was proclaimed king at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:1-15). Following initial successes, Saul soon began making a series of very serious blunders, beginning with the offering of a sacrifice, which was to be performed only by the priests (1 Samuel 13:9-12) (see Levites). It was this foolish and presumptuous disobedience to God that cost him the kingship, which would later be taken over by King David:

“And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of The Lord your God, which He commanded you; for now The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. But now your kingdom shall not continue; The Lord has sought out a man after His own heart; and The Lord has appointed him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what The Lord commanded you.” (1 Samuel 13:13-14 RSV)

Saul’s behavior then further degenerated from unwise to outright insane, including ordering his military forces to go without food until they had defeated the enemy, and attempting to have his own victorious son Jonathan executed for disregarding the foolish order (1 Samuel 14:24-45). Saul’s continued bizarre behavior and disregard of God’s instructions resulted in the kingship being taken from him and transferred to David:

“The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for Myself a king among his sons.” (1 Samuel 16:1 RSV)

Saul remained king for the time needed for the youthful David to prepare and mature. It was during this period that the incident between David And Goliath occurred (1 Samuel 17:1-58), after which David served the king in his palace, becoming a very good friend of Saul’s son Jonathan. Saul’s jealousy at the sight of David’s military success and popularity with the people resulted Saul’s trying to murder David with a spear while he was playing the harp (1 Samuel 19:9-10) (in illustration), after which David became a fugitive from the king.

In yet another failure in judgment and obedience to God, Saul consulted the witch of Endor (see Witches And Sorcerers) in which his doom was predicted by an apparent appearance by the dead Samuel (1 Samuel 28:4-25). Saul died during a battle with the Philistines the very next day (1 Samuel 31:1-13).Prophet Samuel to the house of Jesse to anoint a successor at God’s direction. When David his youngest son appears, God tells Samuel to anoint him.David’s qualities “after the Lord’s own heart” are perhaps best displayed in the famous contest with Goliath. The people of Israel are confronted by their enemies, the Philistines, and are terrified of their champion, Goliath. Goliath is huge and carries overwhelming military technology. He is the ancient equivalent of the Terminator and calls for a single combat to decide the battle. David, still a shepherd, is bringing provisions for his brothers in the Israelite army. He is dismayed by Israel’s fear of Goliath. King Saul hears of David’s attitude and sends for him. When David offers to fight in single combat, Saul dismisses the idea as a joke. But, as a shepherd, David has learned to trust God in the face of terrifying opposition.

David could only ascend on the throne as a king after the death of the first king, Saul.

REFERENCES:

Handbook on the Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, V Hamilton, Baker Bookhouse Company (2001)

The David Story: A translation with commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, Robert Alter, W W Norton (2000)

Samuel, Sidney Brichto, Sinclair-Stevenson (2000) – a translation into colloquial English of the book of Samuel

IS THE BOOK OF SAMUEL PRO-MONARCHY OR ANTI-MONARCHY? WHY/WHY NOT?
The book of Samuel is a book which unreservedly accentuates on the concept anti-Monarchy which was dealt with by the author explicitly in the 8^th chapter of 1 Samuel. For my money, God had it in mind and in the records to rule over His own people without a crash of relying on human rulership like the other nations. I am banking on the books anti-monarchy because that is what the book asserts and affirms. Many scholars root for Isaiah being the writer of the book of Samuel and I attests to this fact because, the book it self reveals that the author will inevitably be a later entity who would possibly be from Judah and he mustered and collated all that he knows about the effects of forsaken the rulership of Jehovah for human leadership.

The author all along in his writing style, fashioned the book to be quite averse with the people’s request to opt for human kingship like the other nations. I will go ahead with my reasons for rooting for the nature of the book of Samuel being anti-Monarchy.

ANTI-MONARCHY

The exilic writer is pointing out that what has gone wrong is that Israel has always been a nation that has refused to submit to Yahweh’s kingship (1 Sam. 8). This proves to the fact that, hitherto, God’s purpose was to rule over His own people which will also bring a striking difference between Israel and the other surrounding nations. This writer pointed out succinctly that it wasn’t the intention of God to use kings as leaders and rulers.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them (1 Sam. 8:6,7).

