Hebrews Lesson
94
July 19,
2007
NKJ Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the
LORD, And He shall give you the desires of your heart.
Open
your Bibles to Romans 5. Just by way of a little review, what we are
trying to answer is a fairly tough question because in answering the question
you have to do some theology. It’s not something that is just a matter of
exegesis. In fact I was rather pleased as I was looking at one commentary today
that the author of the commentary made the point that even though answering
some of these questions gets off into the area of theology beyond
exegesis. You don’t understand this but that is a problem that you
have. Seminaries get all wrapped around the axel and they try to draw this
technical distinction between – so they make this distinction between
exegesis and theology.
Just
about the time you want an answer to a question they say, “No, this is not a
theology. This is an exegetical commentary. We won’t go there.”
“Wait
a minute. I want my questions answered. Can’t you put two and two together
for me?”
So
I was pleased to read at least one commentary where the author was trying to
think through some of these issues because the decision is how do you –
how does sin get transmitted, how does the sin nature get transmitted from one
generation to the next?
The
problem that you get is that these are theological deductions like the angelic
conflict. You look at certain passages and you go to passage A and you
exegete it and you come to certain conclusions. You go to passage B and
you exegete that and you come to certain conclusions. You do that about 10
or 12 times and then you start putting those conclusions together. That is
where you do the real work of theology. What gets complicated today
is…should I just close in prayer? Technology is giving me a headache
already and we haven’t even gotten started. Must be something good
tonight!
It’s
fun to think through these issues. I was on the phone yesterday with a
young pastor who just got out of seminary. He was telling me that –
we were talking about this very issue. We’ve had two or three
conversations the last year about this particular subject. He was telling
me that at Dallas Seminary today (and I am not saying this to dump on Dallas
but Dallas is pretty representative of the thinking of most evangelical
scholars today) that they don’t like using the words “sin nature”. They
don’t like using the word “nature” because for some reason they think that
indicates some sort of quantitative entity and scholars get all wrapped around
the axle trying to define what the nature is, where it is - a lot of
issues like that. So they don’t like that. They just want to refer to it as terms such as flesh and the body of
sin. If you ask any more questions about trying to define things a little
more, they won’t go there. Imputation of the sin nature - Adam's original sin -
is questioned in terms of different exegetical issues. The point that I am
making is that as you see theology shift and evangelicalism shift away from some
of the things that it has stood for and taught for probably 150 years or more,
in American theology at least, concepts such as the sin nature, some other
things. They start making a little change over here and a little change
over there and a little change over here. After a
while these changes can accumulate into some significant changes.
People
wake up and go, “What happened?”
Well,
it is this gradualism that takes place. So whenever we teach a certain
number of things – when I teach a certain number of things that are a
little more detailed, a little more complex such as the angelic conflict or the
transmission of the sin nature or the origin of human life, you have to realize
that many of these things are built on a foundation of the exegesis of dozens
and dozens of passages, and in today’s world that has seen just an unbelievable
multiplication of theological positions in the last 30 years. Let’s say -
this is off the top of my head sort of extrapolation of the way things have
been – let’s say evangelicalism was comprised of maybe, let’s say 20
theological positions in 1970. Today it would be close to 500. Every time you
turn around somebody is coming up with some new view of something. In 1960
there were very, very few if any evangelicals who questioned whether or not
Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 referred to the fall of Satan. Today if you go to
a theology or a commentary that has been written since 1980, I would say you
have 9 chances out of 10 that they would say that neither of those passages
refers to the fall of Satan. That’s how things have changed.
If
you take (and I am just using that as an example because we are going through
that on Sunday morning) Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 out and they don’t tell you
about the fall of Satan, nothing tells you about the fall of Satan. So if
you start manoeuvring like this, it really does domino into many, many areas of
theology. This is one of them.
As
I was talking with this particular individual who comes out of the same
background that most of us come out of, he said that when he was in seminary
they didn’t even want to discuss most of the things related to this because
they have already made so many different exegetical decisions that you can’t
even have a conversation about these things with them. So that gives you
an idea of how these things have changed over the years. Part of the reality is
that we need to take a little more time studying these things trying to help
you understand the foundations of some of these views. They are not just
something somebody came up with. They have a foundation both historically
in church history and they make sense contextually. So that is one reason
I am trying to think through some of these things and maybe articulate the same
position in a little different way so that it makes some sense to people.
