Just a quick note here, quoting from Jeffrey J. Niehaus' essay, "The Warrior and His God: The Covenant Foundation of History and Geography," in A.R. Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker, Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context.

Niehaus teaches Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and I found the conclusion to his essay fascinating.

To quote (p. 312):

"It becomes obvious that certain war practices and theological assertions were common to Assyria and Israel--and indeed I suggest, throughout the ancient Near East.  In both cases the king or leader marched at the command of his god.  He always proceeded with the help of his god, because (supposedly) a trusting relationship existed between them.  One way in which a god might, and often did, help his elect king in battle was to interfere with the 'heart' or the psyche of the enemy, so as to work his defeat."

In the New Testament Paul uses military imagery to depict the spiritual warfare with which Christians are to engage.  Instead of following the spirit of the age, and "de-militarizing" the language of the New Testament (and indeed of the Old Testament too), why not simply trust that such language might be there for a reason?  God is indeed involved in "battle"--and Christians are to put on various bits of "armor" (Ephesians 6) to enable them to resist the evil one, and to advance God's purposes.  We engage in battle too--but always through being in Christ.  As Christians we proclaim the gospel, trusting and praying that the gospel itself is the power of God to "interfere" with the hearts of listeners.  We are engaged in sharing the gospel in order to "defeat" the non-Christian--but it is a defeat which inextricably is followed by the "victory"/resurrection of the new person, whose heart has been changed by the power of the gospel.

• Prev
• Next