This highlights the foolishness of their request for a (human) king to lead them into battle. Yahweh’s anger is not with the request for a (human) king. It’s the type of king that’s the problem. They want a human king to take Yahweh’s place, whereas the only acceptable king is one who acknowledges Yahweh’s sovereignty. The Israelites think they’ll be better off, but this type of king will in fact be a tyrant who will bring them nothing but misery. However, the institution of Israel’s monarchy is not judged as either good or bad. The real issue is Yahweh’s kingship. 1 & 2 Samuel are book-ended by Hannah’s song (1 Sam. 2) and David’s song (2 Sam. 22), and the theme of both is Yahweh’s kingship. This is the obvious lesson in both Saul’s failure and David’s rise. The exilic writer is pointing out that what has gone wrong is that Israel has always been a nation that has refused to submit to Yahweh’s kingship.

Samuel as the Leader of Israel was anti-monarchy because they were not content with the order that God had appointed, but would be governed as the Gentiles were. Samuel’s dissatisfaction arose principally from the proposed change being revolutionary in its character. Though it would not entirely subvert their theocratic government, the appointment of a visible monarch would necessarily tend to throw out of view their unseen King and Head. God intimated, through Samuel, that their request would, in anger, be granted, while at the same time he apprised them of some of the evils that would result from their choice.

REFERENCES:

R P Gordon’s 1 & 2 Samuel commentary (Paternoster)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary (1Sam. 8 and 9)

Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (1 Sam.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(From Yahoo images)

DISCUSS AND ANALYZE THE CONCEPT OF KINSMAN REDEEMER IN THE BOOK OF RUTH.

To tackle this question, I would like to start by defining the concept of “kinsman redeemer”. I will do this by also explaining the key words. What is a kinsman-redeemer? The description of “kinsman” is someone who is a “nearest male blood relative. If anyone from poverty was unable to redeem his inheritance, it was the duty of the kinsman to redeem it.” The Hebrew word for “kinsman” is “goel.” “Redeemer” is defined as “one charged with the obligation of restoring the rights of another and avenging his wrongs.” The Hebrew word for Redeemer is also “goel.” In Biblical times, these words were interchangeable. If a man was the redeemer of a family, he must have been a kinsman. And if he was a kinsman, then it followed that he was a redeemer for the family. Back in Ruth’s day, the kinsman redeemer avenged deaths, claimed inheritances for poor family members, and married the widow of a dead male relative. He played a role very similar to the one that Jesus played for all mankind, but for his family.

Naomi needed a kinsman redeemer to save them from the oppression of penury and despair. Ruth and Naomi were bereft of the hope as to whether they would be blessed or not. Nevertheless, they banked on God’s providence and God led them to the abundant and plentiful fields and loving arms of that munificent, God-fearing man, Boaz. Naomi’s environs calls for an entity who can be a catalyst for a unique blessings on her life as well as her daughter-in-law.

To clarify the phrase “Kinsman Redeemer”, let’s observe Ruth 4:4…

“And I thought to disclose it unto thee, saying, Buy it before them that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it besides thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it”.

Obviously, we can notice the word “redeem” mentioned many times over in the above verse. It is the translation of the Hebrew word gawal and lets us know the reason the kinsman was so important in the book of Ruth. The book of Ruth illustrates the law of the kinsman-redeemer. The law of the kinsman-redeemer is involved in is referred to as “the law of redemption.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KINSMAN-REDEEMER

The concept of the Kinsman redeemer in the book of Ruth thrives on the character and attitude of Boaz, and this is seen clearly in his love fir Ruth. You can’t read the book of Ruth without realizing that as soon as Ruth met Boaz in the field, Boaz fell in love with her immediately. We ca n discover here that Boaz was not only in love with her, but he was kin to her and thus could become her redeemer, based upon love.

The requirements for someone to be a Kinsman Redeemer is, first, the man in question must be a near kinsman. Boaz was a near Kinsman to Naomi and being a near kinsman, he was a mighty man of wealth, he was a mighty man of valor, and he was a mighty man of law.

In the second chapter of Ruth, verse 1, Boaz is introduced as a “mighty man of wealth.” I surmise here that this statement could be translated “mighty man of valor” or “of strength.” Boaz had the ability to “redeem” Ruth because he was the nephew of Elimelech. Being the near kinsman, he was able to redeem the land.

According to Scriptures, we are given three requirements of a Kinsmen-Redeemer.

1. He must be a near kinsman. In other words, he must be related to the needing redemption. (Not spiritual redemption, but the redemption of property or life).

(Lev 25:48-49 ASV) “After that he is sold he may be redeemed: one of his brethren may redeem him; or his uncle, or his uncle’s son may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be waxed rich, he may redeem himself“.

2. The second requirement of the kinsmen-redeemer is that he has the ability to pay the debt. The reason for this is obvious, at the root of the word redemption is the idea of a payment to settle a debt. One may be related by blood, but if he did not have the resources available all the desire in the world would not settle the debt.

