Part V: Succession/Inheritance (31-33)
71 COURAGE AND DOMINION And the LORD shall do unto them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and unto the land of them, whom he destroyed. And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you. Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou must go with this people unto the land which the LORD hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it. And the LORD, he it is that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed (Deut. 31:4-8).
The theocentric focus of this law is God as the sanctions-bringer in history. As such, we would expect this passage to be part of the fourth section of the book. Yet those commentators who have seen a five-part pattern in Deuteronomy identify chapter 31 as the beginning of the fifth section.(1)
Kline treats this part of the book as Moses' last testament. This is a reasonable way to look at it. The passage begins with Moses' announcement of his great age: "And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan" (v. 2). In this transition passage, Moses spoke first to the nation, but then spoke to Joshua. He was in the process of transferring his mantle of leadership to Joshua. The mark of this leadership was courage.
This was a land law. It invoked the immediately concluded wars against the kings on the wilderness side of the Jordan River. It referred to the immediate conquest. The assurance of specific victory over Canaan was tied to God's promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:16).
"Forward . . . March!" Deuteronomy is the book of covenantal inheritance. The Book of Joshua marks a new covenant: the book of the conquest. First, God gave title to the Promised Land to Israel. Then Joshua leads the people to impose the transfer. What Moses told Joshua in his last testament, the representatives of the nation repeated to Joshua after Moses' death. I cite the whole passage in order to prove my point. The language of courage is the language of conquest.
Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest (Josh. 1:1-9).
Notice the judicial frame of reference: "Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest" (v. 7).
The imagery here is based on a battlefield formation. The leader marches at the head of his troops. He is out in front. He is the point man, fully visible to the enemy and the target of the archers. Normally, this would be suicidal. The senior military commander stays at the rear, protected by his troops. But this image is different. The leader is visible as the point man. At his side there is no one. His officers and troops are behind him. This leader has his flanks unprotected. He can be blindsided if his troops fail to rush forward to protect him. Yet this passage indicates that the warrior who marches at the head of the army is not to look to the right or the left around him -- at his undefended flanks, in other words. He is not to worry about his flanks. He is to keep his eyes on the enemy who is in front of him. He is also not to look to the right or the left as a way to escape. He is to march forward, into the valley of the shadow of death. He shall fear no evil.
On what basis was Joshua expected to take this forward position? Only because God was serving as his senior commander. If Joshua and Israel pleased God, they would not have to worry about their flanks. They could march forward in safety and therefore great confidence. How could they please God? By obedience. God had promised to impose the negative sanctions of the law on their enemies. "And the LORD shall give them up before your face, that ye may do unto them according unto all the commandments which I have commanded you" (Deut. 31:5). This is why the people repeated Moses' words to Joshua: he was to stay within the narrow boundaries of God's law. His flanks and the army's would be undefended apart from obedience to the law.
The military strategy appropriate to such a formation is called a frontal assault. It assumes that the army can penetrate the enemy's defenses by overpowering them. Such a strategy assumes overwhelming offensive superiority. It is not an appropriate tactic for a smaller army, let alone a guerilla band. Only if a smaller army has either some remarkable superiority in weaponry or the advantage of surprise should it attempt a frontal assault. Yet the language of Joshua 1 points to a frontal assault.
Contrary to higher critics of the Bible, Israel had a very large army. In addition, God was on their side. A frontal assault was the appropriate formation. It would strike terror into the hearts of their enemies. Here was a leader who did not fear the arrow, the stone, the javelin, or the chariot.
Narrow Is the Way The covenant's sanctions are positive and negative. In a war, the positive sanctions for one army are negative sanctions for its rival. God had already promised them victory over future enemies that had temporarily conquered them. "And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee" (Deut. 30:7). How much more would He impose negative sanctions on the Canaanites, whose prophetic time had come (Gen. 15:16)!
The success of Israel's military strategy depended on ethics. Achan's secret theft of Jericho's banned goods led to the defeat of Israel at Ai (Josh. 7). The stoning of Achan, his family, and his animals led to the victory over Ai (Josh. 8). Yet even in this case, the strategy was not based on a frontal assault. It was based on deception, whose success in turn rested on Israel's previous defeat. Achan's sin had altered the army's strategy.
The path to victory was a path of righteousness. City by city, Israel was to conquer Canaan. The nation was told to obey the law -- all of the law -- in order to achieve military victory. The path that mattered most was the ethical path. The law hedged them in. They were not to stray outside the boundaries of the law: neither to the right or the left.
In a sense, this is also a matter of military strategy: the massed formation. The offensive army overpowers its enemy because it applies massive force to one section of the enemy's defensive line. The offensive army seeks a breakthrough in the enemy's line, which will split the enemy force into two uncoordinated and fearful smaller armies. This is the strategy of divide and conquer. The enemy commander keeps reserves for just this purpose: to send them into the breach in the line. To keep his army from breaking apart, he risks the lives of his reserves.
