Produced by Colin Bell, Julia Neufeld and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)









  THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE


  EDITED BY THE REV.
  W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
  _Editor of "The Expositor"_


  THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

  BY
  WILLIAM GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.


  London
  HODDER AND STOUGHTON
  27, PATERNOSTER ROW
  MDCCCXCIII




THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.

_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._


FIRST SERIES, 1887-8.

     Colossians.

     By A. MACLAREN, D.D.

     St. Mark.

     By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.

     Genesis.

     By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.

     1 Samuel.

     By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

     2 Samuel.

     By the same Author.

     Hebrews.

     By Principal T.C. EDWARDS, D.D.


SECOND SERIES, 1888-9.

     Galatians.

     By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.

     The Pastoral Epistles.

     By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

     Isaiah I.-XXXIX.

     By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. I.

     The Book of Revelation.

     By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.

     1 Corinthians.

     By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.

     The Epistles of St. John.

     By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.


THIRD SERIES, 1889-90.

     Judges and Ruth.

     By Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.

     Jeremiah.

     By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.

     Isaiah XL.-LXVI.

     By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. II.

     St. Matthew.

     By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.

     Exodus.

     By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.

     St. Luke.

     By Rev. H. BURTON, B.A.


FOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.

     Ecclesiastes.

     By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.

     St. James and St. Jude.

     By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.

     Proverbs.

     By Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A.

     Leviticus.

     By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.

     The Gospel of St. John.

     By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.

     The Acts of the Apostles.

     By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.


FIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.

     The Psalms.

     By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.

     1 and 2 Thessalonians.

     By JAS. DENNEY, B.D.

     The Book of Job.

     By R. A. WATSON, D.D.

     Ephesians.

     By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.

     The Gospel of St. John.

     By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.

     The Acts of the Apostles.

     By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.


SIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.

     1 Kings.

     By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.

     Philippians.

     By Principal RAINY, D.D.

     Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.

     By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.

     Joshua.

     By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.

     Daniel.

     By Prof. FULLER, M.A.

     The Psalms.

     By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.




  THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

  BY

  WILLIAM GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.

  NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH

  London
  HODDER AND STOUGHTON
  27, PATERNOSTER ROW
  MDCCCXCIII




_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._




CONTENTS.


  CHAPTER I.

                                                    PAGE

  INTRODUCTORY:--THE BOOK OF JOSHUA                    1


  CHAPTER II.

  JOSHUA'S ANTECEDENTS                                22


  CHAPTER III.

  A SUCCESSOR TO MOSES                                37


  CHAPTER IV.

  JOSHUA'S CALL                                       48


  CHAPTER V.

  JOSHUA'S ENCOURAGEMENT                              60


  CHAPTER VI.

  JOSHUA'S CHARGE TO THE PEOPLE                       70


  CHAPTER VII.

  THE SPIES IN JERICHO                                82


  CHAPTER VIII.

  JORDAN REACHED                                      95


  CHAPTER IX.

  JORDAN DIVIDED                                     106


  CHAPTER X.

  CIRCUMCISION AND PASSOVER--MANNA AND CORN          117


  CHAPTER XI.

  THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST                     128


  CHAPTER XII.

  THE FATE OF JERICHO                                140


  CHAPTER XIII.

  RAHAB SAVED                                        153


  CHAPTER XIV.

  ACHAN'S TRESPASS                                   165


  CHAPTER XV.

  ACHAN'S PUNISHMENT                                 177


  CHAPTER XVI.

  THE CAPTURE OF AI                                  189


  CHAPTER XVII.

  EBAL AND GERIZIM                                   201


  CHAPTER XVIII.

  THE STRATAGEM OF THE GIBEONITES                    211


  CHAPTER XIX.

  THE BATTLE OF BETHHORON                            223


  CHAPTER XX.

  THE BATTLE OF MEROM                                236


  CHAPTER XXI.

  JOSHUA'S OLD AGE--DIVISION FOR THE EASTERN TRIBES  249


  CHAPTER XXII.

  THE INHERITANCE OF CALEB                           262


  CHAPTER XXIII.

  THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND                       275


  CHAPTER XXIV.

  THE INHERITANCE OF JUDAH                           287


  CHAPTER XXV.

  THE INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH                          300


  CHAPTER XXVI.

  THE DISTRIBUTION COMPLETED                         312


  CHAPTER XXVII.

  THE CITIES OF REFUGE                               326


  CHAPTER XXVIII.

  THE INHERITANCE OF THE LEVITES                     340


  CHAPTER XXIX.

  NO FAILURE OF GOD'S PROMISE                        353


  CHAPTER XXX.

  THE ALTAR ED                                       365


  CHAPTER XXXI.

  JEHOVAH THE CHAMPION OF ISRAEL                     376


  CHAPTER XXXII.

  JOSHUA'S LAST APPEAL                               388


  CHAPTER XXXIII.

  JOSHUA'S WORK FOR ISRAEL                           402




CHAPTER I.

_INTRODUCTORY: THE BOOK OF JOSHUA._


With a purely historical book like Joshua before us, it is of
importance to keep in view two ways of regarding Old Testament
history, in accordance with one or other of which any exposition of
such a book must be framed.

According to one of these views, the historical books of Scripture,
being given by inspiration of God, have for their _main_ object not to
tell the story or dwell on the fortunes of the Hebrew nation, but to
unfold God's progressive revelation of Himself made to the seed of
Abraham, and to record the way in which that revelation was received,
and the effects which it produced. The story of the Hebrew nation is
but the frame in which this Divine revelation is set. It was God's
pleasure to reveal Himself not through a formal treatise, but in
connection with the history of a nation, through announcements and
institutions and practical dealings bearing in the first instance on
them. The historical books of the Hebrews therefore, while they give
us an excellent view of the progress of the nation, must be studied in
connection with God's main purpose, and the supernatural
interpositions by which from time to time it was carried out.

The other view regards the historical books of the Hebrews in much the
same light as we look on those of other nations. Whatever may have
been their origin, they are, as we find them, like other books, and
our purpose in dealing with them should be the same as in dealing with
books of similar contents. We are to deal with them, in the first
instance at least, from a natural point of view. We are to regard them
as recording the history and development of an ancient nation--a very
remarkable nation, no doubt, but a nation whose progress may be
referred to ascertainable causes. If we find natural causes sufficient
to account for that progress, we are not to call in supernatural. It
is an acknowledged law, at least as old as Lord Bacon, that no more
causes are to be assigned for phenomena than are true and sufficient
to account for them. This law, and the investigations which have taken
place under it, have expunged much that used to be regarded as
supernatural from the history of other nations; and it will only be
according to analogy if the same result is reached in connection with
the history of Israel.

In this spirit we have recently had several treatises dealing with
that history from a purely natural standpoint. Very earnest endeavours
have been made to clear the atmosphere, to expiscate facts, to apply
the laws of history, to weigh statements in the balances of
probability, to reduce the Hebrew history to the principles of
science. The general effect of this method has been to bring out
results very different from those previously accepted. In particular,
there has been a thorough elimination of the supernatural from Hebrew
history. Natural causes have been judged sufficient to explain all
that occurred. The introduction of the supernatural in the narrative
was due to those obvious causes that have operated in the case of
other nations and other religions:--love of the mythical, a patriotic
desire to glorify the nation, the exaggerating tendency of tradition,
and readiness to translate symbolical pictures into statements of
literal occurrences. Hebrew historians were not exempted from the
tendencies and weaknesses of other historians, and were ready enough
to colour and apply their narratives according to their own views. It
is when we subject the Hebrew books to such principles as these (such
writers tell us) that we get at the real history of the nation,
deprived no doubt of much of the glory with which it has usually been
invested, but now for the first time reliable history, on which the
most scientific may depend. And as to its moral purpose, it is just
the moral purpose that runs through the scheme of the world, to show
that, amid much conflict and confusion, the true, the good, the just,
and the merciful become victorious in the end over the false and the
evil.

The difference between the two methods, as an able writer remarks, is
substantially this, that "the one regards the Hebrew books as an
unfolding of God's nature, and the other as an unfolding of the nature
of man."

The naturalistic method claims emphatically to be scientific. It
reduces all events to historical law, and finds for them a natural
explanation. But what if the natural explanation is no explanation?
What becomes of the claim to be scientific if the causes assigned are
not sufficient to account for the phenomena? If science will not
tolerate unnatural causes, no more should it tolerate unnatural
effects. A truly scientific method must show a fit proportion between
cause and effect. Our contention is that, in this respect, the
naturalistic method is a failure. In many instances its causes are
wholly inadequate to the effects. We are compelled to fall back on the
supernatural, otherwise we are confronted with a long series of
occurrences for which no reasonable explanation can be found.

We are reminded of an incident which a popular writer, under the _nom
de plume_ of Edna Lyall, has introduced in a novel, bearing the title
"We Two." Erica, the daughter of an atheist, assists her father in
conducting a journal. She gets from him for review a Life of David
Livingstone, with instructions to leave his religion entirely out. As
she proceeds with the work, she becomes convinced that the condition
is impossible. To describe Livingstone without his religion would be
like playing _Hamlet_ without the part of Hamlet. Not only does she
find her task impossible, but when she comes to an incident where
Livingstone, in most imminent danger of his life, gets entire
composure of mind from an act of devotion, she becomes convinced that
this could not have happened had there not been an objective reality
corresponding to his belief; and she is an atheist no more. Erica now
believes in God. _Se non e vero e bene trovato._

In like manner, we believe that to delineate Old Testament history
without reference to the supernatural is as impossible as to describe
Livingstone apart from his religion. You are baffled in trying to
explain actual events. Long ago, Edward Gibbon tried to account for
the rapid progress and brilliant success of Christianity in the early
centuries by what he called secondary causes. It was really an attempt
to eliminate the supernatural from early Christian history. But the
five causes which he specified were really not causes, but
effects,--effects of that supernatural action which had its source in
the supernatural person of Jesus Christ. These "secondary causes"
never could have existed had not Jesus Christ already commended
Himself to all sorts of men as a Divine Saviour, sent by God to bless
the world. In like manner we maintain that behind the causes by which
our naturalistic historians attempt to explain the remarkable history
of the Jewish people, there lay a supernatural force, but for which
the Hebrews would not have been essentially different from the
Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, or any other Semitic tribe in
their neighbourhood. It was the supernatural element underlying Hebrew
history that made it the marvellous development it was; and that
element began at the beginning, and continued more or less actively
till Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

Let us try to make good this position. Let us select a few of the more
remarkable occurrences of early Hebrew history, and, in the language
of Gibbon, make "a candid and reasonable inquiry" whether or not they
can be accounted for, on the ordinary principles of human nature,
without a supernatural cause.

1. It is certain that from the earliest times, and during at least the
first four centuries of their history, the Hebrew people had an
immovable conviction that the land of Canaan was divinely destined to
be theirs. Of the singular hold which this conviction took of the
minds of the patriarchs, we have innumerable proofs. Abraham leaves
the rich plains of Chaldæa to dwell in Canaan, and spends a hundred
years in it, a stranger and a pilgrim, without having a single acre of
his own. When he sends to Padan Aram for a wife to Isaac he conjures
his servant on no account to listen to any proposal that Isaac should
settle there; the damsel must at all hazards come to Canaan. When
Jacob determines to part from Laban, he sets his face resolutely
towards his native land across the Jordan, although his injured
brother is there, thirsting as he knows for his blood. When Joseph
sends for his father to go down to Egypt, Jacob must get Divine
permission at Beersheba before he can comfortably go. Joseph, for his
services to Egypt, might reasonably have looked for a magnificent tomb
in that country to cover his remains and perpetuate his memory; but,
strange to say, he prefers to remain unburied for an indefinite time,
and leaves a solemn charge to his people to bury him in Canaan,
carrying his bones with them when they leave Egypt. In the bitterness
of their oppression by Pharaoh it would have been much more feasible
for their champions, Moses and Aaron, to try to obtain a relaxation of
their burdens; but their demand was a singular one--liberty to go into
the wilderness, with the hardly concealed purpose of escaping to the
land of their affections. Goshen was a goodly land, but Canaan had a
dearer name--it was the land of their fathers, and of their brightest
hopes. The uniform tradition was, that the God whom Abraham worshipped
had promised to give the land to his posterity, and along with the
land other blessings of mysterious but glorious import. With this
promise was connected that Messianic hope which like a golden thread
ran through all Hebrew history and literature, brightening it more and
more as the ages advanced.

It is vain to account for this extraordinary faith in the land as
theirs, and this remarkable assurance that it would be the scene of
unwonted blessing, apart from a supernatural communication from God.
To suppose that it originated in some whim or fancy of Abraham's or in
the saga of some old bard like Thomas the Rhymer, and continued
unimpaired century after century, is to suppose what was never
realized in the history of any people. In vain do we look among
natural causes for any that could have so impressed itself on a whole
nation, and swayed their whole being for successive ages with
irresistible force. That "God spake to Abraham to give him the land"
was the indefeasible conviction of his descendants; nor could any
consideration less powerful have sustained their hopes, or nerved them
to the efforts and perils needful to realize it.

2. No more can the leaving of Egypt, with all that followed, be
accounted for without supernatural agency. It is the contention of the
naturalistic historian that the Israelites were very much fewer in
number than the Scripture narrative alleges. But if so, how could an
empire, with such immense resources as the monuments show Egypt to
have had, have been unable to retain them? Wellhausen affirms that at
the time Egypt was weakened by a pestilence. We know not his authority
for the statement; but if the Egyptians were weakened, the Israelites
(unless supernaturally protected) must have been weakened too. Make
what we may of the contest between Moses and Pharaoh, it is beyond
dispute that Pharaoh's pride was thoroughly roused, and that his firm
determination was not to let the children of Israel go. And if we
grant that his six hundred chariots were lost by some mishap in the
Red Sea, what were these to the immense forces at his disposal, and
what was there to hinder him from mustering a new force, and attacking
the fugitives in the wilderness of Sinai? Pharaoh himself does not
seem to have entered the sea with his soldiers, and was therefore free
to take other steps. How, then, are we to account for the sudden
abandonment of the campaign?

3. And as to the residence in the wilderness, even if we suppose that
the Israelites were much fewer in number than is stated, they were far
too great a multitude to be supported from the scanty resources of the
desert. The wilderness already had its inhabitants, as Moses knew
right well from his experience as a shepherd; it had its Midianites
and Amalekites and other pastoral tribes, by whom the best of its
pastures were eagerly appropriated for the maintenance of their
flocks. How, in addition to these, were the hosts of Israel to obtain
support?

4. And how are we to explain the extraordinary route which they took?
Why did they not advance towards Canaan by the ordinary way--the
wilderness of Shur, Beersheba, and Hebron? Why cross the Red Sea at
all, or have anything to do with Mount Sinai and its awful cliffs,
which a glance at the map will show was entirely out of their way? And
when they did take that route, what would have been easier than for
Pharaoh, if he had chosen to follow them with a new force, to hem them
in among these tremendous mountains, and massacre or starve them at
his pleasure? If the Israelites had no supernatural power to fall back
on, their whole course was simply madness. We may talk of good fortune
extricating men from difficulties, but what fortune that can be
conceived could have availed a people, professing to be bound for the
land of Canaan, that, without food or drink or stores of any kind, had
wandered into the heart of a vast labyrinth, for no reasonable purpose
under the sun?

5. Nor can the career of Moses be made intelligible without a
supernatural backing. The contention is, that the desire of the people
in Egypt for deliverance having become very strong, especially in the
tribe of Levi, they sent Aaron to find Moses, remembering his former
attempt on their behalf; and that, under the able leadership of Moses,
their deliverance was secured by natural means. But does this explain
the actual campaign in Sinai? Who ever heard of a leader that, after
he had roused the enthusiasm of his people by a brilliant deliverance,
arrested their further progress in order to preach to them for a
twelvemonth, and give them a system of law? Did Moses not possess that
instinct of a general that must have urged him to push on the moment
the Egyptians were drowned, and amid the enthusiasm of his own troops
and the consternation of the Canaanites, fling his army upon the seven
nations, and seize their land by a _coup de main_? Abraham before him
and Joshua after him found the value of such prompt, sudden movements.
Never had a leader a more splendid opportunity. What could have
induced Moses to throw away his chance, bury his people among the
mountains, and remain inactive for months upon months? Is there any
conceivable explanation but that he acted by supernatural direction?
The Divine plan was entirely different from any that human wisdom
would have contrived. It is as clear as day that, had there been no
Divine power controlling the movement, the course taken by Moses would
have been simply insane.

6. Nor could the law of Moses, first given in such circumstances, have
acquired the glory which surrounded it ever after, had there been no
manifestation of the Divine presence at Sinai. The people were greatly
dissatisfied, especially at their delays. The only course that would
have quieted them was to push on towards Canaan, so that their minds
might be animated by the enthusiasm of hope. Under their detentions
they greedily seized every occasion that presented itself for growling
against Moses. How little they were in sympathy with his ideas of
religion and worship was apparent from the affair of the golden calf.
The history of the time is an almost unbroken record of murmuring,
complaining, and rebellion. Yet the law which originated with Moses in
these circumstances became the very idol of the people, and, according
to the naturalistic historians, was the means of creating the nation,
and welding the tribes into a living unity! We can quite easily
understand how, in spite of all their growlings, the law as given at
Sinai should have taken the firmest hold of their imagination and
kindled their utmost enthusiasm in the end, if it was accompanied by
those tokens of the Divine presence which the whole literature of the
Hebrews assumes. And if Moses was closely identified with the Divine
Being, the surpassing glory of the occasion must have been reflected
on him. But to suppose that a discontented people should have had
their enthusiasm roused for the law simply because this Moses
commanded them to observe it, and that they should ever after have
counted it the holiest, the most Divine law that men had ever known,
is again to postulate an effect without a cause, and to suppose a
whole people acting in disregard of the strongest propensities of
human nature.

7. Then, as to the generalship of Moses. How are we to explain the
further detention of the people in the wilderness for nearly forty
years? If this was not the result of a supernatural Divine decree, it
must have proceeded from the inability of Moses to lead the people to
victory. No people who had struggled out of bondage in order to enter
a land flowing with milk and honey, would of their own accord have
spent forty years in the wilderness. At Hormah, they were willing to
fight, but Moses would not lead them, and they were beaten. Either the
wandering of the forty years was a Divine punishment, or the
generalship of Moses was at fault. He abandoned himself to inaction
for an unprecedented period. There was no shadow of benefit to be
gained by this delay; nothing could come of it (apart from the Divine
purpose) but wearing out the patience of the people, and killing them
with the sickness of hope deferred. And if it should be said that the
forty years' wandering was a myth, and that probably the wilderness
sojourn did not exceed a year or two at most, is it conceivable that
any people in its senses would invent such a legend?--a legend that
covered them with shame, and that was felt to be so disgraceful that
the whole region was shunned by them; insomuch that with the exception
of Elijah, we do not read of any member of the nation ever making a
pilgrimage to the spot which otherwise must have had overwhelming
attractions.

8. At last Moses suddenly awakes to activity and courage. And the next
difficulty is to account for his success at the eleventh hour of his
life, if he had no supernatural help. No phrase occurs more frequently
in naturalistic explanations than "it is likely." Likelihood is the
touchstone to which all extraordinary statements are brought,
although, as Lord Beaconsfield used to tell us, "it is the unexpected
that happens." Borrowing the touchstone for the nonce, we may ask, Is
it likely that, after a sleep of eight-and-thirty years, Moses of his
own accord, without any apparent change of circumstances, sprang
suddenly to his feet, and urged the people to attempt the invasion of
the land? Is it likely that all the inertia and fears of the people
vanished in a moment, as if at the touch of a magician's wand? And
when it came to actual fighting, is it likely that these shepherds of
the desert were able of themselves not only to stand before a trained
and successful warrior like Sihon King of the Amorites, who had so
lately overrun the country, but to defeat him utterly and take
possession of his whole territory? Is it likely that Sihon's
neighbour, Og King of Bashan, though warned by the fate of Sihon, and
therefore sure to make a more careful defence, shared the fate of the
other king? Or if Og was a mere myth, as Wellhausen strangely
maintains, is it likely that the Israelites got possession of the
powerful cities and well-defended kingdom of Bashan without striking a
blow? Is it likely that, after this brilliant victory, Moses, who was
still in full vigour, detained them again for weeks to preach old
sermons, and sing them songs, and make pathetic speeches, instead of
dashing at once at the petrified people on the other side, and
acquiring the great prize--Western Palestine? Strange mortal this
Moses must have been!--wise enough to give the people an unexampled
constitution and system of laws, and yet blind to the most obvious
laws of military science, and the most elementary perceptions of
common sense.

       *       *       *       *       *

And now we come to Joshua, and to the book that records his
achievements.

Joshua was no prophet; he made no claim to the prophetic character; he
succeeded Moses only as military leader. Consequently the Book of
Joshua contains little matter that would fall under the term
"revelation." But both the work of Joshua and the book of Joshua
served an important purpose in the plan of Divine manifestation,
inasmuch as they showed God fulfilling His old promises, vindicating
His faithfulness, and laying anew a foundation for the trust of His
people. In this point of view, both the work and the book have an
importance that cannot be exaggerated. The naturalistic historian
regards the book as merely setting forth, with sundry traditional
embellishments, the manner in which one people ousted another from
their country, much as those who were then evicted had dispossessed
the previous inhabitants. But whoever believes that, centuries before,
God made a solemn promise to Abraham to give that land to his seed,
must see in the story of the settlement the unfolding of a Divine
purpose, and a solemn pledge of blessings to come. "The Ancient of
days," who "declares the end from the beginning," is seen to be
faithful to His promises; and if He has been thus faithful in the
past, he may surely be trusted to be faithful in the future.

If, then, Joshua's work was a continuation of the work of Moses, and
his book of the books of Moses, both must be regarded from the same
point of view. You cannot explain either of them reasonably in a
merely rationalistic sense. Joshua could no more have settled the
people in Canaan by merely natural means than Moses could have
delivered them from Pharaoh and maintained them for years in the
wilderness. In the history of both you see a Divine arm, and in the
books of both you find a chapter of Divine revelation. It is this that
gives full credibility to the miracles which they record. What
happened under Joshua formed a most important chapter of the process
of revelation by which God made Himself known to Israel. In such
circumstances, miracles were not out of place. But if the Book of
Joshua is nothing more than the record of a raid by one nation on
another, miracles were uncalled for, and must be given up.

Rationalists may count us wrong in believing that the Hebrew
historical books are more than Hebrew annals--are the records of a
Divine manifestation. But they cannot hold us unreasonable or
inconsistent if, believing this, we believe in the miracles which the
books record. Miracles assume a very different character when they are
connected into a sublime purpose in the economy of God; when they
signalize a great epoch in the history of revelation--the completion
of a great era of promise, the fulfilment of hopes delayed for
centuries. The Book of Joshua has thus a far more dignified place in
the history of revelation than a superficial observer would suppose.
And those historians who bring it down to the level of a mere record
of an invasion, and who leave out of account its bearing on Divine
transactions so far back as the days of Abraham, spoil it of its chief
glory and value for the Church in every age. There is nothing of more
importance, whether for the individual believer or for the Church
collectively, than a firm conviction, such as the Book of Joshua
emphatically supplies, that long delays on God's part involve no
forgetfulness of His promises, but that whenever the destined moment
comes "no good thing will fail of all that He hath spoken."

       *       *       *       *       *

The Book of Joshua consists mainly of two parts; one historical, the
other geographical. It was the old belief that it was the work of a
single writer, with such slight revision at an after time as a writing
might receive without essential interference with its substance. The
author was sometimes supposed to be Joshua himself, but more commonly
one of the priests or elders who outlived Joshua, and who might
therefore fitly record his death. It has been remarked that there are
several traces in the book of contemporary origin, like the remark on
Rahab--"She dwelleth in Israel even unto this day" (vi. 25). It must
be allowed, we think, that there is not much in this book to suggest
to the ordinary reader either the idea of a late origin or of the use
of late materials.

But recent critics have taken a different view. Ewald maintained that,
besides the Jehovist and Elohist writers of whose separate
contributions in Genesis the evidence seems incontrovertible, there
were three other authors of Joshua, with one or more redactors or
revisers. The view of Kuenen and Wellhausen is similar, but with this
difference, that the Book of Joshua shows so much affinity, both in
object and style, to the preceding five books, that it must be classed
with them, as setting forth the origin of the Jewish nation, which
would not have been complete without a narrative of their settlement
in their land. The composition of Joshua is therefore to be brought
down to a late date; we owe it to the documents, writers, and editors
concerned in the composition of the Pentateuch; and instead of
following the Jews in classing the first five books by themselves, we
ought to include Joshua along with them, and in place of the
Pentateuch speak of the Hexateuch. Canon Driver substantially accepts
this view; in his judgment, the first part of the book rests mainly on
the JE (Jehovist-Elohist) document, with slight additions from P (the
priestly code) and D^2 (the second Deuteronomist). The second half of
the book is derived mainly from the priestly code. But Canon Driver
has the candour to say that much more difficult to distinguish the
writers in Joshua than in the earlier books; and so little is he sure
of his ground that even such important documents as J and E have to be
designated by new letters, _a_ and _b_. But, all the same, he goes
right on with his scheme, furnishing us with tables all through, in
which he shows that the Book of Joshua consists of ninety different
pieces, no two consecutive pieces being by the same author. Most of it
he refers to three earlier writings, but some of these were composite,
and it is hard to say how many hands were engaged in putting together
this simple story.

One is tempted to say of this complicated but confidently maintained
scheme, that it is just too complete, too wonderfully finished, too
clever by half. Allowing most cordially the remarkable ability and
ingenuity of its authors, we can hardly be expected to concede to them
the power of taking to pieces a book of such vast antiquity, putting
it in a modern mincing machine, dividing it among so many supposed
writers, and settling the exact parts of it written by each! Is there
any ancient writing that might not yield a similar result if the same
ingenuity were exercised upon it?

To judge of the source of writings by apparent varieties of style, and
call in a different writer for every such variety, is to commit
oneself to a very precarious rule. There are doubtless cases where the
diversity of style is so marked that the inference is justified, but
in these the evidence is unmistakably clear. Often the evidence
against identity of authorship _appears_ very clear, while it is
absolutely worthless. Suppose that three thousand years hence an
English book should be found, consisting, first, of an eloquent
exposition of a parliamentary budget; secondly, a scheme for Home Rule
in Ireland; thirdly, a dissertation on Homer; and fourthly, essays on
the "Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture"--how convincingly might the
critics of the day demonstrate, beyond possibility of contradiction,
that the book could not be the work of the single man who bore the
name of William E. Gladstone! In like manner, it might be made very
plain that Milton could never have written both "L'Allegro" and "Il
Penseroso," or "Paradise Lost" and the "Defence of the English
People." Cowper could not have written "John Gilpin" and "God moves in
a mysterious way." Samuel Rutherford could not have written his
"Letters" and his "Divine Right of Church Government." Moreover, in
the course of years a writer may change his style, even when his
subject is the same. The earlier essays of Mr. Carlyle show no traces
of that most quaint, terse, graphic style which became one of his
outstanding characteristics in later years. Perhaps the most
remarkable instance of change of style in a great writer is that of
Jeremy Bentham. In Sir James Mackintosh's Dissertation prefixed to the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_ (eighth edition) he says: "The style of Mr.
Bentham underwent a more remarkable revolution than perhaps befell
that of any other celebrated writer. In his early works, it was clear,
free, spirited, often and seasonably eloquent.... He gradually ceased
to use words for conveying his thoughts to others, but merely employed
them as a short hand to preserve his meaning for his own purpose. It
is no wonder that his language thus became obscure and repulsive.
Though many of his technical terms are in themselves exact and pithy,
yet the overflow of his vast nomenclature was enough to darken his
whole diction."

If we compare the criticism of the Book of Joshua with that (let us
say) of Genesis, the difference in the clearness of the conclusions
is very great. By far the most striking basis of the criticism of
Genesis is the feature that was noticed first--the occurrence of
different Divine names, Elohim and Jehovah, in different portions of
the book. Now, although it is held that the _combined_ JE document was
used in compiling Joshua, there is no trace of this distinction of
names in that book. Nor is there much trace of other distinctions
found in Genesis. So that it is no great wonder that Canon Driver is
uncertain whether, after all, that was the document that was used in
compiling Joshua. Then, as to the grounds on which the Deuteronomist
is supposed to have had a share in the book. Wherever anything is said
indicating that under Joshua the Divine purposes and ordinances
enjoined by God on Moses were fulfilled, that is referred to the
Deuteronomist writer, as if it would have been unnatural for an
ordinary historian to call attention to such a circumstance. For
instance, the remark of Rahab that as soon as the Canaanites heard
what God had done to Egypt, and to the two kings of the Amorites on
the other side of Jordan, their hearts fainted, is referred to the
Deuteronomist, as if it had rather been an idea of his than a
statement of Rahab's. It is strange that Canon Driver should not have
seen that this is the very hinge of Rahab's speech, because it gives
us the explanation of the remarkable faith that had taken possession
of her polluted heart. The truth is, we can hardly conceive that any
part of the book should have been written by one who did not connect
Joshua with Moses, and both of them with the patriarchs, and who was
not impressed by the vital connection of the earlier with the later
transactions, and likewise by the single Divine purpose running
through the whole history.

But we are far from thinking that there is no foundation for any of
the conclusions of the critics regarding the Book of Joshua. What
seems their great weakness is the confidence with which they assign
this part to one writer and that part to another, and bring down the
composition of the book to a late period of the history. That various
earlier documents were made use of by the author of the book seems
very plain. For instance, in the account of the crossing of the
Jordan, use seems to have been made of two documents, not always
agreeing in minute details, and pieced together in a primitive fashion
characteristic of a very early period of literary composition. The
record of the delimitation of the possessions of the several tribes
must have been taken from the report of the men that were sent to
survey the country, but it is not a complete record. There are other
traces of different documents in other parts of the book, but any
diversities between them are quite insignificant, and in no degree
impair its historical trustworthiness.

As to the hand of a reviser or revisers in the book, we see no
difficulty in allowing for such. We can conceive an authorized reviser
expanding speeches, but thoroughly in the line of the speakers, or
inserting explanatory remarks as to places, or as to practices that
had prevailed "unto this day." But it is atrocious to be told of
revisers colouring statements and modifying facts in the interests of
religious parties, or even in the interest of truth itself. Any
alterations in the way of revision seem to have been very limited,
otherwise we should not find in the existing text those awkward
joinings of different documents which are not in perfect accord.
Whoever the revisers were, they seem to have judged it best to leave
these things as they found them, rather than incur the responsibility
of altering what had already been written.

       *       *       *       *       *

It has generally been assumed by spiritual expositors that there must
be something profoundly symbolical in a book that narrates the work of
Joshua, or Jesus, the first, so far as we know, to bear the name that
is "above every name." The subject is considered with some fulness in
Pearson's "Exposition of the Creed," and various points of
resemblance, not all equally valid,[1] are noted between Joshua and
Jesus.

  [1] "The hand of Moses and Aaron brought the people out of Egypt,
  but left them in the wilderness, and could not seat them in
  Canaan.... Joshua, the successor, only could effect that in which
  Moses failed.... The death of Moses and the succession of Joshua
  pre-signified the continuance of the law till Jesus came.... Moses
  must die that Joshua might succeed.... If we look on Joshua as the
  judge and ruler of Israel, there is scarce an action which is not
  predictive of our Saviour. He begins his office at the banks of
  the Jordan where Christ is baptized, and enters upon the public
  exercise of his prophetical office. He chooseth there twelve men
  out of the people to carry twelve stones over with them; as our
  Jesus thence began to choose His twelve apostles.... It hath been
  observed that the saving Rahab the harlot alive foretold what
  Jesus once should speak to the Jews--'Verily I say unto you, that
  the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before
  you.'..."

The one point of resemblance on which we seem to be warranted to lay
much stress is, that Joshua gave the people REST. Again and again we
read--"The land rested from war" (xi. 23), "The land had rest from
war" (xiv. 15), "The Lord gave them rest round about" (xxi. 44), "The
Lord your God hath given rest unto your brethren" (xxii. 4), "The Lord
had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about" (xxiii.
1). That was Joshua's great achievement, as the instrument of God's
purpose. Yet in Hebrews we read that this was not the real rest--it
was only a symbol of it: "If Joshua had given them rest, then would
God not afterward have spoken of another day." The real rest was the
rest arising from faith in Jesus Christ. Many persons look on Joshua
as a somewhat dry book, full of geographical names, as unsuggestive as
they are hard and unfamiliar. Yet on every one of the places so named
faith may see inscribed, as in letters from heaven, the sweet word
REST. Each of these places became a home for men who had been
wandering for some forty years in a waste howling wilderness. At last
they reached a spot where they did not fear the long familiar summons
to "arise and depart." The sickly mother, the consumptive maiden, the
paralysed old man might rest in peace, no longer terrified at the
prospect of journeys which only increased their ailments and
aggravated their sufferings.

The spiritual lesson of this book then is, that in Jesus Christ there
is rest for the pilgrim. It is no slight or unevangelical lesson. It
is the echo of His own glorious words, "Come unto Me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Whosoever is
weary--whether under the burden of care, or the sense of guilt, or the
bitterness of disappointment, or the anguish of a broken heart, or the
conviction that all is vanity--the message of this book to him
is,--"There remaineth a rest to the people of God." Even now, the rest
of faith; and hereafter, that rest of which the voice from heaven
proclaimed--"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from
henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their
labours; and their works do follow them."




CHAPTER II.

_JOSHUA'S ANTECEDENTS._


Four hundred years is a long way to go back in tracing a pedigree.
Joshua's might have been traced much farther back than that--back to
Noah, or for that matter to Adam; but Israelites usually counted it
enough to begin with that son of Jacob who was the head of their
tribe. It could be no small gratification to Joshua that he had Joseph
for his ancestor, and that of the two sons of Joseph he was sprung
from the one whom the dying Jacob so expressly placed before the other
as the heir of the richer blessing (1 Chron. vii. 20-27). It is
remarkable that the descendants of Joseph attached no consequence to
the fact that on the side of Joseph's wife they were sprung from one
of the highest functionaries of Egypt (Gen. xli. 45), any more than
the children of Mered, of the tribe of Judah, whose wife, Bithiah, was
a daughter of Pharaoh (1 Chron. iv. 18), gained rank in Israel from
the royal blood of their mother. The glory of high connections with
the heathen counted for nothing; it was entirely eclipsed by the glory
of the chosen seed. To be of the household of God was higher than to
be born of kings.

Joshua appears to have come of the principal family of the tribe, for
his grandfather, Elishama (1 Chron. vii. 26), was captain and head of
his tribe (Num. i. 10, ii. 18), and in the order of march through the
wilderness marched at the head of the forty thousand five hundred men
that constituted the great tribe of Ephraim; while his son, Nun, and
his grandson, Joshua, would of course march beside him. Not only was
Elishama at the head of the tribe, but apparently also of the whole
"camp of Ephraim," which, besides his own tribe, embraced Manasseh and
Benjamin, being the whole descendants of Rachel (Num. ii. 24). Under
their charge in all likelihood was a remarkable relic that had been
brought very carefully from Egypt--the bones of Joseph (Exod. xiii.
19). Great must have been the respect paid to the coffin which
contained the embalmed body of the Governor of Egypt, and which was
never lost sight of during all the period of the wanderings, till at
length it was solemnly deposited in its resting-place at Shechem
(Josh. xxiv. 32). Young Joshua, grandson of the prince of the tribe,
must have known it well. For Joshua was himself cast in the mould of
Joseph, an ardent, courageous, God-fearing, patriotic youth. Very
interesting to him it must have been to recall the romance of Joseph's
life, his grievous wrongs and trials, his gentle spirit under them
all, his patient and invincible faith, his lofty purity and
self-control, his intense devotion to duty, and finally his marvellous
exaltation and blessed experience as the saviour of his brethren! And
that coffin must have seemed to Joshua ever to preach this
sermon,--"God will surely visit you." With Joseph, young Joshua
believed profoundly in his nation, because he believed profoundly in
his nation's God; he felt that no other people in the world could have
such a destiny, or could be so worthy of the service of his life.

This sense of Israel's relation to God raised in him an enthusiastic
patriotism, and soon brought him under the notice of Moses, who
quickly discerned in the grandson a spirit more congenial to his own
than that of either the father or the grandfather. Not even Moses
himself had a warmer love than Joshua for Israel, or a more ardent
desire to serve the people that had such a blessed destiny. In all
likelihood the first impression Joshua made on Moses might have been
described in the words--"It came to pass that the soul of Moses was
knit with the soul of Joshua, and Moses loved him as his own soul."

In no other way can we account for the extraordinary mark of
confidence with which Joshua was honoured when he was selected in the
early days of the wilderness sojourn, not only to repel the attack
which the Amalekites had made upon Israel, but to choose the men by
whom this was to be done. Why pass over father and grandfather, if
this youth, Joshua, had not already displayed qualities that fitted
him for this difficult task better than either of them? We cannot but
note, in passing, the proof we have of the contemporaneousness of the
history, that no mention is made of the reasons why Joshua of all men
was appointed to this command. If the history was written near the
time, with Joshua's splendid career fresh in the minds of the people,
the reasons would be notorious and did not need to be given; if it was
written long afterwards, what more natural than that something should
be said to explain the remarkable choice?

On whatever grounds Joshua was appointed, the result amply vindicated
the selection. On Joshua's part there is none of that hesitation in
accepting his work which was shown even by Moses himself when he got
his commission at the burning bush. He seems to have accepted the
appointment with humble faith and spirited enthusiasm, and prepared
at once for the perilous enterprise.

And he had little enough time to prepare, for a new attack of the
Amalekites was to be made next day. We may conceive him, after prayer
to his Lord, setting out with a few chosen comrades to invite
volunteers to join his corps, rousing their enthusiasm by picturing
the dastardly attack that the Amalekites had made on the sick and
infirm (Deut. xxv. 17, 18), and scattering their fears by recalling
the promise to Abraham, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee." That Moses knew him to be a man of faith whose
trust was in the living God was shown by his promise to stand next
morning on the hill top with the rod of God in his hand. Yes, the rod
of God! Had not Joshua seen it stretched out over the Red Sea, first
to make a passage for Israel, and thereafter to bring back the waters
on Pharaoh's host? Was he not just the man to value aright that symbol
of Divine power? The troop selected by Joshua may have been small as
the band of Gideon, but if it was as full of faith and courage it was
abundantly able for its work!

The Amalekites are sometimes supposed to have been descendants of an
Amalek who was the grandson of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 12), but the name is
much older (Gen. xiv. 7), and was applied at an early period to the
inhabitants of the tract of country stretching southwards from the
Dead Sea to the peninsula of Sinai. Whatever may have been their
origin, they were old inhabitants of the wilderness, well acquainted
probably with every mountain and valley, and well skilled in that
Bedouin style of warfare which even practised troops are little able
to meet. They were therefore very formidable opponents to the raw levy
of Israelites, who could be but little acquainted with weapons of
war, and were wholly unaccustomed to battle.

The Amalekites could not have been ignorant of the advantage of a good
position, and they probably occupied a post not easy to attack and
carry. Evidently the battle was a serious one. The practised and
skilful tactics of the Amalekites were more than a match for the
youthful valour of Joshua and his comrades; but as often as the
uplifted rod of Moses was seen on the top of the neighbouring hill,
new life and courage rushed into the souls of the Israelites, and for
the time the Amalekites retreated before them. Hour after hour the
battle raged, till the arm of Moses became too weary to hold up the
rod. A stone had to be found for him to sit on, and his comrades,
Aaron and Hur, had to hold up his hands. But even then, though the
advantage was on the side of Joshua, it was sunset before Amalek was
thoroughly defeated. The issue of the battle was no longer
doubtful--"Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of
the sword" (Exod. xvii. 13).

It was a memorable victory, due in effect to the hand of God as really
as the destruction of the Egyptians had been, but due instrumentally
to the faith and fortitude of Joshua and his troop, whose ardour could
not be quenched by the ever-resumed onslaughts of Amalek. And when the
fight was over, Joshua could not but be the hero of the camp and the
nation, as really as David after the combat with Goliath.
Congratulations must have poured on him from every quarter, and not
only on him, but on his father and grandfather as well. To Joshua
these would come with mingled feelings; gratification at having been
able to do such a service for his people, and gratitude for the
presence of Him by whom alone he had prevailed. "Not unto us, Lord,
not unto us, but to Thy name be the glory." It was a splendid
beginning for Israel's wilderness history, if only it had been
followed up by the people in a kindred spirit. But there were not many
Joshuas in the camp, and the spirit did not spread.

It is remarkable what a hold that incident at Rephidim has taken on
the Christian imagination. Age after age, for more than three thousand
years, its influence has been felt. Nor can it ever cease to impress
believing men that, so long as Moses holds out his rod, so long as
active trust is placed in the power and presence of the Most High in
the great battle with sin and evil, Israel must prevail; but if this
trust should fail, if Moses should let down his rod, Amalek will
conquer. It was well that Moses was instructed to write the
transaction in a book and rehearse it before Joshua. Well also that it
should be commemorated by another memorial, an altar to the Lord with
the name of "Jehovah-nissi," the Lord my banner. How often has faith
looked out towards that unknown mountain where Aaron and Hur held up
the weary arms of Moses, and what a new thrill of courage and hope has
the spectacle sent through hearts often "faint yet pursuing"! Happily
on Joshua the effect was wholesome; a less spiritual man would have
been puffed up by his remarkable victory; but in him its only effect,
as was shown by the whole tenor of his future life, was a firmer trust
in God, and a deeper determination to wait only on Him.

It was no wonder that after this Joshua was selected by Moses to be
his personal comrade and attendant in connection with that most solemn
of all his duties--the receiving of the law on the top of the mount.
Here again was a most distinguished honour for so young a man. Aaron,
Nadab, and Abihu, with seventy of the elders, were summoned to ascend
to a certain height and worship afar off; while Moses, accompanied by
Joshua, went up into the mount of God (Exod. xxiv. 13). What became of
Joshua while Moses was in immediate fellowship with God is not very
apparent. The first impression we derive from the narrative is that he
was with Moses all the time, for when Moses begins his descent Joshua
is at his side (Exod. xxxii. 17). Yet we cannot suppose that in that
most solemn transaction of Moses with Jehovah when the law was given
any third party was present. On a careful study of the narrative
throughout it will probably be seen that when, after going up a
certain distance in company with Aaron and his sons and the seventy
elders, Moses was called to a higher part of the mount, Joshua
accompanied Moses (Exod. xxiv. 13), and that he was with Moses during
the six days when the glory of God abode on Mount Sinai and a cloud
covered the mount (ver. 15); but that when God again, after these six
days, called to Moses to ascend still higher, and Moses "went into the
midst of the cloud, and gat him up to the mount" (ver. 18), Joshua
remained behind. His place of rest would thus be half-way between the
spot where the elders saw God's glory and the summit where God talked
with Moses. But the remarkable thing is, that from that place Joshua
would seem never to have moved all the forty days and forty nights
when Moses was with God. We can hardly conceive a case of more
remarkable obedience, a more striking instance of the quiet waiting of
faith. To a youth of his spirit and habits the restraint must have
been somewhat trying. We know that Aaron did not remain long on the
hill, for he was at hand when the people cried for "gods to go before
them" (Exod. xxxii. 1). Impatience of God's slow methods had been a
snare to the fathers--to Abraham and Sarah in the matter of Hagar; to
Rachel when she raised the petulant cry, "Give me children, or else I
die"; to Jacob when the promises seemed broken to atoms, and "all
things" seemed "against him." Joseph alone had stood the trial of
patience, and now Joshua showed himself of the like spirit. The word
of Moses to him was like an anchor holding the ship firmly against the
force of wind and tide. What a solemn time it must have been, and what
a precious lesson it must have taught him for the whole future of his
life!

More than three thousand years have sped away, but have the servants
of God on an average reached the measure of Joshua's patience? Prayers
unanswered, promises unfulfilled, sickness protracted during weary
years of pain, disappointments and trials coming in troops as if all
God's waves and billows were passing over them, active persecution
bringing all the devices of torture to bear upon them,--how have such
things tried the patience, the waiting power of the servants of God!
But let them remember that if the trial be severe the recompense is
great, and that in the end nothing will grieve them more than to have
distrusted their master and thought it possible that His promises
would fail. "God is not unrighteous to forget." Richard Cecil tells
that once, when walking with his little son, he bade him wait for him
at a certain gate till he should return. He thought he would be back
in a few minutes, but meanwhile an unexpected occurrence constrained
him to go into the city, where, under an engrossing piece of
business, he remained all day utterly forgetful of his charge to the
boy. On his return at night to his suburban home, the boy was nowhere
to be found. In a moment the order to remain at the gate flashed on
his father's memory. Was it possible he should still be there? He
hurried back and found him--he had been told to wait till his father
returned, and he had done as he had been told. The boy that could act
thus must have been made of no common stuff. So are they who can say,
"I waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined unto me, and heard
my cry."

At last Joshua rejoins his master, and they proceed towards the foot
of the mount. As they approach the camp, a noise is heard from afar.
His military instinct finds an explanation,--"There is a noise of war
in the camp." No, says the more experienced Moses; it is neither the
shout of victors nor of vanquished, it is the noise of singing I hear;
and so it was. For when they reached the camp, the people were at the
very height of the idolatrous revelling that followed the construction
and worship of the golden calf, and the sounds that fell on the ears
of Moses and Joshua were the bacchanalian shouts of unholy and
shameful riot. What a contrast to the solemn and holy scene on the
top! What a gulf lies between the holy will of God and the polluted
passions of men!

During the painful scenes that ensued, Joshua continued in faithful
attendance on Moses; and when Moses removed the tabernacle (the
temporary structure hitherto used for sacred services) and placed it
outside the camp, Joshua was with him, and departed not out of the
tabernacle (Exod. xxxiii. 11). We are not told whether he ascended the
mount the second time with Moses, but it is likely that he did. At
all events he was much with Moses at this early and susceptible period
of his life. The young man did not recoil from the company of the old,
nor did he who had been commander in the battle of Rephidim shrink
from the duty of a servant. Deeper and deeper, as he kept company with
Moses, must have been his impression of his wisdom, his faith, his
loyalty to God, and his entire devotion to the welfare of his people;
and stronger and stronger must have waxed his own desire that if ever
he should be called to a similar service he might show the same spirit
and fulfil the same high end!

The next time that Joshua comes into notice is not so flattering to
himself. It is on that occasion when the Spirit descended on the
seventy elders that had been appointed to assist Moses, and they
prophesied round about the tabernacle. Two of the seventy were not
with the rest, but nevertheless they got the spirit and were
prophesying in the camp. The military instinct of Joshua was hurt at
the irregularity, and his concern for the honour of Moses was roused
by their apparent indifference to the presence of their head. He
hurried to inform Moses, not doubting but he would interfere to
correct the irregularity. But the narrow spirit of youth met with a
memorable rebuke from the larger and more noble spirit of the
leader,--"Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's
people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon
them!"

Not long after this Joshua was appointed to another memorable service.
After the law-giving had been brought to an end, and the host of
Israel had removed from the mountain to the borders of the promised
land, he was appointed one of the twelve spies that were sent forward
to explore the country. Formerly his name had been Oshea; it was now
changed to Jehoshua or Joshua. The changing of the name was in itself
significant, and still more the character of the change, by which a
syllable of the Divine name was inserted in it. For, by the practice
of the nation, the changing of a name denoted a man's entrance on a
new chapter of his history, or his coming out before the world in a
new character. So it was when Abram's name was changed to Abraham,
Sarai's to Sarah, and Jacob's to Israel; so also when Simon became
Cephas, and Saul Paul. But the new name given to Joshua was in itself
more remarkable--Joshua, that is, Jehovah saves: in the New Testament,
Jesus. No doubt it looked back on the victory of Rephidim when the
Lord wrought such a deliverance in Israel through Joshua. But it
indicated that the feature that had appeared at Rephidim would
continue to characterise him during his life. It was a testimony from
Moses, and from Him who inspired Moses, to the character of Joshua, as
it had come out during all the close intercourse of Moses with him.
And it invested Joshua with a dignity that ought to have raised him
very highly in the eyes of the other spies, and of all the
congregation of Israel. Who could be more worthy of their respect than
the young man who had shown himself so faithful in all his previous
history, and who had now received a name that indicated that it would
be the distinction of his life, like Him whom he prefigured, to lead
his people to the enjoyment of God's salvation?

The forty days spent by the twelve men in exploring the land were a
great contrast to the forty days spent by Joshua on the mount. All was
inactivity and patient waiting in the one case; all was activity and
bustle in the other. For there is a time to work and a time to rest.
If at the one period Joshua had to put a restraint on his natural
activity, at the other he could give it full swing.

Apart from its more immediate object, this early tour through
Palestine must have been one of surpassing interest. To witness each
spot that had been made memorable and classical by the lives of his
forefathers; to sit by the well of Beersheba, and recall all that had
happened there; to repose under Abraham's oak at Mamre; to bow at the
cave of Machpelah; to recall the visits of angels at Bethel, and the
ladder which had been seen going up to heaven,--was not only most
thrilling, but to a man of Joshua's faith most inspiring; because
every spot that had such associations was a witness that God had given
them the land, and a proof that even though the sons of Anak were
there, and their cities were walled up to heaven, the God of Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob would be faithful to His promise, and, if the
people would only trust Him, would right speedily place them in full
possession.

Caleb and Joshua were the only two men whose faith stood the test of
this survey; the rest were thoroughly cowed by the greatness of the
difficulties. And Caleb seems to have been the foremost of the two,
for in some places he is named as if he stood alone. Probably he was
the one who came forward and spoke; but even if Joshua's faith was not
so strong at first, it was no dishonour to be indebted to the greater
courage and confidence of his brother.

We can hardly doubt that in their long marches and quiet encampments
the twelve men had many a discussion as to what they would advise, and
that the ten felt themselves beaten both in argument and in faith by
the two. Long before they returned to the camp of Israel they had
taken their sides, and by the sides they had taken they were
determined to abide.

When they come back, the ten open the business and give their decided
judgment against any attempt to take possession of the land. Impatient
of their misrepresentations, Caleb perhaps strikes in, repudiates the
notion that the people are not able to take possession, and urges them
in God's name to go up at once. But it is easier far to stir up
discontent and fear than to stimulate faith. The cry of the
congregation, "Up, make us a captain, and let us return to Egypt,"
shows how strongly the tide of unbelief is flowing. Moses and Aaron
are overwhelmed. The two leaders fall on their faces before the
congregation. But neither the cry of the congregation nor the attitude
of Moses and Aaron daunts the two faithful spies. With clothes rent
they rush in, renewing their commendations of the land, laying hold of
the Almighty Protector, and scorning the opposition of the
inhabitants, whose hearts were cowed with terror and whose defence was
departed from them. It was a fine spectacle,--the two against the
million--the little remnant "faithful found among the faithless." But
it was all in vain. "All the congregation bade stone them with
stones." And in their impulsive and excitable temper the horrible cry
would have been obeyed had not the glory of the Lord shone out and
arrested the infatuated people (Num. xiv. 10).

For this shameless sin the penalty was very heavy. The congregation
were to wander in the wilderness for forty years till all that
generation should die off; the ten unfaithful spies were to die at
once of a plague before the Lord; and not one of the generation that
left Egypt was to enter the promised land. How easily can God defeat
the purposes of man! Where is now the proposal to make a captain and
return to Egypt? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of
the morning!"

Joshua and Caleb are doubly honoured; their lives are preserved when
the other ten die of the plague; and they alone, of all the grown men
of that generation, are to be allowed to enter and obtain homes in the
land of promise.

       *       *       *       *       *

For eight-and-thirty years we hear nothing more of Joshua. Like Moses,
he has an interesting youth, then a long burial in the wilderness, and
then he emerges from his obscurity and does a great work, second only
to that of Moses himself. The first mention of him after his long
eclipse is immediately before the death of Moses. God virtually
appoints him to be his successor, and directs both of them to present
themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation (Deut. xxxi. 14). And
Moses calls him to his office, gives him a charge and says, "Be strong
and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel
into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee" (Deut.
xxxi. 23).

We might earnestly desire, in entering on the study of Joshua's life,
to draw aside the veil that covers the eight-and-thirty years, and see
how he was further prepared for his great work. We might like to look
into his heart, and see after what fashion this man was made to whom
the destruction of the Canaanites was entrusted. A religious warrior
is a peculiar character; a Gustavus Adolphus, an Oliver Cromwell, a
Henry Havelock, a General Gordon; Joshua was of the same mould, and we
should have liked to know him more intimately; but this is denied to
us. He stands out to us simply as one of the military heroes of the
faith. In depth, in steadiness, in endurance, his faith was not
excelled by that of Abraham or of Moses himself. The one conviction
that dominated all in him was, that he was called by God to his work.
If that work was often repulsive, let us not on that account withhold
our admiration from the man who never conferred with flesh and blood,
and who was never appalled either by danger or difficulty, for he "saw
Him who is invisible."




CHAPTER III.

_A SUCCESSOR TO MOSES._

JOSHUA i. 2.


There are some men to whom it is almost impossible to find successors.
Men of imperial mould; Nature's primates, head and shoulders above
other men, born to take the lead. Not only possessed of great gifts
originally, but placed by Providence in situations that have
wonderfully expanded their capacity and made their five talents ten.
Called to be leaders of great movements, champions of commanding
interests, often gifted with an imposing presence, and with a magnetic
power that subdues opposition and kindles enthusiasm as if by magic.
What a bereavement when such men are suddenly removed! How poor in
comparison those who come next them, and from among whom successors
have to be chosen! When the Hebrews mourned the death of Samson, the
difference in physical strength between him and his brethren could not
have appeared greater than the intellectual and moral gulf appears
between a great king of men, suddenly removed, and the bereaved
children that bend helpless over his grave.

A feeling of this sort must have spread itself through the host of
Israel when it was known that Moses was dead. Speculation as to his
successor there could be none, for not only had God designated Joshua,
but before he died Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the people
had acknowledged him as their coming leader. And Joshua had already
achieved a record of no common order, and had been favoured with high
tokens of the Divine approval. Yet what a descent it must have seemed
from Moses to Joshua! From the man who had so often been face to face
with God, who had commanded the sea to make a way for the redeemed of
the Lord to pass over, who had been their legislator and their judge
ever since they were children, to whom they had gone in every
difficulty, and who for wisdom and disinterestedness had gained the
profound confidence of every one of them;--what a descent, we say, to
this son of Nun, known hitherto as but the servant of Moses--an
intrepid soldier, no doubt, and a man of unfaltering faith, but whose
name seemed as if it could not couple with that of their imperial
leader!

Well though Joshua did his work in after life, and bright though the
lustre of his name ultimately became, he never attained to the rank of
Moses. While the name of Moses is constantly reappearing in the
prophets, in the psalms, in the gospels, in the epistles, and in the
apocalypse, that of Joshua is not found out of the historical books
except in the speech of Stephen and that well-known passage in the
Hebrews (iv. 8), where the received version perplexes us by
translating it Jesus. But it was no disparagement of him that he was
so far surpassed by the man to whom, under God, the very existence of
the nation was due. And in some respects, Joshua is a more useful
example to us than Moses. Moses seems to stand half-way in heaven,
almost beyond reach of imitation. Joshua is more on our own level. If
not a man of surpassing genius, he commends himself as having made the
best possible use of his talents, and done his part carefully and
well.

The remark has been made that eras of great creative vigour are often
succeeded by periods dull and commonplace. The history of letters and
of the fine arts shows that bursts of artistic splendour like the
Renaissance, or of literary originality like the Augustan age in Roman
or the Elizabethan in English literature, are not followed by periods
of equal lustre. And the same phenomenon has often been found in the
Christian Church. In more senses than one the Apostles had no
successors. Who in all the sub-apostolic age was worthy even to untie
the latchet of Peter, or John, or Paul? This inferiority is so
manifest that had there been nothing else to guide the Church in
framing the canon of the New Testament, the difference between the
writings of the Apostles and their companions on the one hand, and of
men like Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Hermes on
the other, would have sufficed to settle the question. So also at the
era of the Reformation. Hardly a country but had its star or its
galaxy of the first magnitude. Luther and Melancthon, Calvin and
Coligny, Farel and Viret, John à-Lasco and John Knox, Latimer and
Cranmer,--what incomparable men they were! But in the age that
followed what names can we find to couple with theirs?

Of other sections of the Church the same remark has been made, and
sometimes it has been turned to an unfair use. If in the second
generation, after a great outburst of power and grace, there are few
or no men of equal calibre, it does not follow that the glory has
departed, and that the Church is to droop her head, and wonder to what
unworthy course on her part the degeneracy is to be ascribed. We are
not to expect in such a case that the laws of nature will be set aside
to gratify our pride. We are to recognise a state of things which God
has ordained for wise purposes, although it may not be flattering to
us. We are to place ourselves in the attitude in which Joshua was
called to place himself when the curt announcement of the text as to
Moses was followed by an equally curt order to him--"Moses My servant
is dead; now therefore arise."

The question for Joshua is not whether he is a fit person to succeed
Moses. His mental exercise is not to compare himself with Moses, and
note the innumerable points of inferiority on every side. His attitude
is not to bow down his head like a bulrush, mourning over the departed
glory of Israel, grieving for the mighty dead, on whose like neither
he nor his people will ever look again. If there ever was a time when
it might seem excusable for a bereaved nation and a bereaved servant
to abandon themselves to a sense of helplessness, it was on the death
of Moses. But even at that supreme moment the command to Joshua is,
"Now therefore arise." Gird yourself for the new duties and
responsibilities that have come upon you. Do not worry yourself with
asking whether you are capable of doing these duties, or with vainly
looking within yourself for the gifts and qualities which marked your
predecessor. It is enough for you that God in His providence calls you
to take the place of the departed. If He has called you, He will equip
you. It is not His way to send men a warfare on their own charges. The
work to which He calls you is not yours but His. Remember He is far
more interested in its success than you can be. Think not of yourself,
but of Him, and go forth under the motto, "We will rejoice in Thy
salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners."

In many different situations of life we may hear the same exhortation
that was now addressed to Joshua. A wise, considerate, and honoured
father is removed, and the eldest son, a mere stripling, is called to
take his place, perhaps in the mercantile office or place of business,
certainly in the domestic circle. He is called to be the comforter and
adviser of his widowed mother, and the example and helper of his
brothers and sisters. Well for him when he hears a voice from heaven,
"Your father is dead; now therefore arise!" Rouse yourself for the
duties that now devolve upon you; onerous they may be and beyond your
strength, but not on that account to be evaded or repudiated; rather
to be looked on as spurs provided and designed by God, that you may
apply yourself with heart and soul to your duties, in the belief that
faithful and patient application shall not be without its reward!

Or it may be that the summons comes to some young minister as
successor to a father in Israel, whose ripe gifts and fragrant
character have won the confidence and the admiration of all. Or to
some teacher in a Sunday-school, where the man of weight, of wise
counsel, and holy influence has been suddenly snatched away. But be
the occasion what it may, the removal of any man of ripe character and
gifts always comes to the survivor with the Divine summons, "Now
therefore arise!" That is the one way in which you must try to improve
this dispensation; the world is poorer for the loss of his
gifts--learn you to make the most of yours!

It was no mean impression of Moses that God meant to convey by the
designation, "Moses My servant." It was not a high-sounding title,
certainly. A great contrast to the long list of honourable titles
sometimes engraved on men's coffins or on their tombs, or proclaimed
by royal herald or king-at-arms over departed kings or nobles. One of
the greatest of men has no handle to his name--he is simply Moses. He
has no titles of rank or office--he is simply "My servant." But true
greatness is "when unadorned adorned the most." Moses is a real man, a
man of real greatness; there is no occasion therefore to deck him out
in tinsel and gilt; he is gold to the core.

But think what is really implied in this designation, "My servant."
Even if Moses had not been God's servant in a sense and in a degree in
which few other men ever were, it would have been a glorious thing to
obtain that simple appellation. True indeed, the term "servant of God"
is such a hackneyed one, and often so little represents what it really
means, that we need to pause and think of its full import. There may
be much honour in being a servant. Even in our families and factories
a model servant is a rare and precious treasure. For a real servant is
one that has the interest of his master as thoroughly at heart as his
own, and never scruples, at any sacrifice of personal interest or
feeling, to do all that he can for his master's welfare. A true
servant is one of whom his master may say, "There is absolutely no
need for me to remind him what my interest requires; he is always
thinking of my interest, always on the alert to attend to it, and
there is not a single thing I possess that is not safe in his hands."

Does God possess many such servants? Who among us can suppose God
saying this of him? Yet this was the character of Moses, and in God's
eyes it invested him with singular honour. It was his distinction that
he was "faithful in all his house." His own will was thoroughly
subdued to the will of God. The people of whom God gave him charge
were dear to him as a right hand or a right eye. All personal
interests and ambitions were put far from him. To aggrandise himself
or to aggrandise his house never entered into his thoughts. Never was
self more thoroughly crucified in any man's breast. Beautiful and
delightful in God's eyes must have seemed this quality in Moses,--his
absolute disinterestedness, his sensibility to every hint of his
Master's will, his consecration of all he was and had to God, and to
his people for God's sake!

It was thus no unsuggestive word that God used of Moses, when He told
Joshua that "His servant" was dead. It was a significant indication of
what God had valued in Moses and now expected of Joshua. The one thing
for Joshua to remember about Moses is, that he was the servant of God.
Let him take pains to be the same; let him have his ear as open as
that of Moses to every intimation of God's will, his will as prompt to
respond, and his hand as quick to obey.

Was not this view of the glory of Moses as God's servant a foreshadow
of what was afterwards taught more fully and on a wider scale by our
Lord? "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give His life a ransom for many." Jesus sought to reverse the
natural notions of men as to what constitutes greatness, when He
taught that, instead of being measured by the number of servants who
wait on us, it is measured rather by the number of persons to whom we
become servants. And if it was a mark of Christ's own humiliation that
"He took on Him the form of a servant," did not this redound to His
highest glory? Was it not for this that God highly exalted Him and
gave Him a name that is above every name? Happy they who are content
to be GOD'S SERVANTS in whatsoever sphere of life He may place them;
seeking not their own, but always intent upon their Master's business!

And now Joshua must succeed Moses and be God's servant as he was. He
must aim at this as the one distinction of his life; he must seek in
every action to know what God would have him to do. Happy man if he
can carry out this ideal of life! No conflicting interests or passions
will distract his soul. His eye being single, his whole body will be
full of light. The power that nerves his arm will not be more
remarkable than the peace that dwells in his soul. He will show to all
future generations the power of a "lost will,"--not the suppression of
all desire, according to the Buddhist's idea of bliss, but all lawful
natural desires in happy and harmonious action, because subject to the
wise, holy, and loving guidance of the will of God.

Thus we see among the other paradoxes of His government, how God uses
death to promote life. The death of the eminent, the aged, the men of
brilliant gifts makes way for others, and stimulates their activity
and growth. When the champion of the forest falls the younger trees
around it are brought more into contact with the sunshine and fresh
air, and push up into taller and more fully developed forms. If none
of the younger growth attains the size of the champion, a great many
may be advanced to a higher average of size and beauty. If in the
second generation of any great religious movement few or none can
match the "mighties" of the previous age, there may be a general
elevation, a rise of level, an increase of efficiency among the rank
and file.

In many ways death enters into God's plans. Not only does it make way
for the younger men,[2] but it has a solemnizing and quickening effect
on all who are not hardened and dulled by the wear and tear of life.

  [2] "Can death itself when seen in the light of this truth [the
  adjustment of every being in animated nature to every other] be
  denied to be an evidence of benevolence? I think not. The law of
  animal generation makes necessary the law of animal death, if the
  largest amount of animal happiness is to be secured. If there had
  been less death there must also have been less life, and what life
  there was must have been poorer and meaner. Death is a condition
  of the prolificness of nature, the multiplicity of species, the
  succession of generations, the co-existence of the young and the
  old; and these things, it cannot reasonably be doubted, add
  immensely to the sum of animal happiness."--FLINT'S "Theism," p.
  251.

What a memorable event in the spiritual history of families is the
first sudden affliction, the first breach in the circle of loving
hearts! First, the new experience of intense tender longing, baffled
by the inexorable conditions of death; then the vivid vision of
eternity, the reality of the unseen flashing on them with living and
awful power, and giving an immeasurable importance to the question of
salvation; then the drawing closer to one another, the forswearing of
all animosities and jealousies, the cordial desire for unbroken peace
and constant co-operation; and if it be the father or the mother that
has been taken, the ambition to be useful,--to be a help not a burden
to the surviving parent, and to do what little they can of what used
to be their father's or their mother's work. Death becomes actually a
quickener of the vital energies; instead of a withering influence, it
drops like the gentle dew, and becomes the minister of life.

And death is not alone among the destructive agencies that are so
often directed to life-giving ends. What a remarkable place is that
which is occupied by Pain among God's instruments of good! How many
are there who, looking back on their lives, have to confess, with a
mixture of sadness and of joy, that it is their times of greatest
suffering that have been the most decisive in their lives,--marked by
their best resolutions,--followed by their greatest advance! And it
sometimes would seem as if the acuter the suffering the greater the
blessing. How near God seems at times to come to the height of cruelty
when really He is overflowing with love! He seems to select the very
tenderest spots on which to inflict His blows, the very tenderest and
purest affections of the heart. It is a wonderful triumph of faith and
submission when the sufferer stands firm and tranquil amidst it all.
And still more when he can find consolation in the analogy which was
supplied by God's own act,--"He that spared not His own Son, but
delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely
give us all things?"

And this brings us to our last application. Our Lord Himself, by a
beautiful analogy in nature, showed the connection, in the very
highest sense, between death and life--"Except a grain of wheat fall
into the earth and die, it abideth alone; but if it die it beareth
much fruit." "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin."
When Jesus died at Calvary, the headquarters of death became the
nursery of life. The place of a skull, like the prophet's valley of
dry bones, gave birth to an exceeding great army of living men. Among
the wonders that will bring glory to God in the highest throughout
eternity, the greatest will be this evolution of good from evil, of
happiness from pain, of life from death. And even when the end comes,
and death is swallowed up of victory, and death and hell are cast
into the lake of fire, there will abide with the glorified a lively
sense of the infinite blessing that came to them from God through the
repulsive channel of death, finding its highest expression in that
anthem of the redeemed--"THOU WAS SLAIN, AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD
BY THY BLOOD."




CHAPTER IV.

_JOSHUA'S CALL._

JOSHUA i. 2-5.


Joshua has heard the Divine voice summoning him to the attitude of
activity--"Arise!" Directions follow immediately as to the course
which his activity is to take. His first step is to be a very
pronounced one--"Go over this Jordan": enter the land, not by
yourself, or with a handful of comrades, as you did forty years ago,
but "thou and all this people." Take the bold step, cross the river;
and when you are across the river, take possession of the country
which I now give to your people. The time has come for decided action;
it is for you to show the way, and summon your people to follow.

It was a very solemn and striking moment, second only in interest to
that when, forty years before, their fathers had stood at the edge of
the sea, with the host of Pharaoh hurrying on behind. At length the
hour has come to take possession of the inheritance! At length the
promise made so many hundred years ago to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is
ripe for fulfilment! You, children of Israel, have seen that God is in
no haste to fulfil His promises, and your hearts may have known much
of the sickness of hope deferred. But now you are to see that after
all God is faithful. He never forgets. He makes no mistakes. His
delays are all designed for good, either to chasten or to try, and
thus confirm and bless His people. He will now bring forth your
righteousness as the light and your judgment as the noon-day.

