Gooding, David: 1 - Intro to Joshua

My first present duty is to thank you all, one and all, and the organizers of the camp particularly, for inviting me along once more to take part in these seminars. It makes my old bones feel a little bit young again to see some of you here that I first got to know, um, many years ago in Greenwood Hills, when we first started such seminars. It's good to see you, the older friends, again, with faces ennobled by life's experience and fellowship with God. Good to see a lot of others that as yet I do not know, and particularly those of you who are younger, encouraging to the old fogies like me to see younger men that are keen to take God seriously, as seriously as they take their physics, chemistry, and electronics, not to talk about computers, eh, are prepared to take God seriously and think God's thoughts after him. Now, the topic, as you have gathered for these sessions, is the book of Joshua. It is a very well-known book, and I fear I shall have very little new to say to you. But because the book is well known, it will allow me perhaps for my contribution, and mark how that implies I'm expecting your contributions as well. But as far as my contribution is concerned, I shall be laying ev- uh, emphasis both on the historical situation depicted in the book of Joshua and on the literary form of the book itself. And be asking the questions how that historical information and the literary form of the book can help us in our interpretation of the book. Now, there are some very well-known problems associated with the book of Joshua. That is, associated with the interpretation of the book of Joshua. We all of us feel, I suspect, that unless in the end we get something personally for ourselves and something practical for ourselves, the study is unsatisfactory academic. Some problems arise at that level of interpretation. Let me cite one obvious one, obvious and well discussed. When Joshua talks of bringing the Israelites into across Jordan, into their inheritance, how are we to interpret that as touching ourselves. Is crossing Jordan for us, as in much traditional literature, crossing the river of death and going home to be forever with the Lord? Thus entering on that inheritance that we are reliably told is reserved in heaven for us. We are being kept until the time we enter it. It is an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away. So is that what crossing Jordan is for us and entering our inheritance? No, no, no, say a multitude of expositors. Of course not. Ha. Why not? Well, look, when Israel crossed the Jordan, then began the fighting with all the Canaanites and giants and things that were in the land. And surely when we die and go home to be with the Lord, we shan't have any fighting to do. So how can that, uh, be a picture of our crossing Jordan, going to heaven, and entering into our eternal inheritance? What is it then? Oh well, say these expositors, crossing Jordan is a picturesque where our, our baptism even. We died with Christ, we're buried with Christ, we're risen with Christ. We are now seated already, two thousand and seven, already seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus. But we must expect, as Ephesians six tells us, we must expect warfare, very serious warfare. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, mights, and dominions, world rulers of this wickedness in heavenly places. And any who put their hands to the work of the Lord, particularly in countries where Satan has held such long entrenched sway, will discover sooner or later the realities of that warfare. So which is the right interpretation? Let me at once say that in our discussions, and there will be many, I hope, we should be aware of the fact that the historical book of Joshua has significance at many different levels. And because of that, the two interpretations that I have just given are not necessarily contradictory at all. Both can be true at their particular levels. The Bible is not a flat earth construction. Its meaning and significance are often to be found at more than one level. But because of that, I shall be emphasizing what must be basic to any interpretation, and that is the literal and historical meaning of the book, and what it would have meant to its early readers, whenever Joshua was first written, and what it meant for centuries to ancient Israelites, all down the long years before the coming of Christ. And the added significance that we see in it, through the coming of our Lord and his revelation of God. So let us bear those things in mind as we come to our discussion groups. Otherwise, we could find ourselves arguing at cross purposes. One man says this, which is of the interpretation he favors. It's good enough in itself. Oh, but the other man has another view, and he holds that that is the only one. And so the discussion goes on, but neither the twain shall meet, uh, do you see, because they're arguing at cross purposes. We must therefore be ca- careful and considerate, one with another. Now we shall find, in the course of our studies together this week, God willing, that the book of Joshua, when we come to interpret it, raises certain doctrinal and theological questions. And for that reason, as, uh, Randy has just intimated, for the first session of the three mornings, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, when we shall all be bright and breezy and clear-eyed and clear-headed and clear vision. Hm. I'm going to get you, if you will, to discuss with me these doctrinal and theological