Romans
5:12ff is a passage that is frequently cited as a passage that supports the
federal view of the transmission of the sin nature – that Adam was a
representative. But it’s not real clear. It is a deduction from the
passage. It is not something that is specifically or overtly stated in the
passage. But then on the other hand as I have seen a number of
commentators and theologians make points about the seminal position. They
just sort of throw out Hebrews 7:9-10 as finalizing that without ever getting
into some of the details of exegesis there. So there are theological
assumptions. What happens I think in each generation is that there are
certain ideas that become trendy. Everybody sort of gets on
the trendy bandwagon.
“Oh,
the new doctrine is that everybody sort of figured out that Isaiah 14 doesn’t
refer to the fall of Satan. So, let’s all go with that. Hebrews
7:9-10 argues for seminalism and that’s valid so we
will just accept that and go right on.”
I
was talking to this one fellow seminary graduate. We were talking about
the origin of human life and the creationist position versus the Traducian position. I remember having lively discussions
about that in theology classes back in the 70’s at Dallas Seminary.
He
said, “It’s not even a discussion point anymore.”
They
just throw out the Traducian position (This is it.)
and the creationist position is dismissed without even giving it value as a
legitimate position anymore. It is sort of dismissed out of hand and
nobody even wants to discuss it - the same thing with the federal versus the
seminal position. I have discovered recently that the federal position is
almost dismissed out of hand. In fact somebody else who is a member of the
congregation was off at a theologically oriented training session not too long
ago and somebody made a comment about the transmission of Adam's original sin
and they brought up the concept of both federalism and seminalism.
The
pastor who was teaching told them, “No one believes in federal representation
anymore. That’s ridiculous.”
He
dismissed it right out of hand without any discussion. That is not true
academically. In fact I read a couple of commentaries on Romans that are
very extensive and very detailed and I don’t agree with some of the things that
are said in some of them because they come from a very strong Calvinist
position, but both of them supported very well the federal view of Romans 5
that Adam is viewed in these passages as a representative of the human
race.
So
we live in a very strange time as far as I am concerned. We have had all of
these people that were trained differently and now they seem to want to
generate and come up with all these new ideas. People become enamoured
with something new and think that because it is new it must be better than what
I heard for the previous 30 or 40 years of my Christian life.
So
let’s get back into Romans 5 now that I have editorialized for the last 15
minutes. As we look at this passage it is important to understand the
basic structure. As I pointed out the last couple of times verse 12 begins with
a comparison and contrast between Adam’s sin and Christ’s work on the
cross. I think this is absolutely foundational to understanding what is
going on and why both aspects - there is a seminal aspect - that is a physical
connection aspect and there is a federal or a representative aspect. The
physical aspect as I pointed out in the past relates to the fact that the
entire human race is viewed as a physical entity so that Christ in His humanity
is genetically related to every other human being. So physically he is
able to – God has designed this fabulous plan where physically Jesus
Christ can die as a substitute for everybody else because we are viewed as this
organism as it were. Then He also dies as a substitute. That’s the
representative idea. So both elements are true. This comes out of this
comparison and contrast between Adam’s sin and its affect on the whole human
race and Christ’s work and its affect on the whole human race.
So
verse 12 begins with the comparison and contrast. Verses 13-14 give a
definition of sin and death as an aside. It’s very important because in
verses 13 and 14 we answer the question and the question is answered whether or
not this sin for which we are condemned is our own personal sin or the sin of
Adam. That is crucial!
That
little decision right there is one that is so determinative in how you view and
interpret so many other things in the Bible and how you understand the Christian
life today. If you don’t make the right decision there, it’s like coming
to a Y in the road or a fork in the road and you are coming out of New York and
you are trying to go to Texas. At the initial split you may only be a few
degrees off but you are going to end up in Chicago rather than in Houston as
you go down the road. That is what happens theologically.
A
lot of people will just think, “Well, I am just going to focus on this passage and
right here it seems to me that the sin here has to do with personal
sins.”
