Gooding, David: 2 - We Will Serve the Lord

The advertised title for this session, gentlemen, is The Obedient Commander Expects Obedience. That small title was meant to sum up the evidence as it stands before us in chapter one of the book of Joshua, where from verse one down to verse nine, Joshua is exhorted by the Lord himself to be obedient. And then, from verse twelve to the end of the chapter, he in turn calls upon the two and a half tribes to be obedient to the word that God had commanded them through Moses. That, in the first place, is what I meant by giving the title to chapter one, the obedient Commander Expects Obedience. Now, when in the first nine verses, Joshua is called upon to be obedient to the law of Moses, that surely, uh, uh, uh, uh, refers in some sense to his personal life. But within the context of the book of Joshua itself, it is a theme that is constantly recurred to, and when it is mentioned, it becomes evidence that the obedience referred to in chapter one refers to Joshua's obediently carrying out in the campaign the commands that Moses had laid down. It refers to Joshua's obedient fulfillment of all that Moses had said regarding the campaign and the conquest of the land. Let me, uh, illustrate that for you, if I may. Look at verse, uh, uh, six. Be strong and of good courage, for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I swear unto their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee. Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. That then God's exhortation to him to obey Moses' commands. Now for the historian's observations that, um, Moses did that. Look at verse, uh, chapter four verse ten again. This is Joshua beginning to achieve the first major objective. Four ten, for the priests which bear the ark stood in the midst of Jordan until everything was finished that the Lord commanded Joshua to speak unto the people according to all that Moses commanded Joshua. This is Joshua obeying what Moses had said and not departing from Moses' commandments. Or another example, let's read again some verses from chapter eleven that we read this afternoon. Numbers eleven verse fifteen will do for one example of it. As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua. He left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses. So that while the exhortation that Joshua should obey the law, while that exhortation in chapter one doubtless refers to details of his personal life, it primarily refers to his conduct of the campaign, how he was to conduct it, what goals he was to set before him, and how he was to achieve them in the manner that Moses had prescribed. And therefore it becomes more than just a personal exhortation that he, in his personal life, should obey the law of Moses. And that will give width to our interpretation of this passage. It is certainly true that if we would enter into our inheritance that God has given us, one cardinal principle of behavior must be that we must seek to be people of the book who obey what is therein commanded us. In all the personal details of our lives, home, s- uh, business, church, and thus. While that is so, as we think of Joshua conducting the campaign, however, we are to think of that campaign fulfilling all the demands of the law as expressed by Moses. And as we then use Joshua as a prototype of our Lord, we shall observe that while our inheritance does not depend conditionally upon the law, nevertheless, what Christ has done, what Moses could never do, he has provided a salvation to this effect that the righteousness of the law, the righteous requirement of the law, should be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. That is a glorious thing. Joshua leading the Israelites into their campaign to get their inheritance did it in a way that fulfilled the law. Though Israel- Israel's possession of the land was not dependent on their keeping the law. Secondly, our title said the obedient commander expects obedience. I was particularly referring, as I have said, to chapter one verses twelve to the end. Joshua's address and briefing to the two and a half tribes, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, have, gentlemen, they have had a very bad press and been the subject of many sermons that left them in very bad light. And in spite of all I can do to rehabilitate them, as I shall attempt to do in the course of these, uh, talks this week, many of you will probably remain in your former opinion, if you hold it indeed, that they were a bad lot with very little to be said for them. World borderers who stayed too near where they got in, and all such other things are said about them. It all goes back, of course, to the book of uh, uh, uh, Numbers, chapter thirty two, and we might take a little time to go back there because these two and a half tribes are going to confront us again. You will notice, if you look at our summary of the of affairs here on the wall, that the two and a half tribes are met here in the first major portion of section one. There they merit a whole paragraph that we are now to, to consider. They occur there, don't they? They will occur again, of course, here. The inheritance assigned to the two and a half tribes by Moses, if you please, do be careful what you say about these