Gooding, David: 17 - Contending for the Faith

The story of the sixth oppression begins in the book of Judges at chapter ten and verse six. The cause of the sixth oppression was as usual, only more so. As you gather from the long list of gods, of false gods, that Israel turned to worship. They forsook the Lord, they served the Baalim and the Ashtarot, that is the male and the female deities, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Sidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines. And they forsook the Lord and served him not. And so the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the children of Ammon. And they vexed and oppressed the children of Israel that year. Eighteen years oppressed they all the children of Israel that were beyond Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead. And the children of Ammon passed over Jordan to fight also against Judah and against Benjamin and against the house of Ephraim, so that Israel was sore distressed. If you can visualize the map of Israel in your mind, you will see now on this occasion that Israel were caught in a kind of pincer movement. When they sinned, the Lord delivered them into the hands of the Philistines. They would have been on these at the southwest of the country, on the coastal area. They begin to exert pressure inwe- inwards, east and northwards. The Ammonites dwelt on the east of Jordan in Gilead. They began their attacks on the two and a half tribes that dwelt in on in the territories east of Jordan. Not content with that, now they take courage and cross over Jordan westward and attack even towards the south, Judah and Benjamin, as well as the Israelites. Israel now are caught in a pincer movement from the southwest, pushing east and north, and from the northeast, pushing, uh, west and south. As a result of which, Israel appealed to God, and God stands for the moment upon his dignity. The Lord said, did not I save you from the Egyptians and from the Amorites and many others also? Yet you have forsaken me and served other gods, wherefore I will save you no more. Go and cry unto the gods which you have chosen. Let them save you in the time of your distress. Which served to provoke Israel, who saw the justice of the argument, even to deeper repentance, and they confessed their sin and placed themselves unreservedly into the hands of the Lord. Do thou unto us whatsoever seemeth good unto thee. Only deliver us, we pray thee, this day. And they showed practical signs of their repentance. They put away the strange gods from among them and served the Lord, and God's soul was grieved for their misery. Then the children of Ammon were gathered together and encamped in Gilead, and sensing the danger, the Israelites assembled themselves together and encamped in Mizpah. And what follows now is interesting in the light of our previous discussions, both of Abimelech and Gideon. Repentant though the people were, prepared to put themselves under the disciplines of God, if only he would deliver them. Nonetheless, the princes of Gilead said to one another, what man is he that will begin to fight against the children of Ammon? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead. There is no flicker of apparent awareness. This was not really the proposition to make. When Gideon's grateful fellow citizens came to him and said, you be head and rule over us, he said, certainly not. The Lord your God is king. But now there is no protest. Now nobody even seems to observe that this is not what should be said. But without flicker of awareness or conscience, it seems to them a very good thing to say that whosoever shall fight for them against the Ammonites, he shall be their head. Now, Jiptha was, the Gileadite, was a mighty man of valor. He was, however, the son of a harlot. And as a result, when Gilead's wife's sons grew up, they drave out Jephthah and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father's house, for thou art the son of another woman. So Jephthah was obliged to flee. There is a touch of irony now, isn't there, in the man that God raises up to be, uh, uh, Israel's deliverer. They had begun by rejecting the Lord and going after their false gods, and in the time of their distress, they were obliged to come back to the very God they had rejected and plead with him to be their deliverer. And now, when it comes to deliverance, God makes them taste their own medicine once more. They had rejected Jephthah, and now they must eat humble pie and go and plead with Jephthah, the very man they had rejected, to come and be their deliverer. God has his ways, gentlemen, of teaching us lessons. But listen now to Jephthah. And I must be careful in my criticisms of him, because once more the New Testament declares him to have been a man of faith, and I may one of these days have to meet Jephthah. I must moderate my criticisms of the man. But listen to him as he strikes the bargain with the Israelites as they come asking him to come and deliver them. They said unto Jephthah, verse six of chapter