Well,
where that takes you inevitably when it comes to understanding the gospel,
understanding how sin was taken care of - this is one of the big problems that
so many Christians have today. They are so caught up with trying to deal
with their own personal sin because they think that is what they are condemned
for – their own personal sins. They know they are saved, but they
are not real sure of their salvation. You have questions of assurance of
salvation, but then when they are trying to live their Christian life they get
so wrapped around the axel about their own personal sin. They get caught
up with guilt and the whole focal point of their Christian life is – not
sin, not sin, not sin. You don’t understand I John 1:9 correctly and all
these other things come into play. The result is that you have Christians
who can’t live the Christian life. They don’t understand the tremendous freedom
that we have in Christ and they can’t relax in grace and the completed work of
Christ on the cross. So verses 13 and 14 are very important.
Then
verses 15 through 17 come back to a contrast of Christ and Adam so we
understand what he is not talking about. The free gift isn’t like the
offense in verse 15. The gift is not like that which came through the one
who sinned in verse 16. It emphasizes a difference. Then in verse 18
he comes back to the main analogy. So 18 through 21 are very important for
understanding what goes on in 12 through 14. Unfortunately most people try
to interpret 18 through 21 (most of the commentators I looked at, many
theologians) in light of verse 12 to 14 instead of 12 to 14 in light of the
qualifications and make it a priority out of 18-21.
So
having said that:
NKJ Romans 5:12 Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus
death spread to all men, because all sinned –
The
parallel that Paul is focusing in this analogy, the contrast that he goes to
between Christ and Adam is Christ is solely responsible for our salvation. Adam
is solely responsible for sin and the spiritual death and the spread of
spiritual death to all men.
Now
the question at hand is how did death spread to all men and how did sin spread
to all men.
I
think it is important to understand this one term that is used in Romans 5:12
– and thus. That word “thus” is the Greek word houtos. I keep coming
back to this. I want to get this in your head. It means in this
manner that I am about to tell you – “and thusly”. It is used the
same way in John 3:16.
NKJ John 3:16 "For
God so loved the world …
We
have the word “so”. What does that mean? A lot of people think it means “for God loved the world so much”. It doesn’t
mean that. It means God love the world in this way. In what way?
that
He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish
but have everlasting life.
In
other words, what follows this use of houtos is the
example. So what Paul is saying is “in this manner.” In what manner? In the manner of one
man. This is the manner in which death spread to all men because
all sinned. If you noticed here I have in brackets (in Adam positionally). Paul goes through this passage very
quickly. You get a sense of his excitement. He drops out words. He breaks
in the middle of a paragraph. He uses various constructions that indicate
that he is – there is ellipsis here where he drops our words. That
shows his excitement. But you are reading this you should understand and
supply these other words and they’re present from context, but we have to kind
of think them through a little bit.
As
you look at verse 12 it says:
NKJ Romans 5:12 Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
There
is a second mention of death.
and
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned –
So
the focal point of the passage is talking about death. It is talking about
the spread of death. Now death is the penalty for sin. So it is the
result. So if death spreads to all men, then the cause of that death also
spreads to all men. By focusing on the consequence, the penalty of sin
being for everyone the sin nature, the corruption itself, should be spread also
to all men. So that is the focal point of this chiasm.
Sin
Death
Death
Sin
Another
thing that we should note here is that in the phrase “thus death spread to all
men”. We have four questions that we have to address. I have
addressed all of them already.
- What is sin?
- What is the penalty for sin?
- What is the sin nature’s relationship to the corporeal human body? We will get into that some tonight and more next time.
- And how is this passed on?
Those
two are what we are trying to answer right now.
What
is sin? When we looked at all the different Hebrew and Greek words for sin
– sin is the violation of God’s character, God’s standard. Different
words are used to indicate different dimensions of that - missing the mark, the
concept of trespass or transgress or violating the law, a known
revelation. You also have words indicating the twisting of the standard.
But it is the violation of that absolute standard in God’s character. It
is God’s character that is the benchmark against which everything is measured. The
penalty for sin as I pointed out last time is spiritual death. I am going
to go through that a little bit more tonight. You have to make this
distinction between physical death and spiritual death and that spiritual death
is the penalty for sin.
