As the people near the Jordan and prepare to enter the land, God’s chosen leader send’s spies to gather intelligence. Unlike forty years earlier, when Moses had sent out twelve spies publicly, this mission will be very different. This will not be the people’s spies, but the leader’s personal spies. Joshua was not about to relive that. He secretly chose and sent two men with instructions to concentrate on Jericho. In Joshua 2 we can follow this mission.

The differences are evident from the beginning. In the first mission twelve men were chosen, one from each tribe, to spy out the land and bring back information on the people, the land and the strength of the cities. The tribes knew spies had gone out and saw this group as being their eyes and ears on the ground. They believed their report was for the purpose of determining whether they should try to take the land. This time was different—the people had nothing to do with picking, or sending out the men. They were hand selected by the man who would lead them into the land—a man, who had been one of the twelve earlier spies, and had been one of two not cowed by what they found. The people were not to be allowed to interfere with plans and were to be given no excuse for disobedience.

This mission also differs because he only sent two men. The earlier group of twelve was unwieldy, but probably necessary because they were to spy out the whole land. This small band was to concentrate on the first target—Jericho. With two there is less chance of the herd mentality when it comes time to report. Joshua was not going to risk another forty years in the desert. Another benefit of sending two—the two were able to get into a city and speak to the people. Twelve strangers showing up are likely to set off alarms so the earlier party probably had to stay outside the cities, simply seeing their strength from without. They had no way to determine the morale of the enemy as this smaller detachment did.

The conclusion of the spy mission is the most telling. While the first mission concluded with fear that they would be unable to take the land. This smaller, more direct, secret mission reported to Joshua: “The Lord has surely given the whole land into our hands; all the people are melting because of us.”

How quickly things change. Shortly after the greatest delivery they could imagine in which the very walls of a strong city had crumbled before them, the people now questioned God’s motives. Even their ordained leader lay on his face asking God, “Why did you bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us?”

After forty years of wandering the people had finally crossed the Jordan. God did a great miracle by stopping the river, during flood stage. This boosted the morale of Israel and demoralized the enemy. The enemy had already expressed fear of Israel and their God in the words of Rahab the harlot: “When we heard of [your conquests] our hearts melted and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God of heaven above and on the earth below” (Joshua 2:11).

Their first campaign had been Jericho, one of the strongest defended cities of ancient Canaan. Rather than humanly besieging the city, they marched around the city once a day for six days then retired to their camp. On the seventh they walked around the city seven times blowing trumpets and shouting. Siege work was so difficult that it often took years to subdue a well defended and supplied city. A perimeter would be set up to keep out supplies and starve the city into either submission or a weakened state, for a costly assault. Not this time. God handed the city to Israel in a week. But how quickly people change when the situation changes.

Before assaulting their next target, Ai, Israel got proud. Spies reported they had no need of the whole people, only two or three thousand were needed. This force was dispatched but was quickly routed by the enemy. Now rather than asking what had prompted God’s punishment, they longed to be back on the other side of the Jordan (Joshua 7:7). We do the same thing in our own lives today.

We get wrapped up in situations and allow the moment to dictate our faith and feelings about God. When things go well, we feel warmly about God and his love for us. When things go wrong we quickly question God’s love and forget all the good things. God’s response to Joshua is something we need to hear, “Stand up! What are you doing on your face? Israel has sinned . . .” (Joshua 7:10f). Yes, it would be good if God would speak to us in this way and I don’t doubt that he can and that with some he does, but he can also speak to us through this story and his words to Joshua.

When the situations around us turn bad it is acceptable for people of faith to question our conduct and wonder if God is punishing us. If we find something, the situation can lead us to repentance.  The problem comes when we doubt God’s love and wallow in self-pity. Scripture tells us, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ dies for us” (Romans 5:8). Paul goes on to tell us in Romans 8:38f that nothing can separate us from God’s love. Even when he punishes us it is as sons being corrected. God is not vindictive to his children; everything done is for their good—everything done is for our good. When you see the world pressing in, remember that his love will not falter and He will be there. He will permit things in your life to rebuke, to correct, to teach, or strengthen you. Rather than falling on your face in fear and trembling, fall on your face in awe that God loves and will never leave you. Keep in mind that you have something they did not have. You have God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, who came and died for you t rise again. Such apocalyptic love is all consuming and unwavering—never changing faltering. Rest in it and thank him for it. Express your love to him in the darkest moments and remind yourself of the good things He has done.

