# comment

text:
<p>Joshua passed from Lachish, and all Israel with him, to Eglon; and they encamped against it and fought against it- </p><p>The repeated references to Joshua and the people 'passing' from town to town (:29,31,34) are another of the many connections with Abraham when he first entered the land. For he too "passed through the land::. and the Canaanite was then in the land" (<a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a> s:w:). Israel were being taught that they were indeed the seed of Abraham, and were to have his faith. Circumstances are at times arranged in our lives, so that we too may perceive the similarities between ourselves and Biblical characters whose faith we are to follow.</p>


text:
<p>They took it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed all the souls who were in it that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish- </p><p>"On that day" contrasts with taking Lachish on the second day (:32). The idea is that there was no lengthy siege, but the cities fell almost immediately. If indeed literally all the inhabitants were slain (but see on :39), then the amount of blood shed was huge. This was genocide on a scale perhaps unequalled in Biblical history. Every few days the Israelites were personally slaying thousands of people. The psychological trauma on the murderers would have been huge. For they likely had no very advanced weapons capable of killing large numbers of people very easily. See on :33.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, to Hebron; and they fought against it- </p><p>Joshua took Hebron but Israel did not follow up his victory, and the local inhabitants returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back. See on :37. It's rather like the constant cycle of purges of idolatry throughout Israel's history. The victories of a few great individual reformers failed to touch the people. And that is perhaps the abiding tragedy of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>They took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword, with its king and all its cities, and all the souls who were in it. He left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but he utterly destroyed it, and all the souls who were in it- </p><p>I suggest on :39 that "none remaining" may not be literally true. For Hebron was soon in Canaanite hands again (<a href='B:60 15:39'>Jos 15:39</a>) and was again in Samson's time. The victories of Joshua were simply not followed up by Israel, and this becomes the tragedy of how the victory of the Lord Jesus is also not followed up by us as it should be.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir, and fought against it- </p><p>Again, as lamented on :37, Joshua's victory against Debir wasn't followed up by God's people; for we find the Canaanites again living there soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 11:21'>Jos 11:21</a>; <a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). Israel were too easily satisfied with a parcel of land to call their own; and that is the danger in modern society too. All wider vision of God's Kingdom and the potential possible is subsumed beneath the mire of mediocrity.</p>


text:
<p>He took it, with its king and all its towns. They struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls who were in it. He left none remaining. As he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and to its king; as he had done also to Libnah and to its king- </p><p>"He left none remaining" may not mean that literally everyone was killed. For the phrase is used by Jeremiah of how "none escaped nor remained" in Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:310 2:22'>Lam 2:22</a>). And yet clearly some did (see on :35). There was in fact a 'remnant' which remained although in a broader sense 'none remained':. This would explain why there were still Canaanites who remained after Joshua's campaigns, and who grew up again to be thorns in Israel's side, especially in the period of the Judges.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua struck all the land, the hill country, the South, the lowland, the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh the God of Israel commanded- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua struck them from Kadesh Barnea even to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon- </p><p>This marks the extent of the conquered territory; from Gibeon on the east to Gaza / Goshen in the south west, on the border of Egypt; to Kadesh Barnea in the south east. It would have been strange for Joshua to return to Kadesh Barnea, from where he had been sent out as a spy 40 years previously. "Goshen" could be the town in Judah of <a href='B:60 15:51'>Jos 15:51</a>, but "the country of Goshen" could also refer to the area where the Israelites had lived in Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, fought for Israel-</p><p>See on :12. The comment that so much was achieved "at one time" may hint at a compression of time to enable it. The reference appears to be to the effects of this one day, rather than a general statement. For overall, God did not give Israel the land "at one time" in the sense of an extended period, but rather drove the nations out relatively slowly (<a href='B:50 7:22'>Deu 7:22</a>). Or perhaps God's ideal intention for Israel wasn't fulfilled, and therefore according to some later plan of action, He gave Israel the land "at one time" (<a href='B:60 10:42'>Jos 10:42</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal-</p><p>This repeats :15; see note there for why this is.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when Jabin king of Hazor heard of it, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon, to the king of Shimron, to the king of Achshaph-</p><p>"Jabin" was the generic name for kings of Hazor, like "Pharaoh". The title means "the wise", and we recall Paul's description of how the wise of this world shall fall before the Lord Jesus. After the summary of the southern campaign in <a href='B:60 10:41'>Jos 10:41</a>, we now read of the northern territories. Hazor was in Galilee, Madon is LXX Maron near mount Lebanon, Achshaph is near Tyre .</p>


text:
<p>and to the kings who were on the north, in the hill country, in the Arabah south of Chinneroth, in the lowland, and in the heights of Dor on the west- </p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the whole nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite and the Jebusite in the hill country, and the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpah- </p><p>There were four places called Mizpah in the Bible. This Mizpah is in northern Israel, and is not the Mizpah in Judah (<a href='B:60 15:38'>Jos 15:38</a>) nor that in Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:26'>Jos 18:26</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They went out, they and all their armies with them, many people, even as the sand that is on the seashore in multitude, with very many horses and chariots- </p><p>They are presented as a fake seed of Abraham, as the sand on the seashore. It is this fake seed of Abraham which will likewise engage with the true seed of Abraham in the battle for the land in the last days. This victory of Joshua was to be an encouragement for those of later times likewise surrounded by armies like the sand of the sea (<a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>). This is the purpose and power of Biblical history- to inspire later readers or hearers.</p>


text:
<p>All these kings met together; and they came and encamped together at the waters of Merom, to fight with Israel- </p><p>Horses and chariots were mentioned in :4 for the first time. They gathered at the flat land around Merom (now known as the Huleh lakes) as this was where the chariots could best operate.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Joshua, Don’t be afraid because of them; for tomorrow at this time, I will deliver them up all slain before Israel. You shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots with fire- </p><p>It had taken two days to take Lachish, so this victory over such a huge force within 24 hours::. could only be due to direct Divine engagement with the enemy. We note that the idea of "tomorrow at this time" meant that Joshua was already on the march toward this formidable foe. He had gone forward in faith, and God now confirms him in it, after he has started off on the journey. The "iron chariots" of <a href='B:60 17:18'>Jos 17:18</a> could be burned with fire (<a href='B:60 11:6'>Jos 11:6</a>) because they were wooden but with iron wheels.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua and all the people of war with him suddenly came against them by the waters of Merom, and fell on them- </p><p>The element of surprise attack was used by Joshua. He uses human military strategy, unlike the taking of Jericho which was achieved purely by God's tactics, which made no sense in the eyes of the world. For they gave the defenders full notice of their presence and intentions, walked six times around the perimeter of the city in one day before attacking when therefore tired. And the men had just been circumcised and were weak from that, and the manna had just stopped so they had food supply issues. But that weakness was required for God's strength to be made manifest. But after the failure of Achan, God as it were compromised with Israel's weakness, and gave them battle strategies and tactics which were wise in secular terms. He does likewise with us, in accordance with our faith.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Israel, and they struck them and chased them to great Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim and to the valley of Mizpeh eastward. They struck them until they left them none remaining- </p><p>"He left none remaining" may not mean that literally everyone was killed. For the phrase is used by Jeremiah of how "none escaped nor remained" in Jerusalem as a result of the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:310 2:22'>Lam 2:22</a>). And yet clearly some did. There was in fact a 'remnant' which remained although in a broader sense 'none remained':. This would explain why there were still Canaanites who remained after Joshua's campaigns, and who grew up again to be thorns in Israel's side, especially in the period of the Judges.</p><p>The chasing of the enemy was done in an organized way; to the north west (Sidon), south west (Misrephoth) and east (Mizpeh). As noted on :7, strategy was being used, under God's control. Misrephoth Maim means “the salt-pits" and again we see the similarities with Abraham's earlier conquest of the land (<a href='B:10 14:10'>Gen 14:10</a>). The people, as Abraham's seed, were being encouraged to walk in the steps of faith of Abraham, just as we are. Awareness of Abraham's life is therefore of especial importance to all today who are baptized and thereby become his seed.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua did to them as Yahweh told him. He hamstrung their horses and burnt their chariots with fire- </p><p>This was quite an act of faith, because such military technology was much sought after and considered invincible. The king of Israel had been commanded to not have horses and chariots by the law of Moses (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>), and Joshua is being treated as the effective king of Israel on God's behalf. This lesson was learned by David in his earlier life (<a href='B:230 20:7'>Psa 20:7</a>), but totally not learned by his son Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor, and struck its king with the sword: for Hazor used to be the head of all those kingdoms- </p><p>He turned back from the pursuit in order to deal with Hazor. He saw it as particularly significant, because he didn't burn the other cities (:13).</p>


text:
<p>They struck all the souls who were in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them. There was no one left who breathed. He burnt Hazor with fire-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>. By <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a> there was a powerful Canaanite king there, about 130 years after the death of Joshua. Again Israel did not follow up his victory. It's rather like the constant cycle of purges of idolatry throughout Israel's history. The victories of a few great individual reformers failed to touch the people. And that is perhaps the abiding tragedy of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua captured all the cities of those kings, with their kings, and he struck them with the edge of the sword and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded- </p><p>Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only; Joshua burned that one- </p><p>The comment of <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> is that the Israelites lived in such cities, in houses which they had not built. We wonder whether they simply picked up the idols they found there and began worshipping them.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel took all the spoil of these cities, with the livestock, as spoils for themselves; but every man they struck with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. They didn’t leave any who breathed-</p><p>God told Israel to totally destroy the spoil from the cities they attacked. But when they failed to do this with Jericho, God told them that with Ai, the next city on the agenda, they were allowed to keep the spoil (<a href='B:60 8:2'>Jos 8:2</a>); even though <a href='B:50 20:14-16'>Deu 20:14-16</a> said that this was how they should treat their distant enemies, but not cities like Ai which were part of their inheritance. This was an undoubted concession to human&nbsp; weakness. The same concession to human weakness applied to other cities apart from Ai; it became a general policy that "all the spoil of these cities::. the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves"; and yet following straight on from this we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses" (<a href='B:60 11:14-15'>Jos 11:14-15</a>). God accepted those concessions to human weakness, this living on a lower level, as total obedience. The grace of all this is marvellous.</p>


text:
<p>As Yahweh had commanded Moses His servant, so Moses had commanded Joshua. Joshua did so. He left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses-</p><p>See on <a href='B:60 8:5'>Jos 8:5</a>; <a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a>. The ‘likeness’ between Moses and the prophet like unto him was in that the prophet would also speak God’s words in a similar way. <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a> therefore significantly comments: “As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses”:&nbsp; Joshua was a potential Messiah, although his native fearfulness seems to have meant he didn't fulfil the role as he could have done.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua captured all that land, the hill country, all the South, all the land of Goshen, the lowland, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel, and the lowland of the same- </p><p>We have here a summary, effectively stating that Joshua took all Canaan, and then in :18 we have the comment as to how this was achieved- by making war "a long time" with them.</p>


text:
<p>from Mount Halak that goes up to Seir, even to Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon under Mount Hermon. He took all their kings, struck them and put them to death- </p><p>"Baal Gad" suggests that Baal was worshipped through the worship of Gad, another god (<a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>). Baal, we thereby learn, was worshipped through the worship of other gods. And this was exactly Israel's problem; they justified the worship of Baal by saying that it was a form of Yahweh worship. In various forms, this has been the abiding temptation for God's people of all ages. To worship their own idols in the name of worshipping Yahweh, to mix the flesh and the spirit, to mix paganism with true worship.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua made war a long time with all those kings-</p><p>Perhaps five to seven years (<a href='B:60 14:7'>Jos 14:7</a>; <a href='B:60 14:10'>Jos 14:10</a>). Joshua was there saying that at the point of <a href='B:60 14:10'>Jos 14:10</a>, he has been subduing Canaan for a period of five to seven years [if we include parts of years as a year, as was the Hebrew style of reckoning, or if we consider the wilderness journeys to have been 38 and not 40 years].</p>


text:
<p>There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took all in battle- </p><p>This could imply that after what happened with the Hivites, there was the opportunity to make peace with Israel, by entering covenant with Yahweh. The destruction of the Canaanites was therefore because they had refused to accept this, and they are therefore the more culpable for it. I suggest on :21 that even Jericho had the opportunity to surrender and accept Israel's God as Rahab had done.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh hardened their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, that they might have no favour, but that He might destroy them, as Yahweh had commanded Moses- </p><p>There are a number of passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (Dt:os_11:20; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel: Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities- </p><p>"Utterly destroyed" is the word used for destruction or devotion to Yahweh. It seems that all the Canaanites had the opportunity for repentance. The trumpet blasts were to be understood by the people of Jericho as a call to repentance, which they ignored (<a href='B:370 3:6'>Amo 3:6</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>). This would then explain why the cities were devoted to Yahweh in destruction, which was the punishment for a city which turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:50 13:12-14'>Deu 13:12-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There were none of the Anakim left in the land of the children of Israel. Only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did some remain- </p><p>Samson went to Gaza conscious that his people had failed to drive out the tribes (<a href='B:60 11:22'>Jos 11:22</a>). Judah had captured it in Joshua's strength (<a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a>), but had let the Philistines return. So Samson chose Gaza from spiritual motives; and yet he schemed out his plan to enable him to gratify his flesh.</p><p>We see here how absolute terms are used, "none of the Anakim::.", when in fact this was not literally the case. This is a feature of Semitic writing. Thus "all" Jerusalem were baptized by John the Baptist, but not literally all of them.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua took the whole land- </p><p>However, the land was not taken up to the Euphrates. Clearly God had recalculated the possibilities of Israel, and focused instead on giving them the land between the Jordan and Mediterranean, with a little bit to the east of Jordan. Although it seems even that was not His intention. He recalculated "the river" as not Euphrates, but Jordan. He saw how weak they were. And He does likewise with us in our weakness, recalculating at times what He expects from us, bearing in mind our weakness in not rising up to our potentials.</p><p>According to all that Yahweh spoke to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes-</p><p>But according to <a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>, much land was still not possessed; does 11:23 therefore imply that the land had been possessed only in the perceptions of Israel? How responsible was Joshua for this? Or perhaps we are to see a difference between the fact Joshua "took" the land, and the way that Israel failed to "possess" it. This looks ahead to the way the Lord Jesus "took" the Kingdom for us, but so many fail to possess it.</p><p>The land had rest from war-</p><p>There is a strong Biblical connection between the land and people of Israel (e:g. "the land rested from war", <a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>, means the people did). The utter moral defilement of the people may therefore be physically expressed in the&nbsp;state of the land. Thus Ezekiel's descriptions of a fertile and prosperous land are in the context of this being the outcome of a spiritual revival of Israel. The 'blossoming' of Israel's land since 1948 is not, therefore, a fulfilment of such prophecies (unless there has been an unperceived repentance of a minority).</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the kings of the land whom the children of Israel struck, and possessed their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, and all the Arabah eastward-</p><p>These "Kings of the land" form the basis for the 'kings of the earth' [same Hebrew phrase] of later Biblical prophecy. The reference is to the Canaanite rulers, those who rule in the land promised to Abraham, who are in conflict with Israel- rather than to literally every king of the planet. uses upon. “The LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country” (<a href='B:60 6:27'>Jos 6:27</a>), the eretz. Clearly the whole planet didn’t know Joshua had invaded Canaan. Many times in Joshua and Judges we read of the people of the eretz: “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land [eretz] shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth [eretz]” (<a href='B:60 7:9'>Jos 7:9</a>). Here the Israelites feared being cut off from their place in the land. They perceived the world / earth to them as the land where their enemies lived. In <a href='B:60 12:1'>Jos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:60 12:7'>Jos 12:7</a> we meet “the kings of the earth”, i:e. of the land, and this must surely be the basis of how we are to understand the references to “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. <a href='B:50 13:7'>Deu 13:7</a> defines “the peoples which are round about you” [Israel] as being “from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” (RV). Those peoples which bordered with the Israelites were “the earth” / eretz.</p>


text:
<p>Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the middle of the valley, and half Gilead, even to the river Jabbok, the border of the children of Ammon-</p><p>The chapter describes the conquest of two kings (Sihon and Og) to the east of Jordan, and 31 to the West (12:24), making a total of 33 victories against the kings of Canaan- perhaps looking forward to the 33 years of Christ's life in which He overcame every potential obstacle to our inheriting the Kingdom. Their territory is mentioned in such detail in 12:2-5 because the victory against the King of the area meant that Israel were to now go and possess his territory- but they failed to do so fully.</p>