Then
tonight and next week, I am looking at this issue of the sin nature’s
relationship to the corporeal human body and how this is passed on to the human
race. Another thing we need to note here that is very important in terms
of the grammar of the passage is that both the word for sin and the word for
death always have the definite article in this passage. What that
indicates is that Paul is focusing on a particular sin and a particular kind of
death. He is singling that out as distinct from all other sin and all
other death. So it is through one man that the sin entered the
world. Theologians refer to this as original sin or Adam’s original
sin. So it is:
through
one man the sin entered the world and
the death.
Every
time the word thanatos is used for death
in these verses, it is always used with the article - singling it
out. That is a very important understanding in terms of the nature of the
article. So we have a technical use of the article in the Greek which frequently highlights the noun as something that
is in a class by itself.
In
English you have a definite article because we have an indefinite article. “A”
(or “an”) is an indefinite article. But in Greek you technically don’t refer to
it as a definite article because there is no indefinite article. So it is
just the article. There are about 9 or 10 different ways in which the
article is used in Greek and it is not used to make the noun definite or
not. Now that is really strange to those of us who are native English
speakers because that is the primary and almost exclusive use of the article in
English. It makes something definite as opposed to indefinite. I went
to the doctor as opposed to any doctor. Or, I ate the sandwich as opposed
to any sandwich. It particularizes some individual thing as opposed to
just anything.
But
we also have remnants of this absence of an article where the noun is still
definite, especially in British English where they will talk about instead of
going to the hospital they say, “We went to hospital.”
Well,
hospital is assumed to be inherently definite. It is not just any
hospital. They went to the hospital, but they drop out that article. They
went to university. In American idiom we would always put an article in front
of either one of those particular nouns. That is a remnant of this particular
idea that I am talking about in Greek. Russian is really strange when you
have to translate definite concepts over to Russian because there is no article
in Russian. That is why if you hear a Russian speaker start speaking
English, they have a difficult time with articles. It is because there is
no article in Russian. So it is very difficult to translate some things in
the Scripture over into Russian because there is no article
whatsoever. But sometimes in Greek the absence of an article - the noun is
still definite even though the article is missing. Other times even though the
article is present it is not particularizing the noun. It is using it to
indicate a maybe previous mention of the noun or any number of other things. So
you have to analyse context a whole lot in order to do that.
The
article here is what is classified as the article par excellence. I will
give you the definition of that. It is when the article is used to point
out a noun that is in a sense in a class by itself. It is unique. It is a
one-of-a-kind type of category. It is the only one deserving of the
name.
For
example if (I am reading this out of Dan Wallace’s grammar) in late January
someone were to say to you, “Did you see the game?”
then you might reply, “Which game?”
They
might then reply, “The game, the only game worth watching, the
big game. You know the Super Bowl.”
This
is the article used in a par excellence way. It is distinguishing that
game from any other game. It is making it one-of-a-kind, separating it out
into its own class. It’s not necessarily used (as Wallace points out) for
the best of the class; it could be used for the worst of the class. It is
simply pointing out the extreme or unique use of that particular noun. That
is what we have here. This distinguishes this particular sin and this
particular death from all other sins and all other deaths.
Now
if you don’t take time to track down and identify the use of the article there,
then you can get into some exegetical problems and come to some wrong
conclusions.
Well
there is another problem that comes up in here. It is identifying the kind
of death that is here. I pointed this out last time that a lot of people aren’t
comfortable with distinguishing spiritual death from physical death except you
have passages like Ephesians 2:1 which makes it very clear that there is this
distinction. Paul addresses the Ephesians and says,
NKJ Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in
trespasses and sins,
They
were obviously physically alive, but they were spiritually dead. Then you
have to define exactly what that means. What is the nature of
regeneration?
What
happens in regeneration? I can’t remember if I told you this last time or
not, but this concept of spiritual death is the loss of the human spirit is
another thing that many, many contemporary theologians and commentators don’t
accept anymore - is this trichotomous view of man as
body, soul and spirit. The spirit is lost at spiritual death and regained
at regeneration. So regeneration is no longer understood
by them as gaining something at that point of salvation that had been
lost by Adam – that something is quantitatively gained. For them it
is just a metaphor of a qualitative change that takes place. Notice I shifted
from qualitative to quantitative. It’s a quality change that takes place
in the believer.
