Back to sermon search

Full transcript

It is most encouraging, gentlemen, to see so many of you present this afternoon and so evidently awake after the slumbers post midday. When we broke off this morning, we were beginning to consider the details of section one of the first half of the book of Joshua. We had considered, first of all, God's charge to Joshua himself, and then Joshua's response to the Lord. We further considered Joshua's charge to the two and a half tribes, and then their response to Joshua. And we'd begun then to think about what the spies discovered when they came into Jericho. Not merely was the king of Jericho ready to endure a siege and was not intending to charge out of the city to attack Israel when Israel attempted to cross Jordan. But Jericho was straightly tr- uh, uh, uh, tied up, ready for a siege. That was militarily, of course, very significant. But they also found that there, in the most unexpected of places, there was a Gentile woman who had been converted, had turned to God from idols to serve the living and the true God. Perhaps we could have the thing on to remind us of the details. We could consider, first and foremost, her former way of life, her manner of life. She was a harlot. It was her profession to offer men pleasure without love, or love without loyalty. The depersonalizing of sex. And she stands typical of a pagan society that was Jericho and the Canaanites in general. Having lost or jettisoned or suppressed the knowledge of the true God, as Romans says, became vain in their thinking. And then from being vain in their thinking, it affected their morals, and they degraded their bodies among one another. Eventually reaping the physical results of such perversions. Playing false to the true God. And deifying the forces of nature. For men when, when men and women reject the one true God and refuse to believe in him, they do not believe in just old anything. For it is self-evident and undeniable and irrepressible. The fact that we human beings did not create ourselves. And we're not final, we are not the final powers in the universe. That is self-evident. So men, men and women reject the one true God as creator. They fall to deifying the forces of nature. They did so, of course, in the antique Middle East, deifying the powers of nature in the form of Baal, the storm god. God. Or the God of fertility. And arranged their religion around such things, with their temple cultic prostitutes. So that sexual indulgence became a part of their religion. And many other deifications they held, not merely in Canyon, but throughout the pagan world. It is still true. When some of us, my friends and I, went to Novosibirsk in Russia, soon after the walls came down, so to speak. We were able to talk to a group of two hundred, I suppose, mostly university men. We made the point as gent- in a gentlemanly fashion as we could, of course. Because we talked about the tabernacle, we took a model of the tabernacle to Novus at Birske. And some of our Christian friends who heard what we had done decided that the rumors of our insanity had now been proved. They thought of the tabernacle as being old-fashioned truth, even for believers, but imagine taking it to atheists, if you will. Marvelous tool to use even for atheists, you know. We said, of course, why would we study this ancient shrine, this ancient temple? Haven't there been thousands of temples in the course of the world? Why on earth study this one? Because, we said it was unique in its day. It had no image of the deity in it. And in its heart was a box, and in that box two tables of stone. That proclaimed, among other things, first of all, the Creator. There is one God who is the creator of heaven and earth, who made heaven and earth. And this in protest to all the polytheistic interpretations of the universe that were current in the Middle East at the time, where people had lost their grip on the one true God, and instead had deified the forces of nature, with the inevitable, uh, consequences in immorality. And then we said... And do you know what? If you ask a modern atheist, what are the ultimate forces in this universe that control us? He will say the same thing as the ancient idolaters. Only he will put it in scientific language, of course. He doesn't keep a lot of statues in his, uh, drawing room and fall down every now and again and worship them, of course not. But if you ask him, what are the forces that control us, that brought us into being, and one day will destroy us, he will reply, well, of course, it's the weak atomic power and the strong atomic power, and electromagnetism, and gravity, and anti-gravity, if there is such a thing, and the principles of biology. All of them impersonal processes. They are the forces in the universe. But in regarding them as the ultimate source of humanity, they are deifying them. With the inevitable result. Those same forces that, according to the atheist, brought us into being, will one day destroy us. One day some little virus without tuppence apony worth of sense in its head will get inside our bodies. We shall have the sense to see what it's going to do. It's going to tear us to pieces, including our reason. And when it's done it, it won't even know it's done it. And mindless forces, non-rational forces, will destroy human reason and obliterate it from the universe. Which is a marvelous result to come up with, isn't it, by rational research into science. That human reason is a product of non-rational