3. The third requirement of the kinsmen-redeemer is that he must be willing to redeem. This is exactly what happened in the story of Boaz and Ruth. Boaz was a near kinsmen of Ruth’s deceased husband, and he was both able and willing to redeem, but there was a near kinsmen who was a nearer kinsmen than Boaz. Nearer in the sense of being closer on the family tree, therefore giving him the right of kinsmen redeemer over Boaz. The problem was that the nearer kinsmen was already married and realized the potential problems of such a transaction. He was not willing to pay the redemption price, allowing Boaz the next in line to execute the kinsmen right.

Ruth identifies Boaz as a near of kin of Naomi and gleans wheat in his field in the hope that she will find grace in his eyes (Ruth 2:1-2). Boaz uses his position to ensure the protection of Ruth (Ruth 2:8-18).

As the barley harvest was ending and the threshing was to begin Ruth goes to lay at the feet of her benefactor Boaz. By asking him to place his skirt over her she is asking him to perform the duties of the kinsmen redeemer (goël). After one closer in kin steps aside he marries Ruth and redeems the land for Naomi.

REFERENCES:

Ann Spangler. Women of the Bible – 52 stories for prayer and reflection. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan, 1999

John Darby’s synopsis.

John Wesley’s explanatory notes.

WHY IS THE WORD “JUDGE” AN INACCURATE LABEL FOR THE LEADERS OF PRE-MONARCHIAL ISRAEL?

I agree without any shadow of doubt that the appellation given to the book judges is quite queer and imprecise. I choose this stand because of the following reasons:

The work of many of these “judges” doesn’t warrant them to be called judges. They need to be called DELIVERERS because they were used by God to deliver the Israelites from the tyranny of their enemies not to administer justice among the people in the land and as the name “judges” imply, it contains the history of the deliverance and government of Israel by the men who bore the title of the “judges.”

The judges were temporary and special deliverers, sent by God to deliver the Israelites from their oppressors; not supreme magistrates, succeeding to the authority of Moses and Joshua. Their power only extended over portions of the country, and some of them were contemporaneous.

Their first work and responsibility was that of deliverers and leaders in war; they then must administered justice to the people, and their authority supplied the want of a regular government. Though some like Deborah and Samuel (if I may add him to the judges) did administered Justice but many of these “judges” didn’t qualify that name.

Judges tells the story of 13 liberators of Israel from the oppression of foreign nations, who became the Judges or a correct name for them also is Governors… among them was a woman called Deborah.

This function of the Judges is also an office comparable to a king (but not anointed). In the Biblical context of the Book of Judges, the term designates those who act as deliverers. The word, however, means more than this: it refers to leaders who took charge of the affairs of the tribes in case of war, and who assumed leadership of their respective tribes in the succeeding times of peace. In accordance with the needs of the time, their functions were primarily martial and military. Though they somewhat administered justice among their own people but their functions and responsibilities was seemingly to lead the nation to outwit their enemies in times of war and to bring serenity to the nation as a whole.

REFERENCES:

Smiths Bible Dictionary

John Gills Exposition of the Bible

WHY IS THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF CANAANITES (AND OTHERS) ORDERED BY YAHWEH? ISN’T HE A GOD OF MERCY AND LOVE?

The mercy and love of God is revealed through His covenant relationship with the Patriarchs and the children of Israel. The Old Testament is an agreement which existed between a particular nation via the call of Abraham. God went into a covenant with the children of Israel through Abraham and the covenant was that, He will bless those that bless him and his descendants and that “He will give him and his seeds the land of Canaan” (Gen. 13:15). The fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham also in a great way expresses his mercifulness and love. The bible says He has exalted His word above His name and He will never break His promise. God is invariably bound by His words and He cannot do anything than to prove His faithfulness.

By wiping out the Canaanites, Jebusites, the Hittites, the Girgashites and the rest, a door is in turn opened for His people to enjoy His promise. There is no way the children of Israel can notch up the land of Canaan without wiping them out.

Again, the location of these nations mentioned are very proximate to the land of Canaan and they were idol worshippers and if they are not utterly destroyed, Israel would be attracted to their waywardness and cause the children of Israel to stumble (Deut. 7:2-5). God called the children of Israel into uniqueness and by allowing these nations to dwell peacefully, it would intend be an avenue of temptation for the people of God.