text:
<p>and the Arabah to the sea of Chinneroth, eastward, and to the sea of the Arabah, even the Salt Sea, eastward, the way to Beth Jeshimoth; and on the south, under the slopes of Pisgah- </p><p>This describes the east side of the Jordan valley. Beth Jeshimoth was where they had encamped in the wilderness (<a href='B:40 33:49'>Num 33:49</a>). Some of the places they had known in their wilderness journeys (cp. our life now after baptism, which is like crossing the Red Sea, <a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a>) were revisited and taken by Joshua (<a href='B:60 12:3'>Jos 12:3</a>), and incorporated into God's Kingdom. Perhaps situations and places we know in this life will then become eternally ours when we possess them in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>and the border of Og king of Bashan, of the remnant of the Rephaim, who lived at Ashtaroth and at Edrei- </p><p>Ashtaroth was the capital of Og. We have another example of what was noted on :3. As noted in <a href='B:40 21:33'>Num 21:33</a>; <a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a>; <a href='B:50 3:10'>Deu 3:10</a>, some of the places they had known in their wilderness journeys (cp. our life now after baptism, which is like crossing the Red Sea, <a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a>) were revisited and taken by Joshua (<a href='B:60 12:4'>Jos 12:4</a>), and incorporated into God's Kingdom. Perhaps situations and places we know in this life will then become eternally ours when we possess them in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>and ruled in Mount Hermon, and in Salecah, and in all Bashan, to the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and half Gilead, the border of Sihon king of Heshbon- </p><p>Geshur was still under local control at the time of David (<a href='B:100 13:37'>2Sa 13:37</a>). And the other areas listed here also remained the long term homeland of the Moabites and Ammonites. The amazing victories of Joshua personally were simply not possessed or made good by the Israelites, and this was their undoing. It all speaks of the failure of probably trillions of human beings in not making good on the personal conquests and achievements of the Lord Jesus. This wasted potential is one of the most tragic features of human spiritual experience since the Lord's death. He as it were bound the strong man, and we His people are to take the spoils. But most haven't done so:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Moses the servant of Yahweh and the children of Israel struck them. Moses the servant of Yahweh gave it for a possession to the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>These are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the children of Israel struck beyond the Jordan westward, from Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon even to Mount Halak that goes up to Seir-</p><p>Note the parallel between Joshua and his people: "Joshua and the children of Israel struck". It looks forward in type to the victory of Jesus against all those obstacles which stand between us and possession of the Kingdom. Cities, confederacies, giants, military power::. all these things crumbled before Joshua-Jesus. But tragically, despite all these victories, Israel did not make good on them, and did not possess what Joshua had enabled them to through his victories.</p><p><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a> speaks of our having received a guarantee of the "inheritance::. of the purchased possession", language which is very much taken from these records of the conquest and possession of Canaan as Israel's inheritance (see too <a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a> "the inheritance of the saints in light", "you shall receive the reward of the inheritance", <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>). The Abrahamic promises of possessing the gate of Israel's enemies had an initial fulfilment in these conquests of Joshua, just as in a sense we have in Christ already "obtained an inheritance" (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>), by turning to Christ we "receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith" (<a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>), "an inheritance among all them that are sanctified" (<a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>). Note that the inheritance is 'among' other believers, just as Israel received an 'inheritance among' their brethren (<a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a>; <a href='B:40 27:7'>Num 27:7</a>; <a href='B:40 33:54'>Num 33:54</a>; <a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:3'>Jos 14:3</a>; <a href='B:60 16:9'>Jos 16:9</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 17:6'>Jos 17:6</a>; <a href='B:60 19:49'>Jos 19:49</a> etc:). This emphasis upon 'inheritance among' our brethren shows that the experience of salvation is not a totally personal matter. Salvation is collective, the body of Christ has been saved, and our salvation is by reason of being amongst that body. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> Gk. speaks of our perpetual ['that fades not away'] inheritance being given to us at Christ's return, although it is now 'reserved in Heaven' for us (note too <a href='B:650 9:15'>Heb 9:15</a> "the promise of eternal inheritance"). All this is the language of <a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a> and the Abrahamic covenant.</p><p>Joshua gave it to the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions-</p><p>Each tribe was divided into divisions, and each division was given a specific land inheritance within the tribal area. But it would seem they generally did not inherit as God intended. Hence <a href='B:330 48:29'>Eze 48:29</a> uses the same Hebrew words to describe how in the intended establishment of the Kingdom after the return from exile, the land would be "divided by lot unto the tribes of Israel for inheritance, and these are their portions [s:w. 'divisions']". This is how God works- His word comes true, even if His people fail to fulfil His intentions in one generation. His people in Ezekiel's time also failed, and so in essence the intention will still come true in that each of the new Israel will receive a specific, personal inheritance in God's Kingdom. That specific inheritance is analogous to the specific land inheritances intended for each division of Israel's tribes, but in reality the inheritance is redefined in the New Testament [see above] in terms of forgiveness, sanctification etc. This is not to say that we shall not inherit the earth, and specific parts of it [five cities, two cities, in terms of the Lord's parable], but the essence of inheritance is far more than mere land.</p>


text:
<p>in the mountains, and in the lowland, and in the Arabah, and in the slopes, and in the wilderness, and in the South; the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite- </p><p>The idea is that Joshua secured all the land, of whatever terrain and difficulty, and all the tribes which had been there. That he secured the "mountains" is significant, because it was here to where the local population retreated, and the Israelites allowed them to remain there. They didn't follow up the victories of Joshua, just as we fail to capitalize on those of the Lord Jesus. Seven nations were to be destroyed (<a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a>), but <a href='B:60 12:8'>Jos 12:8</a> lists six as having been defeated. The Girgashites are omitted from the list there. So it seems that only the Girgashites were completely destroyed as was potentially possible. The remaining six were defeated by Joshua, but remained in the land, to be thorns in the flesh for Israel.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one-</p><p>These kings are listed in the order in which they were defeated: Jericho first (<a href='B:60 6:1'>Jos 6:1</a>) then Ai (<a href='B:60 7:2'>Jos 7:2</a>) etc. There is archeological evidence for the destruction of Jericho and Ai at this time, but not for the rest of the cities mentioned here. This was surely because Israel didn't follow up on the victories Joshua won in battle against their kings. The territory described in this chapter 12, which is a summary of Joshua's campaigns, excludes the territory of the Arameans, Moab, Amalek and Philistia, which were still part of the land promised to Abraham. God as it were reduced the territory He gave to His people because He knew they couldn't cope with it all, and that those nations were too strong for Israel. But still, they failed to inherit all the land, as Judges makes clear. Just as God makes concessions to our weaknesses, giving us what He knows we can conquer, even though we have failed to live up to our maximum potential.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one- </p><p>But Jerusalem was firmly in the hands of the Jebusites by the time of Saul and David. In some areas, the Israelites followed up on Joshua's conquest, e:g. Hebron; but in others, like Jerusalem, they didn't.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one- </p><p>"Jarmuth" is 'elevated place'. This is significant, because it was to the uplands to where the local population retreated, and the Israelites allowed them to remain there. They didn't follow up the victories of Joshua, just as we fail to capitalize on those of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one- </p><p>"Eglon" is literally 'the place of the calf', and the same word is used of Jeroboam's golden calves (<a href='B:110 12:28'>1Ki 12:28</a>). Clearly he was mixing Yahweh worship with that of the local paganism which had never been totally eradicated. And this is the abiding temptation for God's people. To worship their own idols in the name of worshipping Yahweh, to mix the flesh and the spirit, to mix paganism with true worship.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one- </p><p>"Geder" is LXX "Gerar", again associating the conquest of the land with the earliest presence of the patriarchs there.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one- </p><p>Zephath ['watchtower'] was renamed Hormah ["devoted"] (<a href='B:70 1:17'>Jdg 1:17</a>):&nbsp; They were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>). What was taken from the world was devoted to Yahweh by the faithful Israelites involved in this area. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one- </p><p>Adullam was overlooking the valley of Elah, which was in Philistine hands by the time of Saul (<a href='B:90 17:19'>1Sa 17:19</a>). The history of these towns is a sad testimony to Israel's failure to make good on Joshua's victory.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one- </p><p>Bethel reminds us again of the early days of the patriarchs in the land of promise (<a href='B:10 28:19'>Gen 28:19</a>); Israel were being bidden follow in their footsteps.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one- </p><p>"Hepher", 'place of shame', was likely renamed that after being conquered by faithful Israelites, who perceived the Biblical connection between "shame" and idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lassharon, one-</p><p>"Aphek" means 'strong fortress' . The conquests of Joshua look ahead to the conquest of the Lord Jesus over all things which are humanly high and strong (<a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>the king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one- </p><p>One reason we have this list of towns and kings conquered by Joshua might be that his conquest of the land was typical of that to be achieved by the Lord Jesus in the last days. And perhaps then, these places shall have significance. For Jerusalem is to fall and Israel overrun, however briefly, by her enemies- and then reconquered by the return of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Shimron Meron, one; the king of Achshaph, one-</p><p>We naturally enquire why so much detail is given of towns which are sometimes hard to locate. Perhaps it was to encourage Israel to make good on the victories of Joshua, and to remind them for all time that these towns had indeed been overcome, and they could do likewise in later times.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one-</p><p>The victories by Joshua only opened up potentials, because by <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a> this was back in Canaanite hands. Israel let the ball drop. As have the body of Christ in many aspects of His victories.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one-</p><p>A number of these towns like Kedesh were Levitical cities and some were cities of refuge, perhaps this explains why their conquest is mentioned here.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Dor in the height of Dor, one; the king of Goiim in Gilgal, one-</p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; Jd3 13:1; 16:10; 18:3; 23:4). The lang_5:19). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>the king of Tirzah, one: all the kings thirty-one.</p><p>Tirzah became the early capital of Jeroboam and the ten tribes.</p>


text:
<p>Now Joshua was old and well advanced in years. Yahweh said to him, You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed- </p><p>We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p><p>The first half of Joshua describes his conquest of the land, and chapters 13-24 the division of the land amongst God's people.</p>


text:
<p>This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites- </p><p>These areas had had their kings slain by Joshua, but Israel had failed to possess the territory; see on :1. The Hebrew for "remains" is literally 'to swell up', and the idea may be that despite Joshua's victories, the local population in these areas had swollen up strongly again.</p>


text:
<p>from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even to the border of Ekron northward, which is counted as Canaanite; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim- </p><p>"Sihor", 'black stream', is a name for the Nile or the "brook of Egypt" which formed the southern border of the land promised to Abraham. But there is no mention of the Euphrates, which was to form the eastern border of that territory. Clearly God had recalculated the possibilities of Israel, and focused instead on giving them the land between the Jordan and Mediterranean, with a little bit to the east of Jordan. Although it seems even that was not His intention. He recalculated "the river" as not Euphrates, but Jordan. He saw how weak they were. And He does likewise with us in our weakness, recalculating at times what He expects from us, bearing in mind our weakness in not rising up to our potentials.</p>


text:
<p>on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites- </p><p>"On the south" is LXX "from Teman". Aphek is modern Afka, near Beirut in Lebanon, on the far northern border of Israel. This was a huge swathe of land which had not been possessed.</p>


text:
<p>and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath- </p><p>The land of the Gebalites was around Tyre in the far north (<a href='B:330 27:8-9'>Eze 27:8-9</a>). "Baal Gad" suggests that Baal was worshipped through the worship of Gad, another god (<a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>). Baal, we thereby learn, was worshipped through the worship of other gods. And this was exactly Israel's problem; they justified the worship of Baal by saying that it was a form of Yahweh worship. In various forms, this has been the abiding temptation for God's people of all ages. To worship their own idols in the name of worshipping Yahweh, to mix the flesh and the spirit, to mix paganism with true worship.</p>


text:
<p>all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allocate it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you- </p><p>Misrephoth Maim means “the salt-pits" and again we see the similarities with Abraham's earlier conquest of the land (<a href='B:10 14:10'>Gen 14:10</a>). The people, as Abraham's seed, were being encouraged to walk in the steps of faith of Abraham, just as we are. Awareness of Abraham's life is therefore of especial importance to all today who are baptized and thereby become his seed.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>It has been pointed out that there is no such surviving detailed geographical description of any contemporary nation. This reflects the extreme importance of the land of Israel to God. For it was and is to be His Kingdom, and has a special significance to Him.</p>


text:
<p>With him the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance which Moses had given them beyond the Jordan eastward, even as Moses the servant of Yahweh gave them:</p><p>The boundaries of Gad appear to in practice encroach upon that given to Manasseh (<a href='B:130 5:11'>1Ch 5:11</a> cp. <a href='B:60 13:8'>Jos 13:8</a>; <a href='B:60 13:7'>Jos 13:7</a>; <a href='B:60 13:11'>Jos 13:11</a>; <a href='B:60 13:25'>Jos 13:25</a>; <a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a>; <a href='B:50 3:10-13'>Deu 3:10-13</a>). But the tribe of Manasseh had extended their borders northward (<a href='B:130 5:23'>1Ch 5:23</a>). The territory was given to Israel as their intended inheritance in the Kingdom of God; but God was open to some flexibility about this. We think of Caleb and Othniel asking for territory as an inheritance. And so it is with our dialogue with God's and His eternal intentions for us.</p>


text:
<p>from Aroer, that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain of Medeba to Dibon- </p><p>The earlier victories in these areas (<a href='B:40 21:30'>Num 21:30</a>; <a href='B:40 32:3'>Num 32:3</a>; <a href='B:40 32:34'>Num 32:34</a>) had simply not been built upon. The land had soon reverted to the local population, just as the reforms of the kings of Judah so quickly were undone. And just as some of our apparent spiritual victories can be revealed in time as the building of the man who built on sand, with only apparently, surface level progress. The city in the middle of the valley was Ar of Moab.</p>


text:
<p>and all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites who reigned in Heshbon, to the border of the children of Ammon-</p><p>It is often not appreciated that the extent of the area given to the two and a half tribes on the east of Jordan, as defined in <a href='B:60 13:10-12'>Jos 13:10-12</a>, was roughly the same as the entire territory given to the nine and a half tribes on the west of Jordan. The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants (see on <a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a>)- which they probably didn't realize at the time.</p>


text:
<p>and Gilead, and the border of the Geshurites and Maacathites, and all Mount Hermon, and all Bashan to Salecah- </p><p>This was a huge area; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (the same was left of the remnant of the Rephaim); for Moses attacked these, and drove them out- </p><p>"Drove out" here and in :13 is s:w. "possessed" in :1; see note on :1. This was a huge area; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless the children of Israel didn’t drive out the Geshurites nor the Maacathites: but Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Only He gave no inheritance to the tribe of Levi. The sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel made by fire are his inheritance, as He spoke to him- </p><p>The Levites had no material inheritance because "the sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel::. are his inheritance::. Yahweh God of Israel was their inheritance" (<a href='B:60 13:14'>Jos 13:14</a>; <a href='B:60 13:33'>Jos 13:33</a>; <a href='B:40 18:20'>Num 18:20</a>; <a href='B:50 10:9'>Deu 10:9</a>; <a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a>). Notice how "Yahweh" is put for what is sacrificed to Him. His very existence is an imperative to sacrifice to Him, despising all material advantage in doing so. Job comments that to make gold our hope and wealth our confidence is to deny “the God that is above” (<a href='B:220 31:24'>Job 31:24</a>; <a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a>). To trust in material wealth is effectively to proclaim ourselves atheists. We are described as the new priesthood (<a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>), so all that was true for the Levites becomes true for us. We are not to seek material inheritance. God will provide for us in ways other than our possessing land and leaving an inheritance to our children. The wonder of serving Him is to more than compensate for this.</p>


text:
<p>Moses gave to the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their families- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was from Aroer that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain by Medeba- </p><p>The city in the middle of the valley was Ar of Moab.</p>


text:
<p>Heshbon, and all its cities that are in the plain; Dibon, Bamoth Baal, Beth Baal Meon- </p><p>"Bamoth Baal" is 'the high places of Baal', and we note how often the term "Baal" occurs in the place names. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>Jahaz, Kedemoth, Mephaath-</p><p>Kedemoth was given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:37'>Jos 21:37</a>) but was in fact a town which had not been captured from the local population (<a href='B:60 13:18'>Jos 13:18</a>). They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Kiriathaim, Sibmah, Zereth Shahar in the mount of the valley-</p><p>Zereth Shahar is “the Splendour of the Dawn / sun”, surely another name connected with idolatry. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>Beth Peor, the slopes of Pisgah, Beth Jeshimoth- </p><p><a href='B:60 12:8'>Jos 12:8</a> says that all the slopes were secured by Joshua, but the study of these names indicates that what he won in victory was simply not possessed by Israel. This unwillingness to possess what we have been potentially given by the Lord Jesus::. is the greatest tragedy in spiritual life. Every addiction and weakness which might stop a man inheriting the Kingdom has been overcome. It needs to be possessed and lived in, rather than left as a mere on paper victory.</p><p>Beth Peor was where Israel had been on their wilderness journeys (<a href='B:50 3:29'>Deu 3:29</a>), and it clearly had not been renamed. The name of the idol Peor remained; see on :17.</p>


text:
<p>all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses struck with the chiefs of Midian, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the princes of Sihon, who lived in the land-</p><p>The idea is “all the other cities of the table-land, and all the kingdom of Sihon, as far as it extended over the plain”.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel also killed Balaam the son of Beor the soothsayer with the sword, among the rest of their slain-</p><p>This Kedesh is called Kishon in <a href='B:60 21:28'>Jos 21:28</a>. We last hear of Balaam returning to Mesopotamia, but clearly coveting the wealth offered him if he succeeded in cursing Israel. We can deduce from this that Balaam returned to the Midianites, and advised that if they could make Israel sin by worshipping Baal-Peor, then Yahweh would curse them. And he was destroyed with the Gentiles whose presence he clearly preferred to that of God's people. Balaam was a prophet of Yahweh, and yet felt saddled with His truth when he instead preferred the way of the flesh. And so he came to his end and condemnation, and is set up in the New Testament as a warning to us.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the children of Reuben was the bank of the Jordan. This was the inheritance of the children of Reuben according to their families, the cities and its villages- </p><p>For "families", see on :15. According to <a href='B:30 25:31'>Lev 25:31</a>, "cities" referred to any walled settlement, and "villages" to unwalled settlements.</p>


text:
<p>Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, to the children of Gad, according to their families- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was Jazer and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, to Aroer that is before Rabbah- </p><p>The cities of Gilead had belonged to the kingdom of Sihon and were given to Gad; the northern part of Gilead was given to the half tribe of Manasseh. So we can note that different difficulties and struggles are given to different members of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>and from Heshbon to Ramath Mizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim to the border of Debir- </p><p>Ramath Mizpeh, where Jacob and Esau made their mound of stones, and Mahanaim (<a href='B:10 32:2'>Gen 32:2</a>) are rich in association with the patriarchs. In our lives too, we are constantly pointed back to the patriarchs as our spiritual fathers, and in essence our lives, as those of Israel at this time, repeat their experience. A study of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is one of the most relevant Old Testament studies for a Christian today.</p>


text:
<p>and in the valley, Beth Haram, Beth Nimrah, Succoth, and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, the Jordan’s bank, to the uttermost part of the sea of Chinnereth beyond the Jordan eastward- </p><p>"The valley" refers to the Jordan river valley. The Sea of Chinnereth is the sea of Galilee. Succoth features in the account of Jacob; see on :26.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the children of Gad according to their families, the cities and villages- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Moses gave an inheritance to the half-tribe of Manasseh. It was for the half-tribe of the children of Manasseh according to their families- </p><p>The words for "tribe" here are different. Some would see in this evidence that the Divinely inspired compiler was bringing together different existing records, giving us the Divinely inspired product of the synthesis.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair which are in Bashan, sixty cities- </p><p>These are the 60 cities of "Argob" (<a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a>), which is "called the land of giants" (<a href='B:50 3:13'>Deu 3:13</a>). The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants.</p>


text:
<p>Half Gilead, Ashtaroth, and Edrei, the cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were for the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even for the half of the children of Machir according to their families- </p><p>Machir was a very large clan of seven families within Manasseh (<a href='B:130 5:24'>1Ch 5:24</a>) and were given a large inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>These are the inheritances which Moses distributed in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan at Jericho, eastward- </p><p>The land east of Jordan was far harder to possess and the two and a half tribes faced far more opposition there than those on the west of Jordan. We conclude that our inheritances in the Kingdom, and our paths there, are all tailored according to our personality types. But the half tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan initially prospered through all this. For when David was crowned at Hebron, western Manasseh sent 18,000 men, all Ephraim only 20,800, but the two and a half tribes east of Jordan sent 120,000.</p>