forces, which eventually will destroy it, and when they've done it, they won't know they've done it. If that be true, man is a prisoner inside a cell made by non-rational forces. Like some antique prison where a prisoner would suddenly get the impression that his cell was growing smaller. And so would pace out the space between the walls. And next week pace them out again, only to find that two of the walls were gradually coming in. And could work it out how long it would be beto- before those walls came together and squeezed the life out of him. So is man without God the Creator in this universe. Deifying, that is to say, holding that the ultimate forces in the universe are simply these mindless, physical, non-rational. That is merely a modern version of ancient idolatry. We pointed out to our dear friends, the atheists, that inside the tabernacle, inside the ark, were these tables of stone that only not only proclaimed the one true God, creator of the universe, a personal God, but that same God was the authority behind morality. With the fading of Christendom, the question of the authority behind ethics becomes ever more important. Who makes the rules? And with the advance of science, and God be thanked for science, but the powers that m- men have now, in the realm of genetics, and the possibility of genetic engineering, raise gigantic ethical questions. Who shall decide what is normal humanity? Shall we give over to comparatively fruit few men to decide the shape of future mankind? By what principles will they decide it? What is the authority behind morality? Same problems as in its primitive time beset the ancient idolatrous world. In Canaan, amongst all their other perversions, they were given to sacrificing babies to their gods. What would you have God to do with people that sacrifice babies to their gods? And if God took exception to it when the Canaanites did that, what will he do with civilized nations that have murdered millions of infants almost at term. And if the immorality and perversions of the ancient world produced among them the diseases that they have done in our modern world, what would you have God do to them to preserve the general health of the human population? And the spies went in and discovered amongst all that morass a A prostitute. prostitute. Emblematic in her early days of a society gone from the true God. Offering pleasure without love, and love without any loyalty. The Depersonalizing personalizing. human sexuality. That she'd been converted. What a news that must have been for the spies. And what had led to her conversion? She told them how that she had heard what the Lord God had done, drying up the water of the Red Sea when you came out of Egypt. The story of the wrath of God on Pharaoh in Egypt that made Pharaoh a vessel of wrath, that is an advertisement of God's wrath, had brought forth this fruit anyway. It had led this lonely heart and mind to think about the reality of a true God. He had abandoned her idolatry, decided that Jehovah was the true God. And showed her faith by her works, in that she not only received the spies but hid them. And risking her very life, for had she be caught, been caught with those spies in her house by the officers of the king of Jericho, summary execution would have followed. But she hid them. And when the officers were gone, before the men left, she pleaded with them. For here was a woman seeking such security as she had never known. Look here, she said, I have dealt kindly with you. Deal kindly with me. But the idea behind kindness here is not just, uh, mercifulness. It's the Hebrew that means loyalty, loyal kindness, being true to your word and promise. I've been loyal to you, she says, protected your very lives with my own life. Now please be loyal to me. Guarantee that you will save me alive and my father's house and all that's in it, and let us live. Of course, the men said, oh, we'll do that. Oh, certainly we'll do that. Yes, of course, yes. Oh, we're very grateful to you. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Now, where is where we can get out? Oh, but she'd had many men in that place, and they had all spoken sweet nothings in her ear. And when she let them out of the door, that's the last she ever heard of them again. How could be sure, how could she be sure of these men. And you see a woman, woman in her dilemma. Where could she find security? She knew of only one possibility. Swear to me an oath, she said. In the name of God. Ha, what a touching pos- picture that is of a soul seeking salvation and security in this evil world, and coming to the point where she sees the only security is to be had in the word and faithfulness and oath of God. And they swore her the oath. And she let them go. As they told her, she put a scarlet thread in the window. I suspect she made it pretty obvious. Her house was part of the wall. It was how they constructed walls in some of those cities. The houses were part of the wall. She put the cord in the window, looking outwards, of course. And thus she waited. Saw the armies of God under Joshua coming. Knew what they were coming for. They were coming to destroy that city and all in it. Ah, but she had the word of their God. And to her, Joshua, as she waited for Joshua, she waited for him as her deliverer from the coming wrath. Are you in any better position? Or any worse? Where is your security? I fancy you might well answer me in the words of Hebrews 6, but that by two unchangeable things, by