Ch #14: Means to Make Grace Victorious
In Ch #13, we examined Sibbes’s idea “Grace Reigns.” In Ch 13 Sibbes expressed the claim, based upon the Scriptures, that what has begun by the Spirit (of Christ) is active and guiding / controlling, despite what we experiences as small effects, or worse. But what has begun by God will not end in abandonment or failure. Further what we see as “suffering,” and thus some mistake or setback, is actually an aspect of God at work.
In this Ch #14, Sibbes continues this point to the idea of “Victory.” Sibbes summarizes: “..Christ has undertaken this victory, yet he accomplishes it by training us up to fight his battles.” (Sibbes Ch 14, opening paragraph). It is the “yet” clause that can cause us doubt, and lead us to discouragement; and, so, our focus needs to be on the first clause.
The Sections of Ch #14 are:
- 14.1 Rules for Right Judgment
- 14.2 Keeping our Judgment Clear
- 14.3 Reasons for Seeming Lack of Progress
- 14.4 All Should Side with Christ
Section 14.1 Rules for Right Judgement
Sibbes gives here a rule similar to what is taught in many present day motivational programs: begin with the end in mind. Often this is expressed as making yourself imagine your last night on earth at, say, the age of 95, knowing (somehow) that you will die in your sleep that night. But before going to be that final time, you sit in some favorite chair, having bid farewell to all your many well-wishers and loved ones, and you spend some hours in quiet reflection on the full sweep of your life. Ask yourself now, so the motivational teaching goes, what would you like to feel like, think of, then.
Sibbes expresses this idea in less flamboyant terms but within a Spiritual framework, namely considering God’s perspective on your life “at the hour of death, when the soul gathers itself from all other things to itself. We should look back to former experience and see what is most agreeable to it, and what was the best in our worst times.” (Sibbes Ch 14.1).
This differs importantly from the motivational program of the world system. Sibbes is reminding us that it is not us that is the then judge of the richness / satisfaction of our life then spent: it is God Himself, Who gave us “life,” and His Spirit to live within us, and to guide and comfort us, through struggles as well as smooth paths, that is the One toward Whom our life is judged.
So we are encouraged to “begin with the end in mind” (a common motivational phrase) but do so with Who is Alive within and unto what Purpose?
Sibbes makes two important points on “judging” rightly the ‘now’ course based upon the ‘then’ outcome: (1) requires us looking back from the ‘then’ when true wisdom of any course is then most-clearly possible as the basis of the ‘now’ decision / judgment, and (2) recognize the inherent error that derives from self-interest that filters into such ‘now’ decision / judgment.
Wisdom ‘Then’ for Judgment ‘Now’
Sibbes say that it is the ‘then’ of maturity that “the should shall be best able to judge.” It is in such state that we can see clearly, or more clearly, “what is most agreement to it [our soul’s and its journey through our Christian life], what was best [even] in our word times.”
At those forks in the road, even the purely mental / perspective ones that wash in and through our consciousness, we being immersed in our immature selves are often deceived on the best / necessary thoughts, doings, goings. Looking at ourselves from the end of ourselves can help us through this. Again there is a popularized version of this that asks the question: what you tell your younger self if you could time-machine your way back to some critical point of your young life? This is close to the right idea but it is missing the key issues of (1) needing guidance now in some critical moment about how I will later experience the results of my present choosing, (2) Who ultimately is the judge of such choosing, (3) and what, really, is my ultimate purpose of life?
Sources of Such Wisdom for Judgment ‘Now”
Sibbes notes something we all have experience both as a receive and given of wisdom guidance, namely that the perspective of a more mature, wiser source can help navigate uncertainties and deceptions. Such reliance on the wisdom perspective of another can remove the effects of present deceptions, especially those of the multitude of neurotransmitters (cortisol, dopamine, etc.) that chemically lean into our minds.
The context of being a teenager, or raising one, perfectly illustrates the benefit of external wisdom being conveyed to one not yet having it, or seeing the beginning from the perspective of the end. And as we recall our own teenage years we can capture again how it did not often seem that which was good advice was exactly that, as one later looks back.
Sibbes then raises the issue of conflict of interest. One example, which he does not give, is that a parent could guide a teen in that parent’s self-interest, as for instance a farming family may simply want to keep their teens on the farm even when, in those circumstances, that teen has a particular gift and calling away from the life of a farmer, involving school, relocation, etc.