The titles we give to God—Eternal God, Uncaused Cause, Unmoved First Mover, Loving Father—attempt to scratch the surface of an infinitesimally complex subject. Often they are the very cause of problems in our discussions. Because of nuance defining God in human words is bound to fail. We describe Him, but only in part. We speak of Him and his attributes but he escapes definition. The greatest barrier to defining God is transcendence. Regardless of being formed in His image, God is so different from us that our greatest efforts and deepest thoughts prove inadequate. Read the rest of this entry »

During my devotional time I was reading 1 Peter and came across a passage that I have read and studied thousands of times. This time it especially stood out to me because of an experience last week with a young man who was questioning his salvation and fearful that he might be lost. I was able through talking to him and praying with him to see his faith and hear what he was trusting in so that I could show him several passages that help with assurance. He left feeling much relieved, but I guess it tuned my ear to other passages of assurance. When I read a certain passage I had to stop and chew on it. Read the rest of this entry »

The balance between law and grace is precarious. Some insist that the law must remain in effect in the New Testament to restrain licentiousness. They insist on the place of the law and reinterpret it to work in line with Christ. Others look at morality itself and see it as a bane of humanity and would declare believers free to live as they please, excess and all. Neither position is supported by scripture. Like most issues, the truth of scripture is a middle way: the law was fulfilled in Christ. We are, by grace, now equipped to live a truly holy life—not fearful of the law but animated by the Spirit. Read the rest of this entry »

This last week I found myself thinking about forgiveness. This subject had come up in a conversation with a young woman who had recognized within herself an unwillingness to forgive. I assured her that forgiveness can be one of the hardest things we as Christians are called to do. During the discussion she made a very profound admission that if she forgives it feels as if the persons who hurt her are getting away with it. This is natural, and it was this side of the issue that got me chewing on the subject. Read the rest of this entry »

Benjamin Franklin, as Poor Richard, intones, “A stitch in time saves nine.” This saying means that regular maintenance can prevent much more expensive problems later. As a kid, mom took us to the Army Navy Store for school pants. The denim was heavier than was available at the department stores so the pants lasted longer. When trying them on, you took care not to drop anything because the knees would barely bend—if it hit the floor it stayed there. These pants were meant to last! When we outgrew them, we would hand them down to a little brother or cut the legs off to make shorts. Even these herculean pants would occasionally fall prey to the adventures of a young boy. Mom, not about to buy another pair of pants until absolutely necessary, would sew and patch them. The earlier she caught the tear, the better. If it didn’t get patched quickly the tear could get worse. Childhood involved a closet full of clothing in various stages of repair. When they got too ratty to patch, the fragments would find new life as part of a quilt. Read the rest of this entry »

The Historicism interview on KGFT went well. There were only a few callers, not many questions. Ted and I discussed another possible show in two weeks. Hopefully people were able to understand what we discussed and chew on it. My way of handling eschatology is always strange for others. Usually someone tries to convince you their position is the only right one and insist you accept it as such. Don’t get me wrong, I believe mine is right (at least in the areas where I have drawn firm conclusions) and the others are wrong—dispensational eschatology more than most. However, I know that salvation does not hinge upon any doctrine of end-times. Salvation is tied to th person of Jesus: who he is and what he accomplished; estimates of his future action are little more than speculation when taken beyond their purpose of inspiring hope. So it does not bother me when others find my view questionable or inferior to another. I worry more about one who, after one discussion or seminar, suddenly claims to adopt my view. To be a Christian is to be a Berean—searching the Word to discern truth. That requires far more than attending one seminar, holding one discussion or reading one book. The search for truth is not found overnight nor usually found without much toil and effort.