God's word and by God's oath, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we have strong conservation who fled for refuge to take hold of the hope that is before us, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast. Prime exhibition of salvation in this book of Joshua that is so dark with the record of God's judgments. But first, an example of salvation before the judgments begin. There follows, of course, the account of the crossing of Jordan. It fills two chapters, three and four, And in a typical Hebrew way of telling a story, it doesn't tell all the details in one strictly logical order from start to finish. It begins a story and concentrates on one part of it and tells it to the end. They all cross over. Then it comes back again towards the beginning and tells the story afresh from that point of view, and on to the end. And then it comes back once more to another starting point and tells the story the third time and brings it to its conclusion. Typical way of telling a Hebrew story. And ladies in Belfast still tell stories in that same way. I won't trouble you to tell you one. I could if I chose, but I won't tell you one such as they tell, and tell a story three times over in different ways, but never mind. Aha, so it is here. I suggest to you that in the first part of the story, amongst other details, we are given to contemplate the wonder of the crossing of Jordan. And I base my remarks on what is said in chapter three verse five. Joshua said unto the people, Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you. The wonder of it all. And then, in chapter four, and the first verses, down to verse fourteen, the memorial of the crossing. Stones taken out of the river from the place where the priest's feet stood and placed upon the bank to be a memorial for successive generations. Then finally, the third telling of the story from verse fifteen to the end of chapter four, the historical significance of the crossing. Let's ponder those things briefly, for we all know the story very well, and I'm persuaded many of you have preached on the story far better than I could. The wonder of it. Joshua got up early, briefed his commanders and the officers. They were to get the people on the move. I think I'd have made some excuse to wait till the waters actually parted before I got these hundreds of thousands on the move towards the river. But Joshua believed. And God, as he explained to Joshua, I shall begin to magnify you in the sight of the people. How would it magnify Joshua? Because Joshua had been told by God that the, uh, the, uh, to cross the waters, you see. But now he told the people that they only had Joshua's word for it. And to start moving at his word before the waters parted... take a lot of faith. Would Joshua prove true? God would that day magnify Joshua in the sight of the people when they saw at that last moment the waters pass. So they were to tell the people to get on the move, but the ark would go before them, and they had to leave an interval between them and the ark. What for? Well, so they could all see the ark. At least the front ranks could see it. For if they all crowded the ark, a lot of them would not see it. So they had to leave enough space for them to see the ark going on ahead, and they would watch it. Watch as the priests bearing the ark, their feet dipped in the water of Jordan. And then they would see the miracle. Notice how the ark is described. Chapter three and verse thirteen: It shall come to pass when the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the Lord, the Lord of the whole earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan. The waters of Jordan shall be cut off, even the waters that come down from above, and they shall stand in one heap. This is the spectacle, gentlemen. Pray let us remember what the ark signified. It was the throne upon which, as the Israelites believed, the Lord of the whole earth sat enthroned above the cherubim. So it is described in one Cr- uh, one Chronicles chapter thirteen when they brought up the ark, or tried to, the ark with its cherubim on which sat enthroned the Lord of the whole earth. What a spectacle that was, if you believed that. To watch the ark, the very throne of the Lord of the whole earth. Well, I tell you straight, he needn't have gone through Jordan, need he? If he were going to come down from heaven into Palestine to Canaan, he could come west of the Jordan, could he not? Didn't need to go through Jordan. But his people were east of Jordan. They had no way of getting in without somehow crossing Jordan. And Jordan, as we saw earlier, spelled the possibility of death. And they saw the ark of the Lord of the whole earth coming to the flood. As the flood waters saw their very creator come, they bowed asunder to let him through. And the ark went down and stood in the mud of Jordan till all the people were safely passed through and came up the other side. But us who know the story so well, and the reality of which it was but a prototype, capture the same sense of wonder. Lord of life, to death made subject. He died for me. Who did? I'll ask Paul again. I live by faith of the Son of God, not just Jesus. The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. That through death, he might put out of action him that has the power of death, and deliver them who through their lifetime were subject to bondage because of their fear of death. God has abolished death and brought life and incorruptibility to