# comment

text:
<p>It came to pass that, when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut, and commanded that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. I set some of my servants over the gates, so that no burden should be brought in on the Sabbath day- An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (<a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a> - i:e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required.</p><p>“The people of the land” hung around the gates of the city on the Sabbath in order to do some trading of goods. By allowing this, the Jews precluded the fulfilment of <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>: “Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the LORD in the Sabbaths and in the new moons”. <a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a> had prophesied that "Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you". The reality was that the walls were built from a motive not of glorifying Zion in fulfilment of prophecy, but for defence against the Gentiles:&nbsp; But the gates had to be shut to keep the Gentiles out, lest they yet further corrupted the Jews who were eager to trade with them on the Sabbath rather than convert them to the God of Israel. Instead of bringing their goods through the gates to lay before Yahweh, they brought in their goods to sell to His people in trade. But returned Judah didn’t act as a nation of priests, the food the Gentiles brought in to Zion was to be sold for profit to the Jews. They failed to be a missionary nation, and rather were mere trading / economic partners on an equal footing [cp. the church today?]. The prophecy that the gates would be always open will now only come true in the future Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:730 21:25-26'>Rev 21:25-26</a>).</p><p>Due to the Jews’ abuse of the Sabbath and their refusal to believe Yahweh would be the promised wall of protecting fire to them, the gates could not be open continually, and had to be shut at night (<a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a>). And Antiochus quite soon after Nehemiah’s time destroyed them [which shows how the spirituality involved in what we do, e:g. the building of the wall, is the essential thing, rather than the achievement of anything in itself]. The implication of the prophecies about Zion’s open gates was that whosoever would could then come at any time to seek Yahweh. But men were potentially turned away from Him, and His Kingdom not realized::. just because greedy, materialistic Jews wanted to have a few more coins in their pocket as a result of their trading on the Sabbath. And so with us, our meanness, our disabling of adverts to be placed, preaching to be done::. by our selfishness, our desire to have more than we need to cover us in the case of any eventuality, all this effectively shuts up the Kingdom against men. If the Pharisees could do just this, it is possible for us to do it. The salvation of others has been delegated into our hands.</p>


text:
<p>So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside of Jerusalem once or twice- The impression we get from here and :21 is that Nehemiah alone scared these people away; again we sense that there was little real spirituality amongst the returned exiles, and Nehemiah was a singular force in reforming things.</p>


text:
<p>Then I testified against them and said to them, Why do you stay around the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time on, they didn’t come on the Sabbath- "I will lay hands::." again suggests as on :20 that Nehemiah alone was threatening action. He appears to have had no significant group of spiritual supporters in the community of returned exiles, again reflecting how the great potentials of the restoration prophecies weren't fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day- They were to "come" and live in Jerusalem, abandoning the lands they were farming for themselves. This was perhaps why the Levites needed reminding here to keep the Sabbath. The majority of those who did return, only did so in order for purely personal benefit- of having their own house and land. They ‘went up’ to the land, but not to Zion. With reference to <a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a>, "get up to the high mountain” of Zion, <a href='B:440 1:7-9'>Hag 1:7-9</a> exhorted them: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD. Ye looked for much [i:e. they expected the promised Kingdom blessings], and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house”. Their focus was on their own lands and farms rather than the glory of Zion. They stood related to the things of God’s kingdom, but never ventured beyond their own personal self-interest. They would not accept that God manifestation rather than human salvation and pleasure was the essential purpose of their God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for this also, and spare me according to the greatness of Your loving grace- Nehemiah was inspired by Samson (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a> = <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>), implying that despite his tendency to judgmentalism and self-righteousness, he did also appreciate his own desperate weakness and need for grace- perhaps because he finally recognized his self-righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab- The Jews who returned from exile were not spiritually strong. These Gentile peoples had perhaps been moved into Palestine by the Babylonians, or came there to trade.</p>


text:
<p>And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people- This would imply that the Jewish men had married women whose language they didn't understand. There is also the implication that only speaking broken Hebrew was counted as not speaking Hebrew. This language issue would have precluded them from hearing the law of Moses explained or hearing the history of Israel read.</p>


text:
<p>I contended with them and cursed them, and struck certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves- To have hair plucked off was if Nehemiah was trying to force them to repent; but we cannot force repentance in others, even if we try to force them to go through the external motions of it, in this case, the plucking off of hair as repentance for marriage out of the faith. Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if he has married out of the Faith (<a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a> cp. <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>; likewise the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a>). Jeremiah too speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins (<a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a>). The Lord would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him that was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless foreign women caused even him to sin- Here and in :18, Nehemiah appeals to historical precedent as a reason not to repeat mistakes. This is how the Bible, which is largely history, becomes a living word to us. And this was the tragedy of the children of the intermarried Jews being unable to read or hear Hebrew; this history wouldn't be available to them. The power of women is here emphasized, as if unbelieving wives are as it were stronger than all the special love of God poured out upon a man. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing culture, which viewed women as powerless and the man as supremely dominant in a marriage. God's continual warning about the influence of wives is actually a deconstruction of this; and the Jewish men who married Gentile women likely believed in their cultural views of women more than they did God's word. They assumed those women were powerless to influence them. God's word accords far more value and meaning to every human person, including Gentile females.</p>


text:
<p>Shall we then listen to you to do all this great evil, in breaking covenant with our God in marrying foreign wives?- See on :26. Perhaps the nobles had made some official statement that marrying Gentile women was acceptable, and Nehemiah is saying that this should not be listened to. Or perhaps he was saying that their example in marrying these women was effectively a voice beckoning others to do likewise, which should be ignored. For in marital and moral matters, the voice of example is indeed very loud. This verse is in my view the strongest single argument against marriage out of the faith, because it seems to state that in this case, these men would be breaking covenant with Yahweh by marrying those not in that covenant.</p>


text:
<p>One of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me- Eliashib himself was connected by marriage with Tobiah. We have presented here the apostasy of the high priestly family. They had broken covenant with God (:27) and yet were the spiritual leaders of the returned exiles. We are given the impression of deep corruption of the people. This man was chased from Nehemiah, perhaps meaning he was not allowed any place in the leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Remember them, my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites- LXX "for their false connection with the priesthood". The son of Joiada who had married Sanballat's Gentile daughter therefore had no connection with the priesthood, in God's eyes. The "covenant of the priesthood" was "everlasting" (<a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a>), just as the old covenant was; but it was eternal from God's side. The fact is that the Levites broke the eternal covenant by their sins. We may query whether Nehemiah's request that their sins be "remembered" was in fact in harmony with God's way of not wishing to "remember" sin against people. And even if He does, why would Nehemiah ask Him to do so? It seems another indication of a somewhat legalistic and judgmental attitude in Nehemiah.</p>


text:
<p>Thus I cleansed them from all foreigners, and appointed duties for the priests and for the Levites, each one in his work- The cleansing seems to have involved making the spiritual leadership break up from their foreign wives. But the idea here may also be that despite the apostasy of the leadership, Nehemiah organized the ordinary priests and Levites to get on with the Lord's work- which is a lesson for us all when spiritual leadership goes wrong morally, or becomes dysfunctional.</p>


text:
<p>And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the first fruits- It was this humble service, which was supposed to be the work of the Nethinim, which nobody much wanted to do. Ezra had had huge problems getting any Levites to come to Jerusalem to do such menial work. Nehemiah had already tried to sort out who would gather firewood in <a href='B:160 10:34'>Neh 10:34</a>; but clearly it remained an abiding problem. As it is to this day; for there are very few real 'workers' amongst the people of God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for good- This repeated and even desperate request to be remembered for good in the last day was perhaps what influenced the penitent thief to ask the same of the dying Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<e>Esther: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces)- The LXX adds at this point: "In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the great king, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jarius, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaus, of the tribe of Benjamine, a Jew dwelling in the city Susa, a great man, serving in the king's palace, saw a vision. Now he was of the captivity which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried captive from Jerusalem, with Jachonias the king of Judea.</p><p>And this was his dream: Behold, voices and a noise, thunders and earthquake, tumult upon the earth. And, behold, two great serpents came forth, both ready for conflict, and there came from them a great voice, and by their voice every nation was prepared for battle, even to fight against the nation of the just. And, behold, a day of darkness and blackness, tribulation and anguish, affection and tumult upon the earth. And all the righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own afflictions; and they prepared to die, and cried to God: and from their cry there came as it were a great river from a little fountain , even much water. And light and the sun arose, and the lowly were exalted, and devoured the honorable. And Mardochaeus who had seen this vision and what God desired to do, having awoke, kept it in his heart, and desired by all means to interpret it, even till night. And Mardochaeus rested quiet in the palace with Gabatha and Tharrha the king's two chamberlains, eunuchs who guarded the palace. And he heard their reasoning and searched out their plans, and learnt that they were preparing to lay hands on king Artaxerxes: and he informed the king concerning them. And the king examined the two chamberlains, and they confessed, and were executed. And the king wrote these things for a memorial: also Mardochaeus wrote concerning these matters".</p>


text:
<p>that in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom which was in Shushan the palace- The impression is given that he had recently ascended the throne and was seeking to demonstrate his power and authority. "Shushan" is the Hebrew word for "lily", which was iconicly associated with the Jerusalem temple (s:w. <a href='B:110 7:19'>1Ki 7:19</a>; <a href='B:110 7:22'>1Ki 7:22</a>; <a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a>; <a href='B:140 4:5'>2Ch 4:5</a>). This sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom and temple of Yahweh.</p><p><a href='B:190 1:3'>Est 1:3</a> in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the powerful ones of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him- The impression is given of a man with huge power "before him". And this powerful man is set to be manipulated by the invisible hand of God working through a nervous, not very spiritually strong Jewish refugee teenager.</p>


text:
<p>He displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even one hundred and eighty days- This was the kind of thing Hezekiah did after his deliverance, giving all glory to himself rather than Yahweh and His Kingdom. Riches, glory, honour, majesty and Kingdom are words and ideas all associated with Yahweh's Kingdom, which is the ultimate Kingdom; and which will be displayed eternally and not for 180 days. Again this sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom of Yahweh; just as Rabshakeh described the kingdom of Assyria in identical language to the description of Yahweh's Kingdom, where Jews would dwell with confidence under their own vine and fig tree. The kingdoms of the world continue to present themselves to us as God's Kingdom, enjoyable now if we submit to them.</p>


text:
<p>When those days were fulfilled, the king made a seven day feast for all the people who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace- LXX adds in various different details: "Then, I say, the days of the marriage feast were completed, the king made a banquet to the nations who were present in the city six days, in the court of the king's house". This would imply that his queen was a new queen; and that he was kindly disposed towards foreigners. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>There were hangings of white, green and blue material, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and marble pillars. The couches were of gold and silver, on a pavement of red, white, yellow and black marble- The LXX brings out the similarities with the tabernacle and the pavement of emerald upon which Yahweh was manifest to Moses in <a href='B:20 24:10'>Exo 24:10</a> and which becomes the picture of the Heavenly throne room in <a href='B:730 4:3'>Rev 4:3</a>: "On a pavement of emerald stone, and of pearl, and of Parian stone, and open-worked coverings variously flowered, having roses worked round about". The motif of flowers was likewise found in some of the tabernacle furnishings and equipment (<a href='B:20 25:31'>Exo 25:31</a> etc:). See on :7 for the significance of all this.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them ample drinks in golden vessels of various kinds, including the wine of the kingdom, according to the bounty of the king- These golden cups may well have been those looted from the temple and used by Belshazzar. For Cyrus to order them sent back to Jerusalem would be a fair statement of repentance by him. Again the impression is given as in :6 that this was a fake tabernacle and temple; see on :2,4,8,9,10,14. And yet even within that, the glory of God was being worked out by the God who is invisible in Esther, "God" never being mentioned in the Hebrew text. This was to teach that God was not inactive with the Jews in exile, although He was not visible as He had been in the time of the tabernacle and temple. And that is a lesson for us today.</p>


text:
<p>In accordance with the law- This undefined reference to "the law" may be another hint as in :6,7 that we are being given here a picture of a fake tabernacle / temple system.</p><p>The drinking was not compulsory; for so the king had instructed all the officials of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure- The LXX changes the sense: "And this banquet was not according to the appointed law; but so the king would have it". This was to nudge him towawrds accepting that his law could be broken or ammended, as it was to be later with the destruction of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcass, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king- This may continue the theme of a fake imitation of the heavenly throne room, which has seven spirits (Angels?) standing before the throne of God.</p>


text:
<p>To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was beautiful- The LXX confirms the impression of :5 LXX that Vashti was only now becoming queen: "to enthrone her, and crown her with the diadem".</p>


text:
<p>But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by the eunuchs. Therefore the king was very angry, and his anger burned in him- Seeing the king was drunk and he had this idea whilst he was drunk (:10), the intention was surely to have her strip or dance naked.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times, (for it was the king’s custom to consult those who knew law and judgement- Her refusal probably broke no law; see on :15; <a href='B:190 3:5'>Est 3:5</a>. Here the king finds himself trapped by his own laws; he obviously wanted to have her slain, but he could find no law which prescribed death. The only law relevant was the law which said the queen could be killed if she came to the king without an invitation. There was apparently no law regarding what would happen if she refused an invitation. God wanted to save that drunk man, with his hurt pride. And so He was nudging him to realize that his own laws were going to have to be broken if he really wanted to have his way; which meant that he was not in fact divine. For divine beings were imagined to be unchanging, and to never change their laws. This was going to be developed when later he wishes to change his law to destroy the Jews. God likewise works with us.</p>


text:
<p>and those next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom)- The idea of some in the throne room who see the king's face is another of the suggestions listed on :7 which suggest we have here an imitation of the Heavenly throne room.</p>


text:
<p>What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to law, because she has not done the bidding of the King Ahasuerus by the eunuchs?- As explained on :13, "according to law" she couldn't be punished; for there was likely no law governing such a refusal.</p>


text:
<p>Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen has not done wrong to only the king, but also to all the princes, and to all the people who are in all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus- If there was a law prescribing death in this case, it would have been cited. But there was none. See on :13. And so Memucan comforts the king that indeed they considered she had "done wrong" and labours the implications of what she had done.</p>


text:
<p>For this deed of the queen will become known to all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands when it is reported, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she didn’t come’- The male assumption of female obedience was such that there was no law prescribing what should be done if a queen refused to come to a king's party. This was God beginning to nudge the king towards obedience and perception of His principles, and to resign his claims to be divine. We would likely not have bothered even trying to work with such a drunken megalomaniac. We would write him off as too hard a case. But God works so gently and persistently with all kinds of people, to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Today, the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s deed will likewise tell all the king’s princes. This will cause much contempt and wrath- The execution of Vashti would have put an end to such fears. And the king surely wanted to do this; but he was trapped by his own legal system, just as he was to be later on when he makes the law to kill the Jews. He was going to end up killing his queen whom he loved, which he had earlier wanted to do to his former queen but couldn't. This paradox was to try to teach him the folly of his own laws and respect of them. It was to help him realize he was not divine, and God's invisible grace was more powerful than any legal system.</p>


text:
<p>If it please the king, let a royal commandment go from him and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it cannot be altered, that Vashti may never again come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another who is better than she- Kingship and power were thought to be expressed by making laws and not changing them. The God of Israel however does change His position on things, alters His purpose in accordance with human response (<a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>), and annulled His own eternal law. He does so unashamedly, in reflection of His sensitivity. The LXX has "and let him not alter it". The king could change his own laws but it would involve a loss of face and an admission he was not divine; for they thought that God cannot change in any way. Hence the refusal of Darius to change his law about Daniel was not because he was unable to, but because he lacked humility.</p>


text:
<p>When the king’s decree which he shall make is published throughout all his kingdom (for it is great), all the wives will give their husbands honour, both great and small- The reminder of the greatness of the kingdom was an appeal to his vanity. Their solution was actually very weak. It amounted to: 'If a woman refuses to dance naked before her husband's friends, then he can divorce her and take another wife'. This was fairly mild for the Persians; the death penalty wasn't in view. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This advice pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Memucan- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and the lesson was repeated to him in <a href='B:190 2:4'>Est 2:4</a>. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>for he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, that every man should rule his own house, and that it should be published in the language of each people- This idea is alluded to in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a>, where a brother is supposed to "rule his own house" spiritually. And yet in the same letter (<a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a>) a woman is supposed to rule the household (Gk:); perhaps subverting the expectation of male rulership in practical matters, and yet saying in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a> that the cultural expectation that a man should "rule the household" be reinterpreted in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was pacified, he remembered Vashti and what she had done, and what was decreed against her- The LXX reverses this: "he no more mentioned Astin, bearing in mind what she had said, and how he had condemned her". This is perhaps painting a picture of the king as generally living for the moment and forgetting the past and its implications. It would explain why he agrees to Haman's request in an irresponsible manner, forgetting that his servant Mordecai was a Jew. And it fits with his forgetting of how Mordecai had saved him from assassination, and he had forgotten to reward him.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who served him said, Let beautiful young virgins be sought for the king- As explained on :1, he had forgotten the whole issue with Vashti, perhaps because he was drunk for many days whilst it was all going on (<a href='B:190 1:10'>Est 1:10</a>). He likely had many wives and concubines and may literally have forgotten about the whole business. He is now as it were reminded by his servants of his publicized intention to replace Vashti, as if he needed to get on with it. The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:12), five years after Vashti was fired (:16), would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another.</p>


text:
<p>Let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the beautiful young virgins to the citadel of Susa, to the women’s house, to the custody of Hegai the king’s eunuch, keeper of the women. Let cosmetics be given them- This house of the women and "keeper of the women" would suggest that Vashti was far from his only wife / queen and he had a special harem of women.</p>


text:
<p>and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti. The thing pleased the king, and he did so- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and this is a repeat of the lesson given to him in <a href='B:190 1:21'>Est 1:21</a> when again he is obedient to the words of others. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>There was a certain Jew in the citadel of Susa, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish a Benjamite- So much of later Isaiah is taken up with mockery and criticism of the Babylonian gods and the Marduk cult. The book of Esther, with Mordecai as the joint hero, named as he was after Marduk, demonstrates how caught up were the Jews with the Babylonian gods. Ezekiel repeatedly reveals the idolatry of the captives. Isaiah was therefore an appeal for the Jews to quit the Marduk cult and believe in the radical prophecies about the overthrow of Babylon. We know from Ezekiel 8, Jeremiah 44 and Zechariah 5 that many Jews had accepted the idols of their Babylonian conquerors, rather like Ahaz did after his defeat by Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:10'>2Ki 16:10</a>). The spirit of ridiculing the idolatry of Babylon whilst living in it, waiting the call to leave, is so relevant to modern Christians working, living and waiting in latter day Babylon. Mordecai was a descendant of the family of Saul; he isn't presented as a particularly spiritual man to start with. The fact he worked in the palace also indicates that, seeing he would have to go along with much paganism to do his job. If the LXX is correct, he sacrificed his own intended wife because he loved the idea of having power and prestige more than he did his wife. Again, not a very spiritual impression.</p>


text:
<p>who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away- Note the triple repetition of "carried away". This is to se up the similarity but spiritual contrast with Daniel who is described in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>He brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter; for she had neither father nor mother- "Myrtle" ['Hadassah'] is a plant native to Persia and not Palestine; and the group of myrtle trees in <a href='B:450 1:8'>Zec 1:8</a>; <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a> appears to represent Persia. Esther, "Star", is another reference to Marduk (see on :5). She is hardly presented as a spiritually minded young woman, but as a Jewess who had totally assimilated into Persia.</p><p>The maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter- LXX "And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father's brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself". This would be rather similar to how Uriah raised Bathsheba (according to Nathan's parable of the man with the lamb) to become his wife, and she did so. Seeing Mordecai hadn't yet married Esther, she would have been very young, perhaps still in her mid teens. That God should use such a youngster is typical of how He uses the meek and weak for His great purposes.</p>


text:
<p>So it happened that when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together to the citadel of Susa, to the custody of Hegai, Esther was taken into the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women- Hegai and his college of women was not simply a safe place for the women to stay. It was effectively a college for sex workers. And Esther willingly entered it, on Mordecai's arrangement. The whole intention was to produce women who could fulfil the king's various desires.</p>


text:
<p>The maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness from him. He quickly gave her cosmetics and her portions of food- She is contrasted with young Daniel, who in this situation refused to eat such food. She is presented as spiritually weak.</p><p>And the seven choice maidens who were to be given her out of the king’s house. He moved her and her maidens to the best place in the women’s house- Hegai clearly had a big influence upon who was finally accepted. He knew the king's taste in women as it was his job to pander to it and arrange fulfilment for him. His instinctive liking of Esther amongst the many competitors was therefore providentially arranged.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not made known her people nor her relatives, because Mordecai had instructed her that she should not make it known- This was surely an indication of spiritual weakness; and yet God worked through it, just as He may use marriage out of the faith to bring someone to the faith. She stands in stark contrast to Daniel, and yet similar to Jonah who in his weakness did not tell / make know his people to the sailors (<a href='B:390 1:8'>Jon 1:8</a> s:w:)- and at that point, he was representative of a spiritually weak Judah in exile.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai walked every day in front of the court of the women’s house, to find out how Esther was doing, and what would become of her- Mordecai really wanted his plan to succeed, but for the wrong reasons. But God chose to work through it, rather than turn away from a poorly motivated man and his weak daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Each young woman’s turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after her purification for twelve months (for so were the days of their purification accomplished, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet fragrances and with preparations for beautifying women)- The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:2) would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another. 'Going in to the king' surely is the familiar euphemism for the sexual act. To be willing to do this with a Gentile outside of marriage is surely an indication of spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The young woman then came to the king like this: whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the women’s house to the king’s house- This doesn't just refer to whatever cosmetics or clothing she desired. She had been given seven female assistants. The idea was that she would conceive and put on a sex show for the king; for the idea was that she was to do what Vashti had refused to do. But see on :15. The Gentile Vashti thereby appears as more moral and ethical than the Jewish Esther, as we find so often in Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women’s house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name- That Esther 'went in' to the king in the evening and then returned in the morning, having spent the night with the king, to the separate dwelling, of women with whom the king had slept and who were no longer virgins, indicates clearly enough that she slept with him. She knew this was to be the procedure and that statistically he was unlikely to 'marry' her seeing there were many such competitors. To participate in this, let alone with the enthusiasm for it which Mordecai showed, was clearly sinful and a betrayal of all the moral principles Israel were supposed to be committed to.</p>


text:
<p>Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, came to go in to the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. Esther obtained favour in the sight of all those who looked at her- I suggested on :13 that she had been given the seven other young women in order to prepare a sex show for the king. But it could appear that she didn't take them with her, and only used the cosmetics and clothing provided. Perhaps it was this unusual departure from the norm which focused the king's attention singularly upon her. So perhaps she too was being taught that her even slight attention to some level of morality was being blessed.</p>


text:
<p>So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. This was about five years after the Vashti incident; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favour and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti- This was also from God; He worked on the tastes and perceptions of the king so that he favoured Esther. For all such attraction is subjective and deeply personal. But God worked through this.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces, and gave gifts according to the king’s bounty- "Holiday" is literally "release"- from taxation, or from military service, or from both, for a specified period.</p>


text:
<p>When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate- It would seem that the gathering of virgins to the king for him to choose a queen was a regular occurrence. The houses for the girls were already built and the system of preparing them was already organized. But it could be that there was an attempt to replace Esther with the puppet of some other group. Esther had won the conquest because (under God's hand) the king preferred her. But there were likely men interest groups like Mordecai who wanted their daughters to be chosen. The repetition of Mordecai being "In the king's gate" in :21 would suggest that it was because of his position there that he uncovered the assassination plot. And this would have solidified his position, when perhaps it was under threat from other pretenders who were aware that Esther was his daughter, even though the king seems unaware of it.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not yet made known her relatives nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai, like she did when she was brought up by him- LXX "and Esther changed not her manner of life" may suggest she did not have any spiritual transformation whilst in the palace. She was still a spiritually weak young woman who rose up to the situation.</p>


text:
<p>In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs who were doorkeepers, Bigthan and Teresh, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- LXX claims they were angry because Mordecai had been promoted.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became known to Mordecai, who informed Esther the queen; and Esther informed the king in Mordecai’s name- This was clearly the invisible hand of God working to set up Esther and Mordecai positively in the king's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>When this matter was investigated, and it was found to be so, they were both hanged on a tree; and it was written in the book of the chronicles in the king’s presence- And yet the king seems to have forgotten about Mordecai, who was well known as a Jew, because he signs the decree for killing all the Jews without thinking about that. He comes over as a superficial man with no interest in the past or its consequences. And yet God was working to nudge even such a person towards Him.</p>


text:
<p>After these things- Between the seventh (<a href='B:190 2:16'>Est 2:16</a>) and the twelfth (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>) years of Xerxes’ reign.</p><p>King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him- Again we see the superficial nature of the king, to promote such a person to the greatest position of power. "Agagite" is a form of "Gog", and so he is set up as the representative of the latter day attempted persecutor of God's people. But Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand this to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek. But Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (<a href='B:190 2:5'>Est 2:5</a>), and thus connected with Saul, who had conquered Agag. This would partly account for the natural personality clash between Haman and Mordecai. It would also mean that the people killed by the Jews towards the end of the story would likely have been Amalekites, and this would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag").</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the king’s commandment?- This question may have been from inquisitive interest; they were surprised a Jew wouldn't bow down to a man. And yet there were many Jews in Shushan, as archeology also bears out; enough to kill hundreds of men as recorded later in <a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>. They hadn't see any other Jew articulate their belief in this way- a tacit reflection upon the spiritual weakness of the Jews generally, highlighting all the more the sensitive conscience of Daniel. For it is so hard to uphold principles when our own brethren don't uphold them or consider them merely cosmetic issues. Not bowing down to men was however not specifically commanded in the Mosaic law, and there are accounts of Israelites bowing down to men (<a href='B:110 1:16'>1Ki 1:16</a>; <a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:100 18:28'>2Sa 18:28</a>). It would be a reflection of a very sensitive conscience toward God to refuse to do so. Perhaps he reasoned that the Messianic king would be higher than Agag (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a>) or that Haman was setting himself as a divine figure. And yet Mordecai was clearly not such a high sensitized believer; the very fact he worked in the palace was evidence enough. For whenever Daniel was promoted to power, he seems to have slipped out of the job and is only later recalled. This confirms my suggestion on :2 that Mordecai was using religious issues as part of a personality struggle with Haman. And we must beware we don't do the same. See on <a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him and he didn’t listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s position would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew- Haman was apparently unaware Mordecai was a Jew; it was the servants who told him of this. Again we are left with the impression that Mordecai was not a particularly strong believer, and was using the issue of not bowing down to any apart from Yahweh as an excuse to legitimize his native despising of Haman. See on <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath- Circumstances repeat in human lives, both within the same life and between persons. This was just the response of the king when Vashti refused to expose herself. Like the king, Haman wanted to have the disrespectful person murdered. But there was no law in place, apparently, which allowed him to do this. It was just assumed that all bowed down to the first minister, just as it was assumed that wives must obey their husbands, especially if he was the divine king. See on <a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai’s people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even Mordecai’s people- We have here an insight into the thought processes of Haman which only an inspired record could give. Haman thought for a moment of just destroying Haman, but scorned that thought, and instead went on to thinking of destroying all the Jews. Again we see how sin starts from within the human mind and not due to any possession by demons or a cosmic Satan figure. See on <a href='B:190 4:13'>Est 4:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- The idea is that every day they cast lots to see which month and day they should do it on, but the date given was about as far distant within the course of a year as possible. There was therefore going to be maximum time for the Jews to defend themselves, and for the king to change his mind. As Ahasuerus felt bound by his own law and couldn't kill Vashti as he wanted to, so was Haman. He obviously wanted to execute the massacre as soon as possible; but he was disallowed from doing this by his own structures of superstitions and laws.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from other people’s. They don’t keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain- There is the implication that the king was so dim witted or befuddled by alcohol that he didn't even ask for the "people" to be defined, and just gave his signet ring to Haman to do as he wished. It could well be that he made these decisions whilst drunk (see on :15; <a href='B:190 7:2'>Est 7:2</a>), and his personality was such that he didn't worry about the past but just lived for the present, with no thought to the implications of what he had done or agreed in the past. For surely he knew that Mordecai was a Jew (<a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>) and that the Jews were in positions of power throughout the empire.</p><p>The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom::.". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p>


text:
<p>If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy- To give Haman authority to act in his name was surely unwise. Especially when it would not surely have been hard to perceive that Haman had his personal agendas for wanting the Jews destroyed, and was a man obsessed. Again the king comes over as seriously lacking judgment, perhaps due to making these decisions when drunk (:15).</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Haman, The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you- This may be a reference to the assumption that the "silver" or wealth of executed persons went to the state; rather than saying Haman could keep it all for himself; for the intention was still to pay the money to the king's treasuries (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). But again this sounds like the wild kind of promise made when drunk (see on :15).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring- "The thirteenth having been found to be a lucky day for the massacre itself, Haman may have thought it advisable to choose the same day of the first month for entering upon the preparation for it". The word for "princes" is a technical terms referring to the chiefs of the various conquered peoples.</p>