eleven, come and be our chief that we may fight with the children of Ammon. And Jephthah said unto the children, uh, elders of Gilead, Did you not hate me and drive me out of my father's house? Why you come unto me now, when you are in distress? Verse nine, And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If you bring me home again to fight with the children of Ammon, and the Lord deliver them before me, shall I be your head? Once more, not a flicker of awareness, not a tinge of conscience, that the thing he was proposing would, by a previous generation, have been regarded as completely out of order. The logic is a little odd, isn't it? If you bring me home and the Lord deliver the children of Ammon before me, the Lord has got to do the deliverance. But then, and that, uh, the Lord having done it, Jephthah proposes himself to be head. What would Gideon have said? But now it's so far in the past, and the old ideal is so faded that neither Jephthah nor the Israelites realizing that what they are proposing is unscriptural, it is taken for granted, it is the right thing to do, and they proceed with it. I wonder how many things there are in Christendom, agreed by godly men and women who fear the Lord, that are nonetheless perfectly unscriptural, but the people concerned are unaware of it. Because the generations have erased the memory and the conscience of what was once known to be contrary to scripture. Well, anyway, on those terms, Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and chief over them, and Jephthah spake all his words before the Lord in Mizpah. And of course the Lord heard. What the Lord eventually did about it, that we shall subsequently read. Now we come to the major enemies. For the moment we have got forgotten the Philistines down in the southwest, and we concentrate on the chief oppressor or would-be oppressor, the Ammonites from the east. We have been asking ourselves from time to time the nature of the culture of these different, different enemies that oppressed Israel, what their history was, whether there were any features in their behavior or character that were consistent over the years and down the centuries. If we do that with the children of Ammon, we shall find as follows. Ammon, like Moab, was orig- originally the child and the grandchild of Lot. He grew up, however, to be rather different, uh, from Moab. He is marked in scripture by two distinct and recurring features. First of all, he is always trying to take from Israel territory and possessions that were rightfully theirs. So we read that when Israel were originally coming up through the desert and getting near the Promised Land, they scouted Edom, who was their national brother. They, uh, uh, went around Moab, who tried ineffectually to curse them, but then deceived them into fornication and eating things offered to idols. Ammon, more rigorous than Moab, came out to fight them. Trying to stop their progress, had Ammon been successful, Israel would never have survived to enter into their inheritance in the Promised Land. But the Lord gave Israel victory, and as we shall later hear, gave part of their territory for Israel to occupy as their inheritance. At this time in Judges, some centuries later, here is Ammon trying to regain the territory east of Jordan that God had given to Israel, and actually crossing Jordan westwards to try and capture from Israel territory that lay west of Jordan and was never Ammon's ever. Centuries later again, Jeremiah was inspired to pronounce certain denunciations of Ammon, and he said as follows, of the children of Ammon, Jeremiah forty nine: one, thus saith the Lord, has Israel no sons? Has he no heir? Why then does Malcolm possess Gad, and his people dwell in the cities thereof? Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will cause an alarm of war to be heard against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and it shall become a desolate heap, and her daughters shall be burned with fire. Then shall Israel possess them that did possess him, saith the Lord. That is, God is complaining. Why has Ammon now taken over territory, cities, and villages that rightfully belong to Israel? Is it because Israel has no sons and heirs? Well, of course not. But Ammon has been at his usual tricks, trying to filch from Israel territory that was Israel's by God-given right. This attempt by Ammon in the time of Judges is, of course, to be the center of our attention in a moment. But in their grievance with Israel and their constant attempt to filch from Israel territory that belonged to Israel and make out it belonged to them, Ammon had the habit of indulging in mockery and doing its best to make Israel look fools, silly fools. We'll remember the story given us in one Samuel eleven, how that when Saul was recently appointed king, the king of Ammon came up and besieged Jabesh Gilead, a city in Israel, and fought against it, and then offered to make a peace treaty with them on these terms, that they would put out the right eye of every man in Jabesh Gilead and