JOSHUA 16 TO 19
Joshua 16; Joshua 17; Joshua 18; Joshua 19
I believe that there is a very general desire among the people of God to enjoy that which God in love has made their portion. I trust we are all animated by the desire to honour God, by the appreciation and enjoyment of that which His love has given us at the present time. It is that which makes this book of Joshua, particularly the part which is now before us, so intensely interesting and attractive.
The Lord has been faithful in giving ministry, but the practical possession and enjoyment of the things spoken of and ministered is of the greatest importance. We have to learn how to take up the inheritance. We have a most wonderful inheritance; that which was given to Israel was but a figure of it. Paul tells the Colossians that the Father has made us competent to share the portion of the saints in light — that is the inheritance. Many of us are content with the title; we are ready to say, God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ. That is very blessed, but what about the present practical enjoyment of it? The present position is that many of the people of God have not taken up their inheritance; therefore it is a practical question for us how we are to take it up.
These chapters deal with the division of the inheritance by lot among the tribes of Israel. As we see in chapter 13, the portion of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh had been given to them by Moses on the east side of Jordan. In chapters 15 - 17 the portions of the tribes of Judah and Joseph, that is, Ephraim and the other half of Manasseh, were specifically assigned to them, God indicating at the outset that they were to have their portions as He indicated, answering to God’s direct disposition in the apostles in the early chapters of the Acts. In chapters 18 and 19 the position is different, for in [p. 73] chapter 18 the tent of meeting was set up in Shiloh, and the distribution of the territory of the seven remaining tribes was made there by “Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun and the chief fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel ... at the entrance of the tent of meeting”, chapter 19:51. It is not apostolic authority, as seen in Moses or Joshua, but the priestly element is recognised, and all the saints are brought into the matter at the entrance of the tent of meeting. The place that the priestly element has in all assembly matters is of the first importance, because after apostolic judgment ends we must depend on the priestly element. This section of the book therefore applies to the saints right through the dispensation, and governs us in our present mode of sharing the inheritance.
We have been considering that, in this book, Joshua represents, not exactly Christ personally, but the leading of Christ by the Spirit such as we see in the apostles. Now that leading would always be in the direction of our taking up the inheritance. The tent of meeting as seen in the land stands in definite relation to the inheritance, which it did not in the wilderness. In the wilderness it was the tabernacle of the testimony, but in the land it was seen, not in connection with the testimony, but with the enjoyment of the inheritance. In the wilderness the tabernacle of testimony refers to the position saints have in the world; they are there for testimony, and the whole of the twelve tribes were ordered in relation to the tabernacle of testimony. Now that is our position viewed as in the world; we are set in relation to the tabernacle of testimony. Our great business in this world is, not to be comfortable in our domestic lives or successful in business, but to be identified with the tabernacle of God’s testimony. The tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, and it is an immense thing to reach such a point. The tabernacle is the place where God dwells; “They shall make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them”, Exodus 25: 8.
If we have the thought of a dwelling for God, everything must be regulated and ordered and distributed according to God. It is a universal idea. The tabernacle at Shiloh was a central point for all Israel; the thought of God dwelling among His people is a universal idea. If God dwells among His people we must respect everything that is of God. When people go into a church they take their hats off; they recognise [p. 74] the place they are in as the house of God, and they treat it with respect. That is a right idea, but it is applied in a material way. It is a right idea to have reverence for the place where God dwells, but He does not dwell in any building of stone or brick; He dwells in His people. We are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit — that answers to Shiloh.
There must be holy conditions. We could not connect anything unholy with the place where God dwells; no insubjection or unholiness can be there — “Holiness becomes thy house, O Jehovah, for ever”, Psalm 93: 5. In the light of that we have to see the divine way in which the inheritance is taken up; there is a divine way and it cannot be taken up any other way. Everything is apportioned. There were seven tribes, giving the thought of spiritual completeness, not twelve but seven. We can take up things in a spiritual way even in the presence of all the outward ruin.