text:
<p>Letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions- The LXX claims to report a copy of the letter: "And the message was sent by posts throughout the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to destroy utterly the race of the Jews on the first day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to plunder their goods. </p><p>And the following is the copy of the letter; The great king Artaxerxes writes thus to the rulers and inferior governors of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even to Ethiopia, who hold authority under him. Ruling over many nations and having obtained dominion over the whole world, I was minded (not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and gentleness) to make the lives of my subjects continually tranquil, desiring both to maintain the kingdom quiet and orderly to its utmost limits, and to restore the peace desired by all men. But when I had enquired of my counsellors how this should be brought to pass. Aman, who excels in soundness of judgment among us, and has been manifestly well inclined without wavering and with unshaken fidelity, and had obtained the second post in the kingdom, informed us that a certain ill-disposed people is mixed up with all the tribes throughout the world, opposed in their law to every other nation, and continually neglecting the commands of the king, so that the united government blamelessly administered by us is not quietly established. Having then conceived that this nation alone of all others is continually set in opposition to every man, introducing as a change a foreign code of laws, and injuriously plotting to accomplish the worst of evils against our interests, and against the happy establishment of the monarchy; we signified to you in the letter written by Aman, who is set over the public affairs and is our second governor, to destroy them all utterly with their wives and children by the swords of the enemies, without pitying or sparing any, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, of the present year; that the people aforetime and now ill-disposed to us having been violently consigned to death in one day, may hereafter secure to us continually a well constituted and quiet state of affairs".</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be prepared against that day- LXX "all the nations", looking ahead to the day when "all nations" will be gathered against the Jews. The stress upon all provinces and languages (:12) is a reflection of how widely the Jews had been scattered in the previous 70 years.</p>


text:
<p>The couriers went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed- The haste was no doubt ordered by Haman because he feared the king might change his mind. if the king was an alcoholic, this would explain his apparent memory loss and acting as if he was unaware of the consequences of his past actions and decisions.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Mordecai found out all that was done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and wailed loudly and a bitterly- He wished to now come out openly as a Jew. He doubtless realized that so much suffering was going to come on God's people because of his refusal to bow to Haman, due to his personality clash with him (see on Esther 3). And this in itself was good for him spiritually- for he openly identified himself now with God's people, instead of teaching Esther not to do so, and not being known to Haman as a Jew initially (<a href='B:190 3:4'>Est 3:4</a>). His wailing is recorded in the LXX: "A nation that has done no wrong is going to be destroyed". If this is indeed so, he was far from understanding the persistent prophetic message- that Judah had indeed done wrong and were therefore in exile, and were worthy of complete destruction.</p>


text:
<p>He came even before the king’s gate; for no one was allowed inside the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth- He was hoping to thereby be noticed and the message relayed somehow to Esther, with whom he didn't have constant contact. He wanted her to "come out" and do as he was doing.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, weeping and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes- This may well be the language of repentance. God's plan had been that the exiles would repent and then return to restore the Kingdom. But they generally didn't return, preferring the kingdom of Babylon and their own wealth to that of Yahweh. This persecution was the sending of "hunters" to chase them back, and bring them to repentance (<a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a>). And they did repent- but when their destruction was averted by the prayer and repentance of a minority, they returned to their old position. Which is why the book of Esther finishes rather sadly, with the Jews again wealthy and even more prosperous and established within their local societies, and thereby even less likely to return to the land.</p>


text:
<p>Esther’s maidens and her eunuchs came and told her this, and the queen was exceedingly grieved. She sent clothing to Mordecai, to replace his sackcloth; but he didn’t receive it- She this began to openly identify herself with Mordecai and the Jews, although at this point she had not heard about the decree; for it was known that Mordecai was a Jew, and now she is moved to identify with him. This first response from her was then developed by God until she totally "came out" in self-identification as a Jewess. She did what was not worldly-wise, because of her grief for people. God likewise gives us opportunities to make small responses to Him, He develops our consciences until we are then given larger opportunities to respond. She could of course have disowned any knowledge of Mordecai or stressed she was only his adopted daughter. But we must ask how we would have responded; how emotionally do we feel connected to the rest of God’s people?</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs, whom he had appointed to attend her, and commanded him to go to Mordecai, to find out what this was, and why it was- As noted on :4, Esther at this point didn't know about the decree; but she had been moved to identify with the Jews by deciding to openly care for Mordecai and thus identify herself with him. And God was going to move her further along the path of "coming out" for Him.</p>


text:
<p>So Hathach went out to Mordecai, to the city square which was before the king’s gate- See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai told him of all that had happened to him, and the exact sum of money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:9'>Est 3:9</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>He also gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them, to show it to Esther, and to declare it to her, and to urge her to go in to the king to make supplication to him, to make request before him for her people- Heb. 'ask for favour'. The passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. She was to ask the king for favour, but clearly she was asking God for favour, even though they were unworthy of it. And God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>), and their deliverance from Haman is an example of it. But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>Hathach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai- LXX adds that Mordecai appealed to her to respond, "remembering, said he, the days of thy low estate, how thou wert nursed by my hand: because Aman who holds the next place to the king has spoken against us for death". Her own salvation by grace was to move her to save others; and this again is a timeless principle for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther spoke to Hathach and gave him a message to Mordecai- All this communication through a messenger meant that surely the news of the Esther-Mordecai relationship and her intended actions would have not been secret and would have started to spread within the palace and further.</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that whoever, whether man or woman, comes to the king into the inner court without being invited, there is one law for him, that he be put to death; except those to whom the king might hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live. I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days- This lack of invitation would have made her wonder whether she had fallen out of favour with him; although he had many wives and concubines. "To come in to the king" could possibly allude to the sexual act; and "thirty days" might suggest she was menstruating. There is a purposefully ambiguity in these things. Because we are being invited to imagine how it might have been, to enter thereby into her angst. She was initially unwilling to risk death in order to save her people. She needed to be persuaded by the later reflection of Mordecai that she would be found out as a Jewess and also be slain herself; and that God would indeed deliver His people but her refusal to cooperate with His plan would result in her death anyway (:13,14). We see again her development; from selfish self-preservation to a wider sense of responsibility for her entire people. And in broad outline terms, this is something we are all to pass through. See on <a href='B:190 6:4'>Est 6:4</a>; <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Mordecai asked them to return answer to Esther, Don’t think to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house any more than all the Jews- As noted on <a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>, we have here an insight into the thought processes of Esther which only an inspired record could give. The Bible continually emphasizes the importance of self-talk and how we think in our hearts. She was tempted to adopt a path of thought which was effectively saying that she would be the only Jew who would survive; and that was not going to happen. The 'house of the kingdom' of Babylon would not save her from death.</p>


text:
<p>For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows if you haven’t come to the kingdom for such a time as this?- Mordecai speaks with authority, but he is only making assumptions; that if help came from another quarter, then Esther and her family, including Mordecai, would "perish" even if the other Jews didn't. And the source of that 'perishing' would be God's judgment, not Haman. "Mordecai also seems confident that deliverance would arise from "another place". From another place" clearly means "God", but God is never mentioned in the book of Esther. Perhaps at the time Mordecai just had a distinct hunch that deliverance would come, but when he thought about who else, humanly, apart from Esther, could effect this deliverance::. he would conclude that it would have to be God alone. So we see this otherwise secular, weak believer being provoked by circumstance to have a greater faith. Everyone in the story is being nudged towards greater faith and spirituality through the dysfunction of them all. This is the marvel of God's working. But the basis for Mordecai's confidence that "deliverance" would arise is because the same word was used by the prophets for how God's people would be "delivered" from the lands of their exile to return and reestablish His Kingdom in Zion (e:g. <a href='B:330 34:10'>Eze 34:10</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther asked them to answer Mordecai- LXX "Esther sent the man that came to her to Mordecai, saying"; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast the same way. Then I will go in to the king, which is against the law-&nbsp; The text carefully omits any mention of prayer to God, perhaps because of His statement that He would hide His face from them in the captivity. She was being taught what the king had been taught in <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a> (see note there); that law could not save. She had to go outside the law for salvation, which meant a total casting of herself upon grace. She clearly feels her inadequacy; she feels the need for the fasting of others. And she is now unashamed to identify herself with the Jews, for this message was sent through a messenger (:15) which would have meant that her identification with the Jews was now going to be spread around everywhere. There was a large Jewish community in Shushan; able to kill 300 men (<a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>).</p><p>And if I perish, I perish- The idea may be that she was going to perish anyway, if the decree wasn't changed. She had accepted Mordecai's warning about this in :13,14. And yet it is hard to avoid a sense of fatalism, using the same construction as in <a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a>. She had faith and weakness at the same time, as we would likewise have had. Again we are left wondering whether she had faith, or was merely fatalistic. This is to help us enter deeper into her possible feelings and to identify with her.</p>


text:
<p>So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him- Again we see a breaking of the paradigm that a woman was always to be obedient to a man. LXX adds various exaggerated claims about Esther's righteousness and prayers to God, e:g. "And having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning; and instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes and dung, and she greatly brought down her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with the torn curls of her hair".</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal clothing- Perhaps because as stated in <a href='B:190 4:17'>Est 4:17</a> she had taken it off in order to mourn and cover herself in sackcloth.</p><p>And stood in the inner court of the king’s house, next to the king’s house. The king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, next to the entrance of the house- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther came near, and touched the top of the sceptre- The record is as it were a video shot by the Divine cameraman. We see her standing there, see her fingers touching the very tip of the sceptre. And we get the feeling that the outcome finally will be good for her.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king asked her, What would you like, queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you even to the half of the kingdom- Esther was breaking paradigms here; it was the king who always gave invitations, and not his wife. She effectively comes to dominate him, although in a very humble and nervous way, used by God.</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, If it seems good to the king, let the king come with Haman today to the banquet that I have prepared for him-&nbsp; It seems to me that she intended to ask for mercy for the Jews. But her nerve fails here, and she asks them to come to a banquet. And when they come, her nerve fails her again, and she asks them to come to another banquet. And God worked through that weakness. Because the final request was made the night after he had recalled how Mordecai had saved him. And the intrigue and suspense was built up, his attention was particularly focused upon this one of his many wives, who was demanding his attention two or three days running. I don't personally interpret Esther here as the cleverly calculating, amateur psychologist female. Rather do I see a nervous teenager who gets stage fright at the last minute, twice. And God worked through her nervousness. Perhaps after each failure to make the request, she beat herself up for her weakness. But God worked through it. This is His style, right up to this day. LXX "To-day is my great day"; probably the king didn't even know Esther's birthday, ust as he didn't know her family or relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). Maybe it wasn't her birthday, and she just blurted out whatever came into her mind. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, Bring Haman quickly, so that it may be done as Esther has said. So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther had prepared- The command to bring Haman "quickly" was because such invitations were usually given well in advance, and Esther was breaking all the paradigms by wanting everything quickly, throwing last minute parties.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, What is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- This apparently unlimited offer leads us to expect that Esther is now going to seize the moment and ask for the Jews not to be destroyed. The Biblical text often works like this, setting up expectations in the mind of the reader or hearer, and then presenting an unexpected outcome. We are all expecting now for her to make the request, and the next verse heightens that sense of expectation- and we are then the more involved in the plot when again, Esther doesn't make the request as she maybe intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther answered and said, My petition and my request is this- The pause implied in the text heightens our sense of suspense as to whether she will find the strength to make her true request. And again her nerve fails and she rather dumbly asks for more time.</p>


text:
<p>If I have found favour in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition and to perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king has said- This could be read as saying 'I do have a petition; but your attendance at my banquet tomorrow will mean that you have agreed to the petition I have in my heart, but which I'm not telling you right now'. This would perhaps be the best support for an argument that Esther calculated all this, rather than just getting stage fright each time she was asked to tell her petition. The ambiguity and difficulty of interpretation is intentional- to direct our thinking to her motivations, to get the reader into the mind of Esther.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he didn’t stand up nor move for him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai- The record juxtaposes his prideful joy with the jealousy which then beclouds him as he sees Mordecai, dressed in sackcloth, refusing to stand up. The Esther record gives wonderful insight into the feelings and thought processes of the characters in a way in which contemporary literature of the time doesn't; the stories are full of unrealistic exaggerations, whereas the Bible focuses upon real situations and upon the state of the heart. And here we see the typical power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Haman restrained himself, and went home. There, he sent and called for his friends and Zeresh his wife- The impression is given that he wanted to murder Haman immediately, or at least ask the king to authorize it. But he waits for another day, because of the desire to do nothing without first seeking advice. And it was that day which altered the entire outcome. Again we see a man of great power, but bound by his own traditions and legal structures; just as was the king when Vashti refused to come and he wanted to kill her.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king- He had ten sons (<a href='B:190 9:7'>Est 9:7</a>). Here again we see a connection with the situation in Esther 1, where the glory of Ahasuerus is presented and then he is manipulated and circumscribed by a woman and his own laws and culture.</p>


text:
<p>Haman also said, Yes, Esther the queen let no man come in with the king to the banquet that she had prepared but myself; and tomorrow I am also invited by her together with the king- His overweening pride is being set up for a mighty fall; and this is typical of the Biblical record, to focus upon pride as the reason for judgment. What he was most proud of turned out to be the very point of his destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yet all this avails me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate- This is the power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings. He kept in his mind the image of this man "sitting" instead of standing up and bowing. It is such mental images which are the root of so much jealousy. See on <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>; <a href='B:190 6:13'>Est 6:13</a>. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, Let a gallows be made fifty cubits high, and in the morning speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on it. Then go in merrily with the king to the banquet. This pleased Haman, so he had the gallows made- 75 feet high. "According to Persian law the power of life and death resided in the king alone". So Haman was assuming that he could get Mordecai executed, even though there was apparently no legal apparatus for him to do so. Again we see a theme of Esther continued- that the characters are all forced to act outside of the law. This was surely to prepare the Jewish audience of the book to realize the limitations of Mosaic law, especially in the casuistic sense in which they liked to use it.</p><p>Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 at this point includes her prayer to God, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel (<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>On that night, sleep fled from the king. He commanded the book of records of the chronicles to be brought, and they were read to the king- Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book, e:g. as acrostics (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>), and several times in this chapter. The message is clearly that God was active, but in a subtle, hidden way. His insomnia was due to an unconscious sense that something wasn't right, that a payback hadn't been made, or that a payback against himself was now due. Gramatically, there seems a word missing here. Literally, his sleep was taken from him; but the grammar requires the definition of who took it from him. And that isn't stated. Some versions have supplied "God" or "the Lord", but this isn't in the original. The name of God never occurs in Esther. We are to understand only by implication that it was God. The book of records is that alluded to in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>, the "book of remembrance" kept before God concerning His servants:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>It was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who were doorkeepers, who had tried to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- The fact the king had forgotten this reflects his superficial character, focusing only upon the present. But even such a person still has a conscience and a fear of judgment which keeps them awake at night.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, What honour and dignity has been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then the king’s servants who attended him said, Nothing has been done for him- Again we get the impression that the king was forgetful, because he lived only for the immediate present and forgot his responsibilities and undertakings, perhaps resultant from his alcoholism. Likewise he had divorced Vashti and agreed to search for a replacement for her, but had to be reminded five years later to get on and do so. The recollection of having been saved by grace led him to naturally feel that he should do something positive for this man Mordecai. Any move against that man was not going to be well received by him. The entire situation is true to life and has the ring of psychological credibility to it- in contrast to the histories written at the time by uninspired writers.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Who is in the court? Now Haman had come into the outer court of the king’s house, to speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him- We learnt from <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> that anyone entering the inner court without invitation was risking their life. Haman's bitterness and jealousy was enough to lead him to risk his life by entering into the court on his own initiative to ask the king to let him kill Mordecai. The proud, self confident Haman approaching the king on his own initiative is set up in parallel to the nervous, humble Esther doing the same- risking her life to save, rather than to destroy.</p>


text:
<p>The king’s servants said to him, Behold, Haman stands in the court. The king said, Let him come in- Haman was risking his life to enter uninvited, but such was his obsessive jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>So Haman came in. The king said to him, What shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honour?- It is tempting to imagine that the king was aware of Haman's antipathy toward Mordecai, and already suspected foul play in the plan to exterminate the Jews. At least, it seems he may well have asked the question knowing that Haman would reply as he did, assuming that he was in view.</p><p>Now Haman said in his heart, Who would the king delight to honour more than myself?- Again we see the focus of the record upon the human heart and its self-talk.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to the king, For the man whom the king delights to honour- Haman's eyes were on the throne, and so he asks that this person be set up as the successor of the king; thinking it should be himself. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Let royal clothing be brought which the king wears, and the horse that the king rides on, and on the head of which a crown royal is set- "Royal clothing" is LXX "the robe of fine linen". As noted on Esther 1, the palace and regal system is being set up as a fake temple and Kingdom of God. But the impression given here is that Mordecai is being set up as the king, wearing the king's own clothing, riding the king's horse with a royal crown upon it. David's command for Solomon to ride upon his own horse meant that he wanted Solomon to be the next king after him (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>). See on :9. This grossly exaggerated response to Mordecai's faithfulness was typical of powerful eastern monarchs; we recall how Pharaoh made the prisoner Joseph to be the Prime Minister of Egypt when just hours before he had been wallowing in a dungeon, and was totally unknown to Pharaoh. This would have been shocking to Haman; that Mordecai was suddenly being declared the successor to Ahasuerus. It seems typical of his irresponsible behaviour. But it was tantamount to replacing Haman with Mordecai; for surely Haman's eyes were on the throne for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Let the clothing and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man whom the king delights to honour with them, and have him ride on horseback through the city square, and proclaim before him, ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!’- The man of the king's "delight" is a way of saying 'Whom he wishes to set upon his throne'; it is used in that sense in <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a> and possibly <a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>. The woman whom the king 'delighted in' was made queen (<a href='B:190 2:14'>Est 2:14</a> s:w:). See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Haman, Hurry and take the clothing and the horse, as you have said, and do this for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken- "The Jew" means that now Mordecai has declared his Jewishness; or perhaps a note had been made of this in the chronicles, and the king was thereby reminded of it. It could be that the king was unaware that the nation to be destroyed were the Jews; or that he had agreed to it whilst drunk (see on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>) and was unaware of what he had really agreed to. The paradox was that a man who was publically disobedient to the king's command to bow before Haman (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>) was now being exalted. Again the king is being nudged towards realizing the trap of his own legalism. He had made a law which a man whom he was deeply indebted to- had broken! He likely had heard of Mordecai's disobedience, because it was performed publically and was known by the king's servants.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman took the clothing and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and had him ride through the city square, and proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!- The record naturally invites us to imagine the tone of voice in which he said this. Haman felt he had to be obedient to the king's commandment- to honour a man who was disobedient to the king's commandment (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai came back to the king’s gate, but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and having his head covered- The roles are now reversed; recently Mordecai had been weeping with covered head in the king's gate, and now Haman was. Esther mourns before going to the first banquet; and now Haman does before the second banquet. The way God brings about justice reflects His full awareness of all that has gone on in the past; unlike human justice. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and all his friends everything that had happened to him. Then his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him, but you will surely fall before him- These "wise men" were those who had thrown the lots in order to choose the day of the massacre (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>). Suddenly their wisdom changed- from advising to massacre the Jews and kill Mordecai, to now predicting that Haman was not going to succeed but would himself perish. Again, the folly of Persian customs, traditions and wisdom is being developed. Zeresh, his friends and wise men had only yesterday been joining him in glorying over his enemy; and now they change completely, and he is left awfully alone. The book of Esther perhaps functioned as a means of telling the Jews in exile that they were preferring the kingdom of Persia over that of Yahweh; and the kingdom they preferred was terribly weak and compromised at its very foundations. They say that he is going to "fall" before Mordecai; and it was exactly Mordecai's refusal to "fall" before Haman which had been so engraved in Haman's memory (see on <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And again we find repeated the theme of a wife being wiser than her husband and willing to be separate from his positions, as Vashti and Esther were before Zeresh; and what she says comes to pass.</p>


text:
<p>While they were yet talking with him, the king’s eunuchs came, and hurried to bring Haman to the banquet that Esther had prepared- Just as Haman had "hurried" the messengers carrying his decree to kill the Jews, so he was "hurried" by the messengers to come to the banquet; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen- The record helps us see it all happening as if in a video. Haman went first to the king and then together they two came to Esther.</p>


text:
<p>The king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is your petition, queen Esther? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- "The banquet of wine" confirms the connection between the king and alcohol discussed on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>. "Banquet" is literally "the drinking". But in Yahweh's system of things, "wine is not for kings" (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). The kingdom of Persia is set up as most definitely not the kingdom of God, to which the exiles ought to have aspired rather than to prosperity in Persia's kingdom. Again we the readership wait with baited breath, knowing that surely now Esther has to overcome her stage fright and speak. And she does.</p><p>But I will argue on Esther 8-10 that although Esther is indeed heroic and a commendable example of the triumph of good over evil, neither she nor Mordecai go far enough. For they do not seek the restoration of the Jews to Judah. She is set up in conscious contrast with Nehemiah, also a Jew in the palace at Shushan. He too asked for a favour, and whilst also very nervous is asked by the king "What is your request?" (<a href='B:160 2:4'>Neh 2:4</a>). His request was for the restoration of the Jews to their land. Esther by contrast says nothing about the restoration, but asks only for short term deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen answered, If I have found favour in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request- "My request" reflects her understanding that their salvation was being made to depend upon her requesting it. The same words are used in <a href='B:150 7:6'>Ezr 7:6</a>, the only time outside of the book of Esther, to describe how "the king granted [Ezra's] request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him". Perhaps Esther had been encouraged by Ezra's example, knowing that the invisible hand of God made kings of Persia grant requests. We too should be directed and inspired by Biblical examples, and those within our own experience of the brotherhood. The ideas of 'finding favour in your sight' and asking for petitions / requests being granted are more commonly associated with people praying to God; indeed the whole verse is intended to recall Moses' plea to Yahweh to save the people, if indeed Moses has "found favour in Your sight" (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a>). This young, nervous, not very spiritually strong teenager was suddenly catapulted into the place of Moses, Judaism's most revered figure. We are surely intended to conclude that her begging the king was a reflection of her prayers to God, or at least, she would have perceived that her petitioning the king was effectively petitioning Yahweh. Again, she was led closer to God by her experience.</p><p>It simply can’t be that we rejoice in our own salvation, and don’t want to breathe a whimper of that good news to others. Esther made her request for “my life… my people” in parallel; and when her own safety was assured, she didn’t just relax and mop her brow with relief, she went on to petition for them- with all the risks this involved for her (see on <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>). We can’t possibly just rejoice in our own salvation, that we have found the Lord and are secured in Him; if we have truly experienced this, we will wish to share it with others.</p>


text:
<p>For we are sold- This could mean that the huge sum of money offered by Haman if the Jews were destroyed may not have been a reference to their goods being plundered; but rather to Haman 'buying' the Jews through a huge donation to the treasury. Esther here is an eloquent type of the Lord’s mediation for us, risked her life because she felt that “we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed”. She was tempted to reason that if she’d have kept her mouth shut, she wouldn’t have been destroyed. But she fought and won the same battle as we have daily or weekly before us: to identify ourselves with our weaker and more suffering brethren. The Lord Jesus didn’t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He felt a sinner, even though He wasn’t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (<a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a>).</p><p>I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish- This is Esther 'coming out' as a Jewess; she seems to emphasize the point: "we::. I and my people::. we::.". It appears only later that she stated her relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). We reflect how little the king knew about his wives; he didn't know her nationality, her parents nor even her birthday (see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>).</p><p>But if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s loss- Haman the adversary had offered to compensate for the lives of the Jews by paying money to the treasury. But she is saying that even if the Jews had been enslaved and not killed, the loss to the king would never have been compensated by money. She argues for the value not only of human life, but of that human life being lived in freedom and not slavery. And we note her usage of the word "we" in reflection of her connection with her people.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he who dared presume in his heart to do so?- Again we note the emphasis of the record upon "his heart". Surely the king knew the answer. "Where is he" could as well be translated "How could he::.", as if the king is now angry with himself for letting this happen. Or perhaps he really was so disconnected from reality that he didn't guess it was Haman. We notice this disconnection from reality several times in the record (not least his not enquiring which people were to be destroyed before agreeing, and failing to make the connection between the Jews being destroyed and Mordecai being a Jew). Through all this, God was revealing His Name. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, The adversary and the enemy is even this wicked Haman!- These words "adversary and enemy" are frequently used together in the Psalms, in prayers that the adversary and enemy would not triumph but that God would triumph over them. Surely Esther was alluding to them. She could have tried to tactfully point out that the destruction of the Jews would involve her and Mordecai being killed, and work towards some negotiated solution, without wishing to offend Haman. But she calls him "this wicked Haman!". It was all or nothing. If the king took Haman's side, she would lose her life. For this was not a tactful approach. It was an outburst of accusation. But it worked. Likewise in standing up for God's people, it is all or nothing; nicespeak and negotiated solutions cannot be the answer.</p><p>I imagine that Esther could have resolved her personal problem in a quite different way. She had invited Haman and the king to a banquet / drinking of wine. She could have chatted them up nicely, waited until they were drunk, and then said to the effect: "Gents, I have a slight problem with this decree about killing the Jews; because actually, I'm a bit Jewish. Can't you just kindly resolve that little problem for me?". And her two guests would likely have proudly chuckled and said to the effect "Sure, no problem, we can just easily fix that, don't you worry, just relax, really it's nothing, sure, sleep easy tonight about that. The whole thing's under our control, nobody will touch you, all's good. And just::. bring us the next pink champagne on ice". This was the kind of thing the holocaust was full of. But she didn't take that path. Her spiritual growth was very fast, as it can be in all people. She realized now that it wasn't a case of merely her salvation, but that of the body of God's people. To focus solely upon "me being saved" would be selfish. There is more to relationship with God than that. It's about His glory and the larger picture of His purpose rather than only "me". It takes some decades to realize this; but Esther got there in the course of a few days.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>The king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden- Circumstances again repeated in his life; for he had arisen in fury from the banquet in Esther 1, seeking to have Vashti killed; and he was circumscribed by his own laws, as discussed there. Likewise here, he was angry because he was circumscribed by his own laws. It would be hard to change the law without resigning his own supposed divinity.</p><p>Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king- We recall that Haman fixed the picture in his mind of Mordecai not standing up before him in respect, and it led to terrible jealousy complexes (<a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And now he stood up and bowed in desperate respect for his life before Mordecai's Jewish daughter. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman had fallen on the couch where Esther was- The Esther story is full of the hand of providence. It seems Haman had collapsed, perhaps suffered a heart attack from the stress on top of the alcohol from the "banquet / drinking of wine" (:2). And he fell unconscious onto Esther's couch. That was surely from God, because the king was greeted by the sight of Haman's prostrate body on his wife's couch.</p><p>Then the king said, Will he even assault the queen in front of me in the house?-&nbsp; "Assault" is AV "force", and the idea is not only of force but more manipulation. The word choice reflects the king's anger at how he had been manipulated.</p><p>As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face- Condemned criminals were not allowed to see the king's face. The courtiers knew that Haman was condemned to death.</p>


text:
<p>Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were with the king said, Behold, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman has made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, is standing at Haman’s house. The king said, Hang him on it!- This may have been one of the eunuchs sent to collect Haman from his house, who had seen the gallows at Haman's home and heard from the surrounding folks what it was intended for.</p>


text:
<p>So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified- Earlier, the king's wrath had demanded pacification in killing Vashti. But he was caught by his own legal system, and had been unable to do that. We wonder whether there was any legal basis for the execution of Haman; probably there wasn't. By the letter of the law, he had done everything right. So the execution of Haman was the king departing from the letter of the law; and as discussed on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, this is a major theme of the book. God was nudging the king beyond legalism, and also to a realization that his laws weren't actually very good and needed to be changed. And therefore, he was not the divine being he liked to think he was, who made perfect laws that could never be changed because to do so would be to question his divinity and rightness.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews’ enemy, to Esther the queen- "Enemy" here is LXX diabolos, the slanderer / enemy. Clearly he is set up as representative of the organized opposition to God's people, although we have here another example of how the word refers simply to a human being and not an external cosmic being. The presence of the article, the slanderer / diabolos, is significant in that it torpedoes the position of those who argue that every reference to ho diabolos refers to the cosmic being of popular theology. It doesn't, for here it refers simply to the man Haman.</p><p>Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her- The king was ignorant of this, apparently not knowing much about the personal history of his wives; see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>. We now see them both 'coming out' even more. We are intended to shine as candles not under a bucket but set on a hill. And God gently works to lead us all to a situation where our faith isn't solely personal but is made public.</p>


text:
<p>The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman- The gift of a "house" to a woman and this decision making by a woman was unusual; but the whole story is about the overthrow of traditional, conservative paradigms and legalistic approaches by the movement of God's invisible Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews- This presumably involved risking death again by going in to the king's audience uninvited. But she had learnt the lesson- that she was not to merely seek her own salvation but to continue to risk her life for that of others. She begs "with tears", apparently more emotionally and passionately than she did when she first asked about the matter. Her passion for the salvation of others had now become stronger than her desire for personal salvation; when according to our reflections on <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> her initial reaction to the news of the decree was to consider that she could save herself by keeping quiet, and she had been unwilling to go to see the king uninvited. Such spiritual growth over such a short period can be seen in the lives of God's people today and is possible for each of us.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre. So Esther arose, and stood before the king- The use of the sceptre shows she was still approaching him uninvited and at the risk of her life.</p>


