Cirties of Refuge, Holy War, Gan Gardening and the SHEMA

Opening devotional: the trailer for "The Visitor".
What does this film have to do with Exodus/Deuteronomy themes?
see( "welcoming the stranger")




-----------------

 Cities of Refuge:

we noted that at two strategic places:
toward the beginning and end of the book,
chapter 4 and chapter 18
"cities of refuge" were discussed.
Kind of an inclusio to let the reader know this is a major theme.

 Holy War:

We noted that at two strategic places:
toward the beginning and end of the book,

chapter 7 and chapter 20
"Holy War" as discussed...
(both times in a location adjacent to the "cities of refuge" theme, hmmm)
Kind of an inclusio to let the reader know this is a major theme

We noticed how pivotal Deut 6 is, particlarly the Shema.
(see Van Der Laan article: Shema - Follow the Rabbi)

 ...in  a way similar to the Three Testations of Jesus function in the gospels;
The Shema must be foundational to the whole book, and revisiyed at various times throughout.

Hmm..so how does the Shema shed light on the Cities of refuge  theme?

On the Holy War theme?



And wy when Jesus quotes the Shema does he add:

"Lobe your neighbor as yourself"  ??

Who is my neighbor?
Who are Israel's neighbors is Exo and Deut?

--
We took a field trip..and continued on the Gan/garden  theme,  study guide here.

..and suggested that the idea of the "gan" would aso be helpful for getting themes in Deut.  Of Isreal is a gan..
capital G gan, made up of smaller gans...whrere everyone tales care of their own gan, and sometimes repairs their neighbors gan wall,

..how are Istraelistes supposed to be missional,
treat their neighbors...people of other gans, gods, etcc..

we brought in bounded sets and centered sets;



Which is Israel called to be in Deueteronomy?

Both?

.. centered-set churches need custodians of the story, and guardians of the ethos. Inclusivity and open-ended belonging without core maintenance is unsustainable. This is why many emerging and missional groups are considering monastic patterns based on a rule of life. They are creating a bounded set within a centered set. Groups like TOM exist around a rule, as does the Northumbria Community or The Simpler Way. We really need two structures of belonging: an open community membership and a “core” membership, open to those who voluntarily accept its demands (Murray, 37).   link

--


We brought in Kraybilll (remember JCC book?)

Kraybill says,

"The Kingdom of God is a collectivity--a network of persons....more than a series of

individualized email connections linking the King to each subject*...[It] infuses the web of relationships, binding King and citizens togeter" -Kraybill (p, 19 emphases mine)

 

Kraybill further illustrates the point of community over self by discussing the distinction between an aggregate and a collectivity.[5] He illustrates an aggregate as a group of people who occupy a time and space together but lack any true community (i.e. people at a crosswalk). The key is that they do not influence each other. A collectivity, as Kraybill defines it, has an element of interdependence. These individuals “influence each other, formulate common goals, and together decide how to reach them.”[6] The Kingdom of God functions as a collectivity. The individual lays down his life for the good of the collective. For the church to bear witness to this Kingdom, the body of Christ must exercise this practice.  link

-------------------------------

Bonus, here are several article to get you thinking about the HOLY WAR issue for next time:





Timothy Archer:

Now we turn our attention to the Law. To a good Jew, of course, all of what we’ve been discussing so far is part of the Torah, what we call the Law. But I’m speaking specifically of the legal code found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
A commenter the other day suggested that arguments for pacifism are based on “Thou shalt not kill” from the Ten Commandments. I’ve yet to read a pacifist who presented that as a main argument, nor have I seen it in the discussion on this blog. It doesn’t take much reading to realize that the very next chapter in Exodus lays out situations in which the death penalty is to be applied! No, those four words from the Ten Commandments lend little to the discussion.
A better insight into the Law’s views toward war are found in Deuteronomy 20. Some interesting things in that chapter:

• Priests play a major role in the army’s activities

• Broad exceptions are granted to those who choose not to fight

• Differences are made between battles within the Promised Land and battles outside the Promised Land