light through the gospel. Amen. And that is not just a theological doctrine. It comes from the pen as Paul the Apostle sat in prison, facing execution for the gospel's sake. Cheer up, Tim, says he. Stir up the old embers of your devotion to the Lord. God hasn't given us a spirit of cowardice again to fear, spirit of bondage to fear. Given us power and a sound mind through Christ that has abolished death and brought life and incorruptibility to light through the gospel. It was in that belief that Paul not only preached the gospel with might and main and with deliberate tactics and strategies, and went to Rome to defend the gospel. It was in that faith that he laid down his life through faith in that Son of God who had died for him and risen again. The second s- recount, the second part of the crossing of Jordan, the story of the crossing of Jordan, gives prominence to the memorial of it. Because twelve men had been chosen in advance to go down to where the priests stood in the river when the waters had parted, and to pick out twelve stones from it and bring them up and erect them on the bank as a permanent memorial to the fact that God had parted the waters when Israel came across. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the Hebrew, whether in addition they took twelve stones from the other side of the bank and put them down in the river, I shall not pause to discuss the uncertainty. This much is certain. They brought up twelve stones from where the priest stood and put them on the bank. What for? Oh, looking ahead. God, through Joshua, looking ahead. Magnificent, magnificent miracle though it was. How easily the memory of it fades. And new generations come along that never experienced it, and it becomes another fairy tale, like Goldilocks and the Bears or something, or Good King Wensy See Lass, less loss. Lass. One thing was very necessary, it was thought of right from the moment that they crossed. Take these stones out, put them on the bank, so that when your children in time to come ask you what mean these stones, you shall tell them the story how God parted the waters by his own very presence on the ark, so that the nation could come through. It would have been a bad job if Israel had forgotten how they got into the land. In the land, there would be temptation enough. More temptation in the land than there had ever been in the desert. For now they would be living amongst pagans. They would be living in comparative wealth that they had never enjoyed, houses that they didn't build, grape and olive vats and presses, and farms to... tremendous wealth that they'd never had before. Pagan practices around them. They would need every strength they could muster to resist compromising with that pagan society. One of the anchor holds would have been to remember how they even got into Canaan in the first place. By this amazing story of the Ark of God going down into the depths of Jordan. Our Lord had not yet been to Calvary, not yet died. When he anticipated the need that we too, as Christians, should be given a means of remembering how we ever got saved in the first place. It is so easily forgotten, even in Christendom. I have been in places where there are assemblies, but the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a ten-minute interval in an hour and a half program devoted to other things. How easily the atoning death of Christ, his death according to the scriptures, his burial, his resurrection according to the scriptures, how easily it is lost and substituted therefore, uh, in the place of it, some other scheme, such as social improvement or the Christian ethic. The importance of remembering how Israel got into the land to start with. And finally, the historical significance. I spoke of that this morning, so I need not elaborate it again now. But here in this, uh, while the event was fresh, Joshua was told and told the people that these stones would be a reminder of how the Lord your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you until you were passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up from before us until we were passed over. In that sentence, one generation is talking to another generation. Joshua was one of those that came out of Egypt. Many of the men that came out of Egypt had perished in the wilderness. But Joshua and Caleb had survived. They had come out of Egypt when the great story of Israel's redemption began. And the stones are there to make the comparison, says Joshua, that to get you into Canaan, the Lord dried up the waters of Jordan, just as the Lord dried up the waters of the Red Sea to get us out of Egypt. Do young people have to know church history? Do you teach church history, my dear brothers in your assembly? Do you teach more than church history? Do you teach them the great story within history from the Garden of Eden onward. The development of God's ways in history. Christianity is not some little story invented to comfort people when they go to bed at night. It's part of a gigantic historical process. And you must have all the process. The gospel according to Paul in Romans chapter one is witnessed to by the Old Testament prophets. Jesus is of the seed of Abraham, of David, of the seed of Abraham, says Matthew. Paul reiterates it. The gospel is of Christ, of the seed of David. And writing to Timothy in that final letter, he bids them remember. Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, Tim, of the seed of David, according to my gospel. We need the historical perspective that we might see the gospel message in all its glorious glory as the full of blooming flower from the seed that was planted in Eden, and know ourselves to be part of the great company of the redeemed. So then, in sort of a fashion, and with many omissions, we have tried to cover the first of the three major sections of the first half of the book of Judges, of the book of Joshua. And we must now prepare ourselves to, um, uh, go over and consider the second section of the first half of the book of Joshua. Mm-hmm. We noticed early on this morning that the second part, the second section, begins in chapter five and verse one. Then it came to pass when all the kings of the Amorites which were beyond Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites which were by the sea, heard how the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel until we were passed over. It came to pass that when they heard that, that their heart melted, neither was their spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel. We notice that there follows the story of the destruction of Jericho and then of, uh, Ai. And then it comes to its end, does chapter eight, with the story of the establishment of the law on Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. If we ask, why do you include that episode at Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim? Why do you include that in what you call the second section? Why do you think it has anything to do with that second section? Why isn't it just self-standing, or to be appended to what follows? Then my argument would be a literary argument. We notice that when chapter eight concludes and chapter nine begins, chapter nine begins with a similar remark about the kings that were beyond Jordan, that almost matches the remark in chapter five and verse 1. Notice, will you please, how similar they are. The only difference is, of course, that in chapter five what the kings have heard is that the Lord dried up the waters of Jordan so that Israel were now in the land. They had overcome the barrier of Jordan in flood, and for the enemy that was terrifying news. In chapter nine verse one, what the kings have heard is not only are Israel in the land, but they have destroyed Jericho completely and destroyed A- Ai as well, two cities on the road up the mountains towards the center of the country. And they determined to do what they can to stop Israel. That's why then I hold that that story at the end in chapter eight, from verse thirty six onward, the ceremony held at Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, belongs in theme to this second section in the book. They were under Moses' strict commandment that when they got to the land, they were to hold this ceremony. And Moses had detailed the, uh, parts of it, build an altar, build stones, write out the law upon the plaster, recite the law, its blessings and its cursings in front of the nation, and all the nation were to say, Amen. Establishing of the law in the nation of Israel, in the land. You couldn't do that at Mount Ebal and Gerizim until you had first destroyed Jericho and Ai that would be on the flank, or flank as you went up the hills across to the plain of Shechem. Hence the connection geographically. I shall labor to prove to you, if I can convince you of it, that this question of the establishment of the law has a very close connection with the issues involved in the destruction of Jericho and the destruction of Ai. And before we are finished, I shall call attention to the remarkable similarity in vocabulary between the phrases that are used in these chapters of Joshua and the vocabulary that Paul uses in his exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Galatians. Now that may seem to you a far cry, but so I warn you I shall be doing. Be prepared to object. But let me therefore begin by discussing with you what I mean by establishing the law. In using that term, I'm using a New Testament term, and since we shall want to apply the lessons, whatever they are, to ourselves, then let's consider what the New Testament says on this matter of establishing the law. How do we establish the law? I want to appeal to two passages in the Epistle to the Romans. Romans chapter three, first of all, and verse thirty one. Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid. Nay, we establish the law. First reference to establishing the law. What does Paul mean? Do we make the law of man effects, he says, by preaching that justification is by faith? Does that undermine the law? Far from it, says Paul. In preaching justification by faith, we establish the law. How is that? How can it possibly be to preach that we're justified apart from the works of the law. How can that be thought of as establishing the law, if you preach that people can be justified without the works of the law? It's worth some thought, isn't it? But you see, just take the common idea that people have in Christendom, that in order to be saved, we have to do our best to keep God's law. Isn't that what we have to do? And we do it to the best of our ability. Couldn't imagine being saved without keeping the law, could you? No, indeed not. So, um, we do our best to keep the law, and that honors the law. Does it really? What happens when you come to stand before the judgment, the final judgment? I'm in the habit of asking such people. What will happen? I remember one dear good lady. Some of us had been enjoining in a