text:
<p>She said, If it pleases the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces- She stresses that Haman wrote the letters- even though they were written in the king's name. But laws of the Persians couldn't be reversed- unless the king was going to admit he wasn't actually divine. And it could be that she was asking him to make this radical step of realization and humility. To "reverse" the decree, or turn it back, was the same idea as 'repenting'. But he refuses, and instead tries to get around the problem by issuing another decree.</p><p>Clearly Esther did find favour before both the king and her God. But this apparently contradicts earlier statements in the prophets. But the passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>). But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>For how can I endure to see the evil that would come to my people? How can I endure to see the destruction of my relatives?- Life lived solely for ourselves, even eternal life, is not endurable if our brethren are not living it with us. This had multiple implications. LXX "How can I survive the destruction:::?" suggests she felt she would die with those who died. Her life was bound up with the life of her Jewish people, although previously she was but an ethnic Jewess who had totally assimilated into the life of the Persians. But she in her heart would live and die with them.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, If I have freely granted you all that was Haman's, because he laid his hand on the Jews, and hanged him on a gallows, what do you further seek?- We begin to tremour a little with Esther, wondering if the king's patience has worn thin. But we see again the king's shortsightedness and lack of empathy and appreciation of the implication of events and statements. He considered that if Haman was dead, and he had given the wealth of Haman to Mordecai, then there could be no other problem.</p>


text:
<p>Write also to the Jews, as it pleases you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring; for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may not be reversed by any man- The idea is that the first decree could not be reversed, but the king could issue a second decree empowering the Jews to defend themselves. Again, as explained on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, the king was caught up in his own legalism. God was trying to nudge him towards realizing that he was not in fact God; for that was the basis upon which they considered that royal laws couldn't be changed, because they thought 'gods' were unchanging. But he is repeatedly taught, and the readership are taught, that any such system of legalism ends up limiting freedom of movement and ends up in contradiction. What is being highlighted is that the God of Israel isn't like that; He can and does change, even His own laws. Casuistic approaches to law were bound to fail, because God Himself is dynamic; the only point at which He doesn't change is His constant love for the sons of Jacob and not punishing them as their sins deserve (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). His comment that the king's decree could not be reversed "by any man" may suggest that he was slightly moving towards the acceptance of a personal God far mightier than himself; for he may mean that "man" couldn't reverse it, not even himself, but God could.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called at that time, in the third month Sivan, on the twenty-third day of the first month, which is Nisan; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, and to the satraps, the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, and to the Jews in their writing and in their language- Again we have a tacit recognition of the degree to which the Jews had been scattered, throughout the 127 provinces of the empire- exactly in fulfilment of the prophecies of scattering. For the proud king to do this was also a tacit recognition that his laws and decision making were not infallible and he had been set up to make a major decision which was wrong. It is perhaps to his credit that he allowed the second decree to be written and sent.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king’s ring, and sent letters by courier on horseback, riding on royal horses that were bred from swift steeds- There may have been an attempt to outrun the carriers of the earlier decree, even though they were also "hasted".</p>


text:
<p>In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together, and to defend their life, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions- The second edict is worded in the terms of the first; the Jews were empowered to do to their enemies what those enemies had wished to do to them. This is the repeated basis for judgment in the last day; thus throughout Revelation, the seals of judgment upon latter Israel are then brought upon their abusers in the form of the trumpets and vials. The LXX adds some detail; "he charged them to use their own laws in every city, and to help each other". Haman had previously made a fuss about the Jews' laws. Now they were encouraged to use their own laws, and to use them as they were intended- to help each other, after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. This was another prod of the exiles towards obedience to the law as intended, and to turn to their God more fully.</p>


text:
<p>on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- This was the date which Haman had chosen by casting lots. And again the hand of God was invisibly in that, for now the Jews had plenty of time to prepare themselves.</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies- Vengeance on Israel's enemies was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration. But the Jews in Persia were those who hadn't responded to that. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on :14; <a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So the couriers who rode on royal horses went out, hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment. The decree was given out in the citadel of Susa- The parallel is clearly with the hasting of the king's commandment to destroy the Jews. Esther is full of such inversions. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai went out of the presence of the king in royal clothing of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and was glad- This is in conscious contrast with how at the first decree, the city of Shushan was perplexed (<a href='B:190 3:15'>Est 3:15</a>; <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>). As noted on :13,14, the impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But they didn't take this theme further, and realize that it was in Zion where their fortunes were to be finally and more totally reversed. They were experiencing a foretaste of what would be possible far more fully if they repented and returned to Zion; but they refused to take that Divine nudge.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews had light, gladness, joy, and honour- The springing up of Judah's light is spoken of in Isaiah as happening at the restoration, in terms of Zion's light coming to Jerusalem in the person of Messiah. Likewise joy and gladness was to be Judah's experience in Zion. But it seems what could have been the breaking in of the Messianic kingdom for them even in captivity didn't lead to that Kingdom. For they preferred their own kingdom of wealth in Persia. They remained there; and the true light and joy of Zion wasn't experienced by them. See on :13-15.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness, joy, a feast, and a good day. Many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen on them- Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (:16), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 9:27'>Est 9:27</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return. See on :13-16.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put into effect, on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to conquer them, (but it was turned about so that the opposite happened- the Jews conquered those who hated them)- This theme of 'turning about so the opposite happens' is a major theme of Esther. The fasting of Esther is contrasted with the feasting of Haman and the king; and now it is the Jews who are feasting. Instead of the Jews being destroyed by their enemies, they destroy their enemies. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. The turning of curse into blessing is simply because God loves Israel (s:w. <a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a>; <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>). But the exiles had doubted His love, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear. But through this whole incident, God seeks to display His love to His people, and His grace.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on those who wanted to harm them. No one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen on all the people- Their gathering together to help each other was after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. Her example would have been inspirational in the mending of so many interpersonal relationship issues amongst the Jews, just as the Lord's example of mediation and sacrifice to achieve it should likewise for us. For "the fear::." see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who did the king’s business helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them- The fear of Israel falling upon the peoples (also in :2) uses the very same phrase used about the effect of the Exodus miracles upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:230 105:38'>Psa 105:38</a>), with Mordecai functioning as Moses. And yet the same effect as the visible miracles was achieved by the invisible, non-miraculous hand of God working in human and national lives. The implication was that this was all to prepare the exiles for their intended exodus out of Persia and back to their land- but they refused to make good on what was set up for them.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater- LXX "For the order of the king was in force, that he should be celebrated in all the kingdom". The king was obviously deeply impressed by Esther and Mordecai, and surely was being himself nudged towards accepting the God of Israel by the transformation he witnessed in these secular Jews towards truly spiritual, brave people of principle.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews struck all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they wanted to those who hated them- This suggests a primary fulfilment of the prophecy that the exiles in Babylon / Persia would become God's weapons of war with which to judge the nations where they had been taken captive (<a href='B:300 51:20'>Jer 51:20</a>). The intention was that they would judge their captors, return to the land and be part of the reestablished Kingdom of God. But the exiles only allowed a partial fulfilment of this, and remained with their wealth in Persia; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men- AV "In Shushan the palace". The extent of opposition to the Jews was therefore significant (800 killed in all, :15), despite Mordecai now being the prime minister, and the king clearly pro-Jewish. The pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiment was significant in the palace, and therefore Esther is revealed as the more brave for coming out as Jewish. Haman knew that his plan was tapping in to widespread support. If indeed Haman was the descendant of Agag the Amalekite (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>) this would mean that the people killed here by the Jews would likely have been Amalekites. This would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag"). No Messiah figure was in view; but had they returned to the land in faith and repentance, then the restoration prophecies stated that one would have arisen. And so we find here a partial fulfilment of the prophecies about Amalek and Agag, and not a complete one:&nbsp;See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha- The "ten sons" of Haman is a phrase stressed four times in :10-14, and although ten are indeed listed here, the idea may mean "all his children" as in <a href='B:90 1:8'>1Sa 1:8</a>. The Jews interpret Haman as representative of the yetzer harah, the evil inclination, which the New Testament at times understands as the great satan / adversary to spiritual life. The Jews then see in the meanings of the names of his sons the various characteristics of the flesh. Each of the names of the sons apparently contain the word “self” in the Persian language. Although the meaning of these names is hard to define, the Jewish view is that these first three names stand respectively for 'distance [from God]', 'door to bad intentions', 'gathering of money'.</p>


text:
<p>Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'a woman's private parts' [if spelt backwards]; 'pride' and 'preying like a lion to destroy others'.</p>


text:
<p>Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'ripping into division', 'subjugation of the righteous' and 'bitterness', the end result of all these various features of the fleshly life.</p>


text:
<p>the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jew’s enemy; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- This is emphasized, because they had been given the right to do this (<a href='B:190 8:11'>Est 8:11</a>). They were following the example of Abraham who refused to add to his wealth by taking the spoil of his enemies (<a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a>). This can be read as a politically astute decision, so as not to give the impression they had orchestrated all this for their benefit; but there was surely thereby a nudge from God towards remembering that they were Abraham's seed, and ought to return to the land promised them as his seed.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, the number of those who were slain in the citadel of Susa was brought before the king- A king would surely be concerned about the outbreak of civil war. The fact he allowed the slaughter to continue right on his doorstep in Susa would suggest that he perceived that those killed were not his own people, but the supporters of Haman, Amalekites. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in the citadel of Susa, including the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your further request? It shall be done- Her first intercession had brought her to a position where now the king came to her, guessing what she would like and offering it. She doesn't come to him, he perceives what she wants and offers it to her. We possibly see here some insight into the nature of the Lord's relationship with the Father after He interceded for us on the cross. Romans 8 describes all this as the intercession of the spirit, as if the Father and Son have a meeting of minds / spirit, and the Father knows and automatically grants what He knows His Son wants for His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther said, If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows- We see here how circumstances repeat. Esther had previously come to the king with a request to come to a banquet, and then repeated that same request, to come "tomorrow". The Esther story shows clearly how things work according to a Divine plan which is multidimensional and yet has internal consistencies and similarities. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded this to be done. A decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons- We have just read in :10 of the murder of his sons. Perhaps the LXX is therefore to be preferred here: "And he permitted it to be so done; and he gave up to the Jews of the city the bodies of the sons of Aman to hang".</p>


text:
<p>The Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and killed three hundred men in Shushan; but they didn’t lay their hand on the spoil- This makes a total of 800 killed over the two days. See on :6 for the significance of this anti-Jewish sentiment in Shushan. For "spoil", see on :10. For "gathered themselves together" see on :16. Their refusal to take the spoil is mentioned three times (:10,15,16), and stands in contrast to the intention of taking their property as spoil under Haman's plan (<a href='B:190 3:13'>Est 3:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, defended their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- LXX renders "gathered themselves together" as "and helped one another". They were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people. We see here how good spiritual attitudes can spread quickly and effectively.</p>


text:
<p>This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of that month they rested and made it a day of feasting and gladness- Israel being given "rest" from their enemies was the sign that they should now inherit the promised land (s:w. <a href='B:50 12:10'>Deu 12:10</a>); rest from their enemies meant that they were to blot out the name of Amalek (s:w. <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>). Clearly these things were coming about, seeing that Haman was an Amalekite and those they were killing were likely Amalekites (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>). But they failed to go further with these Divine possibilities, just as we can fail to; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>. Being given rest meant they could inherit the land (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> s:w:) but they preferred to remain in Persia. Tellingly, the same word is used in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>, addressed to the exiles: "But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth days of the month; and on the fifteenth day of that month, they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness- The subtext to this otherwise positive picture of good triumphing over evil is that their day of feasting and gladness was prophetically intended to be in Zion (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a> s:w:). They went into exile exactly because they had days of 'feasting' and didn't respond to the prophetic message (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:12'>Isa 5:12</a>). It was in Zion that they were to experience "gladness" (<a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>) when they returned (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>). They were to leave the lands of their captivity in "gladness" and thus come to Zion (<a href='B:290 55:12'>Isa 55:12</a> s:w:). But they didn't return. They were to have eternal "gladness::. in their land" (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>), the day of <a href='B:300 31:7'>Jer 31:7</a> (s:w:). The "day of gladness" was to be accompanied by the blowing of trumpets (s:w. <a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a>), summoning them to Zion. But there is no mention of this; because they didn't want to return there, but to remain in prosperous Persia. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Jews of the villages, who lived in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, a good day- The existence of Jews even in villages and remote settlements of the Persian empire reflects the degree of their scattering, in fulfilment of the prophecies about this.</p><p>And a day of sending presents of food to one another- Generosity to others was a reflection of their personal experience of grace. We are to be generous to others and concern ourselves with their salvation, as God did to us. "Grace" literally means a gift, and the giving of gifts ought to reflect that. As noted on :16, they were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both near and far- LXX "wrote these things in a book". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Mordecai of how he, a secular and not very religious Jew, had seen his&nbsp; weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :29 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Esther.</p>


text:
<p>To enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar yearly- Whilst this was understandable it could be argued that the subtext of the history is negative; there is no mention of them keeping the Mosaic feasts, but instead they created a new one to celebrate in the lands of exile. Instead, they ought to have returned from those lands and not remained there; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>as the days in which the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending presents of food to one another, and gifts to the needy- LXX "a change was made for them, from mourning to joy, and from sorrow to a good day". This change from mourning to joy connects with the prophecies of the restored kingdom, when mourning would be turned to joy for Zion (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>; <a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:290 61:3'>Isa 61:3</a>). But Judah hadn't repented nor returned to the land as intended. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. For "turned::.", see on :1.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews accepted the custom that they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them- What is specifically in view is the command to keep the 15th day as well.</p>


text:
<p>because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them- LXX has "the Macedonian" for "Agagite", as if to encourage the reading of the whole story as applicable to the abuse of the Jews by Alexander of Macedon.</p>


text:
<p>but when this became known to the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows- "Wicked device" is literally wicked thoughts (s:w. <a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a>; <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a>); perhaps some of the Proverbs which use the phrase to speak of wicked plans have Haman in view (<a href='B:240 6:18'>Pro 6:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>). Again we see the theme continued that it was for his thoughts that Haman was condemned; for the state of the heart is of paramount importance to God. But the phrase is used in <a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a> of how a "wicked device" against God's people was intended to elicit their repentance. It didn't, and so they went into captivity in Babylon / Persia; and now again, repentance was not elicited as intended.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they called these days Purim, from the word ‘Pur’. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come to them- They wanted to especially remember how the lots ["pur"] drawn by Haman were overruled by God to fall in nearly a year's time, so that there was time for Esther's mediation and their preparation. The Divine overruling of the lots was therefore felt to be the parade example of Divine providence in their salvation. But again, this seems rather a case of mistaken focus; the Divine grace of it all and the brave mediation of Esther were not the focus. It could be argued that it was more of a celebration of Jewish good luck than of Divine grace. The root meaning of pur, "lots", is 'a thing of nothing' (s:w. <a href='B:230 33:10'>Psa 33:10</a>). Drawing lots was based upon astrology, and the fact the drawing of lots was to the Jews' favour hardly seems an appropriate thing to celebrate. And we are left with the impression that the Jews in Persia would now celebrate Purim religiously; whilst no mention is made of keeping Yahweh's feasts. Again, there is a subtext here that we have to read. But as ever with the book of Esther, it is below the surface.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews established and imposed on themselves and on their descendants, and on all those who joined themselves to them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to what was written, and according to its appointed time, every year- Note the reference to the Gentiles who "joined themselves to them". Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (<a href='B:190 8:16'>Est 8:16</a>), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return.</p>


text:
<p>and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor their memory perish from their seed- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim- LXX "wrote all that they had done". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Esther of how she, a secular and not very religious Jewess, had seen her weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :20 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Mordecai. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>He sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21. "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (<a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had decreed, and as they had imposed upon themselves and their descendants, in the matter of the fastings and their cry- LXX suggests differently, to the effect that Mordecai and Esther fasted at the time of Purim, perhaps in recognition of their own weaknesses at the time, asking forgiveness for how they had lived as secular believers before they were forced to give their whole lives to their God and their people: "And Mardochaeus and Esther the queen appointed a fast for themselves privately".</p>


text:
<p>The commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book- Confirming my suggestion on :29 that Esther was the author of the book.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land, and on the islands of the sea- The idea is of imposed forced labour, such as Solomon ordered, and which caused much resentment. Why mention this? Perhaps it is included to signal that all was not well, although the story is to end with good triumphing over evil; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai to which the king advanced him, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?- As noted on :1, the story ends positively, but with the subtext that all was not as it could have been. A Jew and a Jewish queen become almost the most influential people on earth at the time, with huge power and might. But still they did not lead their people back to their God and to their land. That is the unspoken conclusion which any spiritually minded, sensitive reader or hearer will come to. Again it is a story of so much potential and Divine grace being as it were wasted.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai the Jew was next to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his descendants- Even though Mordecai was so highly respected amongst the Jews, there is the implication noted on :2 that Mordecai failed to realize his full potential before God, even if he died respected by his own people. Not only did Cyrus and the other various potential fulfillments of the servant songs fail to rise up to their potential; Judah preferred to stay in the soft life. The sad ending of the book of Esther leaves Judah prosperous in Babylon, having declined the potential exodus back to Zion which God had set them up with. Mordecai and Esther ought surely to have used their huge power to move the Jews to return to the land, as was clearly the wish of God as expressed in the prophets. But they didn't; it seems the secularism which characterized their earlier lives may have returned in later life, and tradition has it that Esther was murdered when the Persian empire fell to the Greeks.</p>


text:
<e>Joshua: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>After the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh, Yahweh spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ servant, saying- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise- </p><p>The Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up [God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s:w. <a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a>; <a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a>; <a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a>]&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e:g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>]. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.</p><p>Go over this Jordan, you, and all this people, to the land which I give to them, even to the children of Israel- </p><p>This was a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, and we too experience that. For the covenant is not only about 'jam tomorrow'. In a sense, the promises that the seed would inherit the land, and that God would be their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He is their God. And that land in a sense was given to the Jewish fathers (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a>; <a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a> NIV; <a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a>; <a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the main fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has already been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i:e:, us!</p>


text:
<p>I have given you every place that the sole of your foot will tread on, as I told Moses- </p><p>This meant that according to their spiritual ambition, so would be their inheritance of the Kingdom, as Moses had told them (<a href='B:50 11:24-25'>Deu 11:24-25</a>). The temptation for them, as for us, was to consider that once we have our small inheritance, our farmstead and secure land, as it was for them- then we need have no wider vision. For to go onwards from that parochial mentality and tread upon the entire land (:4) up to the Euphrates was a vision only worth pursuing if they had a vision of collective inheritance of the Kingdom. To seek to get others there is a call which few really perceive. See on <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even to the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border- </p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates. But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. See on :3,6,15.</p>


text:
<p>No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not fail you nor forsake you- </p><p>But these very words are quoted in <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> as the grounds of our matchless confidence that the Lord God will be with us too! As He was with Moses- not just in power, but in wondrous patience and gentleness- so He will be with us too. Not only did God encourage Joshua to see himself as in Moses' shoes; He inspired Jeremiah likewise (<a href='B:300 21:8'>Jer 21:8</a> = <a href='B:50 30:15'>Deu 30:15</a>; <a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a>), and Ezekiel (<a href='B:330 2:3'>Eze 2:3</a> = <a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a>; <a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a>; <a href='B:40 17:10'>Num 17:10</a>); and He wishes us to also see Moses' God as our God. But if Moses' God is to be ours in truth in the daily round of life, we must rise up to the dedication of Moses; as he was a faithful steward, thoroughly dedicated to God's ecclesia (<a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a>), so we are invited follow his example (<a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a>; <a href='B:470 24:45'>Mat 24:45</a>). Note that the promise of Moses that God would not fail nor forsake Joshua, but would be with him (<a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a>) was similar to the very promise given to Moses which he had earlier doubted (<a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a>; <a href='B:20 4:15'>Exo 4:15</a>). Such exhortation is so much the stronger from someone who has themselves doubted and then come to believe.</p><p>We may boldly say that we will not be fearful, as Joshua was, because God has addressed to us the very words which He did to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” (<a href='B:650 13:5-6'>Heb 13:5-6</a>). In this especially, Joshua is our example. When <a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a> speaks of us going forth outside the camp, perhaps there is a reference to Joshua who dwelt with Moses outside the camp- thus making Joshua symbolic of us all.</p><p>Watch out for quotations and allusions within Scripture; there are connections not only between New and Old Testaments, but also (e:g:) between Paul's letters; Peter alludes to Paul's writings, Paul frequently alludes to the words of John the Baptist; Jeremiah often refers to Job's words and experiences. Note the context of the source quotation, because this often sheds light on the passage in which it is quoted. Be aware that many NT passages mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e:g. "The deliverer will come from Zion" (<a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a>) is a conflated quotation of <a href='B:230 14:7'>Psa 14:7</a>; <a href='B:230 53:6'>Psa 53:6</a> and <a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a>. And <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> combines quotes from <a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a> and <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>. <a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a> doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together.</p>


text:
<p>Be strong and courageous; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them-</p><p>God’s opening commission to Joshua was that the people were to possess the whole land promised to Abraham, right up to the Euphrates (<a href='B:60 1:4'>Jos 1:4</a>). But Joshua ended up drawing up the borders of the land far smaller than these; he didn’t even seek to subdue the territory up to the Euphrates, even though God had promised him potential success and even commanded him to do so. Joshua was to divide up the whole land promised to Abraham, amongst the tribes of Israel (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>). And yet in the extensive descriptions of Joshua dividing up the land, we don’t find him dividing up that whole territory up to the Euphrates. He seems to have lacked that vision, and fallen into the mire of minimalism, just content with a utilitarian, small scale conquest, rather than seeing the bigger picture of the potential Kingdom which God wanted to give His people:&nbsp;See on :3,4,15.</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you. Don’t turn from it to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>Joshua is repeatedly made parallel with Israel; his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>.</p><p>As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed. Likewise, he led the Israelites in battle whilst Moses stood on the hill with arms uplifted in prayer for his success. And in capturing Ai, it was Joshua’s turn to stand on a hill with arms uplifted [also in prayer?] whilst Israel fought.</p><p>That you may prosper wherever you go-</p><p>Joshua potentially could have been the Jesus-Messiah figure, leading Israel into what could have become the Kingdom of God. He could have given the people rest; but he didn’t. Yet the possibilities and prophecies relating to Joshua were then reinterpreted and fulfilled in another ‘Jesus’, the Son of God. Solomon was another case of this. God’s servant Joshua was intended to “prosper” (<a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>); but in the end it was the Lord Jesus through His death who was the servant who would “deal prudently” [s:w. ‘prosper’, <a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a>]. And so, in His foreknowledge, God spoke of “another day” when His begotten Son would give “rest”, fulfilling what Joshua could potentially have achieved, and so much more (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). The lesson for us is that so much has been potentially prepared for us to achieve. Our salvation may not necessarily depend upon achieving all those things, but all the same, so much potentially is possible which we refuse to reach up to, because we are petty minimalists, like Israel, satisfied with their little farm in the valley, rather than seeking to possess the fullness of the Kingdom prepared for them.</p>


text:
<p>This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein. Thus you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success-</p><p>In <a href='B:230 1:1-3'>Psa 1:1-3</a>, David makes several allusions to Joshua. He speaks of how the man who meditates in God’s word day and night will prosper in his ways; and he uses the very same Hebrew words as found in <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a> in recounting God’s charge to Joshua. But David’s point is that the man who does these things will not “walk in the counsel of the ungodly”- he won't give in to peer pressure. The fact that Joshua was wrongly influenced by his peers in later life would indicate that he didn’t keep the charge given to him.</p><p>Try to memorize Scripture, run through verses as you go about life, play tapes of Bible studies or Bible reading in the background (instead of the mindless radio). Much of Scripture was probably memorized by various contemporary believers. "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (<a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>) presumably means that Joshua was commanded to keep reciting it to himself in daily life, so that he would be obedient to it. The way Jeremiah consciously and unconsciously quotes and alludes to Job would suggest that he had memorized that book. And many of the Psalms are written in such a way (in Hebrew) as to be easily memorized. David memorized God's law and meditated upon it (hardly the easiest part of Scripture to memorize, at least to Western eyes; <a href='B:230 119:16'>Psa 119:16</a>). He recited it to himself in the night seasons.</p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>).</p><p>This connection between Joshua and Israel is developed in <a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a>, which describes the new covenant which God will make with Israel in the Messianic Kingdom in terms evidently reminiscent of Joshua- as if the new covenant was made with him, thereby enabling him potentially to be part of a Messianic Kingdom even in his day:&nbsp; “And as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: my Spirit that is upon thee [“Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him” <a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a>; <a href='B:40 27:18-23'>Num 27:18-23</a>] , and my words which I have put in thy mouth [<a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> - God’s words were put in Joshua’s mouth], shall not depart out of thy mouth [“this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth”, <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a>, s:w:], nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever”.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t I commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed: for Yahweh your God is with you wherever you go- </p><p>The idea being, as discussed on :3, that wherever they went, they would have victory and take the land for themselves. The various towns in our lives may be alcoholism, the struggle to forgive, gentleness, patience, or whatever seems so insuperable. It is God's eager desire that we should inherit the Kingdom, and so we need not fear (<a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a>). The command to be strong and courageous is understood by David as meaning "be of good courage, and He will strengthen your heart" (<a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:230 31:24'>Psa 31:24</a>). It is not so much a call for human strength and bravery, as to open our hearts to the strengthening of His Spirit:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying- </p><p>"Officers" is literally 'the scribes'. It could refer to those who had a record of the people from the latest census, and could therefore better organize them. But we wonder if it refers to those who had already been set up to keep copies of God's law and interpret it to the people. And yet their work was not academic, just as true Bible study can never be an academic discipline. They were to in practice prepare the people to enter the land and conquer Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>Pass through the midst of the camp, and command the people, saying, ‘Prepare food; for within three days you are to pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess’- </p><p>The "three days" period sends the mind to the Lord's resurrection, which was what gives us ultimate entry into Canaan. Preparing food in advance was a new discipline for people who had lived for decades on the daily provision of manna by God every morning. That this need to "prepare food" should be recorded gives absolute circumstantial credibility to the record. Such a command would have been absolutely necessary. These things really happened. The exodus from Egypt had been in haste, so that they had no time to "prepare food" (<a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a>). They had left Egypt because of push factors. Now, they were to be motivated by the pull factor of the Kingdom, and were not being thrust out in haste, but rather entering the Kingdom on their own terms.</p><p>These three days may be those of <a href='B:60 3:1-2'>Jos 3:1-2</a>. The order to prepare food was given on 7th Nisan, as they crossed Jordan on the 10th. The spies would have been on their mission between the 5th and 8th Nisan.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh saying- </p><p>They had received their inheritance to the east of Jordan, because they were attracted by the rich pasture there for their many flocks and herds&nbsp; (<a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a>; <a href='B:40 32:24'>Num 32:24</a>). This had been on the agreement that they would help the rest of Israel to inherit their inheritances too.</p>


text:
<p>Remember the word which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you saying, ‘Yahweh your God will give you rest, and will give you this land- </p><p>After the pattern of the Reubenites, we have been given the promised rest of the Kingdom here and now (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> cp. <a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a>); but we will, like them, only take possession of that inheritance after we have ensured that our brethren have received their possession (<a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a> present a paradox: the Reubenites were given their "rest", but they would only get their "rest" once their brethren had. Those Reubenites really were symbols of us: for this passage is surely behind the reasoning of Hebrews 4, where we are told that we have entered into rest, but that we must labour if we want to enter into it.</p>


text:
<p>Your wives, your little ones and your livestock shall live in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but all your mighty men of valour shall pass over before your brothers, armed, and shall help them-</p><p>This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard. Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God's protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn't work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.</p>


text:
<p>until Yahweh has given your brothers rest, as He has given you, and they have also possessed the land which Yahweh your God gives them. Then you shall return to the land of your possession and settle it, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise’- </p><p>See on :13. Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); but he said he had (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but both Joshua and Israel would not. <a href='B:50 1:38'>Deu 1:38</a> states clearly that “Joshua… he shall cause Israel to inherit [s:w. possess]” the land. Yet by the end of Joshua’s life, Israel were not inheriting the land in totality. He didn’t live up to his potential. Note, in passing, that God’s prophecy here was conditional, although no condition is actually stated at the time. See on :4,6.</p>


text:
<p>They answered Joshua saying, All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go- </p><p>As noted on :14, the demands on them were a great test of faith. That they agreed and didn't seek to renege on the agreement is therefore the more commendable.</p>


text:
<p>Just as we listened to Moses in all things, so will we listen to you. Only may Yahweh your God be with you as He was with Moses- </p><p>This was surely an exaggeration, as Israel had not been obedient to Moses "in all things".</p>