I
read an article a number of years ago in a theological journal by a classmate
of mine at Dallas Seminary who was writing an article critiquing this interchange
that took place back in 1918 between Louise Sperry Chafer and Benjamin
Breckenridge Warfield. Warfield was considered the foremost conservative
theologian of his day. He taught at Princeton University and he was a
strong Calvinist. He read Louise Sperry Chafer’s book He That is Spiritual and wrote a very
scathing book review of that. So that is what this article was
about. I am not going to get into the technicalities of that. The
conclusions he said was that one of the problems Louis Sperry Chafer had was
that he had a low view of regeneration - that he didn’t understand that
regeneration limits the power of the sin nature after salvation. See what
did he do? He made it qualitative so that after salvation if you are truly
regenerate your sin nature won’t be as bad as it was before. See how that
leads to lordship salvation? So, all of these different kinds of things do
connect with one another.
So
we have to look at the kind of death that it is and I pointed that out last
time that you have different kinds of death that are mentioned in the
Scripture.
- You have physical death which is separation of the soul from the body.
- You have spiritual death which is what happens with Adam at the moment that he sinned.
- We have the second death mentioned in Hebrews 9:27 and Revelation 20:12-15 which is the ongoing penalty on the unbeliever for his rejection of Christ, for his lack of faith.
- We have operational death, James 2:26. Faith without works (that is application) is dead. It is non-productive or operational death.
- Then you have positional death which is our identification with Christ on the cross. Romans 6:2-3, Col 2:12, 20, 3:3. We at the instant of our faith in Christ are identified with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. So His death becomes our death positionally.
- Then we have temporal death which is living in extended carnality.
- Then the seventh was related to Abraham and sexual death, beyond the ability to procreate.
So
those are the 7 different kinds of death. So every time you see death in
the Scripture you have to decide what kind of death it is.
You
also have another decision to make when you talk about sin. Death is
mentioned here so you have to define which kind of death you are talking
about.
Then
you have to talk about sin. Which of the three different uses of sin is
this talking about? Is this talking about Adam’s original sin? Is this
talking about personal sin? Or, is this talking about the sin
nature? Most people when they read passages like this,
they immediately want to read into the passage personal sin. So you can
once again get into some problems if you go into this as personal sin.
So
we will look at the weaknesses of that first of all by calling it option
#1. This is a view that many people have taken historically. There
are a couple of variations on it. The first variation which we referred to
the last couple of weeks is to take the phrase “because all sinned”. You
can sin as personal sins or Adam's original sin. If you take the first option
as personal sins the verse would read:
Just as through one man’s sin
Sometimes
you have people take that as sin nature; otherwise it is the fact of sin (the
historical event of a sin) enters the world. They would take that as (the Pelagian view) historical.
And death through sin
That
would be applied only to Adam.
And thus death spread to all men because all sinned
All
committed personal sins.
The
Pelagian view was that people commit their first
personal sin – that’s when they come under the penalty of spiritual
death. Now very few people take that view today. That is not a
problem that any of you have, but that’s the old Pelagian
extreme view that Adam’s sin affected only Adam.
But
another sort of twist on that view is the view that the sin here refers to the
sin nature.
Just as through one man the sin nature
entered into the world and death through sin
That
is, through the sin nature
And thus death spread to all men
because all have a sin nature.
So
the problem with this is that it doesn’t fit the context. It is trying to
add an intermediate step into the process, which is the sin nature that death
comes to (Let’s personalize this) you as an individual because you were born
with a sin nature. See the sin nature in this view isn’t loaded with guilt, it is just a sin nature. But it is very
important to note that the passage doesn’t allow for some sort of intermediate
thing between Adam’s sin and our condemnation.
In
verse 15 we read:
For if by the one man's offence many died, much more the
grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded
to many.
See
it wasn’t by the one man’s offence many people got a sin nature and many
died. It is his sin directly not indirectly through a sin nature but
directly leads to the spiritual death of the many.
Verse
16 says:
For the judgment which came from one offence resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in
justification.
It
is that one offence immediately results in condemnation not the fact that you
gain a sin nature. This view is only one step removed from the Pelagian view. You get into verse 17:
NKJ Romans 5:17
For if by the one man's offence death reigned through the one, much more those
who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in
life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Adam’s
sin is pictured in all these verses as immediately causing the fall and
condemnation and the guilt of the entire human race. It’s not waiting upon
its actualization by people who are born who either sin and then get a sin
nature or are born with a sin nature and then sin. In both of these views,
it is viewed as personal sin. If this is personal sin then Adam’s sin
really doesn’t affect the entire human race and what you are condemned for is
your personal sin.