questions. I want now to give notice of what those questions are going to be, so that you may have time in your dreams and slumbers, or in the early morning, at late at night, to consider what you would say, if you get a chance to say it, because everybody will be wanting to say something, won't they now? The only rule to observe is don't all speak at once, because that's rude, but, uh, otherwise, yes, let's have some thoughtful contributions to the discussion. The first thing, therefore, that we shall discuss, God willing, in this tomorrow, Tuesday morning, is the covenant by which God gave the land to Abraham and his seed. We shall have two questions to discuss among ourselves. One will be the nature of that covenant. It was a legal thing, of course, a legal institution. What kind of covenant was it? What is technically called a one-party covenant or a two-party covenant? Covenant. You may care to think about a passage in Jeremiah thirty four verses eighteen to twenty two where you will find described a two-party covenant. And it will form a comparison, maybe for you, with the covenant that God made with Abram and his seed, which I take to be the covenant referred to in the book of Genesis chapter fifteen. We shall consider, therefore, the nature of that covenant and try to understand some of its terms. Then the second question will be, how is that, if at all, relevant to us in our day? And the passage there to be considered is Paul's exposition of that covenant and its terms in Galatians chapter three verses fifteen to twenty nine. Uh, Paul applies the terms of that covenant to his Christian readers. On Wednesday morning, God willing, and the first session, I hope I can prevail upon you to tell me what the concept of inheritance means. In Joshua eighteen, of course, we get the record of the distribution of the land to the various tribes that God gave them as their inheritance. The term itself does not necessarily mean that they inherited from, inherited it from their parents. Though once, of course, the land had been distributed, then they often did, succeeding generations often did, inherit it through their parents. But we shall be asking, what did, why did, for instance, Naboth in the First Book of Kings refuse to sell his inheritance to Ahab, when he could have made a lot of money by selling it? And what did, was Naomi up to... when with a woman's careful planning, she put up her husband's inheritance for sale? And then we could consider in our discussion the meaning of Psalm chapter sixteen verses five and six, where the terms of distribution of the land and consequent inheritance, where these terms are now used metaphorically. It will take us back to Deuteronomy chapter thirty two and verse eight. There I would be interested to hear your thinking on the question whether God has given the Gentile nations each their inheritance, or only to the Jew. Then you w- may care to advise me on whether, in our case, heredity. That bit, and it's a big bit, isn't it? About us. That we get through our parents. Not only brown eyes or blue, curly hair, straight hair or no hair at all, temperament, mannerisms. There's so much us. Does that come to us all by chance? Or is that in any sense a God-given heredity? What would you think about that? Don't be afraid to say exactly what you think. If you think the idea is crackpot, or there's something in it. And then, of course, how shall we understand the New Testament passages that use the idea of inheritance or heritage? To an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us. Or Ephesians one eleven, in whom we were made an inheritance, or alternatively translated, in whom we received an inheritance. What does that mean exactly? These and many other such questions that cluster around this big idea running through Old Testament and New Testament of inheritance. It would be good to get that settled in our minds somewhat, would it not, as we approach Joshua, which is the book that talks about the distribution of the inheritance to the different tribes. Thursday morning, God willing, I'd like to hear what you would s- uh, what you think upon another question that is growing more insistently. We could phrase it like this. If someone claimed, in speaking with you, that Israel's conquest of the Canaanites was an ancient equivalent of an Islamic jihad. Conquest and destruction of enemies in the name of God, in the name of religion. If someone claimed that Israel's conquest and execution of the Canaanites in the name of God and religion. Was nothing more than the equivalent of a modern Islamic jihad. What would you say? Well, you say no, you see. Very good. And then, why? And so forth. And if somebody else said that the Old Testament record of the conquest of Canaan runs clean counter to Christ's teaching, love your enemies, and Christ's prohibition on our use of force and violence, either to defend the gospel or to promote it. If someone claimed that there was this contradiction outright between the Old Testament and the New, how would you respond? Now, I've given you these, uh, questions and a little detail regarding them. I trust you will see they are relevant to the book, but I do this in advance to hope that we may have some helpful discussion between ourselves, uh, you'll see, on these issues. That leaves us a few moments for tonight, before your weary eyelids droop to oblivion. We could sum up, if we wanted to, the book of Joshua with a simple phrase, and that phrase would run like this. What Moses could not do, that Joshua did. Or to