gospel campaign on the outskirts of Cambridge City in England. And, uh, a businesswoman in town invited a friend of mine and myself to afternoon tea because they knew each other in business, you see. It was a very lush drawing room, a silver teapot, and maids in delicate finery, and I did my best to behave. So she asked my friend, what is it that you, uh, what is it that you teach in this, uh, tenth thing you have? So he told her in simple terms the gospel, how that we can be saved and be sure of it. She said, you should can't be sure of salvation, William, she said. Of course you can't. And then turning to me, she, and I was very young and a little bit handsome, but she turned to me and said, you'll say, um, what, young man, what about you? Are you sure of salvation? Oh, I said, yes, ma'am, I am. Oh no, she said, no, no, no. You're a very good living young man, I no doubt you are, you see, but uh, you've got a long way to live yet. And what happened if you did something dreadfully wrong, you say? I said, well, I should still be saved, shouldn't I, ma'am? No, no, of course you wouldn't. I said, why not, ma'am? She said, it all depends on your striving. I said, I didn't know that. How, how, how, how, how much do you have to strive? She said, to be the best you can possibly be. And then, being very young and rude and brash, I said, ma'am, when you stand before God at the final judgment, what do you think God's estimate of you is going to be? What will he s- will he say about your striving? She said, I don't really know, but I, I think God will say, my dear, you did fall down just here and there, but on the whole you did pretty well on the whole, you see. But you did come short a bit. Ah, yes, come into heaven, you see. I said he won't say anything of the sort. How do you know? I said he's already written it in his word for everybody to read what he'll say. What you said, what do you mean? And I read the verse from Romans three. We know that what the law says. It says to those that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God. I can see her face yet. She went chalk white. God will never damn me, she said. There comes a question, doesn't it? How serious is God's law? The people that say that we get salvation by keeping God's law, instead of upholding the law, demote the law. They say that in the end, well, we shall all have come short, but if we've tried our best, God will say the coming short doesn't matter. That is not to establish the law, that is to demote it. How do you establish the law? You agree to what the law says. It says to those that are under the law that every mouth, excuse me, every mouth may be stopped and the whole world be brought under the judgment of God. Thus is the law established, its penalties enforced, its penalty carried out, and God be just. That is the story of the gospel. That the law has been honored and upheld, its penalty and sanctions paid fully through the sacrifice of our blessed Lord, so that God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. That's how we establish the law. Ask Paul about the law in Galatians. How are we saved from the curse of the law? By keeping the law? Does Christ save us from the curse of the law by helping us to keep the law? No, indeed not. He has delivered us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. We should read, we shall read a lot about cursing when we come to this story of Joshua and Ai. Ah, but there's another way in which the law is established, and that we have been already quoting to ourselves from Romans chapter eight. What the law could not 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 should be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. That is, God has a salvation that not only redeems us from the curse of the law that we have broken, but enables us now to begin to fulfill the righteous demand of the law, not in order to be saved, but because we have been saved and given God's Holy Spirit, who comes to live within us, so that we should begin to fulfill the righteous demand of the law. Thus do we establish the law. You will say, but what on earth has the destruction of Jericho and the destruction of Ai got to do with all that theology? Well, wait and see till we get an opportunity. For now, I am duty-bound unless I come under the sanctions of another law, uh, to give you time to question and also, we hope, contribute to the discussion until the hour of a quarter to five. Brother, you had mentioned some of the, uh, I'm sorry. Well, uh, you are in the coup, then there's a man here in the coup, so we'll take you in order, yes? Oh, okay. Okay. You had mentioned, uh, some of the obstacles that, um, that they faced, the Jordan. Yeah. Uh, so a natural, uh, obstacle. Yeah. Jericho, a man-made fortress. That's right, yes. And the law. Well, no, I, I didn't say that the law was an obstacle to their getting into Jericho. The law wasn't an obstacle to their, uh, destroying Ai. It was the objective to be aimed at, to establish the law in that sense on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, and to do that, to achieve that objective, Joshua first had to destroy the cities that stood in the way, which was Jericho and Ai. Yes? Does that make any sense? It did, brother, and I was, as I was listening to you, I thought of our own, uh, our own coming to a saving knowledge of the Lord, how the natural obstacles Yes. that are there. Yes. and the man-made, uh, obstacles that are there, and of course the law