God is truly a God of mercy and love and that is why He doesn’t want the children of Israel to incur His wrath by opening unto them an opportunity for them to have any close amity with the Amorites, Jebusites, Gigarshites and the Canaanites. The mercy and love of God is antithetical to sin and anything that is seemingly sinful must be ostracized and blotted out by God.

These nations were sign post for the people of God to stray from God’s protection and the only way for God’s people to maximize their potentials and abide in the unadulterated and uncompromising presence of God was to remove all appearances of evil and temptations out of the way and these nations were no exceptions.

The Bible teaches that God is never cruel to anyone. We note in passing that God’s punishment of the wicked is not cruelty. His punishment demonstrates (shows) justice, not cruelty. Now, the fact that God is not cruel can be contradicted by human experience. Remember, human experience does not always consist of truth, (correct) conception, memory, reality and perception. It can instead consist of delusion, misconception, fantasy, imagination, illusion, and hallucination.

REFERENCES:

John Gills Exposition to the Bible

The life foundations nexus, when God is cruel – by Dr. Michael G. Bisconti

WHAT IS THE CITY OF REFUGE? WHAT IS ITS FUNCTION? WHY DID THE LORD HAD THE ISRAELITES SET IT UP?

WHAT IS A CITY OF REFUGE?

A city of refuge is a city instructed by God to Moses and Joshua to be set aside as a safe haven for the protection of both the helpless and the slayer of the helpless alike. It is a place of resort and safety. A city of refuge also is a shelter or protection from danger or distress. That which shelters or protects from danger, distress or calamity; a strong hold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy. Cities of refuge in The Bible were designated places where someone who had accidentally killed another person could go to escape the vengeance of outraged relatives or friends. There, they could safely await trial to officially determine their guilt or innocence. They were not places to escape justice, but rather places that saw justice was done.

ITS FUNCTIONS

The Cities of Refuge were towns in Israel and Judah at which the guilty person could claim the right of asylum; outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law. The Torah names just six cities as being a city of refuge: Golan, Ramoth, and Bosor, on the east of the Jordan River, and Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron on the western side.

The cities were so arranged that a few hours’ rapid flight would bring the slayer from any part of the land to one of the cities of refuge. Jewish writers say that the roads leading to these cities were always kept in good repair, and that guide-posts were placed at every cross road with “Refuge! Refuge!” written upon them. But the man that willfully killed another was not sheltered. He was given up to the avenger to be slain.

The LORD spoke to Joshua, telling him to speak to the children of Israel, telling them to appoint cities of refuge. These cities of refuges would be so the slayer that kills any person unaware and unwittingly may flee to them and they shall be a refuge from the avenger of blood. When they do flee unto one of the cities they shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause to the elders of that city. They shall take him unto the city and give him a place, where he may dwell among them. They shall not deliver the slayer up into the hands of any avenger of blood who may pursue after him. This is because the slayer struck his neighbor unwittingly, and did not hate him before hand. The slayer shall dwell in that city, until he stands before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from where he fled.

WHY THE LORD HAD THE ISRAELITES SET UP THE CITIES OF REFUGE

To guard against the innocent thus suffering, God commanded that “cities of refuge” should be appointed, to which the slayer might flee, “which killeth any person inadvertently or unawares.”

God explained very carefully in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19 that there was to be a distinction made between premeditated murder, and what today we call manslaughter or a crime of passion, the unpremeditated killing of another person. It’s apparent when we read these passages that a person guilty of premeditated murder was subject to capital punishment. But if the death wasn’t premeditated, or if a person killed someone by accident, the slayer could seek refuge in the sanctuary of the tabernacle, physically holding onto the altar as a place of safety and protection. Listen to what God said through Moses in Exodus 21:12-14: “He who strikes a man so that he died shall surely be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.” If he was guilty of premeditated, violent murder, hanging onto the altar wouldn’t be of any help whatsoever.

The LORD commanded that innocent blood shall not be shed in the land, which the LORD gave to the children of Israel as their inheritance, or the blood would be upon them. However, if any man hates his neighbor, and lies in wait for him, then rises up against him and strikes him mortally that he dies, then flees to one of the cities of refuge; Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. He shall be shown no pity. The quilt of innocent blood shall be put away from Israel. That it may go well with them. (Deuteronomy 19:4-13).

REFERENCE:

• Metzeger, Bruce M. (ed); , Michael D. Coogan (ed) (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5.
• Webster’s Dictionary
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
• Bimson, John J., ed. Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Places. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.

WHO HARDENED PHARAOH’S HEART DURING THE STANDOFF BETWEEN HIM AND THE LORD?