Now
the better solution to the problem is that the sin that we are condemned for is
Adam's sin so that when you read in verse 12 “thus death spread to all men
because all sinned”, what is missing there - as Paul is developing that –
what he leaves out in ellipsis is what I pointed out earlier because all sinned
positionally in Adam. When he sinned, we
sinned.
Now
that may seem like an unusual position because we think in our world that “I am accountable for my decision. How can
God condemn me for a decision that I didn’t make. Maybe
I would have made a different decision.” As I pointed out in the past, “No, I wouldn’t.”
God
in His omniscience knows that. There is something more fundamental to
this. That goes a little bit against the grain of how most modern men
think. That is this whole concept of corporate unity. I alluded to
that earlier in terms of why Christ can die for the whole human race because
the whole human race is viewed as a corporate unity in contrast to the
angels. I pointed that out the last few weeks on Sunday in our study of
angelology. The angels were created individually.
Let
me take the rest of class to go back and show an Old Testament illustration of
this corporate unity - how the whole becomes guilty of a decision made by one
person. That seems to run so counter to a lot of things we understand, but
this is fundamental to much of the Old
Testament.
I
could go (just for prep school teachers who want to have another illustration)
to the episode at the end of II Samuel when David takes the census. It is
David’s sin. He takes a census of the people in violation of God’s law. What
happens? God is going to judge the nation and he is given three options as
to how God is going to judge them. He picks the option of a
plague. So the angel of death comes and there is this plague that goes
through the nation for about three days and thousands are killed because of
David’s sin. It is viewed as a corporate entity where David is viewed as
the representative of the people. So this idea of one person representing
the whole flows through all the Old Testament.
But,
I think a good example is in Joshua 7. So turn back with me to the book
of Joshua.
Now
let me set this up because you can’t understand chapter 7 without understanding
chapter 6. Chapter 6 is the Battle of Jericho. We all know Joshua fi’t the Battle at
Jericho but that is not exactly the point that I want to focus on here. It
is the mandate that he was given. God gave a specific mandate as to how
Joshua was going to defeat and conquer the city of Jericho and just exactly
what the people were to do and what they were not to do. So look at verse
17.
NKJ Joshua 6:17
"Now the city shall be doomed by the LORD to destruction, it and all who are in it.
Only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all who are with her
in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
Notice
even in that you have a representative volitional decision. Rehab made the
decision to hide the two spies, not her family. But her
family gets blessed by association because of this concept of corporate unity
and one person making a decision as a representative for a group. So
Rahab’s decision means that the family is going to
live.
Then
in verse 18 the instructions go on to say:
NKJ Joshua 6:18
"And you, by all means abstain from the accursed things,
The
accursed things that are referred to are the things that were under the ban
that they were not supposed to take. They were supposed to destroy
everything.
lest
you become accursed when you take of the accursed things, and make the camp of
Israel a curse, and trouble it.
That
word for accursed things doesn’t mean things are cursed and some kind of black
magic concept. But they are banned. They are not to be taken by the
people. They were supposed to be destroyed. All of the riches, the
gold and silver, were to be taken to the temple and everything else was
supposed to be killed. The people were not to profit from the destruction
of Jericho.
So
we read in verse 19.
NKJ Joshua 6:19
"But all the silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are consecrated
That
word consecrated is the Hebrew word qodesh meaning set
apart to the Lord.
to
the LORD; they shall come into the treasury of the LORD."
So
the mandate was to destroy everything in the city.
NKJ Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the
city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge
of the sword.
Everything
living was supposed to be killed. That was the mandate. But not
everybody followed the law.
Look
at chapter 7.
NKJ Joshua 7:1
But the children of Israel committed a trespass
regarding the accursed things
Notice
the children of Israel. There is a corporate phrase. The whole nation
– everybody else in that nation – there are approximately 2
millions Jews - 1,999,999 of them did exactly what God said; but one did
not. But because one did not, what does the text say? The children of
Israel committed a trespass just because one person disobeyed God. See,
that is that principle of corporate unity and one person representing the whole
and his sin being imputed to the whole.
for
Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi,
the son of Zerah,
of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed things;
I
often wondered why it gives us all of that genealogical data. The reason
it does is because it locates him as being genetically related to the whole of
the tribe of Judah. It goes back to Judah. He is in the tribe of Judah and
Judah is part of the 12 tribes of Israel. So he is making the point that
he is an Israelite and he can represent the whole nation.