lay it for a reproach upon Israel. The point of putting out the right eye of a warrior, of course, is that he could no longer, if he were right-handed, sight his javelin or his arrow from his bow as easily before. But it was not merely to incapacitate the men of Ju- uh, of Jabes-Gilead that Ammon proser- pro- proposed this conditional of this conditional treaty. It was explicitly said to lay it for a reproach on Israel and imply, you contemptible little squirts, you can't even protect yourselves. We are rightly your masters. Later on, in the time of David, according to two Samuel ten, the king Nahash of Ammon died. His son Hanun succeeded his father. David sent a little embassy to convey greetings and condolences. It was a diplomatic exchange, of course, in the way of the ancient kings of the Middle East. Hanan Pers persuaded that David's em- embassy was not sincere, but was out to spy out the land, and they took the members of David's embassy and grievously insulted them. They cut off not their whole beards, but half their beards to make them look like semi-lunatics. They cut all their garments in the middle right up to their bock- bu- buttocks till the men, says scripture, were greatly ashamed. That was Ammon. Trying to take the mic out of Israel, as usual, and making fools of them. Centuries later again, Nehemiah had returned to Israel to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. By that time, of course, there were many little chieftains around the place, notably the chieftains in Ammon and the other little nations that had no intention of welcoming Israel back to inhabit the land and become powerful once more, any more than they're intent on it nowadays, of course. Now, Jules eight. And first they interpreted the whole situation as though Nehemiah was going to encourage the people of Judah to rebel against the emperor. That was nonsense. Nehemiah had full permission from the emperor to do what he was doing. But listen to the terms in which they put forth this, uh, this, uh, suggestion. Nehemiah 2, verse 19. But when Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the servant the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian heard it, the intention of Nehemiah and company to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, they laughed us to scorn and despised us and said, what is this thing you do? Will you rebel against the king? You know the element of taking the mic out of Israel, laughing them to scorn, trying to pour such contempt upon their suggestions that these feeble little Israelites will, under the pressure of such criticism, withdraw. When Israel didn't withdraw but went on building, Sanballat was wroth. He said, what do these feeble Jews? Will they fortify themselves? Will they sacrifice? Will they make an end in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish seeing their burn? Now Tobiah the Ammonite, which was by him, putting on his most sarcastic voice, said for the purpose, even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall break down their stone wall, all these poor little religionites of the Jews, trying to build their tin tabernacle and their wall here. What a feeble effort. They felt themselves to be great princes and influential, and they were on nodding terms with some of these chieftains with Egypt and other empires, and they felt themselves very elegant and exalted. And as for these nasty little groups of independents building up a city wall and all this, well, look how cheap it was and stupid, and even if a fox went up with his little tail, he'd knock it over. Scorn works with some people. It didn't with Nehemiah and company. Gentlemen, you should read behind the scorn another purpose. Nehemiah had eventually to return to headquarters, to the palace, and was gone some long while. When he came back, ah, why, said he, if this isn't Master Tobias, Tobiah himself, installed, if you please, in one of the rooms of the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. Ah. So it wasn't so bad after all, this temple. No, it wasn't if you allowed Tobias in. And he could worm his way in and have control on what was never his. Never should be allowed anywhere near the temple of the Lord, not an Ammonite. The very people he had tried to discourage by laughing them to scorn and pouring his sarcasm on their efforts. When he got the chance, he wanted to take over, actually. He managed to marry into the high priest's family, and the high priest had no more sense than to let this son-in-law into the very temple itself and install himself an all his household goods, if you please, in one of the side rooms of the temple. When Nehemiah saw it, unceremoniously, he had him booted out. That's the enemy, gentlemen. His aim, with all his scorn, is part of his tactics to filch and steal from Israel their God-given inheritance and territory. And not all dead yet, not all Ammonites. What now then were Jephthah's tactics and methods in dealing with such an enemy? Notice what a wonderful variety of tactics there are in this