text:
<p>Whoever rebels against your commandment, and doesn’t listen to your words in all that you command him, he shall be put to death. Only be strong and courageous-</p><p>They now encourage Joshua themselves, perhaps sensing his weakness and nervousness. There is repeated encouragement to be strong and of a good courage and not be fearful (<a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-8'>Jos 1:6-8</a>; <a href='B:60 1:18'>Jos 1:18</a>). What does this imply about Joshua? He could perhaps have potentially been 'Jesus', as his name means, the Messiah figure. But he failed, perhaps because of his fear, and so this possibility was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus. Hebrews effectively makes this point, saying that although Joshua gave the people "rest", in fact he didn't ultimately; and so his work was fulfilled only in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Joshua had been charged to be strong, of good courage, not fearful nor be dismayed. Yet he had a tendency to forget those charges, the implications of his having been called by God for a purpose; and needed to be reminded of them as he forgot or lost faith in them. Perhaps this is why he is an otherwise surprising omission from the list of faithful men and women in Hebrews 11. And here of course is the challenge to us. We too have been given commissions and callings. Whether it be to raise a Godly family, to establish an ecclesia in a certain place, to overcome a specific vice…the obstacles will flee before us, every place where the soles of our feet rest, will be blessed…if we truly believe in God’s purpose with us. Yet like Joshua, we usually fail to have a full faith in this. We get distracted by the views of others, peer pressure, worried by lack of resources, discouraged by setbacks; when it is belief in God’s most basic initial promises to us that will overcome them. Joshua’s fear is all the more reprehensible when we consider the testimony of Psalms 91. Here Moses speaks about Joshua, the one who dwelt in the secret place or tabernacle of God (<a href='B:230 91:1'>Psa 91:1</a> = <a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a>), and who therefore was miraculously preserved throughout the wilderness wanderings. Thousands of Joshua’s generation died at his side from the various plagues which wasted out his generation during those wanderings; but they never came near him (<a href='B:230 91:5-8'>Psa 91:5-8</a>). As a result of this, he was commanded by Moses to “not be afraid” (<a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a>), perhaps Moses was thinking specifically about peer pressure, with the assurance that truly God would hear Joshua’s prayers (<a href='B:230 91:14-15'>Psa 91:14-15</a>). His amazing preservation during the wilderness years ought to have instilled a faith and lack of fearfulness within him; and yet the implication is that he did very often fall prey to fearfulness in later life. Just as with us, the circumstances of earlier life are controlled by the Father to give us faith with which to cope with later crises; but we don’t always learn the lessons we are intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun secretly sent two men out of Shittim as spies, saying, Go, view the land, including Jericho. They went and came into the house of a prostitute whose name was Rahab, and slept there.</p><p>The spies were sent out "secretly". I'd argue that the sending out of the 12 spies about 40 years earlier was essentially a lack of faith- in the fact that God's Angel had gone ahead of them anyway to spy out the land, and Yahweh Himself had told Israel how good the land was. Perhaps the secrecy involved a sense that this was in fact not really a very spiritual decision and Joshua was somehow furtive about it. Israel had never known urban life nor perhaps even seen walled cities like Jericho. The spies entered the city at evening time, and the gate was shut. Strangers always attract attention in such places- let alone when the city was in the direct line of attack of the Hebrews. The language / accent of the two spies would've given them away. According to the record in Joshua 2, it seems they entered the city gates at dusk, the gates were shut, and they'd have perceived that they were being watched and had been noticed as suspicious strangers. And so they used some desperate initiative, and dived into a whorehouse nearby to the gate. This was the sort of place strangers would go to, as it would be today. We imagine them entering the house, and meeting the madame of the house. "What do you want?" was as dumb a question as the doctor asking the patient "How are you feeling today?". Rahab was a smart woman, accustomed to strangers, and knew what was going on. Within the first couple of sentences, she'd have figured who they were. And it seems they spoke for a short time, maybe an hour or so, realized they were busted, understood they were in a death trap within that walled city, and threw themselves on her mercy. And there, providence kicked in. <a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a> calls those men "messengers", with a message Rahab believed. They hardly had an hour to tell her the message, before men were knocking on the door enquiring what Rahab knew about the spies. In that brief time, she believed a very sketchy and incomplete Gospel of the Kingdom. And her works reflected that faith, in telling the men [whom local culture would've barred from entering the house of a single woman] that the spies had come and gone. "That was quick!", we can imagine the King's men joking. There was weakness and dysfunction all around this story. The men "lodged" with Rahab (<a href='B:60 2:1'>Jos 2:1</a>)- but the Hebrew term is often translated "slept with::." in a sexual context. In fact, whenever the term is used in relation to a woman, let alone a prostitute, it implies intercourse. As a word it does mean simply to sleep::. but it is strange that no other term for 'lodging the night' is used, and that the term in the context of a female or prostitute does usually carry a sexual meaning. Whilst I don't believe the spies did sleep with Rahab, it's strange that no other word for 'lodging' is used. The ambiguity is, I suggest, purposeful. But they and their message were 'welcomed in peace' by Rahab (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), she 'received' their message and justified herself by works by protecting them (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>). This would contribute to an overall theme in the book of Joshua of Israel's weakness- the land wasn't fully possessed, Joshua appears himself as weak in many ways, he didn't fully follow the admittedly hard-to-follow act of Moses, Rahab believed the very words of promise which Israel didn't believe, the spies were sent out secretly by Joshua with no command from God to do this, when God had promised to go before Israel and give them victory::. and yet God worked through all this. Even to the extent of using the weakness of the spies in going in to a brothel and "sleeping" with the madame::. in order to save that woman and her family, and the lives of the spies, all in a manner which through human weakness glorified the God of Israel. Rahab had an extensive knowledge of parts of Moses' words and law, and this was the basis for her faith. Yet where did she, a whore in Jericho, get that knowledge from? Presumably from her clients, who would've been travellers who had heard these things and passed them on to her. All this is wonderful encouragement for all sinners- that God has a way of working through sin to His glory, and He doesn't give up so easily with human weakness.</p><p><a href='B:470 1:4'>Mat 1:4</a> records that Salmon married Rahab. Salmon was of the tribe of Judah, because this is the genealogy through Judah (<a href='B:470 1:2'>Mat 1:2</a>). The two spies who had been faithful the first time when spies were sent out were Joshua and Caleb- of the tribes of Ephraim and Judah (<a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:9'>Jdg 2:9</a>). It seems a fair guess that when the two spies were sent out, they were from these same two tribes; see on :23. Salmon was a prince of the tribe of Judah- it’s a fair guess that he was one of the two spies who went to Rahab, and he subsequently married her.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Jericho was told, Behold, men of the children of Israel came in here tonight to spy out the land!- </p><p>Their dress would likely have been unusual, having worn the same clothes and shoes throughout the wilderness journeys. And they would maybe have asked a few people on the street for directions and their accent and language would have given them away. They would have been spotted going in to Rahab's house.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Jericho sent to Rahab saying, Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered into your house; for they have come to spy out all the land- </p><p>We have an example here of how a king's representatives are spoken of himself personally. This is why the Lord Jesus can be called "God" because he functions as God's representative; but this doesn't make Him God Himself in person in a Trinitarian sense.</p>


text:
<p>The woman took the two men and concealed them. Then she said, Yes, the men came to me, but I don’t know where they came from- </p><p>There are times when circumstances do change the appropriacy of behaviour which in more normal life we should practice. Take lying as an example. To lie is wrong. We should be truthful. Of course. But think of Rahab. She lied- and her lie and acts of deception are quoted in the New Testament as acts of faith! Further, Rahab implied that the Israelite spies were her clients- "there came men unto me" (<a href='B:60 2:4'>Jos 2:4</a>) appears to be a euphemism- and she gave the impression that of course, as they were merely passing clients, how did she know nor care who they were nor where they went? Her male interrogators would've found it hard to press her further for information after she said that. So she not only lied but she gave the impression that the messengers of the Kingdom of God were immoral- in order to protect both them and her. Of course the way she left a red cord hanging from her window, as if almost inviting people to imagine the spies had been let down over the wall from her home on the wall, was a tremendous act of faith and witness by her, but she presumably kept to her story that they were her anonymous clients. For she was still living in her home when the city was taken. Her witness was thus an indirect one to those who wished to perceive it, but it was made within the context of a major series of untruths. The Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians- and were blessed for it. And we could give other examples. If we probe further, and ask why such lies were acceptable and even required, we find that often those lies were connected with saving life. To do anything that would cause the loss of human life when it is in our power to save it is dangerously close to murder. If it is in the power of our hand to do good, surely we should. Otherwise we are likely to be saying "Be warmed and filled!", yet do nothing. We do of course emphasize the need for prayer- and we have arranged days of prayer and fasting for these cases. But this does not absolve us from the need for action. Rather, it seems, do those prayers open up ways practically for us to seek our brethren's good.</p><p>There are times when we marvel at God's way of working. Rahab as a prostitute was the only person who could say with credibility that yes, men came into my home- but I have absolutely no idea who they were or where they came from. And her male interrogators would have had to avert their eyes from her gaze and shrug and leave her. For they could say no more to that implied comment that "What? You ask me of all women that question?! In my profession you don't ask those questions, didn't you realize that::.".</p>


text:
<p>It happened about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I don’t know. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them- </p><p>Here she moves into telling untruths; see on :3,4 for the discussion of that. For her lies are cited in Hebrews and James as an example of her faith and works in response to that faith. "Overtake" is the word for ability or possibility. She is implying that surely if they are true men, they will have the strength to chase after these spies and catch them. She was an expert in male psychology. And they obeyed her (:7).</p>


text:
<p>But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them under the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof-</p><p>We imagine the spies panicked once inside the walled city, with their clothing and accent / language making it so obvious they were foreigners. With the Israelites only a short distance away across the river, everyone was fearful of spies. And they realized they had no way out. So they in desperation ran into a whore house. And it seems Rahab immediately perceived who they were, and figured they were in danger. For they were noticed entering her house in the evening (:3), and the gate was closed in the evening (:5,7), when the pursuers chased after the spies [as they thought]. So she hid them immediately they knocked on her door. Their desperate prayers for deliverance were heard in this unusual way. She would have heard of the Israelites and their God, perhaps from her clients who would have been travellers. And she desperately wanted to connect with their God. But she was stuck in Jericho, and stuck in a life of sin. It would have seemed impossible to make the connection with Him she so desired. But then two of His representatives came knocking on her door.</p><p>"The harvest" at this time was the barley harvest (<a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a>), which was traditionally reaped on 10 Nisan; not the wheat harvest, which was at Pentecost seven weeks later (<a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a>). We note that the barley and flax harvests were at this time, and the two crops were harvested at the same time (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>; <a href='B:20 9:33'>Exo 9:33</a>). This would explain why Rahab had flax stalks on her roof (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>). This is the kind of internal corroboration within the record which is to me the greatest proof of Biblical inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>The men pursued them the way to the Jordan to the fords. As soon as those who pursued them had gone out, they shut the gate- </p><p>As discussed on :5, this had been her challenge to her own people, and they fell for it. They likely searched every house in Jericho for the spies. But not hers, or at least, not too thoroughly. Male awkwardness and embarrassment before a woman like her would have meant they accepted her word and she ceased from being a possible suspect.</p>


text:
<p>Before they had lain down, she came up to them on the roof- </p><p>Rooftops were consistently associated with idolatry throughout the Hebrew Bible. But here, Rahab learns more of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, having quit idolatry. The spies are called "messengers" in Hebrews 11 because they had a message for her; and their message were 'welcomed in peace' by Rahab (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), she 'received' their message and justified herself by works by protecting them (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and she said to the men, I know that Yahweh has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you-</p><p>See on <a href='B:230 24:6'>Psa 24:6</a>. When she says that she was aware that God had "given you the land" (<a href='B:60 2:9'>Jos 2:9</a>), she uses the same two Hebrew words used repeatedly in Deuteronomy regarding God's promise to give Israel the land of the Canaanites. "Your terror is fallen upon us" is likewise an allusion to <a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a> [the same Hebrew word for "terror" is used by Rahab]. Rahab speaks of how her people are "fainting" in fear- quoting <a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a> about how the inhabitants of Canaan would "faint" (AV "melt away") because of Israel. Knowing all this, she has the ambition to request the impossible- that she would be the exception, that with her a covenant would be made. When she says that "we have heard" about the Exodus (<a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a>), she may be referring to the prophecy of <a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a>: "The people shall hear and be afraid". In this case, her emphasis would have been upon the word "have"- 'yes, we have heard indeed, as Moses sung, and yes, we are afraid'. Seeking God's face is actually to strive for the unachievable in this life; but it's what we are to do. Spiritual ambition of the type Rahab had lifts us far above the mire of mediocrity which there is in all human life under the sun.</p>


text:
<p>For we have heard how Yahweh dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt; and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond Jordan, to Sihon and to Og, whom you utterly destroyed- </p><p>This utter destruction was because Yahweh had hearkened to the voice of Israel (<a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a> cp. <a href='B:50 3:6'>Deu 3:6</a> s:w:), and Rahab was attracted to a God who listened to prayers and responded to dramatically. Israel's enemies were to be 'utterly destroyed' which is defined as meaning that no covenant be made with them (<a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Rahab desperately wanted to enter covenant with Yahweh, but she saw she was doomed to 'utter destruction' because that was to be Jericho's fate (<a href='B:60 6:21'>Jos 6:21</a> s:w:). But her desire from the heart was read by God, and responded to in such a wonderful way, beyond any human device; hence in :12 (see note there) she asks for covenant relationship.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as we had heard it, our hearts melted, neither did there remain any more spirit in any man because of you; for Yahweh your God- </p><p>When the earlier spies had spent 40 days looking around Canaan, they had reported that the people were strong, and they were despised by them, as if they were mere grasshoppers (<a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a>). The Canaanites represent all those things which appear insuperable to our inheritance of the promised kingdom. But behind those high walls, were people with melted hearts. But the ten spies perceived the people as so strong that they could never defeat them, whereas Joshua and Caleb perceived how things really were- which is how Rahab described it. The paradox is that the hearts of the Canaanites melted (<a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a>), and this is the phrase used of how the hearts of the Israelites melted (<a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a>). Both sides were scared of each other; but victory could have been with Israel. They wasted so much potential.</p><p>He is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath-</p><p>This was the prophetic hope, that at the restoration (see on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a>, where I suggest Joshua was rewritten for the exiles), the Gentiles would come to state that "Yahweh is God" as they had done at times historically (here and <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>; <a href='B:230 100:3'>Psa 100:3</a>; <a href='B:110 8:60'>1Ki 8:60</a>; <a href='B:120 5:15'>2Ki 5:15</a>; <a href='B:120 19:19'>2Ki 19:19</a>; <a href='B:290 45:14-15'>Isa 45:14-15</a>). Rahab was therefore set up as representative of the Gentiles at the time of the exile.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please swear to me by Yahweh, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father’s house, and give me a true token-</p><p><a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a> comments that "By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace". Rahab's faith was faith in God's grace. For Rahab was an Amoritess and according to the law of Moses there was to be no pity or covenant with them- only death (cp. <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>):Rahab had the spiritual ambition to ask that they make a covenant with her- she requests hesed, the common term for covenant relationship ("deal kindly with me", <a href='B:60 2:12'>Jos 2:12</a> cp. <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>). See on :10. And the spies made a covenant with her. Grace, like love, finds a way. Remember that she was also aware of what Israel had done to their enemies on their way to Jericho- and she appears to allude to Moses' commands to destroy utterly and not make covenant with the peoples of the land (<a href='B:50 2:32-37'>Deu 2:32-37</a>; <a href='B:50 7:1-5'>Deu 7:1-5</a>; <a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a>).</p><p>The spies apparently didn't give her any token, apart from their word that their lives would be forfeit if hers was lost- if she continued faithful to the covenant (:14). Considering they were completely at her mercy, we wonder why they didn't make any token. Perhaps they had nothing material to give her apart from their word. But see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Please save alive my father, my mother, my brothers and my sisters and all that they have, and will deliver our lives from death- </p><p>Rahab apparently lived alone, with her family avoiding her for shame that she was a whore and her home was a brothel. They would have had to significantly humble themselves to accept the gospel of the Kingdom from her mouth, and to have entered into her home in order to be saved.</p>


text:
<p>The men said to her, Our life for yours, if you don’t talk about this business of ours; and it shall be, when Yahweh gives us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you- </p><p>"Kindly and truly" is the language of covenant. Jericho was to be utterly destroyed which meant no covenant made with her inhabitants (see on :10,12; <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Here they repeat that the covenant has been extended to her, if she doesn't betray them. We note the contrast between Gentile whore Rahab and respectable Israelite family man Achan. He broke covenant (<a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>), whereas she entered covenant and was faithful to it (<a href='B:60 2:12-14'>Jos 2:12-14</a>). She took and hid the spies (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>), whereas Achan took and hid the spoil (<a href='B:60 7:21-22'>Jos 7:21-22</a>). Rahab saved her family alive (<a href='B:60 2:13-14'>Jos 2:13-14</a>; <a href='B:60 6:22-23'>Jos 6:22-23</a>), whereas Achan destroyed his family (<a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was on the side of the wall, and she lived on the wall- </p><p>Heb. "in the wall" may mean her house was between the inner and outer walls. Perhaps the flax stems on her roof had been grown outside the city walls and she therefore had a rope to haul them up to her. This may have been a way of avoiding paying tax on them, which would have been required if they had been brought through the city gate.</p><p>Escaping out of a window down the wall was the experience of David and Paul (<a href='B:510 9:25'>Act 9:25</a>). Paul describes it as one of the most humiliating things which happened to him (<a href='B:540 11:32'>2Co 11:32</a>). The triple repetition shows the same Divine hallmark of His operation, in the lives of different men separated by centuries.</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Go to the mountain, lest the pursuers find you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers have returned. Afterward, you may go on your way- </p><p>Rahab comes over as in command of the situation, even though she was a Gentile prostitute begging for God's grace. "Three days" may be a non literal period. <a href='B:20 14:4'>Exo 14:4</a>; <a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a> uses the same word for "pursuer" about the Egyptians likewise pursuing Israel in vain- also around the time of Passover.</p>


text:
<p>The men said to her, We will be guiltless of this your oath which you have made us to swear-</p><p>The next three verses give the conditions for the covenant, but they say that Rahab had "made us swear". She had used her position of power over them to make them enter a covenant of Yahweh with her (see on :10,12).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, when we come into the land-</p><p>LXX "If we succeed in penetrating into a part of the town".</p><p>You shall bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which you used to let us down. You shall gather to yourself into the house your father, your mother, your brothers and all your father’s household- </p><p>See on :21. This line or rope may have been the "true token" of :12. It seems they gave her the scarlet thread. Perhaps they had worked this out in advance, entering Jericho with the aim of finding someone to believe their message. It was around Passover time, and so this may have been an invitation for Rahab to in essence participate in the Passover ritual, putting the symbol of blood on her house so that she might be saved whilst the rest of the world around her perished. She was being treated as one of the covenant people. Scarlet was associated with the removal of sin (<a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a>; <a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a>; <a href='B:30 14:51'>Lev 14:51</a>; <a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a>) and the Passover blood (<a href='B:20 12:7'>Exo 12:7</a>; <a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It shall be that whoever goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood will be on his head, and we will be guiltless. Whoever is with you in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand is on him- </p><p>This continues the allusions to the Passover legislation, although Rahab and her family were only able to keep the spirit and not the letter of it. As Rahab was a whore and her home a brothel, her family had to humble themselves to accept the Gospel and take refuge in it.</p>


text:
<p>But if you talk about this business of ours, then we shall be guiltless of your oath which you have made us to swear- </p><p>Compare the evidence for Rahab's preaching the message of the spies, with the terms of the covenant thrashed out with her- if she were to "utter" (Heb. to preach, advertise openly] the "business" of the spies, then the covenant would be null and void. She did indeed do this, and yet the covenant still stood. Perhaps the agreement insisted upon by the spies was somewhat self-protective, without the ambition which Rahab had to bring others to throw themselves upon God's grace. This would only make her spiritual perception and ambition stand out the more. All this fits in with the overall theme of the book of Joshua- that Israel were given the land, Ephraim and Manasseh were allowed to return to their lot East of Jordan, despite the fact that they were disobedient and didn't drive out all the Canaanites as required by God. Taking the crossing of the Red Sea as a type of baptism, the wilderness walk as symbolic of our probationary lives now (<a href='B:530 10:1-3'>1Co 10:1-3</a>), the entrance of the promised land speaks of our entrance to God's Kingdom- and this will likewise be by grace, in the face of all the mess ups, disobedience, failure to obey::. which we're all so guilty of.</p>


text:
<p>She said, According to your words, so be it. She sent them away, and they departed. She tied the scarlet line in the window-</p><p>Rahab was told to bind the scarlet cord in her window "when we come into the land" (<a href='B:60 2:18'>Jos 2:18</a>). But Rahab bound it there immediately when they left- as if she recognized that her land was already in Israel's hands (<a href='B:60 2:21'>Jos 2:21</a>). Considering the whole town was wondering how the spies had escaped, and she was under suspicion, to leave the escape rope dangling there, indeed to take it up and then place it there again immediately (so :21 implies), was really stupid. She didn't need to do that at that stage. But the joy of the Gospel should make us fools for Christ's sake. But does it, in our postmodern age? When was the last time the joy of the good news we know, lead you to do something humanly foolish? It could be gathered from <a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a> that Rahab preached to others the message she had received from the spies- for the inspired commentary there notes that Rahab did not perish with those "that believed not"- apeitheo suggesting disbelief, a wilful refusal to believe. What message did Jericho not believe? There was no particular message for them from the words of Moses or Joshua. The message was presumably an appeal from Rahab, to repent and accept the God of Israel as she had done- to cast themselves upon His mercy. And in any case, as a prostitute estranged from her family, either due to her profession or because estrangement from them had led her to it, she must have gone to her estranged family and preached to them, bringing them within her despised house. The question, of course, is: 'Why then was not Rahab killed by the people of Jericho if she openly preached to them about the God of Israel?'. The ancient law code of Hammurabi contains the following statute: “If felons are banded together in an ale-wife’s [prostitute’s or innkeeper’s] house and she has not haled [them] to the palace, that ale-wife shall be put to death” (S:R. Driver and J:C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws [Oxford: Clarendon, 1956], 2:45). Perhaps she was so despised that she was untouchable, or treated as mad. Perhaps former clients of hers in the city's leadership decided it would be better to let her 'get religion' rather than spill any beans about them. But it could be said that it was a miracle she wasn't murdered for her witness. She certainly ran the risk of it. If men and women with a far less complete understanding of the Gospel could risk their lives for it::. what does our understanding and faith convict us to do for the sake of witnessing to it? Give money towards it? Risk our lives, health, convenience in travelling for it? Risk our embarrassment and loss of standing in the workplace or family by preaching it:::? Our knowledge of the Gospel of the Kingdom is far more detailed than that of Rahab, who picked up snatches of it from her clients, and had at most an hour's pressured conversation with the spies before she had to show whether or not she believed it. If it motivated her to do all she did- what about us?</p><p>The book of Joshua was rewritten for the encouragement of the exiles (see on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a>). Judah had gone into exile because they had acted like a prostitute, as the prophets make clear. This account of the salvation of a prostitute was therefore for their encouragement. Against all odds, they could be saved out of Babylon, a nation and city marked out for destruction by 'falling' as was Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>They left and came to the mountain, and stayed there three days until the pursuers had returned. The pursuers sought them throughout all the way, but didn’t find them- </p><p>Rahab appears to have knowledge and authority in all this, although she was the underdog. The pursuers and the spies are both presented as doing what she told them to do; as if she, the despised Gentile whore in a condemned city, was exalted to a position of power by her commitment to God.</p>


text:
<p>Then the two men returned, descended from the mountain, passed over, and came to Joshua the son of Nun. They told him all that had happened to them- </p><p>"Returned and descended" is the very phrase used of how the faithful spies, Joshua and Caleb, had returned and descended to Israel with the news that they could easily conquer the land (<a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a>). I suggested on :1 that there were distinct connections between those two faithful spies and the spies now being sent out. Israel were being bidden learn from their failure to believe the spies 38 years previously. The Bible continually bids us learn from recorded history.</p>


text:
<p>They said to Joshua, Truly Yahweh has delivered into our hands all the land. Furthermore, all the inhabitants of the land melt away before us!</p><p>They had begun to melt away after the exodus (<a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a> s:w:), and the spies may be almost frustrated that Israel had wasted so much time before believing this. For nearly 40 years, the Canaanites had been in this 'melted away' mental state, and Rahab uses the same word to describe them (:9). The prophetic descriptions of hills [nations / cities] and 'the land' "melting" before God (s:w. <a href='B:370 9:5'>Amo 9:5</a>; <a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:410 1:15'>Nah 1:15</a>) are therefore not to be read literally, but rather alluding to this state of mind amongst the peoples within the land promised to Abraham- in the shadow of latter day Divine judgment and the giving of their kingdoms to His people.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose up early in the morning-</p><p>In the days before alarm clocks, special note is taken of this feature of Joshua (<a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); ). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people ( ; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>And they moved from Shittim, and came to the Jordan, he and all the children of Israel. They lodged there before they passed over-</p><p>Lodging in full view of Jericho would have been a tactical mistake, humanly speaking. Far better, surely, a quick attack by an advanced guard of soldiers, rather than taking the whole nation over Jordan in full view of their enemies waiting for them.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after three days that the officers went through the midst of the camp-</p><p>The three days spent looking at Jordan was perhaps to encourage them to meditate upon the Red Sea deliverance and to help them make the move in faith. Humanly speaking, sitting there in full view of the men of Jericho was unwise. These three days may be those of <a href='B:60 1:11'>Jos 1:11</a>. The order to prepare food was given on 7th Nisan, as they crossed Jordan on the 10th. The spies would have been on their mission between the 5th and 8th Nisan.</p><p>Jericho was protected from the oncoming Israelites by the Jordan river. Rahab mentioned to the spies that the men of Jericho were terrified at the way Israel's God had dried up the Red Sea (<a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a>), implying that they believed Yahweh could likewise dry up the Jordan and take away their line of natural defence. Perhaps Joshua and Caleb envisaged the drying up of the Jordan as already in essence accomplished when they reasoned that their defence [the Jordan] was departed / held up / turned off from them (<a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a>). The whole situation was a purposeful repetition in essence of the Red Sea crossing. Circumstances repeat in life so that we learn faith from the previous incident, at least potentially. 1:11 had foretold they would pass over the river, but they had to go forward in faith not knowing how exactly that would work out in practice. Once they had gone over Jordan, they were entering a hostile country from which there would now be no retreat. This is hinted at in the descriptions of Israel not only passing over but totally passing over (3:17; 4:1). This is the way God works- if we go forward in faith, then the way back to the world is harder. Joshua therefore encouraged them that when God drove back the river it would be as if He had stretched out His hand to strike all the inhabitants of the land (<a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a>). The wonder of our baptism implies that all future conflicts and obstacles to entry to the Kingdom will likewise be overcome.</p>