There were two things that might make Joshua and the people hesitate
to cross the Jordan. In the first place, the river was in flood; it
was the time when the Jordan overflowed its banks (Josh. iii. 15),
and, being a rapid river, crossing it in such circumstances might well
seem out of the question. But in the second place, to cross the Jordan
was to throw down the gauntlet to the enemy. It was a declaration of
war, and a challenge to them to do their worst. It was a signal for
them to assemble, fight for their hearths and homes, and strain every
nerve to annihilate this invader who made such a bold claim to their
possessions. All the children of Anak whom Joshua had seen on his
former visit would now range themselves against Israel; all the seven
nations would muster their bravest forces, and the contest would not
be like Joshua's battle with Amalek, finished in a single day, but a
long succession of battles, in which all the resources of power and
skill, of craft and cunning would be brought to bear against Israel.
According to appearances, nothing short of this would be the result of
compliance with the command, "Go over this Jordan."

On the one hand, therefore, compliance was physically impossible, and
on the other, even if possible, it would have been fearfully perilous.
But it is never God's method to give impossible commands. The very
fact of His commanding anything is a proof of His readiness to make it
possible, nay, to make it easy and simple to those who have faith to
attempt it. "Stretch out thy hand," said Christ to the man with the
withered hand. "Stretch out my hand?" the man might have said in
astonishment,--"why, it is the very thing I am unable to do." "Rise up
and walk," said Peter to the lame man at the Beautiful gate. "How can
I do that?" he might have replied; "don't you see that I have no use
of my limbs?" But in these cases the helpless men had faith in those
who bade them exert themselves; they believed that if they tried they
would be helped, and helped accordingly they were. So too in the
present case. Joshua knew that he and the host could not have crossed
the Jordan as it then was by any contrivance in his power; but he knew
that it was God's command, and he was sure that He would provide the
means. He felt as if God and the people were in partnership, each
equally interested in the result, and equally desirous to bring it
about. Whatever it was necessary for God to do he was assured would be
done, provided he and the people entered into the Divine plan, and
threw all their energies into the work. Not a word of remonstrance did
Joshua offer, not a word of explanation of the Divine plan did he ask;
he acted as a servant should;

    "His not to make reply,
    His not to reason why;"

his only to trust and obey.

This faith in Divine power qualifying feeble mortals for the hardest
tasks has originated some of the noblest enterprises in the history of
the world. It was a Divine voice Columbus seemed to hear bidding him
cross the wild Atlantic, for he desired to bring the natives of the
distant shores beyond it into the pale of the Church; and it was his
faith that sustained him when his crew became mutinous and his life
was not safe for an hour. It was a Divine voice Livingstone seemed to
hear bidding him cross Africa, strike up into the heart of the
continent, examine its structure, and throw it open from shore to
shore; and never was there a faith stronger or steadier than that
which bore him on through fever and famine, through pain and sickness,
through disappointment and anguish, and, even when the cold hand of
death was on him, would not let him rest until his work was done.

Often in the spiritual warfare it is useful to apply this principle.
Are we called to believe? Are we called to make ourselves a new heart
and a new spirit? Are we summoned to fight, to wrestle, to overcome?
Certainly we are. But is not this to tantalize us by ordering us to do
what we cannot do? Is not this like telling a sick man to get well, or
a decrepit old creature to skip and frisk like a child? It would be so
if the principle of partnership between God and us did not come into
play. Faith says, God is my partner in this matter. Partners even in
an ordinary business put their resources together, each doing what his
special abilities fit him for. In the partnership which faith
establishes between God and you, the resources of the infinite Partner
become available for the needs of the finite. It is God's part to give
orders, it is your part to execute them, and it is God's part to
strengthen you so to do. It is this that makes the command reasonable,
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that
worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Faith
rejoices in the partnership, and goes forward in the confidence that
the strength of the Almighty will help its weakness, not by one sudden
leap, but by that steady growth in grace that makes the path of the
just like the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the
perfect day.

It was a great thing for God to announce that He was now in the act of
turning His old, old promise into reality,--that the land pledged to
Abraham centuries ago was now at length to become the possession of
his descendants. But the gift could be of no avail unless it was
actually appropriated. God gave the people the right to the land; but
their own energy, made effectual through His grace, could alone secure
the possession. In a remarkable way they were made to feel that, while
the land was God's gift, the appropriation and enjoyment of the gift
must come through their own exertions. Just as in a higher sphere we
know that our salvation is wholly the gift of God; and yet the getting
hold of this gift, the getting linked to Christ, the entrance as it
were into the marriage covenant with Him involves the active exertion
of our own will and energy, and the gift never can be ours if we fail
thus to appropriate it.

As soon as God mentions the land, He expatiates on its amplitude and
its boundaries. It was designed to be both a comfortable and an ample
possession. In point of extent it was a spacious region,--"from the
wilderness and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river
Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea,
towards the going down of the sun." And it was not merely bits or
corners of this land that were to be theirs, they were not designed to
share it with other occupants, but "every place that the sole of your
foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses."
It was in no meagre or stingy spirit that God was now to fulfil His
ancient promise, but in a way corresponding to the essential
bountifulness of His nature. For it is a delightful truth that God's
heart is large and liberal, and that He delights in large and
bountiful gifts. Has He not made this plain to all in the arrangements
of nature? What more lavish than the gift of light, ever streaming
from the sun in silver showers? What more abundant than the fresh air
that, like an inexhaustible ocean, encompasses our globe, or the
rivers that carry their fresh and fertilizing treasures unweariedly
through every meadow? What more productive than the vegetable soil
that under favourable conditions teems with fruits and flowers and the
elements of food for the use and enjoyment of man?

And when we turn to God's provision in grace we find glorious proofs
of the same abundance and generosity. We see this symbolized by the
activity and generosity of our Lord, as He went about "preaching the
gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all
manner of disease among the people." We understand the spiritual
reality of which this was the symbol, when we call to mind the Divine
generosity that receives the vilest sinners; the efficacy of the blood
that cleanses from all sin; the power of the Spirit that sanctifies
soul, body, and spirit; the wisdom of the providence that makes all
things work together for good; the glory of the love that makes us now
"sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know
that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him
as He is." And once more it appears in the glory and amplitude of the
inheritance, of which the land of Canaan was but the type, prepared of
God's infinite bounty for all who are His children by faith. Our
Father's house is both large and well furnished; it is a house of many
mansions; and the inheritance which He has promised is incorruptible
and undefiled and fadeth not away.

It is a grand truth, of which we never can make too much, this
bountifulness of God, and the delight which He has in being bountiful.
It is emphatically a truth for faith to apprehend and enjoy, because
appearances are so often against it. Appearances were fearfully
against it while the Israelites were groaning in their Egyptian
bondage, and hardly less so, despite the manna and the water from the
rock, during the forty years' wandering in the desert. But that was a
period of correction and of training, and in such circumstances lavish
bounty was out of the question.

The most bountiful man on earth could not pour out all the liberality
of his heart on the inmates of a hospital for the sick; he may give
all that sick men need, but he must wait till they are well before he
can give full scope to his generosity. While we are in the body we are
like patients in a hospital, and the kindest feelings from God toward
us must often take the form of bitter medicines, painful operations,
close restraint, stinted diet, and it may be silence and darkness. But
wait till we are well, and then we shall see what God hath prepared
for him that waiteth for Him! Wait till we go over Jordan and take
possession of the land! Two things will be seen in the clearest
light--the supreme bountifulness of God, and the sinfulness of that
impatient and suspicious spirit to which we are so prone. What a
humiliation, if humiliation be possible in heaven, to discover that
all the time when we were fretting and grumbling, God was working out
His plans of supreme beneficence and love, waiting only till we should
come of age to make us heirs of the universe!

It is natural to ask why, if the boundaries of the promised land were
so extensive, if they reached so far on the north-east as the
Euphrates, and if they extended from Lebanon on the north to the
confines of Egypt on the south, there should have been any difficulty
about the two and a half tribes occupying the land east of the Jordan,
where only by a special permission they obtained their settlement. For
it is plain from the narrative that it was contrary to God's first
intention, so to speak, that they should settle there, and that the
land west of the Jordan was that to which the promise was held
specially to apply. It will hardly do to say, as some have said, that
the extension of the land to the Euphrates was a figure of speech, a
poetical fringe or ornament as it were, intended to show that places
adjacent to the land of Israel would share in some degree the radiance
of its light and the influence of the Divine presence among its
people. For the promise of God was really of the nature of a charter,
and figures of poetry are not suitable in charters. It is rather to be
understood that, in the _final_ purpose of God, the possession
included the whole of the ample domain contained within the specified
boundaries, but that at first it would be confined within a narrower
space. If the people should prove faithful to the covenant, the wider
dominion would one day be conferred on them; but they were to start
and get consolidated in a narrower territory. And the narrower space
was that which had already been consecrated by the residence of the
fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The country west of Jordan was the
land of _their_ pilgrimage; and even when Lot and Abraham had to
separate, it was not proposed that either should cross the river. The
little strip lying between the Jordan and the sea was judged most
suitable for the preparatory stage of Israel's history; but had the
nation served God with fidelity, their country would have been
extended--as in the days of David and Solomon it really was--to the
dimensions of an empire. The rule afterwards announced was to be
virtually brought into operation--"To him that hath shall be given."
Hence the view taken of the settlement of the two and a half tribes
east of the Jordan. It was not illegitimate; it was not inconsistent
with the covenant made with the fathers; but it was for the time
inexpedient, seeing that it exposed them to risks, both material and
spiritual, which it would have been better for them to avoid.

One geographical expression, in the delimitation of the country,
demands a brief explanation. While the country is defined as embracing
the whole territory from Lebanon to the Euphrates, it is also defined
as consisting in that direction of "all the land of the Hittites." But
were not the Hittites one of the seven nations whose land was promised
to Abraham and the fathers, and not even the first in the enumeration
of these? Why should this great north-eastern section of the promised
domain be designated "the land of the Hittites"?

The time was when it was a charge against the accuracy of the
Scripture record that it ascribed to the Hittites this extensive
dominion. That time has passed away, inasmuch as, within quite recent
years, the discovery has been made that in those distant times a great
Hittite empire did exist in the very region specified, between Lebanon
and the Euphrates. The discovery is based on twofold data: references
in the Egyptian and other monuments to a powerful people, called the
Khita (Hittites), with whom even the great kings of Egypt had long and
bloody wars; and inscriptions in the Hittite language, found in
Hamah, Aleppo, and other places in Syria. There is still much
obscurity resting on the history of this people. That the Hittites
proper prevailed so extensively has been doubted by some; a Hittite
confederacy has been supposed, and sometimes a Hittite aristocracy
exercising control over a great empire. The only point which it is
necessary to dwell on here is, that in representing the tract between
Lebanon and Euphrates as equivalent to "all the land of the Hittites,"
the author of the Book of Joshua made a statement which has been
abundantly verified by recent research.[3]

  [3] See "The Empire of the Hittites." By William Wright, D.D.,
  F.R.G.S. London, 1886.

To encourage and animate Joshua to undertake the work and position of
Moses it is very graciously promised--"There shall not any man be able
to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so
will I be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." The
invariable success promised was a greater boon than the greatest
conquerors had been able to secure. Uniform success is a thing hardly
known to captains of great expeditions, even though in the end they
may prevail. But the promise to Joshua is, that all his enemies shall
flee before him. None of his battles shall be even neutral, his
opponents must always give way.[4] No son of Anak shall be able to
oppose his onward march; no giant, like Og King of Bashan, shall
terrify either him or his troops. He will "onward still to victory
go,"--the Lord of hosts ever with him, the God of Jacob ever his
defence.

  [4] The promise is not inconsistent with the fact that Joshua's
  troops were defeated by the men of Ai. In such promises there is
  an implied condition of steadfast regard to God's will on the part
  of those who receive them, and this condition was violated at Ai,
  not by Joshua, indeed, but by one of his people.

And this was no vague, indefinite assurance. It was sharply defined by
a well-known example in the immediate past--"As I was with Moses, so I
will be with thee." In what a remarkable variety of dangers and trials
God was with Moses! Now he had to confront the grandest monarch on
earth, supported by the strongest armies, and upheld by what claimed
to be the mightiest gods. Again he had to deal with an apostate
people, mad upon idols, and afterwards with an excited mob, ready to
stone him. Anon he had to overcome the forces of nature and bend them
to his purposes; to call water from the rock, to sweeten the bitter
fountain, to heal the fiery bite, to cure his sister's leprous body,
to bring down bread from heaven, and people the air with flocks of
birds. Moreover, he had to be the messenger of the covenant between
God and Israel, to unfold God's law in its length and breadth and in
all its variety of application, and to obtain from the people a hearty
compliance--"All that the Lord hath said unto us, that will we do."
What a marvellous work Moses did! What a testimony his life presented
to the reality of the Divine presence and guidance, and what a solid
and indefeasible ground of trust God gave to Joshua when He said, "As
I was with Moses, so will I be with thee."

And this is crowned with the further assurance, "I will not fail thee,
nor forsake thee,"--an assurance which is extended in the Epistle to
the Hebrews to all who believe. We are so apt to view these promises
as just beautiful expressions that we need to pause and think what
they really mean. A promise of Divine presence, Divine protection and
guidance and blessing all the days of our life, is surely a treasure
of inexpressible value. It is no slight matter to realize that this
is in God's heart--that He has a constant, unvarying feeling of love
toward us, and readiness to help; but we must believe this in order to
get the benefit of it; and, moreover, He must be left to determine the
time, the manner, and the form in which His help is to come. Alas for
the unbelief, the suspicion, the fear that is so prone to eat out the
spirit of trust, and in our trials and difficulties make us tremble as
if we were alone! What a profound peace, what calm enjoyment and
blessed hope fall to the lot of those who can believe in a God ever
near, and in His unfailing faithfulness and love! Was it not the
secret alike of David's calmness, of our Lord's serenity, and of the
cheerful composure of many a martyr and many a common man and woman
who have gone through life undisturbed and happy, that they could
say--"I have set the Lord always before me; because He is at my right
hand, I shall not be moved"? God grant us all that, like Abraham, we
may "stagger not at the promise of God through unbelief but that being
strong in faith we may give glory to God, and believe that what He
hath promised He is able also to perform."




CHAPTER V.

_JOSHUA'S ENCOURAGEMENT._

JOSHUA i. 6-9.


God has promised to be with Joshua, but Joshua must strive to act like
one in partnership with God. And that He may do so, God has just two
things to press on him: in the first place, to be strong and of a good
courage; and in the second place, to make the book of the law his
continual study and guide. In this way he shall be able to achieve the
specific purpose to which he is called, to divide the land for an
inheritance to the people, as God hath sworn to their fathers; and
likewise, more generally, to fulfil the conditions of a successful
life--"then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt
have good success."

First, Joshua must be strong and very courageous. But are strength and
courage really within our own power? Is strength not absolutely a
Divine gift, and as dependent on God in its ordinary degrees as it was
in the case of Samson in its highest degree? No doubt in a sense it is
so; and yet the amount even of our bodily strength is not wholly
beyond our own control. As bodily strength is undoubtedly weakened by
careless living, by excess of eating and drinking, by all irregular
habits, by the breathing of foul air, by indolence and self-indulgence
of every kind, so undoubtedly it is increased and promoted by
attention to the simple laws of health, by activity and exercise, by
sleep and sabbatic rest, by the moderate use of wholesome food, as
well as by abstinence from hurtful drinks and drugs. And surely the
duty of being strong, in so far as such things can give strength, is
of far more importance than many think; for if we can thus maintain
and increase our strength we shall be able to serve both God and man
much better and longer than we could otherwise have done. On the other
hand, the feebleness and fitfulness and querulousness often due to
preventible illness must increase the trouble which we give to others,
and lessen the beneficent activity and the brightening influence of
our own lives.

But in Joshua's case is was no doubt strength and courage of soul that
was mainly meant. Even that is not wholly independent of the ordinary
conditions of the body. On the other hand, there are no doubt
memorable cases where the elasticity and power of the spirit have been
in the very inverse ratio to the strength of the body. By cheerful
views of life and duty, natural depression has been counteracted, and
the soul filled with hope and joy. "The joy of the Lord," said
Nehemiah, "is the strength of His people." Fellowship with God, as our
reconciled God and Father in Christ, is a source of perpetual
strength. Who does not know the strengthening and animating influence
of the presence even of a friend, when we find his fresh and joyous
temperament playing on us in some season of depression? The radiance
of his face, the cheeriness of his voice, the elasticity of his
movements seem to infuse new hope and courage into the jaded soul.
When he is gone, we try to shake off the despondent feeling that has
seized us, and gird ourselves anew for the battle of life. And if such
an effect can be produced by fellowship with a fellow-creature, how
much more by fellowship with the infinite God!--especially when it is
His work we are trying to do, and when we have all His promises of
help to rest on. "God is near thee, therefore cheer thee" is a
perpetual solace and stimulus to the Christian soul.

But even men who are full of Christian courage need props and bulwarks
in the hour of trial. Ezra and Nehemiah were bold, but they had ways
of stimulating their courage, which they sometimes needed to fall back
on, and they could find allies in unlikely quarters. Ezra could draw
courage even from his shame, and Nehemiah from his very pride. "I was
ashamed," said Ezra, "to require of the king a band of soldiers and
horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way;" therefore he
determined to face the danger with no help but the unseen help of God.
And when Nehemiah's life was in danger from the cunning devices of the
enemy, and his friends advised him to hide himself, he repelled the
advice with high-minded scorn--"Should such a man as I flee?"

But there is no source of courage like that which flows from the
consciousness of serving God, and the consequent assurance that He
will sustain and help His servants. Brief ejaculatory prayers,
constantly dropping from their lips, often bring the courage which is
needed. "Now, therefore, O God, strengthen my hands," was Nehemiah's
habitual exclamation when faintness of heart came over him. No doubt
it was Joshua's too, as it has always been of the best of God's
servants. Again and again, amid the murderous threats of cannibals in
the New Hebrides, the missionary Paton must have sunk into despair but
for his firm belief in the protection of God.

The other counsel to Joshua was to follow in all things the
instructions of Moses, and for this end, not to let "the book of the
law depart out of his mouth, but to meditate on it day and night, that
he might observe to do all that was written therein."

For Joshua was called to be the executor of Moses, as it were, not to
start on an independent career of his own; and that particular call he
most humbly and cheerfully accepted. Instead of breaking with the
past, he was delighted to build on it as his foundation, and carry it
out to its predestined issues. It was no part of his work to improve
on what Moses had done; he was simply to accept it and carry it out.
He had his brief, he had his instructions, and these it was his one
business to fulfil. No puritan ever accepted God's revelation with
more profound and unquestioning reverence than Joshua accepted the law
of Moses. No Oliver Cromwell or General Gordon ever recognised more
absolutely his duty to carry out the plan of another, and, undisturbed
himself, leave the issue in His hands. He was to be a very incarnation
of Moses, and was so to meditate on his law day and night that his
mind should be saturated with its contents.

This, indeed, was a necessity for Joshua, because he required to have
a clear perception of the great purpose of God regarding Israel. Why
had God taken the unusual course of entering into covenant with a
single family out of the mass of mankind? A purpose deliberately
formed and clung to for more than four hundred years must be a grand
object in the Divine mind. It was Joshua's part to keep the people in
mind of the solemnity and grandeur of their mission and to call them
to a corresponding mode of life. What can more effectually give
dignity and self-respect to men than to find that they have a part in
the grand purposes of God? To find that God is not asleep; that He has
neither given up the world to chance nor bound it with a chain of
irreversible law, but that He calls us to be fellow-workers with Him
in a great plan which shall in the end tend gloriously to advance the
highest welfare of man?

This habit of meditation on the law which Joshua was instructed to
practise was of great value to one who was to lead a busy life. No
mere cursory perusal of a book of law can secure the ends for which it
is given. The memory is treacherous, the heart is careless, and the
power of worldly objects to withdraw attention is proverbial. We must
be continually in contact with the Book of God. The practice enjoined
on Joshua has kept its ground among a limited class during all the
intervening generations. In every age of the Church it has been
impressed on all devout and earnest hearts that there can be no
spiritual prosperity and progress without daily meditation on the Word
of God. It would be hard to believe in the genuine Christianity of any
one who did not make a practice morning and evening of bringing his
soul into contact with some portion of that Word. And wherever an
eminent degree of piety has been reached, we shall find that an
eminently close study of the Word has been practised. Where the habit
is perfunctory, the tendency is to omit the meditation and to be
content with the reading. Even in pious families there is a risk that
the reading of the Scriptures morning and evening may push the duty of
meditation aside, though even then we are not to despise the benefit
that arises from the familiarity gained with their contents.

But, on the other hand, the instances are numberless of men attaining
to great intimacy with the Divine will and to a large conformity to
it, through meditation on the Scriptures. To many the daily portion
comes fresh as the manna gathered each morning at the door of Israel's
camp. Think of men like George Müller of Bristol reading the Bible
from beginning to end as many as a hundred times, and finding it more
fresh and interesting at each successive perusal. Think of Livingstone
reading it right on four times when detained at Manyuema, and Stanley
three times during his Emin expedition. What resources must be in it,
what hidden freshness, what power to feed and revive the soul! The sad
thing is that the practice is so rare. Listen to the prophet-like
rebuke of Edward Irving to the generation of his time: "Who feels the
sublime dignity there is in a fresh saying descended from the porch of
heaven? Who feels the awful weight there is in the least iota that
hath dropped from the lips of God? Who feels the thrilling fear or
trembling hope there is in words whereon the eternal destinies of
himself do hang? Who feels the swelling tide of gratitude within his
breast for redemption and salvation, instead of flat despair and
everlasting retribution?... This book, the offspring of the Divine
mind and the perfection of heavenly wisdom is permitted to lie from
day to day, perhaps from week to week, unheeded and unperused; never
welcome to our happy, healthy, and energetic moods; admitted, if
admitted at all, in seasons of weakness, feeblemindedness, and
disabling sorrow.... Oh, if books had but tongues to speak their
wrongs, then might this book exclaim, Hear, O heavens, and give ear,
O earth! I came from the love and embrace of God, and mute nature, to
whom I brought no boon, did me rightful homage.... I set open to you
the gates of salvation and the way of eternal life, heretofore
unknown.... But ye requited me with no welcome, ye held no festivity
on my arrival; ye sequester me from happiness and heroism, closeting
me with sickness and infirmity; ye make not of me, nor use me as your
guide to wisdom and prudence, but press me into your list of duties,
and withdraw me to a mere corner of your time, and most of you set me
at nought and utterly disregard me.... If you had entertained me, I
should have possessed you of the peace which I had with God when I was
with Him and was daily His delight rejoicing always before Him....
Because I have called and ye refused.... I also will laugh at your
calamity and mock when your fear cometh."[5]

  [5] "For the Oracles of God: four Orations." Pp. 3-6.

It is no excuse for neglecting this habitual reading of the Book of
God that He places us now more under the action of principles than the
discipline of details. For the glory of principles is that they have a
bearing on every detail of our life. "Whatsoever ye do in word or in
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and
the Father by Him." What could be more comprehensive than this
principle of action--a principle that extends to "whatsoever we do"?
There is not a moment of our waking life, not an action great or small
we ever perform where the influence of this wide precept ought not to
be felt. And how can it become thus pervasive unless we make it a
subject of continual meditation?

In the case of Joshua, all the strenuous exhortations to him to be
strong and of a good courage, and to meditate on the Divine law as
given by Moses by day and by night, were designed to qualify him for
his great work--"to divide the land for an inheritance to the people
as God had sworn to their fathers." First of all, the land had to be
conquered; and there is no difficulty in seeing how necessary it was
for one who had this task on hand to be strong and of a good courage,
and to meditate on God's law. Then the land had to be divided, and the
people settled in their new life, and Joshua had to initiate them, as
it were, in that life; he had to bind on their consciences the
conditions on which the land was to be enjoyed, and start them in the
performance of the duties, moral, social and religious, which the
Divine constitution required. Here lay the most difficult part of his
task. To conquer the country required but the talent of a military
commander; to divide the country was pretty much an affair of
trigonometry; but to settle them in a higher sense, to create a moral
affinity between them and their God, to turn their hearts to the
covenant of their fathers, to wean them from their old idolatries and
establish them in such habits of obedience and trust that the doing of
God's will would become to them a second nature,--here was the
difficulty for Joshua. They had not only to be planted physically in
groups over the country, but they had to be married to it morally,
otherwise they had no security of tenure, but were liable to summary
eviction. It was no land of rest for idolaters; all depended on the
character they attained; loyalty to God was the one condition of a
happy settlement; let them begin to trifle with the claims of Jehovah,
punishment and suffering, to be followed finally by dispersion and
captivity, was the inevitable result.

It was thus that Joshua had to justify his name,--to show that he was
worthy to be called by the name of Jesus. The work of Jesus may be
said to have been symbolized both by that of Moses and that of Joshua.
Moses symbolized the Redeemer in rescuing the people from Egypt and
their miserable bondage there; as "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law." Joshua symbolized Him as He renews our hearts and
makes us "meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in
light." For there are conditions moral and spiritual essential to our
dwelling in the heavenly Canaan. "Lord, who shall abide in Thy
tabernacle? and who shall dwell in Thy holy hill? He that hath clean
hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity,
nor sworn deceitfully." The atmosphere of heaven is too pure to be
breathed by the unregenerate and unsanctified. There must be an
adaptation between the character of the inhabitant and the place of
his habitation. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Thus we see the connection between Joshua's devotion to the book of
the law, and success in the great work of his life--"then thou shalt
make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." No
doubt he would have the appearance of success if he simply cleared out
the inhabitants who were so degraded by sin that God was compelled to
sweep them off, and settled His people in their room. But that, after
all, was but a small matter unless accompanied by something more. It
would not secure the people from at last sharing the fate of the old
inhabitants; so far at least that though they should not be
exterminated, yet they would be scattered over the face of the globe.
How could Joshua get rid of these ominous words in the song of Moses
to which they had so lately listened?--"They provoked Him to jealousy
with strange gods, with abominations provoked they Him to anger. They
sacrificed to devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new
gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.... And He said,
I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for
they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith." But
even if in the end of the day it should come to this, nevertheless
Joshua might so move and impress the people for the time being, that
in the immediate future all would be well, and the dreaded
consummation would be put off to a distant day.

And so at all times, in dealing with human beings, we can obtain no
adequate and satisfying success unless their hearts are turned to God.
Your children may be great scholars, or successful merchants, or
distinguished authors, or brilliant artists, or even statesmen; what
does it come to if they are dead to God, and have no living fellowship
with Jesus Christ? Your congregation may be large and influential, and
wealthy, and liberal; what if they are worldly, proud, and
contentious? We must aim at far deeper effects, effects not to be
found without the Spirit of God. The more we labour in this spirit,
the more shall our way be made prosperous, the better shall be our
success. "For them that honour Me I will honour; but they that despise
Me shall be lightly esteemed."




CHAPTER VI.

_JOSHUA'S CHARGE TO THE PEOPLE._

JOSHUA i. 10-18.


God has spoken to Joshua; it is now Joshua's part to speak to the
people. The crossing of the Jordan must be set about at once, and in
earnest, and all the risks and responsibilities involved in that step
firmly and fearlessly encountered.

And in the steps taken by Joshua for this purpose we see, what we so
often see, how the natural must be exhausted before the supernatural
is brought in. Thus, in communicating with the people through the
_shoterim_, or officers, the first order which he gives is to "command
the people to prepare them victuals." "Victuals" denotes the natural
products of the country, and is evidently used in opposition to
"manna." In another passage we read that "the manna ceased on the very
morning after they had eaten of the old corn of the land" (chap. v.
12). This may have been a considerable time before, for the conquest
of Sihon and Og would give the people possession of ample stores of
food out of the old corn of the land. The manna was a provision for
the desert only, where few or no natural supplies of food could be
found. But the very day when natural stores become available, the
manna is discontinued. One cannot but contrast the carefully limited
use of the supernatural in Scripture with its arbitrary and unstinted
employment in mythical or fictional writings. Often in such cases it
is brought in with a wanton profusion, simply to excite wonder,
sometimes to gratify the love of the grotesque, not because natural
means could not have accomplished what was sought, but through sheer
love of revelling in the supernatural. In Scripture the natural is
never superseded when it is capable of either helping or accomplishing
the end. The east wind helps to dry the Red Sea, although the rod of
Moses has to be stretched out for the completion of the work. The
angel of God knocks Peter's chains from his limbs and opens the prison
gates for him, but leaves him to find his way thereafter as best he
can. So now. It is now in the power of the people to prepare them
victuals, and though God might easily feed them as He has fed them
miraculously for forty years, He leaves them to find food for
themselves. In all cases the co-operation of the Divine and the human
is carried out with an instructive combination of generosity and
economy; man is never to be idle; alike in the affairs of the temporal
and the spiritual life, the Divine energy always stimulates to
activity, never lulls to sleep.

A little explanation is needed respecting the time when Joshua said
the Jordan must be crossed--"within three days." If the narrative of
the first two chapters be taken in chronological order, more than
three days must have elapsed between the issuing of this order and the
crossing of the river, because it is expressly stated that the two
spies who were sent to examine Jericho hid themselves for three days
in the mountains, and thereafter recrossed the Jordan and returned to
Joshua (ii. 22). But it is quite in accordance with the practice of
Scripture narrative to introduce an episode out of its chronological
place so that it may not break up the main record. It is now generally
held that the spies were sent on before Joshua issued this order to
the people, because it is not likely that he would have committed
himself to a particular day before he got the information which he
expected the spies to bring. In any case, it is plain that no needless
delay was allowed. Half a week more and Jordan would be crossed,
although the means of crossing it had not yet been made apparent; and
then the people would be actually in their own inheritance, within the
very country which in the dim ages of the past had been promised to
their fathers.

Yes, the people generally; but already an arrangement had been made
for the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh on the
east side of the river. How, then, were they to act in the present
crisis? That had been determined between them and Moses when they got
leave to occupy the lands of Sihon and Og, on account of their
suitableness for their abundant flocks and herds. It had been arranged
then that, leaving their cattle and their children, a portion of the
men likewise, the rest would cross the river with their brethren and
take their share of the toils and risks of the conquest of Western
Canaan. All that Joshua needs to do now is to remind them of this
arrangement. Happily there was no reluctance on their part to fulfil
it. There was no going back from their word, even though they might
have found a loophole of escape. They might have said that as the
conquest of Sihon and Og had been accomplished so easily, so the
conquest of the western tribes would be equally simple. Or they might
have said that the nine tribes and a half could furnish quite a large
enough army to dispossess the Canaanites. Or they might have
discovered that their wives and children were exposed to dangers they
had not apprehended, and that it would be necessary for the entire
body of the men to remain and protect them. But they fell back on no
such after thought. They kept their word at no small cost of toil and
danger, and furnished thereby a perpetual lesson for those who, having
made a promise under pressure, are tempted to resile from it when the
pressure is removed. Fidelity to engagements is a noble quality, just
as laxity in regard to them is a miserable sin. Even Pagan Rome could
boast of a Regulus who kept his oath by returning to Carthage, though
it was to encounter a miserable death. In the fifteenth psalm it is a
feature in the portrait of the man who is to abide in God's tabernacle
and dwell in His holy hill, that he "sweareth to his own hurt, and
changeth not."

One arrangement was made by these transjordanic tribes that was
perfectly reasonable--a portion of the men remained to guard their
families and their property. The number that passed over was forty
thousand (Josh. iv. 13), whereas the entire number of men capable of
bearing arms (dividing Manasseh into two) was a hundred and ten
thousand (Num. xxvi. 7, 18, and 34). But the contingent actually sent
was amply sufficient to redeem the promise, and, consisting probably
of picked men, was no doubt a very efficient portion of the force. The
actual fighting force of the other tribes would probably be in the
same proportion to the whole; and there, too, a section would have to
be left to guard the women, children, and flocks, so that in point of
fact the labours and dangers of the conquest were about equally
divided between all the tribes.

Here, then, was an edifying spectacle: those who had been first
provided for did not forget those who had not yet obtained any
settlement; but held themselves bound to assist their brethren until
they should be as comfortably settled as themselves.

It was a grand testimony against selfishness, a grand assertion of
brotherhood, a beautiful manifestation of loyalty and public spirit;
and, we may add, an instructive exhibition of the working of the
method by which God's providence seeks to provide for the
dissemination of many blessings among the children of men. It was an
act of socialism, without the drawbacks which most forms of socialism
involve.

God has allowed many differences in the lots of mankind, bestowing on
some ample means, for which they toiled not neither did they spin;
bestowing, often on the same individuals, a higher position in life,
with corresponding social influence; setting some nations in the van
of the world's march, bestowing on some churches very special
advantages and means of influence; and it is a great question that
arises--what obligations rest on these favoured individuals and
communities? Does God lay any duty on them toward the rest of mankind?

The inquiry in its full scope is too wide for our limits; let us
restrict ourselves to the element in respect of which the
transjordanic tribes had the advantage of the others--the element of
time. What do those who have received their benefits early owe to
those who are behind them in time?

The question leads us first to the family constitution, but there is
really no question here. The obligations of parents to their children
are the obligations of those who have already got their settlement to
those who have not; of those who have already got means, and
strength, and experience, and wisdom to those who have not yet had
time to acquire them. It is only the vilest of our race that refuse to
own their obligations here, and this only after their nature has been
perverted and demonized by vice. To all others it is an obligation
which amply repays itself. The affection between parent and child in
every well-ordered house sweetens the toil that often falls so heavily
on the elders; while the pleasure of seeing their children filling
stations of respectability and usefulness, and the enjoyment of their
affection, even after they have gone out into the world, amply repay
their past labours, and greatly enrich the joys of life.

We advance to the relation of the rich to the poor, especially of
those who are born to riches to those who are born to obscurity and
toil. Had the providence of God no purpose in this arrangement? You
who come into the world amid luxury and splendour, who have never been
required to work for a single comfort, who have the means of
gratifying expensive tastes, and who grudge no expenditure on the
objects of your fancy:--was it meant that you were to sustain no
relation of help and sympathy to the poor, especially your neighbors,
your tenants, or your workpeople? Do you fulfil the obligations of
life when, pouring into your coffers the fruits of other men's toil,
you hurry off to the resorts of wealth and fashion, intent only on
your own enjoyment, and without a thought of the toiling multitude you
leave at home? Is it right of you to leave deserving people to fall
peradventure into starvation and despair, without so much as turning a
finger to prevent it? What are you doing for the widows and orphans?
Selfish and sinful beings! let these old Hebrews read you a lesson of
condemnation! They could not selfishly enjoy their comfortable homes
till they had done their part on behalf of their brethren, for
wherever there is a brotherly heart a poor brother's welfare is as
dear as one's own.

Then there is the case of nations, and pre-eminently of our own. Some
races attain to civilization, and order, and good government sooner
than others. They have all the benefit of settled institutions and
enlightened opinion, of discoveries in the arts and sciences, and of
the manifold comforts and blessings with which life is thus enriched,
while other nations are sunk in barbarism and convulsed by disorder.
But how much more prone are such nations to claim the rights of
superiority than to play the part of the elder brother! We are
thankful for the great good that has been done in India, and in other
countries controlled by the older nations. But even in the case of
India, how many have gone there not to benefit the natives, but with
the hope of enriching themselves. How ready have many been to indulge
their own vices at the cost of the natives, and how little has it
pained them to see them becoming the slaves of new vices that have
sunk them lower than before. Our Indian opium traffic, and our drink
traffic generally among native races--what is their testimony to our
brotherly feeling? What are we to think of the white traders among the
South Sea islands, stealing and robbing and murdering their feebler
fellow-creatures? What are we to think of the traffic in slaves, and
the inconceivable brutalities with which it is carried on? Or what are
we to think of our traders at home, sending out in almost uncountable
profusion the rum, and the gin, and the other drinks by which the poor
weak natives are at once enticed, enslaved, and destroyed? Is there
any development in selfishness that has ever been heard of more
heartless and horrible? Why can't they let them alone, if they will
not try to benefit them? What can come to any man in the end but the
well-merited punishment of those who out of sheer greed have made
miserable savages tenfold more the children of hell than before?

We pass over the case of the early settlers in colonies, because there
is hardly any obligation more generally recognised than that of such
settlers to lend a helping hand to new arrivals. We go on to the case
of Churches. The light of saving truth has come to some lands before
others. We in this country have had our Christianity for centuries,
and in these recent years have had so lively a dispensation of the
gospel of Christ that many have felt more than ever His power to
forgive, to comfort, to lift us up and bless us. Have we no duty to
those parts of the earth which are still in the shadow of death? If we
are not actually settled in the Promised Land, we are as good as
settled, because we have the Divine promise, and we believe in that
promise. But what of those who are yet "without Christ, alienated from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world"? Have we no
responsibility for them? Have we no interest in that Divine plan which
seeks to use those who first receive the light as instruments of
imparting it to the rest? Infidels object that Christianity cannot be
of God, because if Christianity furnishes the only Divine remedy for
sin it would have been diffused as widely as the evil for which it is
the cure. Our reply is, that God's plan is to give the light first to
some, and to charge them to give it freely and cordially to others. We
say, moreover, that this plan is a wholesome one for those who are
called to work it, because it draws out and strengthens what is best
and noblest in them, and because it tends to form very loving bonds
between those who give and those who get the benefit. But what if the
first recipients of the light fold their hands, content to have got
the blessing themselves, and decline to do their part in sending it to
the rest? Surely there is here no ordinary combination of sins!
Indolence and selfishness at the root, and, with these, a want of all
public spirit and beneficent activity; and, moreover, not mere neglect
but contempt of the Divine plan by which God has sought the universal
diffusion of the blessing. Again we say, look to these men of Reuben,
Gad, and Manasseh. They were not the _élite_ of the race of Israel.
Their fathers, at least in the case of Reuben and Dan, were not among
the more honoured of the sons of Jacob. And yet they had the grace to
think of their brethren, when so many among us are utterly careless of
ours. And not only to think of them, but to go over the Jordan and
fight for them, possibly die for them; nor would they think of
returning to the comfort of their homes till they had seen their
brethren in the west settled in theirs.

And this readiness of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh to
fulfil the engagement under which they had come to Moses, was not the
only gratifying occurrence which Joshua met with on announcing the
impending crossing of the Jordan. For the whole people declared very
cordially their acceptance of Joshua as their leader, vowed to him the
most explicit fidelity, declared their purpose to pay him the same
honour as they had paid to Moses, and denounced a sentence of death
against any one that would not hearken to his words in all that he
commanded them.

Joshua, in fact, obtained from them a promise of loyalty beyond what
they had ever given to Moses till close on his death. It was the great
trial of Moses that the people so habitually complained of him and
worried him, embittering his life by ascribing to him even the natural
hardships of the wilderness, as well as the troubles that sprang
directly from their sins. It is the unwillingness of his people to
trust him, after all he has sacrificed for them, that gives such a
pathetic interest to the life of Moses, and makes him, more than
perhaps any other Old Testament prophet, so striking an example of
unrequited affection. After crossing the Red Sea, all the marvels of
that deliverance from Pharaoh of which he had been the instrument are
swallowed up and forgotten by the little inconveniences of the
journey. And afterwards, when they are doomed to the forty years'
wandering, they are ready enough to blame him for it, forgetting how
he fell down before God and pled for them when God threatened to
destroy them. Moreover, his enactments against the idolatry they loved
so well made him anything but popular, to say nothing of the
burdensome ceremonial which he enjoined them to observe. The time of
real loyalty to Moses was just the little period before his death,
when he led them against Sihon and Og, and a great stretch of fertile
and beautiful land fell into their hands. Moses had just gained the
greatest victory of his life, he had just become master of the hearts
of his people, when he was called away. For Moses at last did gain the
people's hearts, and those to whom Joshua appealed could say without
irony or sarcasm, "According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things,
so will we hearken unto thee."

In point of fact a great change had been effected on the people at
last. Moses had laboured, and Joshua now entered into his labours. The
same thing has often occurred in history, and notably in our own. In
civil life how much do we owe to the noble champions of freedom of
other days, through whose patriotism, courage, and self-denial the
hard fight was fought and the victory won that enables us to sit under
our vine and under our fig tree. In ecclesiastical life was it not the
blood of the martyrs and the struggles of those of whom the world was
not worthy, who wandered in deserts and in mountains and in dens and
caves of the earth, that won for us the freedom and the peace in which
we now rejoice? What blessings we owe to those that have gone before
us! And how can we better discharge our obligations to them than by
hastening to the aid of those who have but emerged from the period of
struggle and suffering, like the Christians of Madagascar or of
Uganda, whose fearful sufferings and awful deaths under the merciless
rule of heathen kings made Christendom stand aghast, and drew a wail
of anguish from her bosom?

The unanimity of the people in their loyalty to Joshua is a touching
sight. So far as appears there was not one discordant note in that
harmonious burst of loyalty. No Korah, Dathan, or Abiram rose up to
decline his rule and embarrass him in his new position. It is a
beautiful sight, the united loyalty of a great nation. Nothing more
beautiful has ever been known in the long reign of Queen Victoria than
the crowding of her people in hundreds of thousands to witness her
procession to St. Paul's on that morning when she went to return
thanks for the rescue of her eldest son from the very jaws of death.
Not one discordant note was uttered, not one disloyal feeling was
known; the vast multitude were animated by the spirit of sympathy and
affection for one who had tried to do her duty as a queen and as a
mother. It was a sight not unlike to this that was seen in the streets
of New York at the centennial celebration of the inauguration of
George Washington as first President of the United States. One was
thrilled by the thought that not only the multitude that thronged the
streets, but the representatives of the whole nation, gathered in
their churches throughout the land, were animated by a common
sentiment of gratitude to the man whose wisdom and courage had laid
the foundation of all the prosperity and blessing of the last hundred
years. Are not such scenes the pattern of that spirit of loyalty which
the entire race of man owes to Him who by His blood redeemed the
world, and whose rule and influence, if the world would but accept of
it, are so beneficent and so blessed? Yet how far are we from such a
state! How few are the hearts that throb with true loyalty to the
Saviour, and whose most fervent aspiration for the world is, that it
would only throw down its weapons of rebellion, and give to him its
hearty allegiance! Strange that the Old Testament Joshua should have
got at once what eighteen hundred years have failed to bring to the
New Testament Jesus! God hasten the day of universal light and
universal love, when He shall reign from sea to sea, and from the
river to the ends of the earth!

    "One song employs all nations, and all cry
    'Worthy the Lamb, for He was slain for us'!
    The dwellers in the vales and on the rocks
    Shout to each other, and the mountain tops
    From distant mountains catch the flying joy,
    Till nation after nation taught the strain
    Earth rolls the rapturous Hosanna round."




CHAPTER VII.

_THE SPIES IN JERICHO._

JOSHUA ii.


It was not long ere Joshua found an occasion not only for the exercise
of that courage to which he had been so emphatically called both by
God and the people, but for calling on others to practise the same
manly virtue. For the duty which he laid on the two spies--detectives
we should now call them--to enter Jericho and bring a report of its
condition, was perhaps the most perilous to which it was possible for
men to be called. It was like sending them into a den of lions, and
expecting them to return safe and sound. Evidently he was happy in
finding two men ready for the duty and the risk. Young men they are
called further on (vi. 23), and it is quite likely that they were
leading men in their tribes. No doubt they might disguise themselves,
they might divest themselves of anything in dress that was
characteristically Hebrew, they might put on the clothes of
neighbouring peasants, and carry a basket of produce for sale in the
city; and as for language, they might be able to use the Canaanite
dialect and imitate the Canaanite accent. But if they did try any such
disguise, they must have known that it would be of doubtful efficacy;
the officials of Jericho could not fail to be keenly on the watch,
and no disguise could hide the Hebrew features, or divest them wholly
of the air of foreigners. Nevertheless the two men had courage for the
risky enterprise. Doubtless it was the courage that sprang from faith;
it was in God's service they went, and God's protection would not fail
them. To be able to find agents so willing and so suitable was a proof
to Joshua that God had already begun to fulfil His promises.

Joshua had been a spy himself, and it was natural enough that he
should think of the same mode of reconnoitring the country, now that
they were again on the eve of making the entrance into it which they
should have made nearly forty years before. There is no reason to
think that in taking this step Joshua acted presumptuously, proceeding
on his own counsel when he should have sought counsel of God. For
Joshua might rightly infer that he ought to take this course inasmuch
as it had been followed before with God's approval in the case of the
twelve. Its purpose was twofold--to obtain information and
confirmation. Information as to the actual condition and spirit of the
Canaanites, as to the view they took of the approaching invasion of
the Israelites, and the impression that had been made on them by all
the remarkable things that had happened in the desert; and
confirmation,--new proof for his own people that God was with them,
fresh encouragement to go up bravely to the attack, and fresh
assurance that not one word would ever fail them of all the things
which the Lord had promised.

We follow the two men as they leave Shittim, so named from the masses
of bright acacia which shed their glory over the plain; then cross the
river at "the fords," which, flooded though they were, were still
practicable for swimmers; enter the gates of Jericho, and move along
the streets. In such a city as Jericho, and among such an immoral
people as the Canaanites, it was not strange that they should fall in
with a woman of Rahab's occupation, and should receive an invitation
to her house. Some commentators have tried to make out that she was
not so bad as she is represented, but only an innkeeper; but the
meaning of the word both here and as translated in Heb. xi. and James
ii. is beyond contradiction. Others have supposed that she was one of
the harlot-priestesses of Ashtoreth, but in that case she would have
had her dwelling in the precincts of a temple, not in an
out-of-the-way place on the walls of the city. We are to remember that
in the degraded condition of public opinion in Canaan, as indeed much
later in the case of the Hetairai of Athens, her occupation was not
regarded as disgraceful, neither did it banish her from her family,
nor break up the bonds of interest and affection between them, as it
must do in every moral community.[6] It was not accompanied with that
self-contempt and self-loathing which in other circumstances are its
fruits. We may quite easily understand how the spies might enter her
house simply for the purpose of getting the information they desired,
as modern detectives when tracking out crime so often find it
necessary to win the confidence and worm out the secrets of members of
the same wretched class. But the emissaries of Joshua were in too
serious peril, in too devout a mood, and in too high-strung a state of
nerve to be at the mercy of any Delilah that might wish to lure them
to careless pleasure. Their faith, their honour, their patriotism, and
their regard to their leader Joshua, all demanded the extremest
circumspection and self-control; they were, like Peter, walking on the
sea; unless they kept their eye on their Divine protector, their
courage and presence of mind would fail them, they would be at the
mercy of their foes.

  [6] It is somewhat remarkable that the present village of Riha, at
  or near the site of the ancient Jericho, is noted for its
  licentiousness. The men, it is said, wink at the infidelity of the
  women, a trait of character singularly at variance with the
  customs of the Bedouin. "At our encampment over 'Ain Terâbeh (says
  Robinson) the night before we reached this place, we overheard our
  Arabs asking the Khatib for a paper or written charm to protect
  them from the women of Jericho; and from their conversation it
  seemed that illicit intercourse between the latter and strangers
  that come here is regarded as a matter of course. Strange that the
  inhabitants of the valley should have retained this character from
  the earliest ages; and that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah should
  still flourish upon the same accursed soil."--"Researches in
  Palestine," i. 553.

Whether disguised or not, the two men had evidently been noticed and
suspected when they entered the city, which they seem to have done in
the dusk of evening. But, happily for them, the streets of Jericho
were not patrolled by policemen ready to pounce on suspicious persons,
and run them in for judicial examination. The king or burgomaster of
the place seems to have been the only person with whom it lay to deal
with them. Whoever had detected them, after following them to Rahab's
house, had then to resort to the king's residence and give their
information to him. Rahab had an inkling of what was likely to follow,
and being determined to save the men, she hid them on the roof of the
house, and covered them with stalks of flax, stored there for domestic
use. When, after some interval, the king's messengers came, commanding
her to bring them forth since they were Israelites come to search the
city, she was ready with her plausible tale. Two men had indeed come
to her, but she could not tell who they were,--it was no business of
hers to be inquisitive about them; the men had left just before the
gates were shut, and doubtless, if they were alert and pursued after
them, they would overtake them, for they could not be far off. The
king's messengers had not half the wit of the woman; they took her at
her word, made no search of her house, but set out on the wild-goose
chase on which she had sent them. Sense and spirit failed them alike.

We are not prepared for the remarkable development of her faith that
followed. This first Canaanite across the Jordan with whom the
Israelites met was no ordinary person. Rays of Divine light had
entered that unhallowed soul, not to be driven back, not to be hidden
under a bushel, but to be welcomed, and ultimately improved and
followed. Our minds are carried forward to what was so impressive in
the days of our Lord, when the publicans and the harlots entered into
the kingdom before the scribes and the pharisees. We are called to
admire the riches of the grace of God, who does not scorn the moral
leper, but many a time lays His hand upon him, and says "I will, be
thou clean." "They shall come from the east, and from the west, and
from the north, and from the south, and shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer
darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

In the first place, Rahab made a most explicit confession of her
faith, not only in Jehovah as the God of the Hebrews, but in Him as
the one only God of heaven and earth. It would have been nothing had
she been willing to give to the Hebrew God a place, a high place, or
even the highest place among the gods. Her faith went much further.
"The Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and in earth beneath."
This is an exclusive faith--Baal and Ashtoreth are nowhere. What a
remarkable conviction to take hold of such a mind! All the traditions
of her youth, all the opinions of her neighbours, all the terrors of
her priests set at nought, swept clean off the board, in face of the
overwhelming evidence of the sole Godhead of Jehovah!

Again, she explained the reason for this faith. "We have heard how the
Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of
Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were
on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed."
The woman has had an eye to see and an ear to hear. She has not gazed
in stupid amazement on the marvellous tokens of Divine power displayed
before the world, nor accepted the sophistry of sceptics referring all
these marvels to accidental thunderstorms and earthquakes and high
winds. She knew better than to suppose that a nation of slaves by
their own resources could have eluded all the might of Pharaoh,
subsisted for forty years in the wilderness, and annihilated the
forces of such renowned potentates as Sihon and Og. She was no
philosopher, and could not have reasoned on the doctrine of causation,
but her common sense taught her that you cannot have extraordinary
effects without corresponding causes. It is one of the great
weaknesses of modern unbelief that with all its pretensions to
philosophy, it is constantly accepting effects without an adequate
cause. Jesus Christ, though He revolutionized the world, though He
founded an empire to which that of the Cæsars is not for a moment to
be compared, though all that were about Him admitted His supernatural
power and person, after all, was nothing but a man. The gospel that
has brought peace and joy to so many weary hearts, that has
transformed the slaves of sin into children of heaven, that has turned
cannibals into saints, and fashioned so many an angelic character out
of the rude blocks of humanity, is but a cunningly devised fable. What
contempt for such sophistries, such vain explanations of facts patent
to all would this poor woman have shown! How does she rebuke the many
that keep pottering in poor natural explanations of plain supernatural
facts, instead of manfully admitting that it is the Arm of God that
has been revealed, and the Voice of God that has spoken!

Further, Rahab informed the spies that when they heard these things
the inhabitants of the land had become faint, their hearts melted, and
there remained no more courage in them because of the Israelites. For
they felt that the tremendous Power that had desolated Egypt and dried
up the sea, that had crushed Sihon King of the Amorites and Og King of
Bashan like nuts under the feet of a giant, was now close upon
themselves. What could they do to arrest the march of such a power,
and avert the ruin which it was sure to inflict? They had neither
resource nor refuge--their hearts melted in them. It is when Divine
Power draws near to men, or when men draw near to Divine Power that
they get the right measure of its dimensions and the right sense of
their own impotence. Caligula could scoff at the gods at a distance,
but in any calamity no man was more prostrate with terror. It is easy
for the atheist or the agnostic to assume a bold front when God is far
off, but woe betide him when He draws near in war, in pestilence, or
in death!

If we ask, How could Rahab have such a faith and yet be a harlot? or
how could she have such faith in God and yet utter that tissue of
falsehoods about the spies with which she deluded the messengers of
the king? we answer that light comes but gradually and slowly to
persons like Rahab. The conscience is but gradually enlightened. How
many men have been slaveholders after they were Christians! Worse than
that, did not the godly John Newton, one of the two authors of the
Olney hymns, continue for some time in the slave trade, conveying
cargoes of his fellow-creatures stolen from their homes, before he
awoke to a sense of its infamy? Are there no persons among us calling
themselves Christians engaged in traffic that brings awful destruction
to the bodies and souls of their fellow-men? That Rahab should have
continued as she was after she threw in her lot with God's people is
inconceivable; but there can be no doubt how she was living when she
first comes into Bible history. And as to her falsehoods, though some
have excused lying when practised in order to save life, we do not
vindicate her on that ground. All falsehood, especially what is spoken
to those who have a right to trust us, must be offensive to the God of
truth, and the nearer men get to the Divine image, through the growing
closeness of their Divine fellowship, the more do they recoil from it.
Rahab was yet in the outermost circle of the Church, just touching the
boundary; the nearer she got to the centre the more would she recoil
alike from the foulness and the falseness of her early years.

We have to notice further in Rahab a determination to throw in her lot
with the people of God. In spirit she had ceased to be a Canaanite and
become an Israelite. She showed this by taking the side of the spies
against the king, and exposing herself to certain and awful
punishment if it had been found out that they were in her house. And
her confidential conversation with them before she sent them away, her
cordial recognition of their God, her expression of assurance that the
land would be theirs, and her request for the protection of herself
and her relations when the Israelites should become masters of
Jericho, all indicated one who desired to renounce the fellowship of
her own people and cast in her lot with the children of God. That she
was wholly blameless in the way in which she went about this, in
favouring the spies against her own nation in this underhand way, we
will not affirm; but one cannot look for a high sense of honour in
such a woman. Still, whatever may be said against her, the fact of her
remarkable faith remains conspicuous and beyond dispute, all the more
striking, too, that she is the last person in whom we should have
expected to find anything of the kind. That faith beyond doubt was
destined to expand and fructify in her heart, giving birth to virtues
and graces that made her after life a great contrast to what it had
been. No doubt the words of the Apostle might afterwards have been
applied to her--"Such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
the Spirit of the Lord."

And yet, though her faith may at this time have been but as a grain of
mustard seed, we see two effects of it that are not to be despised.
One was her protection of the Lord's people, as represented by the
spies; the other was her concern for her own relations. Father,
mother, brothers, and sisters and all that they had, were dear to her,
and she took measures for their safety when the destruction of Jericho
should come. She exacted an oath of the two spies, and asked a pledge
of them, that they would all be spared when the crisis of the city
arrived. And the men passed their oath and arranged for the protection
of the family. No doubt it may be said that it was only their temporal
welfare about which she expressed concern, and for which she made
provision. But what more could she have been expected to do at that
moment? What more could the two spies have engaged to secure? It was
plain enough that if they were ever to obtain further benefit from
fellowship with God's people, their lives must be preserved in the
first instance from the universal destruction which was impending. Her
anxiety for her family, like her anxiety for herself, may even then
have begun to extend beyond things seen and temporal, and a fair
vision of peace and joy may have begun to flit across her fancy at the
thought of the vile and degrading idolatry of the Canaanites being
displaced in them by the service of a God of holiness and of love. But
neither was she far enough advanced to be able as yet to give
expression to this hope, nor were the spies the persons to whom it
would naturally have been communicated. The usual order in the
Christian life is, that as anxiety about ourselves begins in a sense
of personal danger and a desire for deliverance therefrom, so
spiritual anxiety about the objects of our affection has usually the
same beginning. But as it would be a miserable thing for the new life
to stand still as soon as our personal safety was secured, so it would
be a wretched affection that sought nothing more on behalf of our
dearest friends. When, by accepting Christ, we get the blessing of
personal safety, we only reach a height from which we see how many
other things we need. We become ashamed of our unholy passions, our
selfish hearts, our godless ways, and we aspire, with an ardour which
the world cannot understand, to purity and unselfishness and
consecration to God. For our friends we desire the same; we feel for
them as for ourselves, that the bondage and pollution of sin are
degrading, and that there can be neither peace, nor happiness, nor
real dignity for the soul until it is created anew after the image of
God.

Some commentators have laid considerable stress on the line of scarlet
thread that was to be displayed in the window by which the spies had
been let down, as a token and remembrance that that house was to be
spared when the victorious army should enter Jericho. In that scarlet
thread they have seen an emblem of atonement, an emblem of the blood
of Christ by which sinners are redeemed. To us it seems more likely
that, in fixing on this as the pledge of safety, the spies had in view
the blood sprinkled on the lintels and door posts of the Hebrew houses
in Egypt by which the destroying angel was guided to pass them by. The
scarlet rope had some resemblance to blood, and for this reason its
special purpose might be more readily apprehended. Obviously the spies
had no time to go into elaborate explanations at the moment. It is to
be observed that, as the window looked to the outside of the city, the
cord would be observed by the Israelites and the house recognised as
they marched round and round, according to the instructions of Joshua.
Not a man of all the host but would see it again and again, as they
performed their singular march, and would mark the position of the
house so carefully that its inmates, gathered together like the family
of Noah in the ark, would be preserved in perfect safety.

The stratagem of Rahab, and the mode of flight which she recommended
to the spies, fruits of woman's ready wit and intuitive judgment,
were both successful. She reminds us of the self-possession of Jael,
or of Abigail, the wife of Nabal. In the dark, the spies escaped to
the mountain,--the rugged rampart which bounded the valley of the
Jordan on the west. Hiding in its sequestered crevices for three days,
till the pursuit of the Jerichonians was over, they stole out under
cover of darkness, recrossed the Jordan, told Joshua of their stirring
and strange adventure, and wound up with the remark that the hearts of
the people of the country were melting because of them. How often is
this true, though unbelief cannot see it! When Jesus told His
disciples that He beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven, He
taught us that those who set themselves against Him and His cause are
fallen powers, no longer flushed with victory and hope, but defeated
and dejected, and consciously unable to overcome the heaven-aided
forces that are against them. Well for all Christian philanthropists
and missionaries of the Cross, and brave assailants of lust and greed
and vice and error, to bear this in mind! The cause of darkness never
can triumph in the end, it has no power to rally and rush against the
truth; if only the servants of Christ would be strong and of a good
courage, they too would find that the boldest champions of the world
do faint because of them.

When the spies return to Joshua and tell him all that has befallen
them, he accepts their adventure as a token for good. They have not
given him any hint how Jericho is to be taken; but, what is better,
they have shown him that the outstretched arm of God has been seen by
the heathen, and that the inhabitants of the country are paralysed on
account of it. The two spies were a great contrast to the ten that
accompanied Joshua and Caleb so long before: the ten declared the
land unassailable; the two looked on it as already conquered--"The
Lord hath delivered into our hands all the land." Children of Israel,
you must not be outdone in faith by a harlot; believe that God is with
you, go up, and possess the land!




CHAPTER VIII.

_JORDAN REACHED._

JOSHUA iii. 1-7.


The host of Israel had been encamped for some time at Shittim on the
east side of the river Jordan. It is well to understand the
geographical position. The Jordan has its rise beyond the northern
boundary of Palestine in three sources, the most interesting and
beautiful of the three being one in the neighbourhood of Cæsarea
Philippi. The three streamlets unite in the little lake now called
Huleh, but Merom in Bible times. Issuing from Merom in a single stream
the Jordan flows on to the lake of Galilee or Gennesareth, and from
thence, in a singularly winding course, to the Dead Sea. Its course
between the lake of Galilee and the Dead Sea is through a kind of
ravine within a ravine; the outer ravine is the valley or plain of
Jordan, now called by the Arabs El Ghor, which is about six miles in
width at its northern part, and considerably more at its southern,
where the Israelites now were. Within this "El Ghor" is a narrower
ravine about three-quarters of a mile in width, in the inner part of
which flows the river, its breadth varying from twenty to sixty yards.
Some travellers say that the Jordan does not now rise so high as
formerly, but others tell us they have seen it overflowing its banks
at the corresponding season. But "the plain" is not fertilized by the
rising waters: hence the reason why the banks of the river are not
studded with towns as in Egypt. It is quite possible, however, that in
the days of Abraham and Lot artificial irrigation was made use of:
hence the description given of it then that it was "like the land of
Egypt" (Gen. xiii. 10). If it be remarked as strange that Jordan
should have overflowed his banks "in time of harvest" (Josh. iii. 15)
when usually rain does not fall in Palestine, it is to be remembered
that all the sources of the Jordan are fountains, and that fountains
do not usually feel the effects of the rain until some time after it
has fallen. The harvest referred to is the barley harvest, and near
Jericho that harvest must have occurred earlier than throughout the
country on account of the greater heat.

The host of Israel lay encamped at Shittim, or Abel Shittim, "the
meadow or moist place of the acacias," somewhere in the Arboth-Moab or
fields of Moab. The exact spot is unknown, but it was near the foot of
the Moabite mountains, where the streams, coming down from the heights
on their way to the Jordan, caused a luxuriant growth of acacias, such
as are still found in some of the adjacent parts. Sunk as this part of
the plain is far below the level of the Mediterranean, and enclosed by
the mountains behind it as by the walls of a furnace, it possesses an
almost tropical climate which, though agreeable enough in winter and
early spring, would have been unbearable to the Israelites in the
height of summer. It was while Israel "abode in Shittim," during the
lifetime of Moses, that they were seduced by the Moabites to join in
the idolatrous revels of Baal-peor and punished with the plague. The
acacia groves gave facilities for the unhallowed revelling. That
chastisement had brought them into a better spirit, and now they were
prepared for better things.

The Jordan was not crossed then by bridges nor by ferry boats; the
only way of crossing was by fords. The ford nearest to Jericho, now
called El Mashra'a, is well known; it was the ford the Israelites
would have used had the river been fordable; and perhaps the tradition
is correct that there the crossing actually took place. When the spies
crossed and recrossed the river it must have been by swimming, as it
was too deep for wading at the time; but though this mode of crossing
was possible for individuals, it was manifestly out of the question
for a host. That the Israelites could by no possibility cross at that
season must have been the forlorn hope of the people of Jericho;
possibly they smiled at the folly of Joshua in choosing such a time of
the year, and asked in derision, How is he ever to get over?

The appointed day for leaving Shittim has come, and Joshua, determined
to lose no time, rises "early in the morning." Nor is it without a
purpose that so often in the Old Testament narrative, when men of
might commence some great undertaking, we are told that it was early
in the morning. In all hot climates work in the open air, if done at
all, must be done early in the morning or in the evening. But, besides
this, morning is the appropriate time for men of great energy and
decision to be astir; and it readily connects itself with the New
Testament text--"Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving
the Lord." The benefits of an early start for all kinds of successful
work are in the proverbs of all nations; and we may add that few have
reached a high position in the Christian life who could not say, in
the spirit of the hymn, "early in the morning my song shall rise to
thee." Nor can it easily be understood how under other conditions the
precept could be fulfilled--"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it
with thy might."

From Shittim to the banks of the Jordan is an easy journey of a few
miles, the road being all over level ground, so that the march was
probably finished before the sun had risen high. However strong their
faith, it could not be without a certain tremor of heart that the
people would behold the swollen river, and mark the walls and towers
of Jericho a few miles beyond. Three days are to be allowed, if not
for physical, certainly for moral and spiritual preparation for the
crossing of the river. The three days are probably the same as those
adverted to before (chap. i. 3), just as the order to select twelve
men to set up twelve stones (chap. iii. 12) is probably the same as
that more fully detailed in chap. iv. 2. The host is assembled in
orderly array on the east bank of the Jordan, when the officers pass
through to give instructions as to their further procedure. Three such
instructions are given.

First, they are to follow the ark. Whenever they see the priests that
bear it in motion, they are to move from their places and follow it.
There was no longer the pillar of fire to guide them--that was a
wilderness-symbol of God's presence, now superseded by a more
permanent symbol--the ark. Both symbols represented the same great
truth--the gracious presence and guidance of God, and both called the
people to the same duty and privilege, and to the same assurance of
absolute safety so long as they followed the Lord. Familiar sights are
apt to lose their significance, and the people must have become so
familiar with the wilderness-pillar that they would hardly think what
it meant. Now a different symbol is brought forward. The ark carried
in solemn procession by the priests is now the appointed token of
God's guidance, and therefore the object to be unhesitatingly
followed. A blessed truth for all time was clearly shadowed forth.
Follow God implicitly and unhesitatingly in every time of danger, and
you are safe. Set aside the counsels of casuistry, of fear, and of
worldly wisdom; find out God's will and follow it through good report
and through evil report, and you will be right. It was thus that
Joshua and Caleb did, and counselled the people to do, when they came
back from exploring the land; and now these two were reaping the
benefit; while the generation, that would have been comfortably
settled in the land if they had done the same, had perished in the
wilderness on account of their unbelief.

Secondly, a span of two thousand cubits was to be left between the
people and the ark. Some have thought that this was designed as a
token of reverence; but this is not the reason assigned. Had it been
designed as a token of reverence, it would have been prescribed long
before, as soon as the ark was constructed, and began to be carried
with the host through the wilderness. The intention was, "that ye may
know the way by which you must go" (ver. 4). If this arrangement had
not been made, the course of the ark through the flat plains of the
Jordan would not have been visible to the mass of the host, but only
to those in the immediate neighbourhood, and the people would have
been liable to straggle and fall into confusion, if not to diverge
altogether. In all cases, when we are looking out for Divine guidance,
it is of supreme importance that there be nothing in the way to
obscure the object or to distort our vision. Alas, how often is this
direction disregarded! How often do we allow our prejudices, or our
wishes, or our worldly interests to come between us and the Divine
direction we profess to desire! At some turn of our life we feel that
we ought not to take a decisive step without asking guidance from
above. But our own wishes bear strongly in a particular direction, and
we are only too prone to conclude that God is in favour of our plan.
We do not act honestly; we lay stress on all that is in favour of what
we like; we think little of considerations of the opposite kind. And
when we announce our decision, if the matter concern others, we are at
pains to tell them that we have made it matter of prayer. But why make
it matter of prayer if we do so with prejudiced minds? It is only when
our eye is single that the whole body is full of light. This clear
space of two thousand cubits between the people and the ark deserves
to be remembered. Let us have a like clear space morally between us
and God when we go to ask His counsel, lest peradventure we not only
mistake His directions, but bring disaster on ourselves and dishonour
on His name.

Thirdly, the people were instructed,--"Sanctify yourselves, for
to-morrow the Lord will do wonders among you." It is an instinct of
our nature that when we are to meet with some one of superior worldly
rank preparation must be made for the meeting. When Joseph was
summoned into the presence of Pharaoh, and they brought him hastily
out of the dungeon, "he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and
came in unto Pharaoh." The poorest subject of the realm would try to
wear his best and to look his best in the presence of his sovereign.
But while "man looketh on the outward appearance the Lord looketh on
the heart." And our very instincts teach us, that the heart needs to
be prepared when God is drawing near. It is not in our ordinary
careless mood that we ought to stand before Him who "sets our
iniquities before Him, our secret sins in the light of His
countenance." Grant that we can neither atone for our sin, nor cleanse
our hearts without His grace; nevertheless, in God's presence
everything that is possible ought to be done to remove the abominable
thing which He hates, so that He may not be affronted and offended by
its presence. Most appropriate, therefore, was Joshua's
counsel,--"Sanctify yourselves, for to-morrow the Lord will do wonders
among you." He will surpass all that your eyes have seen since that
night, much to be remembered, when He divided the sea. He will give
you a token of His love and care that will amaze you, much though you
have seen of it in the wilderness, and in the country of Sihon and Og.
Expect great things, prepare for great things; and let the chief of
your preparations be to sanctify yourselves, for "the foolish shall
not stand in His sight, and He hateth all workers of iniquity."