text:
<p>But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance. Yahweh, the God of Israel, was their inheritance, as He had told them-</p><p>See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>These are the inheritances which the children of Israel took in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed to them- </p><p>"Distributed" is s:w. "inheritance" or "inherit", and also "possessed". I have noted elsewhere the difference between Joshua slaying the kings, and Israel possessing or inheriting the land- which they generally failed to do. But here we read that Joshua also 'inherited' it to them. So much was done for them. We note too the king-priest association, again looking ahead to the work and dual office of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>by the lot of their inheritance, as Yahweh commanded by Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half-tribe- </p><p>See on :5. Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>For Moses had given the inheritance of the two tribes and the half-tribe beyond the Jordan; but to the Levites he gave no inheritance among them- </p><p>The Levites had no material inheritance because "the sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel::. are his inheritance::. Yahweh God of Israel was their inheritance" (<a href='B:60 13:14'>Jos 13:14</a>; <a href='B:60 13:33'>Jos 13:33</a>; <a href='B:40 18:20'>Num 18:20</a>; <a href='B:50 10:9'>Deu 10:9</a>; <a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a>). Notice how "Yahweh" is put for what is sacrificed to Him. His very existence is an imperative to sacrifice to Him, despising all material advantage in doing so. Job comments that to make gold our hope and wealth our confidence is to deny “the God that is above” (<a href='B:220 31:24'>Job 31:24</a>; <a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a>). To trust in material wealth is effectively to proclaim ourselves atheists. We are described as the new priesthood (<a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>), so all that was true for the Levites becomes true for us. We are not to seek material inheritance. God will provide for us in ways other than our possessing land and leaving an inheritance to our children. The wonder of serving Him is to more than compensate for this.</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: and they gave no portion to the Levites in the land, except towns to dwell in, with their suburbs for their livestock and for their property- </p><p>The idea is that the number 12 was significant to God, and therefore to replace the tribe of Levi, the tribe of Joseph was split into two tribes.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did as Yahweh commanded Moses, and they divided the land- </p><p>The division by lot (:2) presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was given a specific inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>Then the children of Judah drew near to Joshua in Gilgal. Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, You know the thing that Yahweh spoke to Moses the man of God concerning me and concerning you in Kadesh Barnea- </p><p>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>; <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a>). But "Kenizzite" (also <a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a>). And <a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (:8; <a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>I was forty years old when Moses the servant of Yahweh sent me from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land. I brought him word again as it was in my heart- </p><p>We love Caleb for this. He as utterly persuaded, as he beheld the high walled cities, that it was absolutely possible for Israel to take the land- with God's help. LXX "I returned him an answer according to his mind" suggests that his mind / heart and that of Moses were united; they were both equally confident the land could be taken. But their heart / mind is contrasted with that of the people (:8). It was all a matter of the mind, and we see again the huge importance which the Bible attaches to the heart, spiritual mindedness.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless, my brothers who went up with me made the heart of the people melt- </p><p>Yet the same phrase is used by Rahab of how the hearts of the Canaanites melted at this time. They were both scared silly about each other. The apparently insuperable obstacles to inheriting the Kingdom were shown to be nothing at all- if approached in faith.</p><p>But I wholly followed Yahweh my God-</p><p>See on :6. Joshua and Caleb were earlier characterized by the comment that they “wholly followed the Lord” when they went to spy out Canaan (<a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>; <a href='B:40 32:11-12'>Num 32:11-12</a>; <a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a>; <a href='B:60 14:8-9'>Jos 14:8-9</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>), and urged Israel to go up and inherit it. This refers to the way that the Angel had gone ahead of them, and they faithfully followed where the Angel had gone, and believed that Israel could follow that Angel wherever it led. When Israel finally did go into the land, they were told that Joshua would ‘go before’ them, and they were to follow him and thereby inherit the land (<a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>). From this we see that circumstances repeat in our lives. As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed. Likewise, he led the Israelites in battle whilst Moses stood on the hill with arms uplifted in prayer for his success. And in capturing Ai, it was Joshua’s turn to stand on a hill with arms uplifted [also in prayer?] whilst Israel fought. However, Joshua seems to have somehow gotten out of synch with the Angel when he meets Him in <a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a> and asks Him whether He is for or against Israel. We must walk in step with the Spirit / Angel in our lives; and yet no matter how much we’ve walked in step with Him, we can always allow pressure of circumstances to let us fall out of step with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Moses swore on that day saying, ‘Surely the land where you walked shall be an inheritance to you and to your children forever, because you have wholly followed Yahweh my God’- </p><p>But "forever" was conditional. For Hebron was in due course to be captured by Gentile powers. Just as the promise of eternity for us is conditional.</p>


text:
<p>Now, behold, Yahweh has kept me alive as He spoke these forty-five years, from the time that Yahweh spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. Now, behold, I am eighty-five years old today- </p><p>Comparing with :7, Joshua is saying that at this point, he has been subduing Canaan for a period of five to seven years [if we include parts of years as a year, as was the Hebrew style of reckoning, or if we consider the wilderness journeys to have been 38 and not 40 years]. This was the "long time" of <a href='B:60 11:18'>Jos 11:18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>As yet I am as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now for war, to go out and to come in- </p><p>Caleb is confident that he is still strong enough to fight the Canaanites living in Hebron and secure it. We might prefer however if he had spoken more of God's blessing than of taking the inheritance in his own strength. The first word for "strong" is different to that translated "strength". It seems to refer to mental strength and the determination of faith. And it was this which gave him his physical strength.</p><p>Joshua appears to have been only one of a group of Moses' "young men", who moved around the camp running his errands (<a href='B:20 24:5'>Exo 24:5</a>; <a href='B:40 11:27-28'>Num 11:27-28</a>); as a similar group did for Nehemiah and Paul years later. The young men of the New Testament were also characterized by their love of the word (<a href='B:690 2:14'>1Jn 2:14</a>). Moses would have had a special fondness for this generation who were to enter the land. A large part of the Law was concerned with Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land; these would only have been relevant to that younger generation. It is fitting that both Moses and Caleb (and Joshua?) maintained their youthful vigour right up to their death (<a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a>; <a href='B:60 14:11'>Jos 14:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore give me this hill country, of which Yahweh spoke in that day- </p><p>Although not recorded in <a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>; <a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a>, it appears Caleb was specifically promised Hebron at that time. Caleb had explored that area as a spy (<a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a>) and taken a special liking to it. We see therefore his spiritual ambition; 'this shall one day be mine'. And we can do the same, as we in this life spy out our future inheritance.</p><p>For you heard in that day how the Anakim were there, and great and fortified cities- </p><p>Caleb seems to have wanted to make a point; that even the fortified mountain lair of the giants could be taken, even by an 85 year old. See on :15.</p><p>It will surely be that Yahweh will be with me and I shall drive them out, as Yahweh spoke- </p><p>"Drive them out" is s:w. "possess"; see on <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>. Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired another woman to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord…hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p><p>Caleb was a Gentile who became adopted into the tribe of Judah and became a leader of the tribe. Yet he was graciously given an inheritance in the land of Israel. By his spiritual ambition, he was granted Hebron as his inheritance. He went up there and drove out the tribes with a faithful zeal unmatched in Israel. And yet, he gave away that city- for Hebron became a priestly city for the Levites to live in. He gave his place in the Kingdom to others (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>)- that was the level of love this great man reached.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Joshua blessed him; and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance- </p><p>On one level, we can quite rightly ask for material blessing, and the Father is pleased that we should. But there is a higher level we can live on, where requesting physical blessings doesn't figure so largely. We can be like Caleb, who conquered Hebron (his part in the Kingdom) for himself and then gave it to others (<a href='B:60 14:12-14'>Jos 14:12-14</a>; <a href='B:60 21:11'>Jos 21:11</a>). Many mature brethren realize that their prayers place decreasing emphasis on requesting physical blessing from God; be it safe-keeping, health etc.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day; because he wholly followed Yahweh the God of Israel-</p><p>He zealously followed the Angel which went before him, and therefore he obtained his inheritance which in prospect the Angel had prepared for him.</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Now the name of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba, after the greatest man among the Anakim. The land had rest from war-</p><p>As noted on the force of "For::." in :12, Caleb seems to have wanted to make a point; that even the fortified mountain lair of the giants, even the greatest giant, could be taken- even by an 85 year old.</p>


text:
<p>The lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was to the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south- </p><p>The division by lot presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was given a specific inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>Their south border was from the uttermost part of the Salt Sea, from the bay that looks southward- </p><p>This implies detailed geographical knowledge of the southern part of the Dead Sea. It is doubtful anyone knew that area, and so we have here the direct transmission of fact from God to man through His word.</p>


text:
<p>and it went out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and went up by the south of Kadesh Barnea, and passed along by Hezron, went up to Addar, and turned about to Karka- </p><p>AV "Fetched a compass to Karka", literally "was deflected in the direction of Karka". This implies a birds eye perspective, looking at lines on a map. The perspective is clearly God's heavenly one.</p>


text:
<p>and it passed along to Azmon, went out at the brook of Egypt; and the border ended at the sea. This shall be your south border- </p><p>It has been pointed out that there is no such surviving detailed geographical description of any contemporary nation. This reflects the extreme importance of the land of Israel to God. For it was and is to be His Kingdom, and has a special significance to Him.</p>


text:
<p>The east border was the Salt Sea, even to the end of the Jordan. The border of the north quarter was from the bay of the sea at the end of the Jordan- </p><p>The idea is that the northern border of Judah started from the point where the river Jordan entered the Dead Sea.</p>


text:
<p>The border went up to Beth Hoglah, and passed along by the north of Beth Arabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben- </p><p>We note that the stone of a Reubenite was the boundary marker between Judah and Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:17'>Jos 18:17</a>). We have here a typical example of how despite the division of the tribes, with the intention that the people remained within their given family inheritances, people were dissatisfied with what God gave them; or for whatever reason moved away from them, perhaps in search of something better. And yet the gift of the inheritances was clearly meant to be by God.</p>


text:
<p>The border went up to Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that is over against the ascent of Adummim, which is on the south side of the river. The border passed along to the waters of En Shemesh, and ended at En Rogel- </p><p>"Looking toward::." and similar language suggests the author was there looking at the various towns and geographical features. The whole perspective is God's bird's eye view of the land.</p>


text:
<p>The border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom to the side of the Jebusite southward (the same is Jerusalem); and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lies before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the farthest part of the valley of the Rephaim northward-</p><p>‘Gehenna’ is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Ge-ben-Hinnon’. This was located near Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>), and at the time of Christ it was the city rubbish dump. Dead bodies of criminals were thrown onto the fires which were always burning there, so that Gehenna became symbolic of total destruction and rejection.</p><p>We note that the Rephaim or "giants" had children like other human beings (<a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a>; <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>; <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>). The "giants" of <a href='B:10 6:2-4'>Gen 6:2-4</a> were therefore humans and not celestial beings.</p>


text:
<p>The border extended from the top of the mountain to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of Mount Ephron; and the border extended to Baalah (the same is Kiriath Jearim)- </p><p>The old name included the name Baal, and was renamed by faithful men who wished to not hear the name Baal. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal to Kiriath Jearim (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>and the border turned about from Baalah westward to Mount Seir, and passed along to the side of Mount Jearim on the north (the same is Chesalon), and went down to Beth Shemesh, and passed along by Timnah- </p><p>"Beth Shemesh", house of the sun, was a name rooted in idolatry which wasn't changed; see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>and the border went out to the side of Ekron northward; and the border extended to Shikkeron, and passed along to Mount Baalah, and went out at Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea- </p><p>Ekron was a major Philistine city. "The side of Ekron" suggests God again recalculated the inheritance to save them from having to attack and possess this city; although it was God's initial intention that they take it. Such is His desire to give us the Kingdom that He graciously makes such concessions to inexcusable weakness. "Baalah" was a name rooted in idolatry which wasn't changed; see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>The west border was to the shore of the great sea. This is the border of the children of Judah according to their families- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>To Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a portion among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of Yahweh to Joshua, even Kiriath Arba, named after the father of Anak (the same is Hebron)- </p><p>Joshua had taken Hebron (<a href='B:60 10:36'>Jos 10:36</a>) but Israel had not followed up his victory, and the Philistines had returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back.</p>


text:
<p>Caleb drove out the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak- </p><p>"Drove out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus and Caleb; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p><p>"Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak" are spoken of as having been present there 45 years previously when Caleb first spied out the land. Perhaps they were now elderly, or they refer to family divisions rather than individuals.</p>


text:
<p>He went up against the inhabitants of Debir: now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher- </p><p>"Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Caleb said, He who strikes Kiriath Sepher and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife- </p><p>We wonder why Caleb himself didn't take Kiriath Sepher. Perhaps, at 85 years old, the strength he had boasted of was not quite as he had imagined, and he was exhausted or weak after the conquest of Hebron. Or maybe he wished to ensure his daughter married someone who had the same spiritual ambition and faith which he had. And such men were apparently in deficit, as Othniel his brother (<a href='B:60 15:17'>Jos 15:17</a>) was the only one to come forward for the challenge. As Caleb was then 85, Othniel would unlikely have been a very young man, looking to marry a young woman.</p>


text:
<p>Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it- </p><p>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>; <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a>). But "Kenizzite" (also <a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a>). And <a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah:&nbsp;Perhaps the note at <a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a> about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.</p><p>And he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife- </p><p>As noted above, Caleb was then 85, so Othniel was not a young man at all; and Achsah was presumably a virgin. So valiant young, faithful men were apparently not to be found:&nbsp; For surely they were the kind of candidate Caleb was looking for.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that she came to ask her father for a field. She got off her donkey, and Caleb said, What do you want?-</p><p>The Hebrew implies she got "him", her husband Othniel, to ask Caleb. And this is the sense given in <a href='B:70 1:14'>Jdg 1:14</a>. Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired another woman to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord…hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Give me a blessing. Because you have set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. He gave her the upper springs and the lower springs- </p><p>The idea of being given a blessing is of receiving an inheritance, as in <a href='B:60 14:13'>Jos 14:13</a> AV: “And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb… Hebron for an inheritance”. "A south land" presumably refers to Debir, which was apparently without a good water supply. Debir is on a hill, and there is a valley at the foot of the hill with springs. The territory made presumably been conquered by Caleb and was his own- but he gave away what he had conquered:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families- </p><p>For "families", see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>The farthest cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the border of Edom in the South were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur- </p><p>The towns are listed in four groups, corresponding to the division of Judah into the Negev / south country; "the valley" or "the plain", "the Shephelah"; "the mountains" and "the wilderness".</p>


text:
<p>Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah- </p><p>Kinah could mean 'place of the Kenites'; see on :17. Perhaps this is the equivalent of the note at <a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a> about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.</p>


text:
<p>Ziph, Telem, Bealoth- </p><p>Bealoth means 'possessors', perhaps named by some who faithfully perceived the truths of :14.</p>


text:
<p>Hazor Hadattah, Kerioth Hezron (the same is Hazor)- </p><p>There were two towns called Hazor, but they were distinguished by words added to them, Hadattah and Kerioth.</p>


text:
<p>Amam, Shema, Moladah- </p><p>Moladah was given to Simeon (<a href='B:60 19:2-3'>Jos 19:2-3</a>). Yet presumably that was not God's original intention, as here it is a town of Judah. We see how He is open to some recalculation of His purposes with us.</p>


text:
<p>Hazar Gaddah, Heshmon, Beth Pelet-</p><p>None of these places has been very confidently identified. We have here an example of where the Biblical record is preserved, even though it had far more meaning for the immediate audience that it has ever had for the millennia of believers who have subsequently read these words. This in turn opens up the wider debate as to which parts of Biblical writings are preserved as historical record, for our general learning; and which are specifically commandments to us. As examples, I would argue that baptism was not just a command for the first century but for us too- because of the context and reasoning behind the command. Whereas the commandments about head covering in Corinth would appear from the context to be a historical account of a specific situation in that church at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Hazar Shual, Beersheba, Biziothiah- </p><p>Beersheba became effectively the southern border of Judah, hence the common phrase "from Dan [in the north] to Beersheba [in the south]". But this was not at all the southern border promised to Abraham, which was the "river of Egypt". God effectively recalculated the boundaries for Israel, as He came to realize that they simply didn't have the spiritual ambition to go and possess the full extent of the land promised to Abraham. Thus "the river" on the eastern boundary effectively was recalculated as the Jordan and not the Euphrates; and likewise the southern border shifted northwards from the brook of Egypt to Beersheba. God has a similar flexibility with us too.</p>


text:
<p>Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah- </p><p>These were all given to Simeon (<a href='B:60 19:4'>Jos 19:4</a>). Yet presumably that was not God's original intention, as here it is a town of Judah. We see how He is open to some recalculation of His purposes with us:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah-</p><p>&nbsp;Ziklag had been passed from Judah to Simeon (<a href='B:60 15:31'>Jos 15:31</a>; <a href='B:60 19:5'>Jos 19:5</a>) and then passed to the Philistines (<a href='B:90 27:6'>1Sa 27:6</a>)- because if we don't want the kingdom, it will be lost to us.</p>


text:
<p>Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon. All the cities are twenty-nine, with their villages- </p><p>The total comes to 36. The difference may be because of the definition of a "city", and some were listed but not counted as a city. And it seems that in some cases, the same city was called by two names.</p>


text:
<p>In the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah- </p><p>Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that thou hast done unto us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc."</p>


text:
<p>Zanoah, En Gannim, Tappuah, Enam- </p><p>"Zanoah" is the word for being 'cast off' or rejected, and all 20 occurrences of it in the Bible are translated that way. 'Place of rejection' sounds a strange name for a city- unless it was to celebrate the rejection of idolatry there.</p>


text:
<p>Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah-</p><p>We have to observe that the majority of these place names merely reflect the topography or geographical features of the area. They may have been no more than landmarks. We also note that the name of God or spiritual things was not introduced into them. When there is a regime change, it is typical that names of towns and streets are renamed, but there is little evidence that Israel generally did this.</p>


text:
<p>Shaaraim, Adithaim and Gederah (or Gederothaim); fourteen cities with their villages- </p><p>Many versions give 15 cities by this point, but LXX omits Gederothaim.</p>


text:
<p>Zenan, Hadashah, Migdal Gad- </p><p>"Gad" was the god of fortune, and the tower ["Migdal"] of Gad was surely a reference to idolatry. But the name was apparently not changed; see on :60.</p>


text:
<p>Dilean, Mizpeh, Joktheel- </p><p>Mizpeh means a watchtower, but as noted on :37, it typically is associated with something else- the tower or watchtower of some idol, typically. It could be that this is a commendable example of where the name of an idol or god dropped out of a place name; see on :60.</p>


text:
<p>Lachish, Bozkath, Eglon- </p><p>"Eglon" is literally 'the place of the calf', and the same word is used of Jeroboam's golden calves (<a href='B:110 12:28'>1Ki 12:28</a>). Clearly he was mixing Yahweh worship with that of the local paganism which had never been totally eradicated. And this is the abiding temptation for God's people. To worship their own idols in the name of worshipping Yahweh, to mix the flesh and the spirit, to mix paganism with true worship.</p>