text:
<p>and they commanded the people saying, When you see the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God and the priests the Levites bearing it, then you shall move from your place, and follow it- </p><p>Instead of following the pillar of cloud and fire they had to follow only the ark. The miraculous presence of the fire and cloud was now removed- that had trained them to follow God's leading even when now there was no miraculous sign. <a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a> had reasoned that a division of the waters immediately prior to Israel's entry into Canaan would make the Canaanites fear Israel. There was therefore the hint that a drying up of the Jordan would happen- Joshua seems to have imagined it would, but only the spiritually minded amongst Israel would've grasped the hint from <a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a>. This is typical of how God works- those who love His word find hints and encouragements for their faith when facing specific obstacles. Those who are not sensitive to God's word or who are ignorant of it don't find this same encouragement. Hence when <a href='B:290 64:3'>Isa 64:3</a> comments that God did great things for Israel which they "looked not for"- this is an expression of His grace towards the less spiritually perceptive. They should have 'looked for' this miracle- but even although they did not, God still did it. This is comfort, although not without limit, to those who still wonder how and whether they shall pass over to be in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure. Don’t come near to it, that you may know the path to follow; for you have not passed this way before-</p><p>Two thousand cubits is nearly one kilometer. The ark was as it were able to protect itself, without the need of being guarded by soldiers- in fact it was the unguarded ark which was itself a guard to them. In this lies a caveat about 'apologetics' and the idea of defending God and His Truth. He doesn't need it, and so much damage has been done by those who think that somehow, His Truth and glory depends upon them to preserve it. The distance from the ark was to also focus their attention upon it as the means of their crossing over the river- just as our crossing into the Kingdom will be made with total focus on the person of Jesus as our Saviour. We need the appropriate distance from Him so that we may observe His path.</p><p>"Space" translates a word which is often used about time, s:w. "a great while to come". The physical distance between them and the ark looked ahead to how the ark, representing the Lord Jesus, was to enter into the rest before they did, but as the guarantee that they / we would follow. If we follow that "path". "The way" "passed" is a phrase often used about the wilderness wanderings (<a href='B:60 24:17'>Jos 24:17</a> and often in Deuteronomy). Some of the wilderness march was going over similar territory where they had been before; but the entrance to the Kingdom was to be of a totally different nature. On one hand, we are to live the eternal life now, acting now as we will in the Kingdom. But on another hand, the Kingdom life will not at all be what we have experienced in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, Sanctify yourselves; for tomorrow Yahweh will do wonders among you- </p><p>This was calmly spoken in absolute faith. For there was no visible evidence that the Jordan would dry up. They were to sanctify themselves not so as to be worthy of God's gracious action, but rather because they were in the presence of it. These "wonders" are a hint that they are to enter covenant with God as at Sinai (s:w. <a href='B:20 34:10'>Exo 34:10</a>). The command to sanctify themselves recalled the command as they entered covenant at Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:10-15'>Exo 19:10-15</a>). "Tomorrow" would have been the 10th Nisan (<a href='B:60 4:19'>Jos 4:19</a>), the day when they had taken to themselves a lamb for salvation (<a href='B:20 12:3'>Exo 12:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and walk in front of the people. They took up the ark of the covenant, and walked ahead of the people- </p><p>This is now happening on the day following :5, the "tomorrow" there spoken of. It was the Angel and pillar of fire which had "walked ahead of the people" (s:w. <a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a>; <a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a>). But now all focus was to be upon the ark, representing the Lord Jesus. The time of following Angels and seeing God's actions as solely through them needs to give way to perceiving His direct presence with us through the Lord Jesus, represented by the ark.</p><p>It was God's intention that Moses would go before the people and lead them into the land (<a href='B:50 10:11'>Deu 10:11</a>), but Moses failed, and so it fell to Joshua. But it seems he was nervous, and so God used the ark rather than Joshua personally to 'go before the people' (s:w. <a href='B:60 3:6'>Jos 3:6</a>). All the time we see God setting up potential programs which have to be amended because of human weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Today I will begin to magnify you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was with Moses, so I will be with you-</p><p>Just as Moses was given credibility before the people by the miraculous opening of the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a>), so Joshua was given similar credibility. Moses achieved the miracle by his rod; Joshua did so by the ark of the covenant. Both times they passed over "on dry ground" (3:17). Clearly Joshua was not of the personality type which would naturally be found compelling as a charismatic leader. And so God gave this to him (<a href='B:60 4:14'>Jos 4:14</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>You shall command the priests who bear the ark of the covenant saying, ‘When you come to the brink of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand still in the Jordan’- </p><p>More commands to the priests resume in :13. "Stand still" recalls how at the Red Sea, Israel were to stand still and see the saving action of God in parting the water (<a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a> cp. <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>). Only the older ones would have remembered the Red Sea parting. They were all being shown that what was apparently merely Bible story time events were going to be repeated just as amazingly in their own experience.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the children of Israel, Come here, and hear the words of Yahweh your God- </p><p>This continues to allude to the covenant at Sinai. Although the date was here just before Passover, and Israel first entered into the covenant after Passover. God is not a literalist, and clearly the essence of the Passover and entry into covenant at Sinai were being repeated.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Hereby you shall know that the living God is among you-</p><p>Heb. "in the midst of you". The God of the living ones, the cherubim which covered the ark and between which was the shekinah glory, was now revealed. For the ark was no longer hidden from view in the most holy place, but openly in view of all. And all Israel could look at it as they passed over. The Lord Jesus uses this phrase in speaking of His abiding presence in the midst of His people today (<a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a>).</p><p>And that He will without fail drive out the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite from before you- </p><p>But they did not drive them all out. Here we have an example of a conditional promise, spoken of as a prophecy. They were made "to know" that surely they could inherit the entire promised land up to the Euphrates, and the seven nations are spoken of surely as a summary of all the tribes. But the experience of the miracle at Jordan didn't have an abiding impression upon them. And so again we see that miracles don't in fact inculcate abiding faith. Pentecostalism needs to reconsider the role of miracles. For faith, according to Biblical history, is simply not predicated upon miracles. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passes over before you into the Jordan-</p><p>It could be rendered&nbsp; “the ark of the covenant is called the ruler of the whole earth"- as if the ark is personified, encouraging us to see it as representative of a person (the Lord Jesus). <a href='B:450 4:14'>Zec 4:14</a> likewise associates the ark with "the Lord of all the earth"; and the eretz in view is the land promised to Abraham. The Israelites looked across Jordan to a land apparently not under their control. But they are invited to see Yahweh as enthroned between the cherubim, and therefore His entry into Canaan was as it were His taking control as Lord of His own territory. And they as His people were therefore assured of taking the land.</p><p>Israel had been taught throughout their wilderness journey that they were 'passing over', the word is used so often in Deuteronomy about their passing through various places on the journey. It is another allusion to Passover, which feast was about to begin. The fact God has brought us over so much day by day in this current journey means that our final crossing over at judgment day into God's Kingdom will just be another stage in the journey, seamlessly part of the process we are currently experiencing, and we should not therefore see judgment day as some huge unknown factor which lies inexorably ahead. They had been taught to speak to others of how they were to pass over Jordan (e:g. <a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a> "as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did to me, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the land which Yahweh our God gives us"; see too <a href='B:40 33:51'>Num 33:51</a>; <a href='B:40 35:10'>Num 35:10</a>; <a href='B:50 4:22'>Deu 4:22</a>; <a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a> "you shall pass over this Jordan"; 9:1; 11:31; 12:10 "when you pass over Jordan"; 27:2,4,12; 30:18; 31:13; 32:47). That's a total of 14 times that they were specifically told they were to pass over Jordan, corresponding to the endless Biblical encouragement we receive that really, we shall inherit the Kingdom. Even if like Israel the words can appear to just drone on in our ears. We too are to live with the full assumption [not presumption] that by grace we shall enter and inherit the Kingdom. The 'passing over' of the ark was to be seen by them as a guarantee that they too would pass over Jordan, just as we are to see in the resurrection of the Lord and His passing over into Divine nature the guarantee of our personal salvation. The Lord's resurrection thereby becomes utterly central to our assurance of salvation if we are indeed 'in Him'. The 2000 cubits distance may be a hint at the Lord 'passing over' 2000 years ahead of us doing so at judgment day. Note that the Hebrew for 'passed over' is also translated 'to carry over' (e:g. <a href='B:60 4:3'>Jos 4:3</a>; <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>)- they were carried over by God just as we will be.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore take twelve men out of the tribes of Israel, for every tribe a man- </p><p>These men had to be appointed first, and were then used in the ritual of <a href='B:60 4:2-4'>Jos 4:2-4</a>. They were to take stones with them, which all looked forward to the future reality of <a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It shall come to pass, when the soles of the feet of the priests who bear the ark of Yahweh, the Lord of all the earth, rest in the waters of the Jordan- </p><p>Israel had been encouraged in <a href='B:60 1:3'>Jos 1:3</a> that "I have given you every place that the sole of your foot will tread on". Wherever their foot stepped could be theirs. And this was now dramatically and visually taught to them. The waters represented the nations, and perhaps specifically their armies, as in later scripture. As soon as the soles of their foot stood in Jordan, then Jordan was theirs, and the flow of the water of the nations against them would be stopped. For Yahweh was Lord of all the eretz promised to Abraham, and they were His people.</p><p>The waters of the Jordan will be cut off. The waters that come down from above shall stand in a heap-</p><p>"Cut off" is a direct allusion to the crossing of the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 15:8'>Exo 15:8</a>). But I suggested above that the waters represented the flow of nations against them. And those nations were to be "cut off" before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the people moved from their tents to pass over the Jordan, that the priests who bore the ark of the covenant walked in front of the people- </p><p>But at a distance of 2000 cubits, about 1 kilometer. There was a natural fear at who was to go first. God went first. It is a natural human fear and desire that someone leads, goes over first. And the Lord Jesus, represented by the ark, has done that. We are "like sheep", and God realizes that. We have the huge comfort that One has indeed gone ahead first, and we are to follow.</p>


text:
<p>When those who bore the ark had come to the Jordan, and the feet of the priests who bore the ark had dipped in the edge of the water (for the Jordan overflows all its banks all the time of harvest)-</p><p><a href='B:230 114:5'>Psa 114:5</a> and <a href='B:290 43:2'>Isa 43:2</a> reason that what God did at the Jordan He does in essence in our lives. God made the people cross Jordan at the time when it was widest- an example of how (at some times, in some ways) He purposefully tests faith. To cross the Jordan in flood was a heroic and very difficult act, according to <a href='B:130 12:15'>1Ch 12:15</a>. Likewise God chose their crossing place as facing Jericho ("right against Jericho", :16)- the strongest opponent, whose spies no doubt were nervously watching the Israelites. <a href='B:230 93:3-4'>Psa 93:3-4</a> refer to how the floods lifted up their voice, but God's people walked through them- this is more relevant to the Jordan crossing than to the Red Sea exodus. Jordan is widest after the Spring snow melt in the Lebanon mountains ("the swelling of Jordan", <a href='B:300 12:5'>Jer 12:5</a>; <a href='B:300 49:19'>Jer 49:19</a>)- incidental proof that they crossed Jordan around Passover time, which is when they had crossed the Red Sea. "The harvest" was the barley harvest, which was traditionally reaped on 10 Nisan; not the wheat harvest, which was at Pentecost seven weeks later (<a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a>). We note that the barley and flax harvests were at this time, and the two crops were harvested at the same time (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>; <a href='B:20 9:33'>Exo 9:33</a>). This would explain why Rahab had flax stalks on her roof (<a href='B:60 2:6'>Jos 2:6</a>). This is the kind of internal corroboration within the record which is to me the greatest proof of Biblical inspiration.</p><p>God arranged circumstances so that they could see the similarities with the Red Sea crossing, and learn from that incident now that the circumstances were repeating. God does the same with us, daily; repeating circumstances, and trying to get us to see how in essence our experiences are repeating Biblical experiences. All the promises that Israel would enter Canaan actually implied this miracle- but it was for the thoughtful Israelite to perceive that.</p>


text:
<p>that the waters which came down from above stood and rose up in one heap- </p><p>Presumably they froze and congealed, as perhaps happened at the Red Sea. &nbsp;The language of waters divided and gathered together recalls the language of creation (<a href='B:10 1:6'>Gen 1:6</a>; <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a>). Allusions to creation language are frequent in the Bible, to encourage us that what God did then and continues to do in creation, He does in our lives. The new creation in Christ (<a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a>) involves the same expenditure of energy to create ex nihilo the spiritual person within us.</p><p>A great way off- </p><p>We see here God's sensitivity to human weakness . They were not asked to cross with a wall of water on one side of them, which they would feared could come crashing down upon them. The water of Jordan fled backwards (<a href='B:230 114:3'>Psa 114:3</a>), referring to this creation of a dry riverbed upstream of the crossing as well as downstream of it. "Jordan" is literally 'the descender', and we see here God's power to arrest an otherwise apparently inevitable downward movement, and even reverse it. The water was not merely parted, but driven back upstream.</p><p>At Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan- </p><p>We naturally see the symbolism; the problem caused with Adam was arrested by God's action. "Zarethan", 'place of piercing', would then allude to the promised piercing of the serpent, the power of sin (<a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>). There is no city known as Adam, but probably Admah is in view (<a href='B:10 14:2'>Gen 14:2</a>). It is spelt "Adam" here in order to direct our attention to the symbolism.</p><p>And those that went down toward the sea of the Arabah, even the Salt Sea, were wholly cut off. Then the people passed over right against Jericho-</p><p>As discussed above, this was therefore in full view of the men of Jericho who for sure had been sent out to report on the Israelite movements. Tactically it would have appeared foolish. But this was an example of how we are "fools for Christ's sake". God works not through human wisdom but through the way of His Spirit:&nbsp;I suggested on :13 that the 'cutting off' of the waters represented the cutting off of all opposition to them. And therefore this miracle was the guarantee that they would successfully displace all the tribes in the land (:10).</p>


text:
<p>The priests who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh stood firm on dry ground in the middle of the Jordan. Then, all the people of Israel passed over the Jordan on dry ground- </p><p>As discussed on :13,16, the cutting off of the waters&nbsp; represented the cutting off of all Gentile opposition to them. But this depended upon the priests 'standing firm' or "upright" (Heb:), so that all Israel could inherit the Kingdom. And Israel's history is full of evidence that the priesthood did not stand firm, and all Israel therefore lost the Kingdom because of it.</p>


text:
<p>When all the nation had completely passed over the Jordan, Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>It is stressed that they all passed over (<a href='B:60 3:17'>Jos 3:17</a>). The salvation was complete.</p>


text:
<p>Take twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man- </p><p>These twelve man and their stones looked forward to the final reality of <a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>. We are to see in them symbols of the 12 disciples upon whom the kingdom was to be built.</p>


text:
<p>and command them saying, ‘Take from out of the middle of the Jordan, out of the place where the priests’ feet stood firm, twelve stones, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the resting place where you will rest tonight’- </p><p>The language of rest connects with the potential possibility that Joshua would bring the people to "rest". But <a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a> is clear that he didn't achieve this, and so all these things come to their ultimate term in a reapplied fulfilment in the work of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deu 27:2-8</a> had commanded that "in the day" Israel passed over Jordan, they were to set up plastered stones with the law written upon them [perhaps just the ten commandments], and put them "in mount Ebal". The location was defined as near Gilgal (<a href='B:50 11:30'>Deu 11:30</a>), where they camped after entering the land. Clearly enough, the ceremony of blessing and cursing ought to have been done immediately they entered the land. But they let secular concerns dominate their spiritual obligation to be thankful as God had asked. For when Joshua fulfilled it in <a href='B:60 8:30'>Jos 8:30</a>, this was not "in the day" that Israel passed over Jordan. They had indeed taken stones with them from the Jordan, but had not used them as intended. They didn't plaster them nor write the law upon them. And so perhaps God ammended His intention- which was initially that they would set those stones up in mount Ebal immediately. Instead, He sent the people against Jericho, and then against Ai. Perhaps an instant conquest of Jericho had been originally intended, so that they could proceed to mount Ebal immediately. For later in Joshua we will read of God giving His people unnaturally speedy progress against their enemies, all in the same day. Or maybe His intention was that firstly they ought to have gone to mount Ebal with the plastered stones, and only then attacked Jericho. But they didn't plaster the stones nor wish to proceed immediately to Ebal. And so He arranged the campaign against Jericho and then Ai. We see how God is so eager to accommodate His programs to the weakness of men.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had prepared of the children of Israel, out of every tribe a man- </p><p>They had been "prepared" at the time of <a href='B:60 3:12'>Jos 3:12</a>. They look forward to the 12 disciples whom the Lord Jesus likewise prepared to lay the foundations of His new kingdom (<a href='B:730 21:14'>Rev 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to them, Pass over before the ark of Yahweh your God into the middle of the Jordan, and each of you pick up a stone and put it on your shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel- </p><p>We note that the two and a half tribes who had taken their inheritance east of Jordan were included in this. Always God was (and still is) careful to inculcate a spirit of unity amongst His people. The stones were not huge, they could each be carried upon a shoulder; God is not at all in the grandiose buildings such as Solomon's temple, but is memorialized in small things like this.</p>


text:
<p>This will be a sign among you, that when your children ask in time to come saying, ‘What do you mean by these stones?’- </p><p>These were probably the stones in view in <a href='B:470 3:9'>Mat 3:9</a>, where John warned the people near the Jordan river that God was able "of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham". They represented Israel, but an Israel which could become living stones. The language here again recalls that of Passover (<a href='B:20 12:26'>Exo 12:26</a>; <a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a>), which they were about to keep. But the spirit of it was seen in the events they were experiencing.</p>


text:
<p>then you shall tell them, ‘Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off’. These stones shall be for a memorial to the children of Israel forever- </p><p>Here we have another example of where "forever" is not to be read as literal infinity. For the memorial has now vanished. The double emphasis upon the waters being cut off is because as noted on <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a> the waters represented the flow of nations against them. And those nations were to be "cut off" before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often). And therefore this miracle was the guarantee that they would successfully displace all the tribes in the land (<a href='B:60 3:10'>Jos 3:10</a>). This was to serve as encouragement to subsequent generations in their struggles against the local peoples of the land.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones out of the midst of the Jordan as Yahweh spoke to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel; and they carried them over with them to the place where they lodged, and laid them down there- </p><p>The stones were not huge, they could each be carried upon a shoulder (:5); God is not at all in the grandiose buildings such as Solomon's temple, but is memorialized in small things like this. The stones were carried, representing how God carried His people into the land. They apparently lodged at Gilgal (:20).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant stood- </p><p>"In the midst of the Jordan" could be read as "from the midst::.". But if we stick with "in the midst::.", we are then to understand that there were two memorials. The twelve stones at Gilgal (<a href='B:60 4:20'>Jos 4:20</a>) where they lodged that night (:8), and another 12 stones left in the midst of the Jordan river. This would then speak of how there was both a visible and invisible memorial to God's bringing His people into the land. Or it could be that the twelve stones were first set up on the dry river bed, and then removed from there to Gilgal. This would have visually symbolized the bringing of all twelve tribes from the river to dry ground.</p><p>They are there to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>For the priests who bore the ark stood in the midst of the Jordan until everything was finished that Yahweh commanded Joshua to speak to the people, according to all that Moses commanded Joshua- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p><p>And the people hurried and passed over- </p><p>Their haste is understandable, as their eyes would have been toward the wall of water building up some distance from them upstream, fearful it could come surging towards them. But it may be mentioned to draw attention to the similarity with the first Passover and exodus (<a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when all the people had completely passed over, that the ark of Yahweh passed over with the priests, while the people watched- </p><p>The phrase "completely passed over" is used several times. It looks forward to the total deliverance of God's people into His Kingdom. "All the people" excluded many of the two and a half tribes, but their representatives (:12) were counted as them. "The people watched" because they had never seen the ark before, as it was kept in the most holy place. God had as it were denuded Himself in this great work of salvation. He was enthroned in the shekinah glory between the cherubim. The idea was that it was the ark which had enabled them to pass over into the inheritance of the Kingdom. And God would not cease His working until all His people were in His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben, the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh passed over armed before the children of Israel, as Moses had spoken to them- </p><p>There was no small cost for taking their inheritance east of Jordan. Their soldiers were to all leave their families and flocks defenceless (humanly speaking) and to serve as the vanguard of the assault on Canaan, marching directly behind the ark but in front of the Israelites. Taking inheritance east of Jordan may have appeared initially as an easy way out of showing the faith required to dispossess the Canaanites west of Jordan. But God arranged things, as He does to this day, so that in fact there is no short cut to His Kingdom, no avoidance of showing faith. And in fact attempts to short cut often result in greater faith being required.</p>


text:
<p>About forty thousand men prepared and armed for war passed over before Yahweh to battle, to the plains of Jericho- </p><p>"Thousand" is often not a literal number in the historical records; especially when used in the context of soldiers, it seems to refer to some military subdivision.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, Yahweh magnified Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life- </p><p>It could be that Joshua was a not very confident individual who needed constant encouragement not to fear or be discouraged, as given to him throughout Joshua 1. But God used such an uncharismatic figure, endowing him with respect, because that is His style of working.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>The style here constantly recalls how Yahweh had spoken to Moses and he relayed this to Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Command the priests who bear the ark of the testimony, that they come up out of the Jordan-</p><p>David's bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a> (s:w:); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a>; <a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a> s:w:). David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises; for Joshua had failed to bring the people into the promised rest as was potentially possible (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). This may explain why Paul in <a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally.</p><p>The ark is described as "the ark of the testimony" because the tables of the commandments (<a href='B:20 25:40'>Exo 25:40</a>) were "the testimony", and sometimes "the ark" is just called "the testimony". Although other things were in the ark, the tables of stone were paramount. The ark represented the Lord Jesus, who was "the word made flesh", with God's word within His heart as the word of God was within the ark. God's covenant word was of the essence in defining His presence amongst men.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua therefore commanded the priests saying, Come up out of the Jordan!- </p><p>This phrase 'come up out of Jordan' is used of the priests, the ark (:18) and the people (:19). Clearly the people were to perceive that their coming through Jordan into the promised land was due to their identification with the ark. It all points ahead to our entry into the Kingdom because the Lord Jesus has enabled it, and has Himself entered in.</p>


text:
<p>When the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of Yahweh had come up out of the midst of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet were lifted up to the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks as before- </p><p>"Lifted up" is literally "plucked up". The Divine cameraman is zoomed in close up. Their plucked their feet up out of the mud onto more solid, dry ground. Once their feet were out of the mid, the waters started flowing back. We can imagine it made quite a sound.</p>


text:
<p>The people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and encamped in Gilgal, on the east border of Jericho- </p><p>The 10th Nisan (<a href='B:60 3:5'>Jos 3:5</a>) was the day when they had taken to themselves a lamb for salvation (<a href='B:20 12:3'>Exo 12:3</a>). It was when the firstfruits were to be offered (<a href='B:30 23:9-15'>Lev 23:9-15</a>). But the grace of their salvation was impressed upon them; instead of their giving something to God, He gave them the great gift of salvation.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua set up those twelve stones which they took out of the Jordan in Gilgal- </p><p>It seems those stones became abused into a form of idolatry, just as the brazen serpent was. And God particularly hated the sins which were therefore committed at Gilgal (<a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a>; <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>; <a href='B:370 4:4'>Amo 4:4</a>; <a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>). It was there that Israel demanded a king, despite the clear message at this time that the ark was the presence of the "Lord of all the earth". Yahweh was their king who had saved them, memorialized by the stones; and there they demanded a king.</p>


text:
<p>He spoke to the children of Israel saying, When your children ask their fathers in time to come saying, ‘What do these stones mean?’-</p><p>Quoting / alluding to Moses- as Joshua often does. The need to teach their children about this great salvation is laboured here just as much, if not more, as is the Passover remembrance.</p>


text:
<p>then you shall let your children know, saying, ‘Israel came over this Jordan on dry land- </p><p>"This Jordan" implies that the question would be asked when the children enquired about the meaning of the stones, which were near the Jordan river and the river was in clear view of the questioners.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh your God dried up the waters of the Jordan from before you, until you had passed over, as Yahweh your God did to the Red Sea which He dried up from before us, until we had passed over- </p><p>The Red Sea crossing clearly represented baptism (<a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a>), and the crossing of the Jordan is very similar- but it represents our entry into the Kingdom. We can therefore conclude that baptism is an entry in prospect into God's Kingdom; although we must stay the course through the wilderness.</p>


text:
<p>that all the peoples of the earth may know the hand of Yahweh, that it is mighty; that you may fear Yahweh your God forever’- </p><p>The miracle of crossing Jordan was to visually demonstrate the 'cutting off' of the waters of the nations before Israel (<a href='B:50 12:29'>Deu 12:29</a>; <a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a> and often). See on <a href='B:60 3:10'>Jos 3:10</a>. The whole action had been of God's grace, and therefore they were to fear or respect Yahweh. This will only happen in our experience if we perceive grace to be point of being utterly awed by it, rather than just admiring it in passing.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when all the kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan westward- </p><p>"Amorites" seems a very general term; they were apparently on both sides of the Jordan. Perhaps they were the remnants of those slain during the battle with Sihon and Og, who had fled from Israel to the west bank of Jordan.</p><p>And all the kings of the Canaanites, who were by the sea, heard how that Yahweh had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we had passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more because of the children of Israel-</p><p>Everything about the battle plan was somehow humanly foolish- to yet again attempt to teach Israel, old and new, that victory comes from following God's way, and His way is humanly foolish. The warriors were circumcised before the battle (<a href='B:60 5:2'>Jos 5:2</a>)- and we know from the Biblical record of Shechem how this would've weakened the men- for this was only a week or so before the battle. The manna wasn't phased out- it stopped abruptly just before the battle of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Jos 5:12</a>). The people would likely have been short of food, and would've been dealing with the problems associated with a new diet- after 40 years! Walking around the city seven times, starting at dawn, would've made the people tired. There was no advantage of shock or surprise by doing this. Planning the final assault for late afternoon was hardly smart either- humanly speaking! But all this was- and is- to teach God's people that victory His way involves shedding our human strength, just as Gideon was likewise taught so dramatically.</p><p>As Israel were called to follow the Angel after their Red Sea baptism, so we too follow where the Angel leads.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Yahweh said to Joshua, Make flint knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time-</p><p>"The second time" is omitted by some manuscripts, and some read "tomorrow". For surely a man cannot be circumcised a second time. There could be the implication that there had been a national circumcision of the nation some time previously, although unrecorded; and now this was to be done a second time.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins- </p><p>Everything about the Jericho battle plan was somehow humanly foolish- to yet again attempt to teach Israel, old and new, that victory comes from following God's way, and His way is humanly foolish. The warriors were circumcised before the battle- and we know from the Biblical record of Shechem how this would've weakened the men- for this was only a week or so before the battle. See on :12. But the point was that they were to enter Canaan only because they were Abraham's seed, and therefore they must be circumcised.</p>


text:
<p>This is the reason Joshua circumcised: all the people who were males who came out of Egypt, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness in the way after they came out of Egypt-</p><p>"In the way" confirms the impression we have of them being slain one by one at different places along the route. The "terror by night" and arrows in the day time (<a href='B:230 91:5'>Psa 91:5</a>) consumed them, and their carcasses were left unburied in the scrub (<a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a>). The wilderness journey was a living out of the condemnation of judgment day for those people.</p><p>The extent of spiritual despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of the children born to them then, thus showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant. There is good reason to believe that Romans 1 is a description of Israel in the wilderness; notice the past tenses there. <a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a> charges them with changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like::. to four-footed beasts, and creeping things", clearly alluding to <a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a> concerning how Israel in the wilderness "Changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eats grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Romans 1 is matched by <a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a> "They forgot God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness sins in Psalms 106 is similar to that in Romans 1. "Full of envy" (<a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>) corresponds to them envying Moses (<a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a>), "whisperers" (<a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>) to "murmurers" (<a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a>), and "inventors of evil things" (<a href='B:520 1:30'>Rom 1:30</a>) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (<a href='B:230 106:29'>Psa 106:29</a>). Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each other even to the extent of murder (<a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a>; <a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a>). A huge rabble of people living in moral anarchy with little law and order, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had rejected them::. is surely a frightening thing to imagine. The emphasis on sexual sin in Romans 1 is paralleled by 1 Corinthians 10 stressing the frequent failure of Israel in the wilderness in this regard. Against such an evil and God forsaking background that young generation rebelled, to become one of the most faithful groups of Israelites in their history. As such they set a glorious example to the youth of today in rebelling against a world that mocks any form of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness by the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised-</p><p>&nbsp;The commands concerning Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land form a large chunk of the Mosaic Law, and thus these were only relevant to the younger generation and the Levites who were to enter the land of promise (note how only those who were numbered and over 20 at the time of leaving Egypt were barred from the land; the Levites were not numbered). This younger generation were in sharp contrast to those aged over 20 at the Exodus. The extent of spiritual despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of the children born to them then (<a href='B:60 5:5-6'>Jos 5:5-6</a>), thus showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant.</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, even the men of war who came out of Egypt, were consumed; because they didn’t listen to the voice of Yahweh. Yahweh swore to them that He wouldn’t let them see the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers that He would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey-</p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Their children whom He raised up in their place were circumcised by Joshua; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them on the way- </p><p>See on :4. The new generation were raised up by God, not their parents, whom He slew in the desert. They were raised up "in their place" in that they entered the Kingdom which their parents had despised.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>It happened, when they were done circumcising all the nation, that they stayed in their places in the camp until they were healed-</p><p>"All the nation" were circumcised, in that the men represented the women; just as all twelve tribes crossed Jordan, but only in that the soldiers of the two and a half tribes represented those who remained east of Jordan. It is this principle of representation which is hard to grasp for those raised in societies which glorify individualism over collectivism. But it is clearly a principle by which God works, coming to full term in our salvation "in Christ", on account of His representation of us in His representative sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Therefore the name of that place was called Gilgal to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel encamped in Gilgal. They kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho- </p><p>The Lord taught in John 6 that the true manna was His flesh, which He was to give for the life of the world. Some have supposed from <a href='B:60 5:10-12'>Jos 5:10-12</a> cp. <a href='B:20 16:35'>Exo 16:35</a> that the manna fell for the first time on the eve of the Passover, thus adding even more poignancy to the Lord’s equation of the manna with His death. Yet all this painstaking attempt to re-focus the crowds on the spiritual rather than the literal, salvation through His death rather than an immediate benefit for them, patient eating / sharing in His sufferings rather than a kingdom here and now… all this went so tragically unheeded. And it does to this day.</p>


text:
<p>They ate unleavened cakes and parched grain of the produce of the land on the next day after the Passover, in that day-</p><p>They presumably stole this from the local population, who would have fled before them, back into the walls of Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>The manna ceased on the next day, after they had eaten of the produce of the land. The children of Israel didn’t have manna any more; but they ate the fruit of the land of Canaan that year- </p><p>The manna wasn't phased out- it stopped abruptly just before the battle of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:12'>Jos 5:12</a>). The people would likely have been short of food, and would've been dealing with the problems associated with a new diet- after 40 years! Walking around the city seven times, starting at dawn, would've made the people tired. There was no advantage of shock or surprise by doing this. Planning the final assault for late afternoon was hardly smart either- humanly speaking! But all this was- and is- to teach God's people that victory His way involves shedding our human strength, just as Gideon was likewise taught so dramatically. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked- </p><p>Lifting up the eyes to Heaven is an idiom for prayer. This seems likely in <a href='B:40 24:2'>Num 24:2</a>; <a href='B:60 5:13'>Jos 5:13</a>; <a href='B:70 19:17'>Jdg 19:17</a> and <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> among others. The simple implication of all this is that we should begin our prayers with a conscious imagination and personalization of the Father to whom we pray; "Our Father, who is in Heaven" says it all. "God is in Heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few (more often translated "little")" (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). Ezra, Nehemiah and Solomon all start their major prayers with a reference to the fact that God really is there in Heaven.</p><p>And behold, a man stood opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, Are you for us, or for our adversaries?-</p><p>Perhaps this is a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p><p>The Angels formulate their plans perhaps without knowing whether we will respond suitably to enable the plans to go ahead, or maybe they arrange circumstances whether they know we will obey or disobey, so that we always have the encouragement that if we obey and do our part&nbsp; we will have the pre-arranged workings of the Angels behind us too. The entrance of Israel to Canaan shows this. God had promised in Exodus 33 to send an Angel before them which would drive out the tribes from Canaan; the 'Hornet'- a result of Angelic activity- was sent before them to do the same. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>&nbsp; describes this: "Yahweh your God is He which goes over (the Jordan) before you; as a consuming fire (the language of Angels- <a href='B:20 24:17'>Exo 24:17</a>) He shall destroy them (the nations)::. so shall you drive them out". Thus when Joshua approached Jericho to attack it "there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand::. and He said::. As captain of the host of the Lord (Angels) am I come" (<a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a>). So in prospect the Angels drove out every tribe that was in the land; the people of Israel had to just go in and possess the work which the Angels had done. So when they failed to drive out certain tribes, this was an example of human failing to be "workers together with God". Thus in prospect, the Angels led them to the promised "rest"- <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>; <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:290 63:1'>Isa 63:1</a> N:I:V:; although in practice they did not enter that rest because of their faithlessness (<a href='B:650 3:11'>Heb 3:11</a> to <a href='B:650 4:11'>Heb 4:11</a>), despite the Angel promising He would lead them there- "I will give you rest" (<a href='B:20 33:4'>Exo 33:4</a>). Was this due to the Angel over-estimating the spiritual strength of His charges? See on <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said, No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh’s army. Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshipped and said to him, What does my lord say to his servant?- </p><p>As Israel were called to follow the Angel after their Red Sea baptism, so we too follow where the Angel leads. The conquest of Jericho is a classic example of following the Angel. <a href='B:60 5:13'>Jos 5:13</a> speaks of the Angel who was the commander of Yahweh's army appearing to Joshua, the commander of God's human army on earth, and standing "over against him", i:e. dead opposite him. Clearly enough, Joshua was being shown that he had an opposite number in Heaven, a representative there before the throne of God- just as each of us do. Note in passing how the Angel answers Joshua's question- 'Are you for me, or against me?'. God has no interest in taking sides in human arguments, demonizing the one side and glorifying the other. The response was simply that the Angel stood for God and was His representative (<a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a>). Religious people so easily fall into this trap of demonizing their enemies, on the basis that "God is with me, and therefore, not with you my opponent, in fact, He hates you because I hate you". The true God and His Angelic servants are far above this kind of primitive, binary dichotomy.</p>