Too many simply swallow and never question what we are taught. Often this is from the fear of being deceived. It is easier to keep one’s mind closed than to carefully police the garbage that can find its way in. There is an old saying: “Mind’s are like parachutes, they only work when open.” I agree to a point; as a former paratrooper, I’ll tell you that far worse than a parachute that did not open is one that opens too far—it can foul up your reserve or worse. The same is true with our minds, we must open them to learn but always have filters in place. This means teachings received from anyone—elder, pastor, priest or pope—must be filtered. All teachers have an agenda, sometimes it is good for the student and other times it is not. For Christians our filter is the Word of God; our goal is truth. All claims of truth are filtered through the proven Word. This demands we be scholars of the Word. Not all Christians will preach, teach or lead a congregation, but to be a disciple of Christ is to be a biblical scholar. It is our universal duty.

For those of you who have an interest in eschatology, check out my eschatology site in the links under pages. You will see a link named Eschatology and it will take you there. I have posted a new page on that site name My View on End-Times.

The headlines scream at us, invoking fear, loathing, anger or pity. It matters little what the headline reads, the feelings produced are palpable. We hear of those hurt, or those who did the hurting. Other headlines portray a world where nature itself seems to oppose mankind. Natural disasters and catastrophes abound. For centuries people have asked the Question of Evil: why does a loving, all powerful, good God allow bad things to happen? Christians must come to grips with this question if we are to provide answers to a hurting world.

This question gets asked enough to make one want to scream. Many o history’s most outspoken atheists came to their religion (Yes, Atheism is a religion, requiring as much faith as Christianity.) through this question. Seeing suffering and injustice—the poor starving, the greedy prospering, the innocent hurt and the criminal unpunished—many conclude that if God exists he must be an uncaring or capricious ogre unworthy of worship. From Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin, to Stephen Hawking the question of evil has been pervasive and influential, causing many to reject faith in God.

If God is loving and all-powerful, it stands to reason that such a powerful being could stop evil and such a loving being would choose to do so. This makes sense, but like most things there is more below the surface. Before we consider an answer to the question, let’s dig into the question itself a bit.

The Christian God is defined as personal, loving, active, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. With such a God it is assumed that no evil should befall man. Since it is obvious that bad things happen several assumptions are made by the skeptic:

God is not loving because he doesn’t care to act;
God is not active because he chooses to sit back rather than act;
God is not omnipotent because he can’t act;
God is not omnipresent because he is not present to act; or
God is not omniscient because he is unaware action is needed.

Acceptance of any of these is a rejection of the traditionally held view of God and often leads to a total rejection of Theism.

I have taken the usual arguments and expanded them giving the skeptic the benefit. As you read these, notice one similarity—all considered options assume God is deficient. All responsibility for evil and the stopping of it is placed solely on God. No responsibility is placed on wayward man and none will be because the idea of personal responsibility and judgment scares the atheist more than a prayer meeting. Also notice that the skeptic here makes a straw-man out of God: redefining him from the imagination of the skeptic until he is easily knocked over.

One of these is the Achilles heel for either faith or disbelief. Most assume the ability to act and only question the motive for not acting. Can a God who allows these evils truly be called loving? If so, why does he allow evil to happen? There are usually two contexts in which this discussion comes up: harm befalling a perceived innocent (moral evil) and natural disaster (natural evil).

The most common example of moral evil, because they are the most heart-rending, are children hurt by wayward adults. Our hearts break for the hurt child and our blood boils for the animal that hurt them. It is natural to assume a loving God would, should, must step in to stop this from happening. If he doesn’t love enough to stop this then does he love at all, or does he even exist?

There are two sides to consider—the one (s) hurt and one (s) doing the hurting—deliverance and justice. As I write this understand that I worked two years as a prison guard where a majority of inmates were sexual offenders. These people were convicted of horrible, unspeakable acts, often perpetrated on children. I say this to alleviate any idea that I am what we used to call a “hug-a-thug.” I have for years been a supporter of forced castration for sexual predators and have no problem expanding the death penalty to include the most notorious of these.

With that said, I must ask, who is innocent? According to scripture no one, not even children are innocent. Children are not accountable for their sin, but they are still born in sin. Every person born is a sinner who needs the grace of God through Christ to be saved. A loving God would impartially love the victim and the perpetrator. This is not to say that God sees the child as morally equivalent to the predator, or that the child deserves to be hurt, but that he sees neither as beyond his love. God loves the victim, the perpetrator and everyone involved in both sides of the case. While the way we would handle the event is based on vengeance the way he handles it is motivated by love—just like everything else he does.