put it more precisely, what Moses could not do in taking the whole assembly of the Lord across the Jordan into Canaan. Moses couldn't do it. If we ask why he couldn't do it, the answer is he wasn't allowed to do it. God would not allow Moses to lead Israel across the Jordan into their inheritance. That raises the further question. Why wouldn't God allow it? The answer is given us in the book of Numbers, chapter twenty. And I propose just to read to you now, to jog your memories, some of the verses from that record in Numbers chapter twenty. This is Numbers twenty verse two. And there was no water for the congregation. And they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. And the people strove with Moses and spake, saying, Would God that we had died when our brethren died before the Lord. Why have you brought the assembly of the Lord into this wilderness, that we should die there, we and our cattle. And why have you made us to come out of, come up out of Egypt, to bring us into this evil place? It is no place of seed or of figs or of vines or of pomegranates. Neither is there any water to drink. Moses Moses and and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tent of meeting and fell upon their faces, and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod and assemble the congregation, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes that it give forth its water. And thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock, so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink. Moses took the rod from before the Lord as he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, you rebels, shall we bring you forth water out of this rock? Moses lifted up his hand and smote the rock with his rod twice. Water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank and their cattle. The Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, because you did not believe me to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given. These are the waters of Meribah, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and he was sanctified in them. Over the page to verse twenty four, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because you, both of you, rebelled against my word at the waters of Mary power. Now, while you are thinking what to say about that, uh, Dulce, perhaps you won't need to think very long, let me confess that I feel very sorry for Moses, if that isn't an unspiritual thing to feel. Poor old Moses. Don't you agree? You think of what he put up with. The courage in defying Pharaoh. And keeping the Passover. And bringing him across the Red Sea. And the constant bickering and, uh, uh, and disputes and ingratitude of the people, And how they refused to go into the Promised Land when they got there, when Moses seemed to be on the very threshold of achieving his life's ambition to bring them into the land of promise. A foolish lot went and refused to go in, and God sentenced them to forty years wandering in the wilderness, and poor old Moses had to delay his entry into the land for forty years. He was getting old in the tooth, wasn't he? After having invested so much in them and lived in hope. And now, on the verge of getting them in. Just one mistake. And the goal that he had given himself for, taken from his hand. It wouldn't go in. God wouldn't let him. I have to confess I feel very sorry for Moses. I think of how many mistakes I've made. Would you like to tell me... what was so terribly wrong with what Moses did? I mean, yeah, well, he, he should have spoken to the rock. Well, he didn't. He, he lost his temper a bit and smote it with a rod twice. The water came out anyway. What was terribly wrong about it? Well, that's an interesting suggestion. Eh, say that again, my good man. I said Christ was to suffer once. Oh? Elaborate on that a little bit, if you will, sir. What, what, what has Christ got to do with this? If you, please elaborate a little bit. Moses had struck a rock previously. Ah, yes. And when Jehovah lifted up his rod and struck the sun, Yes. living water of eternal life. Flowed. Flowed to our, to our benefit. Yes. When Moses struck the rock again, he was, I don't know if blaspheming is the right word, but he was, he was corrupting the type of the son of, of the Christ pictured there at that rock. Yes. We don't need to strike the rock again. We need to speak to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessings will flow. The suffering happens once. Ah. I see. Um, hold on to that. Let me ask the rest now. All those in agreement with the view say, amen. Oh, it's a lot of them agree with you, my good sir. Yes? Anybody doesn't agree? Amen. Oh, you, you're saying you don't agree? I'm saying we're at the cross purposes. Well, cross purposes. Well, elaborate on that, my good man. Well, you, one of the first things you said at the beginning was that we needed to look at these things Uh-huh. based on those early reasons. Yes. What they did. Yeah. What they understood. Yeah. Specifically as those who were reading it before the Lord Jesus Christ. I see, yes. Therefore, when we interpret based on looking back after the Lord Jesus came, Yes. then we come to cross purpose. I see. So what would you think that they who lived before Christ came would have made out of the story? That's a good question, my brother. Yeah, that, yeah, it could be a good question, yes. Yeah. He, uh, he obviously disobeyed God's implicit command of striking the rock when God said he should speak the rock. Oh yes, yes, my good man, sir, thank you