text:
<p>The prince of Yahweh’s army said to Joshua- </p><p>The same phrase is found in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>, where the army is the host of God's people and their representative Angels</p><p>Take your shoes off of your feet; for the place on which you stand is holy. Joshua did so-</p><p>This is evidently reminiscent of the command to Moses in a similar situation. Shouldn’t Joshua have perceived this, seeing his life was so clearly framed after that of Moses? For we note he had to wait to be asked to do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jericho was closely shut up because of the children of Israel. No one went out, and no one came in- </p><p>The gates which we saw shutting at dusk every day in Joshua 2 were now shut permanently. But the idea may be that God had shut them in; He was the one who closed that gate (s:w. <a href='B:10 7:16'>Gen 7:16</a>; <a href='B:10 19:10'>Gen 19:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Behold, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and the mighty men of valour-</p><p>The idea may have been that the king and his mighty soldiers were much feared in the area. But they were to be overcome without any fighting by Israel. The reference is to <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>, "He will deliver their kings into your hand and you shall make their name perish from under the sky; no man shall be able to stand before you, until you have destroyed them". But this was conditional upon them not being afraid (<a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a>), and believing that God had already softened them up by "the hornet" (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>). This is why Joshua was encouraged constantly not to be afraid (seven times in Joshua 1). It seems that he finally came to the level of faith required, although it's unclear whether Israel did. But thanks to his faith, Jericho and its king was given into the hand of Joshua personally.</p><p>Perhaps the Lord had this scene in mind when He spoke of the strong man guarding his palace, and being overcome by one stronger than himself, i:e. the Lord Jesus, who was represented by Joshua (<a href='B:490 11:21-22'>Luk 11:21-22</a>). We are those who then spoil his palace, making the nervous Israelites representative of us all, and making the victory over Jericho solely due to Joshua's faith; see above.</p>


text:
<p>All your men of war shall march around the city, going around the city once. You shall do this six days-</p><p>Jericho was to be circled for six days before victory on the seventh (<a href='B:60 6:3-5'>Jos 6:3-5</a>). This recalls Naaman's cure on his seventh dipping (<a href='B:120 5:10'>2Ki 5:10</a>), and the way Elijah was only answered at his seventh prayer (<a href='B:110 18:43'>1Ki 18:43</a>). The intention was that through the six times performing something which had no immediate answer, faith, hope and humility were elicited.</p>


text:
<p>Seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark- </p><p>LXX and :8-14 show that this was to be done on each of the six days. These trumpets were to be blown each day (:13). Literally, "trumpets of Jubilee". The allusion may simply be to the length of the blast made; or the idea may be that these were the trumpets used to announce the year of Jubilee on the day of atonement (<a href='B:30 25:9'>Lev 25:9</a>)- announcing freedom for the slaves and landless, which is who Israel were. It could be that the trumpet blasts were to be understood by the people of Jericho as a call to repentance, which they ignored (<a href='B:370 3:6'>Amo 3:6</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>). This would then explain why the city was devoted to Yahweh in destruction which was the punishment for a city which turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:50 13:12-14'>Deu 13:12-14</a>).</p><p>On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets- </p><p>To enter covenant was literally 'to be sevened' (<a href='B:10 21:28'>Gen 21:28</a>; <a href='B:10 21:30'>Gen 21:30</a>). The city was to enter covenant- through those who didn't want to be in the covenant being destroyed. Rahab wanted to be in the covenant (see on Joshua 2), and was brought into it through the city's destruction.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout- </p><p>This was the victory shout. They were being asked to believe that what was promised had indeed come true, in the spirit of <a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>. They were asked to believe that they had won- before they had. And therefore by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, so says <a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a>.</p><p>The wall of the city shall fall down flat- </p><p>"Flat" can simply mean 'from beneath', or the idea may have been that the rubble would be 'flat' enough for the Israelites to advance over it into the city, straight before them. The same word is used for how Achan hid the silver under or beneath the garment he stole (<a href='B:60 7:21-22'>Jos 7:21-22</a>). "Fall down flat" is the phrase used of enemies falling down beneath a victorious Israel (<a href='B:230 18:38'>Psa 18:38</a>; <a href='B:230 45:5'>Psa 45:5</a>). The mighty wall represented the Canaanites. The same language of a mighty wall falling is used of the destruction of latter day Babylon (<a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a>; <a href='B:300 51:44'>Jer 51:44</a>; <a href='B:330 38:20'>Eze 38:20</a>). Joshua clearly represented the Lord Jesus and His conquest of all opposition to Him in the land of the last days.</p><p>There are archaeological claims to have unearthed a wall laying flat on one of the levels of excavation. But surely a wall built from flimsy cement would have not fallen down "flat" but would have disintegrated on impact. Our faith is purely in God's word, rather than hinged solely on questionable archaeological evidence. The evidence for the city having been burnt is more solid, and indeed corroborates the later statement that Jericho was burnt.</p><p>And the people shall go up every man straight before him- </p><p>Following the Angel is the theme that lies behind God's statement that because He had already given Jericho to Israel, therefore they should arise and take it. So many victories have been prepared for us in prospect- against addictions, engrained weaknesses of character, habits, impossible situations. Israel had to follow the ark, where the Angelic presence of God was (<a href='B:60 6:2'>Jos 6:2</a> cp. 6:8). The people were to go up into Jericho "straight before them" (<a href='B:60 6:5'>Jos 6:5</a>; <a href='B:60 6:20'>Jos 6:20</a>), just as the Cherubim-Angels have "straight feet" (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>; <a href='B:330 1:9'>Eze 1:9</a>; <a href='B:330 1:12'>Eze 1:12</a>). They were to follow in the Angel's steps.</p><p>It is unclear whether "the people" refers to the "armed men"; or to the ordinary unarmed people, as I prefer to think. For it would fit the whole theme of a victory being granted to the weak. If there were unarmed people in the mass of Israelites around the city, this would be another example of the strategy being very weak militarily. For masses of unarmed civilians could easily be attacked and panicked. Perhaps they are the "rearguard" of :13.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun called the priests and said to them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>Upon the ark was the "mercy seat", imagined as the throne upon which Yahweh was enthroned as king, perhaps with the shekinah glory visible between the cherubim which were over it. The trumpets going before it were therefore proclaiming or heralding Him as king; hence the usage of the phrase "Lord of all the earth" in connection with the ark (<a href='B:60 3:11'>Jos 3:11</a>; <a href='B:60 3:13'>Jos 3:13</a>). The idea is consistently that Canaan was being claimed as His Kingdom, with Himself as King.</p>


text:
<p>They said to the people, Go, march around the city, and let the armed men pass on before Yahweh’s ark-</p><p>See on :13. We note that the focus of the description is upon the ark. The armed men went before it, followed by the priests and only then the ark. But the description begins with the ark, for this was the central point of the procession. The archaeological excavations reveal Jericho to have only been of 600 meters circumference. The people would have spent the rest of the day looking at the walls, meditating upon them. This was all intended to pique their faith in God, compared to the height of the obstacle. They were being set up to undo the mistake of the previous generation, who had considered the walls of the Canaanite cities an insuperable obstacle.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before Yahweh advanced and blew the trumpets; and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh followed them- </p><p>See on :7. This is rather similar to how the ark stood in the Jordan riverbed until the people had passed over, and then followed them. This recalls how the Angel [who was perhaps dwelling over the ark in the shekinah glory] "went behind" [s:w. "followed"] at the exodus (<a href='B:20 14:19'>Exo 14:19</a>). The word is also used in <a href='B:50 23:14'>Deu 23:14</a>, where Israel are warned that if they are unclean, then Yahweh will no longer follow them. They of course were bidden follow Him, but He is also presented as following them. And thus God's people hear His voice behind them, urging them to choose the right path (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:21'>Isa 30:21</a>); for He is not only their vanguard, but also their rear guard following them (<a href='B:290 52:12'>Isa 52:12</a>; <a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>). This indicates not only the mutuality between God and His people; but the sense that we are both following and being followed by Him, as it were sandwiched by His presence.</p>


text:
<p>The armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets, and the ark went after them. The trumpets sounded as they went- </p><p>"Armed men" is s:w. <a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a>, and could possibly refer specifically to the men of the two and a half tribes who were to be the vanguard for the Israelite army. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua commanded the people saying, You shall not shout, nor let your voice be heard, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I tell you ‘Shout!’ Then you shall shout- </p><p>The command to "shout" was a reflection of the belief Israel were to have in the fact that God had already given them the city- for the Hebrew for "shout" usually refers to a shout of victory. The word is translated "::. will I triumph" in <a href='B:230 60:8'>Psa 60:8</a>; <a href='B:230 108:9'>Psa 108:9</a>. The same idea of shouting in victory over a city which has been given to God's people recurs in <a href='B:230 47:3'>Psa 47:3</a>; <a href='B:230 47:5'>Psa 47:5</a>; <a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a> - "Shout against her round about [cp. compassing the walls of Jericho]::. her foundations are [present tense] fallen, her walls [cp. Jericho's] are thrown down". And this speaks of our latter day victory against Babylon- thus making the whole account of earnest relevance to us who live in the last days, and who will see Babylon fall by faith. Notice how literal Babylon fell by the water of the river being dried up, and the walls being opened- just the same sequence of events that occurred at Jericho. Likewise <a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation. Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful.</p>&nbsp;<p><a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a> associates the circling of the walls with faith: “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been circled seven days”. <a href='B:540 10:3-4'>2Co 10:3-4</a> is perhaps an allusion to the way that Jericho was taken with such a humanly weak battle plan: “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ". The point of the allusion is for us to see ourselves as those nervous Israelites desperately clinging on to their faith in God's victory rather than human strength. And we each have our Jerichos- habits, life-dominating patterns of thinking, that seem so impossible to shift.</p><p>The deliverance at the Red Sea had been intended to teach Israel these very lessons. And the account of the fall of Jericho is recorded in similar language, in order to teach the same lesson. Rahab's house had to be identified by a scarlet cord- like the blood of the Passover lamb sprinkled on the two doorposts and lintel of the Israelites' homes in Egypt. The silence demanded of the people in <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a> was surely to recall <a href='B:20 14:14'>Exo 14:14</a>, there the people standing before the Red Sea were assured: “The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent". Compare the command to keep silent whilst Yahweh fought, with the common practice of yelling war cries as an ancient army approached their enemy. All human convention, wisdom and strength, was placed in purposeful opposition to what seemed quite counter-instinctive- to be utterly silent whilst God did the fighting.</p>


text:
<p>So he caused the ark of Yahweh to go around the city, going about it once. Then they came into the camp and lodged in the camp-</p><p>There's a distinct theme in the record that actually, God's people didn't do according to His ideal plan, and yet still He gave them the victory. One wonders whether the comment that "So the ark of the Lord compassed the city" (<a href='B:60 6:11'>Jos 6:11</a>) could imply that the entire fighting force of Israel didn't bother doing as commanded on the first circuit of the city- possibly they just sent the ark around it. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>The seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of Yahweh went on continually and blew the trumpets: and the armed men went before them. The rear guard came after the ark of Yahweh. The trumpets sounded as they went- </p><p>This rear guard could have just been ordinary unarmed people, as discussed on :5. The restoration prophets may allude to this in saying that Yahweh would be Israel's rear guard (<a href='B:290 52:12'>Isa 52:12</a>), and Yahweh's glory would be their rear guard (<a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>)- manifest in unarmed, ordinary people. The tribe of Dan was the rear guard of the camp when it was usually on the move (<a href='B:40 10:25'>Num 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The second day they marched around the city once, and returned into the camp. They did this six days- </p><p>Verse 10 implies that the people maybe didn't know the battle plan- each day they would've walked around the city in silence, and nothing happened. They were kept on the tip toe of faith and obedience throughout those six days, and may well have wondered whether this was not just some bizarre ritual which would make no dent in the walls of Jericho. The command to "Shout!" didn't come- for six days. The whole exercise was surely to develop their faith. Again, this was the most crazy of battle plans, in human terms.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the seventh day that they rose early at the dawning of the day, and marched around the city in the same way seven times. Only on this day they marched around the city seven times- </p><p>As noted above, they would have been exhausted by the end of this. The battle plan was God's and was against all human wisdom, which would have wanted an early morning surprise attack, with troops at their most fresh. Rather than an exhausted group of soldiers later in the day, in full view of the enemy, having given the defenders every warning that a major attack was coming.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the seventh time, when the priests blew the trumpets, that Joshua said to the people, Shout, for Yahweh has given you the city!-</p><p>The command to "shout" was a reflection of the belief Israel were to have in the fact that God had already given them the city- for the Hebrew for "shout" usually refers to a shout of victory. The word is translated "::. will I triumph" in <a href='B:230 60:8'>Psa 60:8</a>; <a href='B:230 108:9'>Psa 108:9</a>. The same idea of shouting in victory over a city which has been given to God's people recurs in <a href='B:300 50:15'>Jer 50:15</a> - "Shout against her round about [cp. compassing the walls of Jericho]::. her foundations are [present tense] fallen, her walls [cp. Jericho's] are thrown down". And this speaks of our latter day victory against Babylon- thus making the whole account of earnest relevance to us who live in the last days, and who will see Babylon fall by faith. Notice how literal Babylon fell by the water of the river being dried up, and the walls being opened- just the same sequence of events that occurred at Jericho.</p>


text:
<p>The city shall be devoted, even it and all that is in it, to Yahweh. Only Rahab the prostitute shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent- </p><p>"The prostitute" is emphasized. Those within her house, a brothel, sound like they were her clients; although we know they were her family. But the language is used like this to emphasize her low moral situation. Her salvation was a strong lesson to Israel. Those whom they would otherwise despise as the lowest of the low, a Gentile prostitute, were to be welcomed into the covenant:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But as for you, only keep yourselves from the devoted thing, lest when you have devoted it, you take of the devoted thing- </p><p>This was precisely what Saul did (<a href='B:90 15:3'>1Sa 15:3</a>). Like so many, he failed to learn from Biblical history. Whether we have a mean or generous spirit will affect our whole life- an evil [stingy] eye means our whole body is full of darkness. Just let this sink in. If we are materialistic, our whole life will be filled with darkness, whatever our external pretensions may be, and there is a definite link to be made here with the "darkness" of rejection. The riches of Jericho are described with a Hebrew word which means both a curse, and something devoted (to God; <a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>). This teaches a powerful lesson: such riches of this world as come into our possession will curse us, unless they are devoted to the Father.</p><p>Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>). The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions?</p><p>That would make the camp of Israel accursed- </p><p>"Accursed" is s:w. "devoted". Jericho and its wealth was to be sacrificially devoted to Yahweh. If Israel took that wealth to themselves, then they too would have to be handed over to Him in destruction.</p><p>And trouble it- </p><p>Ahab's denunciation of Elijah as "he that troubles Israel" (<a href='B:110 18:17'>1Ki 18:17</a>) effectively accuses Elijah of being like Achan, the troubler of Israel (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;As Achan brought about Israel's defeat at the hand of her surrounding enemies, so latter-day Israel will blame their similar defeats and the strange drought which will afflict them, upon Elijah:&nbsp;&nbsp;Elijah's response to Ahab's accusation is typical of his theme of the need to throw off the worship of Baal and the other local gods, for that of Yahweh:&nbsp; "I have not troubled Israel, but you::. in that you have::. followed Baalim" (<a href='B:110 18:18'>1Ki 18:18</a>):&nbsp;The stress upon this may indicate that the latter-day Elijah will seek to turn Israel away from a devotion to Islam - the idol of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>But all the silver and gold, and the vessels of brass and iron, are holy to Yahweh. They shall come into Yahweh’s treasury-</p><p>The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from the Gentile world and dedicated to the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a>; <a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a>; <a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a>; <a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a>; <a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets. It happened that when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him; and they took the city-</p><p>See on :5,11; <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>. For "flat", see on :5. Yet according to <a href='B:650 11:30'>Heb 11:30</a>, “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down …”. Whose faith? What faith? Was Joshua-Jesus' faith counted to the people? Or was their very weak, hope-for-the-best faith all the same accepted as faith by God's grace?</p><p>The people were to shout when the trumpets sounded (<a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>). But in reality, like a Sunday School play gone wrong, the people shouted, the trumpets sounded, and then the people again shouted (<a href='B:60 6:20'>Jos 6:20</a>). See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword- </p><p>"Destroyed" is the word for "devoted". But actually not all was devoted; Achan stole some of it. So this is an example of where the Bible records things as they appeared to men, without as it were adding footnotes to clarify. Just as the language of demons is used in the New Testament, although they do not in fact exist.</p><p>The animals aren't recorded as being destroyed in later conquests. It's as if God recognized that the totality of devotion to Him which He so desired was just not going to be forthcoming from His people. And so He asked for less, and allowed them keep the cattle, which clearly they were tempted to covet. Yet we need to learn from this, and be inspired to at least try to rise up to total devotion.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, Go into the prostitute’s house, and bring out from there the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her- </p><p>Hebrew tenses are vague, unlike tenses in Greek or English. The idea is that Joshua "had said" this to the two men. Artists have done us a great disservice by presenting the walls of Jericho as having fallen, apart from the section where Rahab's house was. She had already been brought out- perhaps by using the scarlet rope to descend the walls, bringing her into full fellowship with the experience of the spies. But the emphasis is that the spies 'brought her out', and entered her house.</p>


text:
<p>The young men who were spies went in, and brought out Rahab with her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. They also brought out all her relatives, and they set them outside the camp of Israel- </p><p>The family had been warned that they must remain within the house, as if they were keeping Passover (<a href='B:60 2:19'>Jos 2:19</a> = <a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a>). They were "brought out" as Israel were then brought out from Egypt, the "house" of bondage (s:w. <a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a>). The king of Jericho had used the same phrase in ordering that the spies be brought out from her house (<a href='B:60 2:3'>Jos 2:3</a>). But it was all turned the other way around, which is typical of God's style of working.</p>


text:
<p>They burnt the city with fire, and all that was in it- </p><p>Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames' (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>; <a href='B:60 11:11'>Jos 11:11</a>), surely because they were following the Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Yet quite naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel.</p><p>Only they put the silver, the gold and the vessels of brass and of iron into the treasury of Yahweh’s house-</p><p><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation. Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful. And she was a whore, and her family had to humble themselves to reconcile with her and come within her brothel in order to be saved.</p>


text:
<p>But Rahab the prostitute, her father’s household, and all that she had- </p><p>Family, however estranged from them she must have been, were "all that she had", and in a secular sense that is true for even the wealthiest people.</p><p>Joshua saved alive. She lived in the midst of Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation. Here, it seems that the record is being written whilst Rahab was still alive, and so "to this day" was only a relatively short time after the events.</p><p>Again we see the spies described as messengers; and <a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>; <a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a> say that she believed them. They preached the gospel of the Kingdom and she had faith in it.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua commanded them with an oath at that time, saying, Cursed before Yahweh is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho. With the loss of his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up its gates-</p><p>The idea was to build it in the sense of fortifying it; for the city was inhabited for quite some time before this curse came true. Was this unnecessarily extreme? However it was fulfilled at the time of Ahab in <a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>: "In his days Hiel the Bethelite built Jericho: he laid its foundation with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun". To even attempt to rebuilt Jericho meant a studied disregard of God's word, considering Biblical records of Joshua's words to be merely the words of men. Hiel was from Bethel, where the golden calf was. Jericho had been inhabited after Joshua's time (<a href='B:70 3:13'>Jdg 3:13</a>; <a href='B:100 10:5'>2Sa 10:5</a>). So this was a conscious rebuilding of the walls with gates in defiance of Yahweh's word. And his sons died during the building work, perhaps 'at some time between the beginning, in laying the foundations, and the ending of the project, in hanging the gates'. After Abiram died laying the foundations, we would rather imagine that Hiel might have learned the lesson. But he didn't, such was his desire to defy God's word. And so his youngest son died when the project was almost completed and the gates were being hung. The desire to rebuild the settlement as a walled, gated city could have been because of its strategic position near the crossing of the Jordan river. Jericho was on the border of Ephraim but belonged to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 16:7'>Jos 16:7</a>; <a href='B:60 18:21'>Jos 18:21</a>), so it seems Ahab had taken it, and wanted to have the city and fortify it as a boundary against the two tribe kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land-</p><p>The eretz promised to Abraham is the land / earth which the Bible focuses upon. “The LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country” (<a href='B:60 6:27'>Jos 6:27</a>), the&nbsp; eretz. Clearly the whole planet didn’t know Joshua had invaded Canaan. Many times in Joshua and Judges we read of the people of the eretz: “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land [eretz] shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth [eretz]” (<a href='B:60 7:9'>Jos 7:9</a>). Here the Israelites feared being cut off from their place in the land. They perceived the world / earth to them as the land where their enemies lived. In <a href='B:60 12:1'>Jos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:60 12:7'>Jos 12:7</a> we meet “the kings of the earth”, i:e. of the land, and this must surely be the basis of how we are to understand the references to “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. <a href='B:50 13:7'>Deu 13:7</a> defines “the peoples which are round about you” [Israel] as being “from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” (RV). Those peoples which bordered with the Israelites were “the earth” / eretz.</p>


text:
<p>But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the devoted things; for Achan, the son of Carmi the son of Zabdi the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things- </p><p>The words for "devoted" and "destroyed" are the same. The wealth of Jericho was to be destroyed in that it was devoted to God. Therefore Achan had to be destroyed, because he had associated himself with that which was to be destroyed / devoted. We&nbsp; too must understand that all things are God's. To keep wealth as it were for ourselves will lead to our destruction; we are to devote it to God.</p><p>Therefore Yahweh’s anger burned against the children of Israel-</p><p>The gods of the nations were also understood as getting angry with their people but for whimsical, irrational reasons; or without any explanation. Yahweh is presented as a God of consistent, passionate love for His people; but whose wrath burns because of their moral sin. Such a conception of 'God' was unknown to the surrounding world.</p>


text:
<p>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 land. The men went up and spied out Ai- </p><p>Joshua had himself received that command 40 years ago, and had done so in faith. And clearly that was what he expected of these spies; but as noted on :3, they had more arrogance than the confidence of faith.</p>


text:
<p>They returned to Joshua and said to him, Don’t let all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and strike Ai. Don’t make all the people to toil there, for there are only a few of them-</p><p>Shouldn’t Joshua have led them into battle in person (<a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a>); he did the second time they attacked Ai (<a href='B:60 8:15'>Jos 8:15</a>). And the spies appear over confident. There were 12,000 men of Ai slain (<a href='B:60 8:25'>Jos 8:25</a>). To assume that they could so easily overcome with an inexperienced force a fraction of their size::. indicates arrogance. So the sin of Achan was worked through by God, in a multi faceted way. For they needed the defeat in order to make them more humble. The spies' comment that not all the people needed to "toil" or "labour" to capture Ai betrays a wrong idea that victory was through their labour, rather than God's grace (<a href='B:60 7:3'>Jos 7:3</a>). And so <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> uses the word in saying that Israel were given a land for which they did not "labour" (s:w:). They were taught through Achan's sin that they were not defeating the Canaanites by their strength, but by God's undeserved grace.</p>


text:
<p>So about three thousand men of the people went up there, and they fled before the men of Ai- </p><p>Apparently the ark wasn't taken with them (:6); another indication of assuming they would win, rather than going in faith. For the ark had been central to the victory over Jericho. The record consistently places it as the central point of the victory.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ai struck about thirty-six of them, and they chased them from before the gate even to Shebarim, and struck them at the descent- </p><p>"About 36" reads strangely, as we would expect a round number to follow the word "about". But it's likely from archaeological evidence that the peoples of Canaan were using the sexagesimal system; and 6 x 6 would therefore mean 'a large number', or maybe one hundred, according to the decimal system [i:e. 6 x 6 = 10 x 10].</p><p>The hearts of the people melted and became like water- </p><p>This was just how the hearts of the Canaanites had been, according to Rahab's words; and it was how Israel's hearts had been when they were first rejected from the land. They were as if they had never conquered Jericho. All they saw was the result of sin; they didn't apparently think of the reason for the judgment. Like the peoples around them, they were thinking of Yahweh as if He were one of the standard deities, who got angry with his people for no reason. They were failing to perceive that Yahweh was only angry with His people if they sinned; and therefore, they had sinned:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of Yahweh until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads- </p><p>This was all a sign of grief, but not necessarily of repentance. As discussed on :6, the obvious conclusion was that they had sinned and were therefore not experiencing Yahweh's blessing. For to flee before enemies was a curse for not remaining obedient to the covenant. But Joshua focuses only upon the judgment, rather than the underlying reason for it. He comes over as distinctly lacking in spiritual perception at this point.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Alas, Lord Yahweh, why have You brought this people over the Jordan at all, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to cause us to perish? I wish that we had been content and lived beyond the Jordan!-</p><p>He lost faith in the promise of <a href='B:60 1:5-7'>Jos 1:5-7</a>; <a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>. It is similar to the language of <a href='B:40 14:3'>Num 14:3</a>, the faithless complaint of Israel in the wilderness to the effect that God had cruelly brought them over the Red Sea [cp. over Jordan] just to kill them. And as Israel wished they had remained in Egypt, so Joshua wishes the people had remained east of Jordan. His faith was in tatters. And yet he ought to have had the humility to perceive what had happened- Israel had taken of the devoted thing. He may well have guessed so, but Joshua probably though that such grabbing of a bit of spoil was to be expected, and was surely not such a big item. But it was. And the lesson is that any assumption that we can 'rob God', by assuming our wealth is "ours", is extremely serious to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Oh Lord, what shall I say, after that Israel has turned their backs before their enemies!- </p><p>Joshua lamented how Israel had fled before their enemies the first time they attacked Ai, alluding back to the curses for disobedience which Moses had recently pronounced to them. Therefore the second time they attacked Ai, Joshua and his people purposefully fled before their enemies; as if recognizing that the curses for disobedience were justified for them. But by doing this, they ended up chasing their enemies, just as Moses had said they would if they were faithful. No wonder that after the victory, the whole of Israel recited the blessings and cursings (<a href='B:60 8:5'>Jos 8:5</a>; <a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33-35'>Jos 8:33-35</a> cp. 7:8)!</p>


text:
<p>For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it and will surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. What will You do for Your great name?- </p><p>This seems a half hearted attempt to follow the logic of Moses when he was told that God intended to destroy all Israel because of the sin with the golden calf. But Joshua sounds like faithless Jacob, fearful that the surrounding nations will cut him off- as if he considered God's promises about his seed as somehow nullified (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>).</p><p>"The earth" here is specifically the eretz promised to Abraham; the peoples of that earth / land would surround Israel. In <a href='B:60 12:1'>Jos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:60 12:7'>Jos 12:7</a> we meet “the kings of the earth”, i:e. of the land, and this must surely be the basis of how we are to understand the references to “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. <a href='B:50 13:7'>Deu 13:7</a> defines “the peoples which are round about you” [Israel] as being “from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” (RV). Those peoples which bordered with the Israelites were “the earth” / eretz.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Get up! Why are you fallen on your face like that?-</p><p>He is being reminded not to just see himself as part of a community, but to remember his personal relationship with God, and not to have such a low self image. He ought to have perceived why Israel had turned their backs to their enemies; it was because they had broken covenant with God through sin. What God now spells out to Joshua, he really ought to have perceived an stated to God. "Like that" suggests Joshua was fallen on his face not in repentance, as he ought to have been, but just in grief for the Divine judgment which had come.</p>