The specific example that Sibbes cites, which was an important contextual issue of his time (early 17th Century) was the power of the Roman Catholic church which extended from the Pope downward through Bishops and local Priests to direct people in all their various courses of action (as such may have occurred). The danger in such situation, is the giver of such ‘wise direction’ has a self-interest (again in certain cases). Many a young person over the centuries has been induced to entering the Roman Catholic church to become a priest, nun, monk, servant, etc.
14.2 Keeping Our Judgment Clear
Sec. 14.2.1 Strength of Right Judgment
Sibbes begins 14.2 by stressing the importance of a right, straight, firm judgment.
Sibbes says: “All sin is either from
- False principles, or
- Ignorance, or
- Thoughtlessness, or
- Unbelief of what is true.”
Is this Biblical? Sibbes cites Gen 3:6 regarding Eve.
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food
Gen 3:6 (NIV, highlights mine)
and pleasing to the eye,
and also desirable for gaining wisdom,
she took some and ate it.
She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
In Science and Engineering we use ‘pure’ situations on which to conduct experiments or perform theoretical analysis. This is done so that all the confounding influences of the world can be isolated from from system under study to allow, to the degree possible, for an unambiguous, clarifying understanding of some law or principle of ‘nature’ (the natural world) to be grasped, and characterized.
The Fall of Genesis 3 is, or can reasonably be asserted to be, a Biblical example of such a ‘pure’ system for demonstrating at least one fundamental principle.
When we think of the Fall, beginning with Eve’s choice, our focus tends to be on the action, plucking the fruit, eating some of it, and giving some of it to Adam (it appears that the double reverence to “some” indicates that the pair shared the same fruit, as they did the same sin, turning away from God).
Mountains of text have been written on Gen Ch 3. Here, let us focus on the above verse in the context of Sibbes’s claim. I’ve highlighted in bold six key words / word-phrases, in three stages. First she had the visual intaking (“saw”) and determination of a physical virtue (“good for food”) of the forbidden fruit. Second, she experienced mental delight (“pleasing”) by the agent of her visual intaking (“eye”). Third, she reached a conclusion as to internal virtue available from the forbidden fruit (“desirable…gaining wisdom”).
One can of course note that the entire process began by her looking at what God had forbid. And, one can go back further to Gen 3:1 when she began to listen to, and dialog with, a new, mysterious being in the Garden, namely the Serpent, who claimed God was neither True nor Good, and by implication it was the Serpent who was both.
So Eve now had a ‘pure’ conflict, ‘pure’ in the sense of an arena from which we can see a fundamental issue of reality unveiled: who (or what) is True and Good?
From such encounter and visual observation Eve began her processing by processing two self-observations, that of the fruit’s physical goodness and the pleasing sensation of simply observing, even studying it. The text does not tell us how long in the few words of Gen 3:6 Eve spent in this process. It could have been hours as we count time, which I think likely.
What Eve did mentally is a form of syncretization, that is putting together two different claims / ideas in some form of integration. Both the Serpent and God had said, or intimated, that “knowledge” would come from that fruit. But God and Serpent gave opposite claims for the consequence of such “knowledge:” God had said it would be death, the Serpent that it would wisdom.
Which–God or the Serpent–was True? Which was Good?
Eve, entirely in her mental processing of the twin physical attributes–good for food, pleasing to observe–that the Serpent was the True-Good being and, here is the horror of her conclusion, that it was God Who was both false and of evil intent (as the Serpent had claimed).
Once she had reached this third step, the internal judgment of the situation, the next step was a straightforward conclusion in her ‘eyes,’ to eat of the fruit. And, worse, to extend her fallenness to her unique mate, Adam. We know then at the point of Adam’s choice, he was not deceived, as had been Eve. Adam chose Eve seeing that she had Fallen, knowing unambiguously that his choice was also binary, choosing Eve and denying God.
So, in this sense, we had the first binary computation: (1) for Eve it was the Serpent or God, choosing the Serpent, followed by (2) for Adam is was Eve or God, choosing Eve. And, so, by two binary choices away from God we have the full, complete, ineradicable, eternal entrance of sin corrupting God’s Creation.
Is, then, Sibbes right?
Sec. 14.2.2: What the Heart Likes Best? (See below on “heart”)
Sec. 14.2.3: Hindering ‘Bad’ Offspring? Keep Separate the Fuel and the Spark.