text:
<p>Cabbon, Lahmam, Chitlish- </p><p>"Cabbon", a heap of stones, was a reference to early altars. See on :43,60.</p>


text:
<p>Gederoth, Beth Dagon, Naamah, and Makkedah; sixteen cities with their villages- </p><p>Beth Dagon means 'house of Dagon', and is another example of local preexisting paganism continuing in the nomenclature of the land; see on :43,60.</p>


text:
<p>Libnah, Ether, Ashan- </p><p>"Libnah", place of poplar trees, has definite paganic associations; the same word is found in <a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos 4:13</a>; <a href='B:10 30:37'>Gen 30:37</a>. See on :43,60.</p>


text:
<p>Iphtah, Ashnah, Nezib- </p><p>We lament that the place names reflect local idolatry or purely secular points of topographical interest, and there was little renaming of cities from a spiritual viewpoint. When the Soviets established their power in the republics of the USSR, they renamed towns, cities and streets in the name of Marxist-Leninist leaders and philosophies. "Leninogorsk", "Karl Marx Prospekt" and the like replaced names which reflected local history and culture. We would expect to have seen Israel doing this when they took Canaan, but they generally didn't.</p>


text:
<p>Keilah, Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages- </p><p>Mareshah was where the prophet lived who criticized Jehoshaphat (<a href='B:140 20:37'>2Ch 20:37</a>), and it seems it is the Moresheth Gath of <a href='B:400 1:14-15'>Mic 1:14-15</a>. Two prophets came from the same small settlement. We reflect that local groups do tend to hold on to the things of God's truth, often more effectively and for longer periods than larger communities, such as that based around the Jerusalem temple.</p>


text:
<p>Ekron, with its towns and its villages- </p><p>I noted on :11 that the border is there stated to be "the side of Ekron", suggesting God again recalculated the inheritance to save them from having to attack and possess this city; although it was God's initial intention that they take it. Such is His desire to give us the Kingdom that He graciously makes such concessions to inexcusable weakness.</p>


text:
<p>from Ekron even to the sea, all that were by the side of Ashdod, with their villages- </p><p>The Philistine areas now listed were never really permanently taken by the Israelites. We note again the curious phrase "by the side of Ashdod"; see on :45.</p>


text:
<p>Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; to the brook of Egypt, and the great sea with its coastline-</p><p>Judah would have heard or read these descriptions and thought "no, too hard, not for me". And we must be challenged by their wrong attitude, as we too survey the Kingdom that is so very possible for us.</p>


text:
<p>In the hill country, Shamir, Jattir, Socoh- </p><p>Jattir was given to the priests (<a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory such as this Philistine territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Dannah, Kiriath Sannah (which is Debir)- </p><p>"Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Anab, Eshtemoh, Anim-</p><p>Eshtemoa was a priestly city; it would seem the priests were largely supportive of David when on the run from Saul, perhaps due to Samuel's influence (<a href='B:90 30:28'>1Sa 30:28</a>; <a href='B:60 15:50'>Jos 15:50</a>; <a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Goshen, Holon, and Giloh; eleven cities with their villages- </p><p>Holon was given to the priests (<a href='B:60 21:15'>Jos 21:15</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory such as this Philistine territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Arab, Dumah, Eshan- </p><p>"Arab" is the usual word for "ambush", and may be one of the few name changes which reflects how Israel captured it in the first place. See on :43.</p>


text:
<p>Janim, Beth Tappuah, Aphekah- </p><p>The walls of an Egyptian temple at Medinet Habu have a list of cities that Rameses II (1304-1238) considered to be enemy cities. They are depicted as shields, within which are the names of the towns; and these include Janim and Aphekah as well as Hebron (:54).</p>


text:
<p>Humtah, Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron) and Zior; nine cities with their villages- </p><p>"Kiriath Arba" is literally 'the city of the four [giants]', which was taken by Caleb and renamed Hebron; see on :43.</p>


text:
<p>Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Jutah-</p><p>Maon was a mile north of Carmel, and they are mentioned together in <a href='B:90 25:1'>1Sa 25:1</a>. The complete geographical and historical agreement of the books of the Bible, clearly written at different times, is such that there must have been a higher, singular hand behind them all. And that hand was that of God, through His inspiration of the entire volume.</p>


text:
<p>Jezreel, Jokdeam, Zanoah- </p><p>Not to be confused with the Jezreel in the plain of Esdraelon.</p>


text:
<p>Kain, Gibeah, and Timnah; ten cities with their villages- </p><p>Timnah is the place of <a href='B:10 38:12'>Gen 38:12</a>. The parable of <a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a> describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a>; <a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a>; <a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the whole nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e:g. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a>) and preparation of reward (<a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a>; <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (See Hebrew of <a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>; 23:20; <a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a>). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is only eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>Halhul, Beth Zur, Gedor- </p><p>At this point LXX adds: "Theca, and Ephratha, (that is, Bethlehem), and Phagor, and Etan, and Kulon, and Tatam, and Thebes, and Karam, and Galam, and Thether, and Manocho".</p>


text:
<p>Maarath, Beth Anoth, and Eltekon; six cities with their villages- </p><p>Beth Anoth, house of answers / witness, has religious overtones. If they reflect Yahweh worship, then His Name would likely have been included. So we conclude that this is likely yet another pagan name which was left unchanged; see on :60.</p>


text:
<p>Kiriath Baal (the same is Kiriath Jearim), and Rabbah; two cities with their villages- </p><p>There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>In the wilderness, Beth Arabah, Middin, Secacah-</p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David's cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p>


text:
<p>Nibshan, the City of Salt, and En Gedi; six cities with their villages- </p><p>"The city of salt" was in the area of Sodom (<a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a>) and may be another name for Zoar where Lot initially fled to.</p>


text:
<p>As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess"; see on :14. I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel- </p><p>Significantly, the road to Jericho which features in the parable of the good Samaritan was the very dividing line between Judah and Ephraim (<a href='B:60 16:1'>Jos 16:1</a>). The significance of this may be in the implication within the parable that Israel fell among thieves, needing the Messianic grace and rescue, as a result of their division into two kingdoms. And so many other spiritual lives have been shipwrecked over the rocks of division. Indeed, the Greek words for "division" and "stumbling block" are related; divisions are a stumblingblock to so many, even if they externally remain within their faith communities.</p>


text:
<p>It went out from Bethel to Luz, and passed along to the border of the Archites to Ataroth- </p><p>Although Luz was called Bethel (<a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a>; <a href='B:70 1:23'>Jdg 1:23</a>), <a href='B:60 16:2'>Jos 16:2</a> implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel" refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>)".</p>


text:
<p>and it went down westward to the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth Horon the lower as far as Gezer; and ended at the sea- </p><p>The sea is the Mediterranean.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance- </p><p>There was a difference between Joshua capturing land by defeating local kings, and the people actually taking it for inheritance, or possessing it. Here it is stated by grace and imputed righteousness that Manasseh and Ephraim took their inheritance, they did actually possess the inheritance; although we learn from Judges that there were areas where they failed to. And see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>This was the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families. The border of their inheritance eastward was from Ataroth Addar to Beth Horon the upper- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>The border went out westward at Michmethath on the north. The border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh, and passed along it on the east of Janoah- </p><p><a href='B:290 60:2'>Isa 60:2</a> speaks of the sun rising upon Zion- as if Zion was the whole earth to God. <a href='B:230 89:12'>Psa 89:12</a> shows how God reckons the points of the compass with reference to Jerusalem: "The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor&nbsp; and Hermon shall rejoice". Likewise "the sea" is often used to show that the west is intended, the Mediterranean being to the west of Jerusalem (<a href='B:40 2:18'>Num 2:18</a>; <a href='B:60 16:5-6'>Jos 16:5-6</a>; <a href='B:330 42:19'>Eze 42:19</a>). "The east" is put for Persia, Media and the lands east of Jerusalem (<a href='B:330 25:4'>Eze 25:4</a>; <a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a>); "the south" for Egypt, south of Canaan (<a href='B:300 13:19'>Jer 13:19</a>; <a href='B:340 11:5'>Dan 11:5</a>), or for the Negev, the hill country south of Jerusalem (<a href='B:10 12:9'>Gen 12:9</a>; <a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a>; <a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a>; <a href='B:330 20:46-47'>Eze 20:46-47</a>). God reveals Himself as being centered in His orientation around His people.</p>


text:
<p>It went down from Janoah to Ataroth, to Naarah, reached to Jericho, and went out at the Jordan- </p><p>Their border “went down” due to how it descended down the slopes towards the Jordan valley. This is another example of how these divisions of land were clearly written from God's bird's eye perspective, and could not have been written by man at that time, lacking satellite imagery.</p>


text:
<p>From Tappuah the border went along westward to the brook of Kanah and ended at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim according to their families- </p><p>This describes the western half of the northern border, which ended at the sea between Joppa and Caesarea.</p>


text:
<p>together with the cities which were set apart for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages-</p><p>This is another example of where the inheritances were recalculated. This could have been for many reasons. The lack of living room perceived by some of the tribes was unnecessary- had they driven out the Canaanites and cleared the land (:10). But God makes concessions to human weakness, and allowed them to inherit in other areas. He is similarly flexible with His people today.</p>


text:
<p>They didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim to this day, and became servants to do forced labour- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p><p>The whole of Solomon’s kingdom was built on the backs of slave labour- firstly, of the Gentiles in the land (<a href='B:140 8:8'>2Ch 8:8</a> RV), and then later of God’s own people. The Gentiles should either have been put to death, or welcomed into the brotherhood of Israel- but to put them to slave labour was only repeating a classic mistake and sin of his forefathers (<a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a> RV). There was something rotten about all his achievements from the very beginning.</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>This was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was the firstborn of Joseph. As for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan- </p><p>The giving of land by "lot" was clearly overruled. Because it is here noted that Gilead and Bashan, wild territory inhabited by wild people, was given to a warlike man to inherit. The nature of our calling to service in this life, and the nature of our eternal inheritance in the Kingdom, is personally tailored to suit our unique personality. We shall be given a name written which nobody knows apart from our Lord and ourselves (<a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So this was for the rest of the children of Manasseh according to their families: for the children of Abiezer, for the children of Helek, for the children of Asriel, for the children of Shechem, for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph according to their families- </p><p>The children of Manasseh through Machir inherited east of Jordan (:1), and the rest of his clans listed here inherited west of Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah- </p><p>The fact God allows His children to live His truth on different levels needs to be grasped firmly by us, lest we become discouraged that others live on an apparently lower level than we do in some aspects of life. Being surrounded by ‘lower levels’ ought to inspire us to the higher levels. Zelophehad had only daughters; usually, in his context, a man would have taken concubines in order to produce sons. The record of his only having daughters is presented in the context of genealogies which show that many Israelite men had more than one wife (<a href='B:130 7:15'>1Ch 7:15</a>). But Zelophehad wasn’t dragged down by this; God inspired him to maintain the higher level which he had chosen to live by. He didn't use the principle of Jephthah's vow. And his daughters likewise refused to be limited by their status as females, but obtained an inheritance amongst their brethren (<a href='B:40 27:1-7'>Num 27:1-7</a>)</p>


text:
<p>They came near before Eleazar the priest and before Joshua the son of Nun and before the princes, saying, Yahweh commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers-</p><p>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired the daughters of Zelophehad to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p><p>Therefore according to the commandment of Yahweh he gave them an inheritance among the brothers of their father- Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>Ten parts fell to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan- </p><p>These ten parts may refer to specific inheritances defined for each family within the tribes. They are the reference of the frequent comment that the tribes received an inheritance "according to their families". The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons. The land of Gilead belonged to the rest of the sons of Manasseh- </p><p>Manasseh's inheritance was split into ten parts (:5); five for the five sons of Gilead (Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem and Shemida); and five for the five daughters of Zelophehad.</p>


text:
<p>The border of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethath, which is before Shechem. The border went along to the right hand, to the inhabitants of En Tappuah- </p><p>Asher doesn't refer to the tribe of Asher but to a town east of Shechem.</p>


text:
<p>The land of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh; but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim- </p><p>The latter "Tappuah" must refer to the town of that name.</p>


text:
<p>The border went down to the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook. These cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh. The border of Manasseh was on the north side of the brook, and ended at the sea- </p><p>This is another example of where the inheritances were recalculated. This could have been for many reasons. The lack of living room perceived by some of the tribes was unnecessary- had they driven out the Canaanites and cleared the land. But God makes concessions to human weakness, and allowed them to inherit in other areas. He is similarly flexible with His people today.</p>


text:
<p>Southward it was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Manasseh’s, and the sea was his border. They reached to Asher on the north, and to Issachar on the east- </p><p>"The sea" is the Mediterranean.</p>


text:
<p>Within the territories of Issachar and Asher, Manasseh possessed Beth Shan and Ibleam, along with their surrounding towns, as well as Dor (the one on the coast), Endor, Taanach, Megiddo, and their surrounding towns-</p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Yet the children of Manasseh couldn’t drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites continued to dwell in that land- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that when the children of Israel had grown strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labour, and didn’t utterly drive them out- </p><p>One reason why Israel failed to drive out the tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to take tribute from them (<a href='B:60 17:13'>Jos 17:13</a>). <a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Joseph spoke to Joshua saying, Why have you given me just one lot and one part for an inheritance, since I am a great people, because Yahweh has blessed me so far?- </p><p>Ephraim and Manasseh demanded more land at the time of <a href='B:60 17:14'>Jos 17:14</a>, but their argument was weak because they had been given ample land, but they refused to drive out the Canaanites or clear the forests (<a href='B:60 17:15'>Jos 17:15</a>). Their combined population was about that of the single tribe of Judah according to the census of Numbers 26. The amount of land they had per head of population was roughly that of the other tribes, and much of it was exceptionally fertile. They claimed they deserved it because they had been "blessed". By saying this they were twisting scriptures which speak of their blessing (<a href='B:10 48:20'>Gen 48:20</a>; <a href='B:10 49:25-26'>Gen 49:25-26</a>; <a href='B:50 33:13'>Deu 33:13</a>), and therefore demanding more territory which was easier to live in. But the promised "blessing" didn't require they be given more land, and the other tribes were also "blessed". This is typical of how people take one verse here or there to justify their own secular claims.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to them, If you are a great people, go up to the forest, and clear land for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim; since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you- </p><p>Joshua himself was from Ephraim, so he was careful not to show any bias towards them. "If you are a great people" could sound sarcastic, as if he didn't rate the spirituality of his own tribe. As explained on :14, he could have answered them with statistics, proving their claim wrong. But as so often in the Bible, men are answered out of their own mouths (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a>). The wrong ideas and claims of men are for a moment accepted as true, and then turned against them.</p><p>When "the children of Joseph" complained that they didn't have enough territory, Joshua could've told them to go and drive out Canaanites and take their territory- this was clearly God's ideal intention. Instead, Joshua said they could go to some virgin forest and cut down trees to provide more territory for themselves. This was itself a concession to human weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Joseph said, The hill country is not enough for us. All the Canaanites who dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both those who are in Beth Shean and its towns, and those who are in the valley of Jezreel-</p><p>They are presented as typical of so many who complain they need more, when arrogance, lack of faith and laziness are their real problem. They had not tried clearing the hill country, but they complain it was in any case not enough for them. And they have evaluated at great length the obstacles, the nature of the chariots, and where the Canaanites were located.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua spoke to the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh saying, You are a great people, and have great power. You shall not have one lot only- </p><p>This appears almost sarcastic, in response to their insistence that they are such a great people. "The hill country" was not an additional lot; they had already been given it. They are being told to make it "yours" (:18) in practice by cutting down the trees there. Again we see the difference between actual possession, and merely being assigned territory.</p>


text:
<p>but the hill country shall be yours. Although it is a forest, you shall cut it down, and it shall be yours from one end to the other; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong-</p><p>The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. “You shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they are strong” was in fact conditional on their effort and faith- although it doesn’t sound like that in the positive way it is spoken. Daniel understood that after 70 years Jerusalem must be restored; but he earnestly prayed for their forgiveness so that this would happen (<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19). Perhaps he opened his window and prayed towards Jerusalem exactly because he wanted to fulfil <a href='B:140 6:37-38'>2Ch 6:37-38</a>: “If they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn, and pray unto thee… toward their land… and toward the city which thou hast chosen”. He knew that repentance was a precondition for the promised restoration to occur.</p><p>The "iron chariots" could be burned with fire (<a href='B:60 11:6'>Jos 11:6</a>) because they were wooden but with iron wheels or perhaps scythes fitted to the wheels. If they cleared the wooded area of the hill country, they could live there without fear of chariots, as chariots could only operate in flat areas.</p>


text:
<p>The whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled themselves together at Shiloh and set up the Tent of Meeting there. The land was subdued before them- </p><p>The later context here is the setting up of the tabernacle at Shiloh, and "the land" in view could be the area around Shiloh.</p><p>The command to subject the animals in Eden [the land promised to Abraham?] corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a> = <a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a>; <a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a>; <a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a> = <a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a>; <a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a>; <a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a>). This all suggests that Eden is to be understood as the land promised to Abraham; for that is the focus of the Biblical record, right from early Genesis.</p><p>But the Hebrew for "subdued" specifically means to be put under tribute. One reason why Israel failed to drive out the tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to take tribute from them (<a href='B:60 17:13'>Jos 17:13</a>). <a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>Seven tribes remained among the children of Israel, which had not yet been assigned their inheritance- </p><p>Those tribes had settled down where they found good land and were lazy to go any further in possessing the Kingdom. Perhaps the reference here is not to be read as meaning that their actual territory wasn't defined, but rather that the individual families within their tribes hadn't been assigned their inheritances- because the tribes just hadn't taken or even moved into their territory.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the children of Israel, How long will you delay possession of the land, which Yahweh the God of your fathers has given you?- </p><p><a href='B:250 9:10'>Ecc 9:10</a> teaches the sober fact that in the grave there is nothing, nothing at all, no work, no thought; and so now is the day in which to labour with all our heart in the thing we put our hands to. We may apprehend all this intellectually, and yet there is an inherent, clinging laziness which lurks within our nature. One simple reason why Israel failed to inherit the Kingdom in the time of Joshua / Judges was that they were simply "slack" (AV), lazy, to drive out the tribes (<a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; the same word is used in <a href='B:20 5:8'>Exo 5:8</a> regarding how the Egyptians perceived them to be lazy; and also s:w. <a href='B:240 18:9'>Pro 18:9</a>). See on :25. They were happy to receive tribute from them (see on :1), and to enjoy what blessings they received. They were satisficers, not men of principle or mission; not real bond slaves. And for this, God rejected them and they never really inherited the Kingdom prepared for them.</p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land. The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>Appoint for yourselves three men from each tribe. I will send them, and they shall go through the land, and describe it according to their inheritance; and they shall come to me-</p><p>This could be read as a lack of faith in the promise that the Angel had brought Israel "forth out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them" (<a href='B:330 20:6'>Eze 20:6</a>). Or perhaps this sending out of spies was another concession to human weakness, in God's eagerness that they should by all means come to possess the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>They shall divide it into seven portions. Judah shall live in his borders on the south, and the house of Joseph shall live in their borders on the north- </p><p>The points of the compass were relative to where they then were at Shiloh.</p>


