Gooding, David: 8 - Contending for the Faith

When we broke off our last study, gentlemen, we were in process of examining the structure of the Book of Judges, such has been given to it by the original author. We had made ourselves a list of contents, and then we were attempting to see the interrelationship between the con- uh, the individual parts of the book and the whole, trying to perceive the functional relationship of the different parts between one another and the whole. And we had noticed how the very structure of that book and its contents serves to demonstrate the author's thesis. One, that the experience of Israel that he was about to relate would prove to be cyclical. As from time to time, Israel disobeyed God, and God sold them into the hand of their enemy, who then proceeded to oppress them, until Israel cried to the Lord, and he raised up a deliverer who would save them and judge them and keep them on an even keel, but that when the judge died, then the Israelites would once more do evil in the sight of the Lord and go through the same cycle of, uh, deliverance into the hand of their enemies, of oppression, of crying to the Lord, and of being delivered. And not only so, but the orthos announces, according to his thesis, that whereas Israel's experience will be cyclical, every turn of the circle will see them plunging more deeply than their forefathers into apostasy, and therefore into the unpleasant depths of the discipline of God under their enemies' hands. That is the author's thesis as regards the people themselves. We notice how that thesis is illustrated in the story of the judges, and for the moment we take up there, just looking once more at the structure of the book to complete what we had not time to complete in the previous study. We notice that there comes a watershed halfway through Gideon's experience. That great man of God, that great man of faith, began to go downhill. When, in addition to fighting the enemy, he started to fight his own brethren and destroy his own brethren and their defenses in the process. And how that great man who in his day had fought, stood and fought against idolatry was the author of, uh, even though unintentionally maybe, I know not, the author of an in practice that led Israel thereafter into gross idolatry. Now I have you to notice that not only did the judges after Gideon likewise go downhill compared with the judges before Gideon, but if we compare the two introductions at the beginning of the book with the two epilogues at the end of the book, we shall see first that some of the phraseology is remarkably similar, and second, that the epilogues tell the same sorry stale- tale of decline when we compare them with the two introductions. Uh, take, for instance, the s- second introduction, which tells us of Israel's intermittent idolatry. How from time to time they intermarried with Gentile nations and were induced by their Gentile spouses to forsake the Lord and take up the worship of pagan gods. Intermittent idolatry from which they were saved from time to time by the raising up of judges. But now, if you look at the first epilogue, you will find a story not of intermittent idolatry, but of institutionalized idolatry. There we come across a man by the name of Micah. That ought to mean who is like unto Jehovah. And proclaim the uniqueness of God. A grand, uh, uh, and this man, if you please, forms an idolatrous shrine with his little god made of silver, and hires a Levite, grandson of Moses, into this institutionalized form of idolatry. Worse still, the Danites, wishing to extend their territory, come along that way as they journeyed north to seek pastures new, and they called the Levite and promised him a bigger salary, and so he felt he had a distinct call from God. And he went long with Micah's image, if you please. Now, that is not playing fair to steal somebody else's gods, is it? I mean, say what you will. And he carted off this silver image that belonged really to Micah, and off he went with the Danites. They went north. Like the original warriors who slaughtered the Canaanites that they might establish themselves in their God-given inheritance, the Danites went north, came across a city by the name of Laish that was at peace with everybody and free from all care. They slaughtered the men of Laish and established idolatry. Things have come to a pretty pass, haven't they? Israel's original entry into the land and all her battles had for their purpose the destruction of idolatry. Here is a tribe apparently carrying on the process of destroying the Canaanites in order to establish the law of God in Canaan, and what they establish from the very first is downright idolatry institutionalized. Sorry business. Only we must moot our criticisms, perhaps. Because, gentlemen, you will know that in some parts of the world, Africans, to go no further, caught their first glimpses of so-called Christianity as missionaries came to them and implanted institutionalized idolatry. But then compare, if you will, the first introduction with the second epilogue. In the first introduction, we shall meet the all-tribal assembly. As that all-tribal assembly came before God to inquire of God which tribe should be the first to go up and enter its own God-given inheritance, and God replied, Judah shall go up. At the end of epilogue one, when by now the historian has told you how far short of success the process of entering their inheritance was on the part of many tribes, we have the story how the man of God came and rebuked God's people for their disobedience to God's covenant, which led to much weeping before the Lord, and so much weeping that they called the name of that place weeping, well, weepers, Bochim. Look, if you