The massed formation of God's army is also a tightly knit formation. The wedge of the leader and his troops smashes into the enemy's defensive line, hopefully at its weakest point. The ethical imagery of the straight and narrow path is tied to the imagery of a military formation. The offensive army does not dissipate its force by spreading across the battlefield. It concentrates its force like a battering ram. This is the imagery of the narrow path. When covenant-keepers wander off this path into sins of all kinds, the army of the Lord is weakened and scattered across the battlefield. It is men's adherence to God's law that keeps them in a tight formation. Jesus warned: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:13-14).
Optimism and Victory The language of this passage is military language. This was appropriate: Moses was passing leadership to Joshua, who would soon lead the nation into battle. Joshua was to be above all a military leader. Almost all of the Book of Joshua deals with the conquest and the subsequent partitioning of the inheritance. Moses did his best to impart to the next generation the confidence which his own generation had lacked. It was their fear of their enemies' sanctions and their insufficient of fear of God's sanctions that had kept them wandering for four decades in the wilderness. Moses had spent the final third of his life herding fearful sheep who kept wandering off ethically.
The context of this passage is the coming invasion of Canaan. Their confidence was to rest on their adherence to God's commandments (v. 5) and His promise to previous generations (v. 7). Man's obedience and God's promises are linked covenantally.(2) But if this is true of the life-and-death matter of warfare, how much more is it true of the other areas of life!
This passage sets forth a fundamental principle of entrepreneurship: knowledge is not sufficient; there must also be action. A person who has accurate knowledge of the future must act in terms of this knowledge if this knowledge is to give him an advantage over those who do not know. In fact, knowledge without action can place the person in a worse position. He is paralyzed with fear of the future, which is why he cannot act. The person who is unaware of the future but who makes decisions that will produce profits in the future is better off than the person who knew but feared to act. Ignorance is bliss compared to knowledge accompanied by fear-induced paralysis.
Shakespeare places into Julius Caesar's mouth the phrase, "Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once." The man who fears the future is at a disadvantage with man who sees it and does not fear it. He may even be at a disadvantage with man who does not see it and does not fear it. The fear of failure hampers the righteous man. This insight is part of the West's folk wisdom. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." "He who hesitates is lost." But, of course, there are counter-insights, such as "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush." Perhaps it is, but is it worth three? At some expected ratio, a bird in hand should be let loose so as to make possible a two-hand capture of a bushel full of birds.
The man who knows the future but fails to act on his knowledge is like a race track tout who knows which horse will win but neither bets nor convinces anyone else to bet on that horse. His knowledge will not affect the pre-race betting odds, nor will it make him any money. Or he is like a military commander who knows where his enemy's forces are, but fails to deploy his forces to take advantage of this knowledge.
Similarly, a definition of entrepreneurship that rests on knowledge of the future alone, without capital invested in terms of this knowledge, is a useless definition. It is not enough to know the ratio of present prices to future prices. The entrepreneur must have capital available to him that will enable him to buy present goods or sell future goods in order to take advantage between the actual ratio in the future and today's ratio, which reflects investors' inaccurate knowledge of the future. He must also have the courage of his convictions. He must put his money where his mind is. (Not where his mouth is, however. A wise entrepreneur will keep his mouth shut, since by opening it, he gives away valuable information that may affect the market's present/future price ratio, which he plans to take advantage of.)
The presence of optimism is not sufficient. There must also be accurate knowledge. Paul writes of the Jews' condemnation by God as having been the product of zeal without knowledge (Rom. 9:31-10:4). The zeal engendered by courage can lead to destruction as readily as knowledge without zeal. In military affairs, there has to be a willingness to engage the enemy. In entrepreneurial affairs, there has to be a willingness to engage a future different from what one's competitors imagine it will be.
Conclusion Moses gave to Joshua a command: be courageous. This meant that Joshua must move forward, not being deflected by concerns about what was going on at his right or his left. The same is true of our adherence to God's law. If we stick to God's revealed pathway, veering neither to the right nor the left, we shall be victorious. God will stand with us for His own glory, delivering His enemies into our hands.
Moses made it plain that action was required. Risks had to be taken. By whom? By Joshua, above all. His courage under fire would set the pattern for his men. It was a good sign that the Israelites commanded Joshua to be courageous after Moses' death. It indicated that they were ready to receive the long-promised inheritance. Title to the land had been transferred to them by Moses by the second reading of the law. Now it was time to collect.
Footnotes:
1. Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 19630, pp. 135-49; Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), ch. 5.
2. See Chapter 10.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com