text:
<p>You shall survey the land into seven parts, and bring the description here to me; and I will cast lots for you here before Yahweh our God- </p><p>Here again we see God recalculating the inheritance He had originally planned for them, because they lacked the faith or interest to take what had been made potentially possible for them. But God makes concessions to human weakness, and allowed them to inherit in other areas. He is similarly flexible with His people today.</p><p>"Before Yahweh" may refer to the tabernacle which had been set up at Shiloh.</p>


text:
<p>For the Levites have no portion among you; for the priesthood of Yahweh is their inheritance. Gad, Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan eastward, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave them- </p><p>The Levites had no material inheritance because "the sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel::. are his inheritance::. Yahweh God of Israel was their inheritance" (<a href='B:60 13:14'>Jos 13:14</a>; <a href='B:60 13:33'>Jos 13:33</a>; <a href='B:40 18:20'>Num 18:20</a>; <a href='B:50 10:9'>Deu 10:9</a>; <a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a>). Notice how "Yahweh" is put for what is sacrificed to Him. His very existence is an imperative to sacrifice to Him, despising all material advantage in doing so. Job comments that to make gold our hope and wealth our confidence is to deny “the God that is above” (<a href='B:220 31:24'>Job 31:24</a>; <a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a>). To trust in material wealth is effectively to proclaim ourselves atheists. We are described as the new priesthood (<a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>), so all that was true for the Levites becomes true for us. We are not to seek material inheritance. God will provide for us in ways other than our possessing land and leaving an inheritance to our children. The wonder of serving Him is to more than compensate for this.</p>


text:
<p>The men arose and went. Joshua commanded those who went to survey the land saying, Go walk through the land, survey it, and come again to me. I will cast lots for you here before Yahweh in Shiloh- </p><p>When Joshua told the spies “Go and walk through the land…” (<a href='B:60 18:8'>Jos 18:8</a>), they ought to have perceived that he was asking them to walk in the faith of Abraham- to believe that this land truly had been promised to them, as his seed.</p>


text:
<p>The men passed through the land, and recorded it by cities into seven portions in a book. They came to Joshua to the camp at Shiloh-</p><p>See on <a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a>. To be blotted out of the book God had written may have been understood by Moses as asking for him to be excluded from an inheritance in the promised land; for later, a ‘book’ was written describing the various portions (<a href='B:60 18:9'>Jos 18:9</a>). The connection is made explicit in <a href='B:330 13:9'>Eze 13:9</a>: “…neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel”. To be blotted out of the book meant to not enter the land (surely Ezekiel is alluding to Moses’ experience). If Israel were to be blotted out there and then in the wilderness, then Moses wanted to share this experience.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before Yahweh. There Joshua divided the land to the children of Israel according to their divisions-</p><p>We wonder however whether this idea actually worked. For he was seeking to encourage them to possess the Kingdom on the basis of encouraging descriptions of the land. But detailed knowledge will not of itself motivate. A love of God and desire to manifest Him is what will motivate us to enter the Kingdom, and not merely detailed knowledge about it.</p><p>"Shiloh" means "rest", and we therefore see here how Joshua attempted to give Israel "rest". But Hebrews is clear that he didn't succeed in giving them "rest" as intended, and the potentials were all transferred and reapplied to the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The lot of the tribe of the children of Benjamin came up according to their families. The border of their lot went out between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p><p>It has been suggested that "there were probably two urns, one of which contained the names of the seven tribes, and the other that of the seven portions".</p>


text:
<p>Their border on the north quarter was from the Jordan. The border went up to the side of Jericho on the north, and went up through the hill country westward and ended at the wilderness of Beth Aven- </p><p>Beth Aven, house of iniquity, is the same as Bethel, which became Beth Aven in prophetic thought after Jeroboam had set up the calf there. The use of this name therefore suggests the book of Joshua was edited, under Divine inspiration, at some far later point- probably during the captivity (see on <a href='B:60 1:1'>Jos 1:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The border passed along from there to Luz, to the side of Luz (the same is Bethel) southward. The border went down to Ataroth Addar, by the mountain that lies on the south of Beth Horon the lower- </p><p>Although Luz was called Bethel (<a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a>; <a href='B:70 1:23'>Jdg 1:23</a>), <a href='B:60 16:2'>Jos 16:2</a> implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel" refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>)".</p>


text:
<p>The border extended, and turned around on the west quarter southward, from the mountain that lies before Beth Horon southward; and ended at Kiriath Baal (the same is Kiriath Jearim), a city of the children of Judah. This was the west quarter- </p><p>There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>The southern side began at the outskirts of Kiriath Jearim. The border went out westward, and went out to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah- </p><p>The description here matches that of the northern border of Judah (<a href='B:60 15:5-9'>Jos 15:5-9</a>). The boundaries of the seven tribal cantons now being discussed may have been slightly recalculated, but the basic definitions were as God had originally intended.</p>


text:
<p>The border went down to the farthest part of the mountain that lies before the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is in the valley of the Rephaim northward. It went down to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of the Jebusite southward, and went down to En Rogel- </p><p>‘Gehenna’ is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Ge-ben-Hinnon’. This was located near Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>), and at the time of Christ it was the city rubbish dump. Dead bodies of criminals were thrown onto the fires which were always burning there, so that Gehenna became symbolic of total destruction and rejection.</p><p>We note that the Rephaim or "giants" had children like other human beings (<a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a>; <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>; <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>). The "giants" of <a href='B:10 6:2-4'>Gen 6:2-4</a> were therefore humans and not celestial beings.</p>


text:
<p>It extended northward, went out at En Shemesh, and went out to Geliloth, which is over against the ascent of Adummim. It went down to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben- </p><p>We note that the stone of a Reubenite was the boundary marker between Judah and Benjamin (<a href='B:60 15:6'>Jos 15:6</a>). We have here a typical example of how despite the division of the tribes, with the intention that the people remained within their given family inheritances, people were dissatisfied with what God gave them; or for whatever reason moved away from them, perhaps in search of something better. And yet the gift of the inheritances was clearly meant to be by God.</p>


text:
<p>It passed along to the side over against the Arabah northward and went down to the Arabah- </p><p>The boundary of Benjamin is that of the northern border of Judah described in <a href='B:60 15:5-9'>Jos 15:5-9</a>. But the description there moves from east to west, but here from west to east.</p>


text:
<p>The border passed along to the side of Beth Hoglah northward; and the border ended at the north bay of the Salt Sea, at the south end of the Jordan. This was the south border- </p><p>"Bay" is 'tongue', and the Dead Sea is described as having such a tongue at each end of it, thus forming bays. It has been pointed out that there is no such surviving detailed geographical description of any contemporary nation. This reflects the extreme importance of the land of Israel to God. For it was and is to be His Kingdom, and has a special significance to Him.</p>


text:
<p>The Jordan was its border on the east quarter. This was the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, boundary by boundary all around, according to their families- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Now the cities of the tribe of the children of Benjamin according to their families were Jericho, Beth Hoglah, Emek Keziz- </p><p>The cities are described in two groups; 12 to the east, 14 to the west.</p>


text:
<p>Beth Arabah, Zemaraim, Bethel-</p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David's cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today. Zemaraim was in the territory assigned to Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), but is located "in the hill country of Ephraim" in <a href='B:140 13:4'>2Ch 13:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Avvim, Parah, Ophrah- </p><p>Avvim may be Ai, called Aiath (<a href='B:290 10:28'>Isa 10:28</a>) and Aija (<a href='B:160 11:31'>Neh 11:31</a>). Ophrah is not that associated with Gideon, This was not the Ophrah of Gideon, but the Ophrah which fell into Philistine hands of <a href='B:90 13:17'>1Sa 13:17</a>. The history of so many of these places reflects how the huge potential possession was not realized by Israel, and wasted spiritual potential is one of the most tragic features of the entire Divine-human encounter.</p>


text:
<p>Chephar Ammoni, Ophni, and Geba; twelve cities with their villages- </p><p>Geba is not the Gibeah of Saul as some suggest because this one is one the east (:21). Meaning "height", Geba was a common name.</p>


text:
<p>Gibeon, Ramah, Beeroth- </p><p>Beeroth was one of the Gibeonite towns which made peace with Israel, but here Benjamin is encouraged to possess it. The Gibeonites had agreed to be servants to the Israelites, and by all accounts they kept that agreement. But they remained living in their towns, such was the laziness of Israel to possess what had been given to them. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Mizpeh, Chephirah, Mozah- </p><p>Mizpeh was to become a significant holy place and point of gathering for Israel (<a href='B:70 20:1-3'>Jdg 20:1-3</a>; <a href='B:90 7:5-6'>1Sa 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:90 10:17'>1Sa 10:17</a>; <a href='B:300 40:6'>Jer 40:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Rekem, Irpeel, Taralah-</p><p>These places are at best obscure or unknown to us today. We wonder why we have these records. None of these places has been very confidently identified. We have here an example of where the Biblical record is preserved, even though it had far more meaning for the immediate audience that it has ever had for the millennia of believers who have subsequently read these words. This in turn opens up the wider debate as to which parts of Biblical writings are preserved as historical record, for our general learning; and which are specifically commandments to us. As examples, I would argue that baptism was not just a command for the first century but for us too- because of the context and reasoning behind the command. Whereas the commandments about head covering in Corinth would appear from the context to be a historical account of a specific situation in that church at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Zelah, Eleph, the Jebusite (the same is Jerusalem), Gibeath, and Kiriath; fourteen cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Benjamin according to their families-</p><p>Benjamin's inheritance was roughly 26 miles in length by 12 in breadth. But the small size was because of the huge fertility of the land and its strong topographical nature. And likewise there is in all God's gifts, in this life and eternally, a kind of compensation and equality.</p>


text:
<p>The second lot came out for Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families. Their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah- </p><p>The boundaries of the promised land and indeed the individual possessions of the tribes were changed by God in accordance with the weakness of Israel to actually drive out the tribes and take the inheritance (consider how the inheritance of Simeon and Judah was merged because of this inability to expel the Canaanites, <a href='B:60 19:1'>Jos 19:1</a>). He “changed the portion of my people” (<a href='B:400 2:4'>Mic 2:4</a>). Yet God worked with them in this progressive lowering of levels.</p>


text:
<p>They had for their inheritance Beersheba (or Sheba), Moladah-</p><p>Beersheba became effectively the southern border of Judah, hence the common phrase "from Dan [in the north] to Beersheba [in the south]". But this was not at all the southern border promised to Abraham, which was the "river of Egypt". God effectively recalculated the boundaries for Israel, as He came to realize that they simply didn't have the spiritual ambition to go and possess the full extent of the land promised to Abraham. Thus "the river" on the eastern boundary effectively was recalculated as the Jordan and not the Euphrates; and likewise the southern border shifted northwards from the brook of Egypt to Beersheba. God has a similar flexibility with us too.</p>


text:
<p>Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem- </p><p>Balah is a form of Baal. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah- </p><p>Presumably this was not God's original intention, as in <a href='B:60 15:30'>Jos 15:30</a> they are towns of Judah. We see how He is open to some recalculation of His purposes with us:&nbsp;"Bethuel, Hormah, Ziklag" (<a href='B:130 4:30'>1Ch 4:30</a>) were towns were all associated with David, and he sent presents of the Amalekite spoil to them (<a href='B:90 30:26-31'>1Sa 30:26-31</a>). It seems he wanted them under the control of Judah not Simeon:&nbsp; .</p>


text:
<p>Ziklag, Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susah-</p><p>Ziklag had been passed from Judah to Simeon (<a href='B:60 15:31'>Jos 15:31</a>; <a href='B:60 19:5'>Jos 19:5</a>) and then passed to the Philistines (<a href='B:90 27:6'>1Sa 27:6</a>)- because if we don't want the kingdom, it will be lost to us.</p>


text:
<p>Beth Lebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities with their villages- </p><p>Beth Lebaoth is Beth Biri in <a href='B:130 4:31'>1Ch 4:31</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; four cities with their villages- </p><p>These are listed in 1 Chronicles 4 as belonging to Judah. The implication could be that David tended towards a policy of 'Judah for the men of Judah', and the agreement that Simeonites could live in Judah was then not honoured. This was to come to full term in the tragic division of the kingdom in the next generation.</p>


text:
<p>and all the villages that were around these cities to Baalath Beer, Ramah of the South. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the part of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon; for the portion of the children of Judah was too much for them. Therefore the children of Simeon had inheritance in the midst of their inheritance- </p><p>"The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. See on :47. Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them.</p>


text:
<p>The third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families. The border of their inheritance was to Sarid- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Their border went up westward, even to Maralah, and reached to Dabbesheth. It reached to the brook that is before Jokneam- </p><p>The brook is probably the Kishon.</p>


text:
<p>It turned from Sarid eastward toward the sunrise to the border of Chisloth Tabor. It went out to Daberath, and went up to Japhia-</p><p>Daberath was to be given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:28'>Jos 21:28</a>; <a href='B:130 6:72'>1Ch 6:72</a>), but Zebulun had not even taken this town, let alone given it to the Levites. &nbsp;Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory such as this Philistine territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p>


text:
<p>From there it passed along eastward to Gath Hepher, to Ethkazin; and going on to Rimmon it bent toward Neah- </p><p>"Bent toward" is AVmg. “which is drawn”; see on :14. Gath Hepher was the birthplace of the prophet Jonah (<a href='B:120 14:25'>2Ki 14:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The border turned around on the north to Hannathon; and it ended at the valley of Iphtah El-</p><p>Literally “and the border went round it (Neah) northward to Hannathon", thought to be Cana. We are reading here a bird's eye description, as if someone is writing this with a detailed map. Clearly the perspective is God's, as given the lack of maps and overall topographical knowledge, no single man could have written these descriptions.</p>


text:
<p>It included Kattath, Nahalal, Shimron, Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities with their villages-</p><p>Only five names are given, but that is no contradiction; seven were not listed. The Bethlehem mentioned here is not the same as Beth-lehem Ephratah in Judah.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the children of Zebulun according to their families, these cities with their villages-</p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>The fourth lot came out for Issachar, even for the children of Issachar according to their families- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. Although the inheritances for the location of the tribal cantons were drawn by lot, it is clear the hand of God was in it. For the inheritances were appropriate to the people given them. Issachar's lot for possession of the land was next to Judah and Zebulun (<a href='B:60 19:17'>Jos 19:17</a>), with whom Issachar had lived and journeyed side by side during the wilderness years (<a href='B:40 2:5'>Num 2:5</a>; <a href='B:40 10:15'>Num 10:15</a>). This opens up the question as to whether we should also draw lots in this age. For God worked through them clearly enough in Joshua's time.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was to Jezreel, Chesulloth, Shunem-</p><p>Issachar's borders begin to be described, but are not continued. We are just given names of towns which were to be theirs. We have here another indication that the extent of inheritance in the Kingdom, both then and now, is to some degree open to recalculation. Those like Caleb who wanted specific things were given them. This flexibility of God is hard for the legalistic mind to understand. But He is so open to relationship with us, and is willing to recalculate His intentions for us according to our own vision and desires for His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Hapharaim, Shion, Anaharath-</p><p>The king of Hapharaim had been slain by Joshua (<a href='B:60 12:17'>Jos 12:17</a>); but Issachar did not possess his territory. In the type, the Lord Jesus has overcome all obstacles to our inheritance of the Kingdom; but we are often slow to do our part in making this good by possessing it.</p>


text:
<p>Rabbith, Kishion, Ebez-</p><p>These places are at best obscure or unknown to us today. We wonder why we have these records. None of these places has been very confidently identified. We have here an example of where the Biblical record is preserved, even though it had far more meaning for the immediate audience that it has ever had for the millennia of believers who have subsequently read these words. This in turn opens up the wider debate as to which parts of Biblical writings are preserved as historical record, for our general learning; and which are specifically commandments to us. As examples, I would argue that baptism was not just a command for the first century but for us too- because of the context and reasoning behind the command. Whereas the commandments about head covering in Corinth would appear from the context to be a historical account of a specific situation in that church at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Remeth, Engannim, En Haddah, and Beth Pazzez-</p><p>Ramoth in <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is called Jarmuth in <a href='B:60 21:28-29'>Jos 21:28-29</a>, and perhaps Remeth in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>. Anem of <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is&nbsp;En-gannim in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>; <a href='B:60 21:29'>Jos 21:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The border reached to Tabor, Shahazumah, and Beth Shemesh. Their border ended at the Jordan: sixteen cities with their villages- </p><p>Tabor here is not the mountain, but a town which was supposed to be given to the Levites (<a href='B:130 6:77'>1Ch 6:77</a>). See on :12. So many of the Levitical cities were in mountains or less desirable areas- so that we wonder whether really the "lot" used to distribute them was fair, because it seems many of them were cities which the tribes didn't want or own anyway.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Issachar according to their families, the cities with their villages- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. It is tragic that they were so lazy to inherit their portion, because <a href='B:10 49:14-15'>Gen 49:14-15</a> had prophesied that “seeing that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant, bowed his shoulder to bear::.". But they didn't. This was a conditional prophecy. The land was good, as the spies had said when they first viewed Canaan, just as the Kingdom is "good"; but it failed to motivate those who were satisfied with what was immediately before their eyes at this moment. And this is just why people today fail to respond to the Gospel of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The fifth lot came out for the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families- </p><p>Asher bordered Naphtali, and they also marched side by side with them through the wilderness. Although the inheritances for the location of the tribal cantons were drawn by lot, it is clear the hand of God was in it. For the inheritances were appropriate to the people given them. This opens up the question as to whether we should also draw lots in this age. For God worked through them clearly enough in Joshua's time. See on :17,32.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was Helkath, Hali, Beten, Achshaph- </p><p>Helkath was to be given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:31'>Jos 21:31</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Allammelech, Amad, Mishal. It reached to Carmel westward, and to Shihorlibnath- </p><p>Mishal was to be given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:30'>Jos 21:30</a>). But it was not possessed by Asher, and was on the mountainous edge of their territory; see on :25.</p>