care, uh, to the similar language at in the second epilogue, where once more the all-tribal assembly meets and inquires of the Lord, who shall go up first? And the Lord replies, Judah. And now we notice a difference. When this time they inquire who shall go up first, they are not thinking of going up in order to, uh, drive out Canaanites and enter their God-given heritage. They are thinking of the need to go up against one of their own tribes, Benjamin, and discipline that tribe for the perpetration of immorality so disgusting that it would almost shock one of the pagan, the, the su- the surrounding pagan nations. That surely is a sorry thing for the armies of Israel to have to do. A tribe in Israel guilty of breaking such sanctities that it would shock even the heathen nation. Of course, we have to guard our tongues, don't we? Lest we criticize them too severely. When we remember that our brother Paul had to rebuke the Corinthians, our fellow believers in Corinth, that there was such immorality among them as was not even named among the heathen. Call upon them to the sad and sorry task of disciplining the offending member. Well, the all-tribal assembly met before God and inquired who should go up first, and he said Judah. But, on the first two occasions, Benjamin came out, and instead of being chastised, chastised the Judahites and the rest of the nation full sore. Till the nation was obliged to meet before God with tears, before the ark of his covenant, and inquire why God had allowed them to be so humiliated by the Benjamites when they had attempted to discipline them. Things have got to a sorry pass, where not only is Israel failing to destroy Canaanites, now they can't even discipline offending Israelites. We guard our tongues again. One of the greatest weaknesses in Christendom all down the centuries has been either the refusal or the inability to exercise godly discipline. And if the church cannot exercise godly discipline, how shall it ever think that its gospel is going to win its way to success in the Gentile world? If the people of God are guilty of the same or even worse immoralities than the world outside, and they cannot discipline it and bring it to order. How shall the testimony of the church in the gospel ever have a hope of being successful? So then, in many respects, the book of Judges is a sad book. So that at this moment I'm prompted to remind you that while it is a sad book, the great emphasis on the book is nonetheless of the salvation of God, not the salvation of God simply in respect of sinners, so to speak, but the salvation of God as exhibited in the his saving of his people. But now we come to the introduction itself. It is chapter one one, the first introduction, chapter one one to chapter two verse five. m I want to run through this section, and if you find that instead of giving answers, I raise more questions than answers and leave those questions unanswered. Why, gentlemen, would you not approve of my wisdom? But I leave the questions with men more able than I to, to find the answers. Anyway, there will be question times and contribution sessions later on, do you see, as opportunities to answer the questions. I then just remind you that this first introduction deals with what we have called the second phase of the conquest, immediately upon Joshua's death, when the tribes now had to peel off and go, each one, to its inheritance. You'll notice that all Israel gathered together, the children of Israel gathered together as a whole, what I have called the all-tribal assembly, because this was a delicate moment in military operations. If at all all the tribes had kept together in one army, it would have been exceedingly dangerous to peel off and go each tribe its separate way. But now, with the opposition broken, each tribe had to go its way, but not all at once. To do- to have disbanded the whole army all at once might still have been perilous. There were enemies that were not yet conquered, nations living in more distant parts, such as the Philistines, that had never hitherto been touched. Moreover, in cities that had been conquered and then left behind as Israel's armies surged forward. There were still pockets of re- resistance, people that had never been mopped up or cleared out, and in other cases, people that had been chased away, that had come back surreptitiously. So there was fighting still to do all over the place. It would not have been wise for all the tribes to have attempted it all at once and disbanded. They inquired who shall go up first, and the Lord said, Judah shall go up first. This was a very sensible military decision. I don't want to preach any sermon from it, though sermons galore may spring to spring to your mind as you consider the situation. Entering our inheritance, general- gentlemen, is not a matter that we do altogether as individuals, is it? Paul's prayer in Ephesians three is that we may be strengthened by God's spirit in the inner man, that our, our Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith, and that together with all the saints we might come to see what is the length and breadth and height and depth. In that process, some will be leaders, of course, but it is a matter for the church as a whole, isn't it? To enter into the variegated inheritance that God has given us. I want now to make some first, some general remarks, to raise questions about them, and to pass on then to the four anecdotes that are to be found in what otherwise appears to be a general list. First then, the general questions, general observations. There was much success. We would be foolish and silly, uh, to fail to observe it. Judah and the other tribes as a whole eventually entered into their inheritance, generally