two and a half tribes, lest you should fail to reflect what Moses commanded. He commanded they were to have this inheritance here. Careful what you say, my brethren. Ah, we shall meet them again here. The two and a half tribes return to their inheritance. And when we come to that passage, we shall remember that first one. For Joshua said to them, now, gentlemen, remember what Moses said to you. Fight before your brethren, before you return. And they promised loyally that they would do precisely that, and not return to their inheritance, though it had been given them, until the enemy was subdued. And when we come here, we shall ap- well, I shall applaud their their, their faithfulness, brilliant faithfulness in fulfilling all that Moses commanded them. And they didn't go home to their inheritance, uh, until they were given permission by the commander in chief to return, just like Moses commanded them. And if that spoils a sermon or two, well, that's too bad. The bad press goes back, as I say, to Numbers thirty two. So we better look at it, I suppose, just now, uh, we'll see. The children of, uh, Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle. And when they saw the land of Jatza and the land of Gilead, that behold, the place was a place for cattle, the children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses and to Eleazar the priest and unto the princes of the congregation, saying, all these places mentioned in verse three, the land, uh, which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle. And they said, if we have found grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession. Bring us not over Jordan. At which point Moses blew up like a volcano. He could do that on times. And he denounced them uphill and down dale. Why discourage you the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord has given them? Thus did your fathers when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land, you'll see. And they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel that they should not go into the land which the Lord had given them. And the Lord's anger was kindled in that day, and he sware, saying, Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt from twenty years old and upward shall see the land which I swear unto Abram, bec- uh, because they have not wholly followed me, except Caleb. Verse thirteen. And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander to and fro in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed. And behold, you are risen up in your father's stead, an increase of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel. For if you turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the wilderness, and you shall destroy all this people. You can imagine the heat and the fervor which with Moses denounced them. For he feared that their request meant that they were going to repeat the apostasy of the tribes forty years earlier when they refused to go in to the Promised Land. So you can understand Moses' heat of feeling when he thought that that's what these people were suggesting, that they should not need to go into the land. When Moses had finished and couldn't think of any more words to say, they said, but we weren't thinking of any such thing, Moses. They didn't add, and if you'd only waited for us to explain, you wouldn't have gone on with that diatribe. That does happen sometimes, gentlemen, in other circles. Ah, you've doubtless learned by experience before you denounce somebody as a heretic, just do give him five minutes to explain whether he is a heretic or not. They said, Moses, we're not proposing to refuse to go into the land and fight with our brethren. When we say take us not over Jordan, we mean allow us to have our inheritance this east side of Jordan. As for us personally, we're prepared to leave our wives and children in stockades here and go over armed before the people of God and fight in the very forefront of the battle and lead the tribes in their warfare. Nor shall we return until every battle has been won. Well, Moses said, well, well, well, you know, it's always a bit difficult to backtrack, isn't it? Uh, you'll see. Uh, uh, verse eighteen, you'll see, we will not return unto our houses until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance. Verse twenty, and Moses said, well, well, well, oh well, if you said, if you meant that, why didn't you say it? And Moses said unto them, if you will do this thing, if you will arm yourselves to go before the Lord to war, and every armed man of you will pass over Jordan before the Lord until he hath driven out his enemies from before him, and the land, uh, be subdued before the Lord, then afterwards you shall return and be guiltless towards the Lord and towards Israel, and this land shall be unto you for a possession before the Lord. You'll see it is the fact, gentlemen, that the Lord had given Israel that land. Somebody had got to inherit it, hadn't they? The Lord had given them the war, the land in their battle with the Moabites and Ammonites and other such ites, and the Lord had given them victory and given them the land. Somebody had got to take it over. Unless you're going to dispute the fact that the Lord had given it to them. Centuries later, you will hear Joth