book, and how the tactics are always suited to the enemy that Israel is at the time opposing. The most prominent tactic used by Jephthah is diplomacy, diplomatic argument. In that instance, he resembles somewhat Ehud, who, when he fought the Moabites, Ammon's national brother, came into the king's presence saying, I have a message from the Lord unto thee. The message turned out to be very simple indeed. It was a dagger through the belly. When it came to s- to diplomacy and negotiation, Jephthah was more sophisticated and certainly more rigorous and extended in his use of diplomacy. First of all, he sent messengers, that is diplomats, unto the king of the children of Ammon, verse twelve, to discover and establish what the nub of the dispute was. What hast thou to do with me, he said, that thou art come unto me to fight against my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, because Israel took away my land when he came up out of Egypt from Arnon in un- even unto Jabbok and unto Jordan. Now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. So there happened the second round of negotiation and diplomatic discussion. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon, and said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon. Proceeded to teach them a lesson in ancient history. Well, most fortunate, wasn't it, that Jephthah knew his ancient history. And now you see an occasion when knowledge of ancient history is exceedingly practical and vital to the operation. As Jephthah argues the case based on ancient history, it was not historically correct to say that Israel took away what territory of Ammon. The facts of history were these, that Ammon came out to war against Israel, utterly unprovoked, and the Lord delivered Ammon into his hand, and by the rules of war, the Lord gave this territory to Israel. God has given me this territory, and I propose to e- to inherit and occupy what my God has given me. You inherit what your God has given you. There was the other argument attached. If it was in fact so that we, we took away your territory without right, pray, why haven't you tried to get it back all these centuries? Jephthah knew his ancient history, did he not? And argued his case. Did not attempt immediately to attack the Ammonites, but acted the responsible diplomat, arguing his case and the rights of it from ancient history. Gentlemen, that is a tactic that we ourselves do would do well to develop. There come occasions when to protect and to defend the rights of the people of God, a knowledge of ancient history is a very valuable thing, particularly when arguing with people who would like to rob the people of God of their God-given rights. I'm I'm talking talking not about ancient history in general, of course, nor am I talking necessarily about what is commonly called church history, but I'm talking in particular about New Testament history. As you will know, there is one epistle. It's short enough, it only has six chapters, but it devotes no less than a third of the whole epistle to arguing the case of church history. And that epistle is the epistle to the Galatians. The main thrust of the epistle is that some people were trying to tell the believers in Galatia that while they had begun by being justified by faith, and that was all right, uh, it was not enough. If they would be really saved and continue to be saved, they must now accept circumcision and keep the law of Moses. And so, had they been allowed to proceed and to spread their theories, they would have removed from these ancient believers their God-given gift of salvation itself. Would have filched from them their right to know themselves at peace with God and accepted with God. Would have robbed them, as some of us saw last week, of their very inheritance by putting them under the law. And it is, of course, a basic principle that the inheritance is not of the law. It would have been a terrible robbery had they pro- pro- succeeded with their false doctrines, imposing of them upon the innocent new converts in Galatia, robbing them of some of the most precious parts of their God-given inheritance. When Paul stands up to protect the people of God, he argues, of course, doesn't fight with carnal weapons, he argues, and the first third of his argument is solid church history. Years ago, long before Vatican Council two, when I was recently in Belfast, lived there, Christian friends came to me and said, now look, we have a friend in our church. The people were Church of Ireland people. They were believers. And they said, you know, we have a friend in our church, and he's thinking of leaving the church and joining the Church of Rome. In fact, he's thinking of entering an order of monks in the Roman Catholic Church. Uh, we'd like him to come and talk to you, if you wouldn't mind. Would you be willing to talk to him if we could persuade him to come and talk to you before he takes this step of entering an order of monks in the Roman Catholic Church? So I said, if they thought it would do any good and his