THE INHERITANCE
[p. 193] THE INHERITANCE
Notes of Reading with J. Taylor and C. A. Coates on Joshua 16
CAC I should be glad of help as to the general thought of the inheritance, and how it is divided in a practical sense today?
JT So should I. What have you had before you?
CAC One can realise in some measure that the inheritance is too great to be taken up by one individual, or even by a section of the people of God; but how does the distribution work today? Do you enjoy a different portion of the inheritance from what I enjoy?
JT Surely. I suppose the section of the book which treats of the present mode of distribution would be chapter 18, where the tent of meeting is in view: “And the whole assembly of the children of Israel gathered together at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there; ... And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes whose inheritance had not been distributed to them”. Joshua 18:1,2. Then at the end of chapter 19, “These were the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the chief fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah, at the entrance of the tent of meeting”. Joshua 19:51. I thought that there we have what applies to the saints right down to this dispensation. God indicates at the outset that certain ones were to have certain portions, and some others, but all subsequent dispositions were made in the house.
CAC How would that work out in its bearing on ourselves?
JT God has to do with it, but the saints are brought into it in their judgment of things, the place [p. 194] they acquire. The land was subdued before them; that I suppose, refers to apostolic power and authority, but subsequently the disposition of God was made in relation to the assembly. The saints come to the judgment of it in the tent of meeting. How that works out in detail would be a matter for each to think over.
CAC Is there any particular scripture in the New Testament that would help in regard to this distribution?
JT The early part of Acts brings it out. We see God’s direct disposition in the apostles; there is no question as to Peter’s place or any of the others. Then Barnabas comes in moved by God, the truth lays hold of his heart, he brings his money and lays it at the apostles’ feet. But his place in the testimony was not made clear immediately, it took time, the apostles did not even appoint him; there is more development in the house.
CAC Yes, in that way as recognising the house, each would be spiritually exercised to find his right place.
JT You will observe in the end of chapter 19 that Eleazar comes before Joshua: “These were the inheritances which Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun ... distributed by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah at the entrance of the tent of meeting”. Joshua 19:51. There it is not apostolic authority as in Moses or Joshua, but priestly. The place the priestly element has in all assembly matters is of the first importance, because after apostolic judgment ends we have to depend on the priestly element.
CAC I suppose the practical weakening and possibly the absence of the priestly element led to all the disorder in the assembly.
JT Quite so. So the selection of Barnabas and Paul was by the Spirit; the twelve had its part in it.
CAC [p. 195] Would that be indicated by attention being called to the fact that Joshua was old? The Joshua side of things was passing off, referring to the weakening in the assembly of spiritual lead of apostolic character.
JT Yes, that raises an interesting point, because all the chapters in the Acts from 6 to 12 point to a certain weakening in Jerusalem. The delegation of everything by the apostles to others seems to indicate that they were relinquishing their responsibility; and Peter’s imprisonment in Acts 12 brings out a certain peculiar position in Jerusalem — they prayed and prayed for him in the assembly, and yet they did not believe when the answer came. They did not believe the Lord was answering their prayers in relation to Peter; there was a weakening at Jerusalem, but at Antioch there was indicated a priestly state. Barnabas was there, and names were given of certain ones in the assembly there. They were marked by ministering to the Lord and fasting, so the priestly element was found elsewhere than in Jerusalem. In that connection the Holy Spirit asks for Barnabas and Saul; He says, “Separate me”, Acts 13:2. I thought that the Holy Spirit acting thus implies the intimate knowledge that God has of conditions among us.
CAC I suppose you would say that it is not in the mind of God that things should be conserved in the assembly by apostolic power. His thought was to remove the apostles, but that things should be sustained in priestly and spiritual power in the exercises of the brethren.
JT Yes, that is most important and comes down to ourselves.
CAC We see that the apostles were unable in their later years to correct the state of the assemblies. There is a distinct weakening, so that both Paul and [p. 196] John had to witness the sad state of things in the assemblies; and they did not seek to adjust them by apostolic power but left them to the moral exercises of the saints.
JT Quite. In Deuteronomy, when Moses was to be removed, Jehovah directs that he and Joshua should appear before the tent of meeting so that the leader should continue. But, whilst he was divinely appointed and nominated, yet the consummation of all was at the door of the tent of meeting; God brings in the saints. There is nothing arbitrary in what He does; He carries us with Him if we are ready for it.
CAC Would that be confirmed by the thought of the habitation of God by the Spirit at the end of Ephesians 2? Then we get a parenthesis in chapter 3 which brings in spiritual and priestly state; then the distribution of gifts in chapter 4 and the allotment of grace to every one of us according to the measure of the gift of the Christ. That is linked somewhat with the inheritance.
JT It is indeed. So the saints are carried forward. Jehovah enjoined that Moses should compose a song which he taught to the people. That was something they would have subjectively, and not only did Moses compose it but Joshua was linked on with the service of the song. Then the Levites were directed to put the book of the law in the ark; it was conserved there. Christ looks after that, as it were. It was put there that nothing should be lost. There was a song to be taught to the people and under these circumstances Joshua takes on his ministry. We see how God carries the people on with Him in what He is doing. There is nothing arbitrary; everyone assents to what is done. So, while we have fixed principles, they can never be dissociated from priestly state; they lose their power if they are.