Jephthah, the great judge, entering diplomatic relationships with the Ammonites and saying, look here, you say the land is yours, we say it's ours. Our God gave us the land, and we determined to keep hold of it. Will you blame Jephthah for it? Or would you have had Jephthah argue, ah, what a mistake it was, our God never gave us the land at all. Actually, we imagined he did, and some of our worldly-minded brethren went and inherited it, but they shouldn't have done, so we're glad to give it up and abandon it because the Lord never gave it to us in the first place. All those questions, gentlemen, must enter into our considerations of the matter. But as far as I can read the passage, uh, the Reubenites are saying they are prepared to pass over and fight and not return to their inheritance until the battles have all been won. To that they were faithful. That is what Joshua is asking them, reminding them in chapter one, reminding them that that is their responsibility, that Moses had said this, and he says, verse thirteen, remember the word which Moses, the servant of the Lord, commanded you, saying, the Lord your God giveth you rest and will give you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle shall abide in the land which Moses gave you beyond Jordan. But you shall pass over before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and shall help them, until the Lord has given your brethren rest as he has given you, and they also have possessed the land which the Lord your God giveth them. Then shall you return unto the land of your possession, and possess it, which Moses the servant of the Lord gave you beyond Jordan toward the sun rising. And they answered Joshua, saying, All that thou hast commanded us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us we will go. According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee. Only the Lord thy God be with thee as he was with Moses. Whoever he be that shall rebel against thy commandment and shall not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death. Only be thou strong and of good courage. Loyal two and a half tribes. Careful what you say about them, brethren, because you'll have to meet them in heaven one day, and it could be embarrassing if you said the wrong things about them. Ah, if you want to draw a lesson from it. You'll say, I suppose, give me two minutes off to preach a nice little sermon about it. Ah, by analogy, that's all. I'm not saying they're a type of anything, just simply by analogy. Moses, you see, thought they were a lot of slackers and not prepared to fight in the battles of the Lord. That would be a bad thing, wouldn't it? If by broad analogy we think of, say, Paul's exhortation in Philippians three, that we go on striving, making progress, aiming for what the Lord has called us to possess. Then, if any of us should be found trying to sit down before the final battle is won, that would be serious, wouldn't it? Gentlemen, if you sit down and leave off striving to make progress, you might discourage me, and I slack too. So if we met Moses at the door going out tonight, and he said, you lot of slackers, we must be prepared to say, no, Moses, you've misread us. We're not like that at all. We are prepared to fight in the forefront of the battles of the Lord before our brethren and not give up until the final battle be won. It is not for nothing that the historian faithfully gives an enormous amount of space to the two and a half tribes in section one, in section four, and then this brilliant piece here in section six. But that, uh, matter that they were prepared to fight and only go to the inheritance when the wars were over, now brings us to consider a little bit further and more deeply the implications of the structure of the book of Judges, of the book of Joshua. In what lies before you here, I have just, uh, put out the contents of the book of Jud- uh, Joshua and said there are six main sections. You may not agree with that, never mind for the moment. But it is normally not enough, gentlemen, to list the contents of a book of scripture. That's a good beginning and a very necessary beginning, but it doesn't explain everything that ought to be explained, does it? Let me use a simple analogy. If you were asked to describe the human hand, how would you go about it? Well, you could start off by describing, listing the contents of a human hand. There's a bit of square stuff here. There are four bits sticking out at the top and one bit at the side, generally made up of flesh and bones and veins and things. No one could deny what you say. It's absolutely true. But would you suppose that that would be an adequate description of a hand? One square bit with four bits sticking out at the top and one at the side. Well, hardly is it. Because while you have correctly listed all the components that are visible, you haven't yet begun to tell us the relationship between the components. And what is their functional relationship? And why should you have four bits at the top and a- and not just three? And why should this oddity be out at the side? You haven't begun really to get across the notion of a hand if you don't begin to say now, the reason why this one is stuck out at the side is so that it shall be over against the