One of the mysteries of action is the “prompt” / stimulus / trigger that was its initiator. Sometimes it’s obvious, like the beep on a smart phone, or the doorbell.
But what if we are just alone, reading, surfing, working on some project…how does a non-externally-triggered occur? There is some mystery here. Perhaps it is some neural network connection that gets formed, much like the tumblers of a combination lock fall into place and open the lock once the three-numbered combination has been properly sequenced.
Sibbes uses the rather earthy example of that human offspring can be prevented by keeping separate male and female, something that every parent raising teens has known but learns to be increasingly difficult.
But what about us? What can keep a trigger we don’t want from affecting us, and, conversely, sustain those that we do want?
Does our fallen nature actually seek out triggers that we know at some deep level will ‘launch’ us into something we actually want to do out of our fallen nature? Did the Serpent initiate the conversation with Eve at that Tree because she had already went to investigate it?
Sec. 14:2.4: Using What Has Been Given to Advantage Us?
“Advantage?” “Ad” derives from “ab,” the Latin prefix meaning “in front of.” But Sibbes’s teaching by the word “advantage” is “in front of” what, exactly? “Vantage” We get from it the idea of a “viewing point,” a particularly excellent one, that provides a full grasp of some situation.
How would this understanding then apply to Sibbes’s root idea of “keeping our judgment clear” and in particular “the strength of right judgment?”
Sec. 14:2.5: Grace is Strengthened by Working Application
We have the well-known saying “idle hands are the devil’s workshop.” What would be the inverse saying following Sibbes here?
Sec 14.2.6: The Problem of Our “Hearts” and the Solution of Our “Eves”
In our culture today, the universal explanation, excuse, for anyone’s action appears to be “I have (or had) to follow my own heart.” The emphasis of the phrase is on “own,” meaning it is all private to “me me me.” The authority is “the heart,” again turning toward some element of inner being, likely driven by the familiar neurotransmitters (cortisol, dopamine, endorphins, oxytocin, serotonin, and some 95 others). Underlying such assertion is that such ‘knows’ what is ‘best’ for “me me me” at any given moment and until the very end of all things (the Koine word / idea “teleos”).
However, the Scriptures teaches us that man’s heart is fallen, and thus not just unreliable as to my good but in a perverse sense ‘reliable’ as to naturally choosing evil, turning away from God.
He who trusts in his own mind / heart (Heb. “leb” H3820) is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered / saved.”
Proverbs 28:26 (various translations).
This is such a central issue in our time and place it deserves further drilling down upon. The Hebrew word translated by various versions of “heart” or “mind” is the word “leb.” “Leb” has a rich vein of application in the Bible, occurring 860 times in the OT. Given in the pdf below are the highlighted range of applications of its use:
Vine summarizes “leb’s” meaning as:
The “heart” stands for the inner being of man, the man himself. As such, it is the fountain of all he does (Prov. 4:4). All his thoughts, desires, words, and actions flow from deep within him. Yet a man cannot understand his own “heart” (Jer. 17:9). As a man goes on in his own way, his “heart” becomes harder and harder. But God will circumcise (cut away the uncleanness of) the “heart” of His people, so that they will love and obey Him with their whole being (Deut. 30:6)
Vines Complete Exposition Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, on “Heart”
Sec. 14.2.7 Where are our Thoughts, Now…Ever?
Sibbes stresses the idea of “keeping our watch” and “being always ready armed.” At his time and place, such were common charges given to defenders of cities, land, people. Today we mostly rely on others who have been hired by public funds to do this without our direct involvement, though this may be changing at the time of this writing.
Many Christian writers have given expansive treatments to this idea over the past two thousand years. Jonathan Edwards in his “Resolutions” makes multiple references to self-governing his attitudes and actions such that at the day of his old age, or impending death (which in his case was middle-aged), he would see that such attitude or act was what was the “best” from that latter perspective.
Charles Stanley has given a helpful message and summary on the many virtues of Godly meditation. A highlighted pdf of his Sermon Notes is below:
His sermon can be found by searching YouTube on his name or the sermon title.
As almost always, there is a great Latin quote that applies: Sedendo et quiescendo anima efficitur sapiens (a man, anima, sitting and calm / quiescent, sedendo et quescendo, makes for the occasions for gaining wisdom, sapiens). In our insane world of always-buzzing communication, everywhere and insistent, the idea of sitting and quiescent even for a few minutes is rare. Even more rare, is doing so with the object of meditation being God and His Word rather than our ‘next thing,’ or specific ‘impulse(s).’