He
saw some of the gold and silver and decided, “While no one is watching I am
going to stash this inside my rucksack and take it back to my tent and I will
have a little extra wealth.”
But
God saw his sins.
so
the anger of the LORD burned against the children of Israel.
That
phrase does not mean that God - because God knew in eternity past that this
would take place, but it is an idiom indicating the harshness and the severity
of God’s judgment on Israel.
So
Achan sins, but the whole nation is going to be
judged as a result of this. That sin of Achan is
imputed to the rest of the nation. He is that federal
representative.
So
the next event is they have to go up the road a little further northwest to the
next city, which is Ai. They are going to conquer it. But there is a
different strategy from God.
NKJ Joshua 7:2
Now Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven,
on the east side of Bethel, and spoke to them, saying, "Go up and spy out
the country." So the men went up and spied out Ai.
He
sent out his reconnaissance team and they spied out Ai.
NKJ Joshua 7:3
And they returned to Joshua and said to him, "Do not let all the people go
up, but let about two or three thousand men go up and attack Ai. Do not weary
all the people there, for the people of Ai are few."
“It
is a smaller, less well-defended city. We can do this with two or three
thousand people.”
We
haven’t noticed a reference to God or direction from God at this
point. The pre-incarnate Christ is the general. He is the head of the army
of Israel as depicted back in chapter 5, verses 12-15. But, they are not
going to the Commander-in-Chief for directions here for their strategy. So
they decided that they can do it with 2000 – 3000 men and they go
out. So they send 3,000 men and they get routed. They attack Ai and
Ai soundly and roundly defeats them.
NKJ Joshua 7:5
And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men, for they chased them from before
the gate as far as Shebarim,
and struck them down on the descent; therefore the hearts of the people melted
and became like water.
Now
let’s stop a minute and talk about this. Thirty six
people got killed, lost their lives because of Achan’s
sin. Does that fit your preconceived notion of justice? Probably
not. So we need to change our understanding of God or change our
understanding of justice? We need to change our understanding of justice
because there is this corporate thing. Because of one sin that was a
secret sin and nobody else in Israel knew what Aiken did, but because he is
part of that corporate unity the nation has lost their
spiritual power. They are out of fellowship. The whole nation is in
carnality and they are under divine discipline and they are not going to
succeed at anything until they take care of the sin that is part of the
corporate whole. So there are these 36 men and it probably didn’t appear
too just to them that they lost their lives. But, this is how divine
justice works. Then Joshua didn’t appear to be too just to him. He
has his own little pity party.
NKJ Joshua 7:6
Then Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face before the ark
of the LORD until evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on
their heads.
He
blames God. Look at verse 7.
NKJ Joshua 7:7
And Joshua said, "Alas, Lord GOD, why have You brought this people over
the Jordan at all -- to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy
us? Oh, that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan!
“Why
did this happen? It is all your fault,
God. If you hadn’t brought us in here this wouldn’t have happened. We
shouldn’t have suffered this defeat.”
See
even Joshua has to have his concept of divine justice adjusted by
revelation. So God comes to him in verse 10.
NKJ Joshua 7:10
So the LORD said to Joshua: "Get up! Why do you
lie thus on your face?
NKJ Joshua 7:11
"Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My
covenant which I commanded them. For they have even taken some of the accursed
things, and have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among
their own stuff.
Notice
the corporate unity sinned. Joshua doesn’t even know about Achan’s
sin. Nobody does. It was a sin that was in secret. But it is a
sin that was imputed to the whole. It is one person’s sin. He stands
as a representative for the whole and his sin becomes the sin of the whole
nation and the whole nation suffers the consequences for his sin. As a
result of that the children of Israel could not stand before their
enemies.
What
is the solution? The solution is that this is a great Old Testament story
to emphasize the whole doctrine of confession and forgiveness. They have
to be sanctified. God gives them the instructions.