itself, uh, being that which, uh, Condemns us, yes. That is right. Well, hold on to that. God willing, when we come to consider the, uh, details of the story, the curse pronounced on Jericho, the curse pronounced on anybody who dared rebuild it... will prompt, perhaps in our minds, Paul's word to Peter on a certain occasion. When Paul, when Peter had tried to salvage something out of Judaism to add to Christianity. And Paul had to tell him straight, look here, Peter, if we build again what we once destroyed, we make ourselves transgressors. So I shall deal with your problem, if I may, uh, when we come to discuss the relevance of the stories of, of Jericho and Ai. Yeah? Now there was a good man here in the queue. Following up on the picture of the ark, uh, going through the Jordan before the people of Israel. Mm. picturing our Lord going through death before us. Yes. Yes. Of course, much harvest to come after that, but uh, how terrifying it would be to face death in our picture, the, the River Jordan. Yeah. To go into that before the ark. Oh, surely. Uh, it would be terrifying. It would be certain destruction. Mm-hmm. And I'm remembering that Peter's words to the Lord that, uh, that he would even die for the Lord. Yeah. He would go through that river first to make room for the Lord Mm-hmm. and help him. Mm-hmm. Ridiculous. And of course, the Lord corrected him. Uh. Yeah. The Lord Jesus had to go through first. Yeah, that's right. Isn't that to, to, to, uh, destroy him that had the power of death? Yes, it is the fact, of course, isn't it, that multitudes of believers, Abraham and company included, in the days before the birth of our Christ, had to go, um, through death. These all died, but they died in faith, not having received the promise. But with the, uh, gracious promises, such as you find, we find expressed in the Psalms. I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever. At least some knew that gracious promise. But the New Testament, uh, uh, says, does it not, that it's Christ that has brought life and incorruptibility to light through the gospel. It is a marvelous thing to be living this side of the death and resurrection of Christ. Yeah, somebody at the back there. I don't know if I'm getting ahead, but, uh, back to Moses, and Moses himself, what he could not do, Joshua did. Yeah. And, um, Moses himself failed to condemn his own sin in the flesh, and that constituted, in a sense, his great weakness. It was Moses weak, in other words, the people weak. We know we're all sinners. Yeah. The issue is, how do we get people who are sinners into the inheritance? But the issue isn't that they were weak, but that's a given. The issue was Moses couldn't do it because he was weak. Yes, he was weak, yes. Correct? Mm-hmm. It's all... So, in other words, a lawgiver who himself was a rebel. Mm-hmm. Isn't going to get the people in. Oh, so he isn't, uh. My question then would be, could you help a bit in understanding what that term means, condemn sin in the flesh? I- I- I- in other words, is it just sins as far as we naturally tend to think of sins as immorality and sexual perversion and so on, or is it sin in the flesh in the sense that here's the lawgiver who himself is declaring himself to be so holy that he's the only one that's loyal to God, and he must fetch water for the rebel? Is sin in the flesh, and condemning sin in the flesh, does it have to do with a certain religiosity? Ah. Well, I think sin in the flesh, uh, as Paul would put it, I am aware that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. I take it that, uh, we have to be f- faced with the fact that we are not ma- merely, we not merely do sins, but we are sinners. We are fallen nature. And that it was not a question of patching up a fallen nature. It is a question of that fallen nature coming under the judgment of God. When Christ died for us, he was perfect. He had no fallen nature. But he died for us because we were fallen sinners. And not excused sin in the flesh. God condemned it. As we see from Paul's argument in Galatians once more, if righteousness came by the law, Christ died in vain. There was no other way for us to be cleared from the curse of the law than by Christ bearing that curse for us. We are fallen. It's not merely we do sins, but we have a sinful nature. We are fallen, corrupt. It is that that God condemned and sentenced to death, and Christ bore the curse for us, so that we might live. It is a very serious thing, therefore, to preach any gospel that adds to the work of Christ some means of perfecting fallen nature in order to get salvation. It doesn't face the absolute condemnation that God's law has for our fallen humanity. At least that is how I understand it, sir. Uh-huh. Any more questions or contributions? Come on now, my gentlemen, uh, have mercy upon me and consider my poor estate, as is obligatory upon Christians, and you, many of you have preached, uh, from, uh, the- the- this, uh, say, crossing of Jordan, have you not, Josie, and these other things. What about giving me some of your best points that you've made in your gospel sermons? I promised to preach them only a few times, nice. There you go. Somebody over there. Yes, Brother Gooding, what you chose not to com- comment on those stones in the Jordan because Yes. possible language debate. Yes. But taking it just for the English value here, the stones on the other side of the Jordan are a beautiful picture of Christ risen and where he has brought us in