14.3 Reasons for Seeming Lack of Progress
Sec. 14.3.1. Growth is Not Always Visible, but Does Become So, Sometimes Suddenly
Sibbes again uses a phrase of his time, chopping trees for fuel for kitchen stoves and home heating: “the tree falls upon the last stroke, yet all the strokes help the work forward.” This is an apt illustration because the tree may not fall on the strike we expected it to, and so discourage us, while yet dropping on a stroke that was not recognized to be the ultimate one.
So, ‘it,’ our faithfulness, all ‘counts,’ but may not visibly so.
Sec. 14.3.2 The Secret Lust of a Man Named Achan
After the 40 wilderness years had elapsed after the Exodus, and the passing away of that adult generation who did not believe God could deliver His people into the Promised Land, it was Joshua who was charged with leading that crossing of Jordan and beginning the series of military campaigns against, first, the leading city of Jericho.
That battle was a miraculous victory with the famed ‘blowing down’ of the city’s surrounding walls of protection. This led to a certain confidence that God would continue such miraculous deliverance city by city until the entire land was subdued.
However, the picture that emerged was much more complex, beginning with the famed sin of coveting by a man named Achan. This story is found in Joshua 7. Later in the Judges and the following books, we see other forms of error, including compromise that led to prolonged difficulties.
Here is a synopsis of that event:
1 But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel. [What follows is a serious military defeat at their next battle, at the city of Ai]….10 The Lord said to Joshua, “Get up! Why have you fallen on your face? 11 Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings. 12 Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you….19 Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel and give praise to him. And tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.” 20 And Achan answered Joshua, “Truly I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and this is what I did: 21 when I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels, then I coveted them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.” 22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. 23 And they took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the people of Israel. And they laid them down before the Lord. 24 And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the cloak and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and all that he had. And they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. 25 And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones. 26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his burning anger. Therefore, to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Jos 7). (2016). Crossway Bibles.(Emphasis mine)
What was Achan’s offense?
18 But you, keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction, lest when you have devoted them you take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel a thing for destruction and bring trouble upon it. 19 But all silver and gold, and every vessel of bronze and iron, are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Jos 6). (2016). Crossway Bibles. (Emphasis mine)
In addition to the entirety of the Mosaic Law (the Book of Exodus preceded the events of the Book of Joshua), all the warriors led by Joshua were to abstain (“keep yourselves from”) the “things devoted to destruction” and to bring all the metals of value into “the treasury of the Lord.” Thus there were two categories of prohibition, one to be destroyed, not preserved, and one to be preserved in the nation of Israel’s account.
Achan’s keeping for himself, and his family, of the gold and silver is a clearcut violation of two of the 10 Commandments (more below). His keeping the “beautiful cloak” was, an additional transgression. The keyword is “devoted thing:”
744a חֵרֶם (ḥērem) devoted thing, ban. The root ḥrm [has as its] basic meaning. .. the exclusion of an object from the use or abuse of man and its irrevocable surrender to God. The word is related to an Arabic root meaning “to prohibit, especially to ordinary use.” The word “harem,” meaning the special quarters for Muslim wives, comes from it. It is related also to an Ethiopic root, meaning “to forbid, prohibit, lay under a curse.” Surrendering something to God meant devoting it to the service of God or putting it under a ban for utter destruction….Usually ḥāram means a ban for utter destruction, the compulsory dedication of something which impedes or resists God’s work, which is considered to be accursed before God….
ḥērem. Devoted thing, devotion, ban. This noun derivative is used twenty-eight times in the OT to refer either to the object devoted or to the ban itself. The story of Jericho’s fall to Israel provides clear examples of the first use. The whole city is called a “devoted thing” (Josh 6:17), and all Israelites are warned to keep themselves from the “devoted thing,” which likely is a reference to items within the city all of which had to be burned if flammable and if not, given to God. When Achan disobeys and takes of these items, Israel’s army is defeated by the people of Ai, and God says that Israel has now become a “devoted thing” itself until the “devoted thing” (Achan in his sin) is destroyed from its midst (Josh 7:12–13). So, then, Jericho the heathen city was “devoted” because it stood in the way of God’s work through Israel in making conquest of Canaan. Israel became “devoted” because of sin which entered and made the nation unusable in God’s work. Achan in his sin became “devoted” because he was the reason for Israel’s hindrance as the people of God.
