HINDERING FAITH

IRON CHARIOTS – IMPENETRABLE WAR MACHINES?

Recently in an introductory sermon on the Book of Judges, our pastor briefly touched on Judges 1:19, and suggested that this verse causes much controversy. The verse is used by atheists to prove that God is either not all-powerful, or capricious in keeping his promises to the nation of Israel. A cursory look at a number of internet sites indicated that many of the accusations about God’s powerlessness against iron chariots result from reading the verse in the King James Version.

“And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

The doubters of God’s omnipotence clearly identify the ‘he’ in the verse as the LORD. That this is incorrect is obvious from the language of the previous two verses, where the tribe of Judah is referred to in terms of the original sons of Jacob – hence verse 17 – “And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites…” Obviously the writer is personifying the tribes as their founder. In a similar fashion, the ‘he’ in verse 19 refers again to Judah. The NIV brings clarity to this:

“The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.”

While this translation is more easily understood, the controversy is still unanswered. Two possible reasonings premise the atheist’s argument:

1. The LORD’s presence with the men of Judah seems to underlie their victory in the hill country. Yet his presence (and thus his power) appears to be ineffective against the (people of the) plains. Thus God’s power is limited by the strength of men’s weapons. (Some have argued that this failure is in stark contradiction with Isaiah 54:17a “no weapon forged against you will prevail”)
2. If it is to be argued that the LORD was NOT with them on the plains, he obviously abandoned them in their efforts. Hence his presence is unpredictable, and God is thus untrustworthy.

Of the above two premises, the first is to be rejected immediately. The scriptural evidence for the omnipotence of God is overwhelming. At the very outset, is it likely that the God who created the heavens and the earth could be thwarted by iron chariots?!? The second premise, that the LORD was not with them on the plains, is the only reasonable explanation for their failure to drive the people from the plains. The atheist’s conclusion about the character of God, however, fails to examine the context of the conquest of the Promised Land. A number of components of the context deserve further investigation.

1. GOD’S TERMS FOR CONQUEST

Shortly after the exodus from Egypt, God laid out the plans of conquest, in a passage explaining the role of an angel He would send ahead of them, and of the responsibilities of the people. This is revealed in Exodus 23: 20-33. While the entire passage is relevant to the discussion, several verses in particular outline the strict expectations God had for the people of Israel.

“22If you listen carefully to what he (the angel) says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces….27I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run….29But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. 30Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land…31…I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.”

These instructions are reiterated in Exodus 34:10-17 where God establishes a covenant with the nation of Israel, and has Moses chisel out two stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments. A number of clear principles come out of these passages:

1. God’s people needed to listen to God and whole-heartedly obey him.
2. God would in response to the obedience of his people, go before them to “wipe out” their enemies.
3. The nation of Israel was to “demolish”, or “drive out” the inhabitants of the land, and not let any of them live in the land that they conquered.
4. They were to completely eradicate any vestige of the conquered peoples’ religions.
5. Finally, this conquest would not all happen at once – rather it would be staged over longer periods of time – i.e. as God would lead them in the initial conquest, they could expect to hear from Him regarding the next and final stages of the conquest. This is inferred from point 1 and 2 above. In other words, to advance to the next stage of conquest, the people would have to listen to God to know his timing, and be obedient to that timing, to ensure that God would go before them. That his presence was essential is emphasized in v.31 – “I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.”

How did the people respond to this set of instructions? The first example of their response comes in Numbers chapter 13. In verse 1&2, “The LORD said to Moses, ”Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.” Thus God announced the chosen time for this stage of conquest. Consequently Moses, in obedience to God’s command, sent out a representative from each ancestral tribe, on a 40 day journey of exploration to “18See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many.”

