Well, we are up to Joshua 11, verse 12. We're just going to look at four verses today. Joshua 11, verse 12. So all the cities of those kings and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded. But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them except Hazor only, which Joshua burned. In all the spoil of these cities and the livestock, the children of Israel took as booty for themselves, but they struck every man with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, and they left none breathing. As the Lord had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and as we dig into it, I pray that you would keep me from error and enable us to All of us rejoice in your enduring grace, which endures forevermore. We bless you in Jesus' name. Amen. Archibald Rutledge was a a writer and a poet. He wrote about 50 books, wrote a lot of poems, poet laureate from South Carolina. But he was also a very avid hunter and he told a story of one of his buddies who came to him just heartbroken over having lost his hunting dog. And he was kicking himself, blaming himself for the death of his dog. What had happened is that he had commanded his dog to stay in a clearing and watch over his lunch bucket while he went kind of do some reconnaissance in the forest. And a forest fire broke out and swept into the area where his dog was, and he was not able to get back. And the dog did not leave. The dog stayed there just like the master had commanded him to do. And when he was finally able to come back and see it, he saw the dog was right by the lunch bucket. Anyway, with tearful eyes, he told Rutledge, I always had to be careful what I told him to do because I knew he would do it. And you know, it would be an amazing thing if the Church of Jesus Christ would be as faithful as that dog to the commands of our master. You know, not counting, I mean, counting the cost, but no rationalizations, no excuses, obedience, whatever the cost. And of course, God never gives us commands that are bad for us, because He knows the future, unlike the master of that dog. We can trust Him. But that does not seem to be par for the course in the church of Jesus Christ, and it's certainly not par for the course in the culture. It almost seems that people expect politicians are going to break their promises nowadays. And it's not just in our generation that this was true. From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed 368 treaties with various Indian tribes, and it's astonishing how many of those treaties were broken. Now granted, sometimes it was the Indian tribe that broke it. But many times, it was just Americans needed more land. They were spreading across the prairies or different areas, and they just decided it's inconvenient to keep the treaty. It's been a longstanding problem in America. Well, this morning, we're going to be looking at a passage that illustrates that when Joshua was commissioned to do something, he did it. He did it completely. He, no matter what the consequences were, he left no unfinished business. And I think in this he stands as a wonderful model for us. Verse 12 says, so all the cities of those kings and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded. So no royal city was spared. That would have taken time and effort, a lot of inconvenience, and it was also a very unpleasant task to engage in harem warfare. We saw previously harem warfare was normally not authorized for Israel. It was only God's direct inspired revelation where God was saying, I'm going to use you as my vehicle for judgment on these people. But every person was slaughtered, and yet Joshua followed through in complete obedience. Kings often negotiated their own safety when they lost battles, and a captive king could potentially have a feather in his cap. You know, with the number of kings that he would have as captives, you'd kind of display them as a war trophy, and many kings of that era did so. I'll just give you one of the more grotesque ones. It's Judges 1, verse 7, where the Canaanite king, Adonai Bezek, said, 70 kings, with their thumbs and big toes cut off, used to gather scraps under my table. as I have done, so God has repaid me." And so for one reason or another, many kings of that era would spare the other kings. Who knows why? But Joshua did not do that. Totally in obedience to God, he killed all of the kings. And verse 12 says that this was a revelation given to Joshua through Moses from God himself directly. And so Joshua was not the lawmaker, he was the law receiver and the law keeper. And at least on that point, he stands as an example to us. When God gives us standing law in the Bible, and harem warfare is not standing law, but the principle is the same. If God commands something, we do it. When God gives standing law, there should be unquestioning obedience. Now several commentators point out that in context of verses 19 through 20, this verse also teaches that even though mercy was always held out to any of the Canaanites who repented, that God's judgments fall on those who persist in their rebellion. The fact that God has been patient with America and with other nations does not do away with this principle. Those who resist God will eventually be placed under God's judgment. And apart from repentance, as far as I can see, that's where America is headed. and that God deals in this manner with every city and with every nation is hinted at in verse 13. This verse deals with the interesting situation of the mound cities. People wonder, what in the world is that? But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them except Hazor only, which Joshua burned. Now the Hebrew word for mounds is tel, and archeologists, speak a