Next day (compare ver. 5, "to-morrow," and ver. 7, "this day") Joshua
turns to the priests and bids them "take up the ark of the covenant."
The priests obey; "they take up the ark, and go before the people."

Shall we take notice of the assertion of some that all those parts of
the narrative which refer to priests and religious service were
introduced by a writer bent on glorifying the priesthood? Or must we
repel the insinuation that the introduction of the ark, and the
miraculous effects ascribed to its presence, are mere myths? If they
are mere myths, they are certainly myths of a very peculiar kind.
Twice only in this book is the ark associated with miraculous
events--at the crossing of the Jordan and at the taking of Jericho.
If these were myths, why was the myth confined to these two occasions?
When mythical writers find a remarkable talisman they introduce it at
all sorts of times. Why was the ark not brought to the siege of Ai?
Why was it absent from the battles of Bethhoron and Merom? Why was its
presence restricted to the Jordan and Jericho, unless it was God's
purpose to inspire confidence at first through the visible symbol of
His presence, but leave the people afterwards to infer His presence by
faith?

The taking up of the ark by the priests was a decisive step. There
could be no resiling now from the course entered on. The priests with
the ark must advance, and it will be seen whether Joshua has been
uttering words without foundation, or whether he has been speaking in
the name of God. Shall mere natural forces be brought into play, or
shall the supernatural might of heaven come to the conflict, and show
that God is faithful to His promise?

Let us put ourselves in Joshua's position. We do not know in what
manner the communications were carried on between him and Jehovah of
which we have the record under the words "the Lord spake unto Joshua."
Was it by an audible voice? Or was it by impressions on Joshua's mind
of a kind that could not have originated with himself, but that were
plainly the result of Divine influence? In any case, they were such as
to convey to Joshua a very clear knowledge of the Divine will. Yet
even in the best of men nature is not so thoroughly subdued in such
circumstances but that the shadow of anxiety and fear is liable to
flit across them. They crave something like a personal pledge that all
will go well. Hence the seasonableness of the assurance now given to
Joshua--"This day will I begin to magnify thee in the sight of all
Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be
with thee." How full and manifold the assurance! First, I will magnify
thee. I will endue thee with supernatural might, and that will give
you authority and weight, corresponding to the position in which you
stand. Further, this shall be but the beginning of a process which
will be renewed as often as there is occasion for it. "This day I will
_begin_." You are not to go a warfare on your own charges, but "as
your days, so shall your strength be." Moreover, this exaltation of
your person and office will take place "in the sight of all Israel,"
so that no man of them shall ever be justified in refusing you
allegiance and obedience. And to sum up--you shall be just as Moses
was; the resources of My might will be as available for you as they
were for him. After this, what misgivings could Joshua have? Could he
doubt the generosity, the kindness, the considerateness of his Master?
Here was a promise for life; and no doubt the more he put it to the
test in after years the more trustworthy did he find it, and the more
convincing was the proof it supplied of the mindfulness of God.

It is an experience which has been often repeated in the case of those
who have had to undertake difficult work for their Master. Of all our
misapprehensions, the most baseless and the most pernicious is, that
God does not care much about us, and that we have not much to look for
from Him. It is a misapprehension which dishonours God greatly, and
which He is ever showing Himself most desirous to remove. It stands
fearfully in the way of that spirit of trust by which God is so much
honoured, and which He is ever desirous that we should show. And
those who have trusted God, and have gone forward to their work in His
strength, have always found delightful evidence that their trust has
not been in vain. What is the testimony of our great Christian
philanthropists, our most successful missionaries, and other devoted
Christian workers? Led to undertake enterprises far beyond their
strength, and undergo responsibilities far beyond their means, we know
not a single case in which they have not had ample proof of the
mindfulness of their Master, and found occasion to wonder at the
considerateness and the bountifulness which He has brought to bear
upon their position. And is it not strange that we should be so slow
to learn how infinite God is in goodness? That we should have no
difficulty in believing in the goodness of a parent or of some kind
friend who has always been ready to help us in our times of need, but
so slow to realize this in regard to God, though we are constantly
acknowledging in words that He is the best as well as the greatest of
beings? It is a happy era in one's spiritual history when one escapes
from one's contracted views of the love and liberality of God, and
begins to realize that "as far as heaven is above the earth, so far
are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts"; and
when one comes to find that in one's times of need, whether arising
from one's personal condition or from the requirements of public
service, one may go to God for encouragement and help with more
certainty of being well received than one may go to the best and
kindest of friends.

It is sometimes said that the Old Testament presents us with a
somewhat limited view of God's love. Certainly it is in the New
Testament that we see it placed in the brightest of all lights--the
Cross, and that we find the argument in its most irresistible
form--"He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all, how shall He not, with Him also, freely give us all things?" But
one must have read the Old Testament in a very careless spirit if one
has not been struck with its frequent and most impressive revelations
of God's goodness. What scenes of gracious intercourse with His
servants does it not present from first to last, what outpourings of
affection, what yearnings of a father's heart! If there were many in
Old Testament times whom these revelations left as heedless as they
found them, there were certainly some whom they filled with wonder and
roused to words of glowing gratitude. The Bible is not wont to repeat
the same thought in the same words. But there is one truth and one
only which we find repeated again and again in the Old Testament, in
the same words, as if the writers were never weary of them--"For His
mercy endureth for ever." Not only is it the refrain of a whole psalm
(cxxxvi.), but we find it at the beginning of three other psalms
(cvi., cvii., cxviii.), we find it in David's song of dedication when
the ark was brought up to Jerusalem (1 Chron. xvi. 34), and we find
also that on the same occasion a body of men, Heman and Jeduthun and
others, were told off expressly "to give thanks to the Lord, because
His mercy endureth for ever" (1 Chron. xvi. 41). This, indeed, is the
great truth which gives the Old Testament its highest interest and
beauty. In the New Testament, in its evangelical setting, it shines
with incomparable brightness. Vividly realized, it makes the
Christian's cup to flow over; as it fills him likewise with the hope
of a joy to come--"a joy unspeakable and full of glory."




CHAPTER IX.

_JORDAN DIVIDED._

JOSHUA iii.


At Joshua's command, the priests carrying the ark are again in motion.
Bearing the sacred vessel on their shoulders, they make straight for
the bank of the river. "The exact spot is unknown; it certainly cannot
be that which the Greek tradition has fixed, where the eastern banks
are sheer precipices of ten or fifteen feet high. Probably it was
either immediately above or below, where the cliffs break away; above
at the fords, or below where the river assumes a tamer character on
its way to the Dead Sea."[7] Following the priests, at the interval of
a full half-mile, was the host of Israel. "_There_ was the mailed
warrior with sword and shield, and the aged patriarch, trembling on
his staff. Anxious mothers and timid maidens were there, and helpless
infants of a day old; and there, too, were flocks and herds and all
the possessions of a great nation migrating westward in search of a
home. Before them lay their promised inheritance,

  'While Jordan rolled between,'

full to the brim, and overflowing all its banks. Nevertheless, through
it lies their road, and God commands the march. The priests take up
the sacred ark and bear it boldly down to the brink; when lo! 'the
waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon a heap very
far from the city Adam, that is before Zaretan: and those that came
down toward the sea of the plain, even the Salt Sea, failed, and were
cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.' And thus,
too, has all-conquering faith carried the thousand times ten thousand
of God's people in triumph through the Jordan of death to the Canaan
of eternal rest."[8]

  [7] Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine," p. 303.

  [8] "Land and Book," vol. ii., pp. 460-61.

The description of the parting of the waters is clear enough in the
main, though somewhat obscure in detail. The obscurity arises from the
meaningless expression in the Authorized Version, "very far from the
city Adam, which is beside Zaretan." The Revised rendering gives a
much more natural meaning--"rose up in one heap, very far off, at
Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan." The names Adam and Zaretan
occur nowhere else in Scripture, nor are they mentioned by Josephus;
some think we have a relic of Adam in the first part of ed-Damieh, the
name of a ford, and others, following the rendering of the Septuagint,
which has ἕως μέρους Καριαθιαρίμ, consider the final "arim" to
be equivalent to "adim" or "adam," the Hebrew letter "r" being almost
the same as "d." What we are taught is, that the waters were cut off
from the descending river a long way up, while down below the whole
channel was laid bare as far as the Dead Sea. The miracle involved an
accumulation of water in the upper reaches of the river, and as it was
obviously undesirable that this should continue for a long time,
enough of the channel was laid bare to enable the great host to cross
rapidly in a broad belt, and without excitement or confusion. The
sceptical objection is completely obviated that it was physically
impossible for so vast a host to make the passage in a short time.

As soon as the waters began to retreat, after the feet of the priests
were planted in them, the priests passed on to the middle of the
channel, and stood there "firm, on dry ground," until all the people
were passed clean over. The vast host crossed at once, and drew up on
the opposite bank. That no attempt was made by the men of Jericho,
which was only about five miles on, to attack them and stop their
passage, can be explained only on the supposition that they were
stricken with panic. One inhabitant undoubtedly heard of the passage
without surprise. Rahab could feel no astonishment that the arm of God
should thus be made bare before the people whom He was pledged to
protect and guide. As little could she wonder at the paralysis which
had petrified her own people.

The priests passed on before the people, and stood firm in the midst
of the river until the whole host had passed. It was both a becoming
thing that they should go before, and that they should stand so firm.
It is not always that either priests or Christian ministers have set
the example of going before in any hazardous undertaking. They have
not always moved so steadily in the van of great movements, nor stood
so firmly in the midst of the river. What shall we say of those whose
idea, whether of Hebrew priesthood or of Christian ministry, has been
that of a mere office, that of men ordained to perform certain
mechanical functions, in whom personal character and personal example
signified little or nothing? Is it not infinitely nearer to the Bible
view that the ministers of religion are the leaders of the people, and
that they ought as such to be ever foremost in zeal, in holiness, in
self-denial, in victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil? And
of all men ought they not to stand firm? Where are Mr. Byends, and Mr.
Facing-Both-Ways, and Mr. Worldly-Wiseman more out of place than in
the ministry? Where does even the world look more for consistency and
devotion and fearless regard to the will of God? What should we think
of an army where the officers counted it enough to see to the drill
and discipline of the men, and in the hour of battle confined
themselves to mere mechanical duties, and were outstripped in
self-denial, in courage, in dash and daring by the commonest of their
soldiers? Happy the Church where the officers are officers indeed!
Feeling ever that their place is in the front rank of the battle and
in the vanguard of every perilous enterprise, and that it is their
part to set the men an example of unwavering firmness even when the
missiles of death are whistling or bursting on every side!

Who shall try to picture the feelings of the people during that
memorable crossing? The outstretched arm of God was even more visibly
shown than in the crossing of the Red Sea, for in that case a natural
cause, the strong east wind, contributed something to the effect,
while in this case no secondary cause was employed, the drying up of
the channel being due solely to miracle. Who among all that host could
fail to feel that God was with them? And how solemn yet cheering must
the thought have been alike to the men of war looking forward to
scenes of danger and death, and to the women and children, and the
aged and infirm, dreading otherwise lest they should be trampled down
amid the tumult! But of all whose hearts were moved by the marvellous
transaction, Joshua must have been pre-eminent. "As I was with Moses,
so I will be with thee." At the dividing of the sea the leadership of
Moses began, and they were all baptized unto him in the cloud and in
the sea. And now, in like manner, the leadership of Joshua begins at
the dividing of the river, and baptism unto Joshua takes the place of
baptism unto Moses. A new chapter of an illustrious history begins as
its predecessor had begun, but not to be marred and rendered abortive
by unbelief and disobedience like the last. How true God has been to
His word! What wonders He has done among the people! What honour He
has put upon Joshua! How worthy He is to be praised! Will disloyalty
to Him ever occur again, will this marvellous deed be forgotten, and
the miserable gods of the heathen be preferred to Jehovah? Will any
future prophet have cause to say, "O Ephraim, what shall I do unto
thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? For your goodness is as a
morning cloud, and as the early dew, it goeth away"?

It is to be especially remarked that God took into His own hands the
prescription of the method by which this great event was to be
commemorated. It seems as if He could not trust the people to do it in
a way that would be free from objection and from evil tendency. It was
assumed that the event was worthy of special commemoration. True,
indeed, there had been no special commemoration of the passage of the
sea, but then the Passover was instituted so near to that event that
it might serve as a memorial of it as well as of the protection of the
Israelites when the firstborn of the Egyptians was slain. And
generally the people had been taught, what their own hearts in some
degree recognised, that great mercies should be specially
commemorated. The Divine method of commemorating the drying up of the
Jordan was a very simple one. In the first place, twelve men were
selected, one from every tribe, to do the prescribed work. The
democratic constitution of the nation was recognised--each tribe was
to take part in it; and as it was a matter in which all were
concerned, each person was to take part in the election of the
representative of his tribe. Then each of these twelve representatives
was to take from the bed of the river, from the place where the
priests had stood with the ark, a stone, probably as large as he could
carry. The twelve stones were to be carried to the place where the
host lodged that night, and to be erected as a standing memorial of
the miracle. It was a very simple memorial, but it was all that was
needed. It was not like the proud temples or glorious pyramids of
Egypt, reared as these were to give glory to man more than to God. It
was like Jacob's pillar before, or Samuel's Ebenezer afterwards; void
of every ornament or marking that could magnify man, and designed for
one single purpose--to recall the goodness of God.

It would appear, from chap. iv. 9, that two sets of stones were set
up, Joshua, following the spirit of the Divine direction, having
caused a second set to be erected in the middle of the river on the
spot where the priests had stood. Some have supposed that that verse
is an interpolation of later date; but, as it occurs in all the
manuscripts, and as it is expressly stated in the Septuagint and
Vulgate versions that this was a different transaction from the other,
we must accept it as such. The one memorial stood on the spot where
the ark had indicated the presence of God, the other where the first
encampment of the host had shown God's faithfulness to His word. Both
seemed to proclaim the great truth afterwards brought out in the
exquisite words of the psalm--"God is our refuge and our strength; a
very present help in time of trouble." They might not be needed so
much for the generation that experienced the deliverance; but in
future generations they would excite the curiosity of the children,
and thus afford an opportunity to the parents to rehearse the
transactions of that day, and thrill their hearts with the sense of
God's mercy.

Among devout Israelites, that day was never forgotten. The crossing of
the Jordan was coupled with the crossing of the sea, as the two
crowning tokens of God's mercy in the history of Israel, and the most
remarkable exhibitions of that Divine power which had been so often
shown among them. In that wailing song, the seventy-fourth psalm,
where God's wonderful works of old are contrasted in a very sad spirit
with the unmitigated desolations that met the writer's eye, almost in
the same breath in which he extols the miracle of the sea, "Thou didst
divide the sea by Thy strength," he gives thanks for the miracle of
the river, "Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: Thou driedst
up mighty rivers." And in a song, not of wailing, but of triumph, the
hundred and fourteenth psalm, we have the same combination:--

    "When Israel went forth out of Egypt,
    The house of Jacob from a people of strange language;
    Judah became His sanctuary,
    Israel His dominion.
    The sea saw it, and fled;
    Jordan was driven back.
    The mountains skipped like rams,
    The little hills like lambs.
    What aileth thee, O thou sea, that thou fleest?
    Thou Jordan, that thou turnest back?
    Ye mountains, that ye skip like rams;
    Ye little hills like lambs?
    Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord,
    At the presence of the God of Jacob;
    Which turned the rock into a pool of water,
    The flint into a fountain of waters."

The point of this psalm lies in the first verse--in the reference to
the time "when Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a
people of strange language." Israel on that occasion gave a signal
proof of his trust in God. At God's bidding, and with none but God to
trust in, he turned his back on Egypt, and made for the wilderness. It
was a delight to God to receive this mark of trust and obedience, and
in recognition of it the mightiest masses and forces of nature were
moved or arrested. The mountains and hills skipped like living
creatures, and the sea saw it and fled. It seemed as if God could not
do too much for His people. It was the same spirit that was shown when
they followed Joshua to the river. They showed that they trusted God.
They renounced the visible and the tangible for the invisible and the
spiritual. They rose up at Joshua's command, or rather at the command
of God by Joshua; and, pleased with this mark of trust, God caused the
waters of the Jordan to part asunder. Surely there is something
pathetic in this; the Almighty is so pleased when His children trust
Him, that to serve them the strongest forces are moved about as if
they were but feathers.

In many ways the truth has been exemplified in later times. When a
young convert, at home or abroad, takes up decided ground for Christ,
coming out from the world and becoming separate, very blessed tokens
of God's nearness and of God's interest are usually given him. And
Churches that at the call of Christ surrender their worldly
advantages, receive tokens of spiritual blessing that infinitely
outweigh in sweetness and in spiritual value all that they lose. "Them
that honour Me, I will honour."

Occurrences of more recent times show clearly that God did well in
taking into His own hands the prescription of the way in which the
crossing of the Jordan was to be commemorated. Tradition has it that
it was at the same place where Joshua crossed that Jesus was baptized
by John. That may well be doubted, for the Bethabara where John was
baptizing was probably at a higher point of the river. But it is quite
possible that it was at this spot that Elijah's mantle smote the
river, and he and his servant passed over on dry ground. Holding that
all these events occurred at the same place, tradition has called in
the aid of superstition, and given a sacred character to the waters of
the river at this spot. Many have seen, and every one has read of the
pilgrimage to the Jordan, performed every spring, from which many hope
to reap such advantage. "In the mosaics of the earliest churches at
Rome and Ravenna," says Dean Stanley, "before Christian and pagan art
were yet divided, the Jordan appears as a river god pouring his
streams out of his urn. The first Christian emperor had always hoped
to receive his long-deferred baptism in the Jordan, up to the moment
when the hand of death struck him at Nicomedia.... Protestants, as
well as Greeks and Latins, have delighted to carry off its waters for
the same sacred purpose to the remotest regions of the West."

No doubt the expectation of spiritual benefit from the waters of the
Jordan is one cause of the annual pilgrimage thither, and of the
strange scene that presents itself when the pilgrims are bathing. It
seems impossible for man, except under the influence of the strongest
spiritual views, to avoid the belief that somehow mechanical means may
give rise to spiritual results. There is nothing from which he is
naturally more averse than spiritual activity. Any amount of
mechanical service he will often render to save him from spiritual
exercise. Symbols without number he will willingly provide, if he
thereby escape the necessity of going into the immediate presence of
God, and worshipping Him who is a Spirit in spirit and in truth. But
can mechanical service or material symbols be anything but an evil, if
the would-be worshipper is thereby prevented from recognising the
necessity of a heart-to-heart fellowship with the living God? Must we
not be in living touch with God if the stream of Divine influence is
to reach our hearts, and we are to be changed into His image? In the
Psalms, which express the very essence of Hebrew devotion, spiritual
contact with God is the only source of blessing. "O God, Thou art my
God; early will I seek Thee: my soul thirsteth for Thee, my flesh
longeth for Thee in a dry and thirsty land, where there is no water.
To see Thy power and Thy glory, so as I have seen Thee in the
sanctuary."

Thus it was that by God's prescription the twelve plain stones taken
out of the Jordan were the only memorial of the great deliverance.
There was no likeness on them of the Divine Being by whom the miracle
had been performed. There was nothing to encourage acts of reverence
or worship directed toward the memorial. Twelve rough stones, with no
sculptured figures or symbols, not even dressed by hammer and chisel,
but simply as they were taken out of the river, were the memorial.
They were adapted for one purpose, and for one only: "When your
children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean
these stones? then ye shall let your children know, saying, Israel
came over this Jordan on dry land. For the Lord your God dried up the
waters of the Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as
the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which He dried up from before
us, until we were gone over: that all the people of the earth might
know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the
Lord your God for ever."




CHAPTER X.

_CIRCUMCISION AND PASSOVER--MANNA AND CORN._

JOSHUA v. 1-12.


The first two facts recorded in this chapter seem to be closely
connected with each other. One is, that when all the Amorite and
Canaanite kings on the west side of the Jordan heard of the miraculous
drying up of the waters and the passage of the Israelites, "their
heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more." The other
is, that the opportunity was taken then and there to circumcise the
whole of the generation that had been born after leaving Egypt. But
for the fact recorded in the first verse, it would have been the most
unsuitable time that could be conceived for administering
circumcision. The whole male population would have been rendered
helpless for the time, and an invitation would have been given to the
men of Jericho to commit such a massacre as in the like circumstances
the sons of Jacob inflicted on the men of Shechem (Gen. xxxiv. 25).
Why was not this business of circumcising performed while the host
were lying inactive on the other side, and while the Jordan ran
between Israel and his foes? It was because the kings of the
Canaanites were petrified. It is true they plucked up courage
by-and-by, and many of the kings entered into a league against Joshua.
But this was after the affair of Ai, after the defeat of the
Israelites before that city had showed that, as in the case of
Achilles, there was a vulnerable spot somewhere, notwithstanding the
protection of their God. Meanwhile the people of Jericho were
paralysed, for though the whole male population of Israel under forty
lay helpless in their tents, not a finger was raised by the enemy
against them.

It is with no little surprise that we read that circumcision had been
suspended during the long period of the wilderness sojourn. Why was
this? Some have said that, owing to the circumstances in which the
people were, it would not have been convenient, perhaps hardly
possible, to administer the rite on the eighth day. Moving as they
were from place to place, the administration of circumcision would
often have caused so much pain and peril to the child, that it is no
wonder it was delayed. And once delayed, it was delayed indefinitely.
But this explanation is not sufficient. There were long, very long
periods of rest, during which there could have been no difficulty. A
better explanation, brought forward by Calvin, leads us to connect the
suspension of circumcision with the punishment of the Israelites, and
with the sentence that doomed them to wander forty years in the
wilderness. When the worship of the golden calf took place, the nation
was rejected, and the breaking by Moses of the two tables of stone
seemed an appropriate sequel to the rupture of the covenant which
their idolatry had caused. And though they were soon restored, they
were not restored without certain drawbacks,--tokens of the Divine
displeasure. Afterwards, at the great outburst of unbelief in
connection with the report of the spies, the adult generation that had
come out of Egypt were doomed to perish in the wilderness, and, with
the exception of Joshua and Caleb, not one of them was permitted to
enter the land of promise. Now, though it is not expressly stated, it
seems probable that the suspension of circumcision was included in the
punishment of their sins. They were not to be allowed to place on
their children the sign and seal of a covenant which in spirit and in
reality they had broken.

But it was not an abolition, but only a suspension of the sacrament
for a time that took place. The time might come when it would be
restored. The natural time for this would be the end of the forty
years of chastisement. These forty years had now come to an end.
Doubtless it would have been a great joy to Moses if it had been given
him to see the restoration of circumcision, but that was not to take
place until the people had set foot on Abraham's land. Now they have
crossed the river. They have entered on the very land which God sware
to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to give it them. And the very first
thing that is done after this is to give back to them the holy sign of
the covenant, which was now administered to every man in the
congregation who had not previously received it. We may well think of
it as an occasion of great rejoicing. The visible token of his being
one of God's children was now borne by every man and boy in the camp.
In a sense they now served themselves heirs to the covenant made with
their fathers, and might thus rest with firmer trust on the
promise--"I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee."

Two other points in connection with this transaction demand a word of
explanation. The first is the statement that "all the people that were
born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt,
them they had not circumcised" (ver. 5). If the view be correct that
the suspension of circumcision was part of the punishment for their
sins, the prohibition would not come into operation for some months,
at all events, after the exodus from Egypt. We think, with Calvin,
that for the sake of brevity the sacred historian makes a general
statement without waiting to explain the exceptions to which it was
subject. The other point needing explanation is the Lord's statement
after the circumcision--"This day have I rolled the reproach of Egypt
from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal
(_i.e._, Rolling) unto this day." How could the suspension of
circumcision be called the reproach of Egypt? The words imply that,
owing to the want of this sacrament, they had lain exposed to a
reproach from the Egyptians, which was now rolled away. The brevity of
the statement, and our ignorance of what the Egyptians were saying of
the Israelites at the time, make the words difficult to understand.
What seems most likely is, that when the Egyptians heard how God had
all but repudiated them in the wilderness, and had withdrawn from them
the sign of His covenant, they malignantly crowed over them, and
denounced them as a worthless race, who had first rejected their
lawful rulers in Egypt under pretext of religion, and, having shown
their hypocrisy, were now scorned and cast off by the very God whom
they had professed themselves so eager to serve. We may be sure that
the Egyptians would not be slow to seize any pretext for denouncing
the Israelites, and would be sure to make their jibes as sharp and as
bitter as they could. But now the tables are turned on the Egyptians.
The restoration of circumcision stamps this people once more as the
people of God. The stupendous miracle just wrought in the dividing of
the Jordan indicates the kind of protection which their God and King
is sure to extend to them. The name of Gilgal will be a perpetual
testimony that the reproach of Egypt is rolled away.

Circumcision being now duly performed, the way was prepared for
another holy rite for which the appointed season had arrived--the
Passover. Some have supposed that the Passover as well as circumcision
was suspended after the sentence of the forty years' wandering, the
more especially that it was expressly enacted that no uncircumcised
person was to eat the Passover. We know (Num. ix. 5) that the Passover
was kept the second year after they left Egypt, but no other reference
to it occurs in the history. On this, as on many other points
connected with the wilderness history, we must be content to remain in
ignorance. We are not even very sure how far the ordinary sacrifices
were offered during that period. It is quite possible that the
considerations that suspended the rite of circumcision applied to
other ordinances. But whether or not the Passover was observed in the
wilderness, we may easily understand that after being circumcised the
people would observe it with a much happier and more satisfied
feeling. There were many things to make this Passover memorable. The
crossing of the Jordan was so like the crossing of the Red Sea that
the celebration in Egypt could not fail to come back vividly to all
the older people,--those that were under twenty at the exodus, to whom
the sentence of exclusion from Canaan did not apply (Num. xiv. 29).
Many of these must have looked on while their fathers sprinkled the
lintels and door posts with the blood of the lamb, and must have
listened to the awful death-cry of the firstborn of the Egyptians.
They must have remembered well that memorable midnight when all were
in such excitement marching away from Egypt; and not less vividly must
they have remembered the terror that seized them when the Egyptian
host was seen in pursuit; and then again the thrill of triumph with
which they passed between the crystal walls, under the glow of the
fiery pillar; and once more the triumphant notes of Miriam's timbrel
and the voices of the women, "Sing unto the Lord, for He hath
triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider He hath cast into the
sea." And now these days of glory were coming back! As surely as the
passage of the sea had been followed by the destruction of the
Egyptians, so surely would the passage of the Jordan be followed by
the destruction of the Canaanites. Glorious things were spoken of the
city of their God. The benediction of Moses was about to receive a new
fulfilment--"Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people
saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy
excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou
shalt tread upon their high places."

The remembrance of the past is often an excellent preparation for the
trials of the future, and as often it proves a remarkable support
under them. It was the very nature of the Passover to look back to the
past, and to recall God's first great interposition on behalf of His
people. It was a precious encouragement both to faith and hope. So
also is our Christian Passover. It is a connecting link between the
first and second comings of our Lord. The first coming lends support
to faith, the second to hope. No exercise of soul can be more
profitable than to go back to that memorable day when Christ our
Passover was sacrificed for us. For then the price of redemption was
paid in full, and the door of salvation flung wide open. Then the Son
sealed His love by giving Himself to the cross for us. What blessing,
whether for this life or the life to come, was not purchased by that
transaction? Life may be dark and stormy, but hope foresees a bright
to-morrow. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye
also appear with Him in glory."

Yet another incident is connected with this transition period of the
history. "They did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after
the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.
And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old
corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more;
but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year." It is
not necessary to suppose that they did not partake at all of the
fruits of the land till the morning after that Passover. The conquest
of Sihon and Og must have put a large share of produce in their hands,
and we can hardly suppose that they did not make some use of it. The
narrative is so brief that it does not undertake to state every
modification that may be applicable to its general statements. The
main thing to be noticed is, that while the manna continued to
descend, it was the staple article of food; but when the manna was
withdrawn, the old corn and other fruits of the country took its
place. In other words, the miracle was not continued when it ceased to
be necessary. The manna had been a provision for the wilderness, where
ordinary food in sufficient quantity could not be obtained; but now
that they were in a land of fields and orchards and vineyards the
manna was withdrawn.

We have already adverted to the Bible law of the supernatural. No
sanction is given to the idea of a lavish and needless expenditure of
supernatural power. A law of economy, we might almost say parsimony,
prevails, side by side with the exercise of unbounded liberality.
Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude, but He
will not let one fragment be lost that remains after the feast. A
similar law guides the economy of prayer. We have no right to ask that
mercies may come to us through extraordinary channels, when it is in
our power to get them by ordinary means. If it is in our power to
procure bread by our labour, we dare not ask it to be sent direct. We
are only too prone to make prayer at the eleventh hour an excuse for
want of diligence or want of courage in what bears on the prosperity
of the spiritual life. It may be that of His great generosity God
sometimes blesses us, even though we have made a very inadequate use
of the ordinary means. But on that we have no right to presume. We are
fond of short and easy methods where the natural method would be long
and laborious. But here certainly we find the working of natural law
in the spiritual world. We cannot look for God's blessing without
diligent use of God's appointed means.

More generally, this occurrence in the history of Israel, the
cessation of one provision when another comes into operation,
exemplifies a great law in providence by which the loss of one kind of
advantage is compensated by the advent of another. In childhood and
early youth we depend for our growth in knowledge on the instructions
of our teachers. What puzzles us we refer to them, and they guide us
through the difficulty. If they are wise teachers they will not tell
us everything, but they will put us on the right method to find out.
Still they are there as a court of appeal, so to speak, and we have
always the satisfaction of a last resort. But the time comes when we
bid farewell to teachers. Happily it is the time when the judgment
becomes self-reliant, independent, penetrating. We are thrown mainly
upon our own resources. And the very fact of our having to depend on
our own judgment fosters and promotes independence, and fits us better
for the responsibilities of life. When we become men we put away
childish things. A habit of leaning on others keeps us children; but
grappling with difficulties as we find them, and trying to make our
way through them and over them, promotes manliness. The manna ceases,
and we eat the fruit of the land.

So in family life. The affection that binds parents and children,
brothers and sisters to one another in the family is both beautiful
and delightful; and it were no wonder if, on the part of some, there
were the desire that their intercourse should suffer no rude break,
but go on unchanged for an indefinite time. But it is seldom God's
will that family life shall remain unbroken. Often the interruption
comes in the rudest and most terrible form--by the death of the head
of the house. And the circumstances of the family may require that all
who are capable of earning anything shall turn out to increase the
family store. It is often a painful and distressing change. But at
least it wakens up all who can do anything, it rescues them from the
temptation of a slumbering, aimless life, and often draws out useful
gifts that turn their lives into a real blessing. And there are other
compensations. When Sarah died, Isaac was left with an empty heart;
but when Rebecca came to him, he was comforted. The precise blank that
death leaves may never be wholly filled, but the heart expands in
other directions, and with new objects of affection the gnawing void
ceases to be acutely felt. As old attachments are snapped, new are
gradually formed. And even in old age a law of compensation often
comes in; children and children's children bring new interests and
pleasures, and the green hues of youth modify the grey of age.

Then there is the happy experience by which the advent of spiritual
blessings compensates the loss of temporal. Nothing at first appears
more desolate than loss of fortune, loss of health, or loss of some
principal bodily sense--like sight or hearing. But in a Milton
intellectual vigour, patriotic ardour, and poetic sensibility attain
their noblest elevation, though

        "Cloud and ever-during dark
    Surrounds me, from the cheerful ways of men
    Cut off, and, for the book of knowledge fair,
    Presented with a universal blank
    Of nature's works, to me expunged and rased,
    And wisdom at one entrance quite shut out."

It is the total loss of hearing, the result of a sudden accident, that
turns the slater, John Kitto, into a most instructive and interesting
Oriental scholar and writer. How often temporal loss has proved in a
higher sense spiritual gain, all Christian biography testifies. Such
instances are not uncommon as that which the Rev. Charles Simeon
gives, in speaking of some blind men from Edinburgh whom nearly a
century ago he found at work in a country house in Scotland: "One of
the blind men, on being interrogated with respect to his knowledge of
spiritual things, answered, 'I never saw till I was blind; nor did I
ever know contentment while I had my eyesight, as I do now that I have
lost it; I can truly affirm, though few know how to credit me, that I
would on no account change my present situation and circumstances
with any that I ever enjoyed before I was blind.' He had enjoyed
eyesight till twenty-five, and had been blind now about three
years."[9]

  [9] "Life of Rev. Charles Simeon," p. 125.

Lastly, of all exchanges in room of old provisions the most striking
is that which our Lord thus set forth: "It is expedient for you that I
go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart, I will send Him to you." If we should think of life,
even the Christian life, as a mere time of enjoyment, albeit spiritual
enjoyment, no statement could be more paradoxical or unpalatable. It
is because life is a training school, and because what we most need in
that school is the immediate action of the Divine Spirit on our
spirits, purifying, elevating, strengthening, guiding all that is
deepest in our nature, that our Lord's words are true. Very precious
had been the manna that ceased when Jesus left. But more nourishing is
the new corn with which the Spirit feeds us. Let us prize it greatly
so long as we are in the flesh. We shall know the good of it when we
enter on the next stage of our being. Then, in the fullest sense, the
manna will cease, and we shall eat the corn of the land.




CHAPTER XI.

_THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST._

JOSHUA v. 13-15, vi. 1.


The process of circumcision is over, and the men are well; the feast
of unleavened bread has come to an end; all honour has been paid to
these sacred ordinances according to the appointment of God; the manna
has ceased, and the people are now depending on the corn of the land,
of which, in all probability, they have but a limited supply.
Everything points to the necessity of further action, but it is hard
to say what the next step is to be. Naturally it would be the capture
of Jericho. But this appears a Quixotic enterprise. The city is
surrounded by a wall, and its gates are "straitly shut up," barred,
and closely guarded to prevent the entrance of a single Israelite.
Joshua himself is at a loss. No Divine communication has yet come to
him, like that which came as to the crossing of the Jordan. See him
walking all alone "by Jericho," as near the city as it is safe for him
to go. With mind absorbed in thought and eyes fixed on the ground, he
is pondering the situation, but unable to get light upon it, when
something comes athwart his sphere of vision. He lifts his eyes, and
right against him perceives a soldier, brandishing his sword.

A less courageous man would have been startled, perhaps frightened.
His first thought is, that it is an enemy. None of his own soldiers
would have ventured there without his orders, or would have dared to
take up such an attitude towards his commander-in-chief. With a
soldier's presence of mind, instead of moving off, he assumes an
aggressive attitude, challenges this warrior, and demands whether he
is friend or foe. If friend, he must explain his presence; if foe,
prepare for battle. Joshua is himself a thorough soldier, and will
allow no one to occupy an ambiguous position. "And Joshua went unto
him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?"

If the appearance of the soldier was a surprise, his answer to the
question must have been a greater. "Nay; but as Captain of the host of
the Lord am I now come." The "nay" deprecates his being either friend
or foe in the common sense, but especially his being foe. His position
and his office are far more exalted. As Captain of the host of the
Lord, he is at the head, not of human armies, but of all the
principalities and powers of heavenly places,--

                "The mighty regencies
    Of seraphim, and potentates and thrones."

And now the real situation flashes on Joshua. This soldier is no other
than the Angel of the Covenant, the same who came to Abraham under the
oak at Mamre, and that wrestled with Jacob on the banks of this very
Jordan at Peniel. Joshua could not but remember, when God threatened
to withdraw from Israel after the sin of the golden calf, and send
some created angel to guide them through the wilderness, how earnestly
Moses remonstrated, and how his whole soul was thrown into the
pleading--"If Thy presence go not with us, carry me not up hence." He
could not but remember the intense joy of Moses when this pleading
proved successful--"My presence shall go with thee, and I will give
thee rest." There could be little doubt in his mind who this "Captain
of the host of Jehovah" was, and no hesitation on his part in yielding
to Him the Divine honour due to the Most High. And then he must have
felt warmly how very kind and seasonable this appearance was, just at
the very moment when he was in so great perplexity, and when his path
was utterly dark. It was a new proof that man's extremity is God's
opportunity. It was just like what used to happen afterwards, when
"the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and was so promptly at
hand for His disciples in all times of their tribulation. It was an
anticipation of the scene when the ship was tossed so violently on the
waves, and Jesus appeared with His "Peace, be still." Or, on that
dreary morning, soon after the crucifixion, after they had spent the
whole night on the lake and caught nothing, when Jesus came and
brought the miraculous draught of fishes to their nets. It is the
truth with which all His suffering and stricken children have been
made so familiar in all ages of the Church's history:--that, however
He may seem to hide Himself and stand afar off in times of trouble, He
is in reality ever near, and can never forget that last assurance to
His faithful people--"Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the
world."

It is not likely that Joshua found any cause to discuss the question
that modern criticism has so earnestly handled, whether this being
that now appeared in human form really was Jehovah. And as little does
it seem necessary for us to discuss it. There seems no good reason to
reject the view that these theophanies, though not incarnations, were
yet foreshadows of the incarnation,--hints of the mystery afterwards
to be realized when Jesus was born of Mary. If these appearances
looked like incarnations, it was incarnation after the pagan, not the
Christian type; momentary alliances of the Divine being with the human
form or appearance, assumed merely for the occasion, and capable of
being thrown aside as rapidly as they were assumed. This might do very
well to foreshadow the incarnation, but it fell a long way short of
the incarnation itself. The Christian incarnation was after a type
never dreamt of by the pagan mind. That the Son of God should be born
of a woman, His body formed in the womb by the slow but wonderful
process which "fashioned all His members in continuance, when as yet
there was none of them" (Psalm cxxxix. 16), and that He should thus
stand in relations to His fellow-men that could not be obliterated,
was very wonderful; but most wonderful of all that the manhood once
assumed could never be thrown off, but that the Son of God must
continue to be the Son of man, in two distinct natures and one person
for ever. The fact that all this has taken place is well fitted to
give us unshaken confidence in the love and sympathy of our Elder
Brother. For He is as really our Brother as He ever was in the days of
His flesh, and as full of the care and thoughtful interest that the
kindest of elder brothers takes in the sorrows and struggles of his
younger brethren.

It has often been remarked as an instructive circumstance, that now,
as on other occasions, the Angel of the Lord appeared in the character
most adapted to the circumstances of His people. He appeared as a
soldier with a drawn sword in His hand. A long course of fighting lay
before the Israelites ere they could get possession of their land,
and the sword in the hand of the Angel was an assurance that He would
fight with them and for them. It was also a clear intimation that in
the judgment of God, it was necessary to use the sword. But it was not
the sword of the ambitious warrior who falls upon men simply because
they are in his way, or because he covets their territories for his
country. It was the judicial sword, demanding the death of men who had
been tried for their sins, long warned, and at last judicially
condemned. The iniquity of the Amorites was now full. We know what
kind the people were who dwelt near Jericho four or five hundred years
before, while the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah stood in the plain,
cities that even then were reeking with the foulest corruption. It is
true the judgment of God came down on these cities, but bare judgments
have never reformed the world. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
removed the foulest stain-spot for the time, but it did not change the
hearts nor the habits of the nations. It has seemed good to the Spirit
of God to give us one glimpse of the foulness that had been reached at
that early period, but not to multiply the filthy details at a future
time,--after the long interval between Abraham and Joshua. But we know
that if Sodom was bad, Jericho was no better. The country as a whole,
which had now filled up its cup of iniquity, was no better. No wonder
that the Angel bore a drawn sword in His hand. The longsuffering of
the righteous God was exhausted, and Joshua and his people were the
instruments by whom the judicial punishment was to be inflicted. The
Captain of the Lord's host had drawn His sword from its scabbard to
show that the judgment of that wicked people was to slumber no more.

It was not in this spirit nor in this attitude that the Angel of the
Covenant had met with Jacob, centuries before, a little higher up the
river, at the confluence of the Jabbok. Yet there was not a little
that was similar in the two meetings. Like Joshua now, Jacob was then
about to enter the land of promise. Like him, he was confronted by an
enemy in possession, who, in Jacob's case, was bent on avenging the
wrong of his youth. How that enemy was to be overcome Jacob knew not,
just as Joshua knew not how Jericho was to be taken. But there was
this difference between the two, that in Jacob's case the Angel dealt
with him as an opponent; in Joshua's He avowed Himself a friend. The
difference was no doubt due to the different dispositions of the two
men. Jacob does not seem to have felt that it was only in God's name,
and in God's strength, and under God's protection that he could enter
Canaan; he appears to have been trusting too much to his own
devices,--especially to the munificent present which he had forwarded
to his brother. He must be taught the lesson "Not by might, nor by
power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord." At first Jacob dealt with
his opponent simply as an obstructionist; then he discovered His
Divine rank, and immediately he became the aggressor, and, spite of
his dislocated thigh, held on to his opponent, declaring that he would
not let Him go except He blessed him. It is otherwise with Joshua. He
has no personal matter to settle with God before he is ready to
advance into the land. He is in perplexity, and the Angel comes to
relieve him. It is neither for reproof nor correction but simply for
blessing that He is there.

The appearance of the Angel denoted a special method of communication
with Joshua. We have already remarked that we do not know in what
manner God's communications to His servant were made before. This
incident shows that the ordinary method was not that of personal
intercourse,--probably it was that of impressions made supernaturally
on Joshua's mind. Why, then, is the method changed now? Why does this
Warrior-angel present Himself in person? Probably because the way in
which Jericho was to be taken was so extraordinary that, to encourage
the faith of Joshua and the people, a special mode of announcement had
to be used. One might have thought this unnecessary after the display
of Divine power at the crossing of the Jordan. But steadiness of faith
was no characteristic of the Israelites, and such as it was it was as
liable to fail after crossing the Jordan as it had been after crossing
the sea. Special means were taken to invigorate it and fit it for the
coming strain. It was one of those rare occasions when a personal
visit from the Angel of the Covenant was desirable. Something visible
and tangible was needed, something which might be spoken of and
readily understood by the people, and which could not possibly be
gainsayed.

The moment that Joshua understood with whom he was conversing, he fell
on his face, and offered to his visitor not only obeisance but
worship, which the visitor did not decline. And then came a question
indicating profound regard for his Lord's will, and readiness to do
whatsoever he might be told--"What saith my Lord unto His servant?" It
cannot but remind us of the question put by Saul to the Lord while yet
lying on the ground on the way to Damascus--"Lord, what wilt Thou have
me to do?" Joshua compares favourably with Moses at the burning bush,
not only now, but throughout the whole interview. No word of
remonstrance does he utter, no token of unwillingness or unbelief
does he show. And it cannot be said that the instructions which the
Angel gave him respecting the taking of Jericho were of a kind to be
easily accepted. The course to be followed seemed to human wisdom the
very essence of silliness. To all appearance there was not a vestige
of adaptation of means to the end. Yet so admirable is the temper of
Joshua, that he receives all with absolute and perfect submission. The
question "What saith my Lord unto His servant?" is very far from mere
matter of courtesy. It is a first principle with Joshua that when the
mind of God is once indicated there is nothing for him but to obey.
What is he that he should dare to criticise the plans of omnipotence?
that he should propose to correct and improve the methods of Divine
wisdom? Anything of the kind was alike preposterous and irreverent.
"Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of Him. For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and
it stood fast." "Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
eternity, and whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place,
and with him also who is of a humble and contrite spirit, and who
trembleth at My word."

The first answer to the question "What saith my Lord unto His
servant?" is somewhat remarkable. "Put off thy shoes from off thy
feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy." Rationalists have
explained this as meaning that this was an ancient shrine of the
Canaanites, and therefore a place holy in the eyes of Israel; but such
an idea needs no refutation. Others conceive it to mean that Joshua,
having crossed the Jordan, had now set foot on the land promised to
the fathers, and that the soil for that reason was called holy. But if
that was the reason for his putting off his shoes, it is difficult to
see how he could ever have been justified in again putting them on.
And when God called to Moses out of the bush and bade him do the very
same thing, it surely was not because the peninsula of Sinai was holy;
it was because Moses stood in the immediate presence of the holy God.
And it is simply to remind Joshua of the Divine presence that this
command is given; and being given it is no sooner uttered than obeyed.

And then follow God's instructions for the taking of Jericho. Never
was such a method propounded to reasonable man, or one more open to
the objections and exceptions of worldly wisdom. No arrangement of his
forces could have been more open to objection than that which God
required of him. He was to march round Jericho once a day for six
successive days, and seven times on the seventh day, the priests
carrying the ark and blowing with trumpets, the men of war going
before, and others following the ark, making a long narrow line round
the place. We know that the city was provided with gates, like other
fortified cities. What was there to prevent the men of Jericho from
sallying out at each of the gates, breaking up the line of Israel into
sections, separating them from each other, and inflicting dreadful
slaughter on each? Such a march round the city seems to be the very
way to invite a murderous attack. But it is the Divine command. And
this process of surrounding the city is to be carried on in absolute
silence on the part of the people, with no noise save the sounding of
trumpets until a signal is given; then a great shout is to be raised,
and the walls of Jericho are to fall down flat on the ground. Who
would have thought it strange if Joshua had been somewhat staggered by
so singular directions, and if, like Moses at the bush, he had
suggested all manner of objections, and shown the greatest
unwillingness to undertake the operation? The noble quality of his
faith is shown in his raising no objection at all. After God has thus
answered his question, "What saith my Lord unto His servant?" he is
just as docile and submissive as he was before. True faith is blind to
everything except the Divine command. When God has given him his
orders, he simply communicates them to the priests and to the people.
He leaves the further development of the plan in God's hands, assured
that He will not leave His purpose unfulfilled.

Nor do the priests or the people appear to have made any objection on
their part. The plan no doubt exposed them to two things which men do
not like, ridicule and danger. Possibly the ridicule was as hard to
bear as the danger. God would protect them from the danger, but who
would shield them from the ridicule? Even if at the end of the seven
days, the promised result should take place, would it not be hard to
make themselves for a whole week the sport of the men of Jericho, who
would ask all that time whether they had lost their senses, whether
they imagined that they would terrify them into surrender by the sound
of their rams' horns? How often, especially in the case of young
persons, do we find this dread of ridicule the greatest obstacle to
Christian loyalty? And even where they have the strongest conviction
that ere long the laugh, if laughter may be spoken of in the case,
will be turned against their tormentors, and that it will be clearly
seen who the men are whom the King delighteth to honour, what misery
is caused for the time by ridicule, and how often do the young prove
traitors to Christ rather than endure it? All the more remarkable is
the steadiness of the priests and people on this occasion. We cannot
think that this was due simply and solely to their loyalty to the
leader to whom they had recently sworn allegiance. We cannot but
believe that personal faith animated many of them, the same faith as
that of Joshua himself. Their wilderness training and trials had not
been in vain; the manifest interposition of God in the defeat of Sihon
and Og had sunk into their hearts; the miraculous passage of the river
had brought God very near to them; and it was doubtless in a large
measure their conviction that He who had begun the work of conquest
for them would carry it on to the end, that procured for Joshua's
announcement the unanimous acquiescence and hearty support alike of
priests and people.

And hence, too, the reason why, in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews,
the falling down of the walls of Jericho is specially accounted for as
the result of faith: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after
they were compassed about seven days" (ver. 30). The act of faith lay
in the conviction that God, who had prescribed the method of attack,
foolish though it seemed, would infallibly bring it to a successful
issue. It was not merely Joshua's faith, but the priests' faith, and
the people's faith, that shone in the transaction. Faith repelled the
idea that the enemy would sally forth and break their ranks; it
triumphed over the scorn and ridicule which would certainly be poured
on them; it knew that God had given the directions, and it was
convinced that He would bring all to a triumphant issue. Never had the
spiritual thermometer risen so high in Israel, and seldom did it rise
so high at any future period of their history. That singular week,
spent in marching round Jericho again and again and again, was one of
the most remarkable ever known; the people were near heaven, and the
grace and peace of heaven seem to have rested on their hearts.

We sometimes speak of "ages of faith." There have been times when the
disposition to believe in the unseen, in the presence and power of
God, and in the certain success at last of all that is done in
obedience to His will, has dominated whole communities, and led to a
wonderful measure of holy obedience. Such a period was this age of
Joshua. We cannot say, thinking of ourselves, that the present is an
age of faith. Rather, on the part of the masses, it is an age when the
secular, the visible, the present lords it over men's minds. Yet we
are not left without splendid examples of faith. The missionary
enterprise that contemplates the conquest of the whole world for
Christ, because God has given to His Messiah the heathen for His
inheritance and the uttermost part of the earth for His possession,
and that looks forward to the day when this promise shall be fulfilled
to the letter, is a fruit of faith. And the ready surrender of so many
young lives for the world's evangelization, as missionaries, and
teachers, and medical men and women, is a crowning proof that faith is
not dead among us. Would only it were a faith that pervaded the whole
community,--princes, priests, and people alike; and that there were a
harmony among us in the attack on the strongholds of sin and Satan as
great as there was in the host of Israel when the people, one in heart
and one in hope, marched out, day after day, round the walls of
Jericho!




CHAPTER XII.

_THE FATE OF JERICHO._

JOSHUA vi. 8-27.


The instructions of Joshua to the priests and the people are promptly
obeyed. In the bright rays of the morning sun, on the day when Jericho
is to be surrounded, the plain between the Jordan and Jericho, a space
of some five miles, may be seen dotted over with the tents of Israel,
arranged in that orderly manner which had been prescribed by Moses in
the wilderness. The whole encampment is astir in the prospect of great
events. The erect carriage, the flashing eye, the compressed lip of
the soldiers show that something great and unusual is expected.
By-and-by, there is a stir near the spot where the ark rests, and,
borne on the shoulders of the priests, the sacred vessel is seen in
motion in the direction of Jericho. Right in front of it are seven
priests carrying trumpets of rams' horns, or, as some render it,
jubilee horns. The procession of the ark halts a little, till a body
of armed men advance and form in front of it. Others of the people
take up their places in the rear. The seven priests sound their
trumpets, and the procession moves on. Their course is round the walls
of Jericho, far enough removed to be beyond the reach of the arrows of
its defenders. Not a shout is raised. Not a sound is heard, save that
of the trumpets of the seven priests. At last the procession returns
to the camp, leaving Jericho just as it found it. Next day the same
process is repeated; and the next, and the next, on to the sixth. On
the seventh day, the march begins early and is continued late. The
spirits of the people are sustained during their weary, monotonous
tramp by the expectation of a crisis. At length, when the seventh
circuit has been made, the signal is given by Joshua. The air is rent
with the shouts of the people and the noise of the trumpets, and
immediately, all round, the wall falls flat to the ground, and the
people march straight into the city. Paralysed with astonishment and
terror, the inhabitants are unable to resist, and lie, men, women and
children, at the mercy of their assailants. And the instructions to
the Israelites are to destroy everything that is in the city, both man
and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the
sword. As for the more solid part of the spoil, the silver and the
gold and the vessels of brass and iron, they are "devoted" to the
service of God (the Authorized translation unhappily uses the word
"accursed"). No one is to appropriate a single article to his own use.
An exception to the universal massacre was to take place only in the
case of the harlot Rahab, who was to be saved, with all her relations,
in accordance with the solemn promise of the spies.

There is no difficulty in perceiving the great lesson for all time to
be derived from this extraordinary transaction, or the great law of
the kingdom of God that was made so conspicuous by it. When we have
clear indications of the Divine mind as to any course of action, we
are to advance to it promptly and without fear, even though the means
at our disposal appear utterly inadequate to the object sought to be
gained. No man goeth a warfare at his own charges in the service of
God. The resources of infinite power avail for that service, and they
are sure to be brought into play if it be undertaken for God's glory,
and in accordance with His will. Who could have supposed that the
fishermen of Galilee would in the end triumph over all the might of
kings and rulers; over all the influence of priesthoods and systems of
worship enshrined in the traditions of centuries; over all the
learning and intellect of the philosopher, and over all the prejudices
and passions of the multitude? The secret lay manifestly in the
promise of Jesus--"Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the
world." Who could have thought that the efforts of a poor German
student in Berlin, on behalf of some neglected children, would expand
into the widespread and well-rooted "Inner Mission" of Wichern? Or
that the concern of a prison chaplain for the welfare of some of the
prisoners after their release would develop into the worldwide work of
Fliedner? Or that the distress of a kind-hearted medical student in
London for a batch of poor boys who "didn't live nowhere," and whose
pale faces, as they lay on a cold night on the roof of a shed, stirred
in him an irrepressible compassion, would give birth to one of the
marvels of London philanthropy,--Dr. Barnardo's twenty institutions,
caring for three to four thousand children, in connection with which
the announcement could be made that no really destitute child was ever
turned from its doors? When Carey on his shoemaker's stool
contemplated the evangelization of India, there was as great a gulf
between the end and the apparent means, as when the priests blew with
their rams' horns round the walls of Jericho. But Carey felt it to be
a Divine command, and Joshua-like set himself to obey it, leaving to
God from whom it came to furnish the power by which the work was to be
done. And wherever there have been found men and women of strong faith
in God, who have looked on His will as recorded in the Scriptures with
as much reverence as if it had been announced personally to
themselves, and who have set themselves to obey that will with a sense
of its reality, and a faith in God's promised help, like that of
Joshua as the priests marched round Jericho, the same result has been
realized; before Zerubbabel the great mountain has become a plain, and
success has been achieved worthy of the acknowledgment--"The Lord hath
done great things for us, whereof we are glad."

Far more effectual has this brave and thorough method of doing the
Divine will proved than all the contrivances of compromise and worldly
wisdom. The attempt to serve two masters has never proved either
dignified or permanently successful. "If the Lord be God, follow Him;
but if Baal, then follow him;" but do not attempt to combine in one
what will please God and Baal too. It is the single eye that is full
of light, and full of blessing. If God really is our Master, all the
resources of heaven and earth are at our back. If we are able to go
forward in sole and simple reliance on His might, as David did in the
conflict with Goliath, all will go well. If we waver in our trust in
Him, if we fly to the resources of human policy, if we seek
deliverance from present evil at whatever cost, we arrest, as it were,
the electric current flowing from heaven, and become weak as other
men. Still more if we are guilty of deceit and cunning. How different
was David confronting Goliath, and David feigning madness before King
Achish! In the one case a noble hero, in the other a timid, faltering
child. It is a dear price we pay for present safety or convenience
when we forfeit the approval of our conscience and the favour of God.
It is a sublime attitude that faith takes up even in the face of
overwhelming danger--"Lord, it is nothing with Thee to help, whether
with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O Lord our God;
for we rest on Thee, and in Thy name we go against this multitude. O
Lord, Thou art our God; let not man prevail AGAINST THEE" (2 Chron.
xiv. 11).

This, however, is but one half the lesson of the siege of Jericho. The
other and not less valuable lesson is, that in many good enterprises,
all that is done may appear for a long time to be labour lost, and not
to advance us by one step nearer to the object in view. For six days
the priests carried the ark round Jericho, but not one stone was
loosened from the walls, not by one iota did the defences seem to
yield. Six times on the seventh day there was an equally complete want
of result. Nay, the seventh perambulation on the seventh day appeared
to be equally unsuccessful, until the very last moment; but when that
moment came, the whole defences of the city came tumbling to the
ground. It is often God's method to do a great deal of work unseen,
and then on a sudden effect the consummation. And whenever we are
working in accordance with God's will, it is our encouragement to
believe that though our visible success is hardly appreciable, yet
good and real work is done. For one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day. Sometimes in a thousand years
God does not seem to accomplish a good day's work, but at other times
in a single day He does the work of a thousand years. The reformation
of the Church in the Middle Ages,--how little progress it seemed to
make during weary centuries; and even when victory seemed to be
drawing nigh, how thoroughly was it arrested by the martyrdom of Huss
and Jerome in Bohemia, the extinction of the light of Wicliffe in
England, and the suppression of the Lollards in Scotland! And when in
Providence some causes began to operate that seemed to have a bearing
on the desired consummation, such as the invention of printing, the
revival of learning, and the love of freedom, how feebly they seemed
to operate in opposition to that overwhelming force which the Papacy
had been accumulating for centuries, and which nothing seemed able to
touch! But when Luther appeared, nailed his theses to the door of the
church at Wittemberg, and took up the bold attitude of an out-and-out
opponent to Rome, in one hour the Church was struck as with an
earthquake; it reeled to its foundations, and half of the proud
structure fell. The conflict with American slavery, how slowly it
advanced for many a year, nay, at times it seemed to be even losing
ground; till in the midst of the great Civil War the President signed
a certain proclamation, and in one moment American slavery received
its death blow. An eminent historian of England has a striking picture
of the slow, steady, awful triumph of iniquity in the career of
Cardinal Wolsey, and the sudden collapse of the structure built up so
carefully by that wicked man. Speaking of the final retribution, he
says: "The time of reckoning at length was arrived. Slowly the hand
had crawled along the dial plate, slowly as if the event would never
come, and wrong was heaped on wrong, and oppression cried, and it
seemed as if no ear had heard its voice, till the measure of the
wickedness was at length fulfilled; the finger touched the hour, and
as the strokes of the great hammer rang out above the nation, in an
instant the mighty fabric of iniquity was shivered to ruins."

It is the prerogative of faith to believe that the same law of
Providence is ever in operation, and that the rapidity with which some
great drama is to be wound up may be as striking as the slowness of
its movement was trying in its earlier stages. May we not be living in
an age destined to furnish another great example of this law? The
years as they pass seem laden with great events, and we seem to hear
the angel that hath power over fire calling to the angel with the
sharp sickle,--"Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of
the vine of the earth, for the grapes thereof are fully ripe." We
cannot tell but before a year ends some grand purpose of Providence
shall be accomplished, the death blow given to some system of force or
of fraud that has scourged the earth for centuries, or some great
prophetic cycle completed for which Simeons and Annas have been
watching more than they that watch for the morning. God hasten the day
when on every side truth shall finally triumph over error, good over
evil, peace over strife, love over selfishness, and order over
confusion; and when from every section of God's great but scattered
family the shout of triumph shall go up, "Alleluia: for the Lord God
omnipotent reigneth."

But let us return to the narrative of the fall of Jericho, and advert
to two of the difficulties that have occurred to many minds in
connection with it; one of comparatively little moment, but another of
far more serious import.

The lesser difficulty is connected with the order to march round
Jericho for seven successive days. Was it not contrary to the spirit
of the law to make no difference on the Sabbath? As the narrative
reads we are led to think that the Sabbath was the last of the seven
days, in which case, instead of a cessation of labour, there was an
increase of it sevenfold. Possibly this may be a mistake; but at the
least it seems as if, all days being treated alike, there was a
neglect of the precept, "In it thou shalt not do any work."

To this it has usually been replied that the law of the Sabbath being
only a matter of arrangement, and not founded on any unchangeable
obligation, it was quite competent for God to suspend it or for a time
repeal it, if occasion required. The present instance has been viewed
as one of those exceptional occasions when the obligation to do no
work was suspended for a time. But this is hardly a satisfactory
explanation. Was it likely that immediately after God had so solemnly
charged Joshua respecting the book of the law, that it was "not to
depart out of his mouth, but he was to meditate therein day and night,
to observe to do according to all that was written therein," that
almost on the first occurrence of a public national interest He would
direct him to disregard the law of the Sabbath? Or was it likely that
now that the people were about to get possession of the land, under
the most sacred obligation to frame both their national and their
personal life by the Divine law, one of the most outstanding
requirements of that law should be even temporarily superseded? We
cannot help thinking that it is in another direction that we must look
for the solution of this difficulty.

And what seems the just explanation is, that this solemn procession
of the ark was really an act of worship, a very public and solemn act
of worship, and that therefore the labour which it involved was
altogether justifiable, just as the Sabbath labour involved in the
offering of the daily sacrifices could not be objected to. It was a
very solemn and open demonstration of honour to that great Being in
whom Israel trusted--of obedience to His word, and unfaltering
confidence that He would show Himself the God of His chosen people. At
every step of their march they might well have sung--"I will lift up
mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help." The absurdity
of their proceeding to the eye of flesh invested it with a high
sanctity, because it testified to a conviction that the presence of
that God who dwelt symbolically in the ark would more than compensate
for all the feebleness and even apparent silliness of the plan. It was
indeed an exception to the usual way of keeping the Sabbath, but an
exception that maintained and exalted the honour of God. And, in a
sense, it might be called resting, inasmuch as no aggressive
operations of any kind were carried on; it was simply a waiting on
God, waiting till He should arise out of His place, and cause it to be
seen that "Israel got not the land in possession by their own sword,
neither did their own arm save them: but Thy right hand, and Thine
arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favour
unto them" (Psalm xliv. 3).

A more serious objection in the eyes of many is that which is founded
on the promiscuous massacre of the people of Jericho, which, according
to the narrative, the Israelites were ordered to make. And it is not
wonderful that, with the remarkable sense of the sanctity of human
life attained in our country and in our age, and the intense horror
which we have at scenes of blood and death, the idea of this slaughter
should excite a strong feeling of repugnance. For in truth human life
has never been held so sacred among men as it is in these our days and
in this our island, where by the mercy of God war and bloodshed have
been unknown for nearly a century and a half. We must remember that
three thousand years ago, and in the tumultuous regions of the East,
such a sentiment was unknown. The massacre of one tribe by another was
an event of frequent occurrence, and so little thought of that a year
or two after its occurrence the survivors of the massacre might be
found on perfectly good terms with those who had committed it. This of
course does not affect the righteousness of the sentence executed on
the men of Jericho, but it shows that as executioners of that sentence
the Israelites were not exposed either to the harrowing or the
hardening influence which would now be inseparable from such a work.

We reserve the general question for consideration further on.[10] We
confine ourselves for the present to the inquiry, Why was Jericho
singled out for treatment so specially severe? Not only were all its
inhabitants put to the sword, as indeed the inhabitants of other
cities were too, but the city was burnt with fire, and a special curse
was pronounced upon any one that should set up its gates and its
walls. Of only two other cities do we read that they were destroyed in
this way--Ai and Hazor (viii. 28, xi. 13). And in regard to all the
three we may see special considerations dictating Joshua's course.
Jericho and Ai were the first two cities taken by him, and it may have
been useful to set an example of severity in their case. Hazor was
the centre of a conspiracy, and being situated in the extreme north,
its fate might read a lesson to those who were too far from Jericho
and Ai to see what had happened there. But in the case of Jericho
there was another consideration. Gilgal, which Joshua had made his
headquarters, was but three or four miles distant. At that place there
were no doubt gathered a great part of the flocks and herds of the
Israelites, with the women and children, as well as the ark and the
sacred tabernacle. It was necessary to prevent the possibility of a
fortress being again erected at Jericho. For if it should fall into
the enemy's hands, it would endanger the very existence of Gilgal. We
shall see in the after part of the narrative that the policy of
sparing the towns even when the inhabitants were destroyed proved a
mistake, and was very disastrous to the Israelites. We shall find that
in very many cases, while Joshua was occupied elsewhere, the towns
were taken possession of anew by the Canaanites, and new troubles
befell the Israelites. For Joshua's conquest was not a complete
subjugation, and much remained to be done by each tribe in its
settlement in order to get quit of the old inhabitants. It was the
failure of most of the tribes to do their part in this process that
led to most of the troubles in the future history of Israel, both in
the way of temptation to idolatry and in the form of actual war.

  [10] See Chapter XXXI., "Jehovah the Champion of Israel."

The only things saved from utter destruction at Jericho were the gold
and the silver and other metallic substances, which were put into the
treasury of the house of the Lord. The fact that the "house of the
Lord," situated at this time at Gilgal, was an establishment of such
size as to be able to employ all these things in its service refutes
the assertion of those critics who would make out that at the
settlement in Canaan there was no place that might be called
emphatically "_the_ house of the Lord." It indicates that the
arrangements for worship were on a large scale,--a fact which is
confirmed afterwards by the circumstance that the Gibeonites were
assigned by Joshua to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water _for the
house of my God_." If little is said about the arrangements for
worship in the Book of Joshua, it is because the one object of the
book is to record the settlement of the nation in the country. If it
were true that the book was overhauled by some priestly writer who
took every opportunity of magnifying his office, he must have done his
work in a strange manner. We find in it such hints as we have noticed
showing that the service of the sanctuary was not neglected, but we
have none of those full or formal details that would have been given
if a writer with such a purpose had worked over the book.

We hear of Jericho from time to time as a place of abode both in the
Old Testament and in the New; but when Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt it
with walls and gates, "he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his
firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub,
according to the word of the Lord, which He spake by Joshua the son of
Nun" (1 Kings xvi. 34). It was ordained that that first fortress which
had withstood the people of God on the west of Jordan should remain a
perpetual desolation. As the stones set up in the channel and on the
banks of the river witnessed to future generations of God's care for
His own people, so the stones of Jericho cast down and lying in ruined
heaps were designed to testify to the dread retribution that overtook
the guilty. The two great lessons of Providence from Jericho are, the
certainty of the reward of faith and obedience on the one hand, and of
the punishment of wickedness on the other. The words which Balaam had
proclaimed from the top of the mountain on the other side now received
their first fulfilment:--

    "How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob,
    Thy tabernacles, O Israel!...
    God bringeth him forth out of Egypt;
    He hath, as it were, the strength of the wild ox;
    He shall eat up the nations his adversaries,
    And shall break their bones in pieces,
    And smite them through with His arrows."




CHAPTER XIII.

_RAHAB SAVED._

JOSHUA vi. 17, 22-25.


It has not been the lot of Rahab to share the devout interest which
has been lavished on Mary Magdalene. Our Correggios, Titians, and
Carlo Dolcis have not attempted to represent the spirit of contrition
and devotion transfiguring the face of the Canaanite girl. And this is
not surprising. Rahab had never seen the human face of Jesus, nor
heard the words that dropped like honey from His lips. She had never
come under that inexpressible charm which lay in the bearing of the
living Jesus, the charm that made so remarkable a change not only on
the "woman that was a sinner," but on Zaccheus, on Peter in the high
priest's hall, on the penitent thief, and on Saul of Tarsus on the way
to Damascus. For there was a wonderful power in the very looks and
tones of Jesus to touch the heart, and thereby to throw a new light on
all one's past life, making sin look black and odious, and inspiring
an intense desire for resemblance to Him who was so much fairer than
all the children of men. Rahab had never seen the Divine image in any
purer form than it appeared in Joshua and men and women like-minded
with him.

But though she was not one of those whose contrite and holy love
painters delight to represent, she belonged to the same order, and in
some respects is more remarkable than any of the New Testament
penitents. For her light was much dimmer than theirs who lived in the
days of the Son of man. She was utterly without support or sympathy
from those among whom she lived, for with the exception of her own
relations, who seem to have been influenced by herself, not a creature
in Jericho shared her faith, or showed the slightest regard for the
God of Israel.

But the time has now come for her to reap the reward of her faith and
its works. In her case there was but a short interval between the
sowing and the reaping. And God showed Himself able to do in her
exceeding abundantly above what she could ask or think. For she was
not only protected when Jericho and all its people were destroyed, but
incorporated with the children of Israel. She became an heir of
Abraham's blessing; she came among those "to whom pertained the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law,
and the service of God, and the promises." An old tradition made her
the wife of Joshua, but, according to the genealogies she married
Salmon (Matt. i. 5), prince of the imperial tribe of Judah,
great-grandfather of David, and ancestor of the Messiah. In the golden
roll of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, she is the only woman who
shares with Sarah, the great mother of the nation, the honour of a
place among the heroes of the faith. Such honours could not have been
attained by her had she not been a changed character,--one of those
who erewhile "had lain among the pots, but who became like the wings
of a dove covered with silver and her feathers with yellow gold."