friend wished to come, well, then I would do what I could to help. Certainly he might come. He came. There, of course, I don't bel- I don't like you evangelicals. All this subjective nonsense of a subjective experience you have to be, what do you call it, born again. I like the wonderful objectivity of the true gospel. To say we're made Christians in our baptism. I said that was interesting. Well, he said, what do you think? I'm proposing, uh, I'm proposing to leave the Church of Ireland. I'm going, going, going, going into an order, a monk, an order of monks in the Roman Catholic Church. What do you think of that? Well, I said, honestly, old fellow, I find it a very difficult question to talk about because I said that the church you propose to enter is a church that anathematizes me. Oh, come, come, he said, surely not. I said, it does. I said, I'm one of those people who claim that they, uh, are saved, and I know it, and I'm sure of salvation, and your church anathematizes people who say that they can be sure of salvation. Well, of course, he says, you, you oughtn't to be sure of salvation. Of course you oughtn't to be. Well, I said, why not? Well, he said, my good man, it all depends on your working, doesn't it? Can't know the result of that until the final judgment. Oh, I said, I thought you just told me just now that you were made a Christian by your baptism. What, what, what's gone wrong now? Ah, no, he says, that's not enough. It all depends on your working, stands to reason, man. I said, well, that's curious, because what I find written in Holy Scripture is as follows. And I read him the verse in Romans chapter four. Now to him that worketh is the reward reckoned, not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. I said, there you are, old chap, what do you make of that? Says here straight, it's to him that works not, his faith is reckoned unto him for righteousness. He says, is that, is that what it says? I said, yes, that's what it says. And he said, actually, I, I, I didn't know that was in the Bible. But that's the trouble with you, he says, and all like you, it's the trouble with you. You think you can come to the Bible and understand it yourself, don't you? And that's the trouble with you. You see, it's quite false. Actually, the church gave us the Bible. And you can't just as an individual take the Bible up and read it and think you understand it. You'd have to take that to the church. He said, I don't know what the thing means, but, uh, I shouldn't try to understand it myself. I must take it to a priest and find out and let the priest tell me what it means, let the church tell me what it means, because the church gave us the Bible. And, uh, we must let the church tell us what it means. You take a stray remark out of Paul out of its context and interpret it your way. You're s- I'm sure your interpretation is wrong. He says, I don't know what it means, but it's wrong anyway. I said, now that's a funny thing. I said, you know, Paul wrote this. I said, suppose I had been in Arabia when Paul was in Arabia, and I was concerned about my spiritual condition. And I sought out Paul, and I said, good morning, sir. Would you mind, uh, answering a few questions? Look, I'm troubled about my spiritual condition and how I can know that I am accepted with God and justified. I said, friend, tell me, suppose Paul had said to me by word of mouth what he here writes in his book, to him that works not, my boy, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness. Could I have listened to Saint Paul? Heard what he said? Understood what he said? Believed it? And been saved there and then? Or should I have to say, well, I hear what you say, Paul, but before I can even understand it, let alone believe it, I must take what you say up to the, uh, the apostles in Jerusalem. He said, well, you'd have to take it up to the apostles of Jerusalem. Of course you would. And let the church tell you what Paul meant. I said, that's very odd, you know. Because, um... Well, you'll say, I said Paul wrote a letter called Galatians, and he said, Paul, an apostle not from men. And I said, you know, Paul didn't get his apostleship from men, did he? I said, but then you could argue, couldn't you, that while he didn't get it from men, he got it through men, couldn't you? Yes, he said, that's what it was. He got it from God through the apostles at Jerusalem. Well, I said, no, he didn't. Because he actually says, Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through men. So he didn't get the, uh, uh, uh, his apostleship, um, uh, through the apostles in Jerusalem. And actually he says, when it pleased the Lord to reveal his son in him, he didn't confer with the apostles. He said he must have done. I said, but he says he didn't. But went away into Arabia. And when eventually he got up to Jerusalem, he tells us here in this bit of church history that those who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person, they, I say, who were of repute, imparted, added nothing to me. No, he