Wood, L. J. (1999). 744 חָרַם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 325). Moody Press.
In the Septuagint’s parallel passage, the word translated by “devoted things” or “devoted to destruction” is as below. (The Septuagint, known by LXX, is the Koine Greek translation of the OT some 200 years before the NT period, and which was widely used by Jews in Israel as well as around the world).
Strong’s G331. ἀνάθεμα anáthema; , neut. noun from anatíthēmi (394), to place, lay up. A gift given by vow or in fulfillment of a promise, and given up or devoted to destruction for God’s sake (Sept.: Num. 21:1–3; Deut. 13:16–18); therefore, given up to the curse and destruction, accursed (1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22; Gal. 1:8, 9). In Rom. 9:3, estrangement from Christ and His salvation. The word does not denote punishment intended as discipline but being given over or devoted to divine condemnation. It denotes an indissoluble vow. See also Acts 23:14; Gal. 1:9. Anáthema is not to be confused with anáthēma (334), a votive offering or an offering not involving sacrifice, something consecrated in the temple, a gift, an offering (Luke 21:5). Deriv.: anathematízō (332), to declare anathema, to curse; katanáthema (2652), an accursed thing.
Strong’s G332. ἀναθεματίζω anathematízō; from anáthema (331), a curse. To bind by a curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21) or simply to curse (Mark 14:71).
Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers.
There is some mystery about the full nature of the “beautiful cloak,” but we have four important clues. First, it was such offense to God that despite its likely high economic value, it was to be destroyed unlike the precious metals (which included iron). The second clue is that because it was a cloak of beauty it must have been used in some ritual context, as opposed to something to keep oneself warm or dry. It was likely a garment worn in contexts of festivals or worship events by a priest (or priestess) or some ‘holy’ mediator / representative. Third, such item was declared accursed by God, strongly suggesting it was a direct offense against the first three of the 10 Commandments (see discussion below). Finally we are told that the cloak originated in Shinar, an ancient and very prosperous area and city of the Mesopotamian River Valley from God had called Abraham some 600 years prior. Shinar is closely associated with Babylon, the city, the region, the empire, the religious system (including, perhaps, the very site of the Tower of Babel in the antediluvian period), and the metaphorical (and physical?) finally enemy of God to be destroyed (see Revelation Ch ). Below are two additional descriptions, one of Shinar and the other of Babylon.
BEAUTIFUL MANTLE FROM SHINAR (Heb., “cloak of Shinar [or Babylon]”). An ample robe with figures of men and animals either embroidered or interwoven in the fashion for which the Babylonians were noted. It came to mean a valuable piece of clothing in general (Josh. 7:21).
Unger, M. F., Harrison, R. K., Vos, H. F., Barber, C. J., & Unger, M. F. (1988). In The new Unger’s Bible dictionary (Rev. and updated ed.). Moody Press.
BABYLON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — In the Book of Revelation the world in rebellion against God is called “Babylon.” The Old Testament prophets often prophesied the fall of Babylon, the capital of an empire that destroyed God’s city, Jerusalem, and carried His people away as captives. So in Revelation Babylon is a word-picture for a society that persecuted God’s people but that God will eventually destroy.
When the Book of Revelation was written, Babylon may have been a kind of code name for pre-Christian Rome, which was built on seven hills (Rev. 17:9) and which was already persecuting the church. Since that time, generations of Christians have been able to identify their own Babylons and have found reassurance in Revelation’s message.
In Revelation 14:8 Babylon’s power to make people resist God’s claims in the gospel is admitted, but its doom is certain. In Revelation 16:19 Babylon is a “great city” that falls because God remembers its sin and brings His punishment. Throughout chapters 17–18 Babylon is prominent, pictured as a prostitute because it seduces people away from God with its glamor. But it is a false union that cannot satisfy.
“Babylon” stands over against the church, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2), which is “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Rev. 21:9). God reveals the “mystery” or divine truth (Rev. 17:5) about it and all such manmade societies that are organized independently of God. Its fall is celebrated by God’s people (Rev. 18:20; 19:1–5).
In Matthew 1:11–12, 17, Judah’s captivity in Babylon is mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. In Acts 7:43 Babylon appears in Stephen’s famous speech about the history of the Jewish people. In 1 Peter 5:13 “Babylon” probably refers to the city of Rome.