Very special mention is made of her in the narrative of the
destruction of Jericho. In the first place, before the overthrow of
the city, Joshua gives particular instructions regarding her,
accepting very readily the promise that had been made to her by the
two spies. If Joshua had been a man of unreasonable temper, he might
have refused to ratify their action in her case. He might have said
that God had doomed the whole inhabitants of the city to destruction,
and as no instructions had been given by Him to spare Rahab, she must
share the doom of the rest. But Joshua at once recognised the
propriety of an exception in favour of one who had shown such faith,
and who had rendered such service to the spies and to the nation; and,
moreover, he looked on the promise made by the spies as reasonable,
for it would have been gross tyranny to send them on such an errand
without power to make fair compensation for any assistance they might
receive. Yet how often have promises made in danger been broken when
the danger was past! Rahab must have known that had it been some
Canaanite chief and not Joshua that had to decide her fate, he would
have scorned the promise of the spies, and consigned her to the
general doom. She must have been impressed with the honourable conduct
of Joshua in so cordially endorsing the promise of the spies, and
thought well of his religion on that account. Honour and religion go
well together; meanness and religion breed contempt. We see meanness
with a religious profession culminating in the treachery of Judas. We
see honour in alliance with religion culminating in the Garden of
Gethsemane, when the bleeding Sufferer rallied His fainting courage
and stood firm to His undertaking--"The cup which My Father hath given
Me, shall I not drink it?"

No doubt the scarlet cord was hung from her window, as had been
arranged with the spies, and the Israelites, when they saw it, would
be reminded of the blood of the lamb sprinkled on their door posts and
lintels when the destroying angel passed through Egypt. It was the two
men who had acted as spies that Joshua instructed to enter her house,
and bring out the woman and all that she had. And a happy woman she no
doubt was when she saw the faces of her old guests, and under their
protection was brought out with all her kindred and all that she had
and led to a place of safety. It is a blessed time, after you have
stood fast to duty while many have failed, when the hour comes that
brings you peace and blessing, while it carries confusion and misery
to the faithless. How thankful one is at such a moment for the grace
that enabled one to choose the right! With what awe one looks into the
gulf on whose edge one stood, and thanks God for the grace that
brought the victory! And how often is the welfare of a lifetime
secured in some crisis by the firm attitude of an hour. What do we not
gain by patience when we do the right and wait for the reward? One of
the pictures in the Interpreter's House is that of "a little room
where sat two little children, each in his chair. The name of the
eldest was Passion, and of the other Patience. Passion seemed much
discontent, but Patience was very quiet. Then asked Christian, What is
the reason of the discontent of Passion? The Interpreter answered, The
Governor of them would have them stay for his best things till the
beginning of the next year; but he will have them all now; but
Patience is willing to wait." How invaluable is the spirit that can
wait till the beginning of the next year! And especially with
reference to the awards of eternity. The rush for good things now,
the desire at all hazards to gratify inclination as it rises, the
impatience that will not wait till next year--how many lives they
wreck, what misery they gender for eternity! But when you do choose
that good part that shall not be taken away, and count all things but
loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, what
ecstatic bliss you make sure of in that solemn hour when the dead,
small and great, shall stand before God; and, amid weeping and wailing
inexpressible on the left hand, the Judge shall pronounce the words,
"Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world."

The case of Rahab was one of those where whole families were saved on
account of the faith of one member. Such was the case of Noah, whose
faith secured the exemption of himself and all his family from the
flood. Such, hypothetically, was the case of Lot, whose whole family
would have been preserved from the fire and brimstone, if only they
had received his warning and left Sodom with him. On the other hand,
there were cases, like that of Korah in the wilderness, and of Achan,
near this very place, Jericho, where the sin of the father involved
the death of the whole family. In the case of Rahab, we find a family
saved, not through the faith of the head of the house, but of a member
of it, and that member a woman. The head of a Hebrew house was
eminently a representative man, and by a well-understood and
recognised law his family were implicated in his acts, whether for
good or for evil. But in this case the protector of the family, the
member of it that determines the fate of the whole, is not the one
whom the law recognises, but his child, his daughter. A woman occupies
here a higher and more influential place, in relation to the rest of
the family, than she has ever held at any previous time. The incident
comes in as a kind of foreshadow of what was to be abundantly verified
in after times. For it is in Christian times that woman has most
conspicuously attained that position of high influence on the welfare
of the family, and especially its eternal welfare, which Rahab showed
in delivering her house from the destruction of Jericho.

At a very early period in the history of the Christian Church, the
great influence of godly women on the welfare of their male relations
began to be seen. About the fourth century we can hardly peruse the
biography of any eminent Christian father, without being struck with
the share which the prayers and efforts of some pious female relative
had in his conversion. Monica, the mother of Augustine, is held in
reverence all over Christendom for her tears and wrestling prayers on
behalf of her son; and the name of Anthusa, the mother of Chrysostom,
is hardly less venerable. Nonna, the mother of Gregory Nazianzen;
Macrina and Emmelia, the mother and the grandmother of Basil the Great
and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as their sister, also called Macrina;
Theosebia too, the wife of Gregory, and Marallina, the sister of
Ambrose, all share a similar renown. And in more recent times, how
many are the cases where sisters and daughters have exercised a
blessed influence on brothers and fathers! Every right-hearted sister
has a peculiarly warm and tender interest in the welfare of her
brothers. It is a feeling not to be neglected, but carefully nursed
and deepened. This narrative shows it to be in the line of God's
providence that sisters and daughters shall prove instruments of
deliverance to their relations. It is blessed when they are so even in
earthly things, but far more glorious when, through faith and prayer
and unwearied interest, they are enabled to win them to Christ, and
turn them into living epistles for Him.

It can hardly be necessary to dwell at length on the commentary which
we find in the Epistle of James on the faith of Rahab. For it is not
so much anything personal to her that he handles, but an important
quality of all true faith, and of her faith as being true. "Was not
Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had received the
messengers, and had sent them out another way?" No intelligent person
needs to be told that the view of justification here given is in no
wise at variance with that of St. Paul. Paul's doctrine was propounded
in the early years of the Church, when, in opposition to the notion
prevalent among the Gentiles, it was necessary to show clearly that
there was no justifying merit in works. The doctrine of James was
propounded at a later period, when men, presuming on free grace, were
beginning to get lax in their practice, and it was necessary to insist
that faith could not be true faith if it was not accompanied by
corresponding works. The case of Rahab is employed by St. James to
illustrate this latter position. If Rahab had merely professed belief
in the God of Israel as the only true God, and in the certainty that
Israel would possess the land, according to God's promise, her faith
would have been a barren or dead faith; in other words, it would have
been no true faith at all. It was her taking up the cause of the
spies, protecting them, endangering her life for them, and then
devising and executing a scheme for their safety, that showed her
faith to be living, and therefore real. Let it be true that faith is
only the instrument of justification, that it possesses no merit, and
that its value lies solely in its uniting us to Christ, so that we
get justification and all other blessings from Him; still that which
really unites us to Christ must be living. Dr. Chalmers used to sum up
the whole doctrine in the formula, "We are justified by faith alone,
but not by a faith which is alone."

But let us now advert to the reception of Rahab into the nation and
church of the Israelites. "They brought out all her kindred, and left
them without the camp of Israel.... And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot
alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she
dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers
which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho." First, they left them without
the camp. At first they could be treated only as unclean until the
rites of purification should be performed. In the case of Rahab this
was doubly necessary--owing to her race, and owing to her life.
Thereafter they were admitted to the commonwealth of Israel, and had
an interest in the covenants of promise. The ceremonial purification
and the formal admission signified little, except in so far as they
represented the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy
Ghost. Whether this vital change took place we are not told, but we
seem justified in inferring it both from what we read in Hebrews and
from the fact that Rahab was one of the ancestors of our Lord. It is
interesting and instructive to think of her as exemplifying that law
of grace by which the door of heaven is flung open even to the vilest
sinner. "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound." When the
enemy ensnares a woman, wiles her into the filthiest chambers of sin,
and so enchains her there that she cannot escape, but must sink deeper
and deeper in the mire, the case is truly hopeless. More rapidly and
more thoroughly than in the case of a man, the leprosy spreads till
every virtuous principle is rooted out, and every womanly feeling is
displaced by the passions of a sensual reprobate. "Son of man, can
these bones live?" Is there any art to breathe the breath of purity
and pure love into that defiled soul? Can such a woman ever find her
home on the mountains of spices, and hear a loving bridegroom say, "My
love, my undefiled is but one"? It is just here that the religion of
the Bible achieves its highest triumphs. We say the religion of the
Bible, but we should rather say, that gracious Being whose grace the
Bible unfolds. "The things that are impossible with men are possible
with God." Jesus Christ is the prince of life. Experience of His
saving grace, living fellowship with Him, can so change "fornicators
and idolaters, and adulterers and effeminate and abusers of themselves
with mankind, and thieves and covetous and drunkards and revilers and
extortioners," that it may be said of them, "But ye are washed, but ye
are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit of our God." Living faith in a living and loving
Saviour can do all things.

Ten thousand times has this truth been illustrated in evangelistic
addresses, in sermons, and in tracts innumerable from the case of the
prodigal son. And what imagination can estimate the good which that
parable has done? In this point of view it is strange that little use
has been made of an Old Testament passage, in which the same truth is
unfolded with touching beauty from the case of a faithless woman. We
refer to the second chapter of Hosea. It is the case of a guilty and
apparently shameless wife. Impelled by greed, meanest of all motives,
she has gone after this lover and that, because they seemed able to
gratify her love of finery and luxury, and all the vain show of the
world. But the time comes when her eyes are opened, her lovers are
brought to desolation, she sees that they have all been a lie and a
deception, and that no real good has ever come to her save from the
husband whom she has forsaken and insulted. And now when she turns to
him she is simply overwhelmed by his graciousness and generosity. He
does all that can be done to make her forget her past miseries, all
her past life, and he succeeds. The valley of Achor becomes a door of
hope; she is so transformed inwardly, and her outward surroundings are
so changed, that "she sings as in the days of her youth." The happy
feelings of her unpolluted childhood return to her, as if she had
drunk the waters of Lethe, and she sings like a light-hearted girl
once more. The allegory is hardly an allegory,--it is Divine love that
has effected the change; that love that many waters cannot quench and
floods cannot drown.

We wonder whether Rahab obtained much help in her new life from the
fellowship of those among whom she came when she joined the Church. If
the Church then was what the Church ever ought to be, if its
outstanding members were like the three fair damsels, Prudence, Piety
and Charity, in the Palace Beautiful, no doubt she would be helped
greatly. But it is not very often that that emblem is realized. And
strange to say, among the members of our Churches now, we usually find
a very imperfect sense of the duty which they owe to those who come
among them from without, and especially out of great wickedness. It is
quite possible that Rahab was chilled by the coldness of some of her
Hebrew sisters, looking on her as an intruder, looking on her as a
reprobate, and grieved because their select society was broken in upon
by this outlandish woman. And it is quite possible that she was
disappointed to find that, though they were nominally the people of
God, there was very little of what was divine or heavenly about them.
So it often happens that what ought to be the greatest attraction in a
Church, the character of its members, is the greatest repellant. If
all sin-worn and world-worn souls, weary of the world's ways, and
longing for a society more loving, more generous, more pure, more
noble, could find in the Christian Church their ideal fulfilled, could
find in the fellowship of Christians the reality of their dreams, how
blessed would be the result! Alas, in too many cases they find the
world's bitterness and meanness and selfishness reproduced under the
flag of Christ! If all so-called Christians, it has been said, should
live for but one year in accordance with the thirteenth chapter of 1st
Corinthians, unbelief would vanish. Will the day ever be when every
one that names the name of Christ shall be a living epistle, known and
read of all men?

But, however she may have been affected by the spirit of those among
whom she came, Rahab undoubtedly attained to a good degree before God,
and a place of high honour in the Hebrew community. It was well for
her that what at first arrested and impressed her was not anything in
the people of Israel; it was the glorious attributes of their God. For
this would preserve her substantially from disappointment. Men might
change, or they might pass away, but God remained the same yesterday
and to-day and for ever. If she kept looking to Him, admiring His
grace and power, and drawing from His inexhaustible fulness, she
would be able to verify one at least of the prophet's pictures:
"Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and
whose heart departeth from the Lord: for he shall be like the heath in
the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the
parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord
is: for he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that
spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat
cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the
year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit."




CHAPTER XIV.

_ACHAN'S TRESPASS._

JOSHUA vii.


A vessel in full sail scuds merrily over the waves. Everything
betokens a successful and delightful voyage. The log has just been
taken, marking an extraordinary run. The passengers are in the highest
spirits, anticipating an early close of the voyage. Suddenly a shock
is felt, and terror is seen on every face. The ship has struck on a
rock. Not only is progress arrested, but it will be a mercy for crew
and passengers if they can escape with their lives.

Not often so violently, but often as really, progress is arrested in
many a good enterprise that seemed to be prospering to a wish. There
may be no shock, but there is a stoppage of movement. The vital force
that seemed to be carrying it on towards the desired consummation
declines, and the work hangs fire. A mission that in its first stages
was working out a beautiful transformation, becomes languid and
advances no further. A Church, eminent for its zeal and spirituality,
comes down to the ordinary level, and seems to lose its power. A
family that promised well in infancy and childhood fails of its
promise, its sons and daughters waver and fall. A similar result is
often found in the undertakings of common life. Something mysterious
arrests progress in business or causes a decline. In "enterprises of
great pith and moment," "the currents turn awry, and lose the name of
action."

In all such cases we naturally wonder what can be the cause. And very
often our explanation is wide of the mark. In religious enterprises,
we are apt to fall back on the sovereignty and inscrutability of God.
"He moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform." It seems good
to Him, for unknown purposes of His own, to subject us to
disappointment and trial. We do not impugn either His wisdom or His
goodness; all is for the best. But, for the most part, we fail to
detect the real reason. That the fault should lie with ourselves is
the last thing we think of. We search for it in every direction rather
than at home. We are ingenious in devising far-off theories and
explanations, while the real offender is close at hand--"_Israel hath
sinned_."

It was an unexpected obstacle of this kind that Joshua now encountered
in his next step towards possessing the land. Let us endeavour to
understand his position and his plan. Jericho lay in the valley of the
Jordan, and its destruction secured nothing for Joshua save the
possession of that low-lying valley. From the west side of the valley
rose a high mountain wall, which had to be ascended in order to reach
the plateau of Western Palestine. Various ravines or passes ran down
from the plateau into the valley; at the top of one of these, a little
to the north of Jericho, was Bethel, and farther down the pass, nearer
the plain, the town or village of Ai. No remains of Ai are now
visible, nor is there any tradition of the name, so that its exact
position cannot be ascertained. It was an insignificant place, but
necessary to be taken, in order to give Joshua command of the pass,
and enable him to reach the plateau above. The plan of Joshua seems to
have been to gain command of the plateau about this point, and
thereby, as it were, cut the country in two, so that he might be able
to deal in succession with its southern and its northern sections. If
once he could establish himself in the very centre of the country,
keeping his communications open with the Jordan valley, he would be
able to deal with his opponents in detail, and thus prevent those in
the one section from coming to the assistance of the other. Neither Ai
nor Bethel seemed likely to give him trouble; they were but
insignificant places, and a very small force would be sufficient to
deal with them.

Hitherto Joshua had been eminently successful, and his people too. Not
a hitch had occurred in all the arrangements. The capture of Jericho
had been an unqualified triumph. It seemed as if the people of Ai
could hardly fail to be paralysed by its fate. After reconnoitring Ai,
Joshua saw that there was no need for mustering the whole host against
so poor a place--a detachment of two or three thousand would be
enough. The three thousand went up against it as confidently as if
success were already in their hands. It was probably a surprise to
find its people making any attempt to drive them off. The men of
Israel were not prepared for a vigorous onslaught, and when it came
thus unexpectedly they were taken aback and fled in confusion. As the
men of Ai pursued them down the pass, they had no power to rally or
retrieve the battle; the rout was complete, some of the men were
killed, while consternation was carried into the host, and their whole
enterprise seemed doomed to failure.

And now for the first time Joshua appears in a somewhat humiliating
light. He is not one of the men that never make a blunder. He rends
his clothes, falls on his face with the elders before the ark of the
Lord till even, and puts dust upon his head. There is something too
abject in this prostration. And when he speaks to God, it is in the
tone of complaint and in the language of unbelief. "Alas, O Lord God,
wherefore hast Thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver
us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had
been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan! O Lord, what shall I
say, when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies! For the
Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and
shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what
wilt Thou do unto Thy great name?" Thus Joshua almost throws the blame
on God. He seems to have no idea that it may lie in quite another
quarter. And very strangely, he adopts the very tone and almost the
language of the ten spies, against which he had protested so
vehemently at the time: "Would God that we had died in the land of
Egypt, or would God we had died in this wilderness! And wherefore hath
the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our
wives and our children should be a prey?" What has become of all your
courage, Joshua, on that memorable day? Is this the man to whom God
said so lately, "Be strong, and of good courage; as I was with Moses,
so I will be with thee. I will not fail thee nor forsake thee"? Like
Peter on the waters, and like so many of ourselves, he begins to sink
when the wind is contrary, and his cry is the querulous wail of a
frightened child! After all he is but flesh and blood.

Now it is God's turn to speak. "Get thee up; wherefore liest thou
thus upon thy face?" Why do you turn on Me as if I had suddenly
changed, and become forgetful of My promise? Alas, my friends, how
often is God slandered by our complaints! How often do we feel and
even speak as if He had broken His word and forgotten His promise, as
if He had induced us to trust in Him, and accept His service, only to
humiliate us before the world, and forsake us in some great crisis! No
wonder if God speak sharply to Joshua, and to us if we go in Joshua's
steps. No wonder if He refuse to be pleased with our prostration, our
wringing of our hands and sobbing, and calls us to change our
attitude. "Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?"

Then comes the true explanation--"Israel hath sinned." Might you not
have divined that this was the real cause of your trouble? Is not sin
directly or indirectly the cause of all trouble? What was it that
broke up the joy and peace of Paradise? Sin. What brought the flood of
waters over the face of the earth to destroy it? Sin. What caused the
confusion of Babel and scattered the inhabitants over the earth in
hostile races? Sin. What brought desolation on that very plain of
Jordan, and buried its cities and its people under an avalanche of
fire and brimstone? Sin. What caused the defeat of Israel at Hormah
forty years ago, and doomed all the generation to perish in the
wilderness? Sin. What threw down the walls of Jericho only a few days
ago, gave its people to the sword of Israel, and reduced its homes and
its bulwarks to the mass of ruins you see _there_? Again, sin. Can you
not read the plainest lesson? Can you not divine that this trouble
which has come on you is due to the same cause with all the rest? And
if it be a first principle of Providence that all trouble is due to
sin, would it not be more suitable that you and your elders should now
be making diligent search for it, and trying to get it removed, than
that you should be lying on your faces and howling to me, as if some
sudden caprice or unworthy humour of mine had brought this distress
upon you?

"Behold, the Lord's ear is not heavy that it cannot hear, nor His arm
shortened that it cannot save. But your iniquities have separated
between you and your God." What a curse that sin is, in ways and
forms, too, which we do not suspect! And yet we are usually so very
careless about it. How little pains we take to ascertain its presence,
or to drive it away from among us! How little tenderness of conscience
we show, how little burning desire to be kept from the accursed thing!
And when we turn to our opponents and see sin in them, instead of
being grieved, we fall on them savagely to upbraid them, and we hold
them up to open scorn. How little we think if they are guilty, that
their sin has intercepted the favour of God, and involved not them
only, but probably the whole community in trouble! How unsatisfactory
to God must seem the bearing even of the best of us in reference to
sin! Do we really think of it as the object of God's abhorrence? As
that which destroyed Paradise, as that which has covered the earth
with lamentation and mourning and woe, kindled the flames of hell, and
brought the Son of God to suffer on the cross? If only we had some
adequate sense of sin, should we not be constantly making it our
prayer--"Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my
thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the
way everlasting"?

The peculiar covenant relation in which Israel stood to God caused a
method to be fallen on for detecting their sin that is not available
for us. The whole people were to be assembled next morning, and
inquiry was to be made for the delinquent in God's way, and when the
individual was found condign punishment was to be inflicted. First the
tribe was to be ascertained, then the family, then the man. For this
is God's way of tracking sin. It might be more pleasant to us that He
should deal with it more generally, and having ascertained, for
example, that the wrong had been done by a particular tribe or
community, inflict a fine or other penalty on that tribe in which we
should willingly bear our share. For it does not grieve us very much
to sin when every one sins along with us. Nay, we can even make merry
over the fact that we are all sinners together, all in the same
condemnation, in the same disgrace. But it is a different thing when
we are dealt with one by one. The tribe is taken, the family is taken,
but that is not all; the household that God shall take shall come MAN
BY MAN! It is that individualizing of us that we dread; it is when it
comes to that, that "conscience makes cowards of us all." When a
sinner is dying, he becomes aware that this individualizing process is
about to take place, and hence the fear which he often feels. He is no
longer among the multitude, death is putting him by himself, and God
is coming to deal with him by himself. If he could only be hid in the
crowd it would not matter, but that searching eye of God--who can
stand before it? What will all the excuses or disguises or glosses he
can devise avail before Him who "sets our iniquities before Him, our
secret sins in the light of His countenance"? "Neither is there any
creature that is not manifest in His sight; for all things are naked,
and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Happy, in
that hour, they who have found the Divine covering for sin: "Blessed
is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed
is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit
there is no guile."

But before passing on to the result of the scrutiny, we find ourselves
face to face with a difficult question. If, as is here intimated, it
was one man that sinned, why should the whole nation have been dealt
with as guilty? Why should the historian, in the very first verse of
this chapter, summarise the transaction by saying: "But the _children
of Israel_ committed a trespass in the devoted thing: for _Achan_, the
son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of
Judah, took of the devoted thing; and the anger of the Lord was
kindled against the children of Israel"? Why visit the offence of
Achan on the whole congregation, causing a peculiarly humiliating
defeat to take place before an insignificant enemy, demoralizing the
whole host, driving Joshua to distraction, and causing the death of
six-and-thirty men?

In dealing with a question of this sort, it is indispensable that we
station ourselves at that period of the world's history; we must place
before our minds some of the ideas that were prevalent at the time,
and abstain from judging of what was done then by a standard which is
applicable only to our own day.

And certain it is that, what we now call the _solidarity_ of mankind,
the tendency to look on men rather as the members of a community than
as independent individuals, each with an inalienable standing of his
own, had a hold of men's minds then such as it has not to-day,
certainly among Western nations. To a certain extent, this principle
of solidarity is inwoven in the very nature of things, and cannot be
eliminated, however we may try. Absolute independence and isolation of
individuals are impossible. In families, we suffer for one another's
faults, even when we hold them in abhorrence. We benefit by one
another's virtues, though we may have done our utmost to discourage
and destroy them. In the Divine procedure toward us, the principle of
our being a corporate body is often acted upon. The covenant of Adam
was founded on it, and the fall of our first parents involved the fall
of all their descendants. In the earlier stages of the Hebrew economy,
wide scope was given to the principle. It operated in two forms:
sometimes the individual suffered for the community, and sometimes the
community for the individual. And the operation of the principle was
not confined to the Hebrew or to other Oriental communities. Even
among the Romans it had a great influence. Admirable though Roman law
was in its regulation of property, it was very defective in its
dealings with persons. "Its great blot was the domestic code. The son
was the property of the father, without rights, without substantial
being, in the eye of Roman law.... The wife again was the property of
her husband, an ownership of which the moral result was most
disastrous."[11]

  [11] See Mozley's "Ruling Ideas in the Early Ages," p. 40.

We are to remember that practically the principle of solidarity was
fully admitted in Joshua's time among his people. The sense of
injustice and hardship to which it might give rise among us did not
exist. Men recognised it as a law of wide influence in human affairs,
to which they were bound to defer. Hence it was that when it became
known that one man's offence lay at the foundation of the defeat
before Ai, and of the displeasure of God toward the people at large,
there was no outcry, no remonstrance, no complaint of injustice. This
could hardly take place if the same thing were to happen now. It is
hard to reconcile the transaction with our sense of justice. And no
doubt, if we view the matter apart and by itself, there may be some
ground for this feeling. But the transaction will assume another
aspect if we view it as but a part of a great whole, of a great scheme
of instruction and discipline which God was developing in connection
with Israel. In this light, instead of a hardship it will appear that
in the end a very great benefit was conferred on the people.

Let us think of Achan's temptation. A large amount of valuable
property fell into the hands of the Israelites at Jericho. By a
rigorous law, all was devoted to the service of God. Now a covetous
man like Achan might find many plausible reasons for evading this law.
"What I take to myself (he might say) will never be missed. There are
hundreds of Babylonish garments, there are many wedges of gold, and
silver shekels without number, amply sufficient for the purpose for
which they are devoted. If I were to deprive another man of his
rightful share, I should be acting very wickedly; but I am really
doing nothing of the kind. I am only diminishing imperceptibly what is
to be used for a public purpose. Nobody will suffer a whit by what I
do,--it cannot be very wrong."

Now the great lesson taught very solemnly and impressively to the
whole nation was, that this was just awfully wrong. The moral benefit
which the nation ultimately got from the transaction was, that this
kind of sophistry, this flattering unction which leads so many persons
ultimately to destruction, was exploded and blown to shivers. A most
false mode of measuring the criminality of sin was stamped with
deserved reprobation. Every man and woman in the nation got a solemn
warning against a common but ruinous temptation. In so far as they
laid to heart this warning during the rest of the campaign, they were
saved from disastrous evil, and thus, in the long run, they profited
by the case of Achan.

That sin is to be held sinful only when it hurts your
fellow-creatures, and especially the poor among your fellow-creatures,
is a very common impression, but surely it is a delusion of the devil.
That it has such effects may be a gross aggravation of the wickedness,
but it is not the heart and core of it. And how can you know that it
will not hurt others? Not hurt your fellow-countrymen, Achan? Why,
that secret sin of yours has caused the death of thirty-six men, and a
humiliating defeat of the troops before Ai. More than that, it has
separated between the nation and God. Many say, when they tell a lie,
it was not a malignant lie, it was a lie told to screen some one, not
to expose him, therefore it was harmless. But you cannot trace the
consequences of that lie, any more than Achan could trace the
consequences of his theft, otherwise you would not dare to make that
excuse. Many that would not steal from a poor man, or waste a poor
man's substance, have little scruple in wasting a rich man's
substance, or in peculating from Government property. Who can measure
the evil that flows from such ways of trifling with the inexorable law
of right, the damage done to conscience, and the guilt contracted
before God? Is there safety for man or woman except in the most rigid
regard to right and truth, even in the smallest portions of them with
which they have to do? Is there not something utterly fearful in the
propagating power of sin, and in its way of involving others, who are
perfectly innocent, in its awful doom? Happy they who from their
earliest years have had a salutary dread of it, and of its infinite
ramifications of misery and woe!

How well fitted for us, especially when we are exposed to temptation,
is that prayer of the psalmist: "Who can understand his errors?
cleanse Thou me from secret faults. Keep back Thy servant also from
presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be
perfect, and I shall be clear of great transgression."




CHAPTER XV.

_ACHAN'S PUNISHMENT._

JOSHUA vii.


"Be sure your sin will find you out." It has an awful way of leaving
its traces behind it, and confronting the sinner with his crime.
"Though he hide himself in the top of Carmel, I will search and take
him out thence; and though he be hid from My sight in the bottom of
the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite him"
(Amos ix. 3). "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with
every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil"
(Eccles. xii. 14).

When Achan heard of the muster that was to take place next morning, in
order to detect the offender, he must have spent a miserable night.
Between the consciousness of guilt, the sense of the mischief he had
done, the dread of detection, and the foreboding of retribution, his
nerves were too much shaken to admit the possibility of sleep.
Weariedly and anxiously he must have tossed about as the hours slowly
revolved, unable to get rid of his miserable thoughts, which would
ever keep swimming about him like the changing forms of a
kaleidoscope, but with the same dark vision of coming doom.

At length the day dawns, the tribes muster, the inquiry begins. It is
by the sure, solemn, simple, process of the lot that the case is to be
decided. First the lot is cast for the tribes, and the tribe of Judah
is taken. That must have given the first pang to Achan. Then the tribe
is divided into its families, and the family of the Zarhites is taken;
then the Zarhite family is brought out man by man, and Zabdi, the
father of Achan, is taken. May we not conceive the heart of Achan
giving a fresh beat as each time the casting of the lot brought the
charge nearer and nearer to himself? The coils are coming closer and
closer about him; and now his father's family is brought out, man by
man, and Achan is taken. He is quite a young man, for his father could
only have been a lad when he left Egypt. Look at him, pale, trembling,
stricken with shame and horror, unable to hide himself, feeling it
would be such a relief if the earth would open its jaws and swallow
him up, as it swallowed Korah. Look at his poor wife; look at his
father; look at his children. What a load of misery he has brought on
himself and on them! Yes, the way of transgressors is hard.

Joshua's heart is overcome, and he deals gently with the young man.
"My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make
confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not
from me." There was infinite kindness in that word "my son." It
reminds us of that other Joshua, the Jesus of the New Testament, so
tender to sinners, so full of love even for those who had been steeped
in guilt. It brings before us the Great High Priest, who is touched
with the feeling of our infirmities, seeing He was in all things
tempted like as we are, yet without sin. A harsh word from Joshua
might have set Achan in a defiant attitude, and drawn from him a
denial that he had done anything amiss. How often do we see this! A
child or a servant has done wrong; you are angry, you speak harshly,
you get a flat denial. Or if the thing cannot be denied, you get only
a sullen acknowledgment, which takes away all possibility of good
arising out of the occurrence, and embitters the relation of the
parties to each other.

But not only did Joshua speak kindly to Achan, he confronted him with
God, and called on him to think how He was concerned in this matter.
"Give glory to the Lord God of Israel." Vindicate Him from the charge
which I and others have virtually been bringing against Him, of
proving forgetful of His covenant. Clear Him of all blame, declare His
glory, declare that He is unsullied in His perfections, and show that
He has had good cause to leave us to the mercy of our enemies. No man
as yet knew what Achan had done. He might have been guilty of some act
of idolatry, or of some unhallowed sensuality like that which had
lately taken place at Baal-peor; in order that the transaction might
carry its lesson, it was necessary that the precise offence should be
known. Joshua's kindly address and his solemn appeal to Achan to clear
the character of God had the desired effect. "Achan answered Joshua,
and said, Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and
thus and thus have I done: when I saw among the spoils a goodly
Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of
gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and,
behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the
silver under it."

The confession certainly was frank and full; but whether it was made
in the spirit of true contrition, or whether it was uttered in the
hope that it would mitigate the sentence to be inflicted, we cannot
tell. It would be a comfort to us to think that Achan was sincerely
penitent, and that the miserable doom which befell him and his family
ended their troubles, and formed the dark introduction to a better
life. Where there is even a possibility that such a view is correct we
naturally draw to it, for it is more than our hearts can well bear to
think of so awful a death being followed by eternal misery.

Certain it is that Joshua earnestly desired to lead Achan to deal with
God in the matter. "Make confession," he said, "unto Him." He knew the
virtue of confession to God. For "he that covereth his sins shall not
prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy"
(Prov. xxviii. 13). "When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through
my roaring all the day.... I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine
iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto
the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm xxxii. 3,
5). It is a hopeful circumstance in Achan's case that it was after
this solemn call to deal with God in the matter that he made his
confession. One hopes that the sudden appearance on the scene of the
God whom he had so sadly forgotten, led him to see his sin in its true
light, and drew out the acknowledgment,--"Against Thee, Thee only,
have I sinned." For no moral effect can be greater than that arising
from the difference between sin covered and sin confessed to God. Sin
covered is the fruitful parent of excuses, and sophistries, and of all
manner of attempts to disguise the harsh features of transgression,
and to show that, after all, there was not much wrong in it. Sin
confessed to God shows a fitting sense of the evil, of the shame which
it brings, and of the punishment which it deserves, and an earnest
longing for that forgiveness and renewal which, the gospel now shows
us so clearly, come from Jesus Christ. For nothing becomes a sinner
before God so well as when he breaks down. It is the moment of a new
birth when he sees what miserable abortions all the refuges of lies
are, and, utterly despairing of being able to hide himself from God in
his filthy rags, unbosoms everything to Him with whom "there is mercy
and plenteous redemption, and who will redeem Israel from all his
transgressions."

It is a further presumption that Achan was a true penitent, that he
told so frankly where the various articles that he had appropriated
were to be found. "Behold, they are hid in the midst of my tent." They
were scalding his conscience so fearfully that he could not rest till
they were taken away from the abode which they polluted and cursed.
They seemed to be crying out against him and his with a voice which
could not be silenced. To bring them away and expose them to public
view might bring no relaxation of the doom which he expected, but it
would be a relief to his feelings if they were dragged from the hiding
hole to which he had so wickedly consigned them. For the articles were
now as hateful to him as formerly they had been splendid and
delightful. The curse of God was on them now, and on him too on their
account. Is there anything darker or deadlier than the curse of God?

And now the consummation arrives. Messengers are sent to his tent,
they find the stolen goods, they bring them to Joshua, and to all the
children of Israel, and they lay them out before the Lord. We are not
told how the judicial sentence was arrived at. But there seems to have
been no hesitation or delay about it. "Joshua and all the children of
Israel took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment,
and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen,
and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and
they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast
thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel
stoned him with stones, and they burned him with fire, after they had
stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of
stones unto this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of His
anger. Therefore the name of that place was called, The valley of
Achor, unto this day."

It seems a terrible punishment, but Achan had already brought defeat
and disgrace on his countrymen, he had robbed God, and brought the
whole community to the brink of ruin. It must have been a strong lust
that led him to play with such consequences. What sin is there to
which covetousness has not impelled men? And, strange to say, it is a
sin which has received but little check from all the sad experience of
the past. Is it not as daring as ever to-day? Is it not the parent of
that gambling habit which is the terror of all good men, sapping our
morality and our industry, and disposing tens of thousands to trust to
the bare chance of an unlikely contingency, rather than to God's
blessing on honest industry? Is it not sheer covetousness that turns
the confidential clerk into a robber of his employer, and uses all the
devices of cunning to discover how long he can carry on his infamous
plot, till the inevitable day of detection arrive and he must fly, a
fugitive and a vagabond, to a foreign land? Is it not covetousness
that induces the blithe young maiden to ally herself to one whom she
knows to be a moral leper, but who is high in rank and full of wealth?
Is it not the same lust that induces the trader to send his noxious
wares to savage countries and drive the miserable inhabitants to a
deeper misery and degradation than ever? Catastrophes are always
happening: the ruined gambler blows out his brains; the dishonest
clerk becomes a convict, the unhappy young wife gets into the divorce
court, the scandalous trader sinks into bankruptcy and misery. But
there is no abatement of the lust which makes such havoc. If the old
ways of indulging it are abandoned, new outlets are always being
found. Education does not cripple it; civilization does not uproot it;
even Christianity does not always overcome it. It goeth about, if not
like a roaring lion, at least like a cunning serpent intent upon its
prey. Within the Church, where the minister reads out "Thou shalt not
covet," and where men say with apparent devoutness, "Lord, have mercy
upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law"--as soon as their
backs are turned, they are scheming to break it. Still, as of old,
"love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after
they erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows."

Achan's sin has found him out, and he suffers its bitter doom. All his
visions of comfort and enjoyment to be derived from his unlawful gain
are rudely shattered. The pictures he has been drawing of what he will
do with the silver and the gold and the garment are for ever
dispersed. He has brought disaster on the nation, and shame and ruin
on himself and his house. In all coming time, he must stand in the
pillory of history as the man who stole the forbidden spoil of
Jericho. That disgraceful deed is the only thing that will ever be
known of him. Further, he has sacrificed his life. Young though he is,
his life will be cut short, and all that he has hoped for of enjoyment
and honour will be exchanged for a horrible death and an execrable
memory. O sin, thou art a hard master! Thou draggest thy slaves, often
through a short and rapid career, to misery and to infamy!

Nevertheless, the hand of God is seen here. The punishment of sin is
one of the inexorable conditions of His government. It may look dark
and ugly to us, but it is there. It may create a very different
feeling from the contemplation of His love and goodness, but in our
present condition that feeling is wholesome and necessary. As we
follow unpardoned sinners into the future world, it may be awful, it
may be dismal to think of a state from which punishment will never be
absent; but the awfulness and the dismalness will not change the fact.
It is the mystery of God's character that He is at once infinite love
and infinite righteousness. And if it be unlawful for us to exclude
His love and dwell only on His justice, it is equally unlawful to
exclude His justice and dwell only on His love. Now, as of old, His
memorial is, "The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious,
longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty."

But if it be awful to contemplate the death, and the mode of death of
Achan, how much more when we think that his wife and his sons and his
daughters were stoned to death along with him! Would that not have
been a barbarous deed in any case, and was it not much more so if they
were wholly innocent of his offence? To mitigate the harshness of
this deed, some have supposed that they were privy to his sin, if not
instigators of it. But of this we have not a tittle of evidence, and
the whole drift of the narrative seems to show that the household
suffered in the same manner and on the same ground as that of Korah
(Num. xvi. 31-33). As regards the mode of death, it was significant of
a harsh and hard-tempered age. Neither death nor the sufferings of the
dying made much impression on the spectators. This callousness is
almost beyond our comprehension, the tone of feeling is so different
now. But we must accept the fact as it was. And as to the punishment
of the wife and children, we must fall back on that custom of the time
which not only gave to the husband and father the sole power and
responsibility of the household, but involved the wife and children in
his doom if at any time he should expose himself to punishment. As has
already been said, neither the wife nor the children had any rights as
against the husband and father; as his will was the sole law, so his
retribution was the common inheritance of all. With him they were held
to sin, and with him they suffered. They were considered to belong to
him just as his hands and his feet belonged to him. It may seem to us
very hard, and when it enters, even in a modified form, into the
Divine economy we may cry out against it. Many do still, and ever will
cry out against original sin, and against all that has come upon our
race in consequence of the sin of Adam.

But it is in vain to fight against so apparent a fact. Much wiser
surely it is to take the view of the Apostle Paul, and rejoice that,
under the economy of the gospel, the principle of imputation becomes
the source of blessing infinitely greater than the evil which it
brought at the fall. It is one of the greatest triumphs of the
Apostle's mode of reasoning that, instead of shutting his eyes to the
law of imputation, he scans it carefully, and compels it to yield a
glorious tribute to the goodness of God. When his theme was the riches
of the grace of God, one might have thought that he would desire to
give a wide berth to that dark fact in the Divine economy--the
imputation of Adam's sin. But instead of desiring to conceal it, he
brings it forward in all its terribleness and universality of
application; but with the skill of a great orator, he turns it round
to his side by showing that the imputation of Christ's righteousness
has secured results that outdo all the evil flowing from the
imputation of Adam's sin. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment
came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as
through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so
through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered that the offence might abound; but where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound: that, as sin reigned in death,
even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. v. 18-21).

Very special mention is made of the place where the execution of Achan
and his family took place. "They brought them unto the valley of
Achor, ... and they raised over him a great heap of stones, ...
wherefore the name of that place is called, The valley of Achor, unto
this day." Achor, which means _trouble_, seems to have been a small
ravine near the lower part of the valley in which Ai was situated, and
therefore near the scene of the disaster that befell the Israelites.
It was not an old name, but a name given at the time, derived from
the occurrence of which it had just been the scene. It seemed
appropriate that poor Achan should suffer at the very place where
others had suffered on his account. It is subsequently referred to
three times in Scripture. Later in this book it is given as part of
the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 7); in Isaiah
(lxv. 10) it is referred to on account of its fertility; and in Hosea
(ii. 15) it is introduced in the beautiful allegory of the restored
wife, who has been brought into the wilderness, and made to feel her
poverty and misery, but of whom God says, "I will give her vineyards
from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope." The
reference seems to be to the evil repute into which that valley fell
by the sin of Achan, when it became the valley of trouble. For, by
Achan's sin, what had appeared likely to prove the door of access for
Israel into the land was shut; a double trouble came on the
people--partly because of their defeat, and partly because their
entrance into the land appeared to be blocked. In Hosea's picture of
Israel penitent and restored, the valley is again turned to its
natural use, and instead of a scene of trouble it again becomes a door
of hope, a door by which they may hope to enter their inheritance. It
is a door of hope for the penitent wife, a door by which she may
return to her lost happiness. The underlying truth is, that when we
get into a right relation to God, what were formerly evils become
blessings, hindrances are turned into helps. Sin deranges everything,
and brings trouble everywhere. The ground was cursed on account of
Adam: not literally, but indirectly, inasmuch as it needed hard and
exhausting toil, it needed the sweat of his face to make it yield him
a maintenance. "We know," says the Apostle, "that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." "For the creation
was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of Him who
subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered
out of the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God."

No man can tell all the "trouble" that has come into the world by
reason of sin. As little can we know the full extent of that
deliverance that shall take place when sin comes to an end. If we
would know anything of this we must go to those passages which picture
to us the new heavens and the new earth: "In the midst of the street
of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And
there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb
shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him: and they shall see
His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be
no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for
the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and
ever."




CHAPTER XVI.

_THE CAPTURE OF AI._

JOSHUA viii. 1-29.


Joshua, having dealt faithfully with the case of Achan, whose sin had
intercepted the favour of God, is again encouraged, and directed to
renew, but more carefully, his attack on Ai. That word is addressed to
him which has always such significance when coming from the Divine
lips--"Fear not." How much of our misery arises from fear! How many a
beating heart, how many a shaking nerve, how many a sleepless night
have come, not from evil experienced, but from evil apprehended! To
save one from the apprehension of evil is sometimes more important, as
it is usually far more difficult, than to save one from evil itself.
An affectionate father finds that one of his most needed services to
his children is to allay their fears. Never is he doing them a greater
kindness than when he uses his larger experience of life to assure
them, in some anxiety, that there is no cause for fear. Our heavenly
Father finds much occasion for a similar course. He has indeed got a
very timid family. It is most interesting to mark how the Bible is
studded with "fear nots," from Genesis to Revelation; from that early
word to Abraham--"Fear not, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great
reward"--to that most comforting assurance to the beloved disciple,
"Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am He that liveth, and was
dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of
hades and of death." If only God's children could hear Him uttering
that one word, from how much anxiety and misery would it set them
free!

Virtually the command to Joshua is to "try again." Success, though
denied to the first effort, often comes to the next, or at least to a
subsequent one. Even apart from spiritual considerations, it is those
who try oftenest who succeed best. There is little good in a man who
abandons an undertaking simply because he has tried once and failed.
Who does not recall in this connection the story of Alfred the Great?
Or of Robert the Bruce watching the spider in the barn that at last
reached the roof after sixteen failures? Or, looking to what has a
more immediate bearing on the kingdom of God, who has not admired the
perseverance of Livingstone, undaunted by fever and famine, and the
ferocity of savage chiefs; unmoved by his longings for home and dreams
of plenty and comfort that mocked him when he awoke to physical
wretchedness and want? Such perseverance gives a man the stamp of true
nobility; we are almost tempted to fall down and worship. If failure
be humiliating, it is redeemed by the very act and attitude of
perseverance, and the self-denial and scorn of ease which it involves.
In the Christian warfare no man is promised victory at the first. "Let
us not be weary in welldoing, for in due season we shall reap if we
faint not."

To Christian men especially, failure brings very valuable lessons.
There is always something to be learned from it. In our first attempt
we were too self-confident. We went too carelessly about the matter,
and did not sufficiently realize the need of Divine support. Never was
there a servant of God who learned more from his failures than St.
Peter. Nothing could have been more humiliating than his
thrice-repeated denial of his Lord. But when Peter came to himself, he
saw on what a bruised reed he had been leaning when he said, "Though I
should die with Thee yet will I not deny Thee." How miserably
misplaced that self-confidence had been! But it had the effect of
startling him, of showing him his danger, and of leading him to lift
up his eyes to the hills from whence came his help. It might have
seemed a risky, nay reckless thing for our Lord to commit the task of
steering His infant Church over the stormy seas of her first voyage to
a man who, six weeks before, had proved so weak and treacherous. But
Peter was a genuine man, and it was that first failure that afterwards
made him so strong. It is no longer Peter, but Christ in Peter that
directs the movement. And thus it came to pass that, during the
critical period of the Church's birth, no carnal drawback diminished
his strength or diluted his faith; all his natural rapidity of
movement, all his natural outspokenness, boldness, and directness were
brought to bear without abatement on the advancement of the young
cause. He conducted himself during this most delicate and vital period
with a nobility beyond all praise. He took the ship out into the open
sea amid raging storms without touching a single rock. And it was all
owing to the fact that by God's grace he profited by his failure!

In the case of Joshua and his people, one of the chief lessons derived
from their failure before Ai was the evil of covering sin. Alas, this
policy is the cause of failures innumerable in the spiritual life! In
numberless ways it interrupts Divine fellowship, withdraws the Divine
blessing, and grieves the Holy Spirit. We have not courage to cut off
a right hand and pluck out a right eye. We leave besetting sins in a
corner of our hearts, instead of trying to exterminate them, and
determining not to allow them a foothold there. The acknowledgment of
sin, the giving up of all leniency towards it, the determination, by
God's grace, to be done with it, always go before true revivals,
before a true return of God to us in all His graciousness and power.
Rather, we should say, they are the beginning of revival. In Israel of
old the land had to be purged of every vestige of idolatry under
Hezekiah and other godly kings, before the light of God's countenance
was again lifted upon it. "To this man will I look, even to him that
is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word."

Joshua is instructed to go up again against Ai, but in order to
interest and encourage the people, he resorts to a new plan of attack.
A stratagem is to be put in operation. An ambuscade is to be stationed
on the west side of the city, while the main body of the assaulting
force is to approach it, as formerly, from the east. There is some
obscurity and apparent confusion in the narrative, confined, however,
to one point, the number composing the ambuscade and the main body
respectively. Some error in the text appears to have crept in. From
the statement in ver. 3 we might suppose that the men who were to lie
in ambush amounted to thirty thousand; but in ver. 12 it is expressly
stated that only five thousand were employed in this way. There can be
little doubt (though it is not according to the letter of the
narrative) that the whole force employed amounted to thirty thousand,
and that, of these, five thousand formed the ambush. Indeed, in such a
valley, it would not have been possible for thirty thousand men to
conceal themselves so as to be invisible from the city. It would
appear (ver. 17) that the people of Bethel had left their own village
and gone into Ai. Bethel, as we have said, was situated higher up; in
fact, it was on the very ridge of the plateau of Western Palestine. It
must have been but a little place, and its people seem to have deemed
it better to join those of Ai, knowing that if the Israelites were
repulsed from the lower city, the upper was safe.

The _ruse_ was that the ambush should be concealed behind the city;
that Ai, as before, should be attacked from the east by the main body
of troops; that on receiving the onslaught from the city they should
seem to be defeated as before; that Joshua, probably standing on some
commanding height, should give a signal to the men in ambush by
raising his spear; whereupon these men should rush down on the now
deserted place and set it on fire. On seeing the flames, the pursuers
would naturally turn and rush back to extinguish them; then the main
body of Israel would turn likewise, and thus the enemy would be caught
as in a trap from which there was no escape, and fall a victim to the
two sections of Israel.

To plots of this kind, the main objection in a strategical sense lies
in the risk of detection. For the five thousand who went to station
themselves in the west it was a somewhat perilous thing to separate
themselves from the host, and place themselves in the heart of enemies
both in front and in rear. It needed strong faith to expose themselves
in such a situation. Suppose they had been detected as they went
stealing along past Ai in the darkness of the night; suppose they had
come on some house or hamlet, and wakened the people, so that the
alarm should have been carried to Ai, what would have been the result?
It was well for Israel that no such mishap occurred, and that they
were able in silence to reach a place where they might lie concealed.
The ground is so broken by rocks and ravines that this would not have
been very difficult; the people of Ai suspected nothing; probably the
force on the east were at pains, by camp-fires and otherwise, to
engage their attention, and whenever that force began to move, as if
for the attack, every eye in the city would be fixed intently upon it.

The plot was entirely successful; everything fell out precisely as
Joshua had desired. A terrible slaughter of the men of Ai took place,
caught as they were on the east of the city between the two sections
of Joshua's troops, for the Israelites gave no quarter either to age
or sex. The whole number of the slain amounted to twelve thousand, and
that probably included the people of Bethel too. We see from this what
an insignificant place Ai must have been, and how very humiliating was
the defeat it inflicted at first. With reference to the spoil of the
city, the rigid law prescribed at Jericho was not repeated; the people
got it for themselves. Jericho was an exceptional case; it was the
firstfruits of the conquest, therefore holy to the Lord. If Achan had
but waited a little, he would have had his share of the spoil of Ai or
some other place. He would have got legitimately what he purloined
unlawfully. In the slaughter, the king, or chief of the place,
suffered a more ignominious doom than his soldiers; instead of being
slain with the sword, he was hanged, and his body was exposed on a
tree till sunset. Joshua did not want some drops of Oriental blood;
he had the stern pleasure of the Eastern warrior in humbling those who
were highest in honour. What remained of the city was burned; it
continued thereafter a heap of ruins, with a great cairn of stones at
its gate, erected over the dead body of the king.

We see that already light begins to be thrown on what at the time must
have seemed the very severe and rigid order about the spoil of
Jericho. Although Achan was the only offender, he was probably far
from being the only complainer on that occasion. Many another
Israelite with a covetous heart must have felt bitterly that it was
very hard to be prevented from taking even an atom to oneself. "Were
not our fathers allowed to spoil the Egyptians--why, then, should we
be absolutely prevented from having a share of the spoil of Jericho?"
It might have been enough to answer that God claimed the firstfruits
of the land for Himself. Or to say that God designed at the very
entrance of His people into Canaan to show that they were not a
tumultuous rabble, rushing greedily on all they could lay their hands
on, but a well-trained, well-mannered family, in whom self-restraint
was one of the noblest virtues. But to all this it might have been
added, that the people's day was not far off. It is not God's method
to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And so to all who rush
tumultuously upon the good things of this life, He says, "Seek first
the kingdom of heaven and His righteousness, and all these things
shall be added unto you." Let God arrange the order in which His gifts
are distributed. Never hurry Providence, as Sarah did when she gave
Hagar to Abraham. Sarah had good cause to repent of her impetuosity;
it brought her many a bitter hour. Whereas God was really kinder to
her than she had thought, and in due time He gave her Isaac, not the
son of the bondwoman, but her own.

A question has been raised respecting the legitimacy of the stratagem
employed by Joshua in order to capture Ai. Was it right to deceive the
people; to pretend to be defeated while in reality he was only
executing a _ruse_, and thus draw on the poor men of Ai to a terrible
death? Calvin and other commentators make short work of this
objection. If war is lawful, stratagem is lawful. Stratagem indeed, as
war used to be conducted, was a principal part of it; and even now the
term "strategic," derived from it, is often used to denote operations
designed for a different purpose from that which at first appears. It
is needless to discuss here the lawfulness of war, for the Israelites
were waging war at the express command of the Almighty. And if it be
said that when once you allow the principle that it is lawful in war
to mislead the enemy, you virtually allow perfidy, inasmuch as it
would be lawful for you, after pledging your word under a flag of
truce, to disregard your promise, the answer to that is, that to
mislead in such circumstances would be infamous. A distinction is to
be drawn between acts where the enemy has no right to expect that you
will make known your intention, and acts where they have such a right.
In the ordinary run of strategic movements, you are under no
obligation to tell the foe what you are about. It is part of their
business to watch you, to scrutinize your every movement, and in spite
of appearances to divine your real purpose. If they are too careless
to watch, or too stupid to discern between a professed and a real
plan, they must bear the consequences. But when a flag of truce is
displayed, when a meeting takes place under its protection, and when
conditions are agreed to on both sides, the case is very different.
The enemy is entitled now to expect that you will not mislead them.
Your word of honour has been passed to that effect. And to disregard
that pledge, and deem it smart to mislead thereby, is a proceeding
worthy only of the most barbarous, the most perfidious, the most
shameless of men.

Thus far we may defend the usages of war; but at best it is a
barbarous mode of operations. Very memorable was the observation of
the Duke of Wellington, that next to the calamity of suffering a
defeat was that of gaining a victory. To look over a great
battle-field, fresh from the clash of arms; to survey the trampled
crops, the ruined houses, the universal desolation; to gaze on all the
manly forms lying cold in death, and the many besides wounded,
bleeding, groaning, perhaps dying; to think of the illimitable
treasure that has been lavished on this work of destruction and the
comforts of which it has robbed the countries engaged; to remember in
what a multitude of cases, death must carry desolation and anguish to
the poor widow, and turn the remainder of life into a lonely
pilgrimage, is enough surely to rob war of the glory associated with
it, and to make good the position that on the part of civilized and
Christian men it should only be the last desperate resort, after every
other means of effecting its object has failed. We are not forgetful
of the manly self-sacrifice of those who expose themselves so readily
to the risk of mutilation and death, wherever the rulers of their
country require it, for it is the redeeming feature of war that it
brings out so much of this high patriotic devotion; but surely they
are right who deem arbitration the better method of settling national
differences; who call for a great disarmament of the European
nations, and would put a stop to the attitude of every great country
shaking its fist in the face of its neighbours. What has become of the
prophecy "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their
spears into pruning hooks"? Or the beautiful vision of Milton on the
birth of the Saviour?--

      "No war, or battle's sound
          Was heard the world around;
      The idle spear and shield were high uphung;
          The hookèd chariot stood
          Unstained with hostile blood,
      The trumpet spake not to the armèd throng;
    And kings sat still with awful eye
    As if they surely knew their sovran Lord was by."

One lesson comes to us with pre-eminent force from the operations of
war. The activity displayed by every good commander is a splendid
example for all of us in spiritual warfare. "Joshua arose"; "Joshua
lodged that night among the people"; "Joshua rose up early in the
morning"; "Joshua went that night into the middle of the valley";
"Joshua drew not his hand back wherewith he stretched out the spear,
until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai." Such
expressions show how intensely in earnest he was, how unsparing of
himself, how vigilant and indefatigable in all that bore upon his
enterprise. And generally we still see that, wherever military
expeditions are undertaken, they are pushed forward with untiring
energy, and the sinews of war are supplied in unstinted abundance,
whatever grumbling there may be afterwards when the bill comes to be
paid. Has the Christian Church ever girded herself for the great
enterprise of conquering the world for Christ with the same zeal and
determination? What are all the sums of money contributed for
Christian missions, compared to those spent annually on military and
naval forces, and multiplied indefinitely when active war goes on!
Alas, this question brings out but one result of a painful
comparison--the contrast between the ardour with which secular results
are pursued by secular men, and spiritual results by spiritual men.
Let the rumour spread that gold or diamonds have been found at some
remote region of the globe, what multitudes flock to them in the hope
of possessing themselves of a share of the spoil! Not even the
prospect of spending many days and nights in barbarism, amid the
misery of dirt and heat and insects, and with company so rude and
rough and reckless that they have hardly the appearance of humanity,
can overcome the impetuous desire to possess themselves of the
precious material, and come home rich. What crowds rush in when the
prospectus of a profitable brewery promises an abundant dividend,
earned too often by the manufactory of drunkards! What eager eyes scan
the advertisements that tell you that if persons bearing a certain
name, or related to one of that name, would apply at a certain
address, they would hear of something to their advantage! Once we knew
of a young man who had not even seen such an advertisement, but had
been told that it had appeared. There was a vague tradition in his
family that in certain circumstances a property would fall to them.
The mere rumour that an advertisement had appeared in which he was
interested set him to institute a search for it. He procured a file of
the _Times_ newspaper, reaching over a series of years, and eagerly
scanned its advertisements. Failing to find there what he was in
search of, he procured sets of other daily newspapers and subjected
them to the same process. And thus he went on and on in his unwearied
search, till first he lost his situation, then he lost his reason, and
then he lost his life. What will men not do to obtain a corruptible
crown? Could it be supposed from _our_ attitude and ardour that we are
striving for the incorruptible? Could it be thought that the riches
which we are striving to accumulate are not those which moth and rust
do corrupt, but the treasures that endure for evermore? Surely "it is
high time for us to awake out of sleep." Surely we ought to lay to
heart that "the things which are seen are temporal, but the things
which are not seen are eternal." Memorable are the poet's words
respecting the great objects of human desire:--

    "The cloud-capt towers, the gorgeous palaces,
    The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
    Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve:
    And like this unsubstantial pageant faded,
    Leave not a rack behind."




CHAPTER XVII.

_EBAL AND GERIZIM._

JOSHUA viii. 30-35.


Commentators on Joshua have been greatly perplexed by the place which
this narrative has in our Bibles. No one can study the map, and take
into account the circumstances of Joshua and the people, without
sharing in this perplexity. It will be observed from the map that Ebal
and Gerizim, rising from the plain of Shechem, are a long way distant
from Ai and Bethel. If we suppose Joshua and not his army only, but
the whole of his people (ver. 33), to have gone straight from Gilgal
to Mount Ebal after the capture of Ai, the journey must have occupied
several days each way, besides the time needed for the ceremony that
took place there. It certainly would have needed an overwhelming
reason to induce him at such a time, first to march a host like this
all the way to Mount Ebal, and then to march them back to their
encampment at Gilgal. Hence many have come to believe that, in some
way which we cannot explain, this passage has been inserted out of its
proper place. The most natural place for it would be at the end of
chap. xi. or chap. xii., after the conquest of the whole country, and
before its division among the tribes. Nearly all the manuscripts of
the Septuagint insert it between vv. 2 and 3 of the ninth chapter,
but this does not go far to remove the difficulty. It has been thought
by some that Joshua left the original Gilgal in the plain of Jordan,
and fixed his camp at another Gilgal, transferring the name of his
first encampment to the second. Mention is certainly made in Scripture
of another Gilgal in the neighbourhood of Bethel (2 Kings ii. 2), but
nothing is said to lead us to suppose that Joshua had removed his
encampment thither.

Some have thought that no record has been preserved of one of Joshua's
great campaigns, the campaign in which he subdued the central part of
the country. A good deal may be said for this supposition. In the list
of the thirty-one kings whom he subdued over the country (chap. xii.)
we find several whose dominions were in this region. For instance, we
know that Aphek, Taanach, and Megiddo were all situated in the central
part of the country, and probably other cities too. Yet, while the
fact is recorded that they were defeated, no mention is made of any
expedition against them. They belonged neither to the confederacy of
Adonizedec in the south nor to that of Jabin in the north, and they
must have been subdued on some separate occasion. It is just possible
that Joshua defeated them before encountering the confederacy of
Adonizedec at Gibeon and Bethhoron. But it is far more likely that it
was after that victory that he advanced to the central part of the
country.

On the whole, while admitting the perplexity of the question, we
incline to the belief that the passage has been transferred from its
original place. This in no way invalidates the authority of the book,
or of the passage, for in the most undoubtedly authentic books of
Scripture we have instances beyond question--very notably in
Jeremiah--of passages inserted out of their natural order.

It has been said that the passage in Deuteronomy (xxvii. 4-19) could
not have been written by Moses, because he had never set foot in
Canaan, and therefore could not have been acquainted with the names or
the locality of Ebal and Gerizim. On the contrary, we believe that he
had very good reason to be acquainted with both. For at the foot of
Ebal lay the portion of ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph, and
where both Jacob's well and Joseph's tomb are pointed out at the
present day. That piece of ground must have been familiar to Jacob,
and carefully described to Joseph by its great natural features when
he made it over to him. And as Joseph regarded it as his destined
burial-place, the tradition of its situation must have been carefully
transmitted to those that came after him, when he gave commandment
concerning his bones. Joseph was not the oldest son of Jacob, any more
than Rachel was his oldest wife, and for these reasons neither of them
was buried in the cave of Machpelah. Moses therefore had good reasons
for being acquainted with the locality. Probably it was at the time of
the ceremony at Ebal that the bones of Joseph were buried, although
the fact is not recorded till the very end of the book (Josh. xxiv.
32). But that passage, too, is evidently not in its natural place.

It was a most fitting thing that when he had completed the conquest of
the country, Joshua should set about performing that great national
ceremony, designed to rivet on the people's hearts the claims of God's
law and covenant, which had been enjoined by Moses to be performed in
the valley of Shechem. For though Joshua was neither priest nor
prophet, yet as a warm believer and earnest servant of God, he felt
it his duty on all suitable occasions to urge upon the people that
there was no prosperity for them save on condition of loyalty to Him.
He sought to mingle the thought of God and of God's claims with the
very life of the nation; to make it run, as it where, in their very
blood; to get them to think of the Divine covenant as their palladium,
the very pledge of all their blessings, their one only guarantee of
prosperity and peace.

When therefore Joshua conducted his people to the Mounts Ebal and
Gerizim, in order that they might have the obligations of the law set
before them in a form as impressive as it was picturesque, he was not
merely fulfilling mechanically an injunction of Moses, but performing
a transaction into which he himself entered heart and soul. And when
the writer of the book records the transaction, it is not merely for
the purpose of showing us how certain acts prescribed in a previous
book were actually performed, but for the purpose of perpetuating an
occurrence which in the whole future history of the nation would prove
either a continual inspiration for good, or a testimony against them,
so that out of their own life they should be condemned. Knowing Joshua
as we do, we can easily believe that all along it was one of his most
cherished projects to implement the legacy of Moses and superintend
this memorable covenanting act. It must have been a great relief from
the bloody scenes and awful experiences of war to assemble his people
among the mountains, and engage them in a service which was so much
more in harmony with the beauty and sublimity of nature. No critic or
writer who has any sense of the fitness of things can coolly remove
this transaction from the sphere of history into that of fancy, or
deprive Joshua of his share in a transaction into which his heart was
doubtless thrown as enthusiastically as that of David in after times
when the ark was placed upon Mount Zion.

It could not be without thrilling hearts that Joshua and all of his
people who were like-minded entered the beautiful valley of Shechem,
which had been the first resting-place in Canaan of their father
Abraham, the first place where God appeared to him, and the first
place where "he builded an altar unto the Lord" (Gen. xii. 6, 7). By
general consent the valley of Shechem holds the distinction of being
one of the most beautiful in the country. "Its western side," says
Stanley, "is bounded by the abutments of two mountain ranges, running
from west to east. These ranges are Gerizim and Ebal; and up the
opening between them, not seen from the plain, lies the modern town of
Nablous [Neapolis = Shechem].... A valley green with grass, grey with
olives, gardens sloping down on each side, fresh springs running down
in all directions; at the end a white town embosomed in all this
verdure, lodged between the two high mountains which extend on each
side of the valley--that on the south Gerizim, that on the north
Ebal;--this is the aspect of Nablous, the most beautiful, perhaps it
might be said the only very beautiful spot in Central Palestine."

If the host of Israel approached Ebal and Gerizim from the south, they
would pass along the central ridge or plateau of the country till they
reached the vale of Shechem, where the mountain range would appear as
if it had been cleft from top to bottom by some great convulsion of
nature. Then, as now, the country was studded thickly with villages,
the plains clothed with grass and grain, and the rounded hills with
orchards of fig, olive, pomegranate, and other trees. On either side
of the fissure rose a hill of about eight hundred feet, about the
height of Arthur Seat at Edinburgh, Ebal on the north and Gerizim on
the south. It was not like the scene at Sinai, where the bare and
desolate mountains towered up to heaven, their summits lost among the
clouds. This was a more homely landscape, amid the fields and
dwellings where the people were to spend their daily life. If the
proclamation of the law from Sinai had something of an abstract and
distant character, Ebal and Gerizim brought it home to the business
and bosoms of men. It was now to be the rule for every day, and for
every transaction of every day; the bride was now to be settled in her
home, and if she was to enjoy the countenance and the company of her
heavenly Bridegroom, the law of His house must be fully implemented,
and its every requirement riveted on her heart.

The ceremony here under Joshua was twofold: first, the rearing of an
altar; and second, the proclamation of the law.

1. The altar, as enjoined in Exod. xx. 24, was of whole, undressed
stones. In its simple structure it was designed to show that the Most
High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. In its open position it
demonstrated that the most fitting place for His worship was not the
secret recesses of the woods, but the open air and full light of
heaven, seeing that He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. On
this altar were offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to the
Lord. The sacrificial system had been little attended to amid the
movements of the wilderness, and the warlike operations in which the
people had been more or less engaged ever since their entrance on the
land; but now was the beginning of a more regular worship. The first
transaction here performed was the sacrificial. Here sin was called to
mind, and the need of propitiation. Here it was commemorated that God
Himself had appointed a method of propitiation; that He had thereby
signified His gracious desire to be at peace with His people; that He
had not left them to sigh out, "Oh that we knew where we might find
Him, that we might come even to His seat!"--but had opened to His
people the gates of righteousness, that they might go in and praise
the Lord.

Moreover, we read in Joshua, that "he wrote there upon the stones a
copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the
children of Israel." There is sufficient difference between the
passages in Deuteronomy and Joshua to show that the one was not copied
from the other. From Joshua we might suppose that it was on the stones
of the altar that Joshua wrote, and there is no reference to the
command given in Deuteronomy to plaister the stones with plaister. But
from Deuteronomy it is plain that it was not the stones of the altar
that were plaistered over, but memorial stones set up for the purpose.
There has been no little controversy as to the manner in which this
injunction was carried out. According to Dr. Thomson, in the "Land and
the Book," the matter is very simple. The difficulty in the eyes of
commentators has arisen from the idea that plaister is altogether too
soft a substance to retain the impression of what is written on it.
This Dr. Thomson wholly disputes: "A careful examination of Deut.
xxvii. 4, 8 and Josh. viii. 30-32 will lead to the opinion that the
law was written upon and in the plaister with which these pillars were
coated. This could easily be done; and such writing was common in
ancient times. I have seen numerous specimens of it certainly more
than two thousand years old, and still as distinct as when they were
first inscribed upon the plaister.... In this hot climate, where there
is no frost to dissolve the cement, it will continue hard and unbroken
for thousands of years,--which is certainly long enough. The cement on
Solomon's pools remains in admirable preservation, though exposed to
all the vicissitudes of the climate and with no protection.... What
Joshua did therefore, when he erected those great stones on Mount
Ebal, was merely to write _in_ the still soft cement with a style, or
more likely _on_ the polished surface when dry, with red paint, as in
ancient tombs. If properly sheltered, and not broken by violence, they
would have remained to this day."

Joshua could not have written the whole of the law on his pillars; it
was probably only the ten commandments. As we shall see, another
arrangement was made for the rehearsal of the whole law; it was
solemnly read out afterwards. But now the entire nation, with all the
strangers and followers, took up their position in the valley between
the two mountains. Half of the tribes separated from the rest to the
slopes of Gerizim, and the other half to those of Ebal. From
Deuteronomy we gather that those who were grouped on Gerizim were far
the more important and numerous tribes. They embraced Simeon, Levi,
Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. On Mount Ebal were stationed
Reuben, Gad and Asher, Zebulun, Dan and Naphtali. The priests stood
between, and read out blessings and curses. When blessings were read
out the tribes on Gerizim shouted Amen. When curses were read out
those on Ebal did the same. Let us imagine the scene. A mountain side
covered with people is always a picturesque sight, and the effect is
greatly heightened when the clothing of the multitude is of light,
bright colours, as probably it was on this occasion. "It was," says
Dr. Thomson, "beyond question or comparison the most august assembly
the sun has ever shone upon; and I never stand in the narrow plain,
with Ebal and Gerizim rising on either hand to the sky, without
involuntarily recalling and reproducing the scene. I have shouted to
hear the echo, and then fancied how it must have been when the
loud-voiced Levites proclaimed from the naked cliffs of Ebal, 'Cursed
is the man that maketh any graven image, an abomination to Jehovah.'
And then the tremendous AMEN! tenfold louder from the united
congregation, rising and swelling and re-echoing from Ebal to Gerizim,
and from Gerizim to Ebal. AMEN! Even so, let him be accursed. No,
there never was an assembly to compare with this."

