History as Instruction

Deuteronomy 1:19-46

“19And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadeshbarnea.

 20And I said unto you, Ye are come unto the mountain of the Amorites, which the LORD our God doth give unto us.

 21Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged.

 22And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said, We will send men before us, and they shall search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go up, and into what cities we shall come.

 23And the saying pleased me well: and I took twelve men of you, one of a tribe:

 24And they turned and went up into the mountain, and came unto the valley of Eshcol, and searched it out.

 25And they took of the fruit of the land in their hands, and brought it down unto us, and brought us word again, and said, It is a good land which the LORD our God doth give us.

 26Notwithstanding ye would not go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God:

 27And ye murmured in your tents, and said, Because the LORD hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.

 28Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

 29Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them.

 30The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes;

 31And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place.

 32Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,

 33Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.

 34And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,

 35Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.

 36Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.

 37Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.

 38But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

 39Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 40But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.

 41Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD, we will go up and fight, according to all that the LORD our God commanded us. And when ye had girded on every man his weapons of war, ye were ready to go up into the hill.

 42And the LORD said unto me, Say unto them. Go not up, neither fight; for I am not among you; lest ye be smitten before your enemies.

 43So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill.

 44And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah.

 45And ye returned and wept before the LORD; but the LORD would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear unto you.

 46So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there.”

Historiography has to do with understanding and use of history as a branch of knowledge. To all practical intent, Historians deny this dictionary meaning and refuse to see an objective meaning to history. The Marxists insist on their meaning, and our modern leftists with their insistence on politically correct stances demand a meaning, but their meaning is humanistic and existentialist. They are not interested in establishing the validity of the religious foundations of history; only its present political frame of reference. James Anthony Froude wrote in 1899 and I quote “Religion, once the foundation of the laws and rule of personal conduct has subsided into opinion.” unquote. Instead of being the source of law, religion is mainly now personal opinion and socially irrelevant. History has cut loose from any religious and transcendent meaning, to become determined by and for the moment. History has become a form of political propaganda.

Now this has very important repercussions, it reduces man from a creature made in the image of God to a social animal. The animal rights people have equated, very openly, the lives of laboratory mice with the lives of scientists. Their idea is to revere all forms of life as did Albert Schweitzer, but in reality they are debasing all kinds of living things by separating them from their place under God and His law. The Bible is the most important of all history books and the only infallible one. It has been the source of all sound history writing and historiography. Deny the Bible as history and the end conclusion will be to say that no more than mice and bats, does man have a history. Some historians in their university classrooms are openly making such a conclusion. The Hegelian end of history schools, hope to reduce mad to the level of the ant hill or the bee hive, without a history. A Biblical faith militates against this. Thus when Moses reviews Israel’s history in the wilderness it is because history has for God and man an inescapable meaning. It is not chance nor is it happenstance, it is God’s law word manifested in the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of men.

Our text has been variously divided by scholars but perhaps Bernard Schneider's division is the best. His division is as follows: first, the sin of rebellion verses 19-26. Second the sin of unbelief verses 27-33. Third, the sin of presumption verses 41-46 and fourth, the judgment of God verses 34-40. All these merge into one another, but the distinctions are still valid and important.

The first, in verses 19-26, the sin of rebellion was a flagrant one. God's revealed will was an open and public order to go into Canaan and to occupy it. The promise of victory by God meant little against the reports of the ten spies. Caleb and Joshua dissenting, and human calculations and assessments weighed far more than God's assurances and promises. This is humanism; it is the trust in ones only valuations rather than the power and promises of God. God's word is seen as valid only if confirmed and substantiated by man’s word. This is very accurately called the sin of rebellion. Because it is a rejection of God's word in favor of man’s word. Antinomianism is a common form of such rebellions, as is the belief that pietism and religious exercises can replace Gods requirement of obedience.

God expresses his contempt for formerly correct and solemn worship, which is empty of meaning. He equates this as a sin comparable to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. True worship, God emphatically declares, true worship is from the heart and has consequences in the form of justice. All sin is a rejection of God and his law word in favor of manmade devices, or purely empty forms. Then second in verses 27 through 33. All such rebellion rests in unbelief. God declares in verse 32 that even while God was miraculously caring for Israel, yet in this thing ye did not believe in the Lord your God. James Moffat paraphrased this with these words. “But for all I said, you would not trust the eternal your God.” Like modern church men they heard only what pleased them. A popular current school of thought in the church is evidential-ism. It believes it can prove God to man’s satisfaction and offer his evidences requiring belief. In all this man plays God.