The heart of a being is subject to the volition and preferences the person opts for. According to the Hebrew etymology, “to harden” has three connotation or root meanings.

· Chazaq: meaning to brace or tighten up as opposed to relax (Ex. 5:21; 7:13,22; 8:19; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10;14:4,8)

· Kabed: meaning to make heavy, weighty or hard (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:7, 34; 10:1; 1 Sam. 6:6)

· Qashah: meaning to make sharp, hard, severe or cruel (Ex. 7:3; 13:15)

The hardening of the heart by God is associated with His sovereign power and volition over His creation, but the truth of the matter is that, the sovereignty of God thrives on the activity and actions of men. There is no activity which is done solely by God, but the Lord our God who rules in the affairs of men. Pharaoh hardened his own heart and the Lord magnified it by tightening and sharpening Pharaoh’s resistance for him to know that though he is respected and worshipped by all and sundry as powerful, but He God) is the God over all.

The “hardening” of men’s hearts by God is in the way of punishment, but it is always a consequence of their own self-hardening. In Pharaoh’s case we read that “he hardened his heart” against the appeal to free the Israelites; so hardening himself, he became always more confirmed in his obstinacy, till he brought the final doom upon himself. This is how sin is made to become its own punishment. It was not confined to Pharaoh and the Egyptians nor does it belong to the past only.

Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the penalty for his own rebellion against God. It is the purpose of God to harden, even to damnation, those who oppose Him and His Word and Law. It would have been unjust of God to wink at Pharaoh’s obstinacy.

God does not harden a heart that otherwise might have become soft toward Him. Pharaoh’s callousness is emphasized from his first appearance in Scriptures (1:8-22). And we repetitively read that he further hardened his own heart (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 32) before we read that God hardened it (9:12). When God finally hardened Pharaoh’s heart, He but granted to Pharaoh what this obstinate man desired. God did not infringe upon Pharaoh’s will. Rather, He approved and settled with Pharaoh’s desire.

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart required no positive action on God’s part. All God had to do was eradicate His grace from Pharaoh and leave him to the corruption of his own nature. As surely as the removal of the sun will result in the seas being hardened into ice, so does the removal of the grace of Christ from a man result in the hardening of that man’s heart.

God can never impose punitive measures on Pharaoh if his actions were a superimposition by God. Blunder always precedes a consequence. Pharaoh started the hardening and God had no choice than to prove His worth and power.

There is the question of the denotation, implication and derivation of “free will”; these seem to me to be much more crucial than the presence or absence of free will. Seemingly, it’s very clear that no freedom is absolute. It is very imperative on our part to be acquainted with the very fact that freedom is comparative to its own configuration and course: what we find, whether in God or in human beings, is formed and directed freedom. In the same way, the hardening of heart we find in Pharaoh is not as such the loss or removal of freedom, so much as its direction is geared on the doing of God ALONE – but it is relational to his own enmity and antagonism against the children of Israel. Paradoxically, it is this misdirection of his detestation that occasions the formation and direction of God’s touch of severity on him. It seems to be the conflict of these kinds of “formation” that is central to the narrative of Exodus 4-14.

Interestingly, however, the formation/direction of Pharaoh’s heart is – because it was originating from his hostile affection otherwise than in the Lord – expressed in an act of idolatry, with correlative spitefulness to the people of the Lord; it is a self-formed heart (too au fait with modernity) – as Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (8:32) – and followed by willful meanness. The suitable response by the true God to such a “self single-minded” heart, however, is the result that even this self-formation is in truth accomplished by God, who “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” (7:3) by increasing his nastiness against the Israelites.

Let’s observe this scenario spearheaded by Jews methods of interpretation found in the Midrash and the understanding of great scholars in relation to the phrase “and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”:

The Midrash articulates this question, noting that it opens the door for heretical thoughts:

Rabbi Yochanan said: “Does this not provide heretics with ground for arguing that he had no means of repenting, since it says: ‘for I have hardened his heart’? The Midrash provides an answer:

To which Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish replied: “Let the mouths of the heretics be stopped up … when God warns a man once, twice, and even a third time and he still does not repent, then and there does God close his heart against repentance so that He should exact vengeance from Him for his sins. Thus it was with the wicked Pharaoh. Since God sent five times to him and he took no notice, God then said: ‘You have stiffened your neck and hardened your heart; well, I will add to your uncleanness.’”

REFERENCES:

1. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia “hardness of heart”.

2. Midrash Rabbah, Shmot 13:3

3. Midrash Rabbah, Exodus 13:3

4. Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

5. Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).