speaking, and on the whole, and for the most part. It would be foolish to give any other impression, wouldn't it? We're not to be pessimists. But then we are to be realists. So we notice the recurrent phrase. One, that certain ones could not drive out the inhabitants of the land. Look at verse nineteen of Judah itself. And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron. He could not drive them out. A rather different phrase occurs, and that more frequently with other tribes. Verse twenty seven, Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean, but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Or again, verse thirty, and Zebulun drove not out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of a number of other places. And in verse thirty one and thirty two, and Asher dr- drove not out the inhabitants of Ako, and an even longer list of inhabitants. But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites and the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out. I was always taught by my grammar masters at school that there was a difference between did not and could not. And I submit it to you, gentlemen, as to how seriously we are to take the difference here. It is said of Judah that there were certain Canaanites that he could not drive out, whereas it is said of others simply that they did not drive out the enemy. And how would you have me read it? Would you agree with the proposition that God in him, in his realism, recognized that there were enemies so strongly armed that Judah could not, for the time being, drive them out. So we can't have that kind of compromise. Surely, if only Judah had laid hold on the strength of the Lord, all the enemies would have been cleared up overnight. What are you talking about? He couldn't drive them out. What new heresy is this? If God was with him, then he could have driven them out. Hm. English politeness forbids me to inquire of you, have you driven out all your enemies yourself? Have you no enemies, gentlemen, within or without, that you have struggled against for years. And you've implored the Lord's grace and help. And as best you know how, you have believed the promises of the Lord that assure you of victory. Yet, if I were your father confessor and you were confessing to me at this moment, you would say, David, I haven't been able to drive them out. No, there's none of you like that here. Thank the Lord for that. You are a perfect bunch of saints. And I've known others, and one of them sits before you, who would have to say, there are certain enemies. Strive how I have down the long years. I should have to say, I have not been able to drive them out completely. My fault, brother? Yeah, yeah, yes, I shall admit it, the first to admit. My question to you is, do I hear at this point a certain element of divine realism that acknowledges that whereas Judah might at last be given the grace of God that should finally subdue all enemies at this particular moment. Though the Lord was with him, for see the verse says the Lord was with him. Verse nineteen: and the Lord was with Judah. And you see that in the, in what follows next, and he drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, so the Lord was with him. He was steaming ahead, fighting the battles necessary to enter into his inheritance. The Lord was with him. He drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, and why did he start on them first? Well, then it explains, for he couldn't drive out the boys down in the plain. They had chariots of iron. I suppose it was wise tactics to start on the enemies you could defeat. Hey, what ho? He couldn't drive out the Canaanites below immediately because they had chariots of iron and he didn't. Well, he started on the enemies he could drive out, and that's a something, isn't it? Uh, as a matter of fact, uh, tell me, who of you would like to raise his hand and indicate that he has been successful in driving out all the enemies. Where are you? Ah, not yet. Well, you have a program, I suppose, gentlemen. Um, when are you expecting that the last enemy in your life shall be put down? Next Thursday? Ah, yes, my brother. Realism inside you tells you that you won't have won the last battle before the Lord himself comes. Is that an excuse for not fighting? Oh, no, indeed not. If there were some enemies that Judah couldn't th- cast out, he got working on the enemies he could cast out, and that was progress, wasn't it? Thank the Lord. But I put it to you. Best by observations of these sorts, I fa- fall into careless living and encourage anybody in, uh, uh, careless living and, uh, apathy and foolish contentment. Look, if I may ask you now, to verses twenty eight and thirty. It came to pass, when Israel was waxed and strong, that they put the Canaanites to task work and did not utterly drive them out. So now we have a gradation of, uh, reactions, as distinct from tribes like Judah, of which it is said he could not cast out the enemy. Of others like Asher, it is baldly stated that they did not cast out. And that surely is a condemnation. They did not cast them out. But others were, so to speak, in between. Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and other towns. But when Israel was waxen strong, says, uh, verse twenty eight, they put the Canaanites to task work and did not utterly drive them out. And Zebulun adopted the same, uh, uh, tactics, verse thirty informs us. Various people that he did not drive out, the Canaanites dwelt among them, among the Israelites, and became tributary. That is, they became servants and subjects, uh, to the tribe of Zebulun. Gentlemen, my next question. Do you approve of the tactics? If you can't drive the enemy out, make him serve your purpose. No, no, you say, I couldn't compromise in that way. That's terrible, what you're saying now. Young gentlemen, you are pro- you're progressing from bad to worse. What is this worse thing now? You may take the enemy and instead of driving him out, put him to task work and, uh, make him tributary, make him serve your purpose. Awful. Yeah. So I'd like to hear in the discussion times, when you get round to discussing this and come up with your answers, and tell me the, the sermon you would preach on this verse and what I ought to preach. What you would say of the following case history. Here is a dear lady, a Christian woman, not like some men and women, lazy, careless in their work for the Lord. A woman that does her work with such unremitting energy and with such attention to detail, that, to be frank, sometimes she's a little bit tiresome to all who try to work with her. The woman is a positive perfectionist. Any conference she arranges is arranged one hundred and ten percent of perfection. The last little detail, and ten thousand more are seen to go to her home, and her home hasn't one speck of dust in the whole of the house. And all her life is like that, including her work for the Lord. Privately, you would say, well, she's a very dear soul, but you know, then the very word you'd use would express not unqualified approval. You would say the trouble with her is she's a perfectionist. And what do you mean? Well, you probably mean that underneath is a psychological complex that isn't one hundred percent healthy. It drives the woman. Sometimes you feel sorry for her, because she can't relax. But underneath, she's always afraid of being found fault with, of being rejected. And part of her motivation is this psychological difficulty that she herself has not yet recognized. Her work is marvelous, but it kind of makes a slave of her. Now, what will you say? I'm all ears to hear what you'd say. What she's done is to allow that, uh, complex to merge in with her zeal and gratitude for the Lord. But it's not just unadulterated zeal. The whole complex is a part of the driving spring. She's turned it, therefore, to good account. Is it right? If you can't get rid of pride, sir, is it a good thing to harness it and use it to make you more di- yourself more diligent in the Lord's service? You say, my good man, if you don't, uh, depart from such things, we shall throw you out. Well, right. You give me the answer i- in the question time. I have to report what the text says, that some tribes, when they couldn't cast the enemy out, did the best thing they knew how, and made the enemy serve their purpose. Of course, some tribes did worse than that. You'll see in verse some thirty it says that the Canaanites dwelt among them. But a later verse says that the Asherites also dwelt among the Canaanites, and that's a very different thing. And finally, let us observe Dan, that unfortunate tribe. And this clearly is wrong, isn't it? The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill country, for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley. But the Amorites would dwell in Mount Heryas, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbeam. Though the hand of the house of Judah prevailed, so that they became tributary. Poor old Dan, stuck up on his mountain. A virtual prisoner in the land. He couldn't come down because of the enemies that faced him, and he wouldn't or didn't or couldn't or something or other drive them out. General lessons then, gentlemen, I haven't the time to spend more on them. I shall be interested to hear your, your answers to my questions in the question time. But now we come to the four anecdotes that fill this first introduction. The first of them comes in verse four to verse seven of chapter one, is the story of Adoni Bedzek, the Lord of Bedzek. We're told that Judah fought against him, and they smote the Canaanites and the Perizzites, but Adoni Bedzek fled, and they pursued after him and caught him and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Adoni Bedzek said, threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table. As I have done, so has God requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died there. We many times observed, even this week and last week as well, that when God brought Israel into their inheritance, he made them agree with him in his judgments on the Canaanites and used them as executors of his judgment upon the Canaanites. Here, therefore, before our eyes is an example of God's judgment on one of the Canaanite kings. A judgment that was delivered when Judah went into his inheritance and fought and subdued this Canaanite king. When they took the town and took the king, they cut off his thumbs, his right thumb and his right toe. From a military point of view, of course, it is understandable, however cruel you judge it to be. In cutting off the man's right thumb, they made it very difficult for the man hereafter to use a sword or to grasp and aim a spear. In cutting off his right toe, they made it the more difficult for the man to stand and keep his balance and to walk properly. It was by way, therefore, of restricting the man's military potential. The interesting thing is the comment Adoni Bedzek himself is said to have made upon the treatment he received. He observed that three score and ten kings, with their thumbs cut off and their toes cut off, gathered bread under his table. And the sight isn't very pleasant, is it? You'll see how humiliated they were, having now to try to subsist by picking up crumbs under their victor's table. And you just picture the scene with men without a thumb trying to pick up crumbs. If you've not tried it, gentlemen, practice the next time at dinner and pick up a few