Principle 1 (above) had been enacted – God announced the time, and with the subsequent obedience of the nation, we would expect Principle 2 to follow. But, despite a positive view about the potential of the land (v.27), all of the representatives except Caleb and Joshua expressed fear about the enemies they would face, and concluded that the conquest would fail (vv.29-33). This viewpoint was, remarkably, endorsed by the nation without question. They had completely forgotten the principles of Exodus 23 & 34; they had no confidence in God’s power. Only Caleb and Joshua were able to recall God’s promises: 14:8”If the LORD is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will swallow them up. Their protection is gone, but the LORD is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

But, their challenge to trust God fell on deaf ears. God subsequently delayed the conquest for 40 years – the time during which each one who grumbled against God would meet their end in the desert, where they would die (vv32-35). In response, they announced they would begin the conquest anyway. Moses warns them again, that they are failing to follow the Principles God outlined for conquest success. 41”But Moses said, “Why are you disobeying the LORD’s command? This will not succeed! 42Do not go up because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the LORD, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.” And so they were soundly defeated.

Reconsidering the atheist’s 2^nd argument at the beginning of the discussion then, it is clear that there could be a possibility that God would not be with the nation in a particular battle, and as a result, they would not be successful. But this withdrawal of his presence was not capricious, nor would it be unpredictable. God clearly laid out the terms or principles governing his presence with them and exercise of power on their behalf. If they did not to listen for God’s direction and timing, and struck out on their own, they could count on failure. Thus were the terms of the Covenant God made with the nation of Israel.

During the 40 years in the desert, an example of the Covenant principles at work is recorded in Numbers 21:1-3

“When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. 2Then Israel made this vow to the LORD: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.”3The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah. (meaning Holy Destruction)”

The book of Numbers has numerous statements and explanations to the people of Israel about the expectations of the Covenant God was making with them. For example, in chapter 7:

1”When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…larger and stronger than you – 2And when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy…17You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” 18But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharoah and to all Egypt. 19…The LORD your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. 22The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. “

This essentially reiterates the terms set out in Exodus – if the people listened to and obeyed God, He would ensure their victory. If they acted apart from him, they would meet defeat. In fact, God, in his foreknowledge, predicted to Moses in Deuteronomy 31:16-17:

“…these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, ‘Have not these difficulties come upon us because our God is not with us?”

2. IRON CHARIOTS

Was it the iron chariots that made the conquest of the plains not possible for the army of Judah? Was iron a new and mysterious commodity to the tribes of Israel? Deuteronomy 4:20 describes the land of Egypt as “the iron-smelting furnace” and Deuteronomy 8:9b describes the Promised Land as “a land where the rocks are iron and you can did copper out of the hills.” In all likelihood the chariots of Egypt could well have been made of iron. Clearly the armies of Israel had iron weapons (cf. Numbers 35:16), though at this stage, they apparently had no chariots. While on the Exodus from Egypt, they were terrified of the advancing army with its horses and chariots. God demonstrated that their fear was unfounded by completely destroying the army, and the chariots. This attitude towards chariots is repeated in Deuteronomy 20:1:

“When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.”

The inference is that regardless of the power of the enemy, there is no need to fear – God will be with them. His power is greater than any other – chariots, be they wooden or iron are irrelevant. Being obedient to God’s timing is critical to his power accompanying them.

Joshua reminds the people of Joseph, who complained that their allotment of land was not large enough, of this axiom of the Covenant. Joshua 17:15-18:

“If you are so numerous,” Joshua answered,” and if the hill country of Ephraim is too small for you, go up into the forest and clear land for yourselves there in the land of the Perrezzites and Rephaites.” 16 The people of Joseph replied, ”The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the plain have iron chariots, both those in Beth Shan and its settlements and those in the valley of Jezreel.” 17But Joshua said to the house of Joseph – to Ephraim and Manasseh- “You are numerous and very powerful. You will have not only one allotment, 18 but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have iron chariots and though they are strong, you can drive them out.”

Joshua has a clear sense of how the conquest would unfold – for the immediate future; the people of Joseph were to inhabit the hill country – even though it required work in clearing the land. Only later would the plain become available to them. At the right appointed time, the strength and iron chariots of the Canaanites would be no obstacle their takeover of the plains. With so many reminders of this strategy, why would the people of Joseph still point to iron chariots as an impossible barrier? Joshua 17: 12-13 gives a clue:

“Yet the Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.”