Very explicit mention is made of the fact that "there was not a word
of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before all the
congregation of the children of Israel, with the women and the little
ones and the strangers that were conversant among them." This
obviously implies that the law of Moses was in definite form, and that
the reading of it took up a considerable portion of time.

The order of events had been very significant. First, a great work of
destruction--the dispossession of the Canaanites. Next, the erection
of an altar, and the offering up of sacrifices. And, lastly, the
inscribing and proclamation of the law. "The surgeon has done his
duty, and now nature will proceed to heal and comfort and bless. The
enemy has been driven off the field. Now the altar is put up and the
law is promulgated. Society without law is chaos. An altar without
righteousness is evaporative sentiment. Prayer without duty may be a
detachment of the wings from the bird they were designed to assist....
Having done the destructive work, do not imagine that the whole
programme is complete; now begins the construction of the altar. And
having made a place for prayer, do not imagine that the whole duty of
man has been perfected; next put up the law; battle, prayer, law; law,
prayer, battle."[12]

  [12] "The People's Bible," by Joseph Parker, D.D.

If the conjecture that this passage originally occupied a later place
in the book be correct, the army was now about to be disbanded, and
the people were about to be settled in homes of their own. It was a
momentous crisis. They were about to lose, in a great degree, the
influence of union, and the presence of men like Joshua and the godly
elders, whose noble example and stirring words had ever been a power
for what was good and true. Scattered over the land, they would now be
more at the control of their own hearts, and often of what in them was
least noble and least godly. On the part of Joshua, everything had
been done, by this solemn gathering, to secure that they should
separate with the remembrance of God's mighty works on their behalf
filling their hearts, and the words of God's law ringing in their
ears.




CHAPTER XVIII.

_THE STRATAGEM OF THE GIBEONITES._

JOSHUA ix.


We now resume the thread of the story interrupted by the narrative of
the transaction at Ebal and Gerizim. We learn from the testimony of
Rahab of Jericho, as uttered to the spies (chap. ii. 9), that the
terror of Israel had caused the hearts of the inhabitants of the
country to faint, and that the fame of all that had been done for them
by Jehovah had quite paralysed them. But when the host of Israel
actually entered Western Palestine, and began their conquest by the
destruction of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants seem to have plucked up
courage, and begun to consider what could be done in self-defence. It
is very probable that they found considerable encouragement from what
happened at Ai. There it had been seen that Israel was not invincible.
Insignificant though Ai was, its people had been able to repel with
great success the first attack of the Israelites. And though they had
been destroyed in the second, this was achieved only by the combined
influence of stratagem and an overwhelming force. The supernatural
power under which Jericho had fallen had not been shown at Ai, and
might not come into play in the future. There was therefore yet a
chance for the Canaanites, if they should combine and act in concert.
Steps were therefore taken for such a union. The kings or chiefs who
occupied the hills, or central plateau of the country; those of the
valleys, interspersed between the mountains; and those occupying the
Shephelah, or maritime plains of Philistia, Sharon, and
Phœnicia;--all the nations comprised under the well-known names
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites,
entered into a league of defence, and prepared to confront Joshua and
the Israelites with a determined resistance. The news of the
confederacy would bring a tremor over some timid hearts in the camp of
Israel, but would cause no serious anxiety to Joshua and all the men
of faith, who, like him, felt assured that the Lord was with them.

There was one native community, however, that determined to follow
another course. The Gibeonites were a branch of the Hivite race,
inhabiting the town of Gibeon, and some other prominent towns in the
great central plateau of the country. Gibeon is undoubtedly
represented now by the village of El Jib, situated about half-way
between Jerusalem and Bethel, four or five miles distant from each.
Dr. Robertson describes El Jib as situated in a beautiful plain of
considerable extent, on an oblong hill or ridge, composed of layers of
limestone, rising as if by regular steps out of the plain. In the days
of Joshua, it was a place of great importance, a royal city, and it
had under its jurisdiction the towns of Beeroth, Chephirah, and
Kirjath-jearim. Its inhabitants were in no humour to fight with
Joshua. They had faith enough to understand what would be the
inevitable result of that, and therein they were right, and the
confederate kings were wrong. On the other hand, they were not
prepared to make an honest and unconditional surrender. They probably
knew that the orders under which Joshua was acting called on him to
destroy all the people of the land, and they had no assurance that,
being of the doomed nations, open submission would secure their lives.
They resolved therefore to proceed by stratagem. A detachment was
appointed to wait on Joshua at his camp at Gilgal, as if they were
ambassadors from a distant country, and represent to him in pious tone
that they had come from afar, "because of the name of the Lord his
God, having heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, and
all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond
Jordan, to Sihon King of Heshbon, and to Og King of Bashan." They came
with the desire to show respect to the people whose God was so
powerful, and to be allowed, though far off, to live at peace with
them. Then they presented their credentials, as it were; showing the
old sacks, the shrivelled bottles, the musty bread they had brought
with them, and the clouts upon their feet and ragged garments which
attested the great length of their journey. "Those old Gibeonites,"
says the "Land and the Book," "did indeed 'work wilily' with Joshua.
Nothing could be better calculated to deceive than their devices. I
have often thought that their ambassadors, as described in the
narrative, furnish one of the finest groups imaginable for a painter;
with their old sacks on their poor asses; their wine bottles of goat
skin, patched and shrivelled up in the sun, old, rent, and bound up;
old shoes and clouted upon their feet; old garments, ragged and
bedraggled, with bread dry and mouldy,--the very picture of an
over-travelled and wearied caravan from a great distance. It is
impossible to transfer to paper the ludicrous appearance of such a
company. No wonder that, having tasted their mouldy victuals, and
looked upon their soiled and travel-worn costume, Joshua and the
elders were deceived, especially as they did not wait to ask counsel
at the mouth of the Lord."

It was just the completeness of the disguise that threw Joshua and the
men of Israel on their guard. For at first the idea did occur to them
that the strangers might be neighbours, and therefore of the nations
that they were called on to destroy. On closer inspection, however,
that seemed out of the question; indeed, the supposition was so
utterly preposterous that it was deemed hardly fitting to bring the
matter before the Lord. It is as plain as day, Joshua and the elders
would reason; the evidence of what they say is beyond question; theirs
is no case of perplexity requiring us to go to God; we may surely
exercise our common sense and make a league with these far-travelled
men. In a short time they will be back in their own country, far
beyond our boundaries, and the only effect of their visit and of our
league will be a fresh tribute to the name and power of Jehovah, a
fresh testimony to His presence with us, and a fresh pledge that He
will bear us to success in the enterprise in which we are engaged. And
when the confederate kings that are now leaguing against us hear that
this distant people have come to us to propitiate our favour, they
will be struck by a new terror and will be the more easily subdued.

We see in all this the simple, unsuspecting spirit of men who have
spent their lives in the wilderness. As for the Gibeonites, there was
a combination of good and bad in their spirit. They remind us in a
measure of the woman with the issue of blood. In her there was
certainly faith; but along with the faith, extraordinary superstition.
In the Gibeonites there was faith--a belief that Israel was under the
protection of a remarkable Divine power, under a Divine promise the
truth of which even Balaam had very recently acknowledged--"I will
bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."
Undoubtedly a religious feeling lay at the bottom of the proceeding. A
great divine Being was seen to be involved, who was on Israel's side
and against his enemies, and it would not do to trifle with Him. But
in their way of securing exemption from the effects of His
displeasure; the grossest superstition appeared. They were to gain
their object by deceit. They were to get Him to favour them above
their neighbours through an elaborate system of fraud, through a
tissue of lies, through unmitigated falsehood. What a strange
conception of God! What blindness to His highest attributes,--His
holiness and His truth! What amazing infatuation to suppose that they
could secure His blessing through acts fitted to provoke His utmost
displeasure! What a miserable God men fashion to themselves when they
simply invest Him with almighty power, or perhaps suppose Him to be
moved by whims and prejudices and favouritisms like frail man, but
omit to clothe Him with His highest glory--forget that "justice and
judgment are the habitation of His throne, mercy and truth go before
His face."

The conduct of the men was the more strange that it was impossible
that they should not be speedily found out. And it was quite possible
that, when found out, they would be dealt with more severely than
ever. True, indeed, Joshua, when he did detect their plot, did not so
act; he acted on a high, perhaps a mistaken sense of honour; but they
had no right to count on that. Timidity is a poor adviser. All it can
do is to turn the next corner. True faith, resting on eternal truth,
acts for eternity. True faith is often blind, but in the deepest
darkness it knows that it is on the right track, and under the
guidance of the eternal light. Blind faith is very different from
blind fear. Faith holds on in full expectation of deliverance; fear
trembles and stumbles, in perpetual dread of exposure and humiliation.

"A lying tongue is but for a moment;" and the Gibeonite fraud lived
just three days. Then it was discovered by Joshua that the Gibeonites
lived in the immediate neighbourhood. But before that, he had made
peace with them, and entered into a league to let them live, and the
princes of the congregation had confirmed it by an oath. Nothing could
have been more provoking than to discover that they had been duped and
swindled. It is always a very bitter experience to find that our
confidence has been misplaced. Men whom we thought trustworthy, and
whom we commended to others as trustworthy, have turned out knaves. It
is hard to bear, for we have committed ourselves to our friends in the
matter. What would Joshua and his people think now of the supposed
tribute to the God of Israel, and the impression expected to be made
on the confederate kings? Before all the inhabitants of Canaan he and
his people were befooled, humiliated. Not a man in all the country but
would be making merry at their expense. Yet even that was not the
worst of it. They had been guilty of over-confidence, and of neglect
of means that were in their hands; they had neglected to get counsel
of their God. They had trusted in their own hearts when they ought to
have sought guidance from above. The trouble was their own creation;
they were alone to blame.

We cannot but respect the way in which Joshua and the princes acted
when they discovered the fraud. It might have been competent to
repudiate the league on the ground that it was agreed to by them under
false pretences. It was made on the representation that the Gibeonites
had come from a far country, and when that was seen to be utterly
untrue there would have been an honourable ground for repudiating the
transaction. But Joshua did not avail himself of this loophole. He and
the princes had such respect for the sanctity of an oath that, even
when they discovered that they had been grossly deceived, they would
not resile from it. It seems to have been the princes that took up
this ground, and they did so in opposition to the congregation (ver.
18). The fact that the name of the Lord God of Israel had been invoked
in the oath sworn to the Gibeonites constrained them to abide by the
transaction. It is a good sign of their spirit that they were so
jealous of the honour of their God, and of the sanctity of their oath.
They came out of the transaction with more honour than we should have
expected. Personal interests were subordinated to higher
considerations. They carried out that great canon of true
religion--first and foremost giving "glory to God in the highest."

But though the lives of the Gibeonites were spared, that was all. They
were to be reduced to a kind of slavery--to be "hewers of wood and
drawers of water for the congregation and the altar of God." The
expression has become a household word to denote a life of drudgery,
but perhaps we fail to recognise the full significance of the terms.
"I was forcibly reminded of this," says the author of "The Land and
the Book," "by long files of women and children (near El Jib) carrying
on their heads heavy bundles of wood.... It is the severest kind of
drudgery, and my compassion has often been enlisted in behalf of the
poor women and children, who daily bring loads of wood to Jerusalem
from these very mountains of the Gibeonites. To carry water, also, is
very laborious and fatiguing. The fountains are far off, in deep
wadies with steep banks, and a thousand times have I seen the feeble
and the young staggering up long and weary ways with large jars of
water on their heads. It is the work of slaves, and of the very poor,
whose condition is still worse. Among the pathetic lamentations of
Jeremiah there is nothing more affecting than this: 'They took the
young men to grind, and the children fell under the wood' (i. 16).
Grinding at the hand-mill is a low, menial work, assigned to female
slaves, and therefore utterly humiliating to the young men of Israel.
And the delicate children of Zion falling under the loads of hard,
rough wood, along the mountain paths! Alas! 'for these things I weep;
mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water, because the comforter that
should relieve my soul is far from me: my children are desolate,
because the enemy prevailed.'"

Respecting the after history of Gibeon and the Gibeonites we find some
notices in the Old Testament, but none in the New. At one time there
was a sanctuary at Gibeon, even after the ark had been removed to
Mount Zion; for it was at Gibeon that Solomon offered his great
sacrifice of a thousand burnt offerings, and had that remarkable dream
in which, in reply to the Divine offer of a choice of gifts, he chose
wisdom in preference to any other (1 Kings iii. 4 _sq._). But the most
remarkable reappearance of the Gibeonites in history is in the reigns
of Saul and David. For some unknown reason, and probably quite
unjustly, Saul had put some of them to death. And in the reign of
David, probably the early part of it, when a succession of famines
desolated the land, and inquiry was made as to the cause, the reply of
the oracle was: "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he slew
the Gibeonites." And it was to avenge this unjust slaughter that seven
descendants of Saul were put to death, on that occasion when Rizpah,
the mother of two of them, showed such remarkable affection by
guarding their dead bodies from the beasts and birds of prey. It is
possible that even after the Babylonian captivity some Gibeonites
survived under their old name, because it is said in Nehemiah that
among the others who repaired the wall of Jerusalem were "Melatiah the
Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Gibeon, and of
Mizpah" (iii. 7). Only it is uncertain whether Melatiah was of the old
Gibeonite stock, or an Israelite who had Gibeon for his city. While
the old Gibeonites did survive they seem to have had a miserable lot,
and the question might have been often asked by them--Did our fraud
bring us any real good? Is life worth living?

Does anything resembling this fraud of the Gibeonites ever take place
among ourselves? In answer, let us ask first of all, what is the
meaning of pious frauds? Are they not transactions where fraud is
resorted to in order to accomplish what are supposed to be religious
ends? Granting that the fraud of the Gibeonites was not for a
religious but for a secular object--their deliverance from the sword
of Joshua--still they professed, in practising it, to be doing honour
to God. It is the part of superstition at once to lower the
intellectual and the moral attributes of God. It often represents that
the most frivolous acts, the uttering of mysterious words, or the
performance of senseless acts have such a power over God as to bring
about certain desired results. More frequently it holds that cruelty,
falsehood, injustice, and other crimes, if brought to bear on
religious or ecclesiastical ends, are pleasing in God's sight. Is
there anything more truly odious than this severance of religion from
morality and humanity,--this representation that fraud and other
immoral acts have value before God? How can anything be a real
religious gain to a man, how can it be otherwise than disastrous in
the last degree, if it develops a fraudulent spirit, if it perverts
his moral nature, if it deepens and intensifies the moral disorder of
his heart? If men saw "the beauty of holiness," "the beauty of the
Lord," they could never bring their minds to such miserable
distortions. It is pure blasphemy to suppose that God could thus
demean Himself. It is self-degradation to imagine that anything that
can be gained by oneself through such means, could make up for what is
lost, or for the guilt incurred by such wickedness.

And this suggests a wider thought--the fearful miscalculation men make
whensoever they resort to fraud in the hope of reaping benefit by
means of it. Yet what practice is more common? The question is, Does
it really pay? Does it pay, for instance, to cheat at cards? Have we
not seen recently what swift and terrible retribution that may bring,
making us feel for the culprit as we might have felt for Cain. Does it
pay the merchant to cheat as to the quality of his goods? Does it not
leak out that he is not to be trusted, and does not that suspicion
lose more to him in the long run than it gains? Does it pay the
preacher to preach another man's sermon as his own? Or, to vary the
illustration. When one has entrapped a maiden under false promises,
and then forsakes her; or when he conceals the fact that he is already
married to another; or when he controls himself for a time, to conceal
from her his ill temper, or his profligate habits, or his thirst for
strong drink, does it pay in the end? The question is not, Does he
succeed in his immediate object? but, How does the matter end? Is it a
comfortable thought to any man that he has broken a trustful heart,
that he has brought misery to a happy home, that he has filled some
one's life with lamentation and mourning and woe? We are not thinking
only of the future life, when so many wrongs will be brought to light,
and so many men and women will have to curse the infatuation that made
fraud their friend and evil their good. We think of the present
happiness of those who live in an atmosphere of fraud, and worship
daily at its shrine. Can such disordered souls know aught of real
peace and solid joy? In the case of some of them, are there not
occasional moments of sober feeling, when they think what their life
was given them for, and contrast their selfish and heartless devices
with the career of those who deal truly and live to do good? Bitter,
very bitter is the feeling which the contrast raises. It is bitter to
think how unfit one is for the society of honest men; how the master
one is serving is the father of lies; and how, even when the master
does grant one a momentary success, it is at the sacrifice of all
self-respect and conscious purity, and with a dark foreboding of wrath
in the life to come.

All Eastern nations get the character of being deceitful; but indeed
the weed may be said to flourish in every soil where it has not been
rooted out by living Christianity. But if it be peculiarly
characteristic of Eastern nations, is it not remarkable how constantly
it is rebuked in the Bible, even though that book sprang from an
Eastern soil? No doubt the record of the Bible abounds with
_instances_ of deceit, but its voice is always against them. And its
instances are always instructive. Satan gained nothing by deceiving
our first parents. Jacob was well punished for deceiving Isaac.
David's misleading of the high priest when he fled from Saul involved
ultimately the slaughter of the whole priestly household. Ananias and
Sapphira had an awful experience when they lied unto the Holy Ghost.
All through the Bible it is seen that lying lips are an abomination to
the Lord, but they that deal truly are His delight. And when our
blessed Lord comes to show us the perfect life, how free He is from
the slightest taint or vestige of deceit! How beautifully transparent
is His whole life and character! No little child with his honest smile
and open face was ever more guileless. In the light of that perfect
example, who among us does not blush for our errors--for our many
endeavours to conceal what we have done, to appear better than we
were, to seem to be pleasing God when we were pleasing ourselves, or
to be aiming at God's glory when we were really consulting for our own
interests? Is it possible for us ever to be worthy of such a Lord?
First, surely, we must go to His cross, and, bewailing all our
unworthiness, seek acceptance through His finished work. And then draw
from His fulness, even grace for grace; obtain through the indwelling
of His Spirit that elixir of life which will send a purer life-blood
through our souls, and assimilate us to Him of whom His faithful
apostle wrote: "He did not sin, _neither was guile found in His
mouth_."




CHAPTER XIX.

_THE BATTLE OF BETHHORON._

JOSHUA x.


Out of the larger confederacy of the whole Canaanite chiefs against
Joshua and his people recorded in the beginning of chap. ix., a
smaller number, headed by Adonizedec, undertook the special task of
chastising the Gibeonites, who had not only refused to join the
confederacy, but, as it was thought, basely and treacherously
surrendered to Joshua. It is interesting to find the King of
Jerusalem, Adonizedec, bearing a name so similar to that of
Melchizedek, King of Salem, in the days of Abraham. No doubt, since
the days of Jerome, there have been some who have denied that the
Salem of Melchizedek was Jerusalem. But the great mass of opinion is
in favour of the identity of the two places. Melchizedek means King of
Righteousness; Adonizedec, Lord of Righteousness; in substance the
same. It was a striking name for a ruler, and it was remarkable that
it should have been kept up so long, although in the time of
Adonizedec its significance had probably been forgotten. Jerusalem was
but five miles south of Gibeon; the other four capitals, whose chiefs
joined in the expedition, were farther off. Hebron, eighteen miles
south of Jerusalem, was memorable in patriarchal history as the
dwelling-place of Abraham and the burial-place of his family;
Jarmuth, hardly mentioned in the subsequent history, is now
represented by Yarmuk, six miles from Jerusalem; Lachish, of which we
have frequent mention in Scripture, is probably represented by Um
Lakis, about fifteen miles south-west of Jerusalem; and Eglon by
Ajlan, a little farther west. The five little kingdoms embraced most
of the territory afterwards known as the tribe of Judah, and they must
have been far more than a match for Gibeon. Their chiefs are called
"the five Amorite kings," but this does not imply that they were
exclusively of the Amorite race, for "Amorite," like "Canaanite," is
often used generically to denote the whole inhabitants (as in Gen. xv.
16). The five chiefs were so near Gibeon that it was quite natural for
them to undertake this expedition. No doubt they reckoned that, by
making a treaty with Joshua, the Gibeonites had strengthened his hands
and weakened those of his opponents; they had made resistance to
Joshua more difficult for the confederacy, and therefore they deserved
to be chastised. To turn their arms against Gibeon, when they had
Joshua to deal with, was probably an unwise proceeding; but to their
resources it would seem a very easy task. Gibeon enjoyed nothing of
that aid from a great unseen Power that made Joshua so formidable;
little could they have dreamt that Joshua would come to the assistance
of his new allies, and with God's help inflict on them a crushing
defeat. "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought, He
maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the
Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations."

The case was very serious for the Gibeonites. As Gibeon lay so near
Jerusalem and the cities of the other confederates, it is likely that
the appearance of the enemy before its walls was the first, or nearly
the first, intimation of the coming attack. In their extremity they
sent to Joshua imploring help, and the terms in which they besought
him not to lose a moment, but come to them at his utmost speed, show
the urgency of their danger. To appeal to Joshua at all after their
shameful fraud was a piece of presumption, unless--and this is very
unlikely--the treaty between them had promised protection from
enemies. Had Joshua been of a mean nature he would have chuckled over
their distress, and congratulated himself that now he would get rid of
these Gibeonites without trouble on his part. But the same generosity
that had refused to take advantage of their fraud when it was detected
showed itself in this their time of need. Joshua was encamped at
Gilgal on the banks of the Jordan; for the arguments that suppose him
to have been at another Gilgal are not consistent with the terms used
in the narrative (_e.g._, ver. 9, "_went up_ from Gilgal all night").
From Gilgal to Gibeon the distance is upwards of twenty miles, and a
great part of the way is steep and difficult.

Encouraged by the assurance of Divine protection and favoured by the
moonlight, Joshua, by a marvellous act of pluck and energy, went up by
night, reached Gibeon in the morning, fell upon the army of the
assembled kings, possibly while it was yet dark, and utterly
discomfited them. It would have been natural for the routed armies to
make for Jerusalem, only five miles off, by the south road, but either
Joshua had occupied that road, or it was too difficult for a retreat.
The way by which they did retreat, running west from Gibeon, is
carefully described. First they took the way "that goeth up to
Bethhoron." As soon as they had traversed the plain of Gibeon, they
ascended a gentle slope leading towards Bethhoron the upper, then fled
down the well-known pass, through the two Bethhorons, upper and
nether, making for Jarmuth, Lachish, and other towns at the bottom of
the hills. In the course of their descent a hailstorm overtook them,
one of those terrific storms which seem hardly credible to us, but are
abundantly authenticated both in ancient and modern times, and "they
which died with hailstones were more than they whom the children of
Israel slew with the sword." The Israelites, exhausted, no doubt, with
their night march and morning exertions, seem to have been outstripped
by the flying army, and in this way to have escaped the shower of
hail. By the time the five kings, who had had to fly on foot, reached
Makkedah at the foot of the mountains, they were unable to go farther
and hid themselves in a cave. As Joshua passed he was informed of
this, but, unwilling to stop the pursuit of the fugitives, he ordered
large stones to be rolled to the door of the cave, locking the kings
up as it were in a prison, and no doubt leaving a guard in charge.
Then, when the pursuit had been carried to the very gates of the
walled cities, he returned to the cave. The five kings were brought
out, and the chiefs of the Israelite army put their feet upon their
necks. The kings were slain, and their bodies hanged on trees till the
evening.

Thereafter Joshua attacked the chief cities of the confederates, and
took in succession Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and
Debir. Nothing is said of his taking Jerusalem; indeed it appears from
the after history that the stronghold of Jerusalem on Mount Zion
remained in Jebusite hands up to the time of David. Many of the
inhabitants were able to escape destruction, but substantially Joshua
was now in possession of the whole southern division of the land,
from the Jordan on the east to the borders of the Philistines on the
west, and from Gibeon on the north to the wilderness on the south. It
does not appear, however, that he retained full possession; while he
was occupied in other parts of the country the people returned and
occupied their cities. The clemency of Joshua in not destroying the
inhabitants proved the source of much future trouble.

In all the subsequent history of the country, the victory of Gibeon
was looked back on, and justly, as one of the most memorable that had
ever been known. For promptitude, dash, and daring it was never
eclipsed by any event of the kind; while the strength of the
confederate army, the completeness of its defeat, and the
picturesqueness of the whole situation constantly supplied materials
for wonder and delight. Moreover, the hand of God had been
conspicuously shown in more ways than one. The hailstorm that wrought
such havoc was ascribed to His friendly hand, but a far more memorable
token of His interest and support lay in the miracle that arrested the
movements of the sun and the moon, in order that victorious Israel
might have time to finish his work. And after the victory the capture
of the fortified towns became comparatively easy. The remnant that had
escaped could have no heart to defend them. Joshua must have smiled at
the fate of the "cities walled up to heaven" that had so greatly
distressed his brother spies when they came up to examine the land.
And as he found them one by one yield to his army, as though their
defence had really departed from them, he must have felt with fresh
gratitude the faithfulness and lovingkindness of the Lord, and
earnestly breathed the prayer that neither his faith nor that of his
people might ever fail until the whole campaign was brought to an end.

In some respects this victory has a special significance. In the first
place, it had a most important bearing on the success of the whole
enterprise; its suddenness, its completeness, its manifold grandeur
being admirably fitted to paralyse the enemy in other parts of the
country, and open the whole region to Joshua. By some it has been
compared to the battle of Marathon, not only on account of the
suddenness with which the decisive blow was struck, but also on
account of the importance of the interests involved. It was a battle
for freedom, for purity, for true religion, in opposition to tyranny,
idolatry, and abominable sensuality; for all that is wholesome in
human life, in opposition to all that is corrupt; for all that makes
for peaceful progress, in opposition to all that entails degradation
and misery. The prospects of the whole world were brighter after that
victory of Bethhoron. The relation of heaven to earth was more
auspicious, and more full of promise for the days to come. Had any
hitch occurred in the arrangements; had Israel halted half-way up the
eastern slopes, and the troops of Adonizedec driven them back; had the
tug of war in the plain of Gibeon proved too much for them after their
toilsome night march; had no hailstorm broken out on the retreating
enemy; had he been able to form again at the western foot of the hills
and arrest the progress of Joshua in pursuit, the whole enterprise
would have had a different complexion. No doubt the Divine arm might
have been stretched out for Israel in some other way; but the
remarkable thing was, that no such supplementary mode of achieving the
desired result was required. At every point the success of Israel was
complete, and every obstacle opposed to him by the enemy was swept
away for the time being as smoke before the wind.

In the next place, the tokens of Divine aid were very impressive.
After the experience which Joshua had had of the consequences of
failing to ask God for direction when first the Gibeonites came to
him, we may be very sure that on the present occasion he would be
peculiarly careful to seek Divine counsel. And he was well rewarded.
For "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies." It does not need to be said
that this miraculous incident has from first to last given birth to an
immensity of perplexity and discussion. It will be observed that the
record of it does not come in as part of the narrative, but as a
quotation from a pre-existing book. Concerning that book we know very
little. From its name, Jashar, "The upright," we may believe it to
have been a record of memorable deeds of righteous men. In form it was
poetical, the extract in the present case being of that rhythmical
structure which was the mark of Hebrew poetry. The only other occasion
on which it is mentioned is in connection with the song composed by
David, after the death of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18). "David"
(as the Revised Version puts it) "bade them teach the children of
Israel the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of
Jashar." As to the origin and nature of this book we can only
conjecture. It may have been a public record, contributed to from time
to time by various writers, under conditions and arrangements which at
this distance of time, and under the obscurity of the whole subject,
we cannot ascertain.

Then as to the miracle of the sun and the moon standing still. It is
well known that this was one of the passages brought forward by the
Church of Rome to condemn Galileo, when he affirmed that the earth and
the moon revolved round the sun, and that it was not the motion of the
sun round the earth, but the rotation of the earth on her own axis
that produced the change of day and night. No one would dream now of
making use of this passage for any such purpose. Whatever theory of
inspiration men may hold, it is admitted universally that the inspired
writers used the popular language of the day in matters of science,
and did not anticipate discoveries which were not made till many
centuries later. That expressions occur in Scripture which are not in
accord with the best established conclusions of modern science would
never be regarded by any intelligent person as an argument against the
Scriptures as the inspired records of God's will, designed especially
to reveal to us the way of life and salvation through Jesus Christ,
and to be an infallible guide to us on all that "man is to believe
concerning God, and the duty that God requires of man."

A far more serious question has been raised as to whether this miracle
ever occurred, or could have occurred. To those who believe in the
possibility of miracles, it can be no conclusive argument that it
could not have occurred without producing injurious consequences the
end of which can hardly be conceived. For if the rotation of the earth
on its axis was suddenly arrested, all human beings on its surface,
and all loose objects whatever must have been flung forward with
prodigious violence; just as, on a small scale, on the sudden stoppage
of a carriage, we find ourselves thrown forward, the motion of the
carriage having been communicated to our bodies. But really this is a
paltry objection; for surely the Divine power that can control the
rotation of the earth is abundantly able to obviate such effects as
these. We can understand the objection that God, having adjusted all
the forces of nature, leaves them to operate by themselves in a
uniform way without disturbance or interference; but we can hardly
comprehend the reasonableness of the position that if it is His
pleasure miraculously to modify one arrangement, He is unable to
adjust all relative arrangements, and make all conspire harmoniously
to the end desired.

But was it a miracle? The narrative, as we have it, implies not only
that it was, but that there was something in it stupendous and
unprecedented. It comes in as a part of that supernatural process in
which God had been engaged ever since the deliverance of His people
from Egypt, and which was to go on till they should be finally settled
in the land. It naturally joins on to the miraculous division of the
Jordan, and the miraculous fall of the walls of Jericho. We must
remember that the work in which God was now engaged was one of
peculiar spiritual importance and significance. He was not merely
finding a home for His covenant people; He was making arrangements for
advancing the highest interests of humanity; He was guarding against
the extinction on earth of the Divine light which alone could guide
man in safety through the life that now is, and in preparation for
that which is to come. He was taking steps to prevent a final and
fatal severance of the relation between God and man, and He was even
preparing the way for a far more complete and glorious development of
that relation--to be seen in the person of His Incarnate Son, the
spiritual Joshua, and made possible for men through that great work
of propitiation which He was to accomplish on the cross. Who will take
upon him to say that at an important crisis in the progress of the
events which were to prepare the way for this grand consummation, it
was not fitting for the Almighty to suspend for a time even the
ordinances of heaven, in order that a day's work, carrying such vast
consequences, might not be interrupted before its triumphant close?

There are commentators worthy of high respect who have thought that
the fact of this incident being noticed in the form of a quotation
from the Book of Jashar somewhat diminishes the credit due to it. It
looks as if it had not formed part of the original narrative, but had
been inserted by a subsequent editor from a book of poetry, expressed
with poetic licence, and perhaps of later date. They are disposed to
regard the words of Joshua, "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and
thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon," as a mere expression of his
desire that the light would last long enough to allow the decisive
work of the day to be brought to a thorough conclusion. They look on
it as akin to the prayer of Agamemnon ("Iliad," ii. 412 _sq._) that
the sun might not go down till he had sacked Troy; and the form of
words they consider to be suited to poetical composition, like some of
the expressions in the eighteenth psalm--"There went up a smoke out of
His nostrils, and fire out of His mouth devoured: coals were kindled
by it. He bowed the heavens also, and did come down: He rode upon a
cherub, and did fly."

But whatever allowance we may make for poetical licence of speech, it
is hardly possible not to perceive that the words as they stand imply
a miracle of extraordinary sublimity; nor do we see any sufficient
ground for resisting the common belief that in whatsoever way it was
effected, there was a supernatural extension of the period of light,
to allow Joshua to finish his work.[13]

  [13] It seems hardly necessary to notice an explanation of the
  phenomenon that has been made lately--to the effect that it was in
  the morning, not the evening of the day, that Joshua expressed his
  wish. It was to prevent the allied kings about Gibeon knowing of
  his approach that he desired the sun to delay his rising in the
  east, a desire which was virtually fulfilled by that dark, cloudy
  condition of the sky which precedes a thunderstorm. The natural
  sense of the narrative admits neither of this explanation of the
  time nor of the miracle itself.

One other notable feature in the transaction of this day was the
completeness of the defeat inflicted by Joshua on the enemy. This
defeat went on in successive stages from early morning till late at
night. First, there was the slaughter in the plain of Gibeon. Then the
havoc produced by the hail and by Joshua on the retreating army. Then
the destruction caused as Joshua followed the enemy to their cities.
And the work of the day was wound up by the execution of the five
kings. Moreover, there followed a succession of similar scenes at the
taking and sacking of their cities. When we try to realize all this in
detail, we are confronted with a terrible scene of blood and death,
and possibly we may find ourselves asking, Was there a particle of
humanity in Joshua, that he was capable of such a series of
transactions? Certainly Joshua was a great soldier, and a great
religious soldier, but he was in many ways like his time. He had many
of the qualities of Oriental commanders, and one of these qualities
has ever been to carry slaughter to the utmost limit that the occasion
allows. His treatment of the conquered kings, too, was marked by
characteristic Oriental barbarity, for he caused his captains to put
their feet upon their necks, needlessly embittering their dying
moments, and he exposed their dead bodies to the needless humiliation
of being hanged on a tree. But it must be said, and said firmly for
Joshua, that there is no evidence of his acting on this or on other
such occasions in order to gratify personal feelings; it was not done
either to gratify a thirst for blood, or to gratify the pride of a
conqueror. Joshua all through gives us the impression of a man
carrying out the will of another; inflicting a judicial sentence, and
inflicting it thoroughly at the first so that there might be no need
for a constant series of petty executions afterwards. This certainly
was his aim; but the enemy showed themselves more vital than he had
supposed.

And when we turn to ourselves and think what we may learn from this
transaction, we see a valuable application of his method to the
spiritual warfare. God has enemies still, within and without, with
whom we are called to contend. "For we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of
the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places." When we are fighting with the enemy within our own hearts
leniency is our great temptation, but at the same time our greatest
snare. What we need here is, courage to slay. We content ourselves
with confessions and regrets, but the enemy lives, returns to the
attack, and keeps us in perpetual discomfort. Oh that in this battle
we resembled Joshua, aiming at killing the enemy outright, and leaving
nothing belonging to him that breathes!

And in reference to the outside world, want of thoroughness in warfare
is still our besetting sin. We play at missions; we trifle with the
awful drunkenness and sensuality around us; we look on, and we see
rural districts gradually depopulated; and we wring our hands at the
mass of poverty, vice, and misery in our great crowded cities. How
rare is it for any one to arise among us like General Booth, to face
prevailing evils in all their magnitude, and even attempt to do battle
with them along the whole line! Why should not such a spirit be
universal in the Christian Church? Who can tell the evil done by want
of faith, by languor, by unwillingness to be disturbed in our quiet,
self-indulged life, by our fear of rousing against us the scorn and
rage of the world? If only the Church had more faith, and, as the
fruit of faith, more courage and more enterprise, what help from
heaven might not come to her! True, she would not see the enemy
crushed by hailstones, nor the sun standing in Gibeon, nor the moon in
the valley of Ajalon; but she would see grander sights; she would see
men of spiritual might raised up in her ranks; she would see tides of
strong spiritual influence overwhelming her enemies. Jerichos
dismantled, Ais captured, and the champions of evil falling like
Lucifer from heaven to make way for the King of kings and Lord of
lords.

Let us go to the cross of Jesus to revive our faith and recruit our
energies. The Captain of our salvation has not only achieved salvation
for us, but He has set us a blessed example of the spirit and life of
true Christian warriors.

    "At the Name of Jesus
      Satan's legions flee;
    On then, Christian soldiers,
      On to victory.
    Hell's foundations quiver
      At the shout of praise;
    Brothers, lift your voices,
      Loud your anthems raise!"




CHAPTER XX.

_THE BATTLE OF MEROM._

JOSHUA xi., xii.


There is some appearance of confusion in the terms in which the great
confederacy of native princes against Israel is brought in. In the
beginning of the ninth chapter, a combination that embraced the whole
country, north and south, east and west, is described as gathered
together to fight with Joshua and with Israel. Nothing more is said
till after the treaty with the Gibeonites, when five of these
confederate kings residing in the south not far from Gibeon muster
their forces to besiege that city. Of the utter rout and ruin of these
five kings and of some of their neighbours we have just been reading.
And now we read that, after these things, Jabin, King of Hazor, sent
to his neighbours, and to all the princes in the northern part of the
country, and organized a combined movement against Israel, for which
the appointed rendezvous was at the waters of Merom, in the extreme
north of the country. The statement at the beginning of the ninth
chapter that the confederates "gathered themselves together," seems to
be made proleptically; the actual gathering together not having taken
place till the occasions specified in the tenth and eleventh chapters
respectively. The plan of the confederacy was no doubt formed soon
after the fall of Jericho and Ai, and the arrangements for a vast
united movement began to be made then. But it would necessarily
consume a considerable time to bring so vast a host together.
Meanwhile, another event had taken place. The Gibeonites had refused
to join the confederacy and had made peace with Joshua. Their
neighbours were intensely provoked, especially Adonizedec of
Jerusalem, and without waiting for the general movement proceeded at
once to chastise their treachery. As we have said already, they
doubtless thought it would be an easy task. To the surprise of them
all, Joshua, with an activity which they could not have looked for,
hastened to the relief of Gibeon, and inflicted a defeat on the
confederates which amounted to absolute ruin.

It has not been generally noticed how remarkably the Gibeonite fraud,
and the honourable action of Joshua in connection with it, tended in
the end to the good of Israel. Had Joshua, after the discovery of the
fraud, repudiated his treaty and attacked and exterminated the
Gibeonites, or had he disregarded their appeal to him for help and
suffered them to be crushed by Adonizedec, there would have been
nothing to hinder the southern kings from uniting with the northern,
and thus presenting to Joshua the most formidable opposition that was
ever mustered in defence of a country. The magnificent exploit of
Joshua in the plain of Gibeon, down the pass of Bethhoron, and in the
valley of Ajalon entirely frustrated any such arrangement. The armies
of the southern kings were destroyed or demoralized. And though the
united forces in the north, with their vast resources of war, still
formed a most formidable opponent, the case would have been very
different if the two had combined, or if one of them had hung on
Joshua's rear while he was engaged in front with the other. Nothing
could have fallen out more for the advantage of Israel than the
procedure of the Gibeonites, which drew off so large and powerful a
section of the confederates, and exposed them thus separate to the
sword of Joshua.

Joshua was not allowed a long rest at Gilgal after his dealings with
Adonizedec and his brethren. No doubt the news of that tremendous
disaster would quicken the energies of the northern kings. The head of
the new conspiracy was Jabin, King of Hazor. Jabin was evidently an
official name borne by the chief ruler of Hazor, like Pharaoh in
Egypt, for when, at a subsequent period, the place has recovered
somewhat of its importance, and comes again into view as a Canaanite
capital, Jabin is again the name of its chief ruler (Judg. iv. 2).

The situation of Hazor has been disputed by geographers, and Robinson,
who is usually so accurate, differs from other authorities. He assigns
it to a ruinous city on a hill called Tell Khuraibeh, overhanging the
Lake Merom, for little other reason than that it seems to answer the
conditions of the various narratives where Hazor is introduced. On the
other hand, the author of "The Land and the Book" assigns it to a
place still called Hazere, a little west of Merom, the remains of
which lie in a large natural basin, and spread far up the hill, toward
the south. "Heaps of hewn stone, old and rotten; open pits, deep
wells, and vast cisterns cut in the solid rock--these are the
unequivocal indications of an important city.... I inquired of an old
sheikh what saint was honoured there. In a voice loud and bold, as if
to make a doubtful point certain, he replied, Neby Hazûr, who fought
with Yeshua Ibn Nun." The matter is of no great moment; all that it is
important to know is that Hazor was situated near Lake Merom, and was
the capital of a powerful kingdom.

The cities of some of the other confederates are named, but it is not
easy to identify them all. The sites of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph,
are unknown, but they were apparently not far from Hazor. "The Arabah
south of Chinneroth" (ver. 2, R.V.) denotes the plain of Jordan south
of the lake of Galilee; the valley, or "lowland" (R.V.), denotes the
maritime plain from the Philistines northward; "the heights of Dor on
the west" (R.V.), or Highlands of Dor ("Speaker's Commentary"), the
hills about a city on the sea coast, near the foot of Carmel,
prominent in after history, but now reduced to a village with a few
poor houses. The sacred historian, however, does not attempt to
enumerate all the places from which the confederacy was drawn, and
falls back on the old comprehensive formula--"Canaanites on the east
and on the west, Amorites, Hittites, the Jebusites in the hill
country, and the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh." "The
Canaanites on the west" embraced the people of Zidon, for Joshua is
expressly stated to have followed a band of the fugitives to that city
(ver. 8). The muster must have been an extraordinary one, as numerous
"as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude." Josephus gives
the numbers as 300,000 footmen, 10,000 horsemen, and 20,000 chariots;
but we can hardly attach much value to his figures. "Horses and
chariots" was an arm unknown to the Israelites, with which hitherto
they had never contended. This vast host came together and pitched at
the waters of Merom. Merom, now called Huleh, is the little lake
where, as already stated, the three streamlets that form the Jordan
unite. It varies in size in summer and winter. To the north, a large
plain spreads itself out, sufficient for the encampment of a great
army. It was at or near this plain that Abraham overtook the five
kings of Mesopotamia and defeated them, rescuing Lot, and all that had
been taken from Sodom (Gen. xiv. 14, 15). Now again it is crowded with
a mighty host: far as the eye can reach, the plain is darkened by the
countless squadrons of the enemy. Probably, after mustering here,
their intention was to bear down the Jordan valley, till they came on
Joshua at Gilgal, or such other place as he might choose to meet them.
But if this was their intention they were outwitted by the activity
and, intrepidity of Joshua, who resolved, in spite of their
overwhelming numbers, to take the aggressive; and, marching, as
before, with extraordinary rapidity, to fall on them by surprise and
throw them at once into confusion so that they should be unable to
bring their chariots and horses into the action.

It was a very serious undertaking for Joshua, and before attempting it
he stood much in need of the encouragement of Jehovah--"Be not afraid
because of them: for to-morrow about this time will I deliver them up
all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn all
their chariots with fire." Not on the number nor on the bravery of his
own people, though they had stood by him most nobly, was he to place
his reliance, but on the power of God. "Rule thou in the midst of
thine enemies" was his _mot d'ordre_, as it was afterwards of that
other Joshua, whose battles were not with confused noise nor with
garments rolled in blood, but were triumphs of truth and love. Where
else should the true warrior be found but in the midst of his enemies?
Joshua knew it, and with the promised help of God, did not flinch from
the position, though his opponents were like the sand of the seaside,
with a corresponding multitude of chariots and horses. Jesus, too,
knew it, and resting on the same promise did not shrink from the
conflict in His own person; nor did He hesitate to send His apostles
into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature, and look
forward to a victory not less complete than that of Joshua, when the
hordes of the Canaanites were scattered before him.

"To-morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before
Israel." When he got that assurance, Joshua must already have left
Gilgal some days before, and was now within a moderate distance of
Merom. There was to be no delay in the completing of the enterprise.
"To-morrow about this time." Though, as a rule, the mills of God grind
slowly, there are times when their velocity is wonderfully
accelerated. He has sometimes wonderful to-morrows. When Hezekiah was
gazing appalled on the hosts of Sennacherib as they lay coiled round
Jerusalem, God had a "to-morrow about this time" when the terror would
be exchanged for a glorious relief. When the apostles met in the upper
chamber, and were wondering how they were ever to conquer the world
for their Master, there was a "to-morrow" at hand, when the Spirit was
to "come down like rain on the mown grass, and like showers that water
the earth." When, at the end of the world, iniquity abounds and faith
is low, and scoffers are asking, "Where is the promise of His coming?"
there will come a "to-morrow about this time" when the heavens will
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat, the earth also and all that is therein shall be
destroyed. Hold on, brave Joshua, for a little longer; hold on too, ye
soldiers of the Lord Jesus, though all the powers of darkness are
leagued against you; hold on, ye suffering saints, whose days of pain
and nights of waking are such a weariness to your flesh; the glorious
"to-morrow" may be at hand which is to end your troubles and bring you
the victory!

    "We expect a bright to-morrow,
      All will be well."

And all was well with Joshua. Arriving suddenly at the waters of
Merom, he fell on the mighty host of the enemy, who, taken by
surprise, seem not to have struck one blow, but to have been seized at
once with that panic which so thoroughly demoralizes Eastern hordes,
and to have fled in consternation. In three great streams the
fugitives sought their homes. One portion made for Misrephothmaim in
the south-west, now, it is thought, represented by Musheirifeh on the
north border of the plain of Acre; another struck in a north-easterly
direction through the valley of the upper Jordan, or east of Hermon to
the valley of Mizpeh; a third, passing through the gorge of the
Litany, made for great Zidon, in the distant north. Joshua himself
would seem to have pursued this column of fugitives, and, passing over
a rough path of more than forty miles, not to have abandoned them till
they took refuge within the walls of Zidon. If he had attacked and
destroyed that stronghold, it might have changed for the better much
of the future history of his country; for the Jezebels and Athaliahs
of after days were among the worst enemies of Israel. But he did not
deem himself called to that duty. It seemed more urgent that he
should demolish Hazor, the capital of the confederacy that he had just
scattered. So "he turned back and took Hazor, and smote the king
thereof with the sword; for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those
kingdoms." For this reason Hazor was treated like Jericho, utterly
destroyed, as were also the other cities of the confederate kings. One
class of cities was spared, called in our version "the cities that
stood still in their strength," but better in the Revised--"the cities
that stood on their mounds." The custom referred to is that of
building cities on mounds or hills for the sake of protection. With
the exception of Hazor, none of these were destroyed. The reason
probably was, that it would have cost too much time. But it was in
such places that the old inhabitants rallied and entrenched
themselves, and from them they were able in after years to inflict
much loss and give great trouble to Israel. Joshua, however, had not
received instructions to destroy them; they were left to serve a
purpose in God's plan of discipline (Judg. ii. 3), and while Israel
was often humbled under them their attacks proved occasions of
rallying, bringing them back to God, whose worship they were so ready
to neglect.

The conquest of Western Palestine was thus virtually completed. First,
by taking Jericho, Joshua had possessed himself of the Jordan valley,
and established a clear communication with Bashan and Gilead, which
the two and a half tribes had received for their inheritance. By the
conquest of Ai and Bethel, he had made a way to the great plateau of
Western Palestine, and by his treaty with the Gibeonites he had
extended his hold a considerable way farther to the south and the
west. Then, by the great victory of Bethhoron, he had crushed the
southern chiefs and possessed himself, for the time at least, of all
that quarter. As to the inhabitants of the central part, we know not
(as we have already said) how they were dealt with, but most probably
they were too frightened to resist him. (See p. 202).

The northern section had been subdued at Merom, and much crippled
through the pursuit of Joshua after the battle there. The only
important parts of the country of which he did not gain possession
were the land of the Philistines, the strip of sea coast held by Tyre
and Zidon, and some small kingdoms on the north-east. It would seem
that in the instructions received by him from Moses, these were not
included, for it is expressly said of him that "he left nothing undone
of all that the Lord commanded Moses." Emphasis is laid on the fact
that his conquests were not confined to one section or denomination of
territory, but embraced the whole. "Joshua took all that land, the
hill country, and all the South, and all the land of Goshen, and the
lowland, and the Arabah, and the hill country of Israel, and the
lowland of the same; from Mount Halak (or, the bare mountain) [on the
south], that goeth up to Seir [the land of Edom], even unto Baalgad in
the valley of Lebanon under Mount Hermon [in the north]: and all their
kings he took, and smote them, and put them to death" (R.V.). The
"Goshen" here spoken of cannot, of course, be the Egyptian Goshen, for
this city was in the neighbourhood of Gibeon (chap. x. 41); but its
site has not been identified.

We are told that the wars of Joshua occupied a long time. Probably
from five to seven years were consumed by them, for though the pitched
battles of Bethhoron and Merom virtually decided the mastership of
the country, there must have been a large amount of guerilla warfare,
and the sieges of the various cities must have required much time. The
list of kings subdued, as given in chap. xii., is a remarkable
document. Granting that though called kings they were mostly but
little chieftains, still they were formidable enough to a pastoral
people unused to the pursuits of war; and it was very striking that
not one of them by himself, nor all of them combined, were equal to
Joshua. If Joshua was not divinely aided, the conquest of all these
chieftains and the capture of their cities is the most inexplicable
event in history.

Two additional statements are made towards the close of the eleventh
chapter. One is, that with the single exception of Gibeon, no attempt
was made by any of the chiefs or cities to make peace with Joshua.
"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come
against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that
they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord
commanded Moses." It would have been very embarrassing to Joshua if
they had submitted spontaneously, and cast themselves on his
generosity, for his orders were to destroy them. But this difficulty
did not arise. None of the cities seem to have shared the conviction
of the Gibeonites that opposition was needless, that Israel was sure
to prevail, and get possession of the country. When men's backs are
up, to use a common phrase, they will do wonders in the way of facing
danger and enduring suffering. Even the resistance of the martyrs
cannot be wholly ascribed to holy faith and loyalty to God; in many
cases, no doubt, something was due to that dogged spirit that won't
submit, that won't be beat, that will endure incredible privation
rather than give in. The effect of this resistance by the Canaanites
was, that while Joshua's task was increased in one way, it was
simplified in another. Ages before, God had given the country to the
fathers of the Hebrew nation. That people now came and demanded in
God's name possession of the land which He had given them. Had the
nations submitted voluntarily they must have left the country to seek
new settlements elsewhere. By resisting, they compelled Joshua to meet
them with the sword; and having resisted Israel with all their might,
nothing remained but that they should encounter the doom which they
had so fiercely provoked.

That some of the Canaanites did leave the country seems very probable,
although little importance is to be attached to the statement of
Procopius that after trying Egypt they settled in Libya, and
overspread Africa as far as the Pillars of Hercules. At a fortress in
Numidia called Tigisis or Tingis he says that so late as the sixth
century after Christ there were discovered near a great wall two
pillars of white stone bearing, in Phœnician, the inscription, "We
are those who fled before the robber Jeshus, son of Nane." Ewald and
others by whom this tradition is noticed are not disposed, owing to
its late date, to attach to it any weight.

The other statement relates to the Anakim. Sometime, not precisely
defined, while engaged in his conflicts Joshua "cut off the Anakims
from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all
the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel," leaving
none of them except in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod (xi. 21).
Afterwards it is said (xv. 14) that it was Caleb that drove from
Hebron the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai; but this
cannot be counted a contradiction inasmuch as "Joshua," being the
leader of the army, must be held to represent and include all who
fought in connection with his enterprise. These Anakim were the men
that had so terrified the ten spies. "And there we saw the giants, the
sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight
as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" (Num. xiii. 33). To
men of little faith, giants, whether physical or moral, are always
formidable. Kings, with the resources of an empire at their back;
generals, at the head of mighty battalions; intellectual chiefs, with
all their talent and brilliancy, their wit, their irony, their power
to make the worse appear the better reason, are more than a match for
the obscure handfuls to whom the battles of the faith are often left.
But if the obscure handfuls are allied with the Lord of hosts, their
victory is sure; the triumphant experience of the forty-sixth psalm
awaits them: "God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved; God
shall help her, and that right early."

We are weary of the din of arms, and come at last to the refreshing
statement: "And the land rested from war." The annals of peace are
always more brief than the records of war; and when we reach this
short but welcome clause we might wish that it were so expanded as to
fill our eyes and our hearts with the blessings which peace scatters
with her kindly hand. For that impression we need only to turn to
another page of our Bible, and read of the campaigns of another
Joshua. "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all
manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people." The
contrast is very glorious. In His Galilee journeys, Jesus traversed
the very region where Joshua had drawn his sword against the
confederate kings. Joshua had pursued them as far as Zidon, leaving
marks of bloodshed along the whole way; Jesus, when "He departed to
the coasts of Tyre and Sidon," went to reward faith, to dispossess
devils, and to kindle in a desolate heart thanksgiving and joy.
Everywhere, throughout all Galilee and the regions beyond, His advent
was accompanied with benedictions, and blessings were scattered by Him
in His path.

But let us not indulge in too complete a contrast between the two
conquerors. Joshua's rough ploughshare prepared the way for Jesus'
words of mercy and deeds of love. God's message to man is not all in
honeyed words. Even Jesus, as He went through Galilee, proclaimed,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And it was those only
who gave heed to the call to repent that became possessors of the
kingdom.




CHAPTER XXI.

_JOSHUA'S OLD AGE--DIVISION FOR THE EASTERN TRIBES._

JOSHUA xiii., xiv. 1-5.


"The Lord said unto Joshua, Thou art old and stricken in years." To
many men and women this would not be a welcome announcement. They do
not like to think that they are old. They do not like to think that
the bright, joyous, playful part of life is over, and that they are
arrived at the sombre years when they must say, "There is no pleasure
in them." Then, again, there are some who really find it hard to
believe that they are old. Life has flown past so swiftly that before
they thought it was well begun it has gone. It seems so short a time
since they were in the full play of their youthful energies, that it
is hardly credible that they are now in the sere and yellow leaf.
Perhaps, too, they have been able to keep their hearts young all the
time, and still retain that buoyant sensation which seems to indicate
the presence of youth. And are there not some who have verified the
psalm--"They that are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish
in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old
age, they shall be fat and flourishing"?

But however much men may like to be young, and however much some may
retain in old age of the feeling of youth, it is certain that the
period of strength has its limit, and the period of life also. To the
halest and heartiest, if he be not cut off prematurely, the time must
come when God will say to him, "Thou art old." It is a solemn word to
hear from the lips of God. God tells me my life is past; what use have
I made of it? And what does God think of the use I have made of it?
And what account of it shall I be able to give when I stand at His
bar?

Let the young think well of this, before it is too late to learn how
to live.

To Joshua the announcement that he was old and stricken in years does
not appear to have brought any painful or regretful feeling. Perhaps
he had aged somewhat suddenly; his energies may have failed
consciously and rapidly, after his long course of active and anxious
military service. He may have been glad to hear God utter the word; he
may have been feeling it himself, and wondering how he should be able
to go through the campaigns yet necessary to put the children of
Israel in full possession of the land. That word may have fallen on
his ear with the happy feeling--how considerate God is! He will not
burden my old age with a load not suited for it. Though _His_ years
have no end, and He knows nothing of failing strength, "He knoweth
_our_ frame, He remembereth that we are dust." He will not "cast me
off in the time of old age, nor forsake me when my strength faileth."
Happy confidence, especially for the aged poor! It is the want of
trust in the heavenly Father that makes so many miserable in old age.
When you will not believe that He is considerate and kind, you are
left to your own resources, and often to destitution and misery. But
when between Him and you there is the happy relation of father and
child; when through Jesus Christ you realize His fatherly love and
pity, and in real trust cast yourselves on Him who clothes the lilies
and feeds the ravens, your trust is sure to be rewarded, for your
heavenly Father knoweth what things you have need of before you ask
them.

So Joshua finds that he is now to be relieved by his considerate
Master of laborious and anxious service. Not of all service, but of
exhausting service, unsuited to his advancing years. Joshua had been a
right faithful servant; few men have ever done their work so well.
From that day when he stood against Amalek from morning to night,
while the rod of Moses was stretched out over him on the hill;
thereafter, during all his companionship with Moses on the mount; next
in that search-expedition when Caleb and he stood so firm, and did not
flinch in the face of the congregation, though every one was for
stoning them; and now, from the siege of Jericho to the victory of
Merom, and all through the trying and perilous sieges of city after
city, year after year, Joshua has proved himself the faithful servant
of God and the devoted friend of Israel. During these last years he
has enjoyed supreme power, apparently without a rival and without a
foe; yet, strange to say, there is no sign of his having been
corrupted by power, or made giddy by elevation. He has led a most
useful and loyal life, which there is some satisfaction in looking
back on. No doubt he is well aware of unnumbered failings: "Who can
understand his errors?" But he has the rare satisfaction--oh! who
would not wish to share it?--of looking back on a well-spent life,
habitually and earnestly regulated amid many infirmities by regard to
the will of God. Neither he, nor St. Paul after him, had any trust in
their own good works, as a basis of salvation; yet Paul could say, and
Joshua might have said it in spirit: "I have fought the good fight, I
have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is
laid up for me a crown of righteousness."

Yet Joshua was not to complete that work to which he had contributed
so much: "there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed." At one
time, no doubt, he thought otherwise, and he desired otherwise. When
the tide of victory was setting in for him so steadily, and region
after region of the land was falling into his hands, it was natural to
expect that before he ended he would sweep all the enemies of Israel
before him, and open every door for them throughout the land, even to
its utmost borders. Why not make hay when the sun shone? When God had
found so apt an instrument for His great design, why did He not employ
him to the end? If the natural term of Joshua's strength had come, why
did not that God who had supernaturally lengthened out the day for
completing the victory of Bethhoron, lengthen out Joshua's day that
the whole land of Canaan might be secured?

Here comes in a great mystery of Providence. Instead of lengthening
out the period of Joshua's strength, God seems to have cut it short.
We can easily understand the lesson for Joshua himself. It is the
lesson which so many of God's servants have had to learn. They start
with the idea they are to do everything; they are to reform every
abuse, overthrow every stronghold of evil, reduce chaos to order and
beauty; as if each were

                "the only man on earth
    Responsible for all the thistles blown
    And tigers couchant, struggling in amaze
    Against disease and winter, snarling on
    For ever, that the world's not paradise."

Sooner or later they find that they must be satisfied with a much
humbler _rôle_. They must learn to

                  "be content in work,
    To do the thing we can, and not presume
    To fret because it's little. 'Twill employ
    Seven men, they say, to make a perfect pin, ...
    Seven men to a pin, and not a man too much!
    Seven generations, haply to this world,
    To right it visibly a finger's breadth,
    And mend its rents a little."

Joshua must be made to feel--perhaps he needs this--that this
enterprise is not his, but God's. And God is not limited to one
instrument, or to one age, or to one plan. Never does Providence
appear to us so strange, as when a noble worker is cut down in the
very midst of his work. A young missionary has just shown his splendid
capacity for service, when fever strikes him low, and in a few days
all that remains of him is rotting in the ground. What can God mean?
we sometimes ask impatiently. Does He not know the rare value and the
extreme scarcity of such men, that He sets them up apparently just to
throw them down? But "God reigneth, let the people tremble." All that
bears on the Christian good of the world is in God's plan, and it is
very dear to God, and "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death
of His saints." But He is not limited to single agents. When Stephen
died, He raised up Saul. For Wicliffe He gave Luther. When George
Wishart was burnt He raised up John Knox. Kings, it is said, die, but
the king never. The herald that announces "The king is dead,"
proclaims in the same breath, "God save the king!" God's workers die,
but His work goes on. Joshua is superannuated, so far as the work of
conquest is concerned, and that work for a time is suspended. But the
reason is that, at the present moment, God desires to develop the
courage and energy of each particular tribe. And when the time comes
to extend still farther the dominion of Israel, an agent will be found
well equipped for the service. From the hills of Bethlehem, a godly
youth of dauntless bearing will one day emerge, under whom every foe
to Israel shall be brought low, and from the river of Egypt to the
great river, the river Euphrates, the entire Promised Land shall come
under Israel's dominion. And the conquests of David will shine with a
brighter lustre than Joshua's, and will be set, as it were, to music
of a higher strain. Associated with David's holy songs and holy
experience, and with his early life of sadness and humiliation,
crowned at last with glory and honour, they will more fitly symbolize
the work of the great Joshua, and there will then be diffused over the
world a more holy aroma than that of Joshua's conquests,--a fragrance
sweet and refreshing to souls innumerable, and fostering the hope of
glory,--the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

So Joshua must be content to have done his part, and done it well,
although he did not conquer all the land, and there yet remained much
to be possessed. Without entering in detail into all the geographical
notices of this chapter, it will be well to note briefly what parts of
the country were still unsubdued.

First, there were all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri;
the five lords of the Philistines, dwelling in Gaza, Ashdod, Ascalon,
Gath, and Ekron; and also the Avites. This well defined country
consisted mainly of a plain "remarkable in all ages for the extreme
riches of its soil; its fields of standing corn, its vineyards and
oliveyards, are incidentally mentioned in Scripture (Judg. xv. 5); and
in the time of famine the land of the Philistines was the hope of
Palestine (2 Kings viii. 2).... It was also adapted to the growth of
military power; for while the plain itself permitted the use of war
chariots, which were the chief arm of offence, the occasional
elevations which rise out of it offered secure sites for towns and
strongholds. It was, moreover, a commercial country; the great
thoroughfare between Phœnicia and Syria on the north and Egypt and
Arabia on the south. Ashdod and Gaza were the keys of Egypt, and
commanded the transit trade, and the stores of frankincense and myrrh
which Alexander captured in the latter place prove it to have been a
depôt of Arabian produce."[14]

  [14] Smith's "Bible Dictionary."

Geshuri lay between Philistia and the desert, and the Avites were
probably some remainder of the Avims, from whom the Philistines
conquered the land (Deut. ii. 23).

In many respects it would have been a great boon for the Israelites if
Joshua had conquered a people that were so troublesome to them as the
Philistines were for many a day. What Joshua left undone, Saul began,
but failed to achieve, and at last David accomplished. The Geshurites
were subdued with the Amalekites while he was dwelling at Ziklag as an
ally of the Philistines (1 Sam. xxvii. 8), and the Philistines
themselves were brought into subjection, and had to yield to Israel
many of their cities (1 Sam. vii. 14; 2 Sam. viii. 1, 12).

Another important section of the country unsubdued was the
Phœnician territory--the land of the Sidonians (vv. 4, 6). Also the
hilly country across Lebanon, embracing the valley of Cœle-Syria,
and apparently the region of Mount Carmel ("from Lebanon unto
Misrephothmaim," ver. 6, and comp. chap. xi. 8). No doubt much of this
district was recovered in the time of the Judges, and still more in
the time of David; but David made peace with the King of Tyre, who
still retained the rocky strip of territory that was so useful to a
commercial nation, but would have been almost useless to an
agricultural people like the Israelites.

Joshua was not called on to conquer these territories in the sense of
driving out all the old inhabitants; but he was instructed to divide
the whole land among his people--a task involving, no doubt, its own
difficulties, but not the physical labour which war entailed. And in
this division he was called first to recognise what had already been
done by Moses with the part of the country east of the Jordan. That
part had been allotted to Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh;
and the allotment was still to hold good.

It is remarkable with what fulness the places are described. First, we
have the boundaries of that part of the country generally (vv. 9-12);
then of the allotments of each of the two and a half tribes (vv.
15-31). With regard to the district as a whole, the conquest under
Moses was manifestly complete, from the river Arnon on the south, to
the borders of the Geshurites and Maachathites on the north. The only
part not subdued were the territories of these Geshurites and
Maachathites. The Geshurites here are not to be confounded with the
people of the same name mentioned in ver. 2, who were at the opposite
extreme--the south-west instead of, as here, the north-east of the
land. But no doubt the Syrian Geshurites and Maachathites were brought
into subjection by David, with all the other tribes in that region, in
his great Syrian war, "when he went to recover his border at the river
Euphrates" (2 Sam. viii. 3). But instead of expelling or exterminating
them, David seems to have allowed them to remain in a tributary
condition, for Geshur had its king in the days of Absalom (2 Sam.
xiii. 37), to whom that prince fled after the murder of Amnon. With
the Maachathites also David had a family connection (2 Sam. iii. 3).

But though the subjugation and occupation of the eastern part of the
land was thus tolerably complete (with the exceptions just mentioned),
it remained in the undisturbed possession of Israel for the shortest
time of any. From Moabites and Ammonites on the south, Canaanites and
Syrians on the north and the east, as well as the Midianites,
Amalekites, and other tribes of the desert, it was subject to
continual invasions. In fact, it was the least settled and least
comfortable part of all the country; and doubtless it became soon
apparent that though the two tribes and a half had seemed to be very
fortunate in having their wish granted to settle in this rich and
beautiful region, yet on the whole they had been penny-wise and
pound-foolish. Not only were they incessantly assailed and worried by
their neighbours, but they were the first to be carried into
captivity, when the King of Assyria directed his eyes to Palestine.
They had shown somewhat of the spirit of Lot, and they suffered
somewhat of his punishment. It is worthy of remark that even at this
day this eastern province is the most disturbed part of Palestine. The
Bedouins are ever liable to make their attacks wherever there are
crops or cattle to tempt their avarice. People will not sow where they
have no chance of reaping; and thus it is that much of that productive
region lies waste. The moral is not far to seek: in securing wealth,
look not merely at the apparent productiveness of the investment, but
give heed to its security, its stability. It is not all gold that
glitters either on the stock-exchange or anywhere else. And even that
which is real gold partakes of the current instability. We must come
back to our Saviour's advice to investors, if we would really be safe:
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust do
corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt,
and where thieves do not break through nor steal."

The specification of the allotments need not detain us long. Reuben's
was the farthest south. His southern and eastern flanks were covered
by the Moabites, who greatly annoyed him. "Unstable as water, he did
not excel." Gad settled north of Reuben. In his lot was the southern
part of Gilead; Mahanaim, and Peniel, celebrated in the history of
Jacob, and Ramoth-gilead, conspicuous in after times. East of Gad were
the Ammonites, who proved as troublesome to that tribe as Moab did to
Reuben. To the half-tribe of Manasseh the kingdom of Og fell, and the
northern half of Gilead. Jabesh-gilead, where Saul routed the
Ammonites, was in this tribe (1 Sam. xi.). Here also were some of the
places on the lake of Galilee mentioned in the gospel history; here
the "desert place" across the sea to which our Lord used to retire for
rest; here He fed the multitude; here He cured the demoniac; and here
were some of the mountains where He would spend the night in prayer.

In our Lord's time this portion of Palestine was called Perea. Under
the dominion of the Romans, it was comparatively tranquil, and our
Lord would sometimes select it, on account of its quiet, as his route
to Jerusalem. And many of His gifts of love and mercy were doubtless
scattered over its surface.

Two statements are introduced parenthetically in this chapter which
hardly belong to the substance of it. One of these, occurring twice,
respects the inheritance of the Levites (vv. 14, 33). No territorial
possessions were allotted to them corresponding to those of the other
tribes. In the one place it is said that "the sacrifices of the Lord
God of Israel made by fire were their inheritance"; in the other, that
"the Lord God of Israel was their inheritance." We shall afterwards
find the arrangements for the Levites more fully detailed (chaps. xx.,
xxi.). This early allusion to the subject, even before the allotments
in Western Palestine begin to be described, shows that their case had
been carefully considered, and that it was not by oversight but
deliberately that the country was divided without any section being
reserved for them.

The other parenthetical statement respects the death of Balaam.
"Balaam also, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the
sword among them that were slain by them" (ver. 22). It appears from
Numb. xxxi. 8 that the slaughter of Balaam took place in the days of
Moses, by the hands of the expedition sent by him to chastise the
Midianites for drawing the Israelites into idolatry. That the fact
should be again noticed here is probably due to the circumstance that
the death of Balaam occurred at the place which had just been
noted--the boundary line between Reuben and Gad. It was a fact well
worthy of being again noted. It was a fact never to be forgotten that
the man who had been sent for to curse was constrained to bless. As
far as Balaam's public conduct was concerned, he behaved well to
Israel. He emphasized their Divine election and their glorious
privileges. He laid especial stress upon the fact that they were not a
Bedouin horde, rushing about in search of plunder, but a sacramental
host, executing the judgments of a righteous God--"The Lord his God is
with him, and the shout of a king is among them." This was a valuable
testimony, for which Israel might well be grateful. It was when Balaam
took part in that disgraceful plot to entice Israel into sensuality
and idolatry that he came out in his real colours. It seemed to him
very clever, no doubt, to obey the Divine command in the letter by
absolutely refusing to curse Israel, while at the same time he
accomplished the object he was sent for by seducing them into sins
which brought down on them the judgments of God. Nevertheless, he
reckoned without his host. Possibly he gained his reward, but he did
not live to enjoy it; and "what shall a man be profited if he gain the
whole world and forfeit his own life?" (Matt. xvi. 26, R.V.).

The two and a half tribes were well taught by the fate of Balaam that,
in the end, however cunningly a man may act, his sin will find him
out. They were emphatically reminded that the sins of sensuality and
idolatry are exceedingly hateful in the sight of God, and certain to
be punished. They were assured by the testimony of Balaam, that
Israel, if only faithful, would never cease to enjoy the Divine
protection and blessing. But they were reminded that God is not
mocked: that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Balaam
had sown to the flesh; of the flesh it behoved him to reap corruption.
And so must it ever be; however ingeniously you may disguise sin,
however you may conceal it from yourself, and persuade yourself to
believe that you are not doing wrong, sin must show itself ultimately
in its true colours, and your ingenious disguises will not shield it
from its doom:--"The wages of sin is DEATH."




CHAPTER XXII.

_THE INHERITANCE OF CALEB._[15]

JOSHUA xiv. 6-15.

  [15] There is some difficulty in adjusting the three passages in
  which the settlement of Caleb is referred to. From this first
  passage of the three, we are led to think that it was before the
  tribe of Judah obtained its portion. Again, from chap. xv. 13 we
  might suppose that it was simultaneously with the rest of the
  tribe. From Judg. i. 10, again, it might be thought that the
  subduing of the natives in Hebron was effected, not by Caleb
  alone, but by the tribe of Judah, and that it took place "after
  the death of Joshua" (Judg. i. 1). Putting all these together, it
  would appear that Hebron was assigned to Caleb before the tribe of
  Judah was settled; that this allocation was ratified at the
  general settlement; that as Caleb was a member of the tribe, his
  services against the Canaanites, and especially the Anakim, were
  ascribed to his tribe; and that the process of dispossessing the
  Canaanites went on for some time after the death of Joshua. The
  repetitions in the narrative concerning Caleb form one of the
  considerations that favour the idea of more sources than one
  having been made use of in the composition of this book.


Caleb is one of those men whom we meet with seldom in Bible history,
but whenever we do meet them we are the better for the meeting. Bright
and brave, strong, modest and cheerful, there is honesty in his face,
courage and decision in the very pose of his body, and the calm
confidence of faith in his very look and attitude. It is singular that
there should be cause to doubt whether his family were _originally_ of
the promised seed. When introduced to us in the present passage he is
emphatically called "Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite" (R.V.,
Kenizzite, rightly, same as Kenizzite in Gen. xv. 19), as if he had
been a descendant of Kenaz, a son of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 11 and 15), and
a member of the Kenizzite tribe. It was not customary to distinguish
Israelites in this way, but only those who had come among them from
other tribes, like "Heber the Kenite," "Jael, the wife of Heber the
Kenite" (Judg. iv. 11, 17), Uriah the Hittite, Hushai the Archite,
etc. Moreover, Othniel, Caleb's younger brother, is called the son of
Kenaz (Josh. xv. 17); and further, when it is recorded in the
fourteenth verse of this chapter that Hebron became the possession of
Caleb, the reason assigned is that he "wholly followed the Lord God
_of Israel_." On the other hand, in the genealogical list of 1 Chron.
iv. 13, 15, Othniel and Caleb occur as if they were regular members of
the tribe; but that list shows obvious signs of imperfection. On the
whole, the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the opinion that
Caleb's family were originally outside the covenant, but had become
proselytes, like Hobab, Rahab, Ruth, and Heber. Their faith was
pre-eminently the fruit of conviction, and not the accident of
heredity. It had a firmer basis than that of most Israelites. It was
woven more closely into the texture of their being, and swayed their
lives more powerfully. It is pleasing to think that there may have
been many such proselytes; that the promise to Abraham may have
attracted souls from the east, and the west, and the north, and the
south; that even beyond the limits of the twelve tribes many hearts
may have been cheered, and many lives elevated and purified by the
promise to him, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the
earth be blessed."

Caleb and Joshua had believed and acted alike, in opposition to the
other ten spies; but Caleb occupies the more prominent place in the
story of their heroism and faith. It was he that "stilled the people
before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we
are well able to overcome it" (Numb. xiii. 30); and at first his name
occurs alone, as exempted from the sentence of exclusion against the
rest of his generation: "But my servant Caleb, because he had another
spirit with him, and hath followed Me fully, him will I bring into the
land whereinto he went: and his seed shall possess it" (Numb. xiv.
24). As we have said before, it is probable that Caleb was the readier
speaker, and it is possible that he was the firmer man. Joshua seems
to have wanted that power of initiation which Caleb had. It was
because he had always been a good follower that Joshua in his old age
was fitted to be a leader. Because he had been a good servant he
became a good master. As long as Moses lived, Joshua was his servant.
After Moses died, Joshua set himself simply to carry out his
instructions. It was a happy thing for him on the return of the ten
spies that Caleb was one of them, otherwise he might have found
himself in a condition of embarrassment. Caleb was evidently the man
who led the opposition to the ten, not only asserting the course of
duty, but manifesting the spirit of contempt and defiance toward the
faithless cowards that forgot that God was with them. In his inmost
heart Joshua was quite of his mind, but probably he wanted the
energetic manner, the ringing voice, the fearless attitude of his more
demonstrative companion. Certain it is that Caleb reaped the chief
honour of that day.[16]

  [16] Some readers may no doubt prefer the explanation that when
  Caleb is mentioned alone one document was followed, and when Caleb
  and Joshua are coupled, another.

It is beautiful to see that there was no rivalry between them. Not
only did Caleb interpose no remonstrance when Joshua was called to
succeed Moses, but he seems all through the wars to have yielded to
him the most loyal and hearty submission. God had set His seal on
Joshua, and the people had ratified the appointment, and Caleb was too
magnanimous to allow any poor ambition of his, if he had any, to come
in the way of the Divine will and the public good. His affectionate
and cordial bearing on the present occasion seems to show that not
even in the corner of his heart did there linger a trace of jealousy
toward the old friend and companion whom on that occasion he had
surpassed, but who had been set so much higher than himself. He came
to him as the recognised leader of the people--as the man whose voice
was to decide the question he now submitted, as the judge and arbiter
in a matter which very closely concerned him and his house.

And yet there are indications of tact on the part of Caleb, of a
thorough understanding of the character of Joshua, and of the sort of
considerations by which he might be expected to be swayed. There were
two grounds on which he might reasonably look for the conceding of his
request--his personal services, and the promise of Moses. Caleb knows
well that the promise of Moses will influence Joshua much more than
any other consideration; therefore he puts it in the foreground. "Thou
knowest the thing that the Lord said unto Moses, the man of God,
concerning me and thee in Kadesh-barnea." "Moses, the man of God." Why
does Caleb select that remarkable epithet? Why add anything to the
usual name, Moses? The use of the epithet was honouring to all the
three. That which constituted the highest glory of Moses was that he
was so much at one with God. God's will was ever his law, and he was
in such close sympathy with God that whatever instructions he gave on
any subject might be assumed to be in accordance with God's will.
Moreover, in calling him "the man of God" when addressing Joshua,
Caleb assumed that Joshua would be impressed by this consideration,
and would be disposed to agree to a request which was not only
sanctioned by the will of Moses, but by that higher will which Moses
constantly recognised. In short, when Joshua considered that the
particular wish of Moses which Caleb now recalled was only the
expression of the Divine will, Caleb felt assured that he could not
withhold his consent. The three men were indeed a noble trio, worthy
descendants of their father Abraham, even if one of the three was no
son of Jacob. Long before our Lord taught the petition "Thy will be
done on earth as it is in heaven," it had become habitual to them all.
Moses was indeed "the man of God,"--pre-eminently in fellowship with
Him; in a lower sphere both Caleb and Joshua were of the same order,
men who tried to live their lives, and every part of them, only in
God.

Having fortified his plea with this strong reference at once to Moses
and to God, Caleb proceeds to rehearse the service which had led to
the promise of Moses. The facts could not but be well known to Joshua.
"Forty years old was I when Moses, the servant of the Lord, sent me
from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land, and I brought him word again
as it was in my heart. Nevertheless, my brethren that went up with me
made the heart of the people melt; but I wholly followed the Lord my
God." Why does Caleb put the matter in this way? Why does he not
couple Joshua with himself as having been faithful on that
never-to-be-forgotten occasion? The only explanation that seems
feasible is, that from the pre-eminent position of Joshua this was
unnecessary, perhaps it might have appeared even unbecoming. A soldier
making a request of the Duke of Wellington, and recalling some service
he had done at the battle of Waterloo, would hardly think it
necessary, or even becoming, to say how the Duke, too, had been there,
and what surpassing service he had rendered on that day. A soldier
like the Duke occupying a position of unrivalled pre-eminence on
account of long and brilliant service, does not need to be told what
he has done. Joshua was now the leader of Israel, and the last few
years had crowned him with such manifold glory that his whole life was
transfigured, and individual acts of service did not need to be spoken
of. Caleb was comparatively an obscure individual, whose fame rested
on a single service now nearly half a century old, which could not,
indeed, be quite forgotten, but amid the brilliant events of later
times might easily pass out of sight and out of mind. There was no
disparagement of Joshua, therefore, in his not being mentioned by
Caleb, but, on the contrary, a silent tribute to his exalted office as
chief ruler of Israel, and to his all but unparalleled services,
especially during these later years.

"I brought him word again, _as it was in my heart_." The statement is
made in no boasting spirit, and yet what a rare virtue it denotes!
Caleb, as we now say, had the courage of his convictions. He had both
an honest heart and an honest tongue. We can have but little idea what
temptations he lay under _not_ to speak what was in his heart. For six
weeks these ten men had been his close companions. They had eaten
together, slept under the same canvas, walked by the same paths,
beguiled the long way by story and anecdote, and no doubt by joke and
play of humour, and done kind offices to each other as circumstances
required. To break away from your own set, from the comrades of your
campaign, to upset their plans, and counsel those in power to a course
diametrically opposed to theirs, is one of the most difficult of
social duties. And in these days of ours there is no duty more
commonly set aside. Moral cowardice has been well said to be one of
the most common vices of our age.

What more common in Parliament, for example, than for men to differ
strongly from some of the measures of their party, and yet, because it
is their party, support them by their votes? And in the ranks of the
Church and of its various sections the same tendency prevails, though
it may be in a less degree. Of the many able and seemingly honest
prelates of the Roman Church who dissented, often with vehemence, from
the Vatican decree of the pope's infallibility, what became finally of
their opposition? Were there more than one or two who did not
surrender in the end, and agree to profess what they did not believe?
And to come to more ordinary matters, when our opinions on religious
subjects are at a discount, when they are met with ridicule, how often
do we conceal them, or trim and modify them in order that we may not
share in the current condemnation? The men that have the courage of
their convictions are often social martyrs, shut out from the
fellowship of their brethren, shut out from every berth of honour or
emolument, and yet, for their courage and honesty, worthy of
infinitely higher regard than whole hundreds of the time-servers that
"get on" in the world by humouring its errors and its follies.

Nevertheless, though most of us show ourselves miserably weak by _not_
speaking out all that is "in our hearts," especially when the honour
of our Lord and Master is concerned, we are able to appreciate and
cannot fail to admire the noble exhibitions of courage that we
sometimes meet with. That beautiful creation of Milton's, the Seraph
Abdiel, "faithful found among the faithless, faithful only he," is the
type and ideal of the class. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego resisting
the enthusiasm of myriads and calmly defying the fiery furnace; the
Apostle Paul clinging to his views of the law and the gospel when even
his brother Peter had begun to waver; Martin Luther, with his foot on
the Bible confronting the whole world; John Knox defying sovereign and
nobles and priests alike, determined that the gospel should be freely
preached; Carey, going out as a missionary to India amid the derision
of the world, because he could not get the words out of his head, "Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every
creature,"--have all exemplified the Caleb spirit that must utter what
is in the heart; nor has any new idea commonly laid hold of mankind
till the struggles of some great hero or the ashes of some noble
martyr have gone to sanctify the cause.

"He that believeth shall not make haste." Caleb believed, and
therefore he was patient. Five-and-forty long years had elapsed since
Moses, the man of God, speaking in the Spirit of God, had promised him
a particular inheritance in the land. It was a long time for faith to
live on a promise, but, like a tree in the face of a cliff that seems
to grow out of the solid rock, it derived nourishment from unseen
sources. It was a long time to be looking forward; but Caleb, though
he did not receive the promise during all that time, was persuaded of
it and embraced it, and believed that at last it would come true. He
did not anticipate the proper time, though he might have had as
plausible reasons for doing so as the two tribes and a half had for
asking leave to settle on the east side of the river. He bore his
share of warlike work, bore the burden and heat of the day, waited
till the proper time for dividing the land. Nor did he rush forward
selfishly by himself, disregarding the interests of the rest of his
tribe; for the children of Judah, recognising his claim, draw near to
Joshua along with him. Nor was it a portion of the land which any
tribe might be eager to enter upon that he asked; for it was still so
harassed by the Anakim, that there would be no peace till that
formidable body of giants were driven out.

It seems that when acting as one of the twelve spies, Caleb had in
some emphatic way taken his stand on Hebron. "The land _on which thy
foot hath trodden_ will be an inheritance to thee." Perhaps the spies
were too terrified to approach Hebron, for the sons of the Anakim were
there, and, in the confidence of faith, Caleb, or Caleb and Joshua,
had gone into it alone. Moses had promised him Hebron, and now he came
to claim it. But he came to claim it under circumstances that would
have induced most men to let it alone. The driving out of the Anakim
was a formidable duty, and the task might have seemed more suitable
for one who had the strength and enthusiasm of youth on his side. But
Caleb, though eighty-five, was yet young. Age is not best measured by
years. He was a remarkable instance of prolonged vigour and youthful
energy. "As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses
sent me; as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war,
and to go out and to come in." Faith, and temperance, and cheerfulness
are wonderful aids to longevity. As one reads these words of Caleb,
one recalls the saying of a well-known physician, Dr. Richardson, that
the human frame might last for a hundred years if it were only treated
aright.

There is something singularly touching in Caleb's asking as a favour
what was really a most hazardous but important service to the nation.
Rough though these Hebrew soldiers were, they were capable of the most
gentlemanly and chivalrous acts. There can be no higher act of
courtesy than to treat as a favour to yourself what is really a great
service to another. Well done, Caleb! You do not ask for a berth which
there will be no trouble in taking or in keeping. You are not like
Issachar, the strong ass couching between the sheepfolds: "and he saw
a resting-place that it was good, and the land that it was pleasant;
and he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant under
task-work." The dew of youth is yet upon you, the stirring of lofty
purpose and noble endeavour; you are like the warhorse of Job--"he
paweth in the valley and rejoiceth in his strength; he mocketh at
fear, and is not dismayed; he smelleth the battle afar off, the
thunder of the captains and the shouting."

There is nothing we admire more in military annals than a soldier
volunteering for the most hazardous and difficult of posts,--showing

    "That stern joy which warriors feel
    In foemen worthy of their steel."

In the spiritual warfare, too, we do not want instances of the same
spirit. We recall Captain Allan Gardiner choosing Tierra del Fuego as
his mission sphere just because the people were so ferocious, the
climate so repulsive, and the work so difficult that no one else was
likely to take it up. We think of the second band who went out after
Gardiner and his companions had been starved to death; and still more
after these were massacred by the natives, of the third detachment who
were moved simply by the consideration that the case was seemingly so
desperate. Or we think of Livingstone begging the directors of the
London Missionary Society, wherever they sent him, to be sure that it
was "Forward"; turning aside from all previous mission stations, and
the comparative ease they afforded, to grapple with the barbarian
where he had never begun to be tamed; his eyes thirsting for unknown
scenes and untried dangers, because he scorned to build on the
foundation of others, and thirsted for "fresh woods and pastures new."
We think of him persevering in his task from year to year in the same
lofty spirit; disregarding the misery of protracted pain, the intense
longings of his weary heart for home, the repulsive society of savages
and cannibals, the vexations, disappointments, and obstacles that
seemed to multiply every day, the treachery of so-called friends whom
he had helped to raise, the indifference of a careless world, and of a
languid Church; but ever girding himself with fresh energy for the
task which he had undertaken, and of which the difficulties and trials
had never been absent from his thoughts. We think of many a young
missionary turning away from the comfortable life which he might lead
at home and which many of his companions will lead, that he may go
where the need is greatest and the fight is hottest, and so render to
his Master the greatest possible service. A crowd of noble names
comes to our recollection--Williams, and Judson, and Morrison, and
Burns, and Patteson, and Keith-Falconer, and Hannington, and
Mackay--men for whom even the Anakim had no terrors, but rather an
attraction; but who, serving under another Joshua, differed from Caleb
in this, that what they desired was not to destroy these ferocious
Anakim, but to conquer them by love, and to demonstrate the power of
the gospel of Jesus Christ to change the vilest reprobates into sons
of God.

And even now there are other Anakim among us for whom the fate of the
Canaanite giants ought to be reserved. Anakim within us--greed,
selfishness, love of ease, lust, passion, cruelty--all, if we are
faithful, to be put to the edge of the sword. And there are Anakim,
tremendous Anakim, around us--drunkenness, and all that fosters it,
despite the paltry excuses we so often hear; sensuality, that vile
murderer of soul and body together; avarice, so cruelly unjust, and
content to gather its hoard from the thews and sinews of men and women
to whom life has become worse than slavery; luxurious living, that
mocks the struggles of thousands to whom one crumb from the table or
one rag from the wardrobe would bring such a blessed relief. With
giants like these we need to wage incessant war, and for the necessary
spirit we need constant supplies of the faith and courage that were so
remarkable in Caleb. He followed the Lord _fully_; believing that if
the Lord deserved to be followed at all, He deserved to be followed in
full. What was there to gain by following Him one half, and
surrendering the other half to the world? Could he count on God
helping him if he went with but half his heart into His service, and,
like Lot's wife, looked back even when flying from Sodom? "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy strength, and with all thy might."

The tendency to compromise is one of the besetting sins of the day. In
the army or the navy, if one is to serve God at all, one must serve
Him wholly. Decision is eminently requisite there, and Christians
there are commonly more whole-hearted and consistent than in many
circles nominally Christian. Decision is manly, is noble; it brings
rest within, and in the end it conciliates the respect of the
bitterest foes. Courage is the ornament of Christianity, and the crown
of the Christian youth. "FEAR NOT" is one of the brightest gems of the
Bible.




CHAPTER XXIII.

_THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND._

JOSHUA xv.-xix.


We come now in earnest to the distribution of the land. The two and a
half tribes have already got their settlements on the other side of
Jordan; but the other side of Jordan, though included in the land of
promise, was outside the part specially consecrated as the theatre of
Divine manifestation and dealing. From Dan to Beersheba and from
Jordan to the sea was _par excellence_ the land of Israel; it was here
the patriarchs had dwelt; it was here that most of the promises had
been given; it was here that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been
buried; and here also, though in another tomb, that the bones of
Joseph had been laid. This portion was the kernel of the inheritance,
surrounded by a wide penumbra of more feeble light and fewer
privileges. In due time there arose a holy of holies within this
consecrated region, when Jerusalem became the capital, the focus of
blessing and holy influence.

Now that the distribution of this part of the country begins, we must
give special attention to the operation. The narrative looks very
bare, but important principles and lessons underlie it. These lists of
unfamiliar names look like the _débris_ of a quarry--hard,
meaningless, and to us useless. But nothing is inserted in the Bible
without a purpose,--a purpose that in some sense bears on the
edification of the successive generations and the various races of
men. We are not to pass the distribution over because it looks
unpromising, but rather to inquire with all the greater care what the
bearing of it is on ourselves.

Now, in the first place, there is something to be learned from the
maintenance of the distinction of the twelve tribes, and the
distribution of the country into portions corresponding to each. In
some degree this was in accordance with Oriental usage; for the
country had already been occupied by various races, dwelling in a kind
of unity--the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites,
Perizzites, and Girgashites. What was peculiar to Israel was, that
each of the tribes was descended from one of Jacob's sons, and that
their relation to each other was conspicuously maintained, though
their dwelling-places were apart. It was an arrangement capable of
becoming a great benefit under a right spirit, or a great evil under
the opposite. As in the case of the separate states of North America,
or the separate cantons of Switzerland, it provided for variety in
unity; it gave a measure of local freedom and independence, while it
maintained united action; it contributed to the life and vigour of the
commonwealth, without destroying its oneness of character, or
impairing its common purpose and aim. It promoted that picturesque
variety often found in little countries, where each district has a
dialect, or a pronunciation, or traditions, or a character of its own;
as Yorkshire differs from Devon, or Lancashire from Cornwall;
Aberdeenshire from Berwick, or Fife from Ayr. As in a garden, variety
of species enlivens and enriches the effect, so in a community,
variety of type enriches and enlivens the common life. A regiment of
soldiers clothed in the same uniform, measuring the same stature,
marching to the same step, may look very well as a contrast to the
promiscuous crowd; but when a painter would paint a striking picture
it is from the promiscuous crowd in all their variety of costume and
stature and attitude that his figures are drawn. In the case of the
Hebrew commonwealth, the distinction of tribes became smaller as time
went on, and in New Testament times the three great districts Judæa,
Samaria, and Galilee showed only the survival of the fittest. A larger
individuality and a wider variety would undoubtedly have prevailed if
a good spirit had continued to exist among the tribes, and if all of
them had shown the energy and the enterprise of some.

But the wrong spirit came in, and came in with a witness, and mischief
ensued. For distinctions in race and family are apt to breed rivalry
and enmity, and not only to destroy all the good which may come of
variety, but to introduce interminable mischief. For many a long day
the Scottish clans were like Ishmael, their hand against every man,
and every man's hand against them; or at least one clan was at
interminable feud with another, and the country was wretched and
desolate. Among the twelve tribes of Israel the spirit of rivalry soon
showed itself, leading to disastrous consequences. In the time of the
judges, the men of Ephraim exhibited their temper by envying Gideon
when he subdued the Midianites, and Jephthah when he subdued the
Ammonites; and under Jephthah a prodigious slaughter of Ephraimites
resulted from their unreasonable spirit. In the time of the kings, a
permanent schism was caused by the revolt of the ten tribes from the
house of David. Thus it is that the sin of man often perverts
arrangements designed for good, and so perverts them that they become
sources of grievous evil. The family order is a thing of heaven; but
let a bad spirit creep into a family, the result is fearful. Let
husband and wife become alienated; let father and son begin to
quarrel; let brother set himself against brother, and let them begin
to scheme not for mutual benefit but for mutual injury, no limits can
be set to the resulting mischief and misery.

Many arrangements of our modern civilization that conduce to our
comfort when in good order, become sources of unexampled evil when
they go wrong. The drainage of houses conduces much to comfort while
it works smoothly; but let the drains become choked, and send back
into our houses the poisonous gases bred of decomposition, the
consequences are appalling. The sanitary inspector must be on the
alert to detect mischief in its very beginnings, and apply the remedy
before we have well become conscious of the evil. And so a vigilant
eye needs ever to be kept on those arrangements of providence that are
so beneficial when duly carried out, and so pernicious when
thoughtlessly perverted. What a wonderful thing is a little
forbearance at the beginning of a threatened strife! What a priceless
blessing is the soft answer that turneth away wrath! There is a pithy
tract bearing the title "The Oiled Feather." The oiled feather has a
remarkable power of smoothing surfaces that would otherwise grate and
grind upon each other, and so of averting evil. Among Christians it
should be always at hand; for surely, if the forbearance and love that
avert quarrels ought to be found anywhere, it is among those who have
received the fulness of Divine love and grace in Jesus Christ. Surely
among them there should be no perversion of Divine arrangements; in
their homes no quarrels, and in their hearts no rivalry. They ought,
instead, to be the peacemakers of the world, not only because they
have received the peace that passeth understanding, but because their
Master has said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called the children of God."

2. Again, in the allocation of the tribes in their various territories
we have an instance of a great natural law, the law of distribution, a
law that, on the whole, operates very beneficially throughout the
world. In society there is both a centripetal and a centrifugal force;
the centripetal chiefly human, the centrifugal chiefly Divine. Men are
prone to cluster together; God promotes dispersion. Through the Divine
law of marriage, a man leaves his father's house and cleaves to his
wife; a new home is established, a new centre of activity, a new
source of population. In the early ages they clustered about the plain
of Shinar; the confusion of tongues scattered them abroad. And
generally, in any fertile and desirable spot, men have been prone to
multiply till food has failed them, and either starvation at home or
emigration abroad becomes inevitable. And so it is that, in spite of
their cohesive tendency, men are now pretty well scattered over the
globe. And when once they are settled in new homes, they acquire
adaptation to their locality, and begin to love it. The Esquimaux is
not only adapted to his icy home, but is fond of it. The naked negro
has no quarrel with the burning sun, but enjoys his sunny life. We of
the temperate zone can hardly endure the heat of the tropics, and we
shiver at the very thought of Lapland. It is a proof of Divine wisdom
that a world that presents such a variety of climates and conditions
has, in all parts of it, inhabitants that enjoy their life.

The same law operates in the vegetable world. Everywhere plants seem
to discover the localities where they thrive best. Even in the same
country you have one flora for the valley and another for the
mountain. The lichen spreads itself along the surface of rocks, or the
hard bark of ancient trees; the fungus tarries in damp, unventilated
corners; the primrose settles on open banks; the fern in shady groves.
There is always a place for the plant, and a plant for the place. And
it is so with animals too. The elephant in the spreading forest, the
rabbit in the sandy down, the beaver beside the stream, the
caterpillar in the leafy garden. If we could explore the ocean we
should find the law of distribution in full activity there. There is
one great order of fishes for fresh water, another for salt; one great
class of insects in hot climates, another in temperate; birds of the
air, from the eagle to the humming-bird, from the ostrich to the bat,
in localities adapted to their habits. We ask not whether this result
was due to creation or to evolution. There it is, and its effect is to
cover the earth. All its localities, desirable and undesirable, are
more or less occupied with inhabitants. Some of the great deserts that
our imagination used to create in Africa or elsewhere do not exist.
Barren spots there are, and "miry places and marshes given to salt,"
but they are not many. The earth has been replenished, and the purpose
of God so far fulfilled.

And then there is a distribution of talents. We are not all created
alike, with equal dividends of the gifts and faculties that minister
in some way to the purposes of our life. We depend more or less on one
another; women on men, and men on women; the young on the old, and
sometimes the old on the young; persons of one talent on those of
another talent, those with strong sinews on those with clear heads,
and those with clear heads on those with strong sinews; in short,
society is so constituted that what each has he has for all, and what
all have they have for each. The principle of the division of labour
is brought in; and in a well-ordered community the general wealth and
well-being of the whole are better promoted by the interchange of
offices, than if each person within himself had a little stock of all
that he required.

The same law of distribution prevails in the Church of Christ. It was
exemplified in an interesting way in the case of our Lord's apostles.
No one of these was a duplicate of another. Four of them, taking in
Paul, were types of varieties which have been found in all ages of the
Church. In a remarkable paper in the _Contemporary Review_, Professor
Godet of Neuchâtel, after delineating the characteristics of Peter,
James, John, and Paul, remarked what an interesting thing it was, that
four men of such various temperaments should all have found supreme
satisfaction in Jesus of Nazareth, and should have yielded up to Him
the homage and service of their lives. And throughout the history of
the Church, the distribution of gifts has been equally marked.
Chrysostom and Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose, Bernard and Anselm, were
all of the same stock, but not of the same type. At the Reformation
men of marked individuality were provided for every country. Germany
had Luther and Melancthon; France, Calvin and Coligny; Switzerland,
Zwingle and Farel, Viret and Œcolampadius; Poland, À-Lasco;
Scotland, Knox; England, Cranmer, Latimer, and Hooper. The missionary
field has in like manner been provided for. India has had her
Schwartz, her Carey, her Duff, and a host of others; China her
Morrison, Burmah her Judson, Polynesia her Williams, Africa her
Livingstone. The most unattractive and inhospitable spots have been
supplied. Greenland was not too cold for the Moravians, nor the
leper-stricken communities of India or Africa too repulsive. And never
were Christian men more disposed than to-day to honour that great
Christian law of distribution--"Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature."

It was a great providential law, therefore, that was recognised in the
partition of the land of Canaan among the tribes. Provision was thus
made for so scattering the people that they should occupy the whole
country, and become adapted to the places where they settled, and to
the pursuits proper to them. Even where there seems to us to have been
a mere random distribution of places, there may have been underlying
adaptations for them, or possibilities of adaptation known only to
God; at all events the law of adaptation would take effect, by which a
man becomes adapted and attached to the place that not only gives him
a home but the means of living, and by which, too, he becomes a
greater adept in the methods of work which ensure success.

3. Still further, in the allocation of the tribes in their various
territories we have an instance of the way in which God designed the
earth to minister most effectually to the wants of man. We do not say
that the method now adopted in Canaan was the only plan of
distributing land that God ever sanctioned; very probably it was the
same method as had prevailed among the Canaanites; but it is beyond
doubt that, such as it was, it was sanctioned by God for His chosen
people.

It was a system of peasant proprietorship. The whole landed property
of the country was divided among the citizens. Each freeborn Israelite
was a landowner, possessing his estate by a tenure, which, so long as
the constitution was observed, rendered its permanent alienation from
his family impossible. At the fiftieth year, the year of jubilee,
every inheritance returned, free of all encumbrance, to the
representatives of the original proprietor. The arrangement was
equally opposed to the accumulation of overgrown properties in the
hands of the few, and to the loss of all property on the part of the
many. The extremes of wealth and poverty were alike checked and
discouraged, and the lot eulogised by Agur--a moderate competency,
neither poverty nor riches, became the general condition of the
citizens.

It is difficult to tell what extent of land fell to each family. The
portion of the land divided by Joshua has been computed at twenty-five
million acres.[17] Dividing this by 600,000, the probable number of
_families_ at the time of the settlement, we get forty-two acres as
the average size of each property. For a Roman citizen, seven acres
was counted enough to yield a moderate maintenance, so that even in a
country of ordinary productiveness the extent of the Hebrew farms
would, before further subdivision became necessary, have been ample.
When the population increased the inheritance would of course have to
be subdivided. But for several generations this, so far from an
inconvenience, would be a positive benefit. It would bring about a
more complete development of the resources of the soil. The great rule
of the Divine economy was thus honoured--nothing was lost.

  [17] See Wines on the "Laws of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 388.

There is no reason to suppose that the peasant proprietorship of the
Israelites induced a stationary and stagnant condition of society, or
reduced it to one uniform level--a mere conglomeration of men of
uniform wealth, resources, and influence. Though the land was divided
equally at first, it could not remain so divided long. In the course
of providence, when the direct heirs failed, or when a man married a
female proprietor, two or more properties would belong to a single
family. Increased capital, skill and industry, or unusual success in
driving out the remaining Canaanites, would tend further to the
enlargement of properties. Accordingly we meet with "men of great
possessions," like Jair the Gileadite, Boaz of Bethlehem, Nabal of
Carmel, or Barzillai the Gileadite, even in the earlier periods of
Jewish history.[18] There was a sufficient number of men of wealth to
give a pleasing variety and healthful impulse to society, without
producing the evils of enormous accumulation on the one hand, or
frightful indigence on the other.[19]

  [18] Judg. x. 4; Ruth ii. 1; 1 Sam. xxv. 2; 2 Sam. xvii. 27.

  [19] See the author's essay "An Old Key to our Social Problems" in
  "Counsel and Cheer for the Battle of Life."

We in this country, after reaching the extreme on the opposite side,
are now trying to get back in the direction of this ancient system.
All parties seem now agreed that something of the nature of peasant
proprietorship is necessary to solve the agrarian problem in Ireland
and in Great Britain too. It is only the fact that in Britain
commercial enterprise and emigration afford so many outlets for the
energies of our landless countrymen that has tolerated the abuses of
property so long among us, the laws of entail and primogeniture, the
accumulation of property far beyond the power of the proprietor to
oversee or to manage, the employment of land agents acting solely for
the proprietor, and without that sense of responsibility or that
interest in the welfare of the people which is natural to the
proprietor himself. It is little wonder that theories of
land-possession have risen up which are as impracticable in fact as
they are wild and lawless in principle. Such desperate imaginations
are the fruit of despair--absolute hopelessness of getting back in any
other way to a true land law,--to a state of things in which the land
would yield the greatest benefit to the whole nation. Not only ought
it to supply food and promote health, but also a familiarity with
nature, and a sense of freedom, and thus produce contentment and
happiness, and a more kindly feeling among all classes. It seems to us
one of the most interesting features of the land law recently brought
in for Ireland that it tends towards an arrangement of the land in the
direction of God's early designs regarding it. If it be feasible for
Ireland, why not have it for England and Scotland? Some may scout such
matters as purely secular, and not only unworthy of the interference
of religious men, but when advocated by them as fitted to prejudice
spiritual religion. It is a narrow view. All that is right is
religious; all that is according to the will of God is spiritual.
Whatever tends to realize the prayer of Agur is good for rich and poor
alike: "Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food
convenient for me."

4. Lastly, in the arrangements for the distribution of the land among
the twelve tribes we may note a proof of God's interest in the
temporal comfort and prosperity of men. It is not God that has created
the antithesis of secular and spiritual, as if the two interests were
like a see-saw, so that whenever the one went up the other must go
down. Things in this world are made to be enjoyed, and the enjoyment
of them is agreeable to the will of God, provided we use them as not
abusing them. If Scripture condemns indulgence in the pleasures of
life, it is when these pleasures are preferred to the higher joys of
the Spirit, or when they are allowed to stand in the way of a nobler
life and a higher reward. In ordinary circumstances God intends men to
be fairly comfortable; He does not desire life to be a perpetual
struggle, or a dismal march to the grave. The very words in which
Christ counsels us to consider the lilies and the ravens, instead of
worrying ourselves about food and clothing, show this; for, under the
Divine plan, the ravens are comfortably fed, and the lilies are
handsomely clothed.

This is the Divine plan; and if those who enjoy a large share of the
comforts of life are often selfish and worldly, it is only another
proof how much a wrong spirit may pervert the gifts of God and turn
them to evil. The characteristic of a good man, when he enjoys a share
of worldly prosperity, is, that he does not let the world become his
idol,--it is his servant, it is under his feet; he jealously guards
against its becoming his master. His effort is to make a friend of the
mammon of unrighteousness, and to turn every portion of it with which
he may be entrusted to such a use for the good of others, that when at
last he gives in his account, as steward to his Divine Master, he may
do so with joy, and not with grief.




CHAPTER XXIV.

_THE INHERITANCE OF JUDAH._[20]

JOSHUA xv.

  [20] We do not encumber our exposition with a discussion of the
  extraordinary theory of Wellhausen, to the effect that Judah and
  Simeon, with Levi, were the first to cross the Jordan and attack
  the Canaanites; that Simeon and Levi were all but annihilated;
  that Joshua, who belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, did little more
  than settle that tribe; and that there was hardly such a thing as
  united action by the tribes, most of them having acted and fought
  at their own hand. This theory rests professedly on the ground
  that Judges i. is a more true and trustworthy account of the
  settlement than the narrative of Joshua. It is a strange proof of
  the greater truthfulness of Judges that, according to this theory,
  its very first statement should be a lie--"It came to pass _after
  the death of Joshua_!" The narrative of Judges naturally follows
  that of Joshua because it is plain that while Joshua secured for
  his people standing ground in the country, he did not secure
  undisturbed possession. Joshua set them an example of faith and
  courage which, if followed up by them, would have secured
  undisturbed possession; but with few exceptions they preferred to
  tolerate the Canaanites at their side, instead of making a
  vigorous effort to dispossess them wholly.


Judah was the imperial tribe, and it was fitting that he should be
planted in a conspicuous territory. Even if the republic had not been
destined to give place to the monarchy, some pre-eminence was due to
the tribe which had inherited the patriarchal blessing, and from which
He was to come in whom all the families of the earth were to be
blessed. Judah and the sons of Joseph seem to have obtained their
settlements not only before the other tribes, but in a different
manner. They did not obtain them by lot, but apparently by their own
choice and by early possession. Judah was not planted in the heart of
the country. That position was gained by Ephraim and Manasseh, the
children of Joseph, while Judah obtained the southern section. In this
position his influence was not so commanding at first as it would have
been had he occupied the centre. The portion taken possession of by
Judah had belonged to the first batch of kings that Joshua
subdued,--the kings that came up to take vengeance on the Gibeonites.
What was first assigned to Judah was too large, and the tribe of
Simeon got accommodation within his lot (chap. xix. 9). Dan also
obtained several cities that had first been given to Judah (comp.
chaps. xv. 21-62 and xix. 40-46). In point of fact, Judah ere long
swallowed up a great part of Simeon and Dan, and Benjamin was so
hemmed in between him and Ephraim that, while Jerusalem was situated
within the limits of Benjamin, it was, for all practical purposes, a
city of Judah.

The territory of Judah was not pre-eminently fruitful; it was not
equal in this respect to that of Ephraim and Manasseh. It had some
fertile tracts, but a considerable part of it was mountainous and
barren. It was of four descriptions--the hill country, the valley or
low country, the south, and the wilderness. "The hill country," says
Dean Stanley, "is the part of Palestine which best exemplifies its
characteristic scenery; the rounded hills, the broad valleys, the
scanty vegetation, the villages and fortresses sometimes standing,
more frequently in ruins, on the hill tops; the wells in every valley,
the vestiges of terraces whether for corn or wine." Here the lion of
the tribe of Judah entrenched himself, to guard the southern frontier
of the Chosen Land, with Simeon, Dan, and Benjamin nestled around him.
Well might he be so named in this wild country, more than half a
wilderness, the lair of savage beasts, of which the traces gradually
disappear as we advance into the interior. Fixed there, and never
dislodged, except by the ruin of the whole nation, "he lay down, he
couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?"

Many parts of Judah were adapted for the growth of corn: witness
Bethlehem, "the house of bread." But the cultivation of the vine was
pre-eminently the feature of the tribe. "Here more than elsewhere in
Palestine are to be seen on the sides of the hills the vineyards,
marked by their watch-towers and walls, seated on their ancient
terraces, the earliest and latest symbol of Judah. The elevation of
the hills and table-lands of Judah is the true climate of the vine. He
'bound his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice
vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of
grapes.' It was from the Judæan valley of Eshcol, 'the torrent of the
cluster,' that the spies cut down the gigantic cluster of grapes. 'A
vineyard on a "hill of olives"' with the 'fence,' and 'the stones
gathered out,' and the tower in 'the midst of it,' is the natural
figure which both in the prophetical and evangelical records
represents the kingdom of Judah. The 'vine' was the emblem of the
nation on the coins of the Maccabees, and in the colossal cluster of
golden grapes which overhung the porch of the second Temple; and the
grapes of Judah still mark the tombstones of the Hebrew race in the
oldest of their European cemeteries at Prague."[21]

  [21] Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine."

The chapter now before us has a particularly barren look; but if we
examine it with care we shall find it not deficient in elements of
interest.

1. First, we have an elaborate delineation of the boundaries of the
territory allotted to Judah. It is not difficult to follow the
boundary line in the main, though some of the names cannot be
identified now. The southern border began at the wilderness of Zin,
where the host had been encamped more than forty years before, when
the twelve spies returned with their report of the land. The line
moved in a south-westerly course till it reached "the river of Egypt"
and the sea shore. What this "river of Egypt" was is far from clear.
Naturally one thinks of the Nile, the only stream that seems to be
entitled to such an appellation. On the other hand, the term
translated "river" is commonly though not always, applied to brooks or
shallow torrents, and hence it has been thought to denote a brook, now
called El Arish, about midway in the desert between Gaza and the
Pelusiac mouth of the Nile. While we incline to the former view, we
own that practically the question is of little consequence; the only
difference being that if the boundary reached to the Nile, it included
a larger share of the desert than if it had a more northerly limit.
The Dead Sea was the chief part of the eastern frontier. The northern
boundary began near Gilgal, and stretched westwards to the
Mediterranean by a line that passed just south of Jerusalem.

The position of Judah was peculiar, in respect of the enemies by whom
he was surrounded. On his eastern frontier, close to the Dead Sea, he
was in contact with Moab, and on the south with Edom, the descendants
of Esau. On the south-west were the Amalekites of the desert; and on
the west the Philistines, and pre-eminent among them, until Caleb
subdued them, the sons of Anak, the giants. On his extreme north, but
within the tribe of Benjamin, was the great fortress of the Jebusites.
It was no bed of roses that was thus prepared for the lion of the
tribe of Judah. If he should rule at all, he must rule in the midst of
his enemies. Hemmed in by fierce foes on every side, he needed to show
his prowess if he was to prevail against them. It was the necessity of
contending with these and other enemies that developed the military
genius of David (1 Sam. xvii. 50, xviii. 5, 17, 27, xxvii. 8), and
made him the fitting type of the heavenly warrior who goes forth
"conquering and to conquer." The vigilance that was needed to keep
these enemies at bay was one means of preserving the vigour and
independence of the tribe. Living thus in the very heart of foes,
Judah was the better fitted to symbolize the Church of Christ, as she
is usually found when faithful to her high calling. "Behold, I send
you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves." "We wrestle not against
flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places." As long as the Church is militant, it cannot be
otherwise; and it little becomes her either to complain on the one
hand, or be despondent on the other, however strong and bitter the
opposition or even the persecution of her foes.

2. Next, a little episode comes into our narrative (vv. 13-19), in
connection with a special allocation of territory within the tribe.
The incident of Caleb is rehearsed, as an introduction to the
narrative that follows. Caleb, on the strength of his promise to
drive out the Anakim, had got Hebron for his inheritance, and a
portion of the country around. Near to Hebron, but on a site now
unknown, stood Debir, or Kirjath-sepher, apparently a stronghold of
the Anakim. We do not know the circumstances that induced Caleb to put
this place up, as it were, to public competition. Whoever should
capture it was promised his daughter Achsah in marriage. Othniel, who
is called his younger brother, which may perhaps mean his brother's
son, took the place, and, according to the bargain, got Achsah for his
wife. The capture of Debir is recorded twice, here and in Judges i.
14, 15, and in the latter case with the addition of an incident that
followed the marriage, as if in both cases it had been copied from an
older record. Achsah was evidently a woman who could look well after
her interests. She was not satisfied with the portion of land that
fell to Othniel. There was a certain field besides, on which she had
set her affection, and which she induced her husband to ask of Caleb.
This he appears to have obtained. Then she herself turned supplicant,
and having gone to Caleb and lighted down from off her ass,[22] and
Caleb having said to her, "What wouldest thou?" she said unto her
father, "Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south land; give
me also springs of water." ["And she said, Give me a blessing
(_margin_, present); for thou hast set me in the land of the south;
give me also springs of water," R.V.] Her request was granted:--"he
gave her the upper springs and the nether springs."

  [22] Founding on the expression, "having lighted off her ass",
  some have thought that she feigned to fall off, and that her
  father coming to help her in the compassionate spirit one shows in
  a case of accident, she took the opportunity to ask and obtain
  this gift. The explanation is far-fetched if not foolish. Her
  dismounting is explained by the universal custom when one met a
  person of superior rank. Comp. Gen. xxiv. 64. See Kitto's
  "Pictorial Commentary."

The incident, though picturesque, is somewhat strange, and we
naturally ask, why should it have a place in the dry narrative of the
settlement? Possibly for the very reason that what concerns the
settlement was very dry, and that an incident like this gave it
something of living interest. Those who lived at the time must have
had a special interest in the matter, for in Judges i. 14 it is said
that Achsah moved Othniel to ask of her father "_the_ field" (_Heb._),
implying that it was a particular field, well known to the public. The
moral interest of the narrative is the light it throws on the
generosity of Caleb. His son-in-law asked of him a field, a field
apparently of special value; he got it: his daughter asked springs of
water, and she too gained her request. We contrast Caleb with Saul, as
we afterwards read of him. In no such fashion was David treated by his
father-in-law, after his brilliant victories over the Philistines. So
far was he from acquiring field or fountain, that he did not even
acquire his wife:--"It came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul's
daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given unto
Adriel the Meholathite to wife" (1 Sam. xviii. 19). Caleb had another
spirit with him. He had the heart of a father, he had a genuine
interest in his daughter and son-in-law, and desired to see them
comfortable and happy. Kindly and large-hearted, he at once
transferred to them valuable possessions that a greedier man would
have kept for himself. Evidently he was one of those godlike men that
enjoy giving, that have more pleasure in making others happy than in
multiplying their own store. "The liberal man deviseth liberal things,
and by liberal things shall he stand." "There is that scattereth, and
yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, and
it tendeth to poverty."

It is no great wonder that an incident which reveals the flowing
generosity of a godlike heart, should sometimes be turned to account
as a symbol of the liberality of God. All human generosity is but a
drop from the ocean of the Divine bounty, a faint shadow of the
inexhaustible substance. "If ye that are evil know how to give good
gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give
good things to them that ask Him?" If in the earthly father's bosom
there be that interest in the welfare of his children which is eager
to help them where help is needed and it is in his power to give it,
how much more in the bosom of the Father in heaven? Why should any be
backward to apply to Him--to say to Him, like Achsah, "Give me a
blessing"? It pleases Him to see His children reposing trust in Him,
believing in His infinite love. All that He asks of us is to come to
Him through Jesus Christ, acknowledging our unworthiness, and pleading
the merit of His sacrifice and intercession, as our only ground of
acceptance in His sight. After His revelation of His grace in Christ
our requests cannot be restricted to mere temporal things; when we ask
a blessing it must be one of higher scope and quality. Yet such is His
bounty that nothing can be withheld that is really for our good. "No
good thing will the Lord withhold from them that walk uprightly."
"Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord; if I will not open to you the
windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be
room enough to receive it."

3. We leave this picturesque incident to re-enter the wilderness of
unfamiliar names. We find a list of no fewer than a hundred and
fifteen cities which lay within the confines of the tribe of Judah
(vv. 21-32). They fall into four divisions. First, twenty-nine cities
belonged to "the south"--the "Negeb" of the Hebrews, the part of the
country which bordered on the desert, and to some degree partook of
its character. Cities they are called, but few of them were more than
villages, and hardly any were important enough to leave their mark on
the history. There are two, however, having memorable associations
with men of mark, the one carrying us back to a glorious past, the
other forward to a disgraceful future. Strange association--Abraham
and Judas Iscariot! With Beersheba the name of Abraham is imperishably
associated, as well as the name of Isaac. And to this day the very
name Beersheba seems to emit a holy fragrance. With Kerioth (ver. 25)
we connect the traitor Judas--the Is-cariot of the New Testament being
equivalent to Ish-Kerioth, a man of Kerioth, of the Old. Our heart
fills with a sense of nausea as we recall the association. The traitor
was doubly connected with the tribe of Judah,--by his name and by his
birthplace. What mockery of a noble name! "Judah, thou art he whom thy
brethren shall praise." What contrast could be greater than that
between the Judah who surrendered himself to slavery to set his
brother free, and the Judah who sold his Lord for thirty pieces of
silver! What extremes of character may we find under the same name,
and often in the same family! Strange that so few are drawn by the
example of the noble, and so many follow the course of the vile!

The next division, "the valley," the lowland, or Shephelah, embraced
three subdivisions--the north-eastern Shephelah with her fourteen
towns (vv. 33-36), the middle, with sixteen (vv. 37-41), and the
southern, with nine (vv. 42-44); to which are added three of the
cities of the Philistines,--Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza (vv. 45-47). Many
of the places in this list became famous in the history. Eshtaol and
Zorah were of note in the history of Samson, but in his time they were
Danite settlements. Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, and Makkedah had been
conspicuous in Joshua's great battle of Bethhoron. Adullam and Keilah
figured afterwards in David's outlaw history, and Ashdod and Ekron
were two of the Philistine cities to which the ark was taken after the
battle of Ebenezer and Aphek (1 Sam. iv. 1, v. 1, 10). In later years
Lachish and Libnah were among the places attacked by Sennacherib, King
of Assyria, in his great raid upon the country (Isa. xxxvii. 8).

The third great group of cities were those of "the mountain," or
highlands. These were mostly in the central part of the territory, on
the plateau or ridge that runs along it, rising up from the valley of
the Dead Sea on the east, and the Shephelah, or "valley," on the west.
Here there were four groups of cities: eleven on the south-west (vv.
48-51), nine farther north (vv. 52-54), ten to the east (vv. 55-57),
and six to the north (vv. 58, 59), along with Kirjath-baal and Rabbah
in the same neighbourhood. This group included Hebron, of which we
hear so much; also Carmel, Maon, and Ziph, conspicuous in the outlaw
life of David. It is remarkable that there is no mention of Bethlehem,
which lay in "the mountain": it probably had not yet attained to the
rank of a town. But its very omission may be regarded as a proof of
the contemporaneous date of the book; for soon after Bethlehem was a
well-known place (Ruth i.-iv.), and if the Book of Joshua had been
written at the late date sometimes assigned to it, that city could not
have failed to have a place in the enumeration.

A fourth group of cities were in "the wilderness" or Migdar. This was
a wild rocky region extending between the Dead Sea and the mountains
of Hebron. "It is a plateau of white chalk, terminated on the east by
cliffs which rise vertically from the Dead Sea shore to a height of
about two thousand feet. The scenery is barren and wild beyond all
description. The chalky ridges are scored by innumerable torrents, and
their narrow crests are separated by broad, flat valleys. Peaks and
knolls of fantastic forms rise suddenly from the swelling downs, and
magnificent precipices of rugged limestone stand up like fortress
walls above the sea. Not a tree nor a spring is visible in the waste;
and only the desert partridge and the ibex are found ranging the
solitude."[23] This district was in large measure the scene of David's
wanderings, and well might he call it "a dry and thirsty land where
there is no water" (Psalm lxiii. 1). It was also the scene of the
preaching of John the Baptist, at least at the beginning (Matt. iii.
1); for when the administration of baptism became common, it was
necessary for him to remove to a better-watered region (John iii. 23).
There is some reason to believe that it was also the scene of our
Lord's temptation (Matt. iv. 1), the more especially because one of
the Evangelists has said that "He was there with the wild beasts"
(Mark i. 12).

  [23] Conder's "Handbook to the Bible," pp. 213, 214.

Only six cities are enumerated as "in the wilderness" (vv. 61, 62), so
that its population must have been very small. And of those mentioned
some are wholly unknown. The most interesting of the six is Engedi,
which derived its name from a celebrated fountain, meaning "fountain
of the kid." It is noted as one of the hiding-places of David; Saul
pursued him to it, and it was there that David spared his life when he
found him in a cave (1 Sam. xxiv.). Solomon extols its vineyards and
its camphire (Song of Solomon i. 14) [henna-flowers, R.V.], Josephus
its balsam (Ant., ix. 1, § 2), and Pliny its palms (v. 17). In ancient
times it was the site of a town, and in the fourth century, in
Jerome's time, there was still a considerable village; now, however,
there is no trace of anything of the kind. Sir Walter Scott, in the
"Talisman," makes it the abode of a Christian hermit--Theodoric of
Engaddi. It is situated near the middle of the western shore of the
Dead Sea. A rich plain, half a mile square, slopes gently from the
base of the mountains to the sea; and about a mile up the western
acclivity, four hundred feet above the plain, is the fountain of Ain
Jiddy, from which the place gets its name.

Such, then, was the distribution of the cities of Judah over the four
sections of the territory, the south, the Shephelah, the highlands,
and the wilderness. It was an ample and varied domain, and after Caleb
expelled the Anakim, there seems to have been little or no opposition
to the occupation of the whole by the tribe. But "the crook in the
lot" was not wanting. The great Jebusite fortress, Jerusalem, was on
the very edge of the northern boundary of Judah. Nominally, as we have
said, Jerusalem was in the territory of Benjamin, but really it was a
city of Judah. For it is said (ver. 63), "As for the Jebusites, the
children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell
with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."[24] For some
reason Joshua had omitted to take possession of this stronghold after
the battle of Bethhoron. The stream of pursuit had gone westward, and
the opportunity of taking Jerusalem when the king had been slain and
his army cut to pieces, was lost. And just as in modern history, when
the opportunity of taking Sebastopol was lost after the battle of the
Alma, and a long, harassing and most disastrous siege had to be
resorted to, so it was with Jerusalem; the Jebusites, recovering their
spirits after the defeat, were able to hold it, and to defy the tribe
of Judah, and all the tribes, for many a long year. While the fortress
was held by the Jebusites, Jew and Jebusite dwelt together in the
city, leading no doubt a comfortless life, neither the one nor the
other feeling truly at home.

  [24] A proof that Joshua was written before the time of David.

The moral is not far to seek. There is a crisis in some men's lives,
when they come under the power of religion, and feel the obligation to
live to God. If they had decision and courage enough at this crisis to
break off all sinful habits and connections, to renounce all
unchristian ways of life, to declare with Joshua, "As for me and my
house, we will serve the Lord,"--they would no doubt experience a
sharp opposition, but it would pass over, and peace would come. But
often they hesitate, and shrink, and cower; they cannot endure
opposition and ridicule; they retain religion enough to appease their
consciences, but not to give them satisfaction and joy. It is another
case of the men of Judah dwelling with the Jebusites, and with the
same result; they are not happy, they are not at rest; they bring
little or no honour to their Master, and they have little influence on
the world for good.




CHAPTER XXV.

_THE INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH._

JOSHUA xvi., xvii.


Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the
double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh.
In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the
family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob
that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes
(Gen. xlviii. 5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that
Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen.
xlviii. 19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to
Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and
Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was
otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two
kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger
division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the
coming re-union of the nation is symbolized, it is on this wise: "Son
of man, take thou one stick and write upon it, For Judah, and for the
children of Israel his companions; then take another stick and write
upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of
Israel his companions, and join them for thee one to another into one
stick, that they may become one in thine hand" (xxxvii. 16, 17). The
superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy
results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe, of which we find
some indications in the present chapter, but more pronounced and
mischievous manifestations further on.

The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to
follow, particularly in the Authorized Version, which not only does
not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of
uncertain meaning. The Revised Version is much more helpful,
correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the
Revised Version sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed,
indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has
not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places
mentioned. Uncertainty as to the precise boundaries cannot but
prevail, and differences of opinion among commentators. But the
uncertainty applies only to the minuter features of the description,
it bears chiefly on the points at which one tribe adjoined another.
The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, on the
whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of
the country is very distinctly marked.

In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many
respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful
district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of
Abraham's sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most
beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine.
Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its "glorious
beauty," and for its "fatness" or fertility (Isa. xxviii. 1), was at
no great distance. Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon
(vi. 4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, "a lovely
position for a capital city" (_Tristram_). On the other hand, this
portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having
been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did
not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent
from what is said in chap. xvi. 10, "They drove not out the Canaanites
that dwelt in Gezer"; and also from Joshua's answer to the request of
Ephraim for more land (xvii. 15-18).

As we have said already, we have no information regarding Joshua's
conquest of this part of the country. It seems to have been run over
more superficially than the north and the south. Consequently the
ancient inhabitants were still very numerous, and they were formidable
likewise, because they had chariots of iron.

In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to
Joseph as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and
Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with
considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near
the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of
Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between
Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of
Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an
elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim
and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives
countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has
somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns
which is of no small significance. At chap. xvi. 9 we find that
several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the
territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given
to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Asher.
Of these last the names are given. They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor,
Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after
history. Bethshean was the city to whose wall the bodies of Saul and
his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in
the neighbourhood of Naboth's vineyard (2 Kings ix. 25, 27); Endor was
the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went
to consult; Taanach was the battle-field of the kings of Canaan whom
Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sung,--

    "The kings came and fought;
    Then fought the kings of Canaan,
    In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo:
    They took no gain of money" (Judg. v. 19).

As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. So early as the
days of Thotmes III. of Egypt (about 1600 B.C.) it was famous in
battle, for in an inscription on the temple of Karnak, containing a
record of his conquests in Syria, Megiddo flourishes as the scene of a
great conflict. The saddest and most notable of its battles was that
between King Josiah and the Egyptians, in which that good young king
was killed. In fact, Megiddo obtained such notoriety as a battle-field
that in the Apocalypse (xvi. 16) Ar-Mageddon (Har-magedon, R.V.) is
the symbol of another kind of battle-ground--the meeting-place for
"the war of the great day of God the Almighty."

We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in
Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great
plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were
fought. For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these
places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they
appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was
not able to hold them at first. "The children of Manasseh could not
drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would
dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel
were waxen strong that they put the Canaanites to task-work, and did
not utterly drive them out" (R.V.). This last verse appears to have
been inserted at a later date, and it agrees with 1 Chron. vii. 29,
where several of the same towns are enumerated, and it is added, "In
these dwelt the children of Joseph, the son of Israel."

Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them
unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the
exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and
his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to
the credit of Joseph's descendants. Nobility of character is not
hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and
moral wealth on the father, and almost to impoverish the sons. And
sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be
roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work
and maintain their reputation. A humorous saying is recorded of an
eminent pastor of the Waldensian Church who found his people much
disposed to live on the reputation of their fathers, and tried in vain
to get them to do as their fathers did; he said that they were like
the potato--the best part of them was under the ground. If you say,
"We have Abraham for our father," take care that you say it in the
proper sense. Be sure that you are following hard in his footsteps,
and using his example as a spur to move your languid energies, and not
as a screen to conceal your miserable defects. If you think of Abraham
or of any forefather or body of forefathers as a cover for your
nakedness, or a compensation for your defects, you are resorting to a
device which has never proved successful in past ages, and is not
likely to change its character with you.

After the division, the vain, self-important spirit of Ephraim broke
out in a characteristic way. "Why," said he to Joshua, "hast thou
given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a
great people, forasmuch as hitherto the Lord hath blessed me?" A
grumbling reference seems to be made here to his brother Manasseh, who
had received two lots, one on each side of the Jordan. At first it
appears that there was some reason in the complaint of Ephraim. The
_free_ part of his lot seems to have been small, that is, the part not
occupied by Canaanites. But we cannot think that the whole inheritance
of Ephraim was so small as we find represented in the map of Major
Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in his "Handbook to the
Bible," because it is said, both in the Authorized and in the Revised
Version, that his western boundary extended to the sea, while Major
Conder makes it cease much sooner. But, looking at the whole
circumstances, it is probable that Ephraim's complaint was dictated by
jealousy of Manasseh, who certainly had received the double
inheritance.

Alas, how apt is the spirit of discontent still to crop up when we
compare our lot with that of others! Were we quite alone, or were
there no case for comparison, we might be content enough; it is when
we think how much more our brother has than we, that we are most
liable to murmur. And, bad though murmuring and grieving at the good
of our brother may be, it is by no means certain that the evil spirit
will stop there. At the very dawn of history we find Cain the murderer
of his brother because the one had the favour of God and not the
other. What an evil feeling it is that grudges to our brother a larger
share of God's blessing; if at the beginning it be not kept under it
may carry us on to deeds that may well make us shudder.

Joshua dealt very wisely and fearlessly with the complaint of Ephraim,
though it was his own tribe. You say you are a great people--be it so;
but if you are a great people, you must be capable of great deeds. Two
great undertakings are before you now. There are great woodlands in
your lot that have not been cleared--direct your energies to them, and
they will afford you more room for settlements. Moreover, the
Canaanites are still in possession of a large portion of your lot; up
and attack them and drive them out, and you will be furnished with
another area for possession. Joshua accepted their estimate of their
importance, but gave it a very different practical turn. What they had
wished him to do was to take away a portion from some other tribe and
give it as an extra allotment to them, so that it would be theirs
without labour or trouble. What Joshua did was to spur them to
courageous and self-denying exertion, in order that their object might
be gained through the instrumentality of their own labour. For the
sickly sentiment that desires a mine of gold to start into being and
scatter its untold treasure at our feet, he substituted the manly
sentiment of the proverb, "No gains without pains." "The soul of the
sluggard desireth and hath nothing; but the hand of the diligent
maketh rich." If they wished more land they must work for it; they
must not take idleness for their patron-saint.

We have all heard of the dying father who informed his sons that there
was a valuable treasure in a certain field, and counselled them to set
to work to find it. With great care they turned up every morsel of the
soil; but no treasure appeared, till, observing in autumn what a rich
crop covered the field, they came to understand that the fruit of
persevering labour was the treasure which their father meant. We have
heard, too, of a physician who was consulted by a rich man suffering
cruelly from gout, and asked if he had any cure for it. "Yes," said
the doctor, "live on sixpence a day, and work for it." The same
principle underlay the counsel of Joshua. Of course it gratifies a
certain part of our nature to get a mass of wealth without working for
it. But this is not the best part of our nature. Probably in no class
has the great object of life been so much lost, and the habit of
indolence and self-indulgence become so predominant as in that of
young men born to the possession of a great fortune, and never
requiring to turn a hand for anything they desired. After all, the
necessity of work is a great blessing. We speak of the curse of toil,
but except when the labour is excessive, or unhealthy in its
conditions, or when it has to be prosecuted in sickness or failing
strength, it is not a curse but a blessing. Instead of being ashamed
of labour, we have cause rather to be proud of it. It guards from
numberless temptations; it promotes a healthy body and a healthy mind;
it increases the zest of life; it promotes cheerfulness and flowing
spirits; it makes rest and healthy recreation far sweeter when they
come, and it gives us affinity to the great Heavenly Worker, by whom,
and through whom, and for whom are all things.

This great principle of ordinary life has its place too in the
spiritual economy. The age is now past that had for its favourite
notion, that seclusion from the world and exemption from all secular
employment was the most desirable condition for a servant of God. The
experiment of the hermits was tried, but it was a failure. Seclusion
from the world and the consecration of the whole being to private acts
of devotion and piety were no success. He who moves about among his
fellows, and day by day knows the strain of labour, is more likely to
prosper spiritually than he who shuts himself up in a cell, and looks
on all secular work as pollution. It is not the spiritual invalid who
is for ever feeling his pulse and whom every whiff of wind throws into
a fever of alarm, that grows up to the full stature of the Christian;
but the man who, like Paul, has his hands and his heart for ever full,
and whose every spiritual fibre gains strength and vitality from his
desires and labours for the good of others. And it is with churches as
with individuals. An idle church is a stagnant church, prone to
strife, and to all morbid experiences. A church that throws itself
into the work of faith and labour of love is far more in the way to be
spiritually healthy and strong. It was not for the good of the world
merely, but of the church herself likewise, that our Lord gave out
that magnificent _mot d'ordre_,--"Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature."

Before we pass from the inheritance of the sons of Joseph, it is
proper that we should direct attention to an incident which may seem
trifling to us, but which was evidently regarded as of no little
moment at the time. What we refer to is the petition presented by the
five daughters of Zelophehad, a member of the tribe of Manasseh, for
an inheritance in their tribe. Their father had no son, so that the
family was represented wholly by daughters. No fewer than four times
the incident is referred to, and the names of the five girls given in
full (Numb. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1-11, xxxvi. 11; Josh. xvii. 3). We know
not if there be another case in Scripture of such prominence given to
names for no moral or spiritual quality, but simply in connection with
a law of property.

The question decided by their case was the right of females to inherit
property in land when there were no heirs male in the family. We find
that the young women themselves had to be champions of their own
cause. Evidently possessed of more than ordinary spirit, they had
already presented themselves before Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the
princes of the congregation, at the door of the tabernacle, and
formally made a claim to the inheritance that would have fallen to
their father had he been alive. The case was deemed of sufficient
importance to be laid before the Lord, because the decision on it
would settle similar cases for the whole nation and for all time. The
decision was, that in such cases the women should inherit, but under
the condition that they should not marry out of their own tribe, so
that the property should not be transferred to another tribe. In point
of fact, the five sisters married their cousins, and thus kept the
property in the tribe of Manasseh.

The incident is interesting, because it shows a larger regard to the
rights of women than was usually conceded at the time. Some have,
indeed, found fault with the decision as not going far enough. Why,
they have asked, was the right of women to inherit land limited to
cases in which there were no men in the family? The decision implied
that if there had been one brother, he would have got all the land;
the sisters would have been entitled to nothing. The answer to this
objection is, that had the rights of women been recognised to this
extent, it would have been too great an advance on the public opinion
of the time. It was not God's method to enjoin laws absolutely
perfect, but to enjoin what the conscience and public opinion of the
time might be fairly expected to recognise and support. It may be that
under a perfect system women ought to inherit property on equal terms
with men. But the Jewish nation was not sufficiently advanced for such
a law. The benefit of the enactment was that, when propounded, it met
with general approval.

Certainly it was a considerable advance on the ordinary practice of
the nations. It established the principle that woman was not a mere
chattel, an inferior creature, subject to the control of the man, with
no rights of her own. But it was far from being the first time when
this principle obtained recognition. The wives of the patriarchs--Sarah,
Rebekah, Rachel--were neither chattels, nor drudges, nor concubines.
They were ladies, exerting the influence and enjoying the respect due
to cultivated, companionable women. And though the law of succession
did not give the females of the family equal rights with the males, it
recognised them in another way. While the eldest son succeeded to the
family home and a double portion of the land, he was expected to make
some provision for his widowed mother and unmarried sisters. In most
cases the sisters came to be provided for by marriage. It is the
circumstance that among us so many women remain unmarried that has
drawn so keen attention to their rights, and already caused so much to
be done, as no doubt more will be done speedily, for enlarging their
sphere and protecting their interests.

No doubt these spirited daughters of Zelophehad conferred a great
benefit on their sex in Israel. Their names are entitled to grateful
remembrance, as the names of all are who bring about beneficial
arrangements that operate in many directions and to all time. Yet one
would be sorry to think that this was the only service which they
rendered in their day. One would like to think of them as shedding
over their households and friends the lustre of those gentle, womanly
qualities which are the glory of the sex. Advocacy of public rights
may be a high duty, for the faithful discharge of which the highest
praise is due; but such a career emits little of the fragrance which
radiates from a female life of faithful love, domestic activity, and
sacred devotion. What blessed ideals of life Christianity furnishes
for women even of middling talent and ordinary education! It is
beautiful to see distinguished talents, high gifts, and persuasive
elements directed to the advocacy of neglected claims. "And yet I show
unto you a more excellent way."




CHAPTER XXVI.

_THE DISTRIBUTION COMPLETED._

JOSHUA xviii., xix.


An event of great importance now occurs; the civil arrangements of the
country are in a measure provided for, and it is time to set in order
the ecclesiastical establishment. First, a place has to be found as
the centre of the religious life; next, the tabernacle has to be
erected at that place--and this is to be done in the presence of all
the congregation. It is well that a godly man like Joshua is at the
head of the nation; a less earnest servant of God might have left this
great work unheeded. How often, in the emigrations of men, drawn far
from their native land in search of a new home, have arrangements for
Divine service been forgotten! In such cases the degeneracy into rough
manners, uncouth ways of life, perhaps into profanity, debauchery, and
lawlessness, has usually been awfully rapid. On the other hand, when
the rule of the old puritan has been followed, "Wherever I have a
house, there God shall have an altar"; when the modest spire of the
wooden church in the prairie indicates that regard has been had to the
gospel precept--"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His
righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,"--a touch
of heaven is imparted to the rude and primitive settlement; we may
believe that the spirit of Christ is not unknown; the angels of virtue
and piety are surely hovering around it.

The narrative is very brief, and no reason is given why Shiloh was
selected as the religious centre of the nation. We should have thought
that the preference would be given to Shechem, a few miles north, in
the neighbourhood of Ebal and Gerizim, which had already been
consecrated in a sense to God. That Shiloh was chosen by Divine
direction we can hardly doubt, although there may have been reasons of
various kinds that commended it to Joshua. Josephus says it was
selected for the beauty of the situation; but if the present Seilûn
denotes its position, as is generally believed, there is not much to
corroborate the assertion of Josephus. Its locality is carefully
defined in the Book of Judges (xxi. 19),--"on the north side of
Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to
Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah." As for its appearance, Dean
Stanley says, "Shiloh is so utterly featureless that had it not been
for the preservation of its name, Seilûn, and for the extreme
precision with which its situation is described in the Book of Judges,
the spot could never have been identified; and, indeed, from the time
of Jerome till the year 1838 [when Robinson identified it], its real
site was completely forgotten." Robinson does not think so poorly of
it as Stanley, describing it as "surrounded by hills, and looking out
into a beautiful oval basin" ("Biblical Researches," ii. 268).

From the days of Joshua, all through the period of the Judges, and on
to the last days of Eli the high priest, Shiloh continued to be the
abode of the tabernacle, and the great national sanctuary of Israel.
Situated about half-way between Bethel and Shechem, in the tribe of
Ephraim, it was close to the centre of the country, and, moreover, not
difficult of access for the eastern tribes. Here for many generations
the annual assemblies of the nation took place. Here came Hannah from
her home in Mount Ephraim to pray for a son; and here little Samuel,
"lent to the Lord," spent his beautiful childhood. Through that
opening in the mountains, old Eli saw the ark carried by the rash
hands of his sons into the battle with the Philistines, and there he
sat on his stool watching for the messenger that was to bring tidings
of the battle. After the ark was taken by the Philistines, the city
that had grown up around the tabernacle appears to have been taken and
sacked and the inhabitants massacred (Psalm lxxviii. 60-64). We hear
of it in later history as the abode of Ahijah the prophet (1 Kings xi.
29); afterwards it sinks into obscurity. It is to be noted that its
name occurs nowhere among the towns of the Canaanites; it is likely
that it was a new place, founded by Joshua, and that it derived its
name, Shiloh, "rest," from the sacred purpose to which it was now
devoted.

Here, then, assembled the whole congregation of the children of
Israel, to set up the tabernacle, probably with some such rites as
David performed when it was transferred from the house of Obed-Edom to
Mount Zion. Hitherto it had remained at Gilgal, the headquarters and
depôt of the nation. The "whole congregation" that now assembled does
not necessarily mean the whole community, but only selected
representatives, not only of the part that had been engaged in
warfare, but also of the rest of the nation.

If we try to form a picture of the state of Israel while Joshua was
carrying on his warlike campaigns, it will appear that his army being
but a part of the whole, the rest of the people were occupied in a
somewhat random manner, here and there, in providing food for the
community, in sowing and reaping the fields, pasturing their flocks,
and gathering in the fruits. And from the tone of Joshua it would
appear that many of them were content to lead this somewhat irregular
life. In a somewhat sharp and reproachful tone he says to them, "How
long are ye slack to go to possess the land which the Lord God of your
fathers has given you?" One of Joshua's great difficulties was to
organize the vast mass of people over whom he presided, to prevent
them from falling into careless, slatternly ways, and to keep them up
to the mark of absolute regularity and order. Many of them would have
been content to jog on carelessly as they had been doing in the
desert, in a sort of confused jumble, and to forage about, here and
there, as the case might be, in pursuit of the necessaries of life.
Their listlessness was provoking. They knew that the Divine plan was
quite different, that each tribe was to have a territory of its own,
and that measures ought to be taken at once to settle the boundaries
of each tribe. But they were taking no steps for this purpose; they
were content with social hugger-mugger.

Joshua is old, but his impatience with laziness and irregularity still
gives sharpness to his remonstrance, "How long are ye slack to possess
the land?" The ring of authority is still in his voice; it still
commands obedience. More than that, the organizing faculty is still
active--the faculty that decides how a thing is to be done. "Give out
from among you three men for each tribe; and I will send them, and
they shall rise and go through the land and describe it according to
the inheritance of them."

The men are chosen, three from each of the seven tribes that are not
yet settled; and they go through and make a survey of the land. Judah
and Joseph are not to be disturbed in the settlements that have
already been given to them; but the men are to divide the rest of the
country into seven parts, and thereafter it is to be determined by lot
to which tribe each part shall belong. It would appear that special
note was to be taken of the cities, for when the surveyors returned
and gave in their report they "described the land by cities into seven
parts in a book." Each city had a certain portion of land connected
with it, and the land always went with the city. The art of writing
was sufficiently practised to enable them to compose what has been
called the "Domesday Book" of Canaan, and the record being in writing
was a great safeguard against the disputes that might have arisen had
so large a report consisted of mere oral statement. When the seven
portions had been balloted for, there was no excuse for any of the
tribes clinging any longer to that nomad life, for which, while in the
wilderness, they seem to have acquired a real love.

And now we come to the actual division. The most interesting of the
tribes yet unsupplied was Benjamin, and the region that fell to him
was interesting too. It may be remarked as an unusual arrangement,
that when portions were allotted to Judah and to Ephraim, a space was
allowed to remain between them, so that the northern border of Judah
was at some distance from the southern border of Ephraim. As Judah and
Ephraim were the two leading tribes, and in some respects rivals, the
benefit of this intervening space between them is apparent. But for
this, whenever their relations became strained, hostilities might have
taken place.

Now it was this intervening space that constituted the inheritance of
the tribe of Benjamin. For the most part it consisted of deep ravines
running from west to east, from the central table-land down to the
valley of the Jordan, with mountains between. Many of its cities were
perched high in the mountains, as is shown by the commonness of the
names Gibeon, Gibeah, Geba, or Gaba, all of which signify "hill";
while Ramah is a "high place," and Mizpeh a "tower." In the
wilderness, Benjamin had marched along with Ephraim and Manasseh, all
the descendants of Joseph forming a united company; and after the
settlement Benjamin naturally inclined towards fellowship with these
tribes. But, as events went on, he came more into fellowship with the
tribe of Judah, and though Saul, Shimei, and Sheba, the bitterest
enemies of the house of David, were all Benjamites, yet, when the
separation of the two kingdoms took place under Rehoboam, Benjamin
took the side of Judah (1 Kings xii. 21). On the return from the
captivity it was the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that took the lead
(Ezra i. 5), and throughout the Book of Ezra the returned patriots are
usually spoken of as "the men of Judah and Benjamin."

The cities of Benjamin included several of the most famous. Among them
was Jericho, the rebuilding of which as a fortified place had been
forbidden, but which was still in some degree inhabited; Bethel, which
was already very famous in the history, but which, after the
separation of the kingdoms, was taken possession of by Jeroboam, and
made the shrine of his calves; Gibeon, the capital of the Gibeonites,
and afterwards a shrine frequented by Solomon (1 Kings iii. 5); Ramah,
afterwards the dwelling-place of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 17); Mizpeh, one
of the three places where he judged Israel (1 Sam. vii. 16); Gibeath,
or Gibeah, where Saul had his palace (1 Sam. x. 26); and last, not
least, Jerusalem. As to Jerusalem, some have thought that it lay
partly in the territory of Judah, and partly in that of Benjamin. When
certain terms in the description of the boundaries are studied there
are difficulties that might suggest this solution. But we have seen
that in practice there was a considerable amount of giving and taking
among the tribes with reference to particular cities, and that
sometimes a city, locally within one tribe, belonged to the people of
another. So it was with Jerusalem; locally within the inheritance of
Benjamin, it was practically occupied by the men of Judah (see chap.
xv. 63).

Benjamin was counted the least of the tribes (1 Sam. ix. 31), and
when, with other tribes, it was represented by its chief magistrate,
it was rather disparagingly distinguished as "little Benjamin with
their ruler" (Psalm lxviii. 27). Yet it was strong enough, on one
occasion, to set at defiance for a time the combined forces of the
other tribes (Judg. xx. 12, etc.). It was distinguished for the
singular skill of its slingers; seven hundred, who were left-handed,
"could every one sling stones at an hair-breadth and not miss" (Judg.
xx. 16). The character of its territory, abounding in rocky mountains,
and probably in game, for the capture of which the sling was adapted,
might, in some degree, account for this peculiarity.

Many famous battles were fought on the soil of Benjamin. The battle of
Ai; that of Gibeon, followed by the pursuit through Bethhoron, both
under Joshua; Jonathan's battle with the Philistines at Michmash (1
Sam. xiv.); and the duel at Gibeon between twelve men of Saul and
twelve of David (2 Sam. ii. 15, 16); were all fought within the
territory of Benjamin. And when Sennacherib approached Jerusalem from
the north, the places which were thrown into panic as he came near
were in this tribe. "He is come to Aiath, he is passed through Migron;
at Michmash he layeth up his baggage: they are gone over the pass;
they have taken up their lodging at Geba: Ramah trembleth; Gibeah of
Saul is fled. Cry aloud with thy voice, O daughter of Gallim! hearken,
O Laishah! O thou poor Anathoth! Madmenah is a fugitive; the
inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee. This very day shall he
halt at Nob: he shaketh his hand at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
the hill of Jerusalem" (Isa. x. 28-32, R.V.). In later times Judas
Maccabeus gained a victory over the Syrian forces at Bethhoron; and,
again, Cestius and his Roman troops were defeated by the Jews; and,
once more, centuries later, Richard Cœur de Lion and the flower of
English chivalry, when they pushed up through Bethhoron in the hope of
reaching Jerusalem, were compelled to retire.

Even down to New Testament times, as Dean Stanley remarks, the
influence of Benjamin remained, for the name of Saul, the king whom
Benjamin gave to the nation, was preserved in Hebrew families; and
when a far greater of that name appeals to his descent, or to the past
history of his nation, a glow of satisfaction is visible in the marked
emphasis with which he alludes to "the stock of Israel, the tribe of
Benjamin" (Phil. iii. 5), and to God's gift of "Saul the son of Kish,
a man of the tribe of Benjamin" (Acts xiii. 21).

There is little to be said of Simeon, the second of the seven that
drew his lot. It is admitted that his portion was taken out of the
first allotment to Judah (ver. 9), which was found to be larger than
that tribe required, and many of his cities are contained in Judah's
list. One act of valour is recorded of Simeon in the first chapter of
Judges; after the first settlement, he responded to the appeal of
Judah and accompanied him against the Canaanites. But the history of
this tribe as a whole might be written in the words of Jacob's
prophecy--"I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel."
There is no historical reason for the supposition of Wellhausen that
Simeon and Levi were all but annihilated on occasion of their attack
on the Canaanites. If Simeon had been virtually extinguished, it would
not have had a territory assigned to it in the ideal division of the
country by Ezekiel (xlviii. 24), nor would it have afforded the twelve
thousand of the "sealed" in the symbolical vision of St. John (Rev.
vii. 7). While the tribe was scattered, the name of its founder
survived, and both as Simeon and Simon it was crowned with honour. It
was the name of one of the family of Maccabean patriots; it was borne
by the just and devout man that waited in the temple for the
consolation of Israel; and it was the Hebrew name of the great Apostle
whose honour it was to lay the foundation of the Christian Church.

Next came the tribe of Zebulun, the boundaries of which are given with
much precision; but as most of the names are now unknown, and there
are also appearances of imperfection in the text, the delineation
cannot be followed. "The brook that is before Jokneam" is supposed to
be the Kishon, and Chisloth-Tabor, or the flanks of Tabor, points to
the mountain which is the traditional, though probably not the real
scene of our Lord's transfiguration. Gittah-hepher, or Gath-hepher,
was the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. Bethlehem, now Beit-Lahm, is
a miserable village, not to be confounded with the Bethlehem of Judah.
As no mention is made either of the sea or the lake of Galilee as a
boundary, it is probable that Zebulun was wholly an inland tribe.
Strange to say, there is no mention, either here or in any part of the
Old Testament, of by far the most famous place in the tribe,--Nazareth,
the early residence of our Lord. Yet its situation would indicate that
it must have been a very ancient place. Nor is it likely to have
escaped the notice of the surveyors when they went through the land.
The omission of this name has given rise to the opinion that the list
is incomplete.

Issachar occupied an interesting and important site. Jezreel, the
first name in the definition of its boundaries, is also the most
famous. Jezreel, now represented by Zerin, was situated on a lofty
height, and gave name to the whole valley around. Here Ahab had his
palace in the days of Elijah. By its association with the worship of
Baal, Jezreel got a bad reputation, and in the prophet Hosea
degenerate Israel is called Jezreel, a name somewhat similar, but with
very different associations (chap. i. 4). Shunem was the place of
encampment of the Philistine army before the battle of Gilboa, and
also the residence of the woman whose son Elisha restored to life.
Bethshemesh must not be confounded with the town of the same name in
Judah, nor with that in the tribe of Naphtali. Signifying "house of
the sun," it was a very common name among the Canaanites, as being
noted for the worship of the heavenly bodies. As we have already
remarked in connection with Megiddo which belonged to Manasseh, the
valley of Jezreel, now usually called the plain of Esdraelon, was
noted as the great battle-field of Palestine.

Asher also had an interesting territory. Theoretically it extended
from Carmel to Sidon, embracing the whole of the Phœnician strip;
but practically it did not reach so far. Naphtali was adjacent to
Asher, and had the Jordan and the lakes of Merom and Galilee for its
eastern boundary. It is in the New Testament that Naphtali enjoys its
greatest distinction, the lake of Galilee and the towns on its banks,
so conspicuous in the gospel history, having been situated there.

These northern tribes, as is well known, constituted the district of
Galilee. The contrast between its early insignificance and its later
glory is well brought out in the Revised Version of Isa. ix. 1, 2:
"But there shall be no gloom to her that was in anguish. In the former
time He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of
Naphtali, but in the latter time hath He made it glorious, by the way
of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that
walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the
land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

Dan was the last tribe whose lot was drawn. And it really seemed as if
the least desirable of all the portions fell to him. He was hemmed in
between Judah on the one hand and the Philistines on the other, and
the Philistines were anything but comfortable neighbours. The best
part of the level land was no doubt in their hands, and Dan was
limited to what lay at the base of the mountains (see Judg. i. 34,
35). Very early, therefore, in the history, a colony of Dan went out
in search of further possessions, and, having dispossessed some
Sidonians at Laish in the extreme north, gave their name to that city,
which proverbially denoted the most northerly city in the country, as
Beersheba, in like manner, denoted the most southerly.

The division of the country was now completed, save that one
individual was still unprovided for. And that was Joshua himself. As
in a shipwreck, the captain is the last to leave the doomed vessel, so
here the leader of the nation was the last to receive a portion. With
rare self-denial he waited till every one else was provided for. Here
we have a glimpse of his noble spirit. That there would be much
grumbling over the division of the country, he no doubt counted
inevitable, and that the people would be disposed to come with their
complaints to him followed as matter of course. See how he circumvents
them! Whoever might be disposed to go to him complaining of his lot,
knew the ready answer he would get--you are not worse off than I am,
for as yet I have got none! Joshua was content to see the fairest
inheritances disposed of to others, while as yet none had been
allotted to him. When, last of all, his turn did come, his request was
a modest one--"They gave him the city that he asked, even
Timnath-serah in the hill country of Ephraim." He might have asked for
an inheritance in the fertile and beautiful vale of Shechem,
consecrated by one of the earliest promises to Abraham, near to
Jacob's well and his ancestor Joseph's tomb, or under shadow of the
two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, where so solemn a transaction had
taken place after his people entered the land. He asks for nothing of
the kind, but for a spot on one of the highland hills of Ephraim, a
place so obscure that no trace of it remains. It is described in Judg.
ii. 9 as "Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north
of the mountain of Gaash." The north side of the mountain does not
indicate a spot remarkable either for amenity or fertility. In the
days of Jerome, his friend Paula is said to have expressed surprise
that the distributer of the whole country reserved so wild and
mountainous a district for himself.

Could it have been that it was a farm rejected by every one else? that
the head of the nation was content with what no one else would have?
If it was so, how must this have exalted Joshua in the eyes of his
countrymen, and how well fitted it is to exalt him in ours! Whether it
was a portion that every one else had despised or not, it undoubtedly
was comparatively a poor and far-off inheritance. His choice of it was
a splendid rebuke to the grumbling of his tribe, to the pride and
selfishness of the "great people" who would not be content with a
single lot, and wished an additional one to be assigned to them. "Up
with you to the mountain" was Joshua's spirited reply; "cut down the
wood, and drive out the Canaanites!"

And Joshua was not the man to give a prescription to others that he
was not prepared to take to himself. Up to the mountain he certainly
did go; and as he was now too old to fight, he quite probably spent
his last years in clearing his lot, cutting down timber, and
laboriously preparing the soil for crops. In any case, he set a
splendid example of disinterested humility. He showed himself the
worthy successor of Moses, who had never hinted at any distinction for
his family or any possession in the country beyond what might be
given to an ordinary Levite. How nobly both contrasted with men like
Napoleon, who used his influence so greedily for the enrichment and
aggrandisement of every member of his family! Joshua came very near to
the spirit of our blessed Lord, who "though He was in the form of God,
and thought it no robbery to be equal with God, made Himself of no
reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of man." As we see the Old Testament Jesus retiring in His
old age, not to a paradise in some fertile and flowery vale, but to a
bleak and rocky farm on the north side of the mountain of Gaash, or to
a shaggy forest, still held by the wolf and the bear, we are reminded
of the Joshua of the New Testament: "Foxes have holes, and the birds
of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his
head."




CHAPTER XXVII.

_THE CITIES OF REFUGE._

JOSHUA XX.


Cities of refuge had a very prominent place assigned to them in the
records of the Mosaic legislation. First, in that which all allow to
be the earliest legislation (Exod. xx.-xxiii.) intimation is given of
God's intention to institute such cities (Exod. xxi. 13); then in
Numbers (xxxv. 9-34) the plan of these places is given in full, and
all the regulations applicable to them; again in Deuteronomy (xix.
1-13) the law on the subject is rehearsed; and finally, in this
chapter, we read how the cities were actually instituted, three on
either side of Jordan. This frequent introduction of the subject shows
that it was regarded as one of great importance, and leads us to
expect that we shall find principles underlying it of great value in
their bearing even on modern life.[25]

  [25] These frequent references do not prevent modern critics from
  affirming that the cities of refuge were no part of the Mosaic
  legislation. They found this view upon the absence throughout the
  history of all reference to them as being in actual use. They were
  not instituted, it is said, till after the Exile. But the very
  test that rejects them from the early legislation fails here.
  There is no reference to them as actually occupied in the
  post-exilian books, amounting, as these are said to do, to half
  the Old Testament. Their occupation, it is said, with the other
  Levitical cities, was postponed to the time of Messiah. The shifts
  to which the critics are put in connection with this institution
  do not merely indicate a weak point in their theory; they show
  also how precarious is the position that when you do not _hear_ of
  an institution as in actual operation you may conclude that it was
  of later date.

Little needs to be said on the particular cities selected, except that
they were conveniently dispersed over the country. Kedesh in Galilee
in the northern part, Shechem in the central, and Hebron in the south,
were all accessible to the people in these regions respectively; as
were also, on the other side the river, Bezer in the tribes of Reuben,
Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan. Those who are fond of detecting
the types of spiritual things in material, and who take a hint from
Heb. vi. 18, connecting these cities with the sinner's refuge in
Christ, naturally think in this connection of the nearness of the
Saviour to all who seek Him, and the certainty of protection and
deliverance when they put their trust in Him.

1. The first thought that naturally occurs to us when we read of these
cities concerns the sanctity of human life; or, if we take the
material symbol, the preciousness of human blood. God wished to
impress on His people that to put an end to a man's life under any
circumstances, was a serious thing. Man was something higher than the
beasts that perish. To end a human career; to efface by one dread act
all the joys of a man's life, all his dreams and hopes of coming good;
to snap all the threads that bound him to his fellows, perhaps to
bring want into the homes and desolation into the hearts of all who
loved him or leant on him--this, even if done unintentionally, was a
very serious thing. To mark this in a very emphatic way was the
purpose of these cities of refuge. Though in certain respects (as we
shall see) the practice of avenging blood by the next-of-kin
indicated a relic of barbarism, yet, as a testimony to the sacredness
of human life, it was characteristic of civilization. It is natural
for us to have a feeling, when through carelessness but quite
unintentionally one has killed another; when a young man, for example,
believing a gun to be unloaded, has discharged its contents into the
heart of his sister or his mother, and when the author of this deed
gets off scot-free,--we may have a feeling that something is wanting
to vindicate the sanctity of human life, and bear witness to the
terribleness of the act that extinguished it. And yet it cannot be
denied that in our day life is invested with pre-eminent sanctity.
Never, probably, was its value higher, or the act of destroying it
wilfully, or even carelessly, treated as more serious. Perhaps, too,
as things are with us, it is better in cases of unintentional killing
to leave the unhappy perpetrator to the punishment of his own
feelings, rather than subject him to any legal process, which, while
ending with a declaration of his innocence, might needlessly aggravate
a most excruciating pain.

It is not a very pleasing feature of the Hebrew economy that this
regard to the sanctity of human life was limited to members of the
Hebrew nation. All outside the Hebrew circle were treated as little
better than the beasts that perish. For Canaanites there was nothing
but indiscriminate slaughter. Even in the times of King David we find
a barbarity in the treatment of enemies that seems to shut out all
sense of brotherhood, and to smother all claim to compassion. We have
here a point in which even the Hebrew race were still far behind. They
had not come under the influence of that blessed Teacher who taught us
to love our enemies. They had no sense of the obligation arising from
the great truth that "God hath made of one blood all the nations of
men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." This is one of the
points at which we are enabled to see the vast change that was
effected by the spirit of Jesus Christ. The very psalms in some places
reflect the old spirit, for the writers had not learned to pray as He
did--"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

2. Even as apportioned to the Hebrew people, there was still an
uncivilized element in the arrangements connected with these cities of
refuge. This lay in the practice of making the go-el, or nearest of
kin, the avenger of blood. The moment a man's blood was shed, the
nearest relative became responsible for avenging it. He felt himself
possessed by a spirit of retribution, which demanded, with
irrepressible urgency, the blood of the man who had killed his
relation. It was an unreasoning, restless spirit, making no allowance
for the circumstances in which the blood was shed, seeing nothing and
knowing nothing save that his relative had been slain, and that it was
his duty, at the earliest possible moment, to have blood for blood.
Had the law been perfect, it would have simply handed over the killer
to the magistrate, whose duty would have been calmly to investigate
the case, and either punish or acquit, according as he should find
that the man had committed a crime or had caused a misfortune. But, as
we have seen, it was characteristic of the Hebrew legislation that it
adapted itself to the condition of things which it found, and not to
an ideal perfection which the people were not capable of at once
realizing. In the office of the go-el there was much that was of
wholesome tendency. The feeling was deeply rooted in the Hebrew mind
that the nearest of kin was the guardian of his brother's life, and
for this reason he was bound to avenge his death; and instead of
crossing this feeling, or seeking wholly to uproot it, the object of
Moses was to place it under salutary checks, which should prevent it
from inflicting gross injustice where no crime had really been
committed. There was something both sacred and salutary in the
relation of the go-el to his nearest of kin. When poverty obliged a
man to dispose of his property, it was the go-el that was bound to
intervene and "redeem" the property. The law served as a check to the
cold spirit that is so ready to ask, in reference to one broken down,
"Am I my brother's keeper?" It maintained a friendly relation between
members of families that might otherwise have been entirely severed
from each other. The avenging of blood was regarded as one of the
duties resulting from this relation, and had this part of the duty
been rudely or summarily superseded, the whole relationship, with all
the friendly offices which it involved, might have suffered shipwreck.

3. The course to be followed by the involuntary manslayer was very
minutely prescribed. He was to hurry with all speed to the nearest
city of refuge, and stand at the entering of the gate till the elders
assembled, and then to declare his cause in their ears. If he failed
to establish his innocence, he got no protection; but if he made out
his case he was free from the avenger of blood, so long as he remained
within the city or its precincts. If, however, he wandered out, he was
at the mercy of the avenger. Further, he was to remain in the city
till the death of the high priest. Some have sought a mystical meaning
in this last regulation, as if the high priest figured the Redeemer,
and the death of the high priest the completion of redemption by the
death of Christ. But this is too far-fetched to be of weight. The
death of the high priest was probably fixed on as a convenient time
for releasing the manslayer, it being probable that by that time all
keen feeling in reference to his deed would have subsided, and no one
would then think that justice had been defrauded when a man with blood
on his hands was allowed to go at large.

4. As it was, the involuntary manslayer had thus to undergo a
considerable penalty. Having to reside in the city of refuge, he could
no longer cultivate his farm or follow his ordinary avocations; he
must have found the means of living in some new employment as best he
could. His friendships, his whole associations in life, were changed;
perhaps he was even separated from his family. To us all this appears
a harder line than justice would have prescribed. But, on the one
hand, it was a necessary testimony to the strong, though somewhat
unreasonable feeling respecting the awfulness, through whatever cause,
of shedding innocent blood. A man had to accept of this quietly, just
as many a man has to accept the consequences--the social outlawry, it
may be, and other penalties--of having had a father of bad character,
or of having been present in the company of wicked men when some evil
deed was done by them. Then, on the other hand, the fact that the
involuntary destruction of life was sure, even at the best, to be
followed by such consequences, was fitted to make men very careful.
They would naturally endeavour to the utmost to guard against an act
that might land them in such a situation; and thus the ordinary
operations of daily life would be rendered more secure. And perhaps it
was in this way that the whole appointment secured its end. Some laws
are never broken. And here may be the explanation of the fact that the
cities of refuge were not much used. In all Bible history we do not
meet with a single instance; but this might indicate, not the
non-existence of the institution, but the indirect success of the
provision, which, though framed to cure, operated by preventing. It
made men careful, and thus in silence checked the evil more
effectually than if it had often been put in execution.

The desire for vengeance is a very strong feeling of human nature. Nor
is it a feeling that soon dies out; it has been known to live, and to
live keenly and earnestly, even for centuries. We talk of ancient
barbarism; but even in comparatively modern times the story of its
deeds is appalling. Witness its operation in the island of Corsica.
The historian Filippini says that in thirty years of his own time
28,000 Corsicans had been murdered out of revenge. Another historian
calculates that the number of the victims of the Vendetta from 1359 to
1729 was 330,000.[26] If an equal number be allowed for the wounded,
we have 666,000 Corsicans victims of revenge. And Corsica was but one
part of Italy where the same passion raged. In former ages Florence,
Bologna, Verona, Padua, and Milan were conspicuous for the same wild
spirit. And, however raised, even by trifling causes, the spirit of
vengeance is uncontrollable. The causes, indeed, are often in
ludicrous disproportion to the effects. "In Ireland, for instance, it
is not so long since one of these blood-feuds in the county of
Tipperary had acquired such formidable proportions that the
authorities of the Roman Catholic Church there were compelled to
resort to a mission in order to put an end to it. A man had been
killed nearly a century before in an affray which commenced about the
age of a colt. His relatives felt bound to avenge the murder, and
their vengeance was again deemed to require fresh vengeance, until
faction fights between the 'Three Year Olds' and the 'Four Year Olds'
had grown almost into petty wars."[27] When we find the spirit of
revenge so blindly fierce even in comparatively modern times, we can
the better appreciate the necessity of such a check on its exercise as
the cities of refuge supplied. The mere fact that blood had been shed
was enough to rouse the legal avenger to the pitch of frenzy; in his
blind passion he could think of nothing but blood for blood; and if,
in the first excitement of the news, the involuntary manslayer had
crossed his path, nothing could have restrained him from falling on
him and crimsoning the ground with his blood.

  [26] Gregorovius, "Wanderings in Corsica."

  [27] "Pulpit Comment.," _in loco_.

In New Testament times the practice that committed the avenging of
blood to the nearest of kin seems to have fallen into abeyance. No
such keen desire for revenge was prevalent then. Such cases as those
now provided for were doubtless dealt with by the ordinary magistrate.
And thus our Lord could grapple directly with the spirit of revenge
and retaliation in all its manifestations. "Ye have heard that it was
said of old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I
say unto you, Resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (R.V.). The old
practice was hurtful, because, even in cases where punishment was
deserved, it made vengeance or retribution so much a matter of
personal feeling. It stimulated to the utmost pitch what was fiercest
in human temper. It is a far better system that commits the dealing
with crime to the hands of magistrates, who ought to be, and who are
presumed to be, exempt from all personal feeling in the matter. And
now, for those whose personal feelings are roused, whether in a case
of premeditated or of unintended manslaughter, or of any lesser injury
done to themselves, the Christian rule is that those personal feelings
are to be overcome; the law of love is to be called into exercise, and
retribution is to be left in the hands of the great Judge:--"Vengeance
is Mine; I will recompense, saith the Lord."

The attempt to find in the cities of refuge a typical representation
of the great salvation fails at every point but one. The safety that
was found in the refuge corresponds to the safety that is found in
Christ. But even in this point of view the city of refuge rather
affords an illustration than constitutes a type. The benefit of the
refuge was only for unintentional offences; the salvation of Christ is
for all. What Christ saves from is not our misfortune but our guilt.
The protection of the city was needed only till the death of the high
priest; the protection of Christ is needed till the great public
acquittal. All that the manslayer received in the city was safety; but
from Christ there is a constant flow of higher and holier blessings.
His name is called Jesus because He saves His people from their sins.
Not merely from the penalty, but from the sins themselves. It is His
high office not only to atone for sin, but to destroy it. "If the Son
makes you free, ye shall be free indeed." The virtue that goes out of
Him comes into contact with the lust itself and transforms it. The
final benefit of Christ is the blessing of transformation. It is the
acquisition of the Christlike spirit. "Moreover whom He did foreknow,
them He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn of many brethren."

In turning an incident like this to account, as bearing on our modern
life, we are led to think how much harm we are liable to do to others
without intending harm, and how deeply we ought to be affected by this
consideration, when we discover what we have really done. We may be
helped here by thinking of the case of St. Paul. What harm he did in
the unconverted period of his life, without intending to do harm,
cannot be calculated. But when he came to the light, nothing could
have exceeded the depth of his contrition, and, to his last hour, he
could not think of the past without horror. It was his great joy to
know that his Lord had pardoned him, and that he had been able to find
one good use of the very enormity of his conduct--to show the
exceeding riches of His pardoning love. But, all his life long, the
Apostle was animated by an overwhelming desire to neutralise, as far
as he could, the mischief of his early life, and very much of the
self-denial and contempt of ease that continued to characterise him
was due to this vehement feeling. For though Paul felt that he had
done harm in ignorance, and for this cause had obtained mercy, he did
not consider that his ignorance excused him altogether. It was an
ignorance that proceeded from culpable causes, and that involved
effects from which a rightly ordered heart could not but recoil.

In the case of His own murderers our blessed Lord, in His beautiful
prayer, recognised a double condition,--they were ignorant, yet they
were guilty, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
They were ignorant of what they were doing, and yet they were doing
what needed forgiveness, because it involved guilt. And what we admire
in Paul is, that he did not make his ignorance a self-justifying plea,
but in the deepest humility owned the inexcusableness of his conduct.
To have done harm to our fellow-creatures under any circumstances is a
distressing thing, even when we meant the best; but to have down harm
to their moral life owing to something wrong in our own, is not only
distressing, but humiliating. It is something which we dare not
lightly dismiss from our minds, under the plea that we meant the best,
but unfortunately we were mistaken. Had we been more careful, had our
eye been more single, we should have been full of light, and we should
have known that we were not taking the right way to do the best.
Errors in moral life always resolve themselves into disorder of our
moral nature, and, if traced to their source, will bring to light some
fault of indolence, or selfishness, or pride, or carelessness, which
was the real cause of our mistaken act.

And where is the man--parent, teacher, pastor, or friend--that does
not become conscious, at some time or other, of having influenced for
harm those committed to his care? We taught them, perhaps, to despise
some good man whose true worth we have afterwards been led to see. We
repressed their zeal when we thought it misdirected, with a force
which chilled their enthusiasm and carnalised their hearts. We failed
to stimulate them to decision for Christ, and allowed the golden
opportunity to pass which might have settled their relation to God all
the rest of their life. The great realities of the spiritual life were
not brought home to them with the earnestness, the fidelity, the
affection that was fitting. "Who can understand his errors?" Who among
us but, as he turns some new corner in the path of life, as he reaches
some new view-point, as he sees a new flash from heaven reflected on
the past,--who among us but feels profoundly that all his life has
been marred by unsuspected flaws, and almost wishes that he had never
been born? Is there no city of refuge for us to fly to, and to escape
the condemnation of our hearts?

It is here that the blessed Lord presents Himself to us in a most
blessed light. "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest." Do we not labour indeed, are we not in
truth very heavy laden, when we feel the burden of unintentional evil,
when we feel that unconsciously we have been doing hurt to others, and
incurring the curse of him who causeth the blind to stumble? Are we
not heavy laden indeed when we cannot be sure that even yet we are
thoroughly on the right track--when we feel that peradventure we are
still unconsciously continuing the mischief in some other form? Yet is
not the promise true?--"I will give you rest." I will give you pardon
for the past, and guidance for the future. I will deliver you from the
feeling that you have been all your life sowing seeds of mischief,
sure to spring up and pervert those whom you love most dearly. I will
give you comfort in the thought that as I have guided you, I will
guide them, and you shall have a vision of the future, that may no
doubt include some of the terrible features of the shipwreck of St.
Paul, but of which the end will be the same--" and so it came to pass
that they escaped all safe to land."

And let us learn a lesson of charity. Let us learn to be very
considerate of mischief done by others either unintentionally or in
ignorance. What more inexcusable than the excitement of parents over
their children or of masters over their servants, when, most
undesignedly and not through sheer carelessness, an article of some
value is broken or damaged? Have you never done such a thing yourself?
And if a like torrent fell on you then from _your_ parent or master,
did you not feel bitterly that it was unjust? And do you not even now
have the same feeling when your temper cools? How bitter the thought
of having done injustice to those dependent on you, and of having
created in their bosoms a sullen sense of wrong! Let them have their
city of refuge for undesigned offences, and never again pursue them or
fall on them in the excited spirit of the avenger of blood!

So also with regard to opinions. Many who differ from us in religious
opinion differ through ignorance. They have inherited their opinions
from their parents or their other ancestors. Their views are shared by
nearly all whom they love and with whom they associate; they are
contained in their familiar books; they are woven into the web of
their daily life. If they were better instructed, if their minds were
more free from prejudice, they might agree with us more. Let us make
for them the allowance of ignorance, and let us make it not bitterly
but respectfully. They are doing much mischief, it may be. They are
retarding the progress of beneficent truth; they are thwarting your
endeavours to spread Divine light. But they are doing it ignorantly.
If you are not called to provide for them a city of refuge, cover them
at least with the mantle of charity. Believe that their intentions are
better than their acts. Live in the hope of a day "when perfect light
shall pour its rays," when all the mists of prejudice shall be
scattered, and you shall perhaps find that in all that is vital in
Christian truth and for the Christian life, you and your brethren were
not so far separate after all.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

_THE INHERITANCE OF THE LEVITES._

JOSHUA xxi. 1-42.


Once and again we have found reference made to the fact that Levites
received no territorial inheritance among their brethren (xiii. 14,
33, xiv. 3, 4). They had a higher privilege: the Lord was their
inheritance. In the present chapter we have an elaborate account of
the arrangements for their settlement; it will therefore be suitable
here to rehearse their history, and ascertain the relation they now
stood in to the rest of the tribes.

In the days of the patriarchs and during the sojourn in Egypt there
were no official priests. Each head of a house discharged the duties
of the priesthood in patriarchal times, and a similar arrangement
prevailed during the residence in Egypt. The whole nation was holy; in
this sense it was a nation of priests; all were set apart for the
service of God. By-and-by it pleased God to select a portion of the
nation specially for His service, to establish, as it were, a holy of
holies within the consecrated nation. The first intimation of this was
given on that awful occasion when the firstborn of the Egyptians was
slain. In token of His mercy in sparing Israel on that night, all the
firstborn of Israel, both of man and beast, were specially consecrated
to the Lord. The animals were to be offered in sacrifice, except in
the case of some, such as the ass, not suited for sacrifice; these
were to be redeemed by the sacrifice of another animal. Afterwards a
similar arrangement was made with reference to the firstborn of men,
the tribe of Levi being substituted for them (see Numb. iii. 12). But
this arrangement was not made till after the tribe of Levi had shown,
by a special act of service, that they were fitted for this honour.

Certainly we should not have thought beforehand that the descendants
of Levi would be the specially sacred tribe. Levi himself comes before
us in the patriarchal history in no attractive light. He and Simeon
were associated together in that massacre of the Shechemites, which we
can never read of without horror (Gen. xxxiv. 25). Levi was likewise
an accomplice with his brethren in the lamentable tragedy of Joseph.
And as nothing better is recorded of him, we are apt to think of him
as through life the same. But this were hardly fair. Why should not
Levi have shared in that softening influence which undoubtedly came on
the other brethren? Why may he not have become a true man of God, and
transmitted to his tribe the memory and the example of a holy
character? Certain it is that we find among his descendants in Egypt
some very noble specimens of godliness. The mother of Moses, a
daughter of the house of Levi, is a woman of incomparable faith.
Moses, her son, is emphatically "the man of God." Aaron, his brother,
moved by a Divine influence, goes to the wilderness to find him when
the very crisis of oppression seems to indicate that God's time for
the deliverance of Israel is drawing nigh. Miriam, his sister, though
far from faultless, piously watched his bulrush-cradle, and
afterwards led the choir whose praises rose to God in a great volume
of thanksgiving after crossing the sea.

The first honour conferred on Levi in connection with religious
service was the appointment of Aaron and his sons to the special
service of the priesthood (Exod. xxviii.; Numb. xviii. 1). This did
not necessarily involve any spiritual distinction for the whole tribe
of which Aaron was a member, nor was that distinction conferred at
that time. It was after the affair of the golden calf that the tribe
of Levi received this honour. For when Moses, in his holy zeal against
that scandal, called upon all who were on the Lord's side to come to
him, "all the sons of Levi gathered themselves unto him" (Exod. xxxii.
26). This seems to imply that that tribe alone held itself aloof from
the atrocious idolatry into which even Aaron had been drawn. And
apparently it was in connection with this high act of service that
Levi was selected as the sacred tribe, and in due time formally
substituted for the firstborn in every family (Numb. iii. 12, _sqq._,
viii. 6 _sqq._, xviii. 2 _sqq._). From this time the tribe of Levi
stood to God in a relation of peculiar honour and sacredness, and had
duties assigned to them in harmony with this eminent position.

The tribe of Levi consisted of three main branches, corresponding to
Levi's three sons--Kohath, Gershon, and Merari. The Kohathites, though
apparently not the oldest (see Numb. iii. 17) were the most
distinguished, Moses and Aaron being of that branch. As Levites, the
Kohathites had charge of the ark and its sacred furniture, guarding it
at all times, and carrying it from place to place during the journeys
of the wilderness. The Gershonites had charge of the tabernacle, with
its cords, curtains, and coverings. The sons of Merari had charge of
the more solid parts of the tabernacle, "its boards and bars, its
pillars and its pins, and all the vessels thereof." Korah, the leader
of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron, was, like them, of the
family of Kohath, and the object of his rebellion was to punish what
he considered the presumption of the two brothers in giving to Aaron
the special honours of a priesthood which, in former days, had
belonged alike to all the congregation (Numb. xvi. 3). We are
accustomed to think that the supernatural proofs of the Divine
commission to Moses were so overwhelming that it would have been out
of the question for any man to challenge them. But many things show
that, though we might have thought opposition to Moses impossible, it
prevailed to a great extent. The making of the golden calf, the report
of the spies and the commotion that followed, the rebellion of Korah,
and many other things, prove that the prevalent spirit was usually
that of unbelief and rebellion, and that it was only after many signal
miracles and signal judgments that Moses was enabled at last to
exercise an unchallenged authority. The rationalist idea, that it was
enthusiasm for Moses that led the people to follow him out of Egypt,
and endure all the hardships of the wilderness, and that there is
nothing more in the Exodus than the story of an Eastern nation leaving
one country under a trusted leader to settle in another, is one to
which the whole tenor of the history offers unqualified contradiction.
And not the least valid ground of opposition is the bitter, deadly
spirit in which attempts to frustrate Moses were so often made.

Many of the duties of the Levites as detailed in the Pentateuch were
duties for the wilderness. After the settlement in Canaan, and the
establishment of the tabernacle at Shiloh, these duties would undergo
a change. The Levites were not all needed to be about the tabernacle.
The Gibeonites indeed had been retained as "hewers of wood and drawers
of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord," so that
the more laborious part of the work at Shiloh would be done by them.
If the Levites had clustered like a swarm of bees around the sacred
establishment, loss would have been sustained alike by themselves and
by the people. It was desirable, in accordance with the great law of
distribution already referred to, that they should be dispersed over
the whole country. The men that stood nearest to God, and who were a
standing testimony to the superiority of the spiritual over the
secular, who were Divine witnesses, indeed, to the higher part of
man's nature, as well as to God's pre-eminent claims, must have failed
egregiously of their mission had they been confined to a single city
or to the territory of a single tribe. Jacob had foretold both of
Simeon and Levi that they would be "divided in Jacob and scattered in
Israel." In the case of Levi, the scattering was overruled for good.
Designed to point God-wards and heavenwards, the mission of Levi was
to remind the people over the whole country that they were not mere
earth-worms, created to grub and burrow in the ground, but beings with
a nobler destiny, whose highest honour it was to be in communion with
God.

The functions of the Levites throughout the country seem to have
differed somewhat in successive periods of their history. Here, as in
other matters, there was doubtless some development, according as new
wants appeared in the spiritual condition of the people, and
consequently new obligations for the Levites to fulfil. When the
people fell under special temptations to idolatry, it would naturally
fall to the Levites, in connection with the priesthood, to warn them
against these temptations, and strive to keep them faithful to their
God. But it does not appear that even the Levites could be trusted to
continue faithful. It is a sad and singular fact that a grandson of
Moses was one of the first to go astray. The Authorized Version,
indeed, says that the young man who became a priest to the Danites
when they set up a graven image in the city of Dan, was Jonathan, the
son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh (Judg. xviii. 30). But the Revised
Version, not without authority, calls him Jonathan, the son of
Gershom, the son of Moses. Here we have a glimpse of two remarkable
facts: in the first place, that a grandson of Moses, a Levite, was
located in so confined a place that he had to leave it in search of
another, "to sojourn where he could find a place"--so entirely had
Moses abstained from steps to secure superior provision for his own
family; and, in the second place, that even with his remarkable
advantages and relations, this Jonathan, in defiance of the law, was
tempted to assume an office of priesthood, and to discharge that
office at the shrine of a graven image. We are far indeed from the
truth when we suppose that the whole nation of Israel submitted to the
law of Moses from the beginning with absolute loyalty, or when we
accept the prevalent practice among them at any one period as
undoubted evidence of what was then the law.

But let us now turn our attention to the distribution of the Levites
as it was planned. We say deliberately "as it was planned," because
there is every reason to believe that the plan was not effectually
carried out. In no case does there seem to have been such a failure
of official arrangements as in the case of Levi. And the reason is not
difficult to find. Few of the cities allotted to them were free of
Canaanites at the time. To get actual possession of the cities they
must have dispossessed the remaining Canaanites. But, scattered as
they were, this was peculiarly difficult. And the other tribes seem to
have been in no humour to help them. Hence it is that in the early
period of the Judges we find Levites wandering here and there seeking
for a settlement, and glad of any occupation they could find (Judg.
xviii. 7, xix. 1).

The provision made by Joshua for the Levites was that out of all the
other tribes, forty-eight cities with their suburbs, including the six
cities of refuge, were allotted to them. It is necessary for us here
to call to mind how much Canaan, like other Eastern countries and some
countries not Eastern, was a land of towns and villages. Cottages and
country-houses standing by themselves were hardly known. A house in
its own grounds--"a lodge in a garden of cucumbers"--might shelter a
man for a time, but could not be his permanent home. The country was
too liable to hostile raids for its inhabitants to dwell thus
unprotected. Most of the people had their homes in the towns and
villages with which their fields were connected. In consequence of
this each town had a circuit of land around it, which always fell to
the conquerors when the town was taken. And it is this fact that
sometimes makes the boundaries of the tribes so difficult to follow,
because these boundaries had to embrace all the lands connected with
the cities which they embraced. If it be asked, Did the Levites
receive as part of their inheritance all the lands adjacent to their
cities, the answer is, No. For in that case the only difference
between them and the other tribes would have been that the Levites had
forty-eight little territories instead of one large possession, and
there would have been no ground for the distinction so emphatically
made that "the Lord was their inheritance," or "the sacrifices of the
Lord made by fire."

The cities given to the Levites, even when cleared of Canaanites, were
not possessed by Levites alone. We may gather the normal state of
affairs from what is said regarding Hebron and Caleb. Hebron was a
Levitical city, a city of the priests, a city of refuge; they gave to
the Kohathites the city, with the suburbs thereof roundabout; "but the
fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the
son of Jephunneh for his possession" (vv. 11, 12). What are called
"suburbs," or, as some prefer to render, "cattle-drives," extended for
two thousand cubits round about the city on every side (Numb. xxxv.
5), and were used only for pasture. It behoved the Levites to have
cattle of some kind to supply them with their food, the main part of
which, besides fruit, was milk and its produce. But, beyond this, the
Levites were not entangled with the business of husbandry. They were
left free for more spiritual service. It was their part to raise the
souls of the people above the level of earth, and, like the angel in
the "Pilgrim's Progress," call on those who might otherwise have
worshipped the mud-rake to lift up their eyes to the crown of glory,
and accept the heavenly gift.

In fact, the whole function of the Levites, ideally at least, was as
Moses sung:--

    "And of Levi he said,
    Let thy Urim and thy Thummim be with thy godly one,
    Whom thou didst prove at Massah,
    With whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
    Who said of his father, and of his mother, I have not seen him;
    Neither did he acknowledge his brethren,
    Nor knew his own children:
    For they have observed Thy word,
    And kept Thy covenant.
    _They shall teach Jacob Thy judgments,
    And Israel Thy law_:
    They shall put incense before Thee,
    And whole burnt offering upon Thine altar.
    Bless, Lord, his substance,
    And accept the work of his hands:
    Smite through the loins of them that rise up against him,
    And of them that hate him, that they rise not again."

    Deut. xxxiii. 8-11 (R.V.).

But to come now to the division itself. The Kohathites, or leading
family, had no fewer than thirteen cities in the tribes of Judah,
Benjamin, and Simeon, and ten more in Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. The
thirteen in Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon were for the priests; the
other ten were for the other branches of the Kohathites. At first the
priests, strictly so called, could not occupy them all. But, as the
history advances, the priests become more and more prominent, while
the Levites as such seem to hold a less and less conspicuous place. In
the Psalms, for example, we sometimes find the house of Levi left out
when all classes of worshippers are called on to praise the Lord. In
the 135th Psalm all are included:--

    "O house of Israel, bless ye the Lord:
    O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord:
    O house of Levi, bless ye the Lord:
    Ye that fear the Lord, bless ye the Lord."

But in the 115th the Levites are left out:--

    "O Israel, trust thou in the Lord:
    He is their help and their shield.
    O house of Aaron, trust ye in the Lord:
    He is their help and their shield.
    Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord:
    He is their help and their shield."

And in the 118th:--

    "Let Israel now say
    That His mercy endureth for ever.
    Let the house of Aaron now say
    That His mercy endureth for ever.
    Let them now that fear the Lord say
    That His mercy endureth for ever."

There is this to be said for the region where the priests, the house
of Aaron, had their cities, viz., the tribe of Judah, that it
maintained its integrity longest of any; nor did it thoroughly succumb
to idolatry till the dark days of Manasseh, one of its later kings.
But, on the other hand, in New Testament times, Judæa was the most
bigoted part of the country, and the most bitterly opposed to our
Lord. And the explanation is, that the true spirit of Divine service
had utterly evaporated from among the priesthood, and the miserable
spirit of formalism had come in. The living sap of the institution had
been turned into stone, and the plant of renown of early days had
become a stony fossil. So true is it that the best institutions, when
perverted from their true end, become the sources of greatest evil,
and the highest gifts of heaven, when seized by the devil and turned
to his purposes, become the most efficient instruments of hell.

The other portions of the family of Kohath were distributed in ten
cities over the central part of Western Palestine. Some of them were
important centres of influence, such as Bethhoron, Shechem, and
Taanach. But the influence of the Levites for good seems to have been
feeble in this region, for it was here that Jeroboam reigned, and here
that Ahab and Jezebel all but obliterated the worship of Jehovah. It
is commonly believed that Samuel was a member of the tribe of Levi,
although there is some confusion in the genealogy as given in 1 Chron.
vi. 28, 34; yet Ramathaim Zophim, his father's place of abode, was not
one of the Levitical cities. And Samuel's influence was exerted more
on the southern than the central district; for, after the destruction
of Shiloh, Mizpeh appears to have been his ordinary residence (1 Sam.
vii. 6), and afterwards Ramah[28] (vii. 17). It would indeed be a
pleasant thought that the inefficiency of the Kohathites as a whole
was in some measure redeemed by the incomparable service of Samuel. If
Samuel was a Levite, he was a noble instance of what may be done by
one zealous and consecrated man, amid the all but universal defection
of his official brethren.

  [28] Ramathaim and Ramah are used interchangeably (1 Sam. i. 1 and
  19, ii. 11).

The Gershonites were placed in cities in eastern Manasseh, Issachar,
Asher, and Naphtali; while the Merarites were in Zebulun, and in the
transjordanic tribes of Gad and Reuben. They thus garrisoned the
northern and eastern districts. Those placed in the north ought to
have been barriers against the gross idolatry of Tyre and Sidon, and
those in the east, besides resisting the idolatry of the desert
tribes, should have held back that of Damascus and Syria. But there is
very little to show that the Levites as a whole rose to the dignity of
their mission in these regions, or that they formed a very efficient
barrier against the idolatry and corruption which they were designed
to meet. No doubt they did much to train the people to the outward
observance of the law. They would call them to the celebration of the
great annual festivals, and of the new moons and other observances
that had to be locally celebrated. They would look after cases of
ceremonial defilement, and no doubt they would be careful to enjoin
payment of the tithes to which they had a claim. They would do their
best to maintain the external distinctions in religion, by which the
nation was separated from its neighbours. But, except in rare cases,
they do not appear to have been spiritually earnest, nor to have done
much of that service which Samuel did in the southern part of the
country. Externalism and formalism seem to have been their most
frequent characteristics; and externalism and formalism are poor
weapons when the enemy cometh in like a food.

And, whatever may have been the usual life and work of the Levites
over the country, they never seem to have realized the glory of the
distinction divinely accorded to them--"The Lord is their
inheritance." Few, indeed, in any age or country have come to know
what is meant by having God for their portion. Unbelief can never
grasp that there is a life in God--a real life, so full of enjoyment
that all other happiness may be dispensed with; a real property, so
rich in every blessing, that the goods and chattels of this world are
mere shadows in comparison. Yet that there have been men profoundly
impressed by these convictions, in all ages and in many lands, amid
prevailing ungodliness, cannot be denied. How otherwise is such a life
as that of St. Bernard or that of St. Francis to be accounted for? Or
that of St. Columba and the missionaries of Iona? Or, to go farther
back, that of St. Paul? There is a magic virtue, or rather a Divine
power, in real consecration. "Them that honour Me, I will honour." It
is the want of such men that makes our churches feeble. It is our
mixing up our own interests with the interests of God's kingdom and
refusing to leave self out of view while we profess to give ourselves
wholly to God, that explains the slowness of our progress. If the
Levites had all been consecrated men, idolatry and its great brood of
corruptions would never have spread over the land of Israel. If all
Christian ministers were like their Master, Christianity would spread
like wildfire, and in a very little time the light of salvation would
brighten the globe.

     NOTE.--In this chapter we have accepted the statements of the
     Pentateuch regarding the Levites as they stand. We readily own
     that there are difficulties not a few connected with the received
     view. The modern critical theory that maintains that the
     Levitical order was a much later institution would no doubt
     remove many of these difficulties, but only by creating other
     difficulties far more serious. Besides, the hypothesis of
     Wellhausen that the tribe of Levi was destroyed with Simeon at
     the invasion of Canaan--having no foundation to rest on, except
     the assumption that the prophecy ascribed to Jacob was written at
     a later date--is ludicrously inadequate to sustain the structure
     made to rest on it. Nor is it conceivable that, after the
     captivity, the priests should have been able to make the people
     believe a totally different account of the history of one of the
     tribes from that which had previously been received. It is
     likewise incredible that the Levites should have been
     "annihilated" or "extinguished" in the days of Joshua, without a
     single allusion in the history to so terrible a fact. How
     inconsistent with the concern expressed when the tribe of
     Benjamin was in danger of extinction (Judg. xxi. 17). The loss of
     a tribe was like the loss of a limb; it would have marred
     essentially the symmetry of the nation.




CHAPTER XXIX.

_NO FAILURE OF GOD'S PROMISE._

JOSHUA xxi. 43-45.


The historian has reached a point where he may stand still and look
back. One look is comparatively limited; another reaches very far. The
immediate survey extends only over the last few years; the remote
embraces centuries, and goes back to the time of Abraham.

The historian sees the venerable patriarch of the nation among his
flocks and herds in Ur of the Chaldees; receiving there a Divine
summons to remove to an unknown land; obeying the call, tarrying at
Haran, then traversing the desert, and crossing the Jordan. At
Shechem, at Bethel, at Mamre, and at Beersheba, he perceives him
listening to the Divine voice that promises that, stranger and pilgrim
though he was, the Lord would give his posterity all that land; that
he would bless those that blessed him, and curse those that cursed
him; and that in him and in his seed all the nations of the earth
should be blessed.

For one hundred long years Abraham had wandered over the country
without so much as a house or homestead in it. Isaac had come after
him, living the same pilgrim life. Jacob, with a much more stirring
and troubled life, had in his old age gone down to Joseph in Egypt,
leaving but one field in the country which he could call his own.

Then came the long centuries of Egyptian bondage. At last the Divine
call is heard to leave Egypt, but after this, forty long years have
still to be spent in the wilderness. Then Moses, the great leader of
the people, dies--dies at the very time when he is apparently most
needed, just at the very crisis of Israel's history.

But Joshua comes in Moses' room, and the Lord is with Joshua; He
rewards his faith and gives him victory over all his enemies. And now
at last comes the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers, hoary
with age, and seemingly long forgotten. The bill has at last matured
and fallen due. After so many generations, it might be thought that it
would have been enough to discharge the main substance of the
obligation or that some compromise might have been proposed reducing
the claim. After having lain long out of their money, creditors are
usually ready to accept a composition. But this was not God's method
of settlement. During the whole period of Joshua's leadership, God had
been doing nothing but discharging old obligations. Not one word of
the original bill had been obliterated; not one item had been allowed
to lapse through time. East and west and north and south He had been
giving what He had promised to give. And now, as the transaction comes
to an end, it is seen that nothing has been omitted or forgotten.
"There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken
concerning Israel; all came to pass." He proved Himself, as Moses had
said, "the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them
that love Him, and keep His commandments to a thousand generations."

Three gifts are specified which God bestowed on Israel: possession,
rest, and victory. First, He gave them the land which He had sworn to
give unto their fathers, and they possessed it; next, He gave them
rest round about, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers;
and, lastly, He gave them victory over all their enemies. "He
satisfied the longing soul, and filled the hungry soul with goodness."
He brought His bride to her home, and surrounded her with comforts.
And had the bride only been as faithful to her obligations as the
Divine bridegroom, it might have been said that

  "Time had run back, and fetched the age of gold."

But, it may perhaps be said,--this is only the historian's view of the
matter, and it is hardly in accordance with facts. Are we not told
that, at an early period, a colony of the tribe of Dan had to go
elsewhere in search of land, because they were too hampered in the
allotment they had received? And, in the beginning of Judges, are we
not told that after the death of Joshua, Judah and Simeon had a
desperate tussle with Canaanites and Perizzites who were still in
their territories, and that in Bezek alone there were slain of them
ten thousand men? And is not the whole of the first chapter of Judges
a record of the relations of Israel in various places to the original
inhabitants, from which it appears that very many of the Canaanites
continued to dwell in the land? Surely this was not what God's promise
to the fathers was fitted to convey. Had not God promised that He
would "drive out" the seven nations, and give the seed of Abraham
possession of the whole? How then could His word be said to be
implemented when so many of the original inhabitants remained? And,
in particular, how could the historian of Joshua say so explicitly
that "there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had
spoken unto the house of Israel."

In answer to this objection it is to be remarked that God had never
promised to give the people full possession of the land _save through
their own exertions made in dependence on Him_. Their possessions were
not to fall into their hands as the manna fell in the wilderness or as
the water gushed from the rock. The seven nations were not to rush
from before them the moment they crossed the Jordan. God always meant
that they were to be His instruments for clearing the country. Now,
that clearance was evidently designed to be effected in two ways.
First, under Joshua, a general encounter with the former possessors
was to take place, their confederacies were to be shattered, their
spirit was to be broken, and to a certain extent their lands were to
be set free. But beyond this, there was to be a further process of
clearing out. When each tribe was settled in its lot, it was to
address itself, in detail, to the task of dispossessing such
Canaanites as yet lingered there. It might not be expedient that all
should be engaged in this task together, for this would necessarily
interfere with the ordinary operations of agriculture. It was judged
better that it should be done piecemeal, and therefore God was asked
to say which of the tribes ought to begin it. Judah was named, and
Judah aided by Simeon did his work well, and set a good example to the
rest. But the other tribes did not act with Judah's spirit, and
therefore they did not enjoy his reward. The testimony of the
historian is, that nothing failed of any good thing which _the Lord_
_had spoken_ unto the house of Israel. The Lord faithfully performed
every part of His obligation. He did not add Israel's obligations to
His own, and discharge them too, when they were remiss concerning
them. The ultimate result of the whole business was, that trouble
befell Israel, inasmuch as he neglected his obligations, while the
Lord faithfully performed every one of His. Time therefore did not run
back and fetch the age of gold. Israel did not enjoy all the
possessions that had been allotted to him. Canaanites remained in the
country to torment him like thorns in his sides. But this was Israel's
fault, not God's. Though you were to give a lazy farmer the finest
farm in the country, you could not make him prosperous if he neglected
his fields and idled away the time that should be spent in continuous
labour. You cannot keep a man in health if he breathes unwholesome air
or drinks water poisoned with putrid matter. No more could Israel be
wholly prosperous if he allowed Canaanites to settle quietly at his
side. If he had roused himself, and attacked them with courage and in
faith, God would have made him to prevail. But, since he preferred
ease and quiet to the painfulness of duty, God left him to reap as he
had sowed, and suffer the consequences of his neglect. He had seldom
long periods of prosperity, and often he had very bitter experiences
of calamity and distress.

Certainly God had furnished His people with the materials for a happy
and prosperous life, if only they had used them aright. There was
first the element of possessions. They had comfortable homes and all
the requisites of a comfortable life. It is most true that "a man's
life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth." But moderate possessions are one element, though not the
chief or most essential of human prosperity. Possessions, however rich
or manifold, in connection with a discontented temper, an ungodly
spirit, or a selfish nature, can bring no genuine pleasure. In
addition to possessions, the Lord had given Israel rest. Their enemies
were not disposed to attack them even when dwelling by their side.
True it is that the rest into which Joshua brought them was not the
true, the ultimate rest. If Joshua had given them that rest, the Holy
Spirit would not have spoken of a rest that was still to come (Heb.
iv. 8). But external rest, like external possessions though not all,
was one contribution towards prosperity. Moreover, none of their
enemies had been able to stand before them; in every encounter that
had yet taken place the Lord had delivered them into their hand.

This was a blessed presage for the future. Whatever encounters might
yet remain, they might count on the same result, if they lifted up
their eyes to God. Their life in the future would not be without toil,
without anxiety, without danger. But if they looked to Him and made
the requisite efforts, God was ready to bless their toil, He was able
to overcome their anxieties, He was sure as in the past to subdue
their enemies. The gifts that God had conferred on them, and the
materials of enjoyment with which He had surrounded them, were not
designed to make them independent, as if they could now do everything
for themselves. God's purpose was the very reverse. He wished to keep
up the sense of dependence on Him, and to encourage at every turn the
habit that seeks unto God, and goes to Him for help.

For this, after all, is the great lesson for all human beings. The
great thing for us all is to keep up a living connection with God, so
that our whole nature shall be replenished out of His fulness, and
purified and elevated by His Divine influence. Whatever draws us to
God draws us to the fountain of all that is best and purest and
noblest. God would have conferred but a poor blessing on Israel if He
had just settled them in the land, and then left them to themselves,
without any occasion or inducement to fellowship with Him. The
inducements to resort to Him which they were to be continually under
were by far the most valuable part of what God now conferred upon
them. The certainty that all would go wrong, that their possessions
would be invaded and their rest disturbed, and that their enemies
would prove victorious unless they sought continually to their God,
fostered the most precious of all habits--that drawing near to God
which brings with it all spiritual blessing.

    "Nearer, my God, to Thee,
      Nearer to Thee!
    E'en though it be a cross
      That raiseth me,
    Still all my song would be
    Nearer, my God, to Thee,
      Nearer to Thee!"

There is no small amount of instruction to be drawn by all of us from
this record of Israel's experience.

First, it is of supreme importance for us all to have our hearts
firmly established in the conviction of the faithfulness of God. It
should be our habit to regard this as an attribute on which we not
only may, but must rely. To ascribe to God any laxity as to His word
or promises were to cast a fearful imputation on His holy nature.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away."
"He is not a man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should
repent." Nothing can be conceived that could make it better to God to
break His word than to keep it. This is the root of all religion; it
is the basis of faith, the true ground of trust. To train our minds to
habitual reliance on all that God has said, is one of the most vital
and blessed exercises of spiritual religion. It is alike honouring to
God and beneficial to ourselves. To search out from the body of
Scripture the promises of God; to fasten our attention on them one by
one; and to exercise our minds on the thought that in Christ Jesus
they are yea, and in Him Amen, is a most blessed help to spiritual
stability and spiritual growth. And in our prayers there is nothing
more fitted to give us confidence than to plead in this spirit the
promises that God has made. No plea is more powerful than the
Psalmist's--"Remember Thy word unto Thy servant, upon which Thou hast
caused me to hope." How many sadly perplexed men have found rest from
the words: "Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him, and He
shall bring it to pass." "Faithful is He that calleth you, who also
will do it."

But secondly, we may learn from this passage that, wherever the
promises of God _seem_ to fail, the fault is not His, but ours. On the
one hand, we are taught clearly that delay is not failure, and on the
other that where there does seem to be failure there is none really on
the part of God. At least five-and-twenty long years elapsed between
God's first promise to Abraham and the birth of Isaac. Four hundred
years were to be spent by the chosen seed in bondage in Egypt. And
even after the deliverance from Egypt there came the sojourn in the
wilderness of other forty years. Yet God was faithful all the time.
How often we need to recall the text, that one day is with the Lord
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day! "Though the
vision tarry," do not give it up in despair, but "wait for it" (Hab.
ii. 3).

Perhaps it is in the matter of answers to prayer that we are most
liable to the temptation that God forgets His promises. Have we not
the most explicit and abundant promises that prayer will be answered?
Yet how many have prayed, and seemingly prayed in vain! Nay, does not
the very opposite of what we pray for often come? We entreat God to
spare a beloved life; that life is taken away. We pray for victory
over temptation; the temptation seems to acquire a redoubled force. We
pray for success in business; the clouds seem to thicken the more. We
ask, "Has God forgotten to be gracious? Is His mercy clean gone for
ever? Does His promise fail for evermore?" Nay, let us rally our
faith. "Then I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the
years of the right hand of the Most High" (Psalm lxxvii. 10). If my
prayer was not answered, it was not God's fault. It may be that, like
Israel, I failed in my part. I may have been laying the whole burden
on God, and omitting something that it fell to me to do. I may have
been asking for something that would not have been for my good or for
God's glory. I may have failed in that spirit of affectionate trust
which is a requisite of acceptable prayer. Let us remember that God
knows what things we have need of before we ask Him. And God is
infinitely kind and willing to bless us. What He longs for on our part
is the spirit of filial trust. What He values prayer for is that it is
the channel of this spirit. We can never say that God disregards
prayer unless we can say that we approached Him, and spoke to Him
like confiding children dealing with a loving father, and He cast us
off. But how often do we go to the footstool half hoping, half
doubting, instead of going in the full conviction,--"Our gracious
Father is sure to hear us; and if He do not give us the precise thing
we ask, He is sure to give us something better." Let prayer ever be
the outcome of a profound belief in the infinite love of God, and His
constant readiness to bless us in Christ; let it be the communing of a
child with his father; and let it never be darkened by a shade of
suspicion that the Hearer of prayer will not be faithful to His word.

It is the happy experience both of individuals and the Church to have
occasional periods of fulfilment--it may be after long periods of
expectation and trial. The patriarch Job had a terrible time of trial,
when God seemed so untrue to His promises that he was sometimes on the
very edge of blaspheming His name. But a time of fulfilment came at
last, and through all the mystery of the past Job at length saw "the
end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy"
(James v. 11). The aged Simeon and the aged Anna in the temple had
waited long, but the hour came at last when all that they had been
looking for was accomplished, and with a feeling of perfect
satisfaction they could sing their "Nunc dimittis." The souls under
the altar of them that were slain for the word of God and for the
testimony which they held, when they groaned out their sad "How long?"
had still to wait a little season; but the time came when, clothed in
white robes and with palms in their hands, they attained complete
satisfaction, crying with a loud voice, "Salvation to our God that
sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb" (Rev. vi. 10, vii. 10). And in
more recent times there have been eras of fulfilment and
corresponding rejoicing. When St. Augustine, after year upon year of
restless tossing, at length found pardon and peace in Christ; when
Columbus, after perils and privations innumerable, at length saw the
dim coast which he had often prayed to behold; when Wilberforce heard
the slave trade declared an illegal traffic, and Fowell Buxton saw the
last fetter struck from the slave in the dominions of Great Britain;
when Lord Shaftesbury found the ten hours factory bill turned into
law; or when the friends of the slave learned that the President of
the United States had signed the proclamation which set four millions
at liberty--the old experience of Joshua's days seemed to be repeated,
and gratitude to Him who had failed in no good thing was the one
feeling that filled the heart. Sometimes the death-bed affords a
retrospect that kindles the same emotion. The dying man looks along
the way by which he has been led, and, with the walls of the New
Jerusalem gleaming before him, he owns that he has been conducted by
the right way to the city of habitation. The objects of earth and
heaven are seen by him in a truer light. Valuations are made more
accurately on the margin of eternity. The things that have been shaken
and that have perished--of how little value are they seen to be,
compared to the things that cannot be shaken! The loving purpose of
Divine providence in shattering so many hopes, in defeating so many
projects, in inflicting so much pain, is clearly apprehended. The
heart is grieved that it was so near charging God foolishly when His
purpose was really so merciful and so kind. The bright era of
fulfilment is at hand; and even already, while the day is only
dawning, the soul can give forth its testimony that "no good thing has
failed of all that the Lord hath spoken."

And then at last will come the end of the mystery. The Lord shall send
His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together His elect from the four winds, from the one end of heaven to
the other. On the sea of glass mingled with fire they take their
stand, having the harps of God, and sing the song of Moses, the
servant of God, and the song of the Lamb: "Great and marvellous are
Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of
saints." What a scene and what a sensation! What joy in entering on
possession of the Promised Land, in experiencing the rest of the
redeemed, and in the consciousness that not a single enemy survives to
annoy! What delight in the harmonious working of the new nature, in
the free and happy play of all its faculties and feelings, and in the
conscious presence of a God and Saviour to whose image you have been
thoroughly conformed! The last shadow that dimmed your vision on earth
shall have fled away; the last vestige of complaint of your earthly
lot shall have vanished. Whatever you may have thought once, no other
feeling will now occupy your heart but gratitude to Him who has not
only not failed to fulfil all His promises, but has done in you
exceeding abundantly above all that ye could ask or think!




CHAPTER XXX.

_THE ALTAR ED._

JOSHUA xxii.


The two tribes and a half had behaved well. They had kept their word,
remained with their brethren during all Joshua's campaign, and taken
their part in all the perils and struggles through which the host had
passed. And now they receive the merited reward of honourable conduct.
They are complimented by their general; their service's are rehearsed
with approval; their threefold fidelity, to God, to Moses, and to
Joshua, is commended; they are dismissed with honour, and they receive
as their reward a substantial share of the spoil which had been taken
from the enemy. "Return," said Joshua, "with much riches unto your
tents, and with very much cattle, with silver and with gold, and with
brass, and with iron, and with very much raiment; divide the spoil of
your enemies with your brethren." It thus appeared that honour, like
honesty, is the best policy. Had these two tribes and a half chosen
the alternative of selfishness, refused to cross the Jordan to help
their brethren, and devoted their whole energies at once to their
fields and flocks, they would have fared worse in the end. No doubt as
they recrossed the Jordan, bearing with them the treasure which had
been acquired on the western side, their hearts would be full of that
happy feeling which results from duty faithfully performed, and
honourable conduct amply rewarded. They brought back "peace with
honour," and prosperity to the bargain. After all, it is high
principle that pays. It demands a time of patient working and of
patient waiting, but its bills are fully implemented in the end.

In sending away the two tribes and a half Joshua pressed two counsels
on them. One was that they were to divide the spoil with those of
their brethren that had remained at home. Here, again, selfishness
might possibly have found a footing. Why should the men that had
incurred none of the labour and the peril enjoy any of the spoil?
Would it not have been fair that those who had borne the burden and
heat of the day should alone enjoy its rewards? But, in point of fact,
there had been good reason why a portion should remain at home. To
leave the women and children wholly undefended would have been
recklessness itself. Some arrangement, too, had to be made for looking
after the flocks and herds. And as the supply of manna had ceased, the
production of food had to be provided for. The men at home had been
doing the duty assigned to them as well as the men abroad. If they
could not establish a claim in justice to a share of the spoil, the
spirit of brotherhood and generosity pleaded on their behalf. The
soldier-section of the two and a half tribes had done their part
honourably and generously to the nine and a half; let them act in the
same spirit to their own brethren. Let them share in the good things
which they had brought home, so that a spirit of joy and satisfaction
might be diffused throughout the community, and the welcome given to
those who had been absent might be cordial and complete, without one
trace of discontent or envy.

Occasions may occur still on which this counsel of Joshua may come in
very suitably. It does not always happen that brothers or near
relatives who have prospered abroad are very mindful of those whom
they have left at home. They like to enjoy their abundance, and if the
case of their poor relations comes across their minds, they dismiss it
with the thought that men's lots must differ, and that they are not
going to lose all the benefit of their success by supporting other
families besides their own. Yet, how much good might accrue from a
little generosity, though it were but an occasional gift, towards
those who are straitened? And how much better it would be to kindle by
this means a thankful and kindly feeling, than to have envy and
jealousy rankling in their hearts!

The other counsel of Joshua bore upon that which was ever uppermost in
his heart--loyalty to God. "Take diligent heed to do the commandment
and the law, which Moses the servant of the Lord charged you, to love
the Lord your God, and to walk in all His ways, and to keep all His
commandments, and to cleave unto Him, and to serve Him with all your
heart and with all your soul." It is evident that Joshua poured his
whole heart into this counsel. He was evidently anxious as to the
effect which their separation from their brethren would have on their
religious condition. It was west of the Jordan that the sanctuary had
been placed, and that the great central influence in support of the
national worship would mainly operate. Would not these eastern tribes
be in great danger of drifting away from the recognised worship of
God, and becoming idolaters? Joshua knew well that as yet the nation
was far from being weaned from idolatry (see xxiv. 14). He knew that
among many there were strong propensities towards it. He had
something of the feeling that an earnest Christian parent would have
in sending off a son, not very decided in religion, to some colony
where the public sentiment was loose, and where the temptations to
worldliness and religious indifference were strong. He was therefore
all the more earnest in his exhortations to them, for he felt that all
their prosperity, all their happiness, their very life itself,
depended on their being faithful to their God.

We cannot tell how long time had elapsed when word was brought to the
western side that the two and a half tribes had built a great altar on
the edge of Jordan, apparently as a rival to the ecclesiastical
establishment at Shiloh. That this was their intention seems to have
been taken for granted, for we find the congregation or general
assembly of Israel assembled at Shiloh to prepare for war with the
schismatical tribes. War had evidently become a familiar idea with
them, and at first no other course suggested itself for arresting the
proposal. It was one of the many occasions of unreasoning impetuosity
which the history of Israel presents.

No mention is made of Joshua in the narrative of this transaction; he
had retired from active life, and perhaps what is here recorded did
not take place for a considerable time after the return of the two and
a half tribes. It may be that we have here an instance of the method
so often pursued in Hebrew annals, of recording together certain
incidents pertaining to the same transaction, or to the same people,
though these incidents were separated from each other by a
considerable interval of time.

It was well that the congregation assembled at Shiloh. They would be
reminded by the very place that great national movements were not to
be undertaken rashly, since God was the supreme ruler of the nation.
We are not told whether the usual method of asking counsel of God was
resorted to, but certainly the course followed was more reasonable
than rushing into war. It was resolved to begin by remonstrating with
the two and a half tribes. The idea that their proposal was
schismatical, nay, even idolatrous, was not given up, but it was
thought that if a solemn remonstrance and warning were addressed to
them, they might be induced to abandon their project.

A deputation was sent over, consisting of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar
the priest, as representing the religious interest, and ten princes,
representing the ten tribes, to have an interview with the heads of
the two and a half tribes. When they met, the deputation opened very
fiercely on their brethren. They charged them with unheard-of
wickedness. What they had done was a daring act of rebellion. It was
worthy to be classed with the iniquity of Peor--one of the vilest
deeds that ever disgraced the nation. It was fitted to bring down
God's judgments on the whole nation, and would certainly do so. If the
secret act of Achan involved the congregation in wrath, what calamity
to the whole people would not result from this daring and open deed of
rebellion? They were not safe for a single day. The vials of the
Divine wrath could not but be ready, and in twenty-four hours the
whole congregation of Israel might be overwhelmed by the tokens of His
displeasure.

One should have said that if anything was fitted to have a bad effect
on the two and a half tribes, it was this mode of dealing. It is not
wise to assume that your brother is a villain. And scolding, as has
been well said, does not make men sorry for their sins. But one thing
was said by the deputation that was fitted to have a different effect.
"Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass
ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the
Lord's tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel
not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar
beside the altar of the Lord our God."

Here was a generous, a self-denying proposal; the ten tribes were some
of them in straits themselves, finding the room available for them far
too narrow; nevertheless they were prepared to divide what they had
with their brethren, if their real feeling was that the east side of
the Jordan was outside the hallowed and hallowing influence of the
presence of the Lord.

Instead, therefore, of firing up the fierce reproof of their brethren,
the two and a half tribes were softened by this really kind proposal
and returned a reassuring answer. They solemnly repudiated all idea of
a rival establishment. They knew that there was but one place where
the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant could be, and they had not
the remotest intention of interfering with the spot that had been
chosen for that purpose. They had never entertained the thought of
offering burnt offerings, or meat offerings, or peace offerings on
their altar. They solemnly abjured all intention to show disrespect to
the Lord, or to His law. The altar which they had built had a very
different purpose. It was occasioned by the physical structure of the
country, and the effect which that might have on their children in
years to come. "In time to come your children might speak unto our
children, saying, What have ye to do with the Lord God of Israel? For
Lord hath made Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of
Reuben and children of Gad; ye have no part in the Lord: so shall your
children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. Therefore we
said, Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt offering,
nor for sacrifice; but that it may be a witness between us, and you,
and our generations after us." It was not a rival, but a witness, a
pattern; a reminder to the two and a half tribes that the true altar,
the Divine sanctuary, hallowed by the token of God's presence was
elsewhere, and that there, and only there, were the public sacrifices
to be offered.

The acquaintance with the physical structure of Palestine which we
have obtained in recent years enables us to appreciate the feeling of
the two and a half tribes better than could have been done before. The
mere fact that a river separated the east from the west of Palestine
would not have been enough to account for the sense of isolation and
the fear thence arising which had taken hold of the heads of the two
and a half tribes. It is the peculiar structure of the valley in which
the river runs that explains the story. The Jordan valley, as has
already been mentioned, is depressed below the level of the
Mediterranean Sea, the depression increasing gradually as the river
flows towards the Dead Sea, where it amounts to 1300 feet. In addition
to this, the mountainous plateau on each side of the Jordan valley
rises to the height of 2000 or 2500 feet above the sea, so that the
entire depression, counting from the top of the plateau to the edge of
the river, is between three and four thousand feet. On each side the
approach to the Jordan is difficult, while, during the warm season,
the great heat increases the fatigue of travelling and discourages
the attempt. All these things make the separation between the two
parts of the country caused by the river and its valley much more
complete than in ordinary cases of river boundaries. There can be no
doubt now that the heads of the two and a half tribes had considerable
ground for their apprehensions. There was some risk that they should
cease to be regarded as part of the nation; and their explanation of
the altar seems to have been an honest one. It was designed simply as
a memorial, not for sacrifices. We see what a happy thing it was for
the whole nation that the deputation was sent across before resorting
to arms. A new light was thrown on what had seemed a daring sin; it
was but an innocent arrangement; and the terrible forebodings which it
awakened are at once scattered to the winds.

But who can estimate all the misery that has come in almost every age,
in circles both public and private, from hasty suspicions of evil,
which a little patience, a little inquiry, a little opportunity of
explanation, might have at once averted? History, tradition, fiction,
alike furnish us with instances. We recall the story of Llewellyn and
his dog Gelert, stabbed by his master, who thought the stains upon his
mouth were the blood of his beloved child; while, on raising the
cradle which had been turned over, he found his child asleep and well,
and a huge wolf dead, from whose fangs the dog had delivered him. We
remember the tragedy of Othello and Desdemona; we see how the fondest
love may be poisoned by hasty suspicion, and the dearest of wives
murdered, when a little patience would have shown her innocent--shown
her all too pure to come in contact with even a vestige of the evil
thing. We think of the many stories of crusaders and others leaving
their homes with their love pledged to another, detained in distant
lands without means of communication, hearing a rumour that their
beloved one had turned false, and doing some rash and irrevocable
deed, while a little further waiting would have realized all their
hopes. But perhaps it is in less tragic circumstances that the spirit
of suspicion and unjust accusation is most commonly manifested. A
rumour unfavourable to your character gets into circulation; you
suspect some one of being the author, and deal fiercely with him
accordingly; it turns out that he is wholly innocent. A friend has
apparently written a letter against you which has made you furious;
you pour a torrent of reproaches upon him; it turns out that the
letter was written by some one else with a similar name. But indeed
there is no end to the mischief that is bred by impatience, and by
want of inquiry, or of waiting for explanations that would put a quite
different complexion on our matters of complaint. True charity
"thinketh no evil," for it "rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth
in truth. It beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all
things, endureth all things." If its gentle voice were more regarded,
what a multitude of offences would vanish, and how much wider would be
the reign of peace!

The explanation that had been offered by Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh
proved satisfactory to Phinehas and the princes of the congregation,
and likewise to the people of the west generally, when the deputation
reported their proceedings. The remark of Phinehas before he left his
eastern brethren was a striking one: "This day do we perceive that the
Lord is among us, because ye have not committed this trespass against
the Lord; now ye have delivered the children of Israel out of the
hand of the Lord." There was a great difference between the Lord being
among them, and their being in the hand of the Lord. If the Lord were
among them they were under all manner of gracious influence; if they
were in the hand of the Lord they were exposed to the utmost
visitations of His wrath. It was the joy of Phinehas to find not only
that no provocation had been given to God's righteous jealousy, but
that proof had been afforded that He was graciously blessing them. If
God often departs from us without our suspecting it, He is sometimes
graciously present with us when we have been fearing that He was gone.
So it was now. Phinehas in imagination had seen the gathering of a
terrible storm, as if the very enemy of man had been stirring up his
countrymen to rebellion and contempt of God; but in place of that, he
sees that they have been consulting for God's honour, for the
permanence of His institutions, and for the preservation of unity
between the two sections of the nation; and in this he finds a proof
that God has been graciously working among them. For God is the God of
peace, not of strife, and the Spirit is the Spirit of order, and not
of confusion. And when two sections of a community are led to desire
the advancement of His service and the honour of His name, even by
methods which are not in all respects alike, it is a proof that He is
among them, drawing their hearts to Himself and to one another.

Perhaps the common adage might have been applied to the case--that
there were faults on both sides. If the ten tribes were too hasty in
preparing for war, the two and a half tribes had been too hasty in
deciding on the erection of their altar, without communication with
the priests and the civil heads of the nation. In a matter so sacred,
no such step should have been taken without full consultation and a
clear view of duty. The goodness of their motive did not excuse them
for not taking all available methods to carry out their plan in a way
wholly unexceptional. As it was, they ran a great risk of kindling a
fire which might have at once destroyed themselves and weakened the
rest of the nation through all time. In their effort to promote unity,
they had almost occasioned a fatal schism. Thus both sections of the
nation had been on the edge of a fearful catastrophe.

But now it appeared that the section that had seemed to be so highly
offending were animated by a quite loyal sentiment. Phinehas gladly
seized on the fact as a proof that God was among them. A less godly
man would not have thought of this as of much importance. He would
hardly have believed in it as anything that could exist except in a
fanatical imagination. But the more one knows of God the more real
does the privilege seem, and the more blessed. Nay, it comes to be
felt as that which makes the greatest conceivable difference between
one individual or one community and another. The great curse of sin is
that it has severed us from God. The glory of the grace of God in
Christ is that we are brought together. Man without God is like the
earth without the sun, or the body without the soul. Man in fellowship
with God is man replenished with all Divine blessings and holy
influences. A church in which God does not dwell is a hold of unclean
spirits and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. A church
inhabited by God, like the bride in the Song of Solomon, "looketh
forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible
as an army with banners."




CHAPTER XXXI.

_JEHOVAH THE CHAMPION OF ISRAEL._

JOSHUA xxiii.


The last two chapters of Joshua are very like each other. Each
professes to be a report of the aged leader's farewell meeting with
the heads of the people. No place of meeting is specified in the one;
Shechem is the place named in the other. The address reported in the
twenty-third chapter is in somewhat general terms; in the
twenty-fourth, we have more of detail. The question arises, Were there
two meetings, or have we in these chapters different reports of the
same? The question is of no great importance in itself; but it bears
on the structure of the book. In our judgment, both reports bear on
the same occasion; and if so, all that needs to be said as to their
origin is, that the author of the book, having obtained two reports
from trustworthy sources, did not adopt the plan of weaving them into
one, but gave them separately, just as he had received them. The
circumstance is a proof of the trustworthiness of the narrative; had
the writer put on record merely what Joshua might be _supposed_ to
have said, he would not have adopted this twofold form of narrative.

Joshua had been a close follower of Moses in many things, and now he
follows him by calling the people together to hear his closing words.
On the edge of the future life, on the eve of giving in his own
account, in the crisis when men are most disposed to utter the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he calls his children
around him to hear his parting words. He knows, as Moses also knew,
the impulsive, fitful temper of the people. All the more did he regard
it as desirable not to omit such an opportunity of impression. "All
pathetic occasions," it has been well said, "should be treasured in
the memory; the last interview, the last sermon, the last prayer, the
last fond, lingering look; all these things may be frivolously treated
as sentimental; but he who treats them so is a fool in his heart.
Whatever can subdue the spirit, chasten the character, and enlarge the
charity of the soul, should be encouraged as a ministry from God."[29]

  [29] "The People's Bible," by Joseph Parker.

What was the burden of Joshua's address? What was alike the keynote,
and the central note, and the closing note--the beginning, and the
middle, and the end? You have it in the words--"The Lord your God is
He that fighteth for you"; therefore "cleave unto the Lord your God."
You owe everything to the Lord; therefore render to Him all His due.
Let Him receive from you in the proportion in which He has given to
you; let Him be honoured by you in the ratio in which you have been
blessed by Him; and see that none of you ever, to the last day of your
lives, give the faintest countenance to the idolatry of your
neighbours, or consent to any entangling connection that would furnish
a temptation to join in their wickedness.

This starting-point of Joshua's address--"The Lord your God is He
that fighteth for you"--is a serious one, and demands careful
investigation. God is expressly set forth as the champion of Israel,
fighting for him against the Canaanites, and driving them out. He is
here the God of battles; and the terrible desolation that followed the
track of Israel is here ascribed to the championship of the Most High.

There are some expositors who explain these sayings in a general
sense. There are great laws of conquest, they say, roughly sanctioned
by Providence, whereby one race advances upon another. Nations
enervated through luxury and idleness are usually supplanted by more
vigorous races. The Goths and Vandals overcame the Romans; the
Anglo-Saxons subdued the Britons, to be in time conquered by the
Normans; Dutch rule has prevailed over the negro, English over the
Hindu, American over the native Indian. In the treatment of the
conquered races by the conquerors, there has often been much that is
gross and objectionable. Even when a civilized and cultured race has
had to deal with a barbarous one, instead of the sweetness and light
of culture you have often had the devices of injustice and oppression.
We cannot vindicate all the rule of the British in India; greed,
insolence, and lust have left behind them many a stain. Still, the
result on the whole has been for good. The English have a higher
conception of human life than the Hindus. They have a higher sense of
order, of justice, of family life, of national well-being. There is a
vigour about them that will not tolerate the policy of drifting; that
cannot stand still or lie still and see everything going wrong; that
strives to remedy injustice, to reform abuse, to correct what is
vicious and disorderly, and foster organization and progress. In
these respects British rule has been a benefit to India. There may
have been deeds of oppression and wrong that curdle the blood, or
habits of self-indulgence may have been practised at the expense of
the natives that shock our sense of humanity, as if the inferior race
could have no rights against the superior; but these are but the
eddies or by-play of a great beneficent current, and in the summing up
of the long account they hold but an insignificant place. In
themselves, they are to be detested and denounced; but when you are
estimating great national forces, when you are trying the question
whether on the whole these forces have been beneficent or evil,
whether they have been of heaven or of the devil, these episodes of
wrong are not to be allowed to determine the whole question. You are
constrained to take a wider view. And when you survey the grand
result; when you see a great continent like India peaceable and
orderly that used to be distracted on every side by domestic warfare;
when you see justice carefully administered, life and property
protected, education and civilization advanced, to say nothing, of the
spirit of Christianity introduced, you are unable to resist the
conclusion that the influence of its new masters has been a gain to
India, and therefore that the British rule has had the sanction of
heaven.

We say there are some expositors who hold that it is only in a way
parallel to this that the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites enjoyed
the sanction of God. Without making a great deal of the wickedness of
the Canaanite tribes, they dwell on their weakness, their poor ideas
of life, their feeble aims, their want of developing power, their
inability to rise. Into the heart of these tribes there comes a race
that somehow possesses extraordinary capabilities and force. History
has shown it to be one of the great dominant races of the world. The
new people apply themselves with extraordinary energy to acquire the
country of the other. Dispossession of one race by another was the
common practice of the times, and in a moral point of view was little
thought of. The times were rude and wild, property had not become
sacred, human life was cheap, pain and suffering got small
consideration. Having spent some centuries in Egypt, the new race
brought with it a share of Egyptian culture and accomplishment; but
its great strength lay in its religious ardour, and in the habits of
order and self-control which its religion fostered. The memory of
their ancestors, who had dwelt as pilgrims in that country, but under
the strongest promises on the part of God that He would give it as an
inheritance to their descendants, increased the ardour of the invasion
and the confidence of the invaders. With all the enthusiasm of a
heaven-guided race, they dashed against the old inhabitants, who
staggered under the blow. To a large extent the former occupants fell
under the usual violence of invaders--the sword of battle and the
massacre after victory. The process was accompanied by many wild
deeds, which in these days of ours would excite horror. Had it been
completely successful it would have utterly annihilated the native
races; but the courage and perseverance of the invaders were not equal
to this result; many of the original inhabitants remained, and were
finally amalgamated with their conquerors.

Now, in this case, as in the conquest of India by Britain, a process
went on which was a great benefit on a large scale. It was not
designed to be of benefit to the original inhabitants, as was the
British occupation of India, for they were a doomed race, as we shall
immediately see. But the settlement of the people of Israel in Canaan
was designed and was fitted to be a great benefit to the world.
Explain it as we may, Israel had higher ideas of life than the other
nations, richer gifts of head and heart, more capacity of governing,
and a far purer religious sentiment. Wherever Israel might be planted,
if he remained in purity, mankind must be benefited. A people so
gifted, with such intellectual capacity, with such moral and spiritual
power, with such high ideals, and producing from time to time men of
such remarkable character and influence, could not but help to elevate
other races. That such a people should prevail over tribes emasculated
by vice, degraded by idolatrous superstition, and enfeebled and
stunted through mutual strife, was only in accordance with the nature
of things. On the principle that a race like this must necessarily
prevail over such tribes as had occupied Palestine before, the
conquest of Joshua might well be said to have Divine approval. God
might truly be said to go forth with the armies of Israel, and to
scatter their enemies as smoke is scattered by the wind.

But this was not all. There was already a judicial sentence against
the seven nations of which Israel was appointed to be the executioner.
Even in Abraham's time we have abundant proof that they were far gone
in corruption, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was but an
early stroke of that holy sword which was to come down over a far
wider area when the iniquity of the Amorites should become full. We
have no elaborate account of the moral and religious condition of the
people in Joshua's time, but we have certain glimpses which tell
much. In the story of Baal-peor we have an awful picture of the
idolatrous debauchery of the Moabites; and the Moabites were not so
sunk in vice as the Canaanites. The first Canaanite house that any of
the Israelites entered was that of an immoral woman, who, however, was
saved by her faith, as any and every Canaanite would have been had he
believed. The most revolting picture we have of Canaanite vice is
connected with the burning of children alive in sacrifice to the gods.
What a hideous practice it was! Who can estimate its effect on the
blithe nature of children, or tell how the very thought of it and the
possibility of suffering from it must have weighed like a nightmare on
many a child, converting the season of merry childhood into a time of
dreadful foreboding, if not for themselves, at least for some of their
companions. Loathsome vice consecrated by the seal of religion;
unnatural lust, turning human beings into worse than beasts; natural
affection converted into an instrument of the most horrid
cruelty--could any practices show more powerfully the hopeless
degradation of these nations in a moral and religious sense, or their
ripeness for judgment? Israel was the appointed executioner of God's
justice against them, and in order that Israel might fulfil that
function, God went before him in his battles and delivered his enemies
into his hands. And what Israel did in this way was done under a
solemn sense that he was inflicting Divine retribution. That the
process was carried out with something of the solemnity of an
execution appears, as we have already seen, from the injunction at
Jericho, which forbade all on pain of death to touch an atom of the
spoil. And this lesson was burnt into their inmost souls by the
terrible fate of Achan. Afterwards, it is true, they were allowed to
appropriate the spoil, but not till after they had been taught most
impressively at Jericho that the spoil was God's, so that, even when
it became theirs, it was as if they had received it from His hand.

We cannot suppose that the people uniformly acted with the moderation
and self-restraint becoming God's executioners. No doubt there were
many instances of unwarrantable and inhuman violence. Such excesses
are unavoidable when human beings are employed as the executioners of
God. To charge these on God is not fair. They were the spots and
stains that ever indicate the hand of man, even when doing the work of
God. It is not necessary to approve of these while we vindicate the
law which doomed the Canaanites to extermination, and made the
Israelites their executioners. It is not necessary to vindicate all
that the English have done in India, while we hold that their presence
and influence there have been in accordance with a Divine and
beneficent purpose. Where God and man are in partnership, we may
expect a chequered product, but never let us ascribe the flaws of one
to the influence of the other.

If it be said that the language of the historian seems sometime to
ascribe to God what really arose from the passions of the people, it
is to be observed that we are not told in what form the Lord
communicated His commands. No doubt the Hebrews were disposed to claim
Divine authority for what they did to the very fullest extent. There
may have been times when they imagined that they were fulfilling the
requirements of God, when they were only giving effect to feelings of
their own. And generally they may have been prone to suppose that
modes of slaughter that seemed to them quite proper were well
pleasing in the sight of God. They may have believed that God
participated in what was in reality but the spirit of the age. Thus
they may have been led to think, and through them the impression may
have come to us, that God had a more active hand, so to speak, in many
of the details of warfare than we ought to ascribe to Him. For God
often accomplishes His holy purposes by leaving His instruments to act
in their own way.

But we have wandered from Joshua, and the assembly of Israel. What we
have been trying is to show the soundness of Joshua's fundamental
position--that God fought for Israel. The same thing might be shown by
a negative process. If God had not been actively and supernaturally
with Israel, Israel could never have become what he was. What made
Israel so remarkable and powerful a nation? If you appeal to heredity
and go back to his forefather, you find the whole career of Abraham
determined by what he undoubtedly regarded as a supernatural promise,
that in him and his seed all the families of the earth should be
blessed. If you speak of Moses as the founder of the nation, you find
a man who was utterly defeated and humiliated when he acted on his own
resources, and successful only when he came in contact with
supernatural might. If you inquire into the cause of the military
superiority of Israel, you cannot find it in their slave condition in
Egypt, nor in their wandering, pastoral life in the desert. You are
baffled in trying to account for the warlike energy and skill that
swept the Canaanites with all their resources before their invincible
might. That an Alexander the Great, or a Cæsar, or a Napoleon, with
their long experience, their trained legions, their splendid prestige
and unrivalled resources, should have swept the board of their
enemies we do not wonder. But Moses and his bevy of slaves, Joshua and
his army of shepherds--what could have made such soldiers of these men
if the Lord had not fought on their side?

The getting possession of Canaan, as Joshua reminded the people, was a
threefold process: God fighting for them had subdued their enemies;
Joshua had divided the land; and now God was prepared to expel the
remaining people, but only through their instrumentality. Emphasis is
laid on "expelling" and "driving out" (ver. 5), from which we gather
that further massacre was not to take place, but that the remainder of
the Canaanites must seek settlements elsewhere. A sufficient
retribution had fallen on them for their sins, in the virtual
destruction of their people and the loss of their country; the
miserable remnant might have a chance of escape, in some ill-filled
country where they would never rise to influence and where terror
would restrain them from their former wickedness.

Joshua was very emphatic in forbidding intermarriage and friendly
social intercourse with Canaanites. He saw much need for the prayer,
"Lead us not into temptation." He understood the meaning of enchanted
ground. He knew that between the realm of holiness and the realm of
sin there is a kind of neutral territory, which belongs strictly to
neither, but which slopes towards the realm of sin, and in point of
fact most commonly furnishes recruits not a few to the army of evil.
Alas, how true is this still! Marriages between believers and
unbelievers; friendly social fellowship, on equal terms, between the
Church and the world; partnership in business between the godly and
the ungodly--who does not know the usual result? In a few solitary
cases, it may be, the child of the world is brought into the kingdom;
but in how many instances do we find the buds of Christian promise
nipped, and lukewarmness and backsliding, if not apostasy, coming in
their room! There is no better help for the Christian life, no greater
encouragement to fellowship with God, than congenial fellowship with
other Christians, especially in the home, as there is no greater
hindrance to these things than an alien spirit there. And if men and
women would remember that of all that concerns them in this life their
relation to God is infinitely the most momentous, and that whatever
brings that relation into peril is the evil of all others most to be
dreaded, we should not find them so ready for entangling connections
which may be a gain for the things of this world, but for the things
of eternity are commonly a grievous loss.

It is a very vivid picture that Joshua draws of the effects of that
sinful compromise with their Canaanite neighbours against which he had
warned them. "If ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the
remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall
make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: know
for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of
these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto
you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye
perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given
you."

The Garden of Eden was not the only paradise that sin ruined. Here was
something like a new paradise for the children of Israel; and yet
there was a possibility--more than a possibility--of its being ruined
by sin. The history of the future showed that Joshua was right. The
Canaanites remaining in the land were scourges and thorns to the
people of Israel, and the compliance of Israel with their idolatrous
ways led first to invasion and oppression, then to captivity and
exile, and finally to dispersion over the face of the earth. However
sin may deceive at the beginning, in the end it always proves true to
its real character--"the wages of sin is death." The trouble is that
men will not believe what they do not like to believe. Sin has many a
pleasure; and as long as the pleasure is not gross, but wears an air
of refinement, there seems no harm in it, and it is freely enjoyed.
But, unseen, it works like dry-rot, pulverising the soul, destroying
all traces of spiritual relish or enjoyment of Divine things, and
attaching the heart more strongly to mere material good. And sometimes
when death comes in sight and it is felt that God has to be reckoned
with, and the effort is honestly made to prepare for that solemn
meeting by looking to the Divine Redeemer, the bent of the heart is
found to be entirely the other way. Faith and repentance will not
come; turning Godwards is an uncongenial, an impossible attitude; the
heart has its roots too much in the world to be thus withdrawn from
it. They allowed themselves to be drawn away from their early hope by
the influence of worldly fellowship, to find that it profits a man
nothing to gain the whole world if he lose his own soul.

How awful are the words of St. James: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses,
know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of
God."




CHAPTER XXXII.

_JOSHUA'S LAST APPEAL._

JOSHUA xxiv.


It was at Shechem that Joshua's last meeting with the people took
place. The Septuagint makes it Shiloh in one verse (ver. 1), but
Shechem in another (ver. 25); but there is no sufficient reason for
rejecting the common reading. Joshua might feel that a meeting which
was not connected with the ordinary business of the sanctuary, but
which was more for a personal purpose, a solemn leave-taking on his
part from the people, might be held better at Shechem. There was much
to recommend that place. It lay a few miles to the north-west of
Shiloh, and was not only distinguished (as we have already said) as
Abraham's first resting-place in the country, and the scene of the
earliest of the promises given in it to him; but likewise as the place
where, between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, the blessings and curses of
the law had been read out soon after Joshua entered the land, and the
solemn assent of the people given to them. And whereas it is said
(ver. 26) that the great stone set up as a witness was "by the
sanctuary of the Lord," this stone may have been placed at Shiloh
after the meeting, because there it would be more fully in the
observation of the people as they came up to the annual festivals (see
1 Sam. i. 7, 9). Shechem was therefore the scene of Joshua's farewell
address. Possibly it was delivered close to the well of Jacob and the
tomb of Joseph; at the very place where, many centuries later, the New
Testament Joshua sat wearied with His journey, and unfolded the riches
of Divine grace to the woman of Samaria.

1. In the record of Joshua's speech contained in the twenty-fourth
chapter, he begins by rehearsing the history of the nation. He has an
excellent reason for beginning with the revered name of Abraham,
because Abraham had been conspicuous for that very grace, loyalty to
Jehovah, which he is bent on impressing on them. Abraham had made a
solemn choice in religion. He had deliberately broken with one kind of
worship, and accepted another. His fathers had been idolaters, and he
had been brought up an idolater. But Abraham renounced idolatry for
ever. He did this at a great sacrifice, and what Joshua entreated of
the people was, that they would be as thorough and as firm as he was
in their repudiation of idolatry. The rehearsal of the history is
given in the words of God to remind them that the whole history of
Israel had been planned and ordered by Him. He had been among them
from first to last; He had been with them through all the lives of the
patriarchs; it was He that had delivered them from Egypt by Moses and
Aaron, that had buried the Egyptians under the waters of the sea, that
had driven the Amorites out of the eastern provinces, had turned the
curse of Balaam into a blessing, had dispossessed the seven nations,
and had settled the Israelites in their pleasant and peaceful abodes.

We mark in this rehearsal the well-known features of the national
history, as they were always represented; the frank recognition of the
supernatural, with no indication of myth or legend, with nothing of
the mist or glamour in which the legend is commonly enveloped. And,
seeing that God had done all this for them, the inference was that He
was entitled to their heartiest loyalty and obedience. "Now therefore
fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away
the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and
in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord." It seems strange that at that very
time the people needed to be called to put away other gods. But this
only shows how destitute of foundation the common impression is, that
from and after the departure from Egypt the whole host of Israel were
inclined to the law as it had been given by Moses. There was still a
great amount of idolatry among them, and a strong tendency towards it.
They were not a wholly reformed or converted people. This Joshua knew
right well; he knew that there was a suppressed fire among them liable
to burst into a conflagration; hence his aggressive attitude, and his
effort to foster an aggressive spirit in them; he must bind them over
by every consideration to renounce wholly all recognition of other
gods, and to make Jehovah the one only object of their worship. Never
was a good man more in earnest, or more thoroughly persuaded that all
that made for a nation's welfare was involved in the course which he
pressed upon them.

2. But Joshua did not urge this merely on the strength of his own
conviction. He must enlist their reason on his side; and for this
cause he now called on them deliberately to weigh the claims of other
gods and the advantages of other modes of worship, and choose that
which must be pronounced the best. There were four claimants to be
considered: (1) Jehovah; (2) the Chaldæan gods worshipped by their
ancestors; (3) the gods of the Egyptians; and (4) the gods of the
Amorites among whom they dwelt. Make your choice between these, said
Joshua, if you are dissatisfied with Jehovah. But could there be any
reasonable choice between these gods and Jehovah? It is often useful,
when we hesitate as to a course, to set down the various reasons for
and against,--it may be the reasons of our judgment against the
reasons of our feelings; for often this course enables us to see how
utterly the one outweighs the other. May it not be useful for us to do
as Joshua urged Israel to do?

If we set down the reasons for making God, God in Christ, the supreme
object of our worship, against those in favour of the world, how
infinitely will the one scale outweigh the other! In the choice of a
master, it is reasonable for a servant to consider which has the
greatest claim upon him; which is intrinsically the most worthy to be
served; which will bring him the greatest advantages; which will give
him most inward satisfaction and peace; which will exercise the best
influence on his character, and which comes recommended most by old
servants whose testimony ought to weigh with him. If these are the
grounds of a reasonable choice in the case of a servant engaging with
a master, how much more in reference to the Master of our spirits!
Nothing can be plainer than that the Israelites in Joshua's time had
every conceivable reason for choosing their fathers' God as the
supreme object of their worship, and that any other course would have
been alike the guiltiest and the silliest that could have been taken.
Are the reasons a whit less powerful why every one of us should devote
heart and life and mind and soul to the service of Him who gave
Himself for us, and has loved us with an everlasting love?

3. But Joshua is fully prepared to add example to precept. Whatever
you do in this matter, my mind is made up, my course is clear--"as for
me and my house, we will serve Jehovah." He reminds us of a general
exhorting his troops to mount the deadly breach and dash into the
enemy's citadel. Strong and urgent are his appeals; but stronger and
more telling is his act when, facing the danger right in front, he
rushes on, determined that, whatever others may do, he will not flinch
from his duty. It is the old Joshua back again, the Joshua that alone
with Caleb stood faithful amid the treachery of the spies, that has
been loyal to God all his life, and now in the decrepitude of old age
is still prepared to stand alone rather than dishonour the living God.
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." He was happy in
being able to associate his house with himself as sharing his
convictions and his purpose. He owed this, in all likelihood, to his
own firm and intrepid attitude throughout his life. His house saw how
consistently and constantly he recognised the supreme claims of
Jehovah. Not less clearly did they see how constantly he experienced
the blessedness of his choice.

4. Convinced by his arguments, moved by his eloquence, and carried
along by the magnetism of his example, the people respond with
enthusiasm, deprecate the very thought of forsaking Jehovah to serve
other gods, and recognise most cordially the claims he has placed them
under, by delivering them from Egypt, preserving them in the
wilderness, and driving out the Amorites from their land. After this
an ordinary leader would have felt quite at ease, and would have
thanked God that his appeal had met with such a response, and that
such demonstration had been given of the loyalty of the people. But
Joshua knew something of their fickle temper. He may have called to
mind the extraordinary enthusiasm of their fathers when the tabernacle
was in preparation; the singular readiness with which they had
contributed their most valued treasures, and the grievous change they
underwent after the return of the spies. Even an enthusiastic burst
like this is not to be trusted. He must go deeper; he must try to
induce them to think more earnestly of the matter, and not trust to
the feeling of the moment.

5. Hence he draws a somewhat dark picture of Jehovah's character. He
dwells on those attributes which are least agreeable to the natural
man, His holiness, His jealousy, and His inexorable opposition to sin.
When he says, "He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins,"
he cannot mean that God is not a God of forgiveness. He cannot wish to
contradict the first part of that gracious memorial which God gave to
Moses: "The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious, longsuffering
and abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin." His object is to emphasize the clause, "and
that will by no means clear the guilty." Evidently he means that the
sin of idolatry is one that God cannot pass over, cannot fail to
punish, until, probably through terrible judgments, the authors of it
are brought to contrition, and humble themselves in the dust before
him. "Ye cannot serve the Lord," said Joshua; "take care how you
undertake what is beyond your strength!" Perhaps he wished to impress
on them the need of Divine strength for so difficult a duty. Certainly
he did not change their purpose, but only drew from them a more
resolute expression. "Nay; but we will serve the Lord. And Joshua
said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have
chosen the Lord to serve Him. And they said, We are witnesses."

6. And now Joshua comes to a point which had doubtless been in his
mind all the time, but which he had been waiting for a favourable
opportunity to bring forward. He had pledged the people to an absolute
and unreserved service of God, and now he demands a practical proof of
their sincerity. He knows quite well that they have "strange gods"
among them. Teraphim, images, or ornaments having a reference to the
pagan gods, he knows that they possess. And he does not speak as if
this were a rare thing, confined to a very few. He speaks as if it
were a common practice, generally prevalent. Again we see how far from
the mark we are when we think of the whole nation as cordially
following the religion of Moses, in the sense of renouncing all other
gods. Minor forms of idolatry, minor recognitions of the gods of the
Chaldæans and the Egyptians and the Amorites, were prevalent even yet.
Probably Joshua called to mind the scene that had occurred at that
very place hundreds of years before, when Jacob, rebuked by God, and
obliged to remove from Shechem, called on his household: "Put away the
strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your
garments.... And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were
in the land, and all the ear-rings which were in their ears; and Jacob
hid them under the oak which was by Shechem." Alas! that, centuries
later, it was necessary for Joshua in the same place to issue the same
order,--Put away the gods which are among you, and serve ye the Lord.
What a weed sin is, and how it is for ever reappearing! And
reappearing among ourselves too, in a different variety, but
essentially the same. For what honest and earnest heart does not feel
that there are idols and images among ourselves that interfere with
God's claims and God's glory as much as the teraphim and the ear-rings
of the Israelites did? The images of the Israelites were little
images, and it was probably at by-times and in retirement that they
made use of them; and so, it may not be on the leading occasions or in
the outstanding work of our lives that we are wont to dishonour God.
But who that knows himself but must think with humiliation of the
numberless occasions on which he indulges little whims or inclinations
without thinking of the will of God; the many little acts of his daily
life on which conscience is not brought to bear; the disengaged state
of his mind from that supreme controlling influence which would bear
on it if God were constantly recognised as his Master? And who does
not find that, despite his endeavour from time to time to be more
conscientious, the old habit, like a weed whose roots have only been
cut over, is ever showing itself alive?

7. And now comes the closing and clinching transaction of this meeting
at Shechem. Joshua enters into a formal covenant with the people; he
records their words in the book of the law of the Lord; he takes a
great stone and sets it up under an oak that was by the sanctuary of
the Lord; and he constitutes the stone a witness, as if it had heard
all that had been spoken by the Lord to them and by them to the Lord.
The covenant was a transaction invested with special solemnity among
all Eastern peoples, and especially among the Israelites. Many
instances had occurred in their history, of covenants with God, and of
other covenants, like that of Abraham with Abimelech, or that of
Jacob with Laban. The wanton violation of a covenant was held an act
of gross impiety, deserving the reprobation alike of God and man. When
Joshua got the people bound by a transaction of this sort, he seemed
to obtain a new guarantee for their fidelity; a new barrier was
erected against their lapsing into idolatry. It was natural for him to
expect that some good would come of it, and no doubt it contributed to
the happy result; "for Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
and all the days of the elders which overlived Joshua, and which had
known all the works of the Lord that He had done for Israel." And yet
it was but a temporary barrier against a flood which seemed ever to be
gathering strength unseen, and preparing for another fierce discharge
of its disastrous waters.

At the least, this meeting secured for Joshua a peaceful sunset, and
enabled him to sing his "Nunc dimittis." The evil which he dreaded
most was not at work as the current of life ebbed away from him; it
was his great privilege to look round him and see his people faithful
to their Lord. It does not appear that Joshua had any very
comprehensive or far-reaching aims with reference to the moral
training and development of the people. His idea of religion seems to
have been, a very simple loyalty to Jehovah, in opposition to the
perversions of idolatry. It is not even very plain whether or not he
was much impressed by the capacity of true religion to pervade all the
relations and engagements of men, and brighten and purify the whole
life. We are too prone to ascribe all the virtues to the good men of
the Old Testament, forgetting that of many virtues there was only a
progressive development, and that it is not reasonable to look for
excellence beyond the measure of the age. Joshua was a soldier, a
soldier of the Old Testament, a splendid man for his day, but not
beyond his day. As a soldier, his business was to conquer his enemies,
and to be loyal to his heavenly Master. It did not lie to him to
enforce the numberless bearings which the spirit of trust in God might
have on all the interests of life--on the family, on books, on
agriculture and commerce, or on the development of the humanities, and
the courtesies of society. Other men were raised up from time to time,
many other men, with commission from God to devote their energies to
such matters.

It is quite possible that, under Joshua, religion did not appear in
very close relation to many things that are lovely and of good report.
A celebrated English writer (Matthew Arnold) has asked whether, if
Virgil or Shakespeare had sailed in the _Mayflower_ with the puritan
fathers, they would have found themselves in congenial society. The
question is not a fair one, for it supposes that men whose destiny was
to fight as for very life, and for what was dearer than life, were of
the same mould with others who could devote themselves in peaceful
leisure to the amenities of literature. Joshua had doubtless much of
the ruggedness of the early soldier, and it is not fair to blame him
for want of sweetness and light. Very probably it was from him that
Deborah drew somewhat of her scorn, and Jael, the wife of Heber, of
her rugged courage. The whole Book of Judges is penetrated by his
spirit. He was not the apostle of charity or gentleness. He had one
virtue, but it was the supreme virtue--he honoured God. Wherever God's
claims were involved, he could see nothing, listen to nothing, care
for nothing, but that He should obtain His due. Wherever God's claims
were acknowledged and fulfilled, things were essentially right, and
other interests would come right. For his absolute and supreme loyalty
to his Lord he is entitled to our highest reverence. This loyalty is a
rare virtue, in the sublime proportions in which it appeared in him.
When a man honours God in this way, he has something of the appearance
of a supernatural being, rising high above the fears and the
feebleness of poor humanity. He fills his fellows with a sort of awe.

Among the reformers, the puritans, and the covenanters such men were
often found. The best of them, indeed, were men of this type, and very
genuine men they were. They were not men whom the world loved; they
were too jealous of God's claims for that, and too severe on those who
refused them. And we have still the type of the fighting Christian.
But alas! it is a type subject to fearful degeneration. Loyalty to
human tradition is often substituted, unconsciously no doubt, for
loyalty to God. The sublime purity and nobility of the one passes into
the obstinacy, the self-righteousness, the self-assertion of the
other. When a man of the genuine type does appear, men are arrested,
astonished, as if by a supernatural apparition. The very rareness, the
eccentricity of the character, secures a respectful homage. And yet,
who can deny that it is the true representation of what every man
should be who says, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth"?

After a life of a hundred and ten years the hour comes when Joshua
must die. We have no record of the inner workings of his spirit, no
indication of his feelings in view of his sins, no hint as to the
source of his trust for forgiveness and acceptance. But we readily
think of him as the heir of the faith of his father Abraham, the heir
of the righteousness that is by faith, and as passing calmly into the
presence of his Judge, because, like Jacob, he has waited for His
salvation. He was well entitled to the highest honours that the nation
could bestow on his memory; for all owed to him their homes and their
rest. His name must ever be coupled with that of the greatest hero of
the nation: Moses led them out of the house of bondage; Joshua led
them into the house of rest. Sometimes, as we have already said, it
has been attempted to draw a sharp antithesis between Moses and
Joshua, the one as representing the law, and the other as representing
the gospel. The antithesis is more in word than in deed. Moses
represented both gospel and law, for he brought the people out of the
bondage of Egypt; he brought them to their marriage altar, and he
unfolded to the bride the law of her Divine husband's house. Joshua
conducted the bride to her home, and to the rest which she was to
enjoy there; but he was not less emphatic than Moses in insisting that
she must be an obedient wife, following the law of her husband. It
were difficult to say which of them was the more instructive type of
Christ, both in feeling and in act. The love of each for his people
was most intense, most self-denying; and neither of them, had he been
called on, would have hesitated to surrender his life for their sake.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is probably a mere incidental arrangement that the book concludes
with a record of the burial of Joseph, and of the death and burial of
Eleazar, the son of Aaron. In point of time, we can hardly suppose
that the burial of Joseph in the field of his father Jacob in Shechem
was delayed till after the death of Joshua. It would be a most
suitable transaction after the division of the country, and especially
after the territory that contained the field had been assigned to
Ephraim, Joseph's son. It would be like a great doxology--a Te Deum
celebration of the fulfilment of the promise in which, so many
centuries before, Joseph had so nobly shown his trust.

But why did not Joseph's bones find their resting-place in the
time-honoured cave of Macpelah? Why was he not laid side by side with
his father, who would doubtless have liked right well that his beloved
son should be laid at his side? We can only say in regard to Joseph as
in regard to Rachel, that the right of burial in that tomb seems to
have been limited to the wife who was recognised by law, and to the
son who inherited the Messianic promise. The other members of the
family must have their resting-place elsewhere; moreover, there was
this benefit in Joseph having his burial-place at Shechem, that it was
in the very centre of the country, and near the spot where the tribes
were to assemble for the great annual festivals. For many a generation
the tomb of Joseph would be a memorable witness to the people; by it
the patriarch, though dead, would continue to testify to the
faithfulness of God; while he would point the hopes of the godly
people still onward to the future, when the last clause of the promise
to Abraham would be emphatically fulfilled, and that Seed would come
forth among them in whom all the families of the earth would be
blessed.

Was there a reason for recording the death of Eleazar? Certainly there
was a fitness in placing together the record of the death of Joshua
and the death of Eleazar. For Joshua was the successor of Moses, and
Eleazar was the successor of Aaron. The simultaneous mention of the
death of both is a significant indication that the generation to which
they belonged had now passed away. A second age after the departure
from Egypt had now slipped into the silent past. It was a token that
the duties and responsibilities of life had now come to a new
generation, and a silent warning to them to remember how

    "Time like an ever-rolling stream
      Bears all its sons away;
    They fly forgotten, as a dream
      Dies at the opening day."

How short the life of a generation seems when we look back to these
distant days! How short the life of the individual when he realizes
that his journey is practically ended! How vain the expectation once
cherished of an indefinite future, when there would be ample time to
make up for all the neglects of earlier years! God give us all to know
the true meaning of that word, "the time is short," and "so teach us
to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom!"




CHAPTER XXXIII.

_JOSHUA'S WORK FOR ISRAEL._


It now only remains for us to take a retrospective view of the work of
Joshua, and indicate what he did for Israel and the mark he left on
the national history.

1. Joshua was a soldier--a believing soldier. He was the first of a
type that has furnished many remarkable specimens. Abraham had fought,
but he had fought as a quaker might be induced to fight, for he was
essentially a man of peace. Moses had superintended military
campaigns, but Moses was essentially a priest and a prophet. Joshua
was neither quaker, nor priest, nor prophet, but simply a soldier.
There were fighting men in abundance, no doubt, before the flood, but
so far as we know, not believing men. Joshua was the first of an order
that seems to many a moral paradox--a devoted servant of God, yet an
enthusiastic fighter. His mind ran naturally in the groove of military
work. To plan expeditions, to devise methods of attacking, scattering,
or annihilating opponents, came naturally to him. A military genius,
he entered _con amore_ into his work.

Yet along with this the fear of God continually controlled and guided
him. He would do nothing deliberately unless he was convinced that it
was the will of God. In all his work of slaughter, he believed
himself to be fulfilling the righteous purposes of Jehovah. His life
was habitually guided by regard to the unseen. He had no ambition but
to serve his God and to serve his country. He would have been content
with the plainest conditions of life, for his habits were simple and
his tastes natural. He believed that God was behind him, and the
belief made him fearless. His career of almost unbroken success
justified his faith.

There have been soldiers who were religious in spite of their being
soldiers--some of them in their secret hearts regretting the
distressing fortune that made the sword their weapon; but there have
also been men whose energy in religion and in fighting have supported
and strengthened each other. Such men, however, are usually found only
in times of great moral and spiritual struggle, when the brute force
of the world has been mustered in overwhelming mass to crush some
religious movement. They have an intense conviction that the movement
is of God, and as to the use of the sword, they cannot help
themselves; they have no choice, for the instinct of self-defence
compels them to draw it. Such are the warriors of the Apocalypse, the
soldiers of Armageddon; for though their battle is essentially
spiritual, it is presented to us in that military book under the
symbols of material warfare. Such were the Ziskas and Procopses of the
Bohemian reformation; the Gustavus Adolphuses of the Thirty Years'
War; the Cromwells of the Commonwealth, and the General Leslies of the
Covenant. Ruled supremely by the fear of God, and convinced of a
Divine call to their work, they have communed about it with Him as
closely and as truly as the missionary about his preaching or his
translating, or the philanthropist about his homes or his rescue
agencies. To God's great goodness it has ever been their habit to
ascribe their successes; and when an enterprise has failed, the causes
of failure have been sought for in the Divine displeasure. Nor in
their intercourse with their families and friends have they been
usually wanting in gentler graces, in affection, in generosity, or in
pity. All this must be freely admitted, even by those to whom war is
most obnoxious. It is quite consistent with the conviction that a
large proportion of wars has been utterly unjustifiable, and that in
ordinary circumstances the sword is no more to be regarded as the
right and proper weapon for settling the quarrels of nations than the
duel for settling the quarrels of individuals. And the best of
soldiers cannot but feel that fighting is at best a cruel necessity,
and that it will be a happy day for the world when men shall beat
their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks.

2. Being a soldier, Joshua confined himself in the main to the work of
a soldier. That work was to conquer the enemy and to divide the land.
To these two departments he limited himself, in subordination,
however, to his deep conviction that they were only means to an end,
and that that end would be utterly missed unless the people were
pervaded by loyalty to God and devotion to the mode of worship which
He had prescribed. No opportunity of impressing that consideration on
their minds was neglected. It lay at the root of all their prosperity;
and if Joshua had not pressed it on them by every available means, all
his work would have been like pouring water on sand or sowing seed
upon the rocks of the seashore.

Joshua was not called to ecclesiastical work, certainly not in the
sense of carrying out ecclesiastical details That department belonged
to the high priest and his brethren. While Moses lived, it had been
under him, because Moses was head of all departments. Neither did
Joshua take in hand the arrangement in detail of the civil department
of the commonwealth. That was mainly work for the elders and officers
appointed to regulate it. It is from the circumstance that Joshua
personally confined himself to his two great duties, that the book
which bears his name travels so little beyond these. Reading Joshua
alone, we might have the impression that very little attention was
paid to the ritual enacted in the books of Moses. We might suppose
that but little was done to carry out the provisions of the Torah, as
the law came to be called. But the inference would not be warranted,
for the plain reason that such things did not come within the sphere
of Joshua or the scope of the book which bears his name. We may make
what we can of incidental allusions, but we need not expect elaborate
descriptions. There are many things that it would have been highly
interesting for us to know regarding this period of the history of
Israel; but the book limits itself as Joshua limited himself. It is
not a full history of the times. It is not a chapter of universal
national annals. It is a history of the settlement, and of Joshua's
share in the settlement.

And the fact that it has this character is a testimony to its
authenticity. Had it been a work of much later date, it is not likely
that it would have been confined within such narrow limits. It would
in all likelihood have presented a much larger view of the state and
progress of the nation than the existing book does. The fact that it
is made to revolve so closely round Joshua seems to indicate that
Joshua's personality was still a great power; the remembrance of him
was bright and vivid when the book was written. Moreover, the lists of
names, many of which seem to have been the old Canaanite names, and to
have dropped out of the Hebrew history because the cities were not
actually taken from the Canaanites, and did not become Hebrew cities,
is another testimony to the contemporary date of the book, or of the
documents on which it is founded.

3. If we examine carefully Joshua's character as a soldier, or rather
as a strategist, we shall probably find that he had one defect. He
does not appear to have succeeded in making his conquests permanent.
What he gained one day was often won back by the enemy after a little
time. To read the account of what happened after the victory of Gibeon
and Bethhoron, one would infer that all the region south of Gibeon
fell completely into his hands. Yet by-and-by we find Hebron and
Jerusalem in possession of the enemy, while a hitherto unheard-of king
has come into view, Adonibezek, of Bezek, of whose people there were
slain, after the death of Joshua, ten thousand men (Judg. i. 4). With
regard to Hebron we read first that Joshua "fought against it and took
it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and
all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left
none remaining, but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were
therein" (Josh. x. 37). Yet not long after, when Caleb requested
Hebron for his inheritance, it was (as we have seen) on the very
ground that it was strongly held by the enemy: "if so be the Lord will
be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the Lord said"
(xiv. 12). Again, in the campaign against Jabin, King of Hazor, while
it is said that Hazor was utterly destroyed, it is also said that
Joshua did not destroy "the cities that stood on their mounds" (xi.
13, R.V.); accordingly we find that some time after, another Jabin was
at the head of a restored Hazor, and it was against him that the
expedition to which Barak was stimulated by the prophetess Deborah was
undertaken (Judg. iv. 2). Whether Joshua miscalculated the number and
resources of the Canaanites in the country; or whether he was unable
to divide his own forces so as to prevent the re-occupation and
restoration of places that had once been destroyed; or whether he
over-estimated the effects of his first victories and did not allow
enough for the determination of a conquered people to fight for their
homes and their altars to the last, we cannot determine; but certainly
the result was, that after being defeated and scattered at the first,
they rallied and gathered together, and presented a most formidable
problem to the tribes in their various settlements. There is no reason
for resorting to the explanation of our modern critics that we have
here traces of two writers, of whom the policy of the one was to
represent that Joshua was wholly victorious, and of the other that he
was very far from successful. The true view is, that his first
invasion, or run-over, as it may be called, was a complete success,
but that, through the rallying of his opponents, much of the ground
which he gained at the beginning was afterwards lost.

4. The great service of Joshua to his people (as we have already
remarked) was, that he gave them a settlement. He gave them--Rest.
Some, indeed, may be disposed to question whether that which Joshua
did give them was worthy of the name of rest. If the Canaanites were
still among them, disputing the possession of the country; if savage
Adonibezeks were still at large, whose victims bore in their
mutilated bodies the marks of their cruelty and barbarity; if the
power of the Philistines in the south, the Sidonians in the north, and
the Geshurites in the north-east was still unbroken, how could they be
said to have obtained rest?

The objection proceeds from inability to estimate the force of the
comparative degree. Joshua gave them rest in the sense that he gave
them homes of their own. There was no more need for the wandering life
which they had led in the wilderness. They had more compact and
comfortable habitations than the tents of the desert with their slim
coverings that could effectually shut out neither the cold of winter,
nor the heat of summer, nor the drenching rains. They had brighter
objects to look out on than the scanty and monotonous vegetation of
the wilderness. No doubt they had to defend their new homes, and in
order to do so they had to expel the Canaanites who were still
hovering about them. But still they were real homes; they were not
homes which they merely expected or hoped to get, but homes which they
had actually gotten. They were homes with the manifold attractions of
country life--the field, the well, the garden, the orchard, stocked
with vine, fig, and pomegranate; the olive grove, the rocky crag, and
the quiet glen. The sheep and the oxen might be seen browsing in
picturesque groups on the pasture grounds, as if they were part of the
family. It was an interest to watch the progress of vegetation, to
mark how the vine budded, and the lily sprang into beauty, to pluck
the first rose, or to divide the first ripe pomegranate. Life had a
new interest when on a bright spring morning the young man could thus
invite his bride:--

    "Rise up my love, my fair one, and come away.
    For, lo, the winter is past,
    The rain is over and gone;
    The flowers appear on the earth;
    The time of the singing of birds is come,
    And the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;
    The fig tree putteth forth her green figs,
    And the vines with the tender grape give a good smell."

This, as it were, was Joshua's gift to Israel, or rather God's gift
through Joshua. It was well fitted to kindle their gratitude, and
though not yet complete or perfectly secure, it was entitled to be
called "rest." For if there was still need of fighting to complete the
conquest, it was fighting under easy conditions. If they went out
under the influence of that faith of which Joshua had set them so
memorable an example, they were sure of protection and of victory.
Past experience had shown to demonstration that none of their enemies
could stand before them, and the future would be as the past had been.
God was still among them; if they called on Him, He would arise, their
enemies would be scattered, and they that hated Him would flee before
Him. Fidelity to Him would secure all the blessings that had been read
out at Mount Gerizim, and to which they had enthusiastically shouted,
Amen. The picture drawn by Moses before his death would be realized in
its brightest colours: "Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed
shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body,
and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase
of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket
and thy store. Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed
when thou goest out."

But here a very serious objection may be interposed. Is it
conceivable, it may be asked, that this serene satisfaction was
enjoyed by the Israelites when they had got their new homes only by
dispossessing the former owners; when all around them was stained by
the blood of the slain, and the shrieks and groans of their
predecessors were yet sounding in their ears? If these homes were not
haunted by the ghosts of their former owners, must not the hearts and
consciences of the new occupants have been haunted by recollections of
the scenes of horror which had been enacted there? is it possible that
they should have been in that tranquil and happy frame in which they
would really enjoy the sweetness of their new abodes?

The question is certainly a disturbing one, and any answer that may be
given to it must seem imperfect, just because we are incapable of
placing ourselves wholly in the circumstances of the children of
Israel.

We are incapable of entering into the callousness of the Oriental
heart in reference to the sufferings or the death of enemies.
Exceptions there no doubt were; but, as a rule, indifference to the
condition of enemies, whether in life or in death, was the prevalent
feeling.

Two parts of their nature were liable to be affected by the change
which put the Israelites in possession of the houses and fields of the
destroyed Canaanites--their consciences and their hearts.

With regard to their consciences the case was clear: "The earth is the
Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell
therein." God, as owner of the land of Canaan, had given it, some six
hundred years before, to Abraham and his seed. That gift had been
ratified by many solemnities, and belief in it had been kept alive in
the hearts of Abraham's descendants from generation to generation.
There had been no secret about it, and the Canaanites must have been
familiar with the tradition. Consequently, during all these centuries,
they had been but tenants at will. When, under the guidance of
Jehovah, Israel crossed the Red Sea and the army of Pharaoh was
drowned, a pang must have shot through the breasts of the Canaanites,
and the news must have come to them as a notice to quit. The echoes of
the Song of Moses reverberated through the whole region:--

    "The peoples have heard, they tremble:
    Pangs have taken hold of the inhabitants of Philistia.
    Then were the dukes of Edom amazed;
    The mighty men of Moab, trembling taketh hold of them:
    All the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away.
    Terror and dread falleth upon them;
    By the greatness of Thine arm they are as still as a stone;
    Till Thy people pass over, O Lord,
    Till the people pass over which Thou hast purchased.
    Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine
          inheritance
    The place, O Lord, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in,
    The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.
    The Lord shall reign for ever and ever."

It was well known, therefore, that, so far as Divine right went, the
children of Israel were entitled to the land. But even after that, the
Canaanites had a respite and enjoyed possession for forty years.
Besides, they had been judicially condemned on account of their sins;
and, moreover, when they first came into the country, they had
dispossessed the former inhabitants. At last, after long delay, the
hour of destiny arrived. When the Israelites took possession they felt
that they were only regaining their own. It was not they, but the
Canaanites, that were the intruders, and any feeling on the question
of right in the minds of the Israelites would rather be that of
indignation at having been kept out so long of what had been promised
to Abraham, than of squeamishness at dispossessing the Canaanites of
property which was not their own.

Still, one might suppose there remained scope for natural pity. But
this was not very active. We may gather something of the prevalent
feeling from the song of Deborah and the action of Jael. It was not an
age of humanity. The whole period of the Judges was indeed an "iron
age." Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, were men of the roughest fibre. Even
David's treatment of his Ammonite prisoners was revolting. All that
can be said for Israel is, that their treatment of enemies did not
reach that infamous pre-eminence of cruelty for which the Assyrians
and the Babylonians were notorious. But they had enough of the
prevailing callousness to enable them to enter without much discomfort
on the homes and possessions of their dispossessed foes. They had no
such sentimental reserve as to interfere with a lively gratitude to
Joshua as the man who had given them rest.

Probably, in looking back on those times, we fail to realize the
marvellous influence in the direction of all that is humane and loving
that came into our world, and began to operate in full force, with the
advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We forget how much darker
a world it _must_ have been before the true light entered, that
lighteth every man coming into the world. We forget what a gift God
gave to the world when Jesus entered it, bringing with Him the light
and love, the joy and peace, the hope and the holiness of heaven. We
forget that the coming of Jesus was the rising of the Sun of
Righteousness with healing in His wings. Coming among us as the
incarnation of Divine love, it was natural that He should correct the
prevailing practice in the treatment of enemies, and infuse a new
spirit of humanity. Even the Apostle who afterwards became the Apostle
of Love could manifest all the bitterness of the old spirit when he
suggested the calling down of fire from heaven to burn up the
Samaritan village that would not receive them. "Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy
men's lives, but to save them." Who does not feel the humane spirit of
Christianity to be one of its brightest gems, and one of its chief
contrasts with the imperfect economy that preceded it? It is when we
mark the inveteracy of the old spirit of hatred that we see how great
a change Christ has introduced. If it was the great distinction of
Christ's love that "while we were yet enemies, Christ died for us,"
His precept to us to love our enemies ought to meet with our readiest
obedience. Not without profound prophetic insight did the angel who
announced the birth of Jesus proclaim, "Glory to God in the highest,
on earth peace, good-will to men."

Alas! it is with much humiliation we must own that in practising this
humane spirit of her Lord the progress of the Church has been slow and
small. It seemed to be implied in the prophecies that Christianity
would end war; yet one of the most outstanding phenomena of the world
is, the so-called Christian nations of Europe armed to the teeth,
expending millions of treasure year by year on destructive armaments,
and withdrawing millions of soldiers from those pursuits which
increase wealth and comfort, to be supported by taxes wrung from the
sinews of the industrious, and to be ready, when called on, to scatter
destruction and death among the ranks of their enemies. Surely it is a
shame to the diplomacy of Europe that so little is done to arrest
this crying evil; that nation after nation goes on increasing its
armaments, and that the only credit a good statesman can gain is that
of retarding a collision, which, when it does occur, will be the
widest in its dimensions, and the vastest and most hideous in the
destruction it deals, that the world has ever seen! All honour to the
few earnest men who have tried to make arbitration a substitute for
war.

And surely it is no credit to the Christian Church that, when its
members are divided in opinion, there should be so much bitterness in
the spirit of its controversies. Grant that what excites men so keenly
is the fear that the truth of God being at stake, that which they deem
most sacred in itself, and most vital in its influence for good is
liable to suffer; hence they regard it a duty to rebuke sharply all
who are apparently prepared to betray it or compromise it. Is it not
apparent that if love is not mingled with the controversies of
Christians, it is vain to expect violence and war to cease among the
nations? More than this, if love is not more apparent among Christians
than has been common, we may well tremble for the cause itself. One of
the leaders of German unbelief is said to have remarked that he did
not think Christianity could be Divine, because he did not find the
people called Christians paying more heed than others to the command
of Jesus to love their enemies.

5. One other service of Joshua to the nation of Israel remains to be
noticed: he sought with all his heart that they should be a
God-governed people, a people that in every department of life should
be ruled by the endeavour to do God's will. He pressed this on them
with such earnestness, he commended it by his own example with such
sincerity, he brought his whole authority and influence to bear on it
with such momentum, that to a large extent he succeeded, though the
impression hardly survived himself. "The people served the Lord all
the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived
Joshua, who had seen all the great work of the Lord that He had
wrought for Israel." Joshua seemed always to be contending with an
idolatrous virus which poisoned the blood of the people, and could not
be eradicated. The only thing that seemed capable of crushing it was
the outstretched arm of Jehovah, showing itself in some terrible form.
While the effect of that display lasted the tendency to idolatry was
subdued, but not extirpated; and as soon as the impression of it was
spent, the evil broke out anew. It was hard to instil into them ruling
principles of conduct that would guide them in spite of outward
influences. As a rule, they were not like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
or like Moses who "endured as seeing Him who is invisible."
Individuals there were among them, like Caleb and Joshua himself, who
walked by faith; but the great mass of the nation were carnal, and
they exemplified the drift or tendency of that spirit--"The carnal
mind is enmity against God."

Still Joshua laboured to press the lesson--the great lesson of the
theocracy--Let God rule you; follow invariably His will. It is a rule
for nations, for churches, for individuals. The Hebrew theocracy has
passed away; but there is a sense in which every Christian nation
should be a modified theocracy. So far as God has given abiding rules
for the conduct of nations, every nation ought to regard them. If it
be a Divine principle that righteousness exalteth a nation; if it be a
Divine command to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; if it be a
Divine instruction to rulers to deliver the needy when he crieth, the
poor also and him that hath no helper, in these and in all such
matters nations ought to be divinely ruled. It is blasphemous to set
up rules of expediency above these eternal emanations of the Divine
will.

So, too, churches should be divinely ruled. There is but one Lord in
the Christian Church, He that is King of kings, and Lord of lords.
There may be many details in Church life which are left to the
discretion of its rulers, acting in accordance with the spirit of
Scripture; but no church should accept of any ruler whose will may set
aside the will of her Lord, nor allow any human authority to supersede
what He has ordained.

And for individuals the universal rule is: "Whatsoever ye do in word
or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God
and the Father by Him." Each true Christian heart is a theocracy--a
Christ-governed soul. Not ruled by external appliances nor by
mechanical rules, nor by the mere effort to follow a prescribed
example; but by the indwelling of Christ's Spirit, by a vital force
communicated from Himself. The spring of the Christian life is
here--"Not I, but Christ liveth in me." This is the source of all the
beautiful and fruitful Christian lives that ever have been, of all
that are, and of all that ever shall be.


THE END.


_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._

       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.

The carat character (^) indicates that the following letter is
superscripted (example: D^2).

Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained
except in obvious cases of typographical error.

Page 75: "who have never been required to work"--The transcriber has
added "been".

The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the
transcriber and is placed in the public domain.