Should priests of God receive instructions from politicians? Can a political leader provide spiritual leadership? Does every priest always know what spiritual interventions his land needs? Is every political leader inherently inferior in spiritual matters to every priest?
Joshua was the political leader of the Israelites after Moses, as they marched from Egypt towards the Promised Land. When they approached Jericho, God gave Joshua the battle strategy, part of it involving a mobilization of the priests to carry the Ark around the city of Jericho a number of times over the following days (Joshua 6:1-5). Promptly, Joshua “called the priests and said to them, ‘Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the LORD’” (v.6, NKJV).
It was the priests who were going to carry the Ark. Carrying the Ark was their sphere of duty, not Joshua’s. Why did God ‘bypass’ them to send that instruction through someone else, rather than directly to them? Why did God convey that battle-strategy through their political/military leader? Should Joshua have been summoning the priests, or it should have been the other way round?
If I were any of those priests, would I have ‘submitted’ to such a ‘relegation,’ even if it was ultimately in the interest of our common good? What if those priests had refused, insisting that they were waiting until God should also speak to them, ‘directly,’ even if they knew that it was something to be done? What if Joshua had said, “Well, I am the one whom God found fit to give the revelation, so I can as well carry the Ark, or otherwise decide on who should”? What if…
The priestly protocols that guided the operations in the Temple and still do (choirs, orders of priestly service, etc.) largely came through David (2 Chronicles 8:14; 1 Chronicles 25:1; Luke 1:8-9), yet he was a political leader; one leader who straddled both offices of priest and king, so he could well be priestly as well as be king. He built altars and performed sacrifices unto God, as duly instructed from the Lord (2 Samuel 24:18,25). Not every king could do that. His predecessor and boss actually lost the throne for the same action, which was accounted to that one as a terrible blunder (1 Samuel 13:12-14). David’s son, Solomon, did not fill both roles as his father. He built a temple, yes, but he was not a priest to the extent that his father was.
And Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people (Joshua 3:6).
Had that been me, might my proud ears have allowed the ‘trespassing’ Joshua, giving me instructions on my spiritual roles, even though in the common interest of our land? What defines the red line that should not be crossed, the oil on each or the arrogance of one? Had I been any of those anointed priests …
I say a resounding amen to the prayer.
Joshua like Moses was not just a political leader like our political leaders today. He was ALSO a spiritual leader appointed by God, not elected. So he was recognized to have both political and spiritual oversight. The context can not be compared to our context where leaders vie for office, campaign, and often bribe their way into office with no direct involvement of God at all.
Amen 🙏. A deeply thought provoking piece Prof. Thank you for sharing
May the Lord grant me a listening ear to hear God’s voice speaking through the throne; and forgive me if I have offended his voice before.
This in itself is a clear instruction to the priesthood, a balanced theology.
Thanks, The Preacher