JOSHUA 22
In this chapter we find that there are certain tribes who are content to drop down to a lower ground than that which was the thought of God. They could be spoken of as faithful to the words spoken through Moses, and they could not be charged with any sin. They are blessed by Joshua, but notwithstanding they are prepared to take up a lower ground than the thought of God for His people; it was not all that Jehovah had said for His people. It is not that they have not received something from God. They have a great deal, a divinely assigned portion; but the question for us is, Have we all that God in love has given? Have we entered into the inheritance according to God’s thought?
God can only be pleased and properly served according to His own thoughts. We might be prepared to fight for the inheritance and yet be content not to live there. That was so with these tribes; they were ready to fight for it, but they did not care to live in it. If some conflict arose about the truth, and the heavenly calling and portion of the saints, some of us might be prepared to go to war about it, but the question is, Do we want to live there? Many have been valiant in contesting about things that they have never enjoyed. These two tribes were willing to fight for a place in which they had no desire to [p. 90] dwell. When the enemies had been defeated and the land possessed, they were quite content to go back to the east side of Jordan and live there.
The nine and a half tribes were conscious they were on true ground; to put it in our language, they were on true assembly ground. They said, “Thus saith the whole assembly of Jehovah” and “the land of the possession of Jehovah, where Jehovah’s tabernacle dwelleth”. They were standing on true assembly ground and they knew it quite well. They showed a beautiful brotherly spirit; they said, “If your possession is unclean, come over into the land of the possession of Jehovah”. But the fact was that the tribes took lower ground in going back to the east side of Jordan, and God permitted it. He does allow His people to take up what answers to it. He says, so to speak, If you do not want my land, if you are thinking of yourselves and your cattle, and what suits you, you can have it. God does not deal arbitrarily with His people; if we are content with a small measure we can have it.
It appears that these tribes were not altogether comfortable. They had a distinct feeling that they were taking up ground different from what their brethren stood on. Something was needed to keep up the link with the inheritance, so an artificial and human expedient was tried which proved ineffectual. They departed out of the land of Canaan and left Shiloh, the true gathering centre, where the tabernacle was in the land of Canaan; they left all that. It was not that they ceased to be the people of God, or to have the blessing of God, but they went away from everything that was most precious. To my mind it answers to what Paul said to Timothy, “Thou knowest this, that all who are in Asia ... have turned away from me”, 2 Timothy 1: 15.
The nine and a half tribes show a lovely spirit. They say, If your inheritance is unclean, if you are not at rest, come back. They had no hesitation as to the right ground, but they say to the others, ‘If you are uncomfortable, come over, but do not let us have a sectional movement, or set up a rival centre of worship. We cannot admit of anything like that; it must be war if you are going to have a sectional movement; we cannot tolerate that; the whole assembly stands for that’. It shows the kind of spirit that would animate those who live in the inheritance. They would like all the brethren to come over; they are not exclusive in that sense.
[p. 91] As a matter of fact the motives of the two and a half tribes were good; there might be that and yet lower ground taken than the calling of God would allow. They set up an altar of grand appearance. They betrayed an uneasy feeling that they were breaking the link, and therefore some human expedient had to be adopted to keep it up. All Christians would admit that it was wrong for Christians to be divided: so they have human expedients. They form evangelical alliances — that is a beautiful altar to look at, but it is a human expedient.
What they said was true: “Your children will say to our children, What have ye to do with Jehovah the God of Israel? Jehovah hath made the Jordan a border between us and you”. If we live on the wrong side we shall want a grand altar to remind us that we are linked with the children of God who enjoy the inheritance. If we dwell on the responsible side we shall miss what is most pleasurable to God. There is a land of which He says, It is the glory of all lands; His eyes and His heart are there perpetually. That is never said of the land on the east side of Jordan. The west side is what His love delights in. Do we love God enough to be able to say truly that nothing will satisfy us to receive but what satisfies God to give? That is the whole thing. What does the love of God give? If I get some apprehension of what the love of God may give, nothing less will do for me.
I suppose that those who forsook Paul went on with assembly order, they broke bread every first day of the week, and they observed all the instructions. The epistle to the Ephesian assembly in Revelation 2 shows where they had reached. They were exceedingly jealous for God’s name and divine principles; they did not tolerate any kind of evil, but the Lord says, You have left your first love; you have fallen; repent, and do the first works. They were all breaking bread and maintaining what was right, but they had slipped away in their affections. Paul had said that all in Asia had turned away from him; but John throws further light on it. He shows the condition of these assemblies; it was not that they were not believers or not blessed of God, but they had dropped down to a lower plane; they were not going on to the highest thoughts of God. The two and a half tribes moved on that line. They chose their inheritance on the east side, and God acquiesced and allowed them to have their inheritance on that side, but that [p. 92] did not make the east side of Jordan the proper side to live on.
The altar of grand appearance is a poor substitute for the tabernacle of Jehovah. The tabernacle was the point of unity. The enjoyment of the inheritance together constitutes real unity. If people go out of fellowship, they have not been enjoying the inheritance with their brethren, so they come to think that there is something better elsewhere. The altar was intended to be a witness that Jehovah was God, but then it was a witness all the time to them that they were not dwelling where Jehovah’s tabernacle was. The idea was not to set up another centre of worship; they disclaimed that and were able to clear themselves before their brethren of rebellion or independence; they did not want to set up another centre. The unity is connected with the place where God dwells — that is the great point in Ephesians 2, where we have one new man and one body, and access to the Father by one Spirit. These are spiritual thoughts that are only realities on the west side of Jordan, and then we can have the saints builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. There is real power for unity in that. It is not that people profess certain principles, but they are in the vitality of things. It is a vital fellowship, not simply principles, or that we all break bread together. I do not care for outward fellowship if inward fellowship is not there. Right principles are like the walls of a house — there is no comfort in a house if there are no walls. They keep out the wind and the weather, but walls are not the comfort of the house. That lies in the furniture and the family affections we have there; the home is there. Divine principles are all external; they safeguard the affections, but the real bond of unity is the enjoyment together of things connected with the affections. If we are not set for that, the outward fellowship is not worth much. If you have only principles, you have only walls; they are important because they protect all that is inside; but, if there is nothing inside, what is the good? It is an empty shell. The principles of fellowship are but walls; they are preservative. What is there to be preserved? We shall never have unity in any spiritual sense apart from enjoyment of the inheritance. I wish we could give our brethren the impression that we are having the finest times conceivable and that we want them all with us. They look at the walls and do not know what is inside. Would not any lover of God want to be in a spot where God dwells, where [p. 93] saints are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit?
It is beautiful to find that this was felt throughout all Israel to be an assembly matter; it could not be tolerated in the assembly that there should be an independent or sectional movement; it must be put down with a firm hand. No other gathering centre could be tolerated. They have assembly exercise; they say, “Thus saith the whole assembly”, and, again, “Jehovah will be wroth with the whole assembly of Israel”. They quote the example of a man who had trespassed and wrath came on all the assembly; they take it up in the light of the assembly, of what was due to God. But they listen to the explanation of the two and a half tribes and bring word again to their brethren. “The children of Israel blessed God and no more said that they would go up in warfare against them”.
Phinehas was a man who knew how to use a javelin; no one can use a javelin better than a priest. They made a good selection when they chose Phinehas to be head of the deputation. Then they chose princes, heads of families, the priestly estimate of what was due to God. These men were prepared to exterminate Reuben and Gad, not because they did not love them, but because they loved Jehovah and considered for Him and for His people — everything must be sacrificed to that. Phinehas had showed what he was made of; when the enemy had sought to corrupt Israel he executed summary judgement”He was jealous with my jealousy” — so Jehovah made with him a covenant of everlasting priesthood.
The heads of houses represented the whole assembly in its responsibility to preserve unflinchingly and uncompromisingly what was due to Jehovah; the whole assembly was there to maintain that. We want priest and princes; otherwise things are let go. These men did not say, It does not matter; there was no looseness there.
The two and a half tribes had not the tabernacle of Jehovah; it is a great test whether there is the presence of God with His people. I heard of a man who was a prominent preacher and went out of fellowship, and he said, after going about and trying the best of the religious world, There is no worship anywhere else. That is solemn. If there is only worship in one place one would like to be in that place. Shiloh is the place.
The two and a half tribes wanted a link with God’s people.
[p. 94] It shows that inward intuitions are often right when course is wrong. Their inward intuition was right; they felt they were on different ground from their brethren, and they felt they must have some expedient to keep up the link; they were in a wrong position. Ultimately they were the first to go into idolatry and captivity. We have to judge things by their final issue.