CAC No divine principle can be rightly applied [p. 197] otherwise.
JT Divine principle in other than priestly hands loses its familiarity to us and becomes strange.
CAC I remember a striking remark of J.N.D. : “Divine principles in the hands of unspiritual persons are like a sword in the hands of a drunken man”. I suppose at the door of the tent of meeting the divine allotment would be seen in its completeness without any defect. In taking possession there was failure, there were defects; people stopped short of the divine apportionment, of taking up the inheritance. What are we to learn from that?
JT Judges and Joshua representing the direct disposition of God, each has its own presentation of what happened as to Achsah and Caleb. They represent elements of appreciation of what God gave. In Joshua we have the daughters of Zelophehad; without these elements what God confers is sure to be misused, but with these elements and others a right appreciation of the mind of God stands out, and divine things do not go begging, as, alas, they often do. Caleb and Achsah show they appreciate what God gives, and so do the daughters of Zelophehad; they come forward and ask for their rights. There are those who fail to take what God apportions of the inheritance, which shows their want of appreciation of the thing.
CAC The fact of the little moment that remains to us is highly important. There is time for us still to possess if we have failed in the past. There is long-suffering of the Lord to us-ward. If there has been defect and anything unsuitable there is space yet for repentance and getting right. So, in principle, if I have not possessed what has been given, there is a little space yet to make it good, which is encouraging to me.
JT It says that the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim took their inheritance. The daughters of Zelophehad in the next chapter show their appreciation of it: “They came near before Eleazar the priest and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, Jehovah commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren”. Joshua 17:4. Achsah asked for springs as well as her inheritance — upper and nether springs. Things cannot be continued without water, they grow hard and dry. On the other hand there is a desire to have what we have among our brethren; that is what the daughters of Zelophehad sought for. We do not want it independently.
CAC I suppose the thought of the inheritance would bring in the brethren. It is “according to their families” — that is repeated more than once.
JT Quite so. Another thing that comes out in the distribution of the inheritance is the irregularity of the boundary lines. According to Ezekiel they will be long lines straight across the land. There will not be then the same need for brotherly giving and taking as there is need now.
CAC That is a very interesting consideration, because I was noticing in reading that one tribe had cities in another tribe.
JT Yes, you find that whilst a large portion was given to Judah yet in result Simeon has to get his portion inside. That is a great test and tax on one’s love. It seems that the book of Joshua brings out in that way the love of the saints. God delights to bring that out and He gives occasion for it in the irregularity of the boundary lines; it gives occasion for brotherly consideration and grace in one another.
CAC An exclusive principle among the brethren is not to be maintained. Is that the thought?
JT Quite. This country is divided up into parishes, and each vicar has his own parish, but that principle does not maintain in the house of God.
CAC I suppose what is local still obtains, but there is not an exclusive principle [p. 199] introduced.
Brethren from another tribe are welcome. Is that right?
JT Yes. You do not in Teignmouth assume that brethren are not to come and have their part in what is there. The more love is active, the more communion there is.
CAC I suppose now that the Lord would give opportunity for fellowship between adjoining cities, and would also provide opportunity for links practically of love between districts? I was thinking of the collection being made in Macedonia and the assemblies in Galatia to minister to the saints in Judaea. Would that not answer to the interlocking of the tribes?
JT Quite. The types provided for the males appearing before Jehovah thrice a year to maintain the tribal association, they would never lose that. But in Jerusalem they would be a nation, a centre where all are a community for the interchanging of wealth. Each is there according to his wealth, according to the measure he has developed the portion which God has given him.
CAC Would the place where Jehovah sets His name give us the universal idea? The tribes go up. Would it suggest our entering into the spiritual privilege which is the universal privilege of the assembly? If we touch spiritual privilege we pass outside what is local into what is universal. Would not that answer to going up to Jerusalem?
JT I thought so. They would meet there on common ground, but it would soon show which had the richest inheritance, who had the most wealth. The borders of the tribes give occasion for the development of love — “with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love: using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bonds of peace”. Ephesians 4:2,3. They would rather maintain unity and peace than gain a bit of land. Peace among the brethren is more important than the [p. 200] inheritance. We are to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit, because unless we are on good terms with our neighbour we cannot take in the universal thought.
The general principle would be to have confidence in all matters which arise locally; the general principle that underlies the assembly is confidence; if there is not confidence there is nothing. We must have confidence in the brethren. If they are not worthy of it they are not material for the assembly; if they are, we must leave things with them. Do you not think so?
CAC Yes, I think that must be the only principle on which we can go on.
JT “One body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. Ephesians 4:4-6. We must have that; we cannot violate that; and in order to maintain that we must bear with things in love, and endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. That is the great end in view. If there are any brethren on the spot in any difficulty, in principle I should say, Why should the Lord pass by them? It is their direct responsibility. Why should the Lord pass by them? He would not do it unless compelled to.