This action of the Manassites was in disobedience to the command given to the nation of Israel back in Numbers 7:2 where God says to them,

“When the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.”

One suspects that either God had not delivered the Canaanites (i.e. the Manassites went ahead on their own) or they failed to follow through with their part of the conquest covenant – to destroy them completely. Regardless, it is out of this experience that their fear of the chariots blinds them to power of God available to them at the appointed time, a time they were responsible to listen for and to obey.

While the above example is for a tribe other than Judah, whose experience was recorded in Judges 1:19, it is not unlikely that a fear of iron chariots ran through the entire nation. The prediction of God to Moses in Deuteronomy 31:17 where God has withdrawn his presence due to the nation’s disobedience and breaking of the covenant was:

“…Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, ‘Have not these difficulties come upon us because our God is not with us?”

Thus in Judges 1:19, while the men of Judah attributed their success in taking possession of the hill country to the presence of God, they did not see their defeat on the plains as due to the withdrawal of his presence. Instead they blamed defeat on the iron chariots of the enemy, instead of beginning the question of their defeat with whether they had listened for God’s timing, or buoyed by their hill country victory, just assumed that the plain would be theirs at the same time. In essence, it appears that they again forgot the warning of Numbers 7:22, where God specifically told them that the conquest would happen “little by little” – they would not be allowed to eliminate them all at once.

The excuse of the iron chariots is finally put to rest In Judges 4 (and the term is never found in Scripture again). This chapter begins with the nation of Israel being under the domination of the Canaanites, a result of their evil before God. The stage is set in verse 3: “Because he (Sisera) had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.” Again, the nation of Israel is held captive, not by nine hundred chariots or the army of Sisera, but by a fear that resulted out of a disobedience to God. Remarkably it was twenty years before they finally cried to the LORD for help. The prophetess Deborah outlines God’s plans to the Israelites again, following the principles of conquest given to Moses before the nation even entered the Promised Land. In vv 14-16 we see the result of strict obedience to God’s directions:

“Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men. 15 At Barak’s advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword, not a man was left.”

And of course Sisera was killed later by Jael. Deborah’s Song of Victory that follows the battle account ends with the report that the land then experienced peace for forty years. This piece of Israel’s history exposed the excuse of “iron chariots” for what it was – a failure to listen for and obey God’s instructions, a choice of fear over faith, a resigned acceptance of defeat, where conquest and victory was possible.

Why then was “chariots of iron” given as the reason for the nation’s failure to take the plains, in Judges 1:19. Why did the writer not just say, “because God was not with them”, or because, like the Israelites in Numbers 14:44 “they went up in their presumption” (that God was with them, or that it was the right time).

I suspect that the writer had a better grasp of human nature. Man always feels more justified in blaming anything other than himself, for difficulties and disasters that befall him. Better to use an enemy’s strength as an excuse that becomes more believable over time, than to do what it takes to avail oneself of the strength that God offers, against which no other power can assail. Such an excuse can account for failures at the hand of one’s own stubbornness (e.g. the Israelite nation’s failed invasion of the promised land after God told them they would be desert-bound for the next forty years), or for putting up with unnecessary negative circumstances for failure (e.g. the Israelites prior the deliverance of Deborah & Barak).

Facing one’s own disobedience, be it in failing to listen to God, or despite knowing the right thing to do, becoming impatient and doing it one’s own way, is a reluctant act for most. In many cases, people actually blame God for the state of their circumstances, rather than consider the possibility that they have let “iron chariots” stand in the way of changing the course of their life – issues that are merely straw arguments to deflect the truth of failing to listen to God and be obedient to what He reveals. “Chariots of iron” may also represent a false assessment of one’s own ability and potential, an assumption that they just don’t have whatever it requires to take on the conquest and move into the place God has prepared for them.

All of these excuses stand in the way of faith – a failure to take God at his word, perhaps born out of an inability to recognize the power of God at work in one’s life circumstances. If one cannot accept that God has acted in one’s life in the past, there will be confusion as to what part God plays in “conquest” and what responsibility lies with the individual. While people may see the desired purpose of their conquest, often they are satisfied with partial victories, never really putting in the effort to achieve the final intended victory God has made possible.

Were the men of Judah prevented from taking the plains due to the chariots of iron possessed by their enemies? With the presence of God accompanying them, chariots were never an obstacle. This truth is reflected in Psalm 20:7,

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”

In essence, the men of Judah trusted in chariots – they believed that the power of the enemy’s chariots was unassailable. Thus they were unable to trust in the name of the LORD, and were not victorious as a result. Judges 1:19 reads as it does to remind us of the limitations of our power, exercised outside of God’s will – not a limitation of the power of God.

Faith Into the Unknown

One of my favorite authors, Frederick Buechner, in a book of 'Uncollected Pieces' entitled, A Room Called Remember, examines the words of Jesus in John 14:6, where Jesus says to Thomas, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life". Addressing a seminary graduate class, his reflections on this passage address the years of preparation each student has made, to step into a vocation full of unknowns. Why would they do it? Knowing, even only remotely at best, what pitfalls and disappointments and heartaches that will come, why do they make the move into Christian ministry? I quote his reasoning at length:

"If it weren't for him, we would be somewhere else. Our business is to be the hands and feet and mouths of one who has no other hands or feet or mouth except our own. It gives you pause. Our business is to work for Christ as surely as men and women in other trades work for presidents of banks or managers of stores or principals of high schools. Whatever salaries you draw, whatever fringe benefits you receive, your recompense will be ultimately from Christ, and a strange and unforeseeable and wondrous recompense I suspect it will be, and with many a string attached to it too. Whatever real success you have will be measured finally in terms of how well you please not anyone else in all this world, but only Christ, and I suspect that the successes that please him best are very often the ones we don't even notice. Christ is the one who will be hurt, finally, by your failures. If you are to be healed, comforted, sustained the dark times that will come to you as surely as they have come to everyone else who has ever gone into this strange trade, Christ will be the one to sustain you because there is no one else in all this world with love enough and power enough to do so. It is worth thinking about.

It's a queer business that you have chosen or that has chosen you. It's the business that breaks the heart for the sake of the heart.It's a hard and chancy business whose risks are as great even as its rewards. Above all else, perhaps, it is a crazy business. It is a foolish business. It is a crazy and foolish business to work for Christ in a world where most people most of the time don't give a hoot in hell whether you work for him or not. It is crazy and foolish to offer a service that most people most of the time think they need like a hole in the head.

"We are fools for Christ's sake," Paul says. You can't put it more plainly than that. God is foolish too, he says - "the foolishness of God"- just as plainly. God is foolish to choose for his holy work in the world the kind of lamebrains and misfits and nitpickers and holier-than-thous and stuffed shirts and odd ducks and egomaniacs and milquetoasts, and closet sensualists as are vividly represented here by you and me this spring evening. God is foolish to send us out to speak hope to a world that slogs along heart-deep in the conviction that from here on out things can only get worse. To speak of realities we cannot see when the realities we see all too well are already more than we can handle. To speak of loving our enemies when we have enough time of it just loving our friends. To be all things to all people when it's usually all we can do to be anything that matters much to anybody. God is foolish to send us out on a journey for which there are no sure maps. Such is the foolishness of God.

And yet. The "and yet" of it is our faith, of course. "And yet'" Paul says, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men," which is to say that in some unsearchable way he may even know what he is doing. Praise him.

"I am the way," Jesus said. I am the road. There is not a single shoe in this place that does not contain a foot of clay, a foot that drags, a foot that stumbles; but on such feet we all seek to follow that road through a world where there are many other roads to follow, and hardly a one of them that is not more clearly marked and easier to tramp, and toward an end more known, more assured, more realizable. But we have picked this road, or have been picked by it. "I am the way," he said, "the truth and the life." We have come this far along the way. From time to time when we have our wits about us, when our hearts are in the right place, when nothing more enticing or immediate shows up to distract us, we have glimpsed that truth. From time to time when the complex and wearisome and seductive business of living doesn't get in our way, our pulses have quickened and gladdened to the pulse of that life.

By grace we are on that way. We don't want to go. We go in fear of the terrible needs of the ones we go to. We go in fear of our our own emptiness from which it is hard to believe that any word or deed of help or hope or healing can come. But we go because it is where his way leads us; and again and again we are blessed by our going in ways we can never anticipate, and our going becomes a blessing to the ones we go to because when we follow his way, we never go entirely alone, and it is always something more than just ourselves and our own emptiness that we bring.

The world is full of dark shadows to be sure, both the world without and the world within, and the road we've all set off on is long and hard and often hard to find, but the word [I give you] is trust. Trust the deepest intuitions of your own hear. Trust the source of your own gladness. Trust the road. Above all else, trust him. Trust him. Amen"

Wow! To borrow from Buechner, "It gives you pause ; it is worth thinking about." This particular passage has been especially profound to me, as I think back over the recent departure of my daughter Melanie to a two year commitment to serving Christ in overseas mission. In the midst of traveling to Europe, she asked herself at one moment (a particularly trying one, no doubt!) "What have I got myself into?!" Or in the spirit of Buechner's address to the graduates, "What is this road that I've begun to travel on, a road that is less sure than any road I've ever been on before, a road of unknowns that unlike the one I've been on, has no familiar markings, nor definite destination in site?" Thus for her, the call to Trust is paramount - an action of faith that builds faith.

And for me...really for each of us, is it not appropriate to ask what road we are on? Have I veered off the road with the unknown ending to one that is "more clearly marked, easier to tramp, more realizable?" Have I been distracted, allowed the business of living to get in the way? Have fears of the needs or of a sense of personal inadequacy in being able to meet those needs caused us to stop instead of going?

Indeed, a time for thought, and a time for prayer....and Trust. One can only imagine where the road may then lead!


Quotations from A Room to Remember by Frederick Beuchner, HarperSanFransisco, 1984. pp140-150

The Nature of Medium on the Value of Words

In the Thursday, August 21, 2008 edition of The Globe and Mail, Christie Blatchford commented on a statement by Montreal sportswriter Micheal Farber, "I have only a finite number of words in me." She concluded, "We all have a limited number of things to say, informed opinions, funny lines, quirky observations. We have only so many words in us. Do we really want to spend them on something so ephemeral as a blog?" She devotes much of her article arguing that the failure of blogs is largely due to the lack of editing - not having someone else who "had the good sense to put on the brakes." She explains, "It is not true that anyone can write...It is not true that anyone can edit themselves and sort wheat from chaff." In essense, for her, blogging is not journalism. In journalism, the writer is not entertaining the immediate response of comments that often follows in a blog. Journalism is not aimed at speedy immediacy, not a virtual conversation - rather it is more of a "carefully constructed dialogue". Perhaps the context underlying her article, the Bejing Olympics, has created an unnecessary tension between these two different styles of writing. It may be that the distinction that has been made may parallel the difference between the styles of a journalist and a novelist, or between a novelist and a historian. To say that one is more "ephemeral" than the other surely is highly subjective. Anyone who has listened to the creativity of freestyling rap would be hard pressed to dismiss it as ephemeral compared to written poetry.

Perhaps some bloggers put little thought into what they say, thus abusing the medium. But unlike reading an inflammatory editorial, to which one's only response is to either hope that a letter to the editor is published later, blogging invites comments and can create an intelligent conference that (in sifting wheat and chaff) considers more than a journalist would be able to present. And though an incredibly small number of people ever rise to the profession of journalism, blogging invites skillful writing from some excellent communicators who might otherwise not be heard.

Blogging like any other form of creative expression, has with its incredible opportunities for reaching many people, also a responsibility to have value, to communicate meaningfully and with carefully considered thought, and to recognize the importance of interactive feedback to the communication process.