text:
<p>It turned toward the sunrise to Beth Dagon, and reached to Zebulun, and to the valley of Iphtah El northward to Beth Emek and Neiel. It went out to Cabul on the left hand- </p><p>We note the retention of the old pagan name, 'house of Dagon'. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>and Ebron, Rehob, Hammon, and Kanah, even to great Sidon- </p><p>"Ebron" is Abdon in some manuscripts. This again was a town they were intended to give to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:30'>Jos 21:30</a>). We get the impression that most of Asher's border towns were supposedly taken by lot to be given to the Levites, but we wonder whether that lot wasn't interfered with; for it was towns on the very edge of their inheritance, as yet untaken from the local people, which Asher dedicated to the Levites. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>The border turned to Ramah, to the fortified city of Tyre; and the border turned to Hosah. It ended at the sea by the region of Achzib- </p><p>Asher never made any effort to take these major Phoenician cities (<a href='B:70 1:31'>Jdg 1:31</a>). They would have heard of their possible inheritance in the Kingdom, and shrugged it off as too difficult; and got on with farming what bit of land they then had. So much potential was and is wasted.</p>


text:
<p>Ummah also, and Aphek, and Rehob: twenty-two cities with their villages- </p><p>There are not 22 cities listed, but that is no contradiction. Some are listed, some aren't.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages-</p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. "The Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites” (<a href='B:70 1:32'>Jdg 1:32</a>), they made no real effort to inherit the Kingdom. They were one of the largest tribes at the census of Numbers 1 at Sinai; but were given a small area, and they became so small they are not listed amongst the tribal rulers in <a href='B:130 27:16-22'>1Ch 27:16-22</a>. Yet out of such spiritual indifference came the faithful Anna (<a href='B:490 2:36'>Luk 2:36</a>), just as we can rise up far above our unspiritual environment and background.</p>


text:
<p>The sixth lot came out for the children of Naphtali, even for the children of Naphtali according to their families- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. Naphtali marched in the wilderness side by side with Dan and Asher (<a href='B:40 2:25-31'>Num 2:25-31</a>), and now they are chosen "by lot" to again be near them. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>Their border was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim, Adaminekeb, and Jabneel, to Lakkum. It ended at the Jordan- </p><p>The northern border is unclear. Because according to the promise to Abraham, the territory of Israel could have extended far to the north, to the sources of the Euphrates. We are just given names of towns which were to be theirs. We have here another indication that the extent of inheritance in the Kingdom, both then and now, is to some degree open to recalculation. Those like Caleb who wanted specific things were given them. This flexibility of God is hard for the legalistic mind to understand. But He is so open to relationship with us, and is willing to recalculate His intentions for us according to our own vision and desires for His Kingdom. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The border turned westward to Aznoth Tabor, and went out from there to Hukkok. It reached to Zebulun on the south, and reached to Asher on the west, and to Judah at the Jordan toward the sunrise- </p><p>"Judah" is used because the sixty cities of Havoth-jair (<a href='B:40 32:41'>Num 32:41</a>) were counted as belonging to Judah. God effectively recalculated the boundaries for the tribes, as He came to accept that they simply didn't have the spiritual ambition to go and possess the full extent of the land promised to Abraham. Thus "the river" on the eastern boundary effectively was recalculated as the Jordan and not the Euphrates; and likewise the southern border shifted northwards from the brook of Egypt to Beersheba. God has a similar flexibility with us too.</p>


text:
<p>The fortified cities were Ziddim, Zer, Hammath, Rakkath, Chinnereth- </p><p>Hammath was a "fortified city" (<a href='B:60 19:35'>Jos 19:35</a>), fortified by the local population and considered too strong for Naphtali to take. But it was given by them to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:32'>Jos 21:32</a>). As noted elsewhere, the tribes "gave" to the Levites the cities which were on the very edges of their cantons, or held by the enemy, or in mountainous, remote areas. I therefore suggest that the process of distributing the priestly cities by "lot" was interfered with. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Adamah, Ramah, Hazor- </p><p>The mighty king of Hazor had been destroyed by Joshua (<a href='B:60 11:1'>Jos 11:1</a>). It is so tragic that that amazing victory had not been followed up by the Israelites, just as the victory of the Lord Jesus is likewise not personalized by so many.</p>


text:
<p>Kedesh, Edrei, En Hazor- </p><p>"Kedesh" is 'the holy place', and is another example of the spirituall disappointing retention of paganic names; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Iron, Migdal El, Horem, Beth Anath, and Beth Shemesh; nineteen cities with their villages- </p><p>Migdal El is the Magdala of <a href='B:470 15:39'>Mat 15:39</a>.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Naphtali according to their families, the cities with their villages- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. Asher bordered Naphtali, and they also marched side by side with them through the wilderness. Although the inheritances for the location of the tribal cantons were drawn by lot, it is clear the hand of God was in it. For the inheritances were appropriate to the people given them. This opens up the question as to whether we should also draw lots in this age. For God worked through them clearly enough in Joshua's time. See on :17,32:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. Naphtali marched in the wilderness side by side with Dan and Asher (<a href='B:40 2:25-31'>Num 2:25-31</a>), and now they are chosen "by lot" to again be near them. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>The border of their inheritance was Zorah, Eshtaol, Irshemesh- </p><p>Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that thou hast done unto us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc."</p>


text:
<p>Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah- </p><p>Shaalabbin, “the place of foxes", may have been named in memory of <a href='B:70 15:4'>Jdg 15:4</a>, which incident occurred in this area.</p>


text:
<p>Elon, Timnah, Ekron- </p><p>The aim of Samson's marriage was to dispossess the Philistines and take their possession for Israel. It seems no accident that he chose Timnath, 'a portion assigned'- to Israel. This was part of the land promised to Dan, but which they had allowed the Philistines to overrun (<a href='B:60 19:43'>Jos 19:43</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>). And Samson would have seen himself as 'Samson-of-Zorah', the hornet- symbol of the Egyptian tribes which drove out the Canaanites in preparation for Israel's later victories (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath- </p><p>"Baalath" is another example of the spiritually disappointing retention of paganic names; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon- </p><p>Gath Rimmon was given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:24'>Jos 21:24</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing. See on :47.</p>


text:
<p>Me-Jarkon and Rakkon, with the border over against Joppa- </p><p>We wonder why Joppa itself isn't recorded as being Dan's, although the suburbs around it were. Perhaps here again we have an example of there being great fluidity in the assignment of areas, with some tribes taking areas which the other tribes didn't want, often from fear of the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the children of Dan went out beyond them; for the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem and took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword and possessed it and lived therein, and called it Leshem Dan after the name of Dan their father-</p><p><a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p><p>God here speaks so positively about spiritually weak Dan. See on :9. "The coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p><p>LXX adds: "The children of Dan did not drive out the Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain; and the Amorite would not suffer them to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their portion". If Dan didn't have in their possession their border towns, and yet these were supposedly given by them to the Levites, then this 'gift' was meaningless. See on :45.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities with their villages- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. LXX adds: "The Amorite continued to dwell in Edom and in Salamin: and the hand of Ephraim prevailed against them, and they became tribute to them". This shows the weakness of Dan in even deeper emphasis; for Ephraim subdued those in their area whom they wouldn't.</p>


text:
<p>So they made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by its borders. The children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun in their midst- </p><p>The inheritance was ultimately given by God. So Israel 'gave' it to Joshua in that what would otherwise have been their inheritance because theirs. I have suggested on :8 that each family was given a specific inheritance which they were to build up; and Joshua set the parade example to his people in doing this (:50).</p>


text:
<p>According to the commandment of Yahweh, they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnathserah in the hill country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and lived there-</p><p>This was an example of spiritual ambition. Perhaps like Caleb he had noticed this city whilst spying out the land 40 years before, and was given his request. There is an element to which our experiences in this life lead us to desire or request things which we shall receive in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Yahweh, at the door of the Tent of Meeting. So they made an end of dividing the land-</p><p>LXX "and they went to take possession of the land". Again we note that being "before Yahweh" doesn't mean being in Heaven itself; for His representatives are spoken of as Him, and therefore coming before Him meant coming before them. It could be that the Angel of Yahweh dwelt over the mercy seat of the ark, in the shekinah glory between the cherubim; and this therefore made coming before the tabernacle a coming before Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>Having given the people their inheritances, they are now asked to set some aside as cities of refuge. But as noted several times in Joshua 19, some of these cities they had not even taken from enemy hands:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Speak to the children of Israel saying, ‘Assign the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you by Moses- </p><p>"Assign" is the usual word for "give". The tribes were to give these cities. But several of them they had not even bothered to take from the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p>that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally or unintentionally may flee there. They shall be to you for a refuge from the avenger of blood- </p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word ga'al translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>LXX adds: "until he have stood before the congregation for judgment". In this case we note that the person was to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- a principle to always live by.</p>


text:
<p>He shall flee to one of those cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city. They shall take him into the city with them and give him a place, that he may live among them- </p><p>The cities of refuge represented salvation in the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). But most of them were situation in remote or mountainous areas, Hebron being an exception. The idea was that those wishing for salvation from sin they had unintentionally committed must make quite some conscious effort and choice to get there, as is true today. And more such cities were promised, but Israel didn't take up that offer. This would have made salvation more easily accessible, as it were, had they done so.</p>


text:
<p>If the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver up the manslayer into his hand; because he struck his neighbour unintentionally, and didn’t hate him beforehand- </p><p>This is assuming that the elders find the man's case consistent and genuine. They were to judge that according to whether he 'hated him in time past' (<a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a>). We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death. John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our brother is effectively a living death sentence (<a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a>; <a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a>). It was to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer (<a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a>). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is taught here.</p>


text:
<p>He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then the manslayer shall return, and come to his own city, and to his own house, to the city he fled from’- </p><p>The death of the High Priest was paralleled with a man standing before the judgment for his crime in <a href='B:60 20:6'>Jos 20:6</a> RV. This surely prefigured how Christ's death was and is effectively our judgment. Further connection between the cross and the judgment is found in considering <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>, which states that men would look upon the pierced (i:e. crucified) Saviour, and mourn in recognition of their own sinfulness. This verse is quoted as having fulfilment both at the crucifixion (<a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a>) and also at the final judgment (<a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a>). There is strong connection between these two events.</p>


text:
<p>They set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron) in the hill country of Judah- </p><p>But Kedesh was listed in Joshua 19 as a city not yet taken by Naphtali; yet it was commanded to be given by them to the Levites as a city of refuge (<a href='B:60 20:7'>Jos 20:7</a>). So their refusal or 'being slack' to take the city meant they had no wider vision, of providing a place of refuge for the needy within Israel as a whole. And there is no real evidence that this wonderful system of salvation and justice ever really worked in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness in the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>But Ramoth Gilead passed in and out of Israelite possession; and it is doubtful whether Manasseh ever bothered securing Golan from the local inhabitants. The cities were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there.</p>


text:
<p>These were the appointed cities for all the children of Israel, and for the alien who lives among them, that whoever kills any person unintentionally might flee there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stands before the congregation- </p><p>Again we note that the person was to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- a principle to always live by. The cities were "appointed", this gracious system of salvation was carefully worked out in practice for the people. But the cities were not all "given" by the people, so the system didn't work in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Then the heads of fathers’ houses of the Levites came near to Eleazar the priest, to Joshua the son of Nun and to the heads of fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel- </p><p>They would have listened to all the descriptions of the cantons of the other tribes, and would have been deeply aware that they had not been provided for by their brethren.</p>


text:
<p>They spoke to them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan saying, Yahweh commanded Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for our livestock- </p><p>This implies that the Levites had livestock with them when they entered the land, and we assume that they also had animals with them on the wilderness journey. Hence we are told that Achan had his own flocks of animals at the time when they first crossed the Jordan and entered the land. The manna was clearly supplemented by their own food products taken from the animals they had with them. They did this to satisfy their craving for meat in addition to manna, which had nearly led to their destruction. We wonder whether the Levites ought to have had such livestock in the desert, or whether they ought to have been satisfied with the manna.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel gave to the Levites out of their inheritance, according to the commandment of Yahweh, these cities with their suburbs- </p><p>I pointed out throughout Joshua 19, and later here in this chapter, that many of the Levitical cities were 'given' to them by the tribes, when they had not driven out the tribes. Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. So this 'giving to the Levites' was giving in word but not in deed.</p>


text:
<p>The lot came out for the families of the Kohathites. The children of Aaron the priest, who were of the Levites, had thirteen cities by lot out of the tribe of Judah, out of the tribe of the Simeonites, and out of the tribe of Benjamin- </p><p>I will suggest later in this chapter, as on :3, that the tribes tended to give the Levites the cities which they didn't really possess or which were unimportant to them. It could mean that the "lot" was therefore interfered with. However, it could be that the tribes decided which towns they were going to "give", and the lot was not to decide which towns were given, but to which of the three families of the Levites the towns were to be given, i:e. the Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the children of Kohath had ten cities by lot out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim, out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>The parable of <a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a> describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a>; <a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a>; <a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e:g. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a>) and preparation of reward (<a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a>; <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>; 23:20; <a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a>). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is only eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Gershon had thirteen cities by lot out of the families of the tribe of Issachar, out of the tribe of Asher, out of the tribe of Naphtali, and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan- </p><p>As explained on :3,4, the Levites were 'given' these cities only in theory. They did not at that time 'have' them, as several of them were not even in Israelite hands.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Merari according to their families had twelve cities out of the tribe of Reuben, out of the tribe of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel gave these cities with their suburbs by lot to the Levites, as Yahweh commanded by Moses- </p><p>In other words, Joshua ensured that there was a strictly legal granting of these cities to the Levites. But as explained on :3, the spirit of all this was rather lacking seeing that several of the cities were not even possessed by the Israelites at this time. Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>They gave out of the tribe of the children of Judah, and out of the tribe of the children of Simeon, these cities which are mentioned by name- </p><p>"Mentioned" is literally to call out, as if the names of the cities were read out, along with the result of the lots, i:e. to which clan of the three sons of Levi they should be given.</p>


text:
<p>They were for the children of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites, who were of the children of Levi; for theirs was the first lot- </p><p>The Kohathites had their cities in Judah and Ephraim, which were not neighbouring tribes. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them Kiriath Arba, named after the father of Anak (the same is Hebron), in the hill country of Judah, with its suburbs around it- </p><p>Joshua had taken Hebron (<a href='B:60 10:36'>Jos 10:36</a>) but Israel had not followed up his victory, and the Philistines had returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back. A study of these place names reveals the tragic weakness of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>But they gave the fields of the city and its villages to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession- </p><p>Perhaps rather speculatively, Kiel concludes from this “that the Levites only received as many houses in the cities assigned them, as their numerical strength required, and that it was these which remained in their hands as an inalienable possession”.</p>


text:
<p>To the children of Aaron the priest they gave Hebron with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, Libnah with its suburbs- </p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word ga'al translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Jattir with its suburbs- </p><p>Jattir was given to the priests but was in Philistine territory (<a href='B:60 15:48'>Jos 15:48</a> and context). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory such as this Philistine territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p><p>Eshtemoa with its suburbs-</p><p>Eshtemoa was a priestly city; it would seem the priests were largely supportive of David when on the run from Saul, perhaps due to Samuel's influence (<a href='B:90 30:28'>1Sa 30:28</a>; <a href='B:60 15:50'>Jos 15:50</a>; <a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Holon with its suburbs, Debir with its suburbs- </p><p>"Now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher" (<a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). "Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Ain with its suburbs, Juttah with its suburbs, and Beth Shemesh with its suburbs; nine cities out of those two tribes- </p><p>In the Hebrew text of <a href='B:130 6:55-60'>1Ch 6:55-60</a> we have eleven names of priestly towns, but thirteen towns are stated as having been 'given' in <a href='B:130 6:60'>1Ch 6:60</a>. Juttah and Gibeon were promised (<a href='B:60 21:16-17'>Jos 21:16-17</a>), but were not possessed. But as also experienced in <a href='B:130 6:81'>1Ch 6:81</a>, and as often happens with God's people, they do not take all the blessing that God promised and intended for them.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Benjamin, Gibeon with its suburbs, Geba with its suburbs- </p><p>The Gibeonites had made peace with Joshua and by all accounts remained faithful to Yahweh for generations, as the Nethinim. It was appropriate that Gibeon be made a priestly city. But see on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Anathoth with its suburbs, and Almon with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Anathoth was the birthplace of Jeremiah, and means 'place of answers', perhaps because the prophetic word was given there. Almon was only one mile from Anathoth, so we get the impression the tribes were just trying to make two priestly cities out of one; which fits with the theme of them giving the Levites marginal towns or those they didn't possess.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the children of Aaron, the priests, were thirteen cities with their suburbs- </p><p>This sounds a large number of towns for this group, given their population at the time. But many of the "cities" were tiny settlements like Almon (see on :18).</p>


text:
<p>The families of the children of Kohath, the Levites, even the rest of the children of Kohath, had the cities of their lot out of the tribe of Ephraim- </p><p>The children of Kohath (i:e. here those apart from those of the priestly order), were give four cities in Ephraim, four in Dan and two in Western Manasseh. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them Shechem with its suburbs in the hill country of Ephraim, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Gezer with its suburbs- </p><p>The cities of refuge were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Kibzaim with its suburbs, and Beth Horon with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Kibzaim is Jokmeam in <a href='B:130 6:68'>1Ch 6:68</a>. Any student of the Hebrew text will soon perceive that proper nouns can be expressed in various ways, and that people and towns often had more than one name. It is nothing but intellectual desperation which would try to forge from this a claim that the record contradicts itself. Such differences surely reflect the fact that these records were written by different people at different times, and yet don't contradict because the records are all inspired by the same Spirit of God.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Dan, Elteke with its suburbs, Gibbethon with its suburbs-</p><p>These cities were in Dan (<a href='B:60 21:23-24'>Jos 21:23-24</a>), but were given by Ephraim to the Levites (<a href='B:130 6:66'>1Ch 6:66</a>; <a href='B:130 6:69'>1Ch 6:69</a>). This continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Aijalon with its suburbs, Gath Rimmon with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Gath Rimmon was one of the towns which Dan didn't take (<a href='B:60 19:45'>Jos 19:45</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Taanach with its suburbs, and Gath Rimmon with its suburbs; two cities-</p><p>&nbsp;In the list of cities given to the Levites, this is called "Bileam". "Bileam" means 'not of the people', called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the families of the rest of the children of Kohath were ten with their suburbs- </p><p>For "ten cities", see on :5.</p>