CAC You would regard the challenging of a local judgment as altogether abnormal, and only justified on the most unquestionably moral grounds?
JT I am sure it is so.
CAC As a general principle we should count on the Lord to give judgment locally, and it would be abnormal if saints locally did not exercise spiritual judgment in any local case. And it would also be abnormal if saints in a district formed a wrong judgment as to matters which occurred in the district where they lived. In either case it would be a serious matter to call it in question.
[p. 201] JT I do not see how we could get on if we did. One marvels to think of it, broken up as we are, with national prejudices, class feelings, and what not — it is a miracle that we get on as we do.
CAC I have often considered with profound admiration the way the Lord preserves unity and integrity of heart which values what is of God, and enables the brethren to recognise it.
JT Yes, we have no one to appeal to. “The locusts have no king” Proverbs 30:27; yet there is unity among us. I think the Lord would impress on us the principle of boundaries which are irregular, and that answers to things as they are now. I am called on to give way, and in result the unity of the Spirit is preserved. God would emphasise lowliness and meekness. I do not want to assert myself in any way. I want to have a right judgment, but to have it in all lowliness, meekness and long-suffering, bearing with one another in love. Christ is made prince of the kings of the earth; the princely idea is a universal one. A prince is a man great enough to be little. Barnabas represents the princely idea in the way in which he maintained and promoted unity among the saints of God.
CAC The princely idea is Christ in the saints, so we have the principle of submitting to one another in the fear of Christ. I understand that to mean the recognition of Christ in the brethren.
JT Is there not authority too in it? Coming over we were dwelling on the epistle of John: we see love working there because we are born of God, yet the commandment is there. We see love worked out in those begotten of God, but the family feelings and instincts are throughout the epistle emphasised as commandments.
CAC That principle is of the greatest importance in a day where lawlessness abounds and manifests itself in the circle of the saints.
JT Yes. You cannot say you love God and not [p. 202] keep His commandments. It maintains the authority of God ever among us. Love is spontaneous, but God never leaves anything to itself. He always maintains His own rights. It is so even in the universe; it goes of itself, but He holds it in His hands.
CAC While there is liberty, it is the law of liberty.
I notice that Judah’s portion is too great for him, so he has to let in Simeon; but the children of Joseph complain that their portion is not great enough, and they are told to go up and cut down wood: they are exhorted to go in for clearing operations. There is a difference between killing the Canaanite and cutting down wood. I was wondering if the Canaanite would represent positive elements of evil, spiritual wickedness, and the wood might represent what is not evil in itself but what is natural, which obstructs the people of God and renders the inheritance unfertile so that no crops are produced there. Spiritual energy is needed to cut down what is merely the growth of nature, even though it is not evil in itself. Many of us have found that there were things which are natural to us but which obstruct the enjoyment of the inheritance, and militate against spiritual happiness. I suppose the thought of the inheritance would be very much fulness of joy. We have the inheritance family-wise very much in the writings of John — “your joy may be full”. 1 John 1:4. Many of us feel we are not full of joy — well, if not, something must have obstructed spiritual fruitfulness as far as we are concerned. I suppose the spiritual happiness of the saints would be according to the measure in which the inheritance has been entered upon. We might test our own hearts whether our joy is full. I know experimentally there is a great difference between the knowledge of the doctrine, giving one’s assent to the truth, and having fulness of joy. If we are not enjoying the inheritance and reaping the fruits of it [p. 203] for our own enrichment, we shall not have any tithes to take up to Jerusalem. One has thought how wonderful it is that the greatness of Christ, the Son of God, which is so infinitely vast in its extent, should be distributed amongst the people of God for their own joy. The assembly, looked at universally, is an adequate vessel to take it up, so that God has the glory, the full result of the activities of His love brought back to Him in the universal praises of His people. It is a very touching expression of divine love that God should make His portion to be dependent on His people having theirs.
JT Yes, I have often thought, How much does God get out of our meetings?
CAC I suppose that would be the object of all levitical service. The universal service of the levites would be to keep before the people what was due to God, so that God might get His portion in His people and from His people.
JT The whole tribe of the levites was taken over by God; they had no inheritance, indicating that we are enriched spiritually. Our heavenly portion is before God as the firstborn ones.
CAC Yes. Jehovah Himself is their inheritance. In one passage the offering by fire is their inheritance: in another the priesthood is their inheritance; and in another the thought is that the Levite gets his portion peculiarly in the blessed God Himself as ministering to God’s pleasure. Such persons serving among the saints would keep before them what is due to God — that must be the ultimate object of everything.
JT Achsah gives a good lead, for she lays stress on the springs of water, and the daughters of Zelophehad make much of the Spirit and the brethren.
CAC Somebody has remarked that the death of Caleb was not recorded. I think Caleb represents an undying principle of affection; he wholly followed [p. 204] Jehovah, and that is never going to die out of the assembly. If Joshua goes, Caleb remains; and Achsah does not go either — that is the intense, urgent desire for springs of water, the feeling the necessity for them. If these things are found the inheritance in principle is held and maintained.