crumbs under the table with your four fingers without a thumb. It would seem that this ghastly conqueror delighted in the misery and humiliation of his victim. But now he recognizes that God's judgment has caught up with him, and as he did to his victims, God has now done to him and requited him. The principle he recognizes is this, is it not, that whatsoever a man who attempt to enter our spiritual inheritance do well to give heed to it. Surely we do. No book in the New Testament talks much about, more about our inheritance than the Epistle to the Galatians. We do not enter into our inheritance by keeping the law. Indeed, as far as God's law goes, there is no penalty, there is no condemnation to them that be in Christ Jesus. While there is no penalty, pray remember, remember, says Paul, that there are consequences. And it is still true of us believers that what we sow, we shall reap. God is not mocked, says Paul. If you sow to the flesh, you will of the flesh reap corruption. Whereas if you sow to the spirit, you will of the spirit reap eternal life. Who say, don't try to frighten me, I got eternal life already. You have? Oh, you are to be congratulated. Where do you keep it? In a box down at the bank? So that you can take the box out every now and again and show your friends, I got eternal life, and now here it is. Ha. I keep it down at the bank, and when the Lord comes, I shall say, just a moment, I just want to rot and get down to the bank to get my eternal life. So I got it. You have. Right, what is, what is it now you've got it? It's a life, isn't it? A life that can be explored and developed, and needs to be explored, and needs to be developed, and needs to be entered into, needs to be laid hold on. Lay hold on eternal life, says Paul to Timothy. It's not enough, is it, gentlemen, to have eternal life, which we have by God's unconditional gift, but we are constantly exhorted that we lay hold of it, develop it, go in for it, explore and exploit the God, the great inheritance that God has given us. In this particular, we need to listen to the great principle, the unvarying principle of God. What a man sows, that shall he reap. So to the flesh, as a believer, and by God's unutterable, unvarying principle, we shall of the flesh reap corruption, buckets of tears and brokenness and loss. And loss that can be eternal. While there is no penalty, there are consequences. Some consequences can be eternal. Sow to the Spirit, and you will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. That is, you will explore your inheritance, develop it, enter into it, and enjoy it. You say, I don't get quite this business between, um, penalty and consequences. All right, let me use a humble analogy. Here is a father who is required to go away for the week or two in the summer, uh, on business. And he sees fit to take his, uh, eight-year-old out into the garden. And says, my boy, you see this bush here, it's a gooseberry bush. Now the gooseberries on this bush are not yet ripe, my boy. They're green, and I'm telling you now, I don't want you to touch those green goodness. Because if you touch them and try to eat them, you'll find they're so green, they'll give you a horrible stomach ache. And then, of course, if you gather them now, that's ruined it for everybody. And so if I find, when I come home, you've disobeyed me, I shall give you six of the best, as they say, on that part of your anatomy, uh, organized for the purpose. Eventually, father comes home and says to mother, where is, where is Johnny? He's gone to bed. Oh. Now what's wrong with Johnny? He's got a terrible stomach ache. Oh. Father goes upstairs. Hello, Johnny. How are you, Johnny? Got a stomach ache. Oh. You haven't been eating green gooseberries, Johnny, have you? Yes. Ah. And now you've got a stomach ache. Yeah. And what else did Daddy say he would give you if you plucked the green gooseberries? Six of the best. And then he starts to cry, and I'm sorry, and I didn't mean to do it, but I had to see whether one gooseberry was all right, and then then I didn't know where to stop. And... And in the end, he says sorry, apparently so convincingly, that father says, all right, Johnny, well, this time I forgive you. And the boy doesn't get the six of the best. Does that immediately cure his stomachache? Well, no, you say. That'll have to work its way through the system. You see, six of the best was the penalty, but the stomachache was the consequence. We evangelicals need to remember it, don't we? There's no penalty. There are consequences. There are eternal rewards, gentlemen. If any man's work abide when it comes to the judgment seat of Christ, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss. No work to show. No re- no work to show for a lifetime. And no reward. Eternally. And similarly with the development of our Christian character. Add to your faith, says Peter, all the graces of a Christian character, but when the time comes, your entrance into the eternal kingdom may be an abundant entrance. Fail to add Christian qualities to your character, you'll get in. For all get in through the blood of Christ, all who have believed. The entrance might not be abundant. The consequence of that be eternal. This principle here, that I seem to see it anyway, the principle that whatsoever a man sows, that shall he reap, would have direct application to the way we do or do not treat our inheritance now, to the effort we do or do not make to enter in, to the question whether we take our redeemed lives and simply sow to the flesh, and of the flesh reap its consequences, corruption, or whether we sow to the spirit, and of the the spirit spirit reap ream, life life everlasting. everlasting. But let us take our breakdown.