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., & Harrison, R. K., Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds. (1995). In Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary. Thomas Nelson, Inc.
It is Babylon, literally or metaphorically, that is deemed by God in Revelation as the “Great Whore” (“prostitute” is too polite a term) and is in fact the mother of all “whores:” “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.” (Rev. 17:5, that name was proudly written on her forehead, suggesting her great claim of authority over all her ‘offspring’) It is no wonder that Achan’s sin has a particular prominence in the Book of Joshua and occurs immediately upon the first military conquest. It is like, exactly like, the other great whore Jezebel who sought to succeed the conquering of her king-husband Ahab by seducing the newly victorious king. For the TRI, it is willing to trade alliances to survive and thrive with whoever is the next TRI that can undergo its seduction, just as the Serpent did on Adam through Eve, Eve being a picture of TRI (the religious system, in particular the common pagan motif of a mother goddess), and Adam a picture of TPI (the First Adam, the titular head of the human race). Additionally there is a deeply mysterious reference to Babylon in the closing words of Peter’s First Epistle: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.” 1 Peter 5:13 (ESV). Where, what, or who was that “Babylon” has been widely debated for 2000 years. All we know for sure is (1) it is referred to as a female (“she”), (2) that “she” is “chosen” suggesting that God’s called out ones, a church, is gathered there at that time, and (3) that name “Babylon” triggers connections back to Babel down to the very end of spacetime in the closing chapters of Revelation, with Achan’s sin one more link in that chain.
Here is a well-reasoned interpretation of this enigmatic reference to “Babylon”in 1 Peter 5:13:
Babylon can hardly be the ancient city of Babylon in Mesopotamia which is prominent in the Old Testament, for by the first century it was a small and obscure place (see Introduction, p. 34), for which there is no evidence of a visit by Peter (or Mark: see the end of this verse), or even of a Christian church. But there is good evidence outside the New Testament that Peter was in Rome about the time this letter was written (see Introduction, pp. 34f.), and it is best to understand Babylon as a reference to Rome (just as in Rev. 16:19; 17:5; 18:2). It is not that Peter was trying to disguise his location, but rather that he is carrying through the imagery of the church as the new people of God, the true Israel (see note at 2:10), which he has maintained since the word ‘Dispersion’ in 1:1. Just as in the Old Testament Babylon was the centre of worldly power and opposition to God’s people, so in the time of the New Testament Rome is the earthly centre of a worldwide system of government and life which opposes the gospel. Yet there Peter is in the midst of it.
And Peter is not alone. She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, must mean the church at Rome—for no one individual would be so well known to all the churches of Peter’s readers as to be identifiable from such an anonymous reference. The whole church at Rome sends you greetings. And so does my son Mark indicates the presence of Mark with Peter and shows a close association with the author of the second Gospel. Son means not physical son but spiritual ‘son’, close associate and assistant in the service of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2).
Grudem, W. A. (1988). 1 Peter: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 17, pp. 208–209). InterVarsity Press. (Highlights mine)
When warriors storm a conquered city it is the custom of war that pillaging and looting takes place to which the individual soldiers and their commanders feel is due them, “to the victors…go the spoils.” Accordingly the priorities are given to the most fertile-for-looting sites. There are usually two places where the most hoarded wealth resides: at the centers of TPI (The Political Industry, which is often simply the king’s ‘palace(s)’ as he himself is ‘the TRI’), and of TRI (The Religion Industry), and in many contexts they are co-joined. So, one can reasonably speculate, that Achan did not just ‘happen’ upon the prohibited loot but sought it out, first perhaps at the center of TPI for its gold and silver (and iron) storehouse, and then perhaps also finding the beautiful cloak, or perhaps by his searching the storehouse of TRI. Highly value items would have been securely hidden by the residents in Jericho as they had seven days of seeing the potential invasion, and such events were not unknown in the ancient world. Even today there are regular finds of treasures that were stored deeply within the stone walls of structures in the hope that surviving the invasion its owner could restore certain / much of his wealth.
Further, Achan would not have been able to stuff these many large and heavy looted treasures in his pockets and head back to his own tent and bury them. Perhaps he himself hid them in the then ruins of Jericho and secretly returned over several nights with his family (hence their death was part of the judgment).