lot about the tells that are spread throughout the Middle East. What happened is that a city would get conquered and would get completely destroyed by another country. And because there were foundations of the houses still present, and pillars, and stones, and all kinds of refuse all over the place, the other country would haul in a whole bunch of dirt, bury the refuse, and then build their city on top of that previous city. And so you have Jeremiah prophesying that Jerusalem would be destroyed and turned into a mound, that's the Hebrew word tel, in Jeremiah 49.2. And in another chapter, Jeremiah prophesies, hey, when the exiles return from Babylon to Jerusalem, quote, the city will be built on its own mound. Again, the Hebrew word tel. There are more than 200 tells spread all over just the area that Israel occupies today, many of which have multiple layers of cities representing multiple civilizations that had previously been conquered and buried. For example, Megiddo, if you take a look at the archaeological studies that have been done there, there are 20 civilizations that had occupied that place, been destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed, and rebuilt. Civilizations like the Hyksos, Egyptians, Hittites, Israelites. Now the question comes up, why on earth would a later generation go to all the work of hauling in dirt and burying this and then building on top of that? Wouldn't it be easier to just find some level ground elsewhere and build the city? Well, there's four reasons why they would do this. First, the place of the former city was usually a very good source of water, sometimes the only source of water that they would have. And so they would want that source of water to be within the city so that any neighboring nation that might come against the city would not be able to cut off the water supply. And that meant you didn't have a choice many times. The only water supply was where the previous city was at. Archaeology has shown some pretty amazing waterworks in earlier cities that brought water to each house. They had great plumbing. Some of it survived to this day. It's amazing. Plumbing, great sewage systems that would take the sewage out. So water was one reason. Second, usually these tells were very defensible locations, and the higher the tell grew, the more defensible it was. Third, they were close to arable farmland, and they didn't want to build a city and waste farmland. And the connection between cities and farm were very, very tight. And then fourth, they were near good trade routes. So even though it took more effort, they preferred to build on top of the spot where the old cities used to be. But this verse, back to this verse, it indicates that when Joshua arrived, these cities were already built on top of Telz. That's the technical Hebrew word here. The mounds represented layer after layer of previous cities, housing the remnants of previous civilizations. And to me, this implies this is not the first judgment that God brought to these cities. No, God can use pagans to judge worse pagans. And he had done so many times previously, even when Israel was not involved. Our God has always been a God of judgments. When civilization becomes too corrupt, God replaces them. America is no exception. And, of course, we saw last week that any time that a nation repents, God will relent of that. So that's what we pray for, and that's what we work for, that America would repent in order to be spared. But the next section we're going to look at indicates repentance is the only way that a nation can be spared when it gets to the point of no return. The point is that we should not think that judgments were only a reality during the time of Joshua's conquest, or that nowadays somehow God turns a blind eye to evil. No, those mounds are testimonies to God's previous judgments. Many times God will patiently wait for a generation or two before he brings judgment, but every generation needs to be reminded our God is a God of judgment. Now, the next thing we see is that most of the mound cities remained intact and were able to be inhabited by the Israelites. They were not being destroyed. It says, Israel burned none of them except Hazor. And I believe this was God fulfilling His promise in Deuteronomy chapter 6, verses 10 through 11, which says this. I will give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, houses full of all good things which you did not fill, hewn out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant." So most of Israel's warfare really was not that destructive. They inherited the cities rather than tearing them down and then building yet another layer on top of the mound. But Deuteronomy 6 goes on to say that, hey, if Israel acts like the other nations, God's going to dispossess them just like He dispossessed the previous nations, even previous to the Canaanites. No one is exempt, not the Canaanites, not Israel. And anyone who thinks that America is unlikely to come under judgment has simply not understood thousands of years of providential history. Modern nations that have thrown God off will not endure forever either. It's easy to think that the status quo is just gonna continue on because it's continued on most of our lifetime, right? But that's a false conclusion. When you have political leaders today who actually believe, this just boggles my mind, I haven't even figured out how they could come up with this, but hundreds of genders, You know the demonic irrationality going on at the highest levels. We are on a slippery slope that's going faster and faster down. Let me give you a little bit of detail though on Hazor, since liberals love to attack the Bible's integrity on this