very much. Uh, we've got something we can put our feet on solid now. Everybody agree that he actually disobeyed an explicit command? Yeah? Uh, all nemcons, they sa- as they say. That is, God told him to to speak to the rock, he disobeyed God and struck it instead. So it was a question of disobedience. Maybe more than simple disobedience, because he said it was a rebellion, not a mistake or a, uh, oh, I oops, I forgot that thing. It was a rebellion. Well, yes, that does use the phrase, as we read in the rest of the chapter, because you rebel against me. Yes? Didn't he rebel at the burning bush when God, God gave him a command to go to Egypt? He, he, he, uh, he made all kinds of excuses. He said, I don't want to do that, I don't want to do that. And three or four times God had to say, you need to go, you need to go. I think that I'm going to read you Hebrews chapter nine and verse twenty three. Therefore, it was necessary that the copies of the things in heaven should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy place made with hands, which are copies of the truth, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Not that he should offer himself more often as the high priest entered the most holy place every year with blood of another. He then would have to suffer often since the foundation of the world, but now once at the end of the age he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. I still think there is great emphasis on the fact that Moses was corrupting the type of Christ when he disobeyed. That's why that one act of disobedience was imputed with such serious punishment. Thank you very much. Let's hold on that. There's some, uh, offerings over here. Man down there in red, whoever it is. Brother David, I was not here at the beginning. I was under the impression we were going to save these questions that we were going to go over these another time. Is that right or not? Not these questions. This is one where we, yeah, we're entertaining ourselves in case we can't sleep when we get to tonight. Uh, yes. Uh, questions of this sort. Uh. What? We bring the water. Yes. What did Moses mean by Yes, yes. Right, right. God that brought the water from the rock. Yes, but wait a minute, sir. If you'll be fair to the text, I'm sure it was God that brought it, but, uh, verse eight, God says to Aaron and Moses, thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock. There's a good man here who got something to say. Verse twelve. Would say- Oh, sorry. Yeah, I was pointing to someone that I can't quite see, but... It's all right, Brother Keith. Yeah. In verse twelve, the text actually says that the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron and said, because you did not believe me. Yes. The sin of disobedience, if you will, Yes. comes from the fact that they did not believe. Believe. Yes. Yes, that is a, that we, we're getting some firm ground here. The sin of, uh, rebellion ste- stemming from lack of belief, with the consequence it, as our good friend over here says, it ruined a type, whether they knew it or not. Yes? Uh, somebody there? Brother, to take it to the future level, as you might call it, in First Corinthians ten four it explicitly says, speaking of the children of Israel, that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. Yes. Yes. Good. So let's add one or two details, if we can. Our good friend over here has helpfully quoted, uh, the incident in Exodus seventeen where the Israelites, uh, ran out of water, and God told Moses to take the rod wherewith he smote the Nile. It was the rod of judgment that God told him to take. And be- uh, people indeed deserved it, didn't they? Because that was a very serious rebellion. The people tempted God in Acts, in Exodus seventeen, saying, is the Lord among us or not? To tempt God is a most serious thing to do. It puts a pistol to the head of God and says, God, you will do this, or if you don't, we're through with you. That's tempting the Lord God. That was a very serious rebellion. And then Moses had to tell the Lord, they speak of stoning me. That was a customary way of expressing rebellion against a ruler, and generally ended with assassination. There is no wonder that on that occasion, to stop that rebellion, God told Moses to take the rod wherewith he smoked Egypt and the Nile. That is the rod of judgment. The amazing mercy of God was that on that occasion, God said to Moses, take some of the elders. There's this rock here. I shall come down and stand upon that rock. You are to take the rod of my judgment, raise it, and bring it down. You say the people are going to get it. No! Ah. No. Not bring it down on the people. Bring it down on the rock upon which I stand. If your president came to Florida and there was a hill high enough or a platform high enough for him to stand on, and somebody came out of the crowd with a mighty great rod and began to belabor the platform upon which the president stood, I think your police would interpret it as an attempted rebellion, wouldn't they? For the rod of judgment to be lifted up on the rock upon which God stood. But as our friend said, what a picture that is of the way God subdues rebels. Jehovah lifted up his rod. O Christ, it fell on thee. That's what's broken the rebellion, I think, in your hearts, gentlemen. Broken it better than the threats of hell would ever break it. But you see, in Numbers it was a very different situation. The people murmured against God. Anybody here would like to claim he's never murmured against God? Anybody? My eyes are