Let us consider further the nature of the sin of Achan by reviewing the 10 Commandments in this context. (Of course, in the course of the war, there had been additional restrictions placed upon the military men, which violation by Achan was itself an extremely serious offense against the commanding officer, Joshua). Here are the 10 Commandments, briefly worded:
So, Sibbes reminds us to check within ourselves to see whether we have retained a spirit of Achan’s coveting.
- You shall have no other Gods before me
- You shall not make for yourselves an idol
- You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God
- Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
- Honor your father and your mother
- You shall not murder
- You shall not commit adultery
- You shall not steal
- You shall not give false testimony
- You shall not covet
Achan likely violated the first two Commandments, and even the 3rd (because he was a representative of the One True God) by retaining what appears to be an instrument of worship to another ‘god’ that he was misusing, specifically joining, the name of the Lord with it. (Did he also violate the 4th Commandment, as he may have because there could well have been a sabbath rest declared after the destruction of Jericho during which time Achan and family did their ‘midnight run’ to retrieve the stash he had hidden).
The Ten Commandments are referred to as such by Scripture of the list; however, no where is the list of 10 enumerated, meaning the Bible never gives each commandment its ‘number.’ So various denominations / communions of faith has numbered them differently than shown above (Roman Catholics, for instance, combine the first two into one, and expand the last one, coveting, into two).
Additionally one can always consider every list in the Bible as to whether there is some meaning beyond just a random grouping. Clearly with the Ten Commandments they divide into (at least) two groups, the first four being with respect to God and the last six with respect one another, a division that has sometimes been called the “two tablets of the law.”
One can further consider whether each of such two groups is: (1) headed by the first, and exemplified / expanded by the rest, or (2) culminated by the final one in the list, (3) one group in accordance to the “headed” framework” and the other with the “culmination” framework, or (4) none of the above. My inclination is option (3), namely: the first group of four is headed by Commandment 1, and the second group of six is culminated / climaxed by Commandment 10, such that the entire list of Ten has a bookend nature (also known as a chiasmus in poetic expression, though a typical chiasmus is symmetrical, and this would not be).
The added significance to Commandment 1 is echoed by Sibbes himself who notes that violations against one’s fellow man, which transgression some form of norm / law of the community such as stealing, stems from abandoning accountability toward and respect of God. (See Sec. 14.4 below)
The added significance to Commandment 10 is suggested by several thoughts. First, it was very grounds of Eve’s sin from deception in the Garden (Gen 3). She saw the forbidden fruit, and that it was beautiful, and desired / coveted it. Adam, it appears, performed the same act of coveting when he chose to join Eve in sinning overtly and directly against God, Commandment 1. We can also observe that the five sins against one’s fellow man that precede the 10th Commandment, namely Commandments 5 through 9, all have a dimension of coveting to them. Finally, we know only a little about the rebellion and fall of Satan (Lucifer, the Morning Star) but one thing we are told is that Satan desired to be like God (“I will be like the Most High” Isaiah 14:12-14); in human terms that reflects an extreme transgression of coveting, desiring for oneself that which is transgressive. And we can note that this is the common line of attack / temptation used by Satan as it was against Jesus, and existed throughout the OT and continued in the NT and down to this day.
Putting this to practical application, what then should we take away from Sibbes’s admonition that we self-examine to assure that we are not experiencing defeat because we are of the sin of Achan? We can at least start with a two-fold test: (1) have we put, literally or effectively, another ‘god’ before The God? and / or (2) are we immersed in some passion of coveting?
Sec. 14.4 All Should Side with Christ
The root issue of the entire Ch 14 is the answer to the question “Who is in charge here?” Sibbes admonishes us to “let Christ be the chief governor of the family.”
Sibbes also gives us a keen insight, again there’s a beautiful Latin phrase, that explains how rebellion gets expressed in people’s lives:
None despise man’s law but those that despise Christ’s first. Nemo humanam auctoritatem contemnit, nisi qui divinam prius contempsit (No one despises human authority unless he first despises divine authority).
Sibbes, Sec. 14.4
And Sibbes closes the chapter with reminding us that God works on us in a similar way that we recognize must be done on any people to galvanize them into some rigorous performance, be it sport, work, or war:
Men labour to cherish the spirit and mettle, as they term it, of those they train up, because they think they will have use of it in the manifold affairs and troubles of this life.
Sibbes, Sec 14.4. “Spirit and mettle” are terms that describe the energy and perseverance that can be formed by rigorous, vigorous training.