says, nonsense, they must have added something to him. They did add something to him. I said, old chap, they didn't add something to him. I can't knock our heads against the facts of history. He said, you make Paul talk like a Protestant. The basic argument that the church gave us the Bible is historically incorrect, is it not then? The church did no such thing. It's part of double talk to talk like that. Who do you mean by the church? Uh, a moment's thought would show you that not even they who adduced the argument mean that every Jack member of the church from first to last gave us the Bible. So they don't mean the church. Well, who do they mean then? A few men at the top of it or something? The church did not give us the Bible. God gave us the Bible through his inspired apostles and prophets, and the church received the Bible. And here is the inspired apostle relating two whole chapters of church history to show that he didn't get his apostleship even through the other apostles at Jerusalem, nor did he receive his gospel from them. Nor when he went up and told them what he preached, did they add anything to him, except James and John said they would be grateful if he re- taught people to remember the poor, and I was doing that anyway, says Paul, so that was nothing. Uh, we'll see. I said to my friend, um, and what do you suppose Paul is contending for? What's the whole point? Why does he bother to to go through all this church history? Well, of course, he didn't know. So I told him, Paul is arguing for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law. Eh, how many millions of people have had salvation itself debarred from them by men who use specious arguments in order to get their hands of control? First over the Bible. We mustn't drag up old persecutions and stir feelings of revenge in anybody's hearts. But don't let us forget historical facts, gentlemen. The argument that the church gave you the Bible led in the Middle Ages to the church taking it away and forbidding millions of people ever to read it. Would forbid people to read it and come to their own conclusion. Apparently, you can use your own brains and come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the right church, but after that you have to stop and accept everything the church says just because it says it. What slavery that induced, what darkness in medieval time. Let's make sure we know our church history and can stand to protect the inheritance of the people of God. And never let anybody adopt a superior heir and try to frighten you out of your inheritance by laughing you little people to scorn. And trying to make fools of you. It would do well, therefore, for us to know our church history. Don't say it's impractical. It could, in certain circumstances, make the difference between somebody getting saved and not getting saved. Ammon wouldn't listen. Did you ever expect him to? Ammon wouldn't listen to the facts of history. The battle had to be joined. And Jephthah fought. Before he joined battle, Jephthah made a vow. He had committed the dispute to God the Judge. As he finished his diplomatic exchange with the king of Adam, A- Ammon, he said, I therefore have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me. The Lord the Judge be judged this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon. A good stance, isn't it? Transposed into the key of modern Christendom, our ultimate appeal is to the Lord and head and judge of the church. As he joined battle, and the Spirit of the Lord came on him, Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord and said, if thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. On those terms, the battle was joined. Ammon was subdued, and Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dancers. She was his only child. Beside her, he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass when he saw her that he rent his clothes and said, At last, my daughter, thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me, for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. You say, at last we got to the point we've been waiting for the whole week. Do you know why we came to this conference? When we heard it was going to be about Judges, we said, we'll see what this man says about Jephthah and his daughter. That's the main thing that anybody ever wanted to know about the book of Judges. Did he or did he not sacrifice her to the Lord? We'll have to wait a minute or two longer to find the answer, gentlemen. Uh, I believe they wish to change the tape. And now you've waited, and now comes the moment. And the answer is, I don't know what he did with his daughter. And worse than that, I'm not sure I care at this distance exactly what he did. Some, of course, say that he probably did sacrifice his daughter, but God had no hand in it anyway. That he's a wild chieftain, and though a man of faith, in many things uninstructed in the ways of the Lord, he never should have vowed such a vow, saying that whatever came out of his door first, leaving it to chance, what