not too good, but I can't see any hands up. Why have you brought us out? Why must bringing us to our great inheritance, marvelous, why must it involve this kind of experience? This is no place of figs, they said, at the end of their tether. And this time God told Moses and Aaron to take a rod, but notice the different rod. It was not the rod wherewith he smote Egypt. It was the rod before the Lord, which the earlier chapter, two chapters, three, ch- two, one chapter earlier, has described for you how the elders brought each his own rod of office, put them before the Lord overnight, and in the morning, eleven of the rods were the same as they were before. The other rod, which was Aaron's, budded and brought forth fruit, almonds. The mark of Aaron's priesthood. Not a rod of judgment. And they were to assemble the elders. Men with their tongues parched through thirst. At the end of their tether. And with the rod of priesthood in their hands, to speak to the rock, and God would honor their faith so that it would appear to the people that Moses and Aaron brought forth the water by their speaking in their priestly office of intercession. And God would have been glorified, to use the Hebrew word, sanctified. In the eyes of the people. After all, it was a God who cared. A God who felt with them in their sufferings. A God who was open to intercession. Instead of which, Moses, burdened as he was, perhaps, let's make every excuse for him, lost his temper and belabored the rock with the rod of priesthood. But you don't have to belabor God to get his sympathy, you know. To make him compassionate to his people. You failed to sanctify me, says God to Moses and Aaron. You misrepresented me to the people. Let all of us who take any public office in the church, who stand for God before the people, let's all listen. To misrepresent God in the eyes of his people. That would be a very serious offense to commit, would it not? And to do it with people that are broken at the end of their tether through their sufferings and represent God as hard and domineering. The irony was, that in that very moment when Moses said, here now, you rebels, it was Moses that was being the rebel, not the people. You rebelled against me. God counted it so serious that the result was you'll never lead the people into their promised inheritance because you rebel. Now, Moses was very good at commanding, you know. I expect you've noticed that. Full of commands. And seeing he was God's inspired mouthpiece, the commands are valid. Moses, good at commanding, had a weakness. He was weak, to borrow a term, through the flesh. What Moses couldn't do, God sending his son did. Let's remember the whole verse and put it as a caption over the book of Joshua. What the law couldn't do. Not that there was anything wrong with the law, but what the law couldn't do in that it was weak through the flesh. God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. What Moses couldn't do, God has done through Jesus, and Joshua is simply the Hebrew for Jesus. If that is so, we shall look with interest to find out at all the important crucial points in the first half of Joshua. We are told that when it came to the three objectives that Moses had commanded, Joshua fulfilled them, and not only fulfilled them, but fulfilled them exactly as Moses had commanded they should be fulfilled. Fulfilled. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I shall be looking for even more cooperation in the mornings that lie before us in the first sessions, as we consider some of the doctrinal issues and theological issues that are raised in the book of Joshua. But with this meditation on what Moses couldn't do, what the law couldn't do, because it was weak through the flesh. Now that God has found an answer to it, not excusing sin in the flesh, but condemning it. And yet a means and a method that the righteous demand of the law shall be fulfilled. With that introduction, let us commit ourselves now to the Lord, that he who inspired these ancient records will stand among us in these coming days, that we may not merely learn facts, important as they are, but be given understanding of them. And may each one hear the voice of the shepherd himself, speaking to our hearts, so that what we have heard him say to us, we may in his time pass on to others and be used of God to help lead our fellow believers into the riches of their inheritance here and now, in preparation for the inheritance that is yet to come. Let's just pray. Our Father, we thank thee now for this opportunity given us through our friends and their hard work to convene this conference. We thank thee, Father, for our circumstances that allow us to come. And we thank thee for thy divine preparations that have sprung from an eternity past. And for thy grace towards us that has brought us to the Savior, and given us to know him, and a desire to follow him. For this we bless thy name indeed. And pray, Lord, that now in these coming days, thou will stand among us and fulfill thy gracious promise, I will manifest myself to you. Come, blessed Lord and Savior. Stand among us, we pray. Show thyself to us. Give us strength of mind and powers of perseverance, and spiritual perception and insight. But above all, we pray that thou wilt use these times together to fulfill thy gracious promise made to the Father. I will declare thy name, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. So grant thy blessing, we pray, for thine own name's sake. Amen. Gentlemen, in the morning there's a prayer meeting at 7:30 in.