others, and people shall be able to grasp things. In other words, you're not fully describing a hand until you pass beyond mere listing the components to describing and explaining their interrelationship and their function, their functional relationship. The little finger, for all it's small, but it's the strongest grasp, isn't it? And so forth and so on. When it comes to studying a bit piece of scripture, then you have not merely to ask the component parts. You've got to ask questions about the relationship between those component parts, their functional relationship. And we shall have to do that at the level of the original history before we start looking at any typological significance, though having, uh, uh, uh, uh, emitted that dictum, I shall contradict it forthwith because, uh, well, as we go from section to section, we shall already be talking about, uh, prototypes and things and things and things. But when the thing is done as it should be done, we must understand the history and its contents in their functional relationship as the original book, as the original historical account of what happens historically. And then we can the more safely begin to apply it to ourselves. If we do that kind of thing, therefore, this very story here will alert us to the structural significance of the history. These men have got to obey Moses and follow Joshua until the Lord has given the people rest. If there are, in fact, six major sections in this book, the first mention that they got rest is here. Three whole sections given to the first phase of the conquest, which triumphantly comes to its end here, and the land had rest. So from a literary point of view, you have reached your first really big major com- uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, major uh, climax here at this point at the end of chapter eleven and twelve. The Lord gave them rest. Then the two and a half tribes were free to go home. Yes. That asks us a question, doesn't it? What is the relation of this to this? The first half to the second half. What is the difference between what is going on in the second half from what was going on in the first? Quite clearly, there were two phases, if not more, to the conquest of the land, and some gave us the answer to it this afternoon in the question time, and we shall not need to spend a long time on it, shall we? But the difference is illustrated by the behavior of the two and a half tribes. Why must they not settle down right from the beginning in their portion? Why must they leave their wives and go over with Israel? Well, you'll see in the first part of the conquest, the first phase of the conquest, it was vitally important that all twelve tribes should remain together as a united fighting force. There were powerful cities, powerfully entrenched, mighty great walls, armed to the teeth. Yet their economies were untouched, their cities strong and unsubdued. If when they got across Jordan and had conquered Jericho and Ai, some of the tribes had said, well, now look, Moses, we'd like this bit, so, so you go on, the rest of you, and we're content to stay here. And when they had got to, uh, up the road to Mount Ebal and Gerizim, others had said, well, we think we'll peel off here, uh, Joshua, if you don't mind, and you, the rest go on. Well, the army would have become so small that the kings in the north would have just eaten them up like sardines, uh, for breakfast. There was no way Joshua could have beaten and broken the principalities and powers in the land of Canaan. The great kings. Unless the whole army stood together as one unit. And when they defeated and destroyed one city, they didn't settle none of them. They pushed on to the next city, and to the next city, and to the next city, without settling down. And only when they had beaten the cities to the ground and slain all the kings and princes, the principalities and the powers, and made a show of them openly, could, uh, uh, they then afford to say, now the land has rest in that sense. Now, now you may peel off and go each tribe to its own particular inheritance, and it will be safe for you to do so. Why was there fighting in both bits then? Well, from the very obvious realistic point of view, it took Joshua and his people some long, long time. It wasn't done within one week. They destroyed Jericho, they destroyed Ai, they went here, they went there, they met the southern confederacies and mopped up all the other cities. Then they went up north as the northern confederacy came against them. That all took a long time. They slew the kings, but while Joshua was engaged in the north, for instance, some of these boys that had run away from the other cities took the opportunity to come back again. And therefore, in the second part of the campaign, there was fighting still to be done. Not on the same scale and to the same purpose as the first fighting in the first phase. Very necessary for tribes when they came to take up their individual portions of their inheritance. They might well find Canaanites around, perhaps coming back into where they'd been expelled from. And Canaanites in the countryside, if not in the cities, and therefore they would need to fight some of the battles almost all over again. Two phases in the conquest, therefore, and