text:
<p>Israel has sinned. Yes, they have even transgressed My covenant which I commanded them- </p><p>See on :10. In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us.</p><p>Yes, they have even taken of the devoted things, and have also stolen and also deceived. They have even put it among their own stuff-</p><p>Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God, and therefore to steal from Him. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God. This was Achan’s sin- to take what was devoted to God for himself. And this was why he is described as having ‘stolen’. But from whom? From God (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>; <a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a>). The fact God owns everything means that there can be no distinction between what is ours and what is God’s. To think like that is to steal from Him. And hence the power and force of <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me”. Have we robbed God in this way, especially in our attitudes and perceptions?</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the children of Israel can’t stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will not be with you any more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you-</p><p>If Canaan is seen to represent the Kingdom, the things which are stopping us entering the Kingdom are our sins. In prospect, Jesus, the antitype of the great Angel which lead Israel into the land and drove out the enemies in prospect, has vanquished all our sins. When Israel sinned, the help the Angels were giving Israel to help them possess what they had already prepared for them, was taken away. Thus with the first attack on Ai, the Angels had in prospect driven out the people of Ai, but the realization of that was conditional on Israel's obedience. Just as Israel in the wilderness were threatened with the withdrawal of the presence of the Angel, so here.</p>


text:
<p>Get up!- </p><p>God was displeased with Joshua moping around on the floor. Joshua needed to recognize Israel had sinned, and had taken things devoted to Yahweh- and devote those things to Yahweh by destroying them.</p><p>Sanctify the people and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, because Yahweh the God of Israel says, There is a devoted thing in the midst of you, Israel. You cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the devoted thing from among you- </p><p>This is not the same as guilt by association. The situation here has been misinterpreted by some to mean that we therefore cannot associate with sinners of the Achan category, lest we become defiled by association with them. But the point is that all the community of believers are in a sense considered at fault because of the failings of some of them. So if there is guilt by association, then it cannot be avoided by not associating with sinful people within the community. For the people of God, the community, is indivisible. We are in it and cannot quit it, if we wish to remain God's people. And in fact the Lord Jesus time and again turned all this around to the opposite- by willingly seeking association with sinners, eating with them, touching the leper etc. He was not thereby condemned, but rather sought to highlight His association with unclean people of God. It was through that willing association that we are saved.</p>


text:
<p>‘In the morning therefore you shall be brought near by your tribes. It shall be that the tribe which Yahweh selects shall come near by families. The family which Yahweh selects shall come near by households. The household which Yahweh selects shall come near man by man- </p><p>This was presumably achieved by the flashing out of yes / no answers from the urim and thummim in the breastplate (<a href='B:40 27:21'>Num 27:21</a>; <a href='B:90 14:42'>1Sa 14:42</a>). The long drawn out process (requiring Joshua to rise early, :16) was surely to elicit repentance and confession from Achan. But instead he hoped against hope that he would somehow not be found out. His lack of immediate confession reflects his impenitence.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, that he who is taken with the devoted thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of Yahweh, and because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel’- </p><p>"All that he has" could mean all his possessions, or it could also include his family. Because surely they knew of his sin, seeing he buried the loot in the tent. And the long drawn out process of :14 had given them all plenty of opportunity to confess what had happened.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua rose up early in the morning and brought Israel near by their tribes. The tribe of Judah was selected- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>He brought near the family of Judah; and he selected the family of the Zerahites. He brought near the family of the Zerahites man by man, and Zabdi was selected- </p><p>"Man by man" refers not to all the men, but to the heads of families.</p>


text:
<p>He brought near his household man by man, and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was selected- </p><p>We note that none of his ancestors had God's name within their names.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to Achan, My son, please give glory to Yahweh the God of Israel, and make confession to Him. Tell me now what you have done! Don’t hide it from me!-</p><p>He correctly perceives that repentance is a giving of glory to God’s Name. And one is tempted to think that Joshua’s appeal to Achan to properly confess his sin was meant to give him the chance of avoiding the ‘definite’ condemnation promised. However it could be that Joshua accepted Achan had to die, but he urged his repentance because he understood that there would be a future day of resurrection and judgment; and if Achan was repentant, then he would then be saved.</p>


text:
<p>Achan answered Joshua and said, I have truly sinned against Yahweh the God of Israel, and this is what I have done- </p><p>The summary of his sins, and his appreciation of the psychological processes behind them (:21), is very thorough. But it was only made after the long process of exposing him had finished. All through it, and it would have taken some time (therefore Joshua arose early that morning, :16), Achan could have volunteered his confession. But he didn't; and like the drug addict who completely understands his situation but won't break free, so Achan perceived exactly the process of temptation and sin, but wouldn't really repent.</p>


text:
<p>When I saw among the spoil a beautiful Babylonian robe- </p><p>This could have been a pagan priestly robe which was attractive to Achan as an idolater. Or since "robe" is that used for the kingly robe of <a href='B:390 3:6'>Jon 3:6</a>, it was perhaps the robe of the king of Jericho. To steal it, when it could never be worn or sold easily, is therefore typical of how the lust of the eyes leads to stealing of wrongly obtaining things which have no practical value.</p><p>Two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I coveted them and took them. Behold, they are hidden in the ground in the middle of my tent, with the silver under it- </p><p><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a> uses a family analogy- a man and "his own lust" beget a child, called sin; and sin, in due time, gives birth to death. Strange, surely, how James makes no mention of a personal Devil or demons as having any part at all to play in this process. It's quite possible that James' language is alluding to a classic example of the thought-lust-temptation-sin-death process which we have in the record of Achan in <a href='B:60 7:20-21'>Jos 7:20-21</a>: "I saw two hundred shekels of silver, I coveted them, and took them::. I sinned"- and so he was executed.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent. Behold, it was hidden in his tent, with the silver under it- </p><p>The speed was appropriate because they realized that they as a nation were defiled by having material which was God's still amongst them. It's all a powerful lesson for us; for all we apparently own is not ours. Ownership, especially in its capitalist sense, is an illusion; all is God's. The Lord's parable of hidden treasure appears to allude to this scene, in an inverse sense. The true treasure we are to find and hide is that of the Gospel, as opposed to material things.</p>


text:
<p>They took them from the middle of the tent, and brought them to Joshua and to all the children of Israel. They laid them down before Yahweh- </p><p>"The middle of the tent" could imply that the entire family were guilty and complicent in what he did, which would explain why they also were slain. "Laid them down" suggests the weight of the wealth stolen. We note too that "Joshua", like the Lord Jesus his namesake, was "Yahweh" in a functional sense, although not of course God Himself in person. The material was laid down before Joshua, i:e. before Yahweh, seeing Joshua was His representative. Failure to appreciate this has led to all manner of Bible verses being misinterpreted as proof texts for the mistaken dogma of the Trinity. Likewise "all the children of Israel" surely means their representative elders, and LXX here gives "elders".</p>


text:
<p>Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his cattle, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the valley of Achor- </p><p>We see here how the record was written at some point afterwards, for the valley "of Achor" was named after Achan, who is called "Achor" in the Chronicles genealogies. Although the judgment was to be by burning, it was also by stoning- so that all Israel would have a hand in it. The destruction of all he had would be a lesson that the rich man who tried to get richer was being judged by losing absolutely all he ever had. We also learn from this that the people crossed Jordan along with a fair number of animals, and perhaps they also had flocks with them in the wilderness journey.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? Yahweh will trouble you this day. All Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire and stoned them with stones- </p><p>Ahab's denunciation of Elijah as "he that troubles Israel" (<a href='B:110 18:17'>1Ki 18:17</a>) effectively accuses Elijah of being like Achan, the troubler of Israel (<a href='B:60 6:18'>Jos 6:18</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;As Achan brought about Israel's defeat at the hand of her surrounding enemies, so latter-day Israel will blame their similar defeats and the strange drought which will afflict them, upon Elijah:&nbsp;&nbsp;Elijah's response to Ahab's accusation is typical of his theme of the need to throw off the worship of Baal and the other local gods, for that of Yahweh:&nbsp; "I have not troubled Israel, but you::. in that you have::. followed Baalim" (<a href='B:110 18:18'>1Ki 18:18</a>):&nbsp;The stress upon this may indicate that the latter-day Elijah will seek to turn Israel away from a devotion to Islam - the idol of the surrounding nations.</p><p>It was Achan who was stoned with stones. The "them" burned with fire could refer to his family, or to his possessions. Perhaps his family were brought close to observe his death, just as the families of those who committed atrocities in the holocaust were made to watch the hanging of their guilty relatives.</p>


text:
<p>They raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p><p>Yahweh turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place was called The valley of Achor to this day- </p><p>This turning from fierce anger recalls how Yahweh likewise did so earlier- because of the intercession of Moses. Here He turned from His anger because of repentance; but earlier He had done so because of the prayer of Moses, which was therefore counted as if Israel had repented at the time of the golden calf. This raises deep questions as to whether our prayers and intercessions can save the impenitent; see on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>. <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a> speaks of God’s wrath turning away because those who had married Gentile women divorced them. God’s wrath is also turned away by the death of the sinner- the heads of the sinners in <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a> were to be ‘hung up’ before the Lord so that His wrath would turn away. A similar example is to be found in <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>. Jeremiah often comments that God’s wrath is turned away by the execution of judgment upon the sinner (e:g. <a href='B:300 30:24'>Jer 30:24</a>). In this sense His anger and wrath are poured out or ‘accomplished’, i:e. they are no more because they have been poured out (<a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a>). The fact that men such as Moses and Jeremiah (<a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>) turned away God’s wrath without these things happening, or simply by prayer (<a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>) therefore means that God accepted the intercession of those men and counted their righteousness to those from whom His wrath turned away. We shouldn’t assume that these righteous men merely waved away God’s wrath. That wrath was real, and required immense pleading and personal dedication on their behalf.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed. Take all the people of war with you and arise, go up to Ai. Behold, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, with his people, his city, and his land-</p><p>Chapter 7 has presented Joshua as having been so "dismayed" that he lost faith in the promises and encouragement of <a href='B:60 1:3'>Jos 1:3</a>; <a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>. God now continues to encourage him. Although the victory was given into their hand, that was still potential. For obedience was still required:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>You shall do to Ai and her king as you did to Jericho and her king, except its spoil and its livestock, you shall take for a plunder for yourselves- </p><p>God told Israel to totally destroy the spoil from the cities they attacked. But when they failed to do this with Jericho, God told them that with Ai, the next city on the agenda, they were allowed to keep the spoil (<a href='B:60 8:2'>Jos 8:2</a>); even though <a href='B:50 20:14-16'>Deu 20:14-16</a> said that this was how they should treat their distant enemies, but not cities like Ai which were part of their inheritance. This was an undoubted concession to human&nbsp; weakness. The same concession to human weakness applied to other cities apart from Ai; it became a general policy that "all the spoil of these cities::. the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves"; and yet following straight on from this we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses" (<a href='B:60 11:14-15'>Jos 11:14-15</a>). God accepted those concessions to human weakness, this living on a lower level, as total obedience. The grace of all this is marvellous.</p><p>Set an ambush for the city behind it- </p><p>Some human strategy was now used to take Ai, whereas the strategy used to take Jericho had been foolishness in secular terms, and was completely Divine, requiring absolute faith. God is coming down a level, in order to meet His weak people and work with them. Although on another level, we can understand that in working with God, often the initiative is with us. All this means that how we plan to preach and care for others does need to be considered. Time and again, God works through humanly devised good strategies (<a href='B:60 8:1-2'>Jos 8:1-2</a>; <a href='B:160 4:9'>Neh 4:9</a> etc:). But I love the way Derek Kidner puts it: "Scripture approves of strategy when it is a tool rather than a substitute for God".</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua arose- </p><p>"Arose" is s:w. 'raise up'. The Messianic prophecy of <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up [God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s:w. <a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a>; <a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a>; <a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a>]&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e:g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies]; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him [Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a>; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>]. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.</p><p>And all the people of war, to go up to Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valour, and sent them out by night- </p><p>This was ten times the number which the spies had originally suggested in their arrogance and lack of true faith. However we note that in :12, five thousand were set in ambush. 30,000 is a large number of men to hide in order to set an ambush, although the term "thousand" when describing military matters rarely means literally 1000, but rather refers to some military division. Perhaps there were two ambushes set (see on :14), or there were a total of 30,000 troops but 5000 used in the ambush. My personal preference is to believe that he set out with 30000 but like Gideon, the numbers were reduced to 5000. For "Joshua chose" 30000 men, to fight against 12000 (:12,25), as if to assure victory by reason of numbers rather than faith; so perhaps God therefore chose 5000.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded them, saying, Behold, you shall lie in ambush against the city, behind the city. Don’t go very far from the city, but all of you be ready- </p><p>"Behind the city" meant on its west side (:9). The specific commands are from Joshua as the general; perhaps they were his interpretation of the command to set an ambush (:2). How that was to be fulfilled was left up to Joshua. The fact he built into the battle plans a retreat before enemies (:5) is therefore a commendable example of humility, recognizing that they deserved defeat for breaking the covenant, but believing that God's grace would turn that into victory, thereby making it an example of what Buechner called "the magnificent defeat".</p>


text:
<p>I, and all the people who are with me, will approach to the city. It shall happen, when they come out against us, as at the first, we will flee before them-</p><p>Joshua had lamented how Israel had fled before their enemies the first time they attacked Ai, alluding back to the curses for disobedience which Moses had recently pronounced to them. Therefore the second time they attacked Ai, Joshua and his people purposefully fled before their enemies; as if recognizing that the curses for disobedience were justified for them. But by doing this, they ended up chasing their enemies, just as Moses had said they would if they were faithful. No wonder that after the victory, the whole of Israel recited the blessings and cursings (<a href='B:60 8:5'>Jos 8:5</a>; <a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33-35'>Jos 8:33-35</a> cp. 7:8)! Fleeing before their enemies was perhaps a recognition of the truth of <a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They will come out after us, until we have drawn them away from the city; for they will say, ‘They flee before us, like the first time’. So we will flee before them-</p><p>Joshua explains to his people the mind of the people of Ai. They would assume that nothing had changed in Israel between the first attack and this second attack. But what had happened was that Israel had repented, and the things as it were stolen from God had been given to Him. This was the difference, and so Ai were to be defeated because they failed to recognize that.</p>


text:
<p>and you shall rise up from the ambush, and take possession of the city; for Yahweh your God will deliver it into your hand- </p><p>The possession of the city was not because of the clever strategy, but because of God's deliverance of it into the hand of Israel. And yet He gave them the strategy, and encouraged Joshua to develop it. This is typical of the way He works, a kind of symphony between Divine sovereignty and human volition.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when you have seized on the city, that you shall set the city on fire. You shall do this according to the word of Yahweh. Behold, I have commanded you-</p><p>- see on :3; <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>. The very receipt of a command should strengthen our brave obedience to it (<a href='B:60 1:9'>Jos 1:9</a>; <a href='B:100 13:28'>2Sa 13:28</a>). But our attitude to God's word determines our obedience to it. This is one dimension of believing that the Bible is indeed written by Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua sent them out; and they went to prepare the ambush, and stayed between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai; but Joshua stayed among the people that night- </p><p>Again "the people" are put for the soldiers; see on :11. The Divine command to set an ambush (:2) was obeyed very carefully by Joshua, as so emphasized (s:w. :4,7,9,12,14,19,21). I discuss on :27 how Joshua was very good at obeying clear commands, but tended to fail when he had to resolve questions on his own initiative.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua rose up early in the morning, mustered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, at the head of the people to Ai- </p><p>Joshua was characterized by rising early (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>). This is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>All the people, even the men of war who were with him, went up and drew near to the city, and encamped on the north side of Ai. Now there was a valley between him and Ai-</p><p>As often in Joshua, "the people" are paralleled with "the men of war". The idea may be that ordinary unarmed civilians also accompanied them; or that the "men of war" were representative of the people. For it was to be their conquest. The land was to be taken by "them", the people, and not simply due to military actions.</p>


text:
<p>He had set about five thousand men in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city-</p><p>Verses 12 and 13 appear to be a recapitulation of the situation. This position was that once occupied by Abraham (<a href='B:10 12:8'>Gen 12:8</a>; <a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a>), and was clearly chosen to remind the people of their being the children of Abraham and in his position as he first entered the land.</p>


text:
<p>So they set the people, even all the army who was on the north of the city, and the ambush on the west of the city; and Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley- </p><p>The idea is that they had set the people in these positions; verses 12 and 13 appear to be a recapitulation.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hurried and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at the time appointed, before the Arabah; but he didn’t know that there was an ambush against him behind the city- </p><p>"The time appointed" is in some manuscripts "the place appointed"; and "the Arabah" is in some "the ambush". In this case there would be the idea of two ambushes, one before and one behind the city. This would explain the two different numbers given for the troops involved in the ambushes; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness- </p><p>"The way of the wilderness" is the very phrase used of the route taken by Israel after they had been barred from entering the land nearly 40 years previously (<a href='B:50 1:40'>Deu 1:40</a>; <a href='B:50 2:1'>Deu 2:1</a>). Joshua was acceptant of the fact that they did not now deserve to enter the land, and was fleeing before his enemies, knowing this was the curse for disobedience to the covenant. He was therefore appreciating that their entrance to the Kingdom was now by grace alone. And so victory was given, and thus in human terms this was all part of the strategy for taking Ai.</p>


text:
<p>All the people who were in the city were called together to pursue after them. They pursued Joshua, and were drawn away from the city- </p><p>We note that Joshua personally was with the group who fled before their enemies, purposefully accepting that they had broken covenant and were worthy of the condemnation which that involved- of fleeing before enemies.</p>


text:
<p>There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who didn’t go out after Israel. They left the city open and pursued Israel- </p><p>This suggests that the people of Bethel had come to support Ai, perhaps in the gap between the two attacks upon Ai.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand. Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand toward the city- </p><p>The javelin would have reflected the rays of the sun and thereby given a message to the ambush to now rise. However there is no doubt that God meant Joshua to imitate the victories of Moses on account of his staff. We see here a mixture of working through human strategy, and yet being given the victory as a result of Divine operation. This was not the optimal way to operate; for before Achan's sin, the 'strategy' for taking Jericho had been complete nonsense in military terms, and had been designed to demonstrate absolute trust in Yahweh for victory. It seems this sign of the javelin was not explained to Joshua ahead of time. He may have wondered how to inform the ambushers of the optimal time to attack; and God now gave him the answer. Or perhaps the exact timing of the signal was from God. And this helps us understand the apparent gaps in God's revealed strategy with us; they are there so that we live by faith.</p>


text:
<p>The ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand, entered into the city and took it. They hurried and set the city on fire- </p><p>The burning of the cities was because of their uncleanness. And yet Jerusalem was to be burned with fire in the end (<a href='B:300 21:10'>Jer 21:10</a>; <a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a>). She was going to be proven no better than the idolatrous cities of the Canaanites, whose gods Israel eagerly worshipped. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way. The people who fled to the wilderness turned back on the pursuers- </p><p>Having no way to flee is typical of the experience of condemnation which is to come upon both Israel and the Gentiles (<a href='B:300 25:35'>Jer 25:35</a> etc:). Again, as noted on :19,22 etc:, we see the destruction of these Canaanite cities as being the prototype for the later destruction of Israel, seeing they proved no better than the Canaanites but in fact worse.</p>


text:
<p>When Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and killed the men of Ai- </p><p>The smoke signal was clearly planned in advance, as in <a href='B:70 20:38'>Jdg 20:38</a>. We note the very secular strategy employed in contrast to the humanly foolish strategy in taking Jericho. God perceived Israel's low level of spirituality, and worked with them according to that level. The image of the smoke of a burning city ascending is used of latter day Babylon's destruction at the hands of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 18:18'>Rev 18:18</a>). The conquests of Joshua point forward to that of his namesake; but insofar as he could have given the people "rest", but he didn't. And so his work was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The others came out of the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, some on that side. They struck them so that they let none of them remain or escape- </p><p>But in the end, the same judgment was to come upon an apostate people of God. They too would be left with none to remain nor escape (<a href='B:300 42:17'>Jer 42:17</a>; <a href='B:300 44:14'>Jer 44:14</a>). We noted on :19 that Jerusalem was to be burnt for her filthiness, just as the cities of Canaan were at this time. God's people were to be judged as Canaanites. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>They captured the king of Ai alive, and brought him to Joshua- </p><p>"Ai" means 'heaps', and the word is used of how Jerusalem was to become heaps (<a href='B:300 26:18'>Jer 26:18</a>). Her king too was captured alive and brought to the leader of the attacking armies. See on :19,22.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Israel had made an end of killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they pursued them, and they had all fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all Israel returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword-</p><p>The soldiers are described as "all Israel", just as in Joshua the armed men are several times termed "the people". The idea is that the soldiers were seen as representative of the people. For the whole people were as it were to be involved in the conquest.</p>


text:
<p>All that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai- </p><p>Initially the Israelites nonchalantly thought only two or three thousand men were needed to destroy them. But then after the defeat, Joshua took 30000 men to deal with them, and it seems God reduced that number to 5000; see on :3. This wavering in faith and confidence has the ring of psychological credibility to it.</p>


text:
<p>For Joshua didn’t draw back his hand with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai-</p><p>Given the similarities with the battle against Amalek, were his arms held up in fervent prayer? This is a common association with upholden arms. Moses held his hand up, and Joshua led the army into battle, succeeding because Moses had his hands held up in prayer (<a href='B:20 17:10'>Exo 17:10</a>). Now, Joshua is the one holding his hands up in prayer, whilst Israel are in battle. Lesson: We go through experiences which later repeat; and we are in the position of those who had before prayed for us, and are expected to replicate their examples.</p><p>When Joshua was leading the Israelite army, he was given victory because Moses kept his arms outstretched in prayer. Later, circumstances repeated, so that Joshua had the opportunity to make the same effort for others as had been made for him. For Joshua had to keep his hand stretched out, until his men had destroyed all the men of Ai (<a href='B:60 8:26'>Jos 8:26</a>). And throughout life, this occurs for us- a situation wherein we were shown grace repeats, in essence, so that we have an opportunity to show the same grace to others which we received.</p><p>"Utterly destroyed" is the word used for destruction or devotion to Yahweh. It seems that all the Canaanites had the opportunity for repentance. The trumpet blasts were to be understood by the people of Jericho as a call to repentance, which they ignored (<a href='B:370 3:6'>Amo 3:6</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>). This would then explain why the cities were devoted to Yahweh in destruction, which was the punishment for a city which turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:50 13:12-14'>Deu 13:12-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took for prey to themselves, according to the word of Yahweh which He commanded Joshua- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (:31,35; <a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua burnt Ai and made it a heap forever, even a desolation, to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>He hanged the king of Ai on a tree until the evening, and at the sundown Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree and threw it at the entrance of the gate of the city- </p><p>We see here that one dimension of crucifixion on a tree was public shame and public instruction. These were all aspects of the Lord's death. <a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a> had commanded this taking down bodies of criminals from the tree where they were exhibited, by evening; even condemned criminals were to be shown some respect. For after dark wild animals and birds would have eaten them. We see here reflected how God truly takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We need not unduly fear condemnation, for God doesn't want to condemn people.</p><p>And raised a great heap of stones on it that remains to this day- </p><p>This was perhaps intentionally to reflect the fate of Achan. He loved the things of the Canaanites, and apparently stole the royal robe of the king of Jericho. So he met the same end as the kings of Canaan, buried beneath a heap of stones. The raising of the stones over the corpse may have been through all Israel as it were stoning him.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua built an altar to Yahweh, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal- </p><p><a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deu 27:2-8</a> had commanded that "in the day" Israel passed over Jordan, they were to set up plastered stones with the law written upon them [perhaps just the ten commandments, or the lists of blessings and cursings], and put them "in mount Ebal". They were to do this immediately they passed over Jordan so that they might enter further into the land (<a href='B:50 27:3'>Deu 27:3</a>); and the location was defined as near Gilgal (<a href='B:50 11:30'>Deu 11:30</a>), where they camped after entering the land. Clearly enough, the ceremony of blessing and cursing ought to have been done immediately they entered the land. But they let secular concerns dominate their spiritual obligation to be thankful as God had asked. For when Joshua fulfilled it in <a href='B:60 8:30'>Jos 8:30</a>, this was not "in the day" that Israel passed over Jordan. They had indeed taken stones with them from the Jordan, but had not used them as intended. They didn't plaster them nor write the law upon them. And so perhaps God ammended His intention- which was initially that they would set those stones up in mount Ebal immediately. Instead, He sent the people against Jericho, and then against Ai. Perhaps an instant conquest of Jericho had been originally intended, so that they could proceed to mount Ebal immediately. For later in Joshua we will read of God giving His people unnaturally speedy progress against their enemies, all in the same day. Or maybe His intention was that firstly they ought to have gone to mount Ebal with the plastered stones, and only then attacked Jericho. But they didn't plaster the stones nor wish to proceed immediately to Ebal. And so He arranged the campaign against Jericho and then Ai. We see how God is so eager to accommodate His programs to the weakness of men.</p>


text:
<p>as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones, on which no man had lifted up any iron. They offered burnt offerings on it to Yahweh, and sacrificed peace offerings-</p><p>Joshua comes over as exactly obedient to specific laws, but see on :27. <a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a> says that the use of any tool upon an altar would defile it (also see <a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a>). This is how strongly God despises chic externality, and wants us to offer to Him as we are, uncut stones. He wants us, as we are, and not covered by cosmetics. In this we see the deep unspirituality of the altars in the temple, as designed by David and Solomon. I have suggested that although Solomon claims all this was commanded by God, in fact that was merely His assumption. Solomon attempted to get around this law by ensuring that the stones were cut away from the temple construction site (<a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a>). But this surely was breaking the spirit of the law.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote there on the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel- </p><p>Which law commanded to Moses isn't stipulated; perhaps it was the list of the blessings and cursings, or the book of Deuteronomy (<a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a>; <a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a>; <a href='B:50 31:26'>Deu 31:26</a>) or the ten commandments. We assume from the record that Joshua was literate, a skill perhaps learned from Moses whilst being his personal servant in the wilderness years.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel, their elders and officers and their judges, stood on both sides of the ark before the priests the Levites who carried the ark of Yahweh’s covenant, the foreigner as well as the native. Half of them stood in front of Mount Gerizim, and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of Yahweh had commanded at the first- </p><p>Shechem was between Ebal and Gerizim, and perhaps whilst there, they buried the bones of Joseph in the grave of the Abraham family which was there in the area (<a href='B:10 33:19'>Gen 33:19</a>; <a href='B:20 13:19'>Exo 13:19</a>). There is perhaps no mention of Shechem here, because the record wishes to focus upon the solemnity of what was being done in accordance with <a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deu 27:2-8</a>, rather than the geography. We note that "the foreigner" was also blessed, and encompassed by God within the term "the people of Israel".</p><p>For the blessing of the people of Israel- </p><p>Both blessing and cursing was read (:34), but clearly we are to understand that the focus of the Divine record is upon God's desire to bless the people. The whole ceremony is called "the blessing". And the simple takeaway from this is that God wishes our salvation and blessing, far more than His cursing of the disobedient.</p>


text:
<p>Afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law- </p><p>This suggests that the law which was written on the stones was just the blessings and curses, which were read out at the time. See on :33.</p>


text:
<p>There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua didn’t read before all the assembly of Israel, with the women, the little ones, and the foreigners who were among them- </p><p>Joshua comes over as exactly obedient to specific laws, but see on :27. "The foreigners" appear to refer to a distinct category of people who were "among them" but not fully integrated.</p>


text:
<p>When all the kings who were beyond the Jordan, in the hill country, and in the lowland, and on all the shore of the great sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard of it- </p><p><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a> summarizes all these kings as the "Amorites", and says that Israel would possess their land when the time of their iniquity [or judgment for their iniquity] was fulfilled. Israel's victories against them were therefore a judgment upon these kingdoms for their sins. The fact Israel themselves had with them the idols of Egypt when they crossed the Red Sea, and so quickly accepted the Canaanite gods, therefore made Israel the more culpable for Divine judgment. For they had judged others for what they themselves did.</p>


text:
<p>they gathered themselves together with one accord to fight with Joshua and with Israel- </p><p>Their "one accord" clearly excluded the elders of Gibeon (:3). It would seem there was group think going on here, and Gibeon are presented as being saved because they dared to go against the view of the majority. We note that :1 lists six kings, rather than the usual group of seven kings or kingdoms which are associated with the tribes in Canaan. The Girgashites of <a href='B:60 3:10'>Jos 3:10</a> are omitted. They may refer to the Gibeonites, or it could be that they too were not of "one accord". The gathering of the local peoples of the land against Joshua-Jesus is clearly going to happen in the last days as well (Psalms 83). The supporters of the latter day beast are likewise gathered with one mind (<a href='B:730 17:13'>Rev 17:13</a>), and I suggest that these also refer to the local peoples within the land of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai- </p><p>According to :17, "Gibeon" was a group of towns, not just one city. We note that they are not recorded as having a single king (:11), unlike the other kingdoms listed in :1; rather it seems they were governed by a group of rulers, who came to Joshua clearly with the authority to make decisions on behalf of the whole group of towns.</p>


text:
<p>they in their turn resorted to a ruse, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks on their donkeys, and wineskins, old and torn and bound up- </p><p>"In their turn" could mean that having heard of the ambush of Ai, they in their turn thought they could be deceptive. For the news of Ai's destruction was very fresh in their minds. If nothing more, we learn that experience of deception inspires us to deceive. And we have to break that cycle. One wonders if "deceiving and being deceived" makes some kind of allusion to this situation (<a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a>). But they will go on to quote the words of Rahab, so we wonder whether "in their turn" means that they like Rahab told lies in order to enter into covenant with Yahweh and be saved from destruction.</p>


text:
<p>and old and patched shoes on their feet, and wore old garments. All the bread of their provision was dry and mouldy- </p><p>There is great detail provided as to their appearance. We are invited thereby to stand with Joshua and the Israelite elders, looking these people up and down, observing everything about them.</p>