He insists on being the judge and arbiter over God. If I accept God's word only when I can verify it, I am distrusting God. And I am declaring that I am the judge as to whether or not God is telling the truth or is a liar. This is not only extremely presumptuous but is also a form of unbelief. It was Edward John Carnell of Fuller seminary who declared proudly: “Bring on your revelations,” he said, “and let them see if they can stand before the bar of my reason.” He was making himself a judge over God. We live in a day when the words of evil men and the media are accepted as Gospel, while Gods word is viewed with suspicion, or else it is only accepted so far as it agrees with our reasoning.

Then third in verses 41 through 46 Israel was guilty of the sin of presumption. Presumption means to assume a position or attitude without permission and on no authority save our own will. Presumption is an act of defiance of Gods authority. Presumption is going on without Gods promise or authority. Israel having disobeyed God then marched against Canaan against Gods judgment and will. They intended to prove to God how faithful they were by disobeying him. God having pronounced judgment against them, they now chose to reject the judgment and claim the promise. In their presumption they insisted that God take them on their own terms. In verse 31 God says, Moses cared for Israel as a man doth bear his son. A remarkable image. The reaction of Israel was that of an evil and presumptuous child. They sulked in their tents and said: “Because the Lord hated us he brought us forth out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us.” Because of their unbelief, the people of Israel lacked the courage to take God at his word and to conquer Canaan years before. In Lang’s words and I quote “Cowardice and pride go together, but never faith, to which God in heaven is all. And nothing on earth reaches to heaven” unquote.

Then fourth in verses 34 to 40 we have the judgment of God. Numbers 14 tells us that when this judgment was pronounced, the people had organized a lynch mob to kill both Moses and Aaron, and only Gods intervention prevented it. God's patience with man’s stubbornness, unbelief, presumption and evil is amazing. But it is not endless. The response of Israel to God's judgment mainly that the older generation would not enter Canaan except for Caleb and Joshua was to weep before the Lord. Now this was false Piety. They assumed that tears and prayers could wipe out their unbelief and presumption. It’s the kind of Pietism that prevails in the church today. As Schneider observed and I quote: “Evidently, Israel was sorry only because she was now in trouble, and the Lord who knows the heart was not taken in by their tears. The Bible warns, be not deceived, God is not mocked. No one has ever made a fool of God, though many have tried it.” Unquote. In the modern church, no attention is paid to this.

The worst reprobate can shed a few tears and the parents, husband or wife is expected to forgive all their sins without the slightest evidence of a changed life. This takes us back to our starting point, the meaning of historiography, the understanding and use of history. The modern rejection of history and historiography for social studies has destroyed and nullified an important area of sound learning and wisdom.

A volume was published in 1985 by the University of Georgia press. A symposium by various historians, trying to say that history still has a meaning even though it doesn’t. The medievalist Gordon Left, wrote therein and I quote: “It used to be believed that we could learn from the past, and this belief provided history with its justification. Sixty years ago history together with classics was considered the most suitable subject for training statesmen. Today history has become another discipline and the social studies have been increasingly ahistorical. The reasons for this change are obvious enough. On the one hand we have largely lost any firm sense of the future, so that we no longer turn to the past for guidance or comfort, The age of belief in historical destiny whether as the working of Gods providence or as the realization of a secular ideal, such as progress or nationhood itself belongs to history. Its passing has left a void, that history as traditionally conceived cannot fill. Just because we do not have a sense of direction.” Unquote.

Well, Left mulls over that quite a bit and finally comes to a very meager conclusion and I quote: “History is indispensable in understanding what is indispensable to men.” We can add with equal authority that gossip columnists are important and indispensable to understanding what is indispensable to important people and non-important ones as well. This is why non-Christian historiographers become exercises in futility. This too is why Biblical history is so important. To regard the Bible as a book to be mined for spiritual nuggets, as a vast portion of the church does, is to deny Biblical faith. It denies Biblical history. Then it denies Biblical doctrine which is manifested in that history. The indifference of Christians with history and historiography is thus a very grim fact. And it is one that assures the churches of God's judgment, because they despise his handy work.

Let us pray. Our Lord and our God, we confess indeed that we have become a rootless people. We have denied the meaning of thy word. We have sought refuge in empty exercises, humanistic justifications for ourselves and our pasts and our present and the future. We have sinned and gone astray and there is no good thing in us. Indeed oh Lord this generation does deserve thy judgment. But in judgment oh Lord remember mercy, bring forth out of thy judgment thy great salvation. Make of us again a just, a holy people. Use us mightily to the end of the kingdoms of this world might become the kingdoms of our lord and of his Christ. In his name we pray, amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Audience, Otto Scott] When the Bolsheviks took over in Russia they eliminated history and law from the university studies and introduced social studies.