• Tactics avoid harming food-bearing trees

Admittedly, that third point rocked my world recently. I had a nice little theology about war, and Deuteronomy 20:10-15 doesn’t fit! I’m still looking to find balance. I had believed (and taught) that wars in the Old Testament fell into two categories: self-defense and conquest of the Promised Land. Lo and behold, these verses don’t fit either of those categories. While I can’t think of an example of this, of the Israelites fighting merely to conquer a distant city, the Law does allow for it. Sounds like a license for “imperialism.”
So do we just write it off to the sort of things that happened before God became a Christian? Or how do we understand these verses?  link

--

Jewish Ideas of Peace & Nonviolence

Yoder: is war l in the OT ike divorce in the NT?


--
Hetty Lalleman:

To sum up some essential features of Deuteronomy 20: Israel is not meant to be an imperialistic empire with a strong ruler. Warfare is not glorified, but the first aim is peace. The ‘ideal' king David is not allowed to build the temple because of all the blood he has shed (1 Chronicles 28:3), whereas Assyrians kings would be highly respected because of all the wars they had fought! What then can we learn for the twenty-first century?
•       The basic issue in destroying the Canaanite peoples was the fact that Israel had to get rid of everything which might lead them away from God, because this would mean the end of their very existence as the people of God. In the ongoing ‘battle' of the Christian life, Jesus says that as Christians we too should do away with everything which distracts us from God. We should clear our lives radically from everything which leads us to sin. Matthew 5:29–30; see also Matthew 18:8–9 and Mark 9:43–48.
•       Deuteronomy 20 restricts human power in battle, and in the same way Deuteronomy 17:14–20 restricts the earthly power of the king. Both these texts warn us today not to glorify human beings and human powers. The church should be brave in protesting against the deification of military, economic or political powers, because they are a form of idolatry. [5]•       There are Christians involved in warfare, because we must live in this world. Some have chosen not to be involved in the army, police force, etc. (cf. the Mennonites). For those who have and who are in leadership positions, some principles of Deuteronomy 20 might be helpful. Human power should be limited (see above). Warfare is not the ultimate purpose of a nation; peace is the goal. Imperialism and aggression should never be regarded as ‘normal'. Furthermore, captives should be treated in a humane way, and environmental warfare should be forbidden.
•       There is one warning from our investigation to be taken to heart: since the Christian church is not a political entity, it cannot be acceptable when ‘Christian' nations wage war ‘in the name of God'. We should be very cautious not to acclaim anyone as a ‘godly king' or ‘godly ruler', or our own country as ‘God's country'.
•       Do these things apply to nations with a majority of non-Christians as well? In the oracles against the nations, the Israelite prophets show us that God will judge them according to their behaviour. Thus Amos 1–2 gives a list of violent crimes perpetrated by the surrounding nations. All nations should thus listen in to what God said to his people Israel about the conduct of war in Deuteronomy 20.  link

--

Pierre Gilbert, War in the OT:

Yahweh’s involvement in war is part of a broader domino-like cascade of events.
1. God has a project: the creation of a people composed of men and women who will love
and serve him freely.
2. God’s project made necessary the creation of a world where humanity could truly
exercise free will, and where evil and suffering were real possibilities.
3. Human disobedience resulted in the introduction of a principle of death in human
nature and in history.
4. God is committed to working in partnership with human beings.
5. God is committed to dealing with humanity within the limitations of its historical
situation.
6. In a first phase of God’s plan to redeem humanity, God chose to work through an
ethnic/political entity: Israel.
7. The creation of a political entity entails the acquisition of a territory.
8. The necessity to obtain a piece of land made it necessary for Israel to engage in
military conquest.
9. Israel’s involvement in war made it necessary to articulate specific rules of war.
10. God’s involvement in war does not sanitize war! It points, however, to God’s
profound and unconditional commitment to working with human beings in full
recognition of the destruction and evil brought about by  sin,. There lies our hope!