text:
<p>They gave to the children of Gershon, of the families of the Levites, out of the half-tribe of Manasseh: Golan in Bashan with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Beeshterah with its suburbs; two cities- </p><p>Golan was one of the cities of refuge on the east of Jordan. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number (<a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a>), thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of this. </p><p>Beeshterah is Ashtaroth in <a href='B:130 6:71'>1Ch 6:71</a>, a shortened for of 'house of Ashtaroth'. We note the retention of the old pagan name. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Issachar, Kishion with its suburbs, Daberath with its suburbs-</p><p>This is called Kedesh in <a href='B:60 13:22'>Jos 13:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Jarmuth with its suburbs, En Gannim with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Ramoth in <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is called Jarmuth in <a href='B:60 21:28-29'>Jos 21:28-29</a>, and perhaps Remeth in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>. Anem of <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is&nbsp; En-gannim in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>; <a href='B:60 21:29'>Jos 21:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Asher, Mishal with its suburbs, Abdon with its suburbs- </p><p>Mishal was in the mountains on the very edge of Asher's inheritance, which they had not possessed&nbsp; (<a href='B:60 19:25'>Jos 19:25</a>). See on :31; and for Abdon, on <a href='B:60 19:28'>Jos 19:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Helkath with its suburbs, and Rehob with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Helkath was in the mountains on the very edge of Asher's inheritance (<a href='B:60 19:25'>Jos 19:25</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Naphtali, Kedesh in Galilee with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, Hammothdor with its suburbs, and Kartan with its suburbs; three cities- </p><p>Hammath was a "fortified city" (<a href='B:60 19:35'>Jos 19:35</a>), fortified by the local population and considered too strong for Naphtali to take. But it was given by them to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:32'>Jos 21:32</a>). As noted elsewhere, the tribes "gave" to the Levites the cities which were on the very edges of their cantons, or held by the enemy, or in mountainous, remote areas. I therefore suggest that the process of distributing the priestly cities by "lot" was interfered with. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the Gershonites according to their families were thirteen cities with their suburbs- </p><p>The children of Gershon had thirteen cities, two in Eastern Manasseh, four in Issachar, four in Asher and three in Naphtali. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>To the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the Levites, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Jokneam with its suburbs, Kartah with its suburbs- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Dimnah with its suburbs and Nahalal with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Rimmono and Tabor in <a href='B:130 6:77'>1Ch 6:77</a> are in <a href='B:60 21:35'>Jos 21:35</a> as Dimnah and Nahalai.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer with its suburbs, Jahaz with its suburbs-</p><p>Jahaz, like Heshbon, Jazer and Mephaath, was taken by the Moabites and was in their long term possession (<a href='B:290 15:1-9'>Isa 15:1-9</a>; <a href='B:290 16:1-14'>Isa 16:1-14</a>; <a href='B:300 48:21'>Jer 48:21</a>; <a href='B:300 48:34'>Jer 48:34</a>). This continues the impression that the cities given to the Levites were often in marginal areas which were liable to attack and loss to Gentile powers. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>Kedemoth with its suburbs and Mephaath with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Kedemoth was given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:37'>Jos 21:37</a>) but was in fact a town which had not been captured from the local population (<a href='B:60 13:18'>Jos 13:18</a>). They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Gilead with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Mahanaim with its suburbs- </p><p>But Ramoth Gilead passed in and out of Israelite possession. The cities of refuge were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the cities of the children of Merari according to their families, even the rest of the families of the Levites. Their lot was twelve cities- </p><p>The children of Merari has twelve cities, four in Zebulun, four in Reuben, four in Gad. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the children of Israel were forty-eight cities with their suburbs- </p><p>The idea was that the Levites would live "in the midst" of the people, teaching them God's way. But Israel's apostacy is often blamed upon the failure of the priesthood; and yet that in turn was partly due to Israel not providing for the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>Each of these cities included their suburbs around them. It was this way with all these cities-</p><p>"Suburbs" is translated by some as "cattle drives".</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land which He swore to give to their fathers. They possessed it, and lived in it- </p><p>The Lord gave them the land, i:e. potentially, but they failed to possess it; the language here is that of potential achievement by Joshua, rather than by Israel in practice. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p><p>But Joshua's achievements are presented as a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. In a sense, the promises that the seed would inherit the land, and that God would be their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He is their God. And that land in a sense was given to the Jewish fathers (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a>; <a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a> NIV; <a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a>; <a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the main fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has already been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i:e:, us!</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He swore to their fathers-</p><p><a href='B:650 3:8'>Heb 3:8</a> is clear that Joshua did not give them "rest" as intended, and so his work was reapplied and rescheduled to his namesake the Lord Jesus. So the language here is that of potential achievement by Joshua, rather than by Israel in practice.</p><p>Not a man of all their enemies stood before them. Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand- </p><p>But their enemies did stand before them, they didn't possess all the land. Yet God puts it over so positively, as if it's a story with a happy ending- when actually it's a tragedy. Even when rebuking them, God sees Israel as in some ways " perfect" (<a href='B:290 42:18-20'>Isa 42:18-20</a>). Israel were like Sodom, and yet they weren't treated like Sodom (<a href='B:290 1:9-10'>Isa 1:9-10</a>). They were Jeshurun, the upright one, but they kicked at God (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>). See on <a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Nothing failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel; all came to pass- </p><p>Literally, 'a word from all the good word'. Every word of promise concerning every town, field, cattle drive and suburb didn't fail. God's prophecies do not fail of themselves; it is human weakness which fails to realize the prophetic potential. Indeed as concluded in <a href='B:60 24:18'>Jos 24:18</a> "Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples". But Israel failed to make good on that, for they didn't drive out all the peoples. This all speaks of the tragic wasted potential which there is in all that the Lord Jesus achieved. He won the victories over every aspect of sin, every obstacle between us and possessing the Kingdom. But we are slow and lazy to believe and act upon that. See on <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua called the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh-</p><p>Clearly Joshua called the representatives of those tribes. This is a major theme in the Bible- that the representative of a person or entity is spoken of as being that person. Understanding this helps us easily understand the verses wrested to support the mistaken doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>and said to them, You have kept all that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, and have listened to my voice in all that I commanded you-</p><p>Moses had told the Reubenites and Gadites that they could return to their possessions when “the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, and they also possess the land” (<a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a>). But Joshua tells them to go to their possessions simply because their brethren were now at “rest” (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He significantly omits the proviso that their brethren must also possess the land- because much of the land wasn’t possessed. Was this Joshua getting slack, thinking that the main thing was that people were living in peace, even though they weren’t possessing the Kingdom? Or is it a loving concession to human weakness? Indeed, the conditions of <a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a>. </p><p>Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); although he potentially enabled it (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>; <a href='B:60 23:1'>Jos 23:1</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but Israel would not. And so his work was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who does give "rest" to the true people of God (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). See on <a href='B:60 21:43-44'>Jos 21:43-44</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>; <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>; <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a>. Or is all this rooted in his love for them, not seeing iniquity in Jacob?</p>


text:
<p>You have not left your brothers these many days to this day, but have performed the duty commanded by Yahweh your God- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Now Yahweh your God has given rest to your brothers, as He spoke to them. Therefore now return and go to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan- </p><p>This is a timeless principle- that our own inheritance of the Kingdom requires our efforts to help our brethren inherit it also. For in a sense, salvation is collective; the body of Christ receive His resurrection life, the Israel of God inherit Canaan. Whilst relationship with God is ultimately personal, the essence of that relationship is love. And love in its ultimate term is the desire to eternally save others.</p>


text:
<p>Only take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, to love Yahweh your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep His commandments, to hold fast to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul-</p><p>If we love the Lord Jesus Christ, we will keep His words (<a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a>; <a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a>; <a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a>; <a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a>; <a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a>; <a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a>; <a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a>; <a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a>; <a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all&nbsp;related to showing love (<a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a>). It is all to easy to see our relationship with God and Christ as a question of obedience to their words, as if this is somehow a test of our spirituality. This is to humanize God too far, to see God as if He were a fallible man; for if we were God, we would institute some kind of written test for our creatures: 'Do this, and if you don't, then I know you don't love me'. The God of glory is beyond this kind of thing. He is His word. If we love Him, we will be eager to know His words, we will dwell upon them, we will live them out in our daily experience as far as we can.</p><p>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>; <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua blessed them and sent them away; and they went to their tents- </p><p>The agreement in <a href='B:60 1:14'>Jos 1:14</a> had been that "Your wives, your little ones and your livestock shall live in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but all your mighty men of valour shall pass over before your brothers, armed, and shall help them". This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard. Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God's protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn't work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.</p>


text:
<p>Now to the one half-tribe of Manasseh Moses had given inheritance in Bashan; but to the other half gave Joshua among their brothers beyond the Jordan westward. Moreover when Joshua sent them away to their tents he blessed them- </p><p>Division between brethren is not God's ideal intention. We wonder whether this arrangement was God's curse, if that is not too strong a word, upon Manasseh's desire for the immediate inheritance east of Jordan. We note that Dan also, a tribe associated with much spiritual failure, was likewise given two areas of inheritance, one in the south and one in the north.</p>


text:
<p>and spoke to them saying, Return with much wealth to your tents, with very much livestock, with silver, gold, brass, iron and with very much clothing. Divide the spoil of your enemies with your brothers- </p><p>The enemies of Israel west of Jordan were still their enemies, and they were to divide the spoil they had taken there with their brothers east of Jordan. Although God arranged their disunity in response to their wish (see on :7), He also worked to minimize it.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh returned, and departed from the children of Israel out of Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession which they owned, according to the commandment of Yahweh by Moses-</p><p>"Which they owned" is a reminder that God accepted the situation, as discussed on :6,7. He had given them their inheritance as they requested, even if it was not His idea intention. But He didn't wish for that to be revisited and caviled against by the other tribes. This was legitimately their inheritance. After less than ideal behaviour from others, we need to move on, the lines remain drawn where they have been- but we must move on with our brethren and not seek to endlessly revisit the issue:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the region about the Jordan, that is in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, a great altar to look at- </p><p>This altar was right on the edge of their territory, and was not therefore intended as a central place of worship. It was perhaps built opposite the altar that been built when Israel first crossed the Jordan. See on :11. Their desire to settle east of Jordan meant they would be separated from the sanctuary by the river Jordan. The law required that three times / year their men were to appear at the sanctuary. We recall from <a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a> that the Jordan was very hard to cross at the time of Passover. So their decision was going to make spiritual devotions and obedience to the law far harder to keep. But God went along with their request, as did the Father of the prodigal son. And as He did with Israel's request for a human king and a temple- even though those things made devotion to Him that much harder to achieve.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel heard a report that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh had built an altar in the forefront of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that pertains to the children of Israel- </p><p>Or "at the passage of the children of Israel". This would confirm the suggestion on :10, that it was built opposite the altar that been built when Israel first crossed the Jordan. And this too would be the sense of "the forefront of the land of Canaan". For Israel had first entered Canaan at this point, in the plains opposite Jericho, and they considered that area to be the 'forefront' of Canaan:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When the children of Israel confirmed this, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up against them to war- </p><p>We have the impression that they did the right thing on hearing a report (:11); they confirmed it to be true by investigation. But then they fail completely in going to war against their brethren who only recently had been fighting for them in the vanguard of the Israelite army, in order to secure their inheritance west of Jordan. There were clearly underlying jealousy and personality issues. They were twisting the Mosaic commandment of <a href='B:50 13:12-16'>Deu 13:12-16</a> about investigating whether or not idolatry was being committed in a city, and if it was, then attacking and destroying the city. As often happens in these kinds of controversies, there is a semblance of obedience to Divine commands [they confirmed that an altar had been built], but not in fact. For no idolatry was being committed upon the altar which had been built. They found no evidence of that but still wanted to attack and destroy their brethren. The scenario has repeated countless times within the body of Christ. And the western tribes could hardly consistently claim such a scrupulous level of obedience to Divine law, when they had not driven out the Canaanite tribes and were starting to worship their gods. They were transferring their own guilt onto others. This is why brethren guilty of a certain sin will zealously accuse others [even falsely] of that very sin, and seek to punish them for it. This is not simply a case of hypocrisy. It is psychological transference of their own sin onto others, and seeking to punish them with the judgment they themselves deserve.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel sent to the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead. They sent Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest- </p><p>Phinehas had become well known for saving Israel by murdering the apostates (<a href='B:40 25:7'>Num 25:7</a>). But as explained on :12, here he was going too far. He was assuming the existence of idolatry, when in fact there was none. He was of the personality type which was judgmental, and had made his name, as it were, from this. But on this occasion he was allowing the natural human desire to be judgmental to consume him, when he ought to have controlled it. There are so many people like him in the body of Christ today. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>and with him ten princes, one prince of a fathers’ house for each of the tribes of Israel; and they were each one of them head of their fathers’ houses among the thousands of Israel-&nbsp; </p><p>This would have included a prince for the other half of the tribe of Manasseh which was west of Jordan. We wonder how enthusiastic he really was, or like many a member of committees of brethren who are directed to attack other brethren::. he maybe secretly disliked this direction, but succumbed to group pressure. Or perhaps the western half tribe were jealous of the apparently better possession which the eastern half apparently had.</p>


text:
<p>They came to the children of Reuben and to the children of Gad and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, to the land of Gilead, and they spoke with them saying- </p><p>Gilead was the very area where Jacob and Laban had built a mound of rocks to symbolize their separation from each other, although with Yahweh watching between them (<a href='B:10 31:23'>Gen 31:23</a>; <a href='B:10 31:25'>Gen 31:25</a>). It was also the area where Esau came to slay his brother Jacob, but was stopped in his tracks by God, and by Jacob's repentance. Perhaps something like that was going on here. The eastern tribes may well have had something to repent of; and the hypocritical western tribes were acting as Esau rather than Jacob. Perhaps the eastern tribes, despite fighting for their western brethren against the Canaanites, had fallen out with their brethren. And they had built this altar in the spirit in which Jacob and Laban had built their altar in the same area. But division between brethren is not the same as idolatry, in this context. The fact brethren are separated doesn't make one party idolatrous. Gilead had been specifically given to Machir son of Manasseh in <a href='B:40 32:40'>Num 32:40</a>, so it was quite wrong for the eastern tribes to imply this land was unclean (:19), and that the eastern tribes ought to come and live with the western tribes- with such "unity" enforced at sword point! Terrible abuse has been performed by Christians in the name of "unity within Israel", and we see it all prefigured here.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says the whole congregation of Yahweh, ‘What trespass is this that you have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following Yahweh, in that you have built yourselves an altar, to rebel this day against Yahweh?- </p><p>They considered themselves as those on the west of Jordan to be "the whole congregation of Yahweh". They considered geographical issues, and the unwise choices of seven years previously, to have cut off the eastern tribes from Yahweh's congregation. This is typical of the kind of wrong reasoning which goes on within the body of believers to this day; considering that they alone are the body of believers, and reasoning onwards further from that false assumption and perspective. We also note that half of the tribe of Manasseh were also west of Jordan. So by reasoning like this, they were pitting brother against brother. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Is the iniquity of Peor of little consequence for us, from which we have not cleansed ourselves to this day, although there came a plague on the congregation of Yahweh- </p><p>Phinehas is alluding to how he had saved Israel from destruction at that time by destroying the apostates (see on :13). He implies that although he cleansed Israel at the time, they were still unclean from it in that idolatry was still ongoing. But his hypocrisy is in the way that he is ignoring that the idolatry was not simply in the eastern tribes; it was clearly amongst his own western tribes, as indicated by later commentary upon their spiritual state. Defending the fait against perceived possible idolatry can become obsessive- exactly because it appeals to the flesh. Otherwise fairly lax believers eagerly get caught up in a feeding frenzy of judgment against their own brethren, because it is all a transference onto others of their own weakness and liability to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>that you must turn away this day from following Yahweh? It will be, since you rebel today against Yahweh, that tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel- </p><p>Their logic is wrong all the way through. They had just reasoned that they alone were the congregation of Israel (see on :16). But now they reason that if those in the congregation east of Jordan sin, then they on the west of Jordan will be punished for it, because all the congregation will suffer together. Yet they have just reasoned that those on the east were not in the congregation of Yahweh. This is the kind of serious error in logic found in nearly all division and aggression within the body of believers today. These ancient records speak so relevantly to our day, for God's word is in this sense a living word.</p>


text:
<p>However, if the land of your possession is unclean, then pass over to the land of the possession of Yahweh, in which Yahweh’s tabernacle dwells, and take possession among us; but don’t rebel against Yahweh, nor rebel against us, in building an altar other than the altar of Yahweh our God-</p><p>Clearly the western tribes considered the land east of Jordan to be unclean. They were ignoring the fact God had given the eastern tribes their inheritance there, calling it the "good land", and defining clearly their borders and cities, even asking for cities of refuge and priestly cities there. They were reasoning in a very parochial way. For the land right up to the Euphrates had been promised to them; indeed the majority of the land promised to Abraham was east of Jordan. God had made a concession to their weakness by recalculating "the river" as the Jordan rather than the Euphrates. They were psychologically transferring their perception [that the land east of Jordan was unclean] onto these people. Likewise they equate rebelling "against us" with rebellion "against Yahweh". They were playing God, assuming that anyone not with them was against them and thus against God. It was just this mentality amongst His followers which the Lord rebuked sternly in <a href='B:490 9:50'>Luk 9:50</a>. See on :31.</p><p>As we will see on :29, this is very similar to the exaggerated challenge made by Joshua to the hypocritical western tribes in <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a> "If it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh::.". &nbsp;Joshua was speaking to the western tribes as they had spoken to the eastern tribes- and accusing them of idolatry, as they had [perhaps falsely, but hypocritically] accused the eastern tribes. The western tribes were being made to feel how they had made the eastern tribes feel; and were being reminded of their own idolatry. God likewise works with men today, often confronting those who confront their brethren, and trying to help them perceive their hypocrisy and repent.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the devoted thing, causing wrath to fall on all the congregation of Israel? That man didn’t perish alone in his iniquity’- </p><p>Again, Biblical precedent is being used wrongly, in order to justify participation in a feeding frenzy of judgmentalism. In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us.</p><p>This is no evidence for guilt by association. The situation here has been misinterpreted by some to mean that we therefore cannot associate with sinners of the Achan category, lest we become defiled by association with them. But the point is that all the community of believers are in a sense considered at fault because of the failings of some of them. So if there is guilt by association, then it cannot be avoided by not associating with sinful people within the community. For the people of God, the community, is indivisible. We are in it and cannot quit it, if we wish to remain God's people. And in fact the Lord Jesus time and again turned all this around to the opposite- by willingly seeking association with sinners, eating with them, touching the leper etc. He was not thereby condemned, but rather sought to highlight His association with unclean people of God. It was through that willing association that we are saved.</p>


text:
<p>Then the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered and spoke to the heads of the thousands of Israel- </p><p>The style of the record is very slow and deliberate, to focus our attention upon the words spoken, and to perceive for ourselves where truth really lay in this matter.</p>