the very literature points it out to you. Now, what has that got to say to us when we come to interpret the book of Joshua to ourselves? That's another big question. I much enjoyed listening to your con- co- your questions and discussions, uh, this afternoon, and, uh, was tempted to join in at all lengths, you'll say, but you saw how cruelly the chairman said I wasn't to, and all that, you'll say, because he knew I would add to the confusion. Uh, you'll say, so he wisely made me desist, but what I did gather is that so many of us have already seen very good and valid insights into the ways of applying the message of Joshua to ourselves. Insights that are not only intellectually interesting, but spiritually challenging. And I doubt not that what many of us, as Mr. Ray said, will be looking to Joshua to supply answers to the particular problems that we have on our hearts. And may the Lord in his grace meet our expectations. But I fancy, gentlemen, we shall have to, uh, be patient with one another, because very soon we shall come across the question, is there only one interpretation, one level of meaning? Or is there more than one level of meaning? Let's take that innocent question that was raised by some chappy or other from afar who got out those list of questions, you'll see. How do you reconcile Ephesians chapter six with one Peter chapter one? With a supplementary, is crossing Jordan going to heaven when you die, or is crossing Jordan into your inheritance, uh, a picture of our seat being seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus now, Joel saying, uh, and so forth. Which is which, uh, Joel saying. Some inclined to the one view and some the others, and gave their evidence therefore. Said some, it can't be going to heaven when you die because there won't be any fighting up there aloft when we get home to heaven. No, it must be now seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, where the fighting goes on, according to Ephesians six. All right. But one wise man put up both hands. He wanted it both ways. He was a very wise man, was he? Because, uh, one Peter chapter one comes perilously near to saying that crossing Jordan is going to heaven when you die. Yes, doesn't it? Yes, look, just to make sure we haven't misread him. One Peter, uh, 1 Peter chapter one. And to fill in the imagery that Peter uses to conjure up and evoke the story of the Passover and the past, notice, uh, verse nineteen, we have been redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb. It would have been enough for Peter to say, you have been redeemed with the blood of Christ. That would have been theologically sufficient, wouldn't it? Why must he add this, uh, simile, blood as of a lamb? It's a simile, you notice. Well, because by that simile, he evokes the Passover, doesn't he? It is the doctrinal theological fact that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, but Peter, by the simile, evokes the fact that Christ for us is performing the function of the Passover lamb. So by the simile, he evokes all the imagery from the past. Israel, when they ate the Passover lamb, couldn't eat it any old how. They had to eat it with their loins girded, staff in hand, shoes on their feet. Why so? Because to eat that Passover implied that you were prepared now forthwith and immediately to leave Egypt and to start journeying towards your inheritance. And if you weren't prepared to journey towards your inheritance, well, then you couldn't eat the Passover. You had to eat it. That must have been difficult, uh, balancing a plate of, uh, uh, of c- uh, of roast beef, uh, roast lamb, also staff in your hand, in one hand, and uh, loins girded and what have you. But thus they had to do. You must be prepared to journey forthwith, and thereafter to keep on journeying till you come to your inheritance. If you have been redeemed by the blood as of a lamb, gird up, says Peter, the loins of your mind. Why? Well, because we've got some journeying to do. Not only redeemed, but what about the grace that is going to be brought unto us at the revelation of Jesus Christ? And incidentally, says Peter, oh, using his imagery again, you'll see we have been begotten again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us. Now, wait a minute, Peter, are we there or aren't we? Unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and reserved in heaven for us, uh, says he. Ah, reserved in heaven for you? What do you mean reserved? Aren't we there already? Normally, if you're a motel room is reserved for you, that's because you're not yet there. No, we're not yet there, according to Peter. The he- inheritance is reserved, and we, meanwhile, are being kept because as pilgrims and strangers, he says, we are moving through our wilderness home to glory. You say, that's the trouble with all this typology stuff. One man says it means one thing, and one man says it means another. I propose to scrap the lot. Well, you better not. Because if one man is Paul and the other is Peter, you better do like the wise man over here and have both. And pray, why shouldn't we have both? It raises the question whether the Old Testament stories have merely one level of meaning, or have they multi-levels of meaning? And I shall be arguing that the stories in