NKJ Joshua 7:13
"Get up, sanctify the people,
That
is what confession is. Confession is practical, experiential
sanctification. You have become unsanctified experientially when you
sinned because you are in carnality. At confession when we are cleansed
from all unrighteousness we become sanctified experientially. We are back
in fellowship. That is what has to happen corporately.
and
say, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because thus says the LORD God of
Israel: "There
is an accursed thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your
enemies until you take away the accursed thing from among you."
So
the whole point is that until they deal with the sin in their midst, they will
never experience victory in the plan of God. That is the same thing that
is true for believers. Unless you deal with the sin that is in your life
through the application of the Word, not because you are going around
self-absorbed, contemplating your navel trying to figure out every little sin
that is going on in your life, which is how most Baptists
would preach this. The issue is unless you understand God’s principle for sanctification which is confession of sin so that you are
back in fellowship, you can’t go forward. So they have to go through the
process. For them the details are a little bit different. So there is
going to be a penalty. They are going to go through this process to
identify the tribe, then the clan, then the family and finally the individual
who committed this offence. Then there is a penalty.
NKJ Joshua 7:15
'Then it shall be that he who is taken with the accursed thing shall be burned with
fire,
Why
is he burned with fire and not stoned? That is the general penalty that
you have in the Mosaic Law. What is burning with fire
there? Purification - purification of sin. That is the problem - sin
is in the camp and there needs to be
purification.
he
and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and
because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.' "
So
the next morning they get up and in verses 16ff describe the whole process
where they identify the tribe of Judah and the family and then eventually they
come down to the family of Zabdi and identify Achan. Achan is
identified. In verse 19 Joshua confronts him.
NKJ Joshua 7:19
Now Joshua said to Achan, "My son, I beg you,
give glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him, and tell me
now what you have done; do not hide it from me."
NKJ Joshua 7:20
And Achan answered Joshua and said, "Indeed I
have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I have done:
This
is a great example of confession prayer.
“I
have sinned against the Lord. This is what I did. I took this in
violation of the commandment.” I am sure he felt very badly about this because
he knew he was about to die. But, that wasn’t the point of his
confession. That was how he felt. He admits that he took the
beautiful Babylonian garment.
NKJ Joshua 7:21
"When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred
shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them
Mental
attitude sin
and
took them.
Overt
sin.
And there they are, hidden in the earth in the midst of my
tent, with the silver under it."
NKJ Joshua 7:22
So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent;
and there it was, hidden in his tent, with the silver under it.
NKJ Joshua 7:24
Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the
son of Zerah,
the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters,
Do
you think this is fair to his sons and daughters? I hope this challenges
your American concept – western European concept of justice. We have
this thing of corporate unity here.
his
oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought
them to the Valley of Achor.
NKJ Joshua 7:25
And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this
day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire
after they had stoned them with stones.
That
is the purification after they had stoned him with stones.
NKJ Joshua 7:25
And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you this
day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire
after they had stoned them with stones.
Not
to this day (today) but to the day the writer wrote Joshua. It was still
there. In other words this is an object lesson.
How
many times in the Old Testament did they set up these stone cairn monuments so
that later on 150 – 200 years later you would go by and your little boy
would say, “Well, Daddy, what is that pile of rocks over there?”
Then
there would be an object lesson to teach doctrine. That is what that was all
about. The point I am making here is that in the Old Testament here, you
have it with David’s sin at the end of II Samuel; you have it in other passages
in the Old Testament. There is this corporate unity. So this
demonstrates not only is there physical unity because he is Jewish that is the
point of the genealogy. It takes him back and shows him that there is also
a physical unity with Israel, but there is also this representative aspect as
well. He is a representative of the nation because he sinned - all
sinned. So you have the same principle there that you have in Romans 5
that when Adam sinned; all sinned immediately,
directly. Everyone is immediately guilty of Adam’s sin the instant he
sinned just as everyone in the nation Israel was immediately guilty of Achan’s sin when he did it even though they didn’t know
anything about it. So this is a solid biblical principle that extends
throughout Scripture.
The
next time we will come back and get into the issue that comes up in verses 13
and 14 that shows the importance of understanding this as Adam’s sin and that
people don’t have their own personal sins imputed to them. That is not the
cause of our condemnation. It is Adam’s original which
we are guilty of both seminally and federally.
We
will come back to that next time.