text:
<p>The Mighty One, God, Yahweh, the Mighty One, God, Yahweh, He knows; and Israel shall know if it was in rebellion, or in trespass against Yahweh (don’t save us this day)- </p><p>The repeated usage of the covenant Name is to show that they were faithful to Yahweh and had not at all turned away to idols; and therefore the harnessing of <a href='B:50 13:12-16'>Deu 13:12-16</a> to slay them was quite inappropriate. Their argument in :22,23 seems appropriate to those who are genuinely taken aback by a false accusation of idolatry. They seem to be saying that God knows, and He will judge- and these incensed brethren ought to leave it to Him, and not act for Him. And that is really all we can say to people who are utterly obsessed with finding fault with us and condemning us.</p>


text:
<p>He knows whether we have built us an altar to turn away from following Yahweh; or to offer burnt offering or meal offering, or sacrifices of peace offerings-</p><p>As discussed on :33, the altar they had built was symbolic and not for actual usage in worship.</p><p>Let Yahweh Himself decide-</p><p>"Decide" is the word for searching of requiring. The judgment will be the time when God 'requires' of us our behaviour. And yet the Hebrew word is used about our enquiring / searching to God in prayer now (<a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a>; <a href='B:20 18:15'>Exo 18:15</a>; <a href='B:50 4:29'>Deu 4:29</a>; <a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a>; <a href='B:110 22:5'>1Ki 22:5</a>), as well as His 'requiring' / searching of us at the last day (<a href='B:50 18:19'>Deu 18:19</a>; <a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a>; <a href='B:60 22:23'>Jos 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a>; <a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a>; <a href='B:330 3:20'>Eze 3:20</a>; <a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a>; <a href='B:330 33:8'>Eze 33:8</a>). There is a mutuality between a man and his God. We must keep and seek for His commandments and He will seek / search our hearts in response (<a href='B:130 28:8-9'>1Ch 28:8-9</a> - the same original words are used). The wicked don't seek for God because they don't think He will require their deeds of them; but because He will require them, we should enquire / seek for Him (<a href='B:230 10:4'>Psa 10:4</a>; <a href='B:230 10:13'>Psa 10:13</a>; <a href='B:230 10:15'>Psa 10:15</a> - the same word occurs three times). We enquire of Him and He enquires of us, both now and in the last day. This entering into 'enquiry' with our God is what goes on in prayer. In it we have a foretaste of judgment to come.</p>


text:
<p>if we have not out of concern done this, and for a reason, saying, ‘In time to come your children might speak to our children saying, What have you to do with Yahweh, the God of Israel?- </p><p>The eastern tribes had already effectively started to say this, by implying that the eastern tribes were living in an unclean land and were not part of the congregation of Yahweh; see on :16,19.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh has made the Jordan a border between us and you, you children of Reuben and children of Gad. You have no portion in Yahweh’. So your children might make our children cease from fearing Yahweh- </p><p>Yahweh had indeed established the Jordan as a border between the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Eastern Manasseh didn't have the Jordan as a border. We note the absolute internal consistency of the records. "No portion" is the term often used of how the Levites had "no portion", no tribal canton allotted to them. The eastern tribes foresaw that the western tribes were reasoning toward a position whereby everything east of the Jordan was not the inheritance of Yahweh; see on :19. By so doing, they were totally overlooking the Abrahamic covenant promise of all the land east of Jordan up to the Euphrates. The western tribes were only harnessing a few scriptures out of context, and were overlooking the overall tenor of scriptural teaching.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore we said, ‘Let’s now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice- </p><p>They stress that like the altar built opposite on the other side of Jordan to commemorate the crossing of Jordan, and like the altar built by Jacob in this place, they intended just a memorial and not an active functioning altar. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>but it will be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us- </p><p>This continues the allusion to the altar made by Jacob and Laban in the same area, as a "witness" of their positions (<a href='B:10 31:48'>Gen 31:48</a>), just as the altar built on the western side of Jordan was likewise intended as a teaching tool and witness (<a href='B:60 4:6-7'>Jos 4:6-7</a>).</p><p>That we may perform the service of Yahweh before Him with our burnt offerings, with our sacrifices and with our peace offerings;’ that your children may not tell our children in time to come, ‘You have no portion in Yahweh’- </p><p>So they appear to mean in :26 that they did not then at that time intend to use it, but they would use it if later their descendants were banned from worshipping at the sanctuary to the west of Jordan. The idea would be that the altar was a witness of their intentions, and this is another example of the language of inanimate objects speaking and witnessing. This is not literally true, just as demons don't exist, yet the New Testament uses the language of demons as then understood.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore we said, ‘It shall be, when they tell us or our generations this in time to come, that we shall say, Behold the pattern of the altar of Yahweh, which our fathers made, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice-&nbsp; </p><p>We note their calm response to monstrous false accusation- that they were already using the altar for idol worship and therefore must be violently destroyed by their brethren. In fact the altar's meaning [at least, as they explained it] was the very opposite of what the ten tribes had willfully misinterpreted it to mean. LXX "Behold the likeness of the altar of the Lord" suggests they intentionally copied the altar before the tabernacle, because they wanted this altar to be used for sacrifice if they were denied access to that in the sanctuary west of Jordan.</p><p>But it is a witness between us and you’-</p><p>See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Far be it from us that we should rebel against Yahweh, thus turning away this day from following Yahweh to build an altar for burnt offering, for meal offering, or for sacrifice, in competition with the altar of Yahweh our God that is before His tabernacle!- </p><p>The accusation was that they had rebelled against Yahweh (:16,18,19). The western tribes claimed they had evidence for this, and they use the words of Joshua himself found in <a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a> "Only don’t rebel against Yahweh". But that verse continues: "Neither fear the people of the land; for they are bread for us. Their defence is removed from over them, and Yahweh is with us. Don’t fear them". But the western tribes did fear the Canaanites, and did not drive them out of their territories. So again we see how they justified their jealousy of the eastern tribes by grabbing half of a Bible verse out of context. The rest of that verse shows that it was they who were the rebels against Yahweh. Indeed all Israel were rebellious against Yahweh from the day He knew them (<a href='B:50 9:24'>Deu 9:24</a>), and <a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> specifically states that after entering the land, they "were disobedient and rebelled against You". <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a> is specific that there was idolatry going on amongst the western tribes at this time, so their attempt to exterminate the eastern tribes for unproven accusations of idolatry is to be seen as hypocritical.</p><p>These are pretty much the words of the western tribes in <a href='B:60 24:16'>Jos 24:16</a>. The western tribes were hypocritical in implying that they were so totally devoted to Yahweh alone that they had to slay their eastern brethren because of their possible idolatry. In Joshua 24, they are effectively accused of idolatry by Joshua in the same way as they accused the eastern tribes of it. And they are answering in the same way- even though they were guilty of idolatry themselves, and needed to "put away" their idols (<a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>). Phinehas (:30) is revealed here as somewhat hypocritical, for surely he was aware of the situation in Israel. For Joshua himself clearly knew that idolatry was widespread amongst them, as his speech in Joshua 24 makes clear.</p>


text:
<p>When Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it pleased them well- </p><p>What "pleased" or 'was good in the eyes of' the elders was likewise 'good in the eyes of' the peoples of the western tribes (s:w. :33). Major decisions about the fate of many people, going to war or not, were based upon what seemed good in the eyes of 11 men. I suggest on :32 that there must have been other issues going on here beneath the surface.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said to the children of Reuben, to the children of Gad, and to the children of Manasseh, Today we know that Yahweh is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this trespass against Yahweh. Now you have delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of Yahweh- </p><p>Yahweh's hand was not against the tribes east of Jordan. The hand that was against them was the hand of the western tribes, motivated by personal dislike and jealousy. Again they make the mistake of playing God, assuming that their positions are God's; see on :19. And Phinehas offers no apology for his wrong assumption that the altar was idolatrous; he seeks to save face by implying they had in fact repented, and thereby saved the rest of Israel from being punished by Yahweh. Again we note the contradiction in logic. The western tribes had just reasoned that they alone were the congregation of Israel (see on :16). But now they reason that if those in the congregation east of Jordan sin, then they on the west of Jordan will be punished for it, because all the congregation will suffer together. Yet they have just claimed that those on the east were not in the congregation of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and the princes, returned from the children of Reuben, and from the children of Gad, out of the land of Gilead, to the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and brought them word again- </p><p>We see here the fickleness of people. One moment they were intent on destroying their brethren, claiming to have researched the matter and found them guilt of idolatry. And now they are all "pleased" with the words of the men of the eastern tribes. Given the massive problem with idolatry throughout Israel at this time, one suspects that some unrecorded deal was cut between the two sides, and that there were ulterior motives for wanting to fight against the eastern tribes.</p>


text:
<p>The thing pleased the children of Israel; and the children of Israel blessed God, and spoke no more of going up to destroy in warfare the land in which the children of Reuben and the children of Gad lived- </p><p>Israelites from the western tribes were later to be persecuted for their faithlessness and crossed the Jordan into the territory of Gad (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). This is fair commentary upon the situation in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:25'>Jos 22:25</a>, where the Israelites accused Gad of falling away from Yahweh worship, and the people of Gad explained that they feared that the other Israelites would make the Jordan a boundary which they would use to exclude them from Yahweh worship. All these fears and speculations about the future are here shown to be inappropriate. Actually the very opposite worked out. And this is the problem with so many divisions between brethren; they are based upon fears of possible futures, and the passage of time often shows the opposite working out.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben and the children of Gad named the altar ‘A Witness Between Us that Yahweh is God’- </p><p>The implication of course was that "We will serve Yahweh alone". If Yahweh is God, which the Bible states on about every page of the Old Testament in the phrase "Yahweh God", then it is axiomatic that we are to serve Him with unique loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after many days, when Yahweh had given rest to Israel from their enemies all around and Joshua was old and well advanced in years- </p><p>Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); although he potentially enabled it (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but Israel would not. And so his work was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who does give "rest" to the true people of God (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). See on <a href='B:60 21:43-44'>Jos 21:43-44</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>; <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>; <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a>.</p>


text:
<p>that Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, their heads, their judges and for their officers and said to them, I am old and well advanced in years-</p><p>He invited "all Israel", but it seems from :4 that only those west of Jordan came. Already the unwisdom of settlement to the east of Jordan was apparent. They put secular advantage before spiritual fellowship, and suffered for it.</p>


text:
<p>You have seen all that Yahweh your God has done to all these nations because of you; for it is Yahweh your God who has fought for you-</p><p><a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> specifically states that after entering the land, they "were disobedient and rebelled against You":&nbsp;&nbsp;Given the very quick descent into idolatry we read of in Judges, it is clear that Yahweh fought for Israel because of Joshua's faith and His loving grace towards them- and not because of their spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I have allotted to you these nations that remain to be an inheritance for your tribes, from the Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, even to the great sea toward the going down of the sun- </p><p>The Lord Jesus may allude here in saying that He has appointed unto us a Kingdom (<a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a>). Joshua enabled the Kingdom, overcame all obstacles to it, and appointed it to Israel. But he couldn't drag them in to possess it and experience it, and neither will the Lord Jesus do. Joshua seems here to be addressing the western tribes- for he speaks of inheritance from the Jordan to the Mediterranean:&nbsp; See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh your God will thrust them out from before you, and drive them from out of your sight. You shall possess their land, as Yahweh your God spoke to you- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that you not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>See on <a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a>. Because God gave them the land of Canaan, a land for which they did not labour, didn't do any 'work' to receive, but were given because "You did a favour unto them" (<a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>)- therefore they were to keep the law (<a href='B:50 26:15-16'>Deu 26:15-16</a>; <a href='B:50 29:8-9'>Deu 29:8-9</a>; <a href='B:60 23:5-6'>Jos 23:5-6</a>). David said that he loved keeping the law because God's testimony to him was so miraculous (<a href='B:230 119:129'>Psa 119:129</a> Heb:). There is an awesomeness to God's grace in all this. Hence the paradox of <a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a>: "Fear not::. that the fear of God may be before your faces". We are not to fear Him, for such perfect love casts out fear::. yet it is exactly because of the wonder of all this that we live life in some fear / awe of misusing and abusing that grace.</p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed.</p>


text:
<p>that you not mingle with these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow down yourselves to them-</p><p>'Don’t even make mention of their gods' is alluded to in <a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>; Paul understands idolatry in our age as referring to the perversions and pleasures of the world around us.</p><p><a href='B:60 23:7'>Jos 23:7</a> made a concession regarding the nations left in the land. The ideal standard was to destroy them. But the concession was made that they should not socialize with them or worship their gods. But inevitably they did mix with those nations and learned their religions. Likewise the early Jewish Christians were allowed to keep the Mosaic law (in concessions to human weakness like that of Acts 15), but this really implied a lack of faith in Christ's sacrifice, with the result that many of them seem to have drifted back to Judaism. Concessions to human weakness [we think of God allowing them to have a human king and a temple, which were not His will, and His permission for the eastern tribes to settle far from His sanctuary] are made because God wants by all means to continue relationship with us; but they actually make the path to relationship with Him more difficult.</p>


text:
<p>but hold fast to Yahweh your God, as you have done to this day- </p><p>We wonder whether this was really true. "Hold fast" is the word for "cleave" used of marriage (<a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>). Israel's faithfulness to God's covenant is likened to marital faithfulness. Their associations with other gods were therefore adultery. It rather seems that Joshua's faith had led to blessing for the people. For they very soon turned after the gods of the land. I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh has driven great and strong nations out from before you. But as for you, no man has stood before you to this day-</p><p>And yet even at this time, Israel felt the nations to be too strong for them (<a href='B:70 1:1'>Jdg 1:1</a>); despite every evidence that they would win if they tried to fight them. Likewise the Lord Jesus, the greater Joshua, has won every victory, and therefore anything that appears an obstacle between us and possession of the Kingdom is going to soon crumble. If we fight it. But like Israel, we tend to not even seriously try.</p>


text:
<p>One man of you shall chase a thousand; for it is Yahweh your God who fights for you, as He spoke to you- </p><p>Joshua is recalling the reversal at Ai, when Israel had been chased by their enemies for disobedience to the covenant. And likewise he recalls how it was God who had fought for Israel during the multiple victories against the Canaanites.</p><p>Samson is to be read as a symbol of Israel: "Be therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses::. that you come not among these nations, these that remain among you (true in Samson's time):::but cleave unto the Lord your God::. no man has been able to stand before you (this was Samson)::. one man of you shall chase a thousand (cp. <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>): for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you (this was exactly true of Samson in <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>)::. take good heed unto yourselves::. else if you do at all go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them (as Samson did), and go in unto them, and they to you (cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; Judges 16 :, where Samson went in to the Philistine women): know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you (cp. 16:20); but they shall be snares and traps unto you (Delilah!)::. and thorns in your eyes, until you perish" (<a href='B:60 23:6-13'>Jos 23:6-13</a>). This passage would associate Samson's God-given strength and victory over the Philistines with his obedience to God's word.</p>


text:
<p>Take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh your God- </p><p>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>; <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.</p>


text:
<p>But if you do at all mix with and hold fast to the remnant of these nations, even these who remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in to them and they to you-</p><p>In this context of marriage out of the Faith, we read that God will destroy "him that hates Him" (<a href='B:50 7:2-11'>Deu 7:2-11</a>), and repay him to his face. On the other hand, not marrying Gentiles was part of loving God (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>):&nbsp;Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you::. thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson being tied up and blinded by Delilah; and yet it also had an element of fulfillment with his first wife. The similarity is such as to suggest that Samson's marriage out of the Truth was definitely wrong because it was a fulfillment of the words of Joshua 23. But God worked through it, so eager is He to work with less than ideal choices of His children.</p>


text:
<p>know for a certainty that Yahweh your God will no longer drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap to you, a scourge in your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which Yahweh your God has given you- </p><p>This is explicit that it was because of marriage out of the faith that Israel lost their inheritance in the Kingdom, and the Gentile nations there remained a thorn in their eyes. Because of the seriousness of it, the prohibitions against intermarriage are often accompanied with an unmistakable threat of judgment: "The Lord will cut off the man that does this" (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>); "destroy them::. (the Lord) will not be slack::. He will repay him to his face" (<a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>; <a href='B:50 7:10'>Deu 7:10</a>); "know for a certainty::. that God will expel you from the land" if you intermarry (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a>); "him shall God destroy" (<a href='B:540 6:14-16'>2Co 6:14-16</a> cp. <a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a>). If we deny our covenant with God by marrying into the world, we have effectively cut ourselves off from Him.</p><p>We are to be renewed in knowledge, finding full assurance of our salvation in understanding (<a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a>; <a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a>). The Hebrew word for “understanding” is also that for “certainty”- e:g. <a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a> “Know for a certainty…” [s:w. “understanding”]. To understand is to be sure, in God’s language. Understanding, "being filled with the knowledge of his will", does have a place in determining our daily walk in Christ. What and how we understand, and thereby what we believe, does therefore matter.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, today I am going the way of all the earth. You know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which Yahweh your God spoke concerning you. All have happened to you, not one thing has failed of it- </p><p>Literally, 'not a word from all the good word'. Every word of promise concerning every town, field, cattle drive and suburb didn't fail. God's prophecies do not fail of themselves; it is human weakness which fails to realize the prophetic potential. Indeed as concluded in <a href='B:60 24:18'>Jos 24:18</a> "Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples". But Israel failed to make good on that, for they didn't drive out all the peoples. This all speaks of the tragic wasted potential which there is in all that the Lord Jesus achieved. He won the victories over every aspect of sin, every obstacle between us and possessing the Kingdom. But we are slow and lazy to believe and act upon that. See on <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen that as all the good things have come on you of which Yahweh your God spoke to you, so Yahweh will bring on you all the evil things until He has destroyed you from off this good land which Yahweh your God has given you- </p><p>Joshua alludes to how they had read the blessings and cursings at mount Ebal. As it happened, Israel did worship other gods consistently. And yet it took centuries before God removed them from the land. His patient grace was wonderful. Likewise the experience of "good things" was by God's grace, giving the rewards for obedience to those who were disobedient. Much of it was achieved by Joshua, and this, it seems, was counted to the people.</p>


text:
<p>if you disobey the covenant of Yahweh your God which He commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down yourselves to them. Then the anger of Yahweh will be kindled against you, and you will perish quickly from off the good land which He has given to you- </p><p>Joshua is making the same point time and again. He obviously sensed the tendency towards idolatry, which makes the apparent zeal of the western tribes to destroy the eastern tribes in Joshua 22 so deeply hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and called for the elders of Israel, for their heads, their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God- </p><p>"Before God" means before Joshua&nbsp; or before the tabernacle. This is a major theme in the Bible- that the representative of a person or entity is spoken of as being that person. Understanding this helps us easily understand the verses wrested to support the mistaken doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to all the people, Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Your fathers lived of old time beyond the River, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods- </p><p>The meanings of Abraham's immediate ancestors all have associations with idolatry, confirming the note here that Abram and his ancestors were idolaters. Out of that background, