Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
In seasons of reformation, distinctions become increasingly distinctive. In seasons of spiritual and moral decline, men attempt to destroy distinctions. Thus, in our egalitarian age, appreciation of every form of diversity in faith and morals is trumpeted as a virtue. This lasts until the views seeking tolerance become the dominant views. Then those who once expressed the greatest allegiance to the concept of diversity insist on the necessity of pursuing unity by silencing the views of those who foolishly sacrificed truth on the altar of toleration.
This should not surprise the believer. God by sovereign decree established an antithesis between faith and unbelief. Efforts to eradicate this antithesis ultimately serve only to emphasize it. God’s covenantal dealings guarantee that the antithesis between Christ and all that is antichrist will continue in time and eternity. In a final emphasis of His eternal decrees, the sheep will be gathered to the Lord’s right hand and the goats to His left. Then all unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire and the elect will enter eternal blessedness.
Issues in the Church
C.S. Lewis points out the covenant necessity of this truth. In That Hideous Strength, Lewis writes, “If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: The possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.”
This is why people and institutions must become more consistent with what they believe. When God’s people refuse to confront the culture and choose to compromise with it, the uniform result is that God’s people become worldly, not that the world becomes godly.
The portion of Joshua we are studying this month clearly establishes this principle. God through His elect people expands His rule over the culture of Canaan. He had commanded that there must be no attempt to effect a union between the people of the land and the Israelites. When God delivered the Jews from Egypt in order to bring them to the Promised Land, He told them, “ ‘You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods’ ” (Ex. 23:32).
Does this mean that the boundaries of God’s kingdom are so fixed that there is no hope for any that are not the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The Bible makes it clear from the beginning that such is not the case. After all, God told Abraham that he would be the father of a multitude and that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Ultimately which side of the antithesis one takes is determined by his relationship to Christ, the seed of the woman.
Thus, we come to the account of the Gibeonites. They were numbered among those who were under the decree of death. As such, they could be seen to represent all the sons of Adam who are in rebellion against God by nature. However, God’s covenant of grace declares that the covenant sanctions of death are turned aside by repentance and faith. In the very midst of executing His just wrath upon His enemies, God reveals His mercy to repentant sinners. Just as God’s covenant demands death for disobedience, the same covenant decrees that all who believe God will find mercy. We have already seen evidence of this with the salvation of Rahab and her household.
God’s mercy does not depend upon the perfect consistency of man’s faith. The Gibeonites certainly cannot be held up as examples of those with a mature faith. Their deception of the elders of Israel is evidence of this. Yet their aim was to save their lives by making covenant with God’s people. It is significant that they were content to take their place as slaves if only they could enjoy that covenant of peace.
Perhaps they were even actually converted after being exposed to this “repent or perish” sort of Gospel. Could Biblical faith be demonstrated in their willingness to endure the hatred and persecution of their former allies for the sake of the covenant? They were not too proud to accept help from Joshua, a sign of what could be real spiritual fruit.
On the other side of the antithesis you find the rest of the Canaanites. They had seen God’s mighty works for and through Israel, yet instead of surrendering they hardened their hearts. “Now therefore, be wise, O kings; be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear … lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him” (Ps. 2:10–12).
Lest men should think that salvation ultimately rests in man’s will, Joshua 11:20 reveals that the situation in Canaan fell out according to God’s eternal purpose: “For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.” He chooses some to life and passes over others unto death. To God be the glory.