All is by lot; it is a question of divine appointment. It would affect us very much to take account of divine appointment in view of enjoying the inheritance. There is divine appointment in Numbers, each tribe set in an appointed place in relation to the tabernacle of testimony. But in the land it is not a question of testimony but of enjoyment.
The whole assembly of the children of Israel were gathered together at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting; they moved together. All is ordered in view of the enjoyment of the inheritance. We have noticed in reading these chapters that when the inheritance of the tribes is described in detail each tribe has dependent villages or hamlets, or, as the margin reads, farmhouses, which brings it down to household character. We have to take account of all that spiritually to see how the inheritance is enjoyed, and the New Testament gives us the answer to it. That is, the saints are divinely set together that they may enjoy the inheritance together; first in households, then in assemblies, and then in a more general way, and I do not think we shall enjoy the inheritance if we do not take up these divine thoughts. It must have an answer at the present time. The basis on which all assembly enjoyment rests is household enjoyment; so it begins with what is described as farmhouses, the holding of each household. If Christian households do not enjoy things together there is a defect at the foundation. The assembly according to God is made up of households; that is why in the epistles where the saints are [p. 75] viewed as over Jordan we have so much said about husbands, wives, parents, children, masters and servants; it is a household character of things. Where right conditions do not obtain in Christian households, the inheritance is not enjoyed.
There are some households where the Lord’s interests govern, and it is not difficult to introduce the Lord’s things. I went to a household lately where I was delighted to find that the father, mother, and all the children were perfectly free to speak of their spiritual exercises, and there were even young children. You cannot bring that about to suit the occasion; it is characteristic. That is the basis of things. Suppose you get a number of households like that, what beautiful material it would be for local assemblies! The work of God in Europe began with households. There was the jailor’s and Lydia’s. Order in God’s house is dependent on the order of our own households — “If one does not know how to conduct his own house, how shall he take care of the assembly of God”, 1 Timothy 3:5.
Then we find there are cities; each tribe has a specified number of cities. The cities would answer, I think, to local assemblies. It is not accidental that the saints are set together in local assemblies; God has set them together that they might enjoy the inheritance. It is not now the testimony, as in Numbers, but it is now the inheritance. Are my relations with my brethren such that they contribute to my enjoyment of the inheritance? We cannot enjoy it without the brethren. The result of Paul’s and the other apostles’ labours was that assemblies were formed in Judaea and in the Gentile world, so we read that the assemblies had rest, and Paul went about confirming the assemblies, and he speaks about the assemblies of the saints. It is divine order; we cannot create something. People think sometimes that brethren have created a new order according to their own minds; if we have, it is sure to come to nothing, but we must recognise what God has created, and God has set His people in local assemblies.
Suppose one individual in a town got light from God as to the inheritance and the way it could be enjoyed, he would begin to look out for another. He would not have to look long; he would find somebody who had the same exercises and desires, and, the moment there are two, you have the thing in principle. So the Lord says “two of you” — it brings it down to the smallest number. Two saints can walk together [p. 76] and enjoy the inheritance. We are apt not to attach sufficient value to the fact that we are set in local assemblies; and there are not only cities but cities grouped together in tribes. We have the thought in Scripture of the grouping of assemblies; for instance, it speaks of the assemblies of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus. Then there was an important letter addressed to the assemblies in Galatia, and we read about the assemblies in Macedonia. That is the idea of assemblies being grouped together. When the assemblies in Macedonia sent a contribution to the poor saints in Judaea, it was two tribes linked together in the bonds of divine love.
Saints make themselves very unhappy by moving in their own wills, and they miss the joy of the inheritance. The choice of the creature is always wrong. Lot chose; the thing for us is to accept the setting where we are. If the Lord moves us, it is different; God moved Priscilla and Aquila from Rome to Corinth. Providentially He allowed the command that all Jews were to leave Rome; God knew what He was doing when He allowed the imperial edict to go forth. He wanted to move a brother and sister to Corinth because He intended setting up a local assembly at Corinth. Our thought in moving should be, is it God’s way to contribute to His assembly there? Is that the prime thought if I move? Is it with a view to enjoying the inheritance and contributing to the saints? The voluntary idea is not right; we find in Scripture that God sets persons in a certain position and in certain relations. The Levites had their service appointed; it was never said to a Levite, You do what you like in the tabernacle. They each had their appointed work, and all was under the ordering of Aaron or Eleazar. “The whole decision is of the Lord”. Could I say, I am locally in Teignmouth by the decision of the Lord?
We need not have any question at all if God providentially moves us. The exercise comes when we move ourselves apart from His providence. If we have gone anywhere because it is the will of God, we remain there and recognise our links with the brethren as a means by which we enjoy the inheritance. That is the setting in which we enjoy the inheritance and we cannot enjoy it any other way. No movement on our part can secure to us the enjoyment of the inheritance; we must either take it up in a divine way or miss it. What are we after? It tests the whole principle on which we are. Our households, our local setting in the assembly, and our relation [p. 77] with neighbouring assemblies, are to be governed by the principle of God dwelling in the midst of His people, He has put us divinely together so that we might enjoy the inheritance together.
We see the saints builded together at the end of Ephesians 2; then in chapter 3 there is a parenthesis which goes on to chapter 4, where we are seen together in that beautiful spirit of meekness, lowliness, long-suffering, and forbearance; we are on that principle together. And then we find the distribution, “To each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ”. What a wonderful endowment! Do we believe it? No two of us have the same grace. The inheritance is so big that it takes all the saints on earth to occupy it. “To each one of us is given grace”. I may not utilise it or work it out, but the grace is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. In speaking of the assembly lower down in the same chapter it says, “according to the working in its measure of each one part”. The inheritance is so vast that it takes all saints to occupy it and enjoy it. My exercise is that I should take up my part in the measure of the grace given, and that I am working as one of the parts. We are put together that there might be this beautiful divine working, so that the inheritance might be enjoyed.
I think that we suffer, in one sense, from the truths recovered at the Reformation being so largely individual. The church had become such a corrupt and idolatrous system that there was a recoil from that; pious persons fell back on what was individual and on the enjoyment of what was individual, and they rather lost sight of the divine setting in which they were placed with other saints, so they formed a voluntary system and set up national churches. The divine thought is that the whole body is set together, and being so we have not to set up anything or to form any organisation; we have to come into the light of what is divinely constituted and take it up in the Spirit of Christ, and then we shall have great enjoyment of the inheritance. Am I full of joy? If not, there is something obstructing my enjoyment of the inheritance.
We have to recognise divine sovereignty. From the beginning we were born of God according to His own disposition, and the place where we live is according to God’s disposition. If we have been moving in the fear of God, we are put where God would have us, and the local assembly is where we enjoy [p. 78] our inheritance in company with the people of God. It is expressly said that Joshua divided the inheritance by lot. Each tribe had its divine allotment. These great divine thoughts are essential to our enjoyment of the inheritance. We cannot make divine thoughts bend to our ideas. We must conform to divine thoughts and cherish them, and not expect them to conform to us. There is no assembly teaching in Romans, but it is remarkable that there are five allusions to the assembly in the last chapter, and that provides a link between Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians. Corinthians gives the assembly in the wilderness aspect, and Ephesians in the aspect of being over Jordan. When we come to the end of Romans we find a loose link hanging there like the end of a railway carriage which is going to be coupled to something else. Ephesians is the next coach: the mystery is the link. There are five specific references to the assembly at the end of the epistle, showing that all the truth of Romans is to be taken up in assembly setting. We cannot have an individual enjoyment of what is in Christ outside the assembly setting.
Another feature that comes out in the distribution of the inheritance is the irregularity of the boundary lines. According to Ezekiel in the coming day they will be long lines drawn straight across the land. There will not then be the same need for brotherly giving and taking as there is now. So we find that whilst a large portion was given to Judah, yet Simeon had in result to have his portion within the territory of Judah. That is a great test and involves a tax on Judah’s love for his brother. 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. Unless we are on good terms with our neighbour we cannot take in the universal thought. So the borders of the land 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 bond of peace”, Ephesians 4: 2, 3.