the Old Testament do not just have one level of meaning, a whole half a dozen, if you like. There is the level of the straight historical. Ha. And as far as that went, as a- as far as that goes, you may apply the lesson of the straightforward historical by simple analogy. I did it a moment ago. Wasn't a bad example either, was it? I said the two and a half tribes were commanded that they were to fight, go over Jordan and fight and not give up and settle down until the battles were won, and then they could return home. And craftily, I used by analogy, took by analogy a lesson from that to us. I said we mustn't give up our spiritual fighting, our making of progress, until the last battle has been won. I wasn't using it as a type, sit by simple analogy from their practical situation to our situation. So the first and primary level is the historical meaning, though we may draw practical lessons by analogy from that. But then here comes the New Testament, and it applies it at a higher level and uses this story as a prototype of higher things, not as a type, gentlemen, as a prototype. And so, it will tell us that there is an inheritance for us reserved in heaven, and we are pilgrims on our way thither. But then if you go and listen to Paul, he'll say, yes, but gentlemen, there's another level to that. There is a sense in which you're already there. And it won't do to say to Paul, you're complicating things and you must be wrong because Peter disagrees. Peter doesn't disagree. There is a sense in which we are already there. But plainly, if my eyes do not deceive me, gentlemen, there is another sense in which you're not there. I can see you here. Yeah. You tell me that when you bow your knee to worship, you enter into the holiest of all. Good for you. And where prayer is the holiest of all? You say that's the immediate presence of God. Do you mean to say you, you, you go there from time to time? Well, I thought- think I can see you sitting here on earth. So which are you going to choose? You're on earth or you're there? Which? Well, you say, don't be silly, don't. Man there is electing to have both. Yeah, why not? There are multi-levels of meaning, gentlemen. Don't let us be confused, as some people appear to be nowadays. And they say, because you can give this kind of thing many different meanings, it must be invalid. Not at all. If you take a simple coin and put it on the table and view it in ordinary light, you'll see a one-dimensional thing. If you get a split laser beam and, and focus that on the, on, on the coin, you will get a multi-dimensional image. And goodness me, you'll be able to see the back and the front at the same time. And when the Holy Spirit shines on these ancient records, because the ancient record was inspired, when the inspiring spirit shines on those records, what you get is not just one little level of meaning, but a multi-dimensional picture. But if that be true, that will mean that we shall have to be patient with one another, because some of us will have seen the meaning at one level, and some will have seen the meaning at the other, and being good Christian brethren, we shall say my meaning is the meaning, and the other one is impossible, you'll see. Well, the other one might be impossible, but, uh, we shall have to be patient with one another and conceive the possibility that both might be true, though each at a different level. Hm. This is such an important matter, therefore, that I beg your leave in our next session not to proceed at once to discuss, uh, the prostitute of Jericho, the ancestress of Christ, Rahab, but to spend just a little bit more time talking about this matter of multidimensional and asking with you what attitudes we shall have to adopt if we're going to, uh, make sense of the book of Joshua and its interpretation, what controls we can begin, we can bring to bear upon our interpretations. But there for the moment, let us cease. Though it is already deep into the night, gentlemen, I'm afraid I must ask your permission to work you harder than you expect. According to the program, we should have now been proceeding with the story of Rahab the harlot. But I would like to say a few more things about the basic principles of the interpretation of the book of Joshua, so that we shall not be thinking and arguing at cross purposes tomorrow morning, when we come to the real substance of the book. I have therefore asked and obtained permission of the Colonel-in-Chief, uh, that we shall have an extended session, uh, this evening before we eventually get to bed. And I'm now going to talk for about an half an hour, and then give you five-minute minutes break, and then to proceed perhaps for another twenty minutes before we all start snoring. If you have complaint to make, as you might reasonably have, please make it to the Colonel-in-Chief who gave permission. We were talking when we broke off in our previous session about the fact that according to the New Testament, you may take the crossing of Jordan and the entry into the inheritance by Israel as a picture or at two levels. Peter takes it at the level of our inheritance reserved for us in heaven, while we are still on our pilgrimage journey as pilgrims and strangers journeying towards that inheritance. We are being kept on