[Rushdoony] Yes, which is exactly what we have done. And this is one reason why we have been destroyed, among other reasons. But it has been a major part of it. I believe that this is now a contributing factor to the decline of the west. When John Marc was here he said that in French schools they are forbidden to use dates. History is to be hung not upon dates and their sequence but on humanistic articles of faith. So this is the destruction of history, it is designed to create the anthill or beehive mentality. Yes?

[Audience] When I was going through school… My peers didn’t when I was going through highschool. Dates were a very difficult thing for them to relate to.

[Rushdoony] We also not only have dates abandoned but a radical rewriting of history. The Aztecs were a good people whom the Spaniards destroyed, nothing about their vast numbers of human sacrifice and cannibalism. The same is applied to a variety of groups who were clearly evil when Columbus encountered them. They have however been turned into innocents whom he treated brutally. And the sad fact is that in my lifetime I have seen a great many of these people, Indians here and elsewhere believe this propaganda and believe that there was a golden age that existed before the white man came. Yes?

[Audience] I had a question, to me without predestination God doesn’t exist, it’s impossible, and then Man becomes God. But I do have a problem as I read the Bible on the first and second cause. Is God’s predestination, or his total involvement, is in good, or is it also in evil, I ask this because He seem so shocked when Saul committed sin, or when Solomon committed sin. And so on down to others that he promised would sin, he of course knew, he said that it was going to be that way. But I don’t know whether he, I keep wondering as I’m reading, is He involved in sinful, is he the first cause in the sin of man as well as the good of man?

[Rushdoony] The question you are asking is a basic one and yet one that goes beyond human thinking. Philosophically there are only three possibilities with regard to things ultimate.

First chance, which is an impossibility because there could be nor order, no structure; the uniformity, the direction, the movement of things would be impossible.

Second there can be fatalism, a single determining cause, so that we are merely automatons, and we have no responsibility, so that as an Islam you do not say I lost my watch, you say if your name is Mohammad Ali, the watch of Mohammad Ali has lost itself. There is no person involved in it.

Third there is predestination which says there are two kinds of causes. First causes, all emanating from God who is the ultimate first cause, and secondary causes. And the secondary causes are determined by God, so that there is a reality to what we do. And we have a secondary freedom which is very real.

Having said this we have to say that, to understand all of that would require the mind of God. So what we have to say is: it is so, I believe it. Nothing else is tenable, everything else reduces all meaning to nothing. And yet to understand it I would have to have the mind of God which I do not. One of the great books of our century is by Charles Norris Cochrane, a classical scholar. Christianity and Classical Culture. And the whole book is devoted to this question. The Greco-Roman thinkers attacked the Christian early church fathers contemptuously and savagely in the name of freedom. But their idea was that chance is ultimate. And they ridiculed the Christians for denying the ultimacy of chance and insisting on predestination. But as the debate raged what came out was that the Greek and Roman thinkers wound up making man totally subject to environmental influences. So that man was absolutely conditioned by his biology, by his inheritance, by the world around him. So they ended up denying totally the freedom of man, whereas the church fathers by insisting on predestination were the ones who were the champions of man’s secondary freedom. That book tells us of this paradox and brilliantly describes what each position led to. Yes?

[Audience] Are they still teaching social studies in public school?

[Rushdoony] That’s what they are teaching, yes social studies. Not history. No history is passé, you will have history in Christian schools, but social studies is as I pointed out in the Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum a discipline which has as its goal the control of man by the state. So social studies is to prepare the children for that type of control.

[Audience, hard to hear] I remember I had a minus that time, in history actually, I remember talking to the gentlemen who was in charge of all of a small session and they wanted him very much to teach it… I said but you’re not really teaching history, and he said: “Ahhh but we’re giving you such great leeway, such leeway because of social studies, you can go into every realm of life in social studies. You can teach them everything you want to, as it pertains to life and social studies.” That stuck in my craw for a long time.

[Rushdoony] Yes, yes that’s the goal, it is the goal. The goal is people control. And we see the consequences of it everywhere. Are there any other questions or comments? Well if not let us conclude with prayer. Our Father, arm us by thy word and by thy spirit, that we may be faithful soldiers of Christ, that we may overthrow every citadel of thought, that seeks to undo Thy work and to wage war against Thee in Thy kingdom. We thank Thee that we have been called to victory. We thank Thee that in a time of judgment, we know that Thou art on the throne and that Thy will shall be done. Strengthen us in thy service. And now go in peace, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, bless you and keep you, guide and protect you, this day and always, amen.