verse. They compare this to Judges chapter 4, and they say, whoa, look at all the contradictions here. This verse here mentions that Hazor alone was burned to the ground. A tourism website says, today, when visiting the well-preserved ruins of King Jabin's palace, the burn layer is clearly visible. And there are many books that say the same thing. Wayne Stiles says, Stratum 13 of the Tell If it's Stratum 13, that means there were 12 civilizations before this that have been judged, right? So he says, Stratum 13 of the Tal had a large burn layer that corresponds with Joshua's destruction of Hazor around 1400 BC. Jones says it was 1444 BC. There is slight variations on dates there, but it was right around there. And there are numerous evidences that every portion of the city was burned. I noticed a number of archaeologists were finding these pots filled with grain. burned, okay? And they were showing evidence after evidence that Joshua did not plunder this city. There was nothing taken out. They just burned it all. And the city as a whole was devoted to God, just like Jericho was. Now people sometimes wonder why God wanted it burned. There could be some other reasons, but some have suggested that since this city had been well known for hundreds of years for being a very famous, remarkable military site, that God did not want them, depending on pagan military advantages, could be, but there's other amazing fortifications God didn't let them get, who knows. Another suggestion is that the king of the city was the leader of the coalition, which he was, and as such Joshua was making an example of him and of that city. A third suggestion, I think this is closer to the truth, was the gross evil in that city with its four massive temples. Apparently this was a leading religious center with Hathor and Asherah being the leading gods, so pathetically defiled that I'm definitely not gonna even describe it to you. I felt the file just reading a tiny bit of what these gods were about. One author said, archeological evidence shows the Israelites zealously defaced all the Canaanite statues of gods and kings found in Hazor and lopped off their hands. So apparently they didn't want people later on say, ooh, look at, beautiful statue, let's turn that into a god, resurrecting them. So they completely destroyed the heads, cut off the hands, toppled them, and then they burned the city. If Hazor was burned, which it was, how could a King Jabin be the king of Hazor in Judges chapter four? Which on a conservative chronology is more than 150 years later. And liberals say no, no, no. It's just two accounts of exactly the same event and they're contradictory. They love to try to find contradictions in the Bible. So how do we explain this? Well, there is no contradiction whatsoever. And recent archaeology has been super embarrassing for liberals, ultra embarrassing. It's just making a mockery of some of the older books. First of all, it's shown that the kings of Hazor used the name Jabin for almost 400 years. And so there's no surprise at all, they're going to continue to use the name Jabin in the time of Deborah, totally consistent. And by the way, that was not just a name, it was a title like Pharaoh. And so Jabin king of this city would be sort of like when Exodus 6.11 speaks of Pharaoh being king of Egypt, Pharaoh king of Egypt. A second, recent archeological digs have shown two destructions of Hazor during the time of Israel, both of which perfectly correspond to the time of Joshua and of Deborah Barak. It's the liberals who should be mocked, not the Bible. We don't go to archaeology ever to prove the Bible. The Bible's true no matter what archaeology says, right? And because we trust the Bible and it is absolute truth, then we go to archaeology to show what nonsense the liberals are preaching, because it lines up with the Bible perfectly all the time. Anyway, whatever the reason for the burning, Israel did not build on this site and the Canaanites later rebuilt it and used it as a base of operations against the Israelites in the book of Judges a little over 150 years later. So from hindsight, some people might have thought burning the city and not building on it, you know, was a missed opportunity. In a sense, it would take some faith to do what God commanded. From a human perspective, this would have been a wonderful city to inherit. All the archeology books on this city that I have read said it must have been a gorgeous city covering 200 acres with amazing buildings and parks and advanced iron forging equipment and other technology, well laid out sewer system, well laid out streets, a strategic location for defense, stables for horses, plenty of chariots, what author calls, quote, a magnificent water system that remains one of the marbles of ancient engineering. So it was a wealthy city. It would have been fun to plunder it and then later on to inhabit that city. But no, if God says burn it, they're going to burn it. This was such a famous city that it's the only one from Canaan that's mentioned in the Mari texts from Mesopotamia. And I've already alluded to the fact that there was an ugly side of the city as well, with four wicked temples, Causing this city probably to be a stumbling block to the whole land of Canaan God wanted it obliterated with no plunder allowed now some people actually think that this was a cursed place just like Jericho was and That's why it wasn't rebuilt by the Israelites even after the second destruction under Barak never was rebuilt again but In any case, whether they understood it or not, they obeyed. Like the dog of Rutledge's friend, they had unquestioning obedience. Now, verse 14 mentions rewards from the other cities. In