our journey by the power of God. The inheritance, meanwhile, is reserved for us in heaven. Pe- Paul, however, takes our entry into the inheritance as a something already accomplished. We are seated with Christ in the heavenly places, and we are called upon to do battle with principalities and powers in the heavenly places, and thus, obviously, it is legitimate to use the fighting that the Israelites did within their inheritance as a picture of our present position in the heavenlies, battling against principalities, powers, mights, and dominions. It is not a question, therefore, of either or, but of both and. Though that will make us careful as we come to the interpretation, not perhaps to confuse our different levels, but at least to see them distinct in our minds, uh, even when we jump from one to the other in conversation. That leads us on, however, to what is a basic question in the application and the interpretation of the book of Joshua. We were observing earlier that from the historical point of view, the book of Joshua is in two halves because it is describing a historical situation, the historical conquest of the land, which was performed in two phases. That is why the book is in two halves. And we try to understand why there had to be two phases from the military point of view at the time when Joshua brought the nation in. But the fact that the book of Joshua itself is in two halves because it corresponds to two quite different phases in the battle, raises immediately the question of how we apply the lesson to ourselves today. How would you have me take it, gentlemen? On the one scheme, you might argue thus, mightn't you? Some do. That if you take the whole thing in its context, you start with the Israelites as slaves in Egypt, picture of us as unregenerate men under the dominion of the prince of this world, subject to the wrath of God. Then Israel delivered from the wrath of God by the blood of the Passover lamb and delivered from the power of Pharaoh by the mighty power of God at the Red Sea. And we'll say that's a picture of the believer coming to the Lord and sheltering behind the blood of Calvary and being delivered from the wrath of God and being taken out of the kingdom of darkness, we'll say, and transferred to the kingdom of the Son of God's love. That's Exodus. And then the tabernacle. We are redeemed to serve the Lord, and the tabernacle was built that Israel might serve the Lord even while they were still crossing the wilderness. Then comes Leviticus, and that is how, on our road to glory, we are introduced into the presence of God and taught to worship him. Follows Numbers that gives us our experience in the desert, you'll see, our murmurings and also our trials and our, uh, successes and failures. Then comes Deuteronomy with the repetition of the law. And finally, in that order, the entry into the inheritance, the deeper experience of God. So that, as one Ephesians chapter one puts it, Paul prays for his converts, that they may be given a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ, the eyes of their understandings being enlightened, that they might know what is the hope of his calling and what the exceeding riches, glory of the riches of his inheritance in the same. So on that showing, entry into the inheritance is, so to speak, the pinnacle of personal spiritual progress and experience. Shall we interpret it so? If we do, we shall say that the whole of the book of Joshua from the very start is the question of our entry into the deepest or the highest experience that God has for his people. And that undifferentiated all the way. One possible explanation. Mark how it fits the chronological development of the Pentateuch coming up into Joshua. Or shall we say, as some do, pray notice that the book of Joshua is in two bits. And while the second half is, uh, indisputably concerned with, uh, individual tribes entering into their inheritance, and can therefore be a legitimate picture for us to enter into the great inheritance that God has provided for us. A situation in which some tribes entered into their inheritance very well and successfully, and some of them were very laggard and didn't enter in as they should have done. And that too becomes a picture to remind us believers that some believers do personally enter and explore all the potentials of the inheritance that Christ has given them, and some don't. While that is true of the second section then, can we say that the second section is not to be confused with the first? That the first is concerned not with the individual Israelite entering into his inheritance, for that was strictly forbidden. The two and a half tribes were not allowed to enter their inheritance, were they? Not individually. They were only allowed to do that in the second half. That the first half is concerned militarily, first of all, with Joshua's bringing the nation as a whole into the land and breaking the power of the principalities. And only when Joshua had thus brought them in and destroyed or made ineffective the power of the enemy, were the individual Israelites then able to enter each tribe into its personal inheritance. If that is anywhere near true, what we are now saying is that the true counterpart of these two halves of the book of Joshua