text:
<p>They went to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal and said to him and to the men of Israel, We have come from a far country. Now therefore make a covenant with us-</p><p>It is possible that there were two places known as Gilgal at the time, and this may be the Gilgal in the center of the land, rather than the camp first made at the Gilgal by the Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel said to the Hivites, What if you live among us. How could we make a covenant with you?- </p><p>We get the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the telltale signs (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>). Or Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand::. against his better judgment, surely (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>). This is a feature of human nature, to know on one level but not on another; and the contradictions evident in the Jesus : Judas relationship and the Samson : Delilah relationship are only explicable by realizing this. The whole thing is an eloquent essay in the Lord's humanity and the depth of His 'in-loveness' with Judas the traitor.</p>


text:
<p>They said to Joshua, We are your servants. Joshua said to them, Who are you? Where do you come from?- </p><p>We notice that the Gibeonites try to avoid lying. They skip the key questions by saying they come from far away, and immediately go on to use Rahab's words about the wonder of Israel's God and their desire to fear Him and enter covenant. I will argue on :9,10 that they were to some degree sincere in this. So their attempt to minimize the amount of lies they told could therefore be seen as a reflection of their sincerity in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Your servants have come from a very far country because of the name of Yahweh your God; for we have heard of His fame, all that He did in Egypt- </p><p>'Coming from a far country for the sake of the name of Yahweh' is the very phrase used in <a href='B:110 8:41'>1Ki 8:41</a> in a positive sense, of genuine proselytes who were to be welcomed into Israel and relationship with Yahweh. It seems this is a recognition that indeed there was something genuine about these Gibeonites. They wanted relationship with Yahweh but saw no way to get it apart from being deceitful as they were. See on :10. We note they say nothing about the miracle of the crossing of Jordan or fall of Jericho. They were repeating almost verbatim the words of Rahab, and we wonder whether in fact she had got word to them, or at least they had heard about her and wished to emulate her.</p>


text:
<p>and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan who was at Ashtaroth- </p><p>These are the words of Rahab. As noted on :9, they were apparently in the same situation as she was. They wanted to accept Israel's God, but saw no way in which they could, without being deceitful. Their imitation of her is perhaps developed by the way in which they too lie in a blessed way, just as she did to the men of Jericho.</p><p>Although context is indeed important, it isn't always so. The New Testament writers so often quote the Old Testament without (apparently) attention to the context of the words they are quoting. And this is indeed the approach of the Rabbis, who tend to expound each Bible verse as a separate entity. But all the same, in seeking to understand a verse, attention should be paid to the context. Because a word or phrase means something in one context doesn't mean it always means this in any context. Thus "leaven" can be a symbol of both the Gospel and also sin. And the eagle is a symbol of several quite different enemies of Israel, as well as of God Himself. Another simple example is in <a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a>; the land "beyond Jordan" refers to land on the West of the river; but in <a href='B:60 9:10'>Jos 9:10</a> the same phrase refers to land on the East. That same phrase "beyond Jordan" means something different in different contexts. We can't always assume, therefore, that the same phrase must refer to the same thing wherever it occurs.</p>


text:
<p>Our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spoke to us saying, ‘Take provision in your hand for the journey and go to meet them, and tell them, We are your servants. Now make a covenant with us’- </p><p>No mention is made of their king; see on :3. The "ambassadors" (:4) from Babylon also came from a "far country" (s:w. <a href='B:120 20:14'>2Ki 20:14</a>) to apparently make a covenant with Hezekiah. He ought to have learned from the mistake of Joshua, but instead he liked to reason that these men were like the Gibeonites and should be accepted. Hence he twisted this historical incident into a precedent for wrong behaviour and choices; as we see so often in religious people. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we went out to go to you; but now, behold, it is dry, and has become mouldy- </p><p>"Behold" implies they invited the princes to test the bread, which they did (:14).</p>


text:
<p>These wineskins which we filled were new; and behold, now they are torn. These our garments and our shoes have become old because of the very long journey- </p><p>The obvious contrast was with the way that the garments and shoes of Israel had not worn out after a far longer journey of 40 years. God's actions in our lives are always multi faceted. This was more than a test of their humility, to what extent they would trust their own native judgment of truth as opposed to turning to God's word. It was also a reminder of His gracious provision for them throughout the wilderness years. His actions in our lives are likewise multi dimensional.</p>


text:
<p>The men examined their provisions, and didn’t ask counsel from the mouth of Yahweh- </p><p>"The mouth of Yahweh" implies they had prophets amongst them, or at least God's word expressed through the yes / no decisions of the Urim and Thummim (<a href='B:40 27:21'>Num 27:21</a>). It seems Joshua delegated the examination of their integrity to the princes, who were deceived by the old bread. "Examined" could mean "tasted", as if they ate the old bread and confirmed it was indeed old. Truth can never be arrived at by delegating the examination of it to others. And Joshua and the princes were clearly wrong in not asking for God's counsel in a situation which was clearly not clearly covered by Mosaic legislation.</p><p>David apparently learned the lesson from all this. For he did ask counsel of Yahweh when not knowing how to act (s:w. <a href='B:100 5:23'>2Sa 5:23</a>); whereas Israel didn't (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:1'>Isa 30:1</a>; <a href='B:350 4:3'>Hos 4:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them to let them live. The princes of the congregation swore an oath to them- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they lived among them- </p><p>"Three days" in the Bible is often not a literal period of 72 hours, and we must remember this when attempting to work out the chronology of the Lord's "three days" in the tomb.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel travelled and came to their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim-</p><p>The ark was to be kept here for 20 years (<a href='B:90 7:2'>1Sa 7:2</a>), confirming the impression that these people were in fact sincere.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel didn’t strike them, because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel. All the congregation murmured against the princes- </p><p>The obvious question was as to whether the oath to the Gibeonites was binding seeing they had lied; and because Yahweh had commanded them to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. I suggested on :11 that this incident with the Gibeonites was abused by Hezekiah to justify his acceptance of the ambassadors from Babylon. And I would now further suggest that it was abused by Saul when he slew the Gibeonites. He would have argued that the princes had been wrong to make this covenant, and therefore it was null and void. But God was extremely angry that he thought that and punished the land because of it, indicating the common people had agreed with him (<a href='B:100 21:1-9'>2Sa 21:1-9</a>). That later judgment confirms that the princes, although unwise, did the right thing by upholding the covenant. And the subsequent faithfulness of the Gibeonites within Israel was evidence that God worked through human unwisdom in order to save people. For the salvation of the people of Canaan was important to Him, and it could be argued that the six days march and blowing of trumpets around Jericho had been an invitation for their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>But all the princes said to all the congregation, We have sworn to them by Yahweh the God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them- </p><p>David appears to allude to the incident, in an oblique criticism of Saul's murder of the Gibeonites, by commending the man who swears to his own hurt but doesn't change (<a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>). See on :18,26.</p>


text:
<p>This we will do to them, and let them live; lest wrath be on us, because of the oath which we swore to them- </p><p>This indicates some morality amongst the princes, although they may well have been living in some superstitious fear of consequences for broken oaths, as the Mosaic law doesn't specifically legislate about the situation they were in.</p>


text:
<p>The princes said to them, Let them live, so they became wood cutters and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the princes had spoken to them- </p><p>It seems this group became the Nethinim, the given / devoted ones; and were consistently faithful within Israel and the temple service, far more so than the Israelites themselves ( <a href='B:130 9:2'>1Ch 9:2</a>; <a href='B:150 2:43-54'>Ezr 2:43-54</a>; <a href='B:150 2:58'>Ezr 2:58</a>; <a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:150 8:20'>Ezr 8:20</a>). See on :23. Wood cutters and drawers of water were specifically mentioned in <a href='B:50 29:11'>Deu 29:11</a> as the lowest rank of society, and yet able to enter covenant relationship with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua called for them, and he spoke to them saying, Why did you deceive us by saying, ‘We are very far from you’, when you live among us?- </p><p>"Among us" could be read as an expression of faith that Israel were already occupying the land and were the dominant group there.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you are cursed, and some of you will never fail to be bondservants, both wood cutters and drawers of water for the house of my God- </p><p>I have suggested on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a> that these records were rewritten [under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. Hence the reference to the house of God, which didn't then exist. This would confirm the idea that the Gibeonites became the Nethinim who served in the temple; see on :21,27.</p>


text:
<p>They answered Joshua and said, Because your servants were certainly told how Yahweh your God commanded His servant Moses to give you all the land and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you, therefore we were very afraid for our lives because of you, and have done this thing- </p><p>As noted above, this was again an allusion to the words of Rahab- who had lied to her own people in order to avoid destruction and enter covenant with Yahweh. They certainly did have a good knowledge of Israel's history, and far more than the average Canaanite, they believed that these stories they had heard were true. Their knowledge of the commandment to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan is another hint that they had received some kind of word from Rahab or had heard the words she had used. The only way to avoid that destruction was to repent and join Israel and accept their God; and this was what they wanted to do.</p>


text:
<p>Now, behold, we are in your hand. Do to us as it seems good and right to you to do- </p><p>See on :26. The "good and right" thing was clearly not to slay them. Israel had been told by Moses that their doing what was "good and right" was required for them to possess the land (<a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a>; <a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a>). The Gibeonites use the same phrase in appealing for Joshua to do what was "good and right" (<a href='B:60 9:25'>Jos 9:25</a>) in not slaying them but accepting them into covenant relationship with Yahweh. The people generally didn't want to do this (<a href='B:60 9:26'>Jos 9:26</a>). It seems God's providence used Joshua's initial unwisdom in order to give Joshua a chance to do what was "good and right", so that Israel could indeed possess Canaan. We marvel at how God works through human unwisdom and dysfunction, in order to achieve His final purpose of giving His people His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>He did so to them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel, so that they didn’t kill them-</p><p>This&nbsp;implies&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;thing which was "good and right" (:25)was not to kill them, although the people generally wanted to do so. See on :18,19. For all his unwisdom, Joshua comes over as having absolute integrity in this matter, and doing the right thing after having made a mess and not inquired of Yahweh as he should have done.</p>


text:
<p>That day Joshua made them wood cutters and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of Yahweh, to this day, in the place which He should choose- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p><p>I have suggested on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a> that these records were rewritten [under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. Hence the reference to the Gibeonites serving in the place Yahweh would choose, which didn't then exist. This would confirm the idea that the Gibeonites became the Nethinim who served in the temple; see on :21,23.</p>


text:
<p>Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; and that as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them- </p><p>Adonizedek King of Jerusalem was the counterpart of Melchizedek. He falsely claimed to be 'Lord of righteousness'. He looks ahead to the latter day antiChrist figure in Jerusalem who will mimic the Lord Jesus, a fake or 'anti' Christ, who is lord of the kings of the earth / land, to be destroyed by the latter day Joshua-Jesus. For it is the Lord Jesus who is to be declared lord of the kings of the earth, and not Adonizedek. In <a href='B:730 17:18'>Rev 17:18</a> the harlot Jerusalem reigns of the kings of the earth / land in the last days. And this was typified in this history of Adonizedek:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The people of Jerusalem were very afraid, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty- </p><p>Their humility before Yahweh, as explained on Joshua 9, was therefore the more commendable, seeing they were known as the strongest of the Canaanite cities.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of Hebron, to Piram king of Jarmuth, to Japhia king of Lachish and to Debir king of Eglon saying- </p><p>Hoham means “Jehovah of the multitude”, and adds to the body of possible evidence that some tribes had begun claiming Yahweh as their God. This gives significance to the title "Yahweh, God of Israel", not the god of a similar name claimed by some of the Canaanites.</p>


text:
<p>Come up to me and help me, and let us strike Gibeon; for it has made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel- </p><p>There is a parallel between Adonizedek asking others to "come up to me and help me", and Gibeon in response asking "Come up to us::. and help us" (:6). The theme is developed that all concerned were weak and in need of external help. And the only ultimate external help was in God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish and the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together and went up, they and all their armies, and encamped against Gibeon and made war against it- </p><p>God worked through Joshua's unwisdom about the Gibeonites in order to gather together the Canaanites and destroy them. If Joshua had been proud and impenitent about his mistake with the Gibeonites, who would have killed them or not gone to rescue them. But he was humble enough to continue going along with God's program after his unwisdom, and God in turn worked through this- by gathering together the Canaanites and giving Joshua a great victory over them.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Gibeon sent to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal saying, Don’t abandon your servants! Come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us; for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the hill country have gathered together against us- </p><p>By treating the Gibeonites as Israel, Joshua was led to a great victory over the Canaanites. Had he ignored their plea for help, this would not have been granted perhaps in the dramatic way it was. The way of love and integrity often leads us to further blessing, within God's wider plan. See on :4.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua went up from Gilgal, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour- </p><p>There appears to be a difference between the mighty men of valour, and the "people of war". Perhaps the vanguard refers to the men of the two and a half tribes, who were to go in advance into battle. Or the idea may be that "all the people" were strengthened with bravery / valour, hence LXX "he and all the people of war with him, every one mighty in strength". We note a difference in the attitude now, and that after the victory at Jericho, where the Israelites considered that just two or three thousand of them could overcome the 12,000 men of Ai. Now Joshua takes his entire fighting force with him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Don’t fear them, for I have delivered them into your hands. Not a man of them will stand before you-</p><p>The continual reassurance of Joshua could imply he struggled to maintain faith in the promises of God which meant he should not fear (<a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua therefore came on them suddenly-</p><p>It shouldn’t just be the nearness of the Lord’s return that makes us urgent. Our decisions to give over each part of our lives, radically, to Jesus should be made not just because life is short and the Lord is at the door; but also because it might otherwise be too late to undo the damage a self-engrossed life has already caused, to the self and to others. Rebekah responded immediately to the call to go marry Isaac, in a story which is clearly to be read as an acted parable of the search for a bride for Jesus. Her ‘quick’ response is one of her characteristics (<a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a>; <a href='B:10 24:20'>Gen 24:20</a>; <a href='B:10 24:26'>Gen 24:26</a>; <a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a>; <a href='B:10 24:64'>Gen 24:64</a>). Abraham likewise “rose up early” after his night time vision, requiring him to offer his son to God (<a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>). Joshua “therefore” started to attack the confederacy of local kings, in the middle of the night, immediately after God had assured him of victory (<a href='B:60 10:9'>Jos 10:9</a>). David could write: “I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments” (<a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a>). We cannot be passive on receiving the opportunity to serve God. We will urgently seek to do something with what we have been enabled to do for the Lord: “The servant who got five bags went quickly to invest the money and earned five more bags” (<a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a> NCV).</p><p>He went up from Gilgal all night-</p><p>From Gilgal to Gibeon was about 20 miles, so they marched all night.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh confused them before Israel, and He slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth Horon, and struck them as far as Azekah and Makkedah</p><p>We note the confusion between what Yahweh did and what Israel did; because so clearly He was with them giving the victory. It is typical of the victories God won for His people that He uses some elements which could only have been from Him. Here, the mental confusion from Him, and later the hailstones. This was because He so dislikes any boasting in human strength. The ascent of Beth Horon would refer to "Upper Beth Horon", about four hours march away from Gibeon.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that as they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth Horon, that Yahweh cast down great stones from the sky on them to Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the children of Israel killed with the sword-</p><p>The seventh vial records the destruction of Babylon, who receives "the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath" in the form of huge hailstones (<a href='B:730 16:19'>Rev 16:19</a>; <a href='B:730 16:21'>Rev 16:21</a>):&nbsp;This equates the nations who are gathered to Armageddon with Babylon, which we will see is primarily a symbol of the powers within the land promised to Abraham, based upon this historical situation:&nbsp;&nbsp;The cup of the wrath of God alludes to <a href='B:450 12:2-3'>Zec 12:2-3</a>, where the surrounding nations also are "gathered together" and have burdened themselves with Jerusalem are made to drink "a cup of trembling" by reason of doing so:&nbsp;The punishment with giant hailstones recalls how Israel's local enemies were destroyed in the time of Joshua/Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua spoke to Yahweh in the day when Yahweh delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand still on Gibeon! You, moon, stop in the valley of Aijalon!-</p><p>This&nbsp;reflects&nbsp;amazing spiritual ambition and faith in prayer; he commanded things to happen, so sure of the prayer being heard. However, I suggest on :15 that :12-15 are a citation from the poetic book of Jasher. This would explain the usage of poetic language in an otherwise literal, factual account. This is not to say that we cannot read it literally, although there are many problems with that.</p><p>The Amorites fled to the south-west, so Joshua was west of Gibeon at this point. The sun would be in the east over Gibeon, and the moon in the west over the valley of Ajalon. This would only have been the situation before noon, quite soon after dawn, with the moon still not set in the west. So we assume the battle and this prayer were in the early morning; Joshua and his men had marched from Gilgal through the night to launch a dawn attack (:9).</p>


text:
<p>The sun stood still and the moon stayed, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies- </p><p>Samson took vengeance on the Philistines (<a href='B:70 15:5'>Jdg 15:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>), when the Law taught that Israel were not to take vengeance (same word) on each other (<a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a>), but could do so on their enemies (<a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a>; <a href='B:50 32:43'>Deu 32:43</a> cp. <a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a>).</p><p>Isn’t this written in the book of Jashar?- </p><p>See on :12,15. It has been suggested that this was a book of poems (<a href='B:100 1:18'>2Sa 1:18</a>), and therefore the language of the sun delaying to go down is therefore to be read poetically. And indeed it is so that figurative language is used, with stars fighting (<a href='B:70 5:20'>Jdg 5:20</a>) and the heavens being bowed down (<a href='B:230 18:7-17'>Psa 18:7-17</a>). But I consider that to be an attempt to water down the miracle, and the context here is simply not that of such poetic language. <a href='B:420 3:11'>Hab 3:11</a> appears to consider this literal. And we are only eager to do that because it requires less faith to believe. There are a number of references in Scripture to books like the book of Jasher (e:g. <a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a>) which we no longer have available to us. Whether they were inspired or not, we don't know; but the point is, they are no longer available to us because God knows that we do not need them. By contrast, the elaborate rituals of the Mosaic Law have been preserved for us; God would not have inspired and preserved books like Leviticus unless they were important for us.</p><p>The sun stayed in the midst of the sky and didn’t hurry to go down about a whole day- </p><p>I have no problem in understanding this in literal terms, although there is another approach to :12-15. See on :12,15:&nbsp; It could even be that the sun returning by ten degrees (<a href='B:120 20:10'>2Ki 20:10</a>) was a correction or compensation for this in the universe. But the sun literally staying still in the sky would have meant the entire solar system, perhaps the entire cosmos, was affected. By the prayer of a man here on earth.</p><p>But the comment that so much was achieved "at one time" (<a href='B:60 10:42'>Jos 10:42</a>) may hint at a compression of time to enable it. "The sun stood still" may well be intended to teach that the meaning of time was collapsed by God, rather than that the sun literally stood still (<a href='B:60 10:12-13'>Jos 10:12-13</a>). And the sun standing still over Gibeon is mentioned in <a href='B:290 28:21'>Isa 28:21</a> as typical of the time when Yahweh will do "His strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act" in the last days. The same may be true when the shadow went back for Hezekiah. The movement of the planets need not have been altered; the meaning of time was simply suspended. <a href='B:730 8:12'>Rev 8:12</a>, also speaking of the last days, says that “the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise”. Could this mean that one day and one night last only two thirds of their usual length, whilst the judgments of the fourth Angel are poured out upon the land? I would suggest that the Lord had in mind the suspension of time when he asked that "the hour might pass from him" in Gethsemane (<a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a>); rather than asking to escape the cross in this request, he was perhaps asking for it all to happen in only a moment of real time. Babylon is to be punished with famine in one day; yet famine is a process (<a href='B:730 18:8'>Rev 18:8</a>). In one day her judgments come, and yet also in one hour (<a href='B:730 18:10'>Rev 18:10</a>). Surely&nbsp; the lesson is that time is compressed. The events around Christ's return were prefigured by those at the time of Joshua's conquest of the land. Some of the records of his campaigns require a huge amount to have been achieved by his soldiers within around 36 hours.</p>


text:
<p>There was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahweh listened to the voice of a man; for Yahweh fought for Israel-</p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>).</p><p>For the scope of the miracle, see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp to Gilgal- </p><p>This seems out of place, for Joshua would hardly have received the long day as answer to his prayer, and returned to Gilgal. Surely he would have immediately continued chasing the Amorites, as described in the following verses. It could be a conclusion of the matter, repeated in :43, and then the next verses explain how the conclusion was reached. That sort of thing happens often in Biblical narrative. But there is the possibility that this :15 concludes a quotation from the book of Jasher (:13). This would then support the argument that the language of the sun and moon standing still is part of a more figurative, poetic account which is being cited from the book of Jasher, a book of songs and poetry. This would help explain why we have an apparent interjection of poetic language in the midst of an otherwise factual narrative.</p>


text:
<p>These five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave at Makkedah- </p><p>The account of conquest has many connections with Abraham's arrival in the land; for the Israelites were Abraham's seed. Kings fleeing and dying recalls the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fleeing and perishing in <a href='B:10 14:10'>Gen 14:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua was told saying, The five kings are found, hidden in the cave at Makkedah- </p><p>This may have been a specially fortified cave, with food inside it. Some of the caves were like small palaces.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said, Roll large stones to the mouth of the cave, and set men by it to guard them- </p><p>The scene recalls that at the Lord's burial. They were pronounced as it were already dead and buried. There may be an allusion or word play upon the fact that through circumcision, God had rolled [away] the reproach of Egypt (s:w. <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>). These are the only usages of the word for "roll" in Joshua. If indeed Joshua is making such a word play, then his point is that circumcision, covenant relationship with God, is related to victory over their enemies. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>but don’t stay-</p><p>The sense of urgency and not wasting time on anything is repeated by the Lord Jesus when sending out His people to preach.</p><p>Pursue your enemies, and attack their rearguard. Don’t allow them to enter into their cities; for Yahweh your God has delivered them into your hand- </p><p>"Pursue your enemies" is a quotation from the blessings for obedience to the covenant (<a href='B:30 26:7-8'>Lev 26:7-8</a>). See on :18. Joshua had purposefully fled before the men of Ai in recognition that Israel deserved defeat, as they had broken covenant. But he is also confident that by grace, undeservedly, they were receiving the blessings for obedience to it.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Joshua and the children of Israel had finished killing them with a very great slaughter until they were consumed, and the remnant which remained of them had entered into the fortified cities- </p><p>Joshua's enthusiasm of :19 had apparently not been shared by all the people. For Joshua had urged the soldiers to chase the Amorites so that they didn't enter fortified cities.</p>


text:
<p>that all the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace. None moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel- </p><p>Not moving the tongue against a man is language appropriate to dogs. The Canaanites are likened to dogs, now scared of the humans who are now amongst them. The implication may be that there were Gentiles living in Makkedah who weren't destroyed at that time (:28), but who said nothing against the Israelites. But the LXX gives another perspective: "And all the people returned safe to Joshua to Makeda; and no one of the children of Israel murmured with his tongue". There were no complaints against Joshua [cp. the murmuring of the people against Moses], because there was not a single Israelite casualty.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua said, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out of the cave to me- </p><p>This may connect with the way the Canaanites were scared to open their mouths against the Israelites (:21). But the Israelites opened the mouth of the cave and brought out the Canaanite kings. The impression is that Israel were so much in supremacy:&nbsp;There may also here be the intentional modelling of the future resurrection from the tomb / grave, to face judgment- and then to die the second death, represented by their bodies returning to the cave- see on :27</p>


text:
<p>They did so, and brought those five kings out of the cave to him: the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon-</p><p>Joshua could have been the Messianic king who was to triumph over the kings of the earth / land promised to Abraham. But his victories weren't permanent, and so his potential could have been fulfilled at the restoration, and so the images of being "terrible to the kings of the earth" (<a href='B:230 76:12'>Psa 76:12</a>) and "treading upon princes" (<a href='B:290 41:25'>Isa 41:25</a>) are taken from Joshua's work and used by the restoration prophets. But the restoration from Babylon also failed to fulfil all the prophetic potential; and so these things were reapplied and rescheduled to the future work of the Lord Jesus. In this sense Joshua appears to be a type of the Lord Jesus, his namesake.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when they brought those kings out to Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said to the chiefs of the men of war who went with him, Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings. They came near, and put their feet on their necks- </p><p>Joshua’s conquest of the Canaanite tribes inevitably looks forward to the work of his greater namesake at the second coming. See on :22 for how this came about. Adoni-Zedek, king of Jerusalem, is replete with reference to the latter day anti-Christ figure who will rule there in the last days. He leads a confederacy of Arab nations against Joshua-Jesus, and is destroyed with hailstones (<a href='B:60 10:11'>Jos 10:11</a>)- an event which is the basis for the latter day prophecy of <a href='B:730 16:21'>Rev 16:21</a>. We think too of the "five kings" who fell before the Lord Jesus at the point of <a href='B:730 17:10'>Rev 17:10</a>. Joshua’s men placing their feet upon the necks of their enemies is the prototype of all enemies being subdued under the Lord in the last day; and the way “the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel” at this time (<a href='B:60 10:42'>Jos 10:42</a>) is the basis of many latter day statements to the same effect.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to them, Don’t be afraid, nor be dismayed. Be strong and courageous, for Yahweh will do this to all your enemies against whom you fight- </p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others. As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed.</p>


text:
<p>Afterward Joshua put them to death, and hanged them on five trees. They hung on the trees until the evening- </p><p>The Lord's crucifixion had this public element to it. His victory over sin, as a result of His temporary death, was publically and openly proclaimed on the cross. Our preaching of the cross therefore carries with it, axiomatically, this sense of public, open proclamation. For the idea of a body hanging on a tree was of public proclamation.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the time of the going down of the sun that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees-</p><p>We see here that one dimension of crucifixion on a tree was public shame and public instruction. These were all aspects of the Lord's death. <a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a> had commanded this taking down bodies of criminals from the tree where they were exhibited, by evening; even condemned criminals were to be shown some respect. For after dark wild animals and birds would have eaten them. We see here reflected how God truly takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We need not unduly fear condemnation, for God doesn't want to condemn people.</p><p>And threw them into the cave in which they had hidden themselves, and laid great stones on the mouth of the cave-</p><p>This was how things had been before they were taken out of the cave to face judgment. I suggested on :22 that this was all a consciously acted parable of resurrection, judgment and then returning to the grave in the second death.</p><p>Which remain to this very day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua took Makkedah on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king. He utterly destroyed them and all the souls who were in it. He left none remaining. He did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho- </p><p>See on :21. The people of Makkedah were terrified of the Israelites, they were as dogs too scared to even open their mouths against them (:21).</p><p>"Utterly destroyed" is the word used for destruction or devotion to Yahweh. It seems that all the Canaanites had the opportunity for repentance. The trumpet blasts were to be understood by the people of Jericho as a call to repentance, which they ignored (<a href='B:370 3:6'>Amo 3:6</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>). This would then explain why the cities were devoted to Yahweh in destruction, which was the punishment for a city which turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:50 13:12-14'>Deu 13:12-14</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah- </p><p>"All Israel" could suggest that the ordinary people accompanied the soldiers. Or as often in Joshua, "the people" are paralleled with "the men of war". The idea may be that ordinary unarmed civilians also accompanied them; or that the "men of war" were representative of the people. For it was to be their conquest. The land was to be taken by "them", the people, and not simply due to military actions.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh delivered it also, with its king, into the hand of Israel. He struck it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls who were in it. He left none remaining in it. He did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho- </p><p>See on :29. The comment of <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> is that the Israelites lived in such cities, in houses which they had not built. We wonder whether they simply picked up the idols they found there and began worshipping them.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it- </p><p>The very same phrase is to be used of how the Assyrians "encamped against" these very same cities and fought against them (<a href='B:140 32:1'>2Ch 32:1</a>; <a href='B:290 37:8'>Isa 37:8</a>). And it was Yahweh who "encamped against" them (s:w. Isaiah 29; Isaiah 3), manifest in the Assyrians. The Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns against Israel were therefore conscious inversions of Joshua's victories at this time. The obvious reason for it was that God's people had become like the Canaanites, and were being judged as they were.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel. He took it on the second day, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with all the souls who were in it, according to all that he had done to Libnah- </p><p>Striking a city with the edge of the sword and completely destroying all life within it was what Israel did to the cities of Canaan (<a href='B:60 10:32'>Jos 10:32</a> etc:). But the phrase is that of <a href='B:50 13:15'>Deu 13:15</a>, about what should be done to an apostate Israelite city who turned to idolatry. This explains why the account of Joshua's campaigns list cities like Libnah and Lachish, against which the Assyrians "encamped" and fought against them (<a href='B:140 32:1'>2Ch 32:1</a>; <a href='B:290 37:8'>Isa 37:8</a> = <a href='B:60 10:31'>Jos 10:31</a>). Israel were judging the Canaanite cities for their idolatry; the fact they committed the same meant that they were more than hypocritical. They had done that which they had judged. And they thereby become a warning for us.</p>


text:
<p>Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people, until he had left him none remaining- </p><p>God continues His style of bringing the Canaanite kings into engagement with Joshua. Clearly it was His will that Israel should assume full control of Canaan. Lachish has been the subject of extended archaeological research, and all the evidence is that at the time of the conquest, it was heavily supported by Egypt and had many indications of Egyptian presence and culture. Perhaps the shedding of so much blood was psychologically necessary for Israel to feel they were taking vengeance upon Egypt.</p>