obedience to Deuteronomy 6, they were able to plunder the remaining royal cities. This says, in all the spoil of these cities and the livestock, the children of Israel took as booty for themselves, but they struck every man with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them and they left none breathing. Now, it's obviously wonderful to be able to receive all of that spoil. We think, okay, that's God's favor, right? We love to be blessed with riches, and God loves to bless us with riches. Nothing wrong with that. We could park on God's material blessings and everybody would be happy. And by the way, if you think God is stingy, you probably ought to park on Joshua, what it says about the material blessings God's constantly giving to them. God loves to bless his people who are faithful. But I'm not going to park on that this morning. I want to point out that it was tougher to do the other business. to leave no person alive. And virtually every commentator points out that every man, in context, refers to every person. And that's exactly what God commanded them to do to the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7, verses 2 through 11, Deuteronomy 20, 16 through 18. What this was, was a typology that God was setting up of the final judgment. But it certainly was also a test of their faithfulness. Your faithfulness is not tested by saying you obey God's commandments to go out and take dominion, enjoy yourself, you know, have fun. That's easy. Anybody can meet that test, you know, of obeying God on those things. True faithfulness is tested by our obedience to God's commands that are hard, that we do not fully understand, and even the commands that we wish we could disagree with. And you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you wish you didn't have to do what God commands, and so you try to explain it away. Francis Nichols said, Personal wishes and desires may conflict with known duty, but the surrendered soul chooses the will of God no matter how crucifying the experience may be to natural inclinations. And that thought is made especially clear in the last verse that we're going to look at, verse 15. As the Lord had commanded Moses' servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that God had commanded Moses. He left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses. Oh, that that could be said of each one of us. Deuteronomy 12.32 says, whatever I command you, Be careful to observe it. You shall not add to it nor take away from it. Now both of those commands are important. You don't add to God's law, you don't take away from God's law. Adding to God's law acts as if God lacked wisdom and he lacked foresight when he wrote the Bible. You know, he put all these gaps in the Bible that we have to somehow now fill out. We have to we have to kind of supplement. And you look at some of the books on politics, which I've been reading a ton of so-called Christian books on politics, who say, we got to supplement what the Bible says with natural law or some other source of law because the Bible is not sufficient to deal with the issues of today. Well, I'm writing a book on biblical civics that shows the total sufficiency of the scripture for politics. But people love to bind other people's consciences with laws that are not in the Bible. They do it all the time. We call this legalism. You know, it's a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. So here is one point that he makes. Don't bind your own conscience with anything that's not in the Scripture. God wants you to have liberty to do anything. Just the image I love in Genesis 1, you can eat from any tree that you want to eat from in the garden. And then Adam comes back, yeah, but can I eat from a fig tree? Hey, I said you could eat from any tree, just don't eat from this one I prohibited. What about the banana tree? Quit asking, quit asking. You know, that's the principle of freedom. We have total freedom, except for what God prohibited, right? But God wants us to follow his law, so we can't be legalistic. The second thing is we can't be antinomian, which means ignoring God's law. Where God gives a command, and I preach on it, I am not binding your conscience. God is. If I can back it up from the scripture, I'm not binding your conscience. God is. And woe is me as a pastor if I do not preach everything that God has called me to preach. I have talked to pastors here in Omaha who have said that there are certain topics that they are never going to preach on. And I asked them why. I said, oh man, everybody would leave. I said, well that's not a good reason not to preach on it. I hope at the end of my life I'll be able to say with the Apostle Paul, I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you. Acts 20, verse 20. And may each of you be able to say at the end of your lives, I have left nothing undone that God has asked me to do. And you might think, yeah, but on this particular thing, it's going to be such a cost for me to do it. Well, that's the whole reason it's called a test of faithfulness, right? God tests us many times. Are we willing to obey Him when it costs? Pray that God would enable all of us to be faithful to our promises and to be faithful to God's Word. Amen. Father, we thank you. for the promises of your word, but we thank you as well for the challenges and the commands of your word that test our faithfulness. And we want to be those who leave nothing undone and do not make excuses, who with unquestioning obedience follow your word. I pray that you would teach us and train us and guide us and equip us and empower us by your Holy Spirit. to do as Joshua did. Bless this your people in this way we pray in Jesus name. Amen.