is, first of all, what our Joshua has done to secure our inheritance. And only then, the second half of the book, our responsibility to enter into the inheritance that our Joshua has secured for us. To put it another way, theologically, doctrinally, is, are the first three sections of this book the Old Testament equivalent of Ephesians chapter six? Fighting against principalities and powers in your daily life, so that you might penetrate more deeply into your personal lot, your personal inheritance. Or is it the counterpart of, uh, Galatians? On what terms are we brought into the inheritance to start with, before we begin scrapping. You say I incline to the view that it is the equivalent of Ephesians chapter six, fighting in the heavenly places. Very good, sir. Pray tell me how you got into the heavenly places to start with. Did you weren't already, first of all, seated in the heavenly places, you couldn't very well begin to fight in the heavenly places, could you? Oh. Pray, tell me, therefore, I ask, how did you manage to get into the heavenly places to start with? By fighting. Did you have to fight principalities and powers to get in and get a seat. I see you shaking your heads, and I am glad because I agree with your theology. What a denial of the gospel it would be to suggest that we had to fight our way into the heavenlies and fight for a seat there. Well, then may I ask you how you got into your inheritance, gentlemen? And with one voice you reply, it was our Joshua that got us in. Praise the Lord. You see, put put it in a nutshell. The second half is the story of the victorious Christian, though often defeated. The first half of Joshua is the story of the victorious Christ, gentlemen. It It was was Joshu- Joshua that was commanded to bring the people in, and as we saw in our first evening session, commanded to bring the people in, he obeyed all that was laid upon him, marvelous captain of their salvation, and did all that the law of Moses required of him, and he brought the people in, thank God. And they were therefore able then, subsequently, personally to enter into their glorious inheritance. I hope it won't shock you too much, but then I mention it now because you have the whole night before you to recover from the shock. I shall say that these three sections tell us, from three different points of view, how our blessed Lord has brought us into our inheritance. And what the three different points of view are, I shall tell you tomorrow. But if you want to do a little preliminary reading, pray here read Hebrews chapter two, and here read Galatians, the whole of it, and here read Ephesians as much as you like. You will at least remember from your reading of the New Testament how often the term inheritance is used. Pray also remember, therefore, how many times in the epistles is it asserted that Christ has already brought us into our inheritance. Oh, those lovely words in Colossians chapter one, giving thanks to the Father, who has made us meet, qualified us for our partaking of the inheritance of the saints in light. And even though you go to bed tonight dreaming of hobgoblins and foul fiends and your responsibility to war against them. Then go to bed with the thought predominant in your minds that you are already seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Failures though you may be from time to time, like I am most of the time. Is it not true, gentlemen? Answer before God that you are already seated in heavenly places. That is, isn't it? Oh, what a gospel to get hold of, that our Joshua has brought us in. It is when the truth of it grips your heart and soul, and you say, I'm in, because of his grace and strength, that you'll be ready then to turn around and enter personally into your particular inheritance given you of God. And if that, uh, puts the emphasis of the, the book of Joshua rather more in the direction of the gospel than some commentaries do, well, that's liable to be an indication that the interpretation is correct. Find how many commas and full stops you can in the Bible that are not concerned with the gospel. And there aren't many. Or would you say, Mr. Preacher, there's a fault in your exposition that is ev- would be evident to a child in the kindergarten. Who will say Joshua brought them in, in that first section. Didn't they have to fight along with Joshua? Oh, so they did. You say that stymies your interpretation, old chap. Because when Christ brought us in, he was the only one that did the fighting. How are you going to explain that? Well, I shall start by going back to the literal and historical. That's always the safest thing to do when you're in a corner. And ask you to notice what the difference between the quality of fighting here and the quality of fighting here. You didn't get round to answering one of the questions that I set in the first sessions of the, um, question time because somebody failed to to put an asterisk on it. But, uh, how would you justify this ancient story of the slaughtering of Canaanites that went on. Of the complete destruction of Jericho and everything that breathed in it. Of that fearful curse that was pronounced upon Jericho. How would you justify that? Commanded by the Lord, amen. And commanded for For what? what? Because of the Yes. Yes.