--
Holy war, David Perry:

One of the Mosaic commandments prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13). Why is murder wrong, other than its obvious conflict with love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:17-18, 33-34)? Essentially because people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6). One might infer from that idea that no killing of persons would be allowed at all, that the concept of human beings as made in God's image would entail strict pacifism, an absolute duty not to kill people. But that is not what the ancient Hebrews concluded, since many offenses were subject to capital punishment, a form of killing (see examples in Exodus 21-22). So perhaps we might interpret the image-of-God idea to mean, All persons have a basic right not to be killed, but they can forfeit that right if they commit a serious enough crime. This would also be consistent with punishing only those guilty of crimes (Deuteronomy 24:16) and limiting the use of deadly force to the defense of innocent others or oneself. This is probably what most Jewish people would affirm today.
But collective punishment and indiscriminate war were also commanded or approved in the Hebrew Bible, especially in cases of idolatry. The first of the Mosaic commandments prohibited the Israelites from worshipping any other gods but Yahweh. God demanded purity and strict obedience, and idolatry and blasphemy were punishable by death (Exodus 20:3, 5). Non-Israelites who lived within the area believed by the Hebrews to have been promised to them by God were seen to pose a great temptation to them to abandon their faith. This led them to justify the slaughter of entire communities (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). And their holy wars eventually inspired similar wars many centuries later by Christians who admired Old Testament warriors like Joshua: "[Joshua's army killed everyone in Jericho], both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.... Joshua defeated the whole land... he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 6:21 and 10:40)  Link

--
A Quaker scholar:

Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 1-12
Ok, this part does horrify me. Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy lays out the principles of holy war. 
At first it does not look so terrible, because the early passages either look reasonable or can be read metaphorically: Don't be afraid because God is with you. If you are in the middle of an important life transition (have just built a house but not yet dedicated it; have planted a vineyard but not yet harvested it; are engaged to be married but not yet married), or if you are just too afraid or disheartened, then you should not fight (Deut 20:5-9). 
Furthermore, there is a passage that says that before attacking a town, offer terms of peace first (Deut 20:10). But there is an edge to this offer: if the inhabitants accept, then they are not to be killed, but to be forced into labor (Deut 20:11). If they don't accept, they are to be attacked, all the men killed, and the women taken "as booty" (Deut 20:12-14). Later, it turns out that this is not even an option for the towns within the promised land, but only the towns that "are very far away from you" (Deut 20:15).
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them" (Deut 20:16-17).
Joshua 1-12 then tells the story of this holy war to the west of the Jordan River.
While much happens just as stipulated in Deuteronomy 20, there are exceptions to the "total annihilation" stipulation.
The first town to be conquered is Jericho. Joshua sends spies ahead to check things out. The two men go to the house of a prostitute named Rahab. She ends up hiding and protecting them (Josh 2:14), and so she and her family are protected when the rest of Jericho is annihilated (Josh 6:22-25).
The second exception was that after the conquests of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants of Gibeon tricked Joshua into letting them live by pretending to be from far away and therefore exempt from the necessity of annihilation. Joshua made a treaty with them before discovering that in fact they were among the peoples he was supposed to annihilate, but now, having made the treaty, he had to keep his promise (Josh 9).
And, finally, in some of the battles, mention is made of survivors who escape to fortified towns (e.g., Josh 10:20); and by the time the Israelites stop fighting and divide the land, there is still land that was intended but has not yet been conquered (Josh 13:1-7).
So it seems that total annihilation was intended, to help protect the Iraelites from being tempted into worshipping the wrong gods, but this total annihilation was not quite accomplished. There are lots of hints that down the road, the Israelites do end up succumbing to such temptation, and so we'll have to read on to see if this in fact does end up happening.
But for now, the holy war has gained the Israelites (much of) their promised land.
So, how are we to read this story of war and annihilation?
One way is to read it literally: when you are obedient to God, and you fight a war and win, it proves that God is on your side. If you lose, it is because God is angry at you because of some flaw in your obedience to God (see Josh 7). So, might makes right because having superior might is a sign of God's favor. Unfortunately, I think that this is an all-too-common interpretation of war in general.
But are there metaphorical ways to read it that are less problematic? link

Von Rad offers a way ofe expaininbg all this, here