came out, he would sacrifice that to the Lord. That is a pagan and superstitious way of looking at life, and in the end, utterly respons- irresponsible. The whole thing went forward. His daughter came out first by chance. The Lord had nothing to do with it. Jephthah sacrificed her. What a disaster it was, and it can show what sorry things, what misconceptions move even some of the great men of faith. Maybe it's true, and you will tell me afterwards whether it is or not. I asked the naive question that if he was a man of faith and because of his ignorance made such an unhappy decision, the Lord could, if he'd have chosen, couldn't he, intervene to save the poor girl. Why didn't the Lord have compassion on the daughter? And himself now take the initiative and keep the daughter indoors until some little lamb came out first or something. Could it be, do you think, that the Lord did have some hand in it? We'll say, well, do you mean to say our, the Lord consented to a sacrifice? Surely, sacrifice of humans is unacceptable to God. There is the other alternative advocated by some, that what he did was to condemn her to perpetual virginity. Perhaps that's right, or perhaps it isn't. I can tell you the result of it all. At whatever level God was or was not involved, the result was this. But to tell you that, I must remind you of what had the original bargain been. The elders said to Jethar, if you come and deliver us, you'll be our head. Jethar said to the elders, now look here, if I go out to battle and the Lord deliver the Am- Ammonites through my hand, shall I be head? They said, of course you will. And he spoke all his words before the Lord. And presumably the Lord was listening. What was this that Jethro was proposing? To behead? Just as Gideon was made the offer of being head, only now Jephthah was intent on becoming head. What? And then starting a dynasty. I'll tell you what the result of his vow was, all against his intention. That he never started a dynasty. For, says the historian, his daughter came out. She was his only child. Beside her, he had no son nor daughter. That ended the dynasty of Jephthah before it began. Even if the girl were not sacrificed, but was condemned to perpetual virginity, or whether she was in fact, in fact sacrificed, it had the same result. Jephthah never had a grandson. There was never any possibility of his setting up a dynasty. Say, where do you get all that from? I've been thinking, gentlemen, perhaps incorrectly, about the issue at stake at the end of Gideon's career. Would he or not set up a dynasty? And he said no. But he called his son, my father is king, and his son tried to set himself up as a king and as- and- and succeeded so far, and would have established a dynasty if he could. And Jephthah proposed to be head. The result of his vow was this, against all his intention, no dynasty ever proceeded from From Jethro. Jephthah. Whether the Lord was in it or not, I leave you to decide. But in my understanding of the thing, it was a very good thing that it was so. Oh, gentlemen, God has down the centuries raised up many great deliverers among the people of God. But mark what happens to the deliverers. It is the almost unbreakable habit of God's people to then go and form a movement as a result of the deliverer. Then in subsequent generations, instead of people constantly waiting on the Lord and learning his word and personally obeying it as the Lord being their head, they spend their energies maintaining a movement. I ask you to ponder the verdict of history once more. Is it God's method and God's ambition to maintain movements? Or is it God's idea that he governs his people of every generation, governs them through his word, allows them to be thankful for all that the mighty deliverers have done in the past, but not to fall into the trap of trying to maintain any particular movement. I, for one, am grateful for Luther. I have no desire to maintain the movement of Lutheranism, have you? I thank God for Wesley. What a great debt I owe to the man. I'm not sure I want to maintain the Wesleyan movement, are you? Why not, you say? I'm la- I- I- I prefer to follow Luther and get back to scripture, and Wesley and get back to scripture. I owe a tremendous debt to men like Jay and Darby and Kelly and Lord Radstock. Thank God for. I personally would regard it as a mistaken zeal to try and maintain a movement. Let us in our generation dare to believe the living God. Let us bring his word before God. Let us thank him for all the insights of the past and the exceeding great wealth and the liberties he has brought to us through men of the past. Let's honor their memory. Let's not surrender the good that they got for us. Let us not make a movement. Let us be men and women who in our generation say thank God for all the deliverers he raised up, but our head is the Lord, the risen head and Lord of the church. Let him guide and govern us in our day and generation. That I speak, for I speak to wise men. You judge what I say. And then let us break off our study.