Christ. Yes, that's right. The stones in the Jordan, where he went to get me there, and where I am in my old man crucified with Christ. Yes. Dead and risen. Two sets of stones with two memorial messages. Yeah. I, I- Do you want to say any more on that? Yes, thank you very much, uh, uh, for that. I myself prefer that view. I think that is what the Hebrew means, that there were two lots of stones. And, uh, as you say, the ones on the bank say that he went down and came up, but also that we went down and came up. The ones down below, you can imagine a father standing with his boy and saying, see that? And through the whirling waters, he can say now and again, some stones down there. And the boy says, were you down there, dad? Yes, I was. Which, of course, is what we symbolize in our baptism, don't- isn't it? Christ died for us, but we died with him. We were buried with him. We are risen with him. It's not merely a historical fact that he died, but we died with him. Yes, in the corner there somewhere. I have, uh, enjoyed the ark going down into the Jordan, and the parallel that I find in the New Testament, the Lord himself standing in Jordan. Yeah. In other words, from the viewpoint of those standing around, you wonder what the nations around might have thought had they were spies and up next to Jericho and so on, looking and seeing that ark go down into that place of death. Mm-hmm. In order to secure the passage of the Israelites over into inheritance. Yes. And then, when you think of the New Testament, and you see the Lord himself in that Jordan River. Mm-hmm. And the comment that he makes when John protests Mm-hmm. that you have no need for me to, you know, baptize you and so on. And, uh, he does it to so identify himself, in that sense, with us. Yes. Going down into that place of death, the Lord of glory himself. Yes. I know it's only speculative, and geography might even prove it wrong, but I wonder how close he was even when he went into that river to those stones that might have been once. Yes, yes, yes. It's interesting that, isn't it? And it comes at the very beginning of his ministry, Yes. where he's advertising to all what the main point of his ministry is going to be. He's come, he stands identified with sinners, sinless himself, but taking the risk of being condemned as a sinner by the onlookers who didn't understand. Standing with us in the mud of Jordan. That is a marvelous thing to contemplate, the Son of God doing. What he did in symbol in Jordan, he did, of course, at Calvary. And the waters that parted for them, for us, he bore the water. Oh, surely. And the, and the pressure. Oh, yes. Over- overwhelming. Yes, yes. That is surely why, uh, because the world itself could misjudge it, that when our Lord came up out of the waters of Jordan, God opened heaven. And to the Savior as he came up, declared before all, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And at the other end of Matthew, do you see, is that, uh, very dramatic situation where they said, now he said he was the son of God, let God deliver him if he delighted in him, throwing down the taunt to him. And the very next thing that Matthew records is that the sufferer on the cross cried, my God, why have you forsaken me? Amidst the taunts who said, if he's of God, let God deliver him right now. And the sufferer at Calvary cries out that God has forsaken. Does that prove he's not the Son of God after all? Indeed not, it proves the very opposite. For there was one person, and only one in the whole of human history, that could do what Christ did for us, sinless himself, bear the forsaking and the wrath of God on our behalf, that we might be saved. It is his greatest claim to deity. Here in Joshua three, the link between, uh, the living God, the wonders of the Lord, and the ark going into the Jordan. Mm-hmm. I find that very interesting. In other words, that the terminology of Joshua three, tomorrow the Lord will do wonders. Mm, that's right. And the wonders is, by this, verse ten, you shall know who the living God is. That's right. And Mm-hmm. the living God known by the wonder of going into the Jordan. That's right. The greatest event in all of Oh, surely. In the whole universe Yes. has ever taken place. And that's why, my dear brothers, we must do what the Lord told us to do, constantly remember him in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the wine, lest we lose what is the very heart of the gospel and lose the wonder of our salvation. Yes, you. Having done many things that I'm not proud of, I always appreciate if you look at, uh, Joshua six, when they actually take Jericho, Joshua had said to the two men who spy out the country, he says, go to the harlot's house, and from there bring out the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her. So Joshua doesn't even mention her name here, he just says, go into the harlot's house. But if you read in the genealogy of Matthew, you read he, uh, Matthew writes Salmon be at Boaz by Rahab. No mention of her history there. The Lord Jesus Christ separates us from our sin as far as the beast is. Yes, that's right, yes. For that I'm thankful. Amen. It's not a shame to call her one of his sisters nonetheless. Marvelous. When the time is up, gentlemen, it's ten minutes to five, and I have overshot the time limit, so let's, you overshoot, uh, the beginning of the next lecture. Uh, do you see, you are to have a ten-minute break, it says here, so we'll start again at five o'clock, shall we?