As an all-knowing being God sees much more than the event. He sees the unfolding drama around it: parents and the impact it will have on them, the results in the perpetrator’s life when caught, etc. God acts out of love and knows what will result from stopping the action and from permitting it to play out. Don’t overlook the fact that many children in harm’s way are found before the harm is done. If we are to blame God for the bad we must thank him for the good. Omnipotence, among other things includes the power to bring good from evil. It also includes the right to decide if evil is to be permitted in order to bring out good, or if the evil must be restrained.

Of course, we have to ask if God is then liable. If I saw a child being harmed and decided not to help or intercede I would expect to be prosecuted. Does this mean that we can prosecute God? Of course not! If I fail to act it is through cowardice, apathy, or weakness. God on the other hand works in our lives through everything including the worst evils. He is active healing wounded bodies and minds. God continues to work behind the scenes to bring good out of the evil that a sick twisted individual decided to do.

Couldn’t God have taken action to stop this person? Yes, and as I said before at times he does. But the hard fact is that sometimes he does not. If he chose he could strike the perpetrator dead. Face it! This is what we all want to see when asking this question. We want to see bolts of lightning falling on sexual offenders even before victim is hurt. To be honest, I’d pay money to see that and so would you. We know we are sinners and the wonderful part of the gospel is that “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” God is not going to strike someone dead for looking at porn. He is not going to strike someone dead for cheating on their taxes, or lying to get out of a ticket. These are just a few of the many possible sins that God forgives and saves us from when we come to Christ.

People asking the question of evil when a child gets hurt are not thinking that God should strike the perpetrator down after the action, but want God to intercede and strike this person before the action. What would life be like if God had a practice of striking us dead before sin? Remember, sin is sin. Scripture equates murder, adultery and cheating as equal sins rightfully condemned by God and deserving of death. Perhaps God would say of you: “Someday you are going to cheat on your taxes, so I am going to strike you dead now to prevent it.” He would be within his rights as God to do so. He could wipe every man, woman and child off the earth and been perfectly justified. When looking from this view we should all thank God that he doesn’t take such preemptive action. God mercifully allows the vilest persons to make decisions while lovingly reaching out to them. Should God have stopped the action? Should God have struck this person dead? Since you and I are on this side of omniscience we can’t know the answer. We have to trust his decision to be the most loving and the most just.

What about natural disasters? When Florida underwent a terrible hurricane season with terrible destruction many were asking why a loving God did not stop this from happening. One evangelist muddied the waters blaming the catastrophe on state support for homosexuality. Do you want to know why Florida gets hit with hurricanes? It sticks out into the ocean—nothing more scientific or prophetic than that. Do you want to know why hurricanes do so much damage there? The whole state sits only a few feet above sea level. When you choose to build on the beach you end up swimming in your living room eventually. No divine judgment needed—its cause is human misjudgment. Was New Orleans so damaged by Katrina because of Mardis Gras? Actually it so badly damaged because so much of the city sits below sea level. Should God be blamed for Florida or New Orleans?

So why doesn’t God stop hurricanes from happening? Hurricanes have an important function; like forest fires they are part of the system of renewal. As forests get thicker they start to choke out some important plants and the whole ecosystem can be thrown out of whack. Only a fire (or logging) can clear these areas out to allow those plants to come back and the ecosystem to balance out. You either remove the trees or nature does. The same happens along the shore lines. Junk piles up on the beach—from the land and the sea. Hurricanes come through and wipe everything away leaving a clean slate—shorelines are altered, new habitat created and old habitat rejuvenated.

If you know hurricanes are going to happen and it’s just a matter of time till the big one, then aren’t people to blame when they put themselves in harm’s way. Must God reorder creation to suit man’s speculative endeavors? Does your desire for a beach front house trump God’s plan for creation? Stop blaming God when a hurricane knocks your windows out—move.

God is a loving God. He is also just and sovereign. He has the right to decide how to mete out justice and when to be merciful and gracious. He is not to be blamed when a person does a senseless act or when people act foolishly and put themselves in harm’s way. The question of evil is really an effort to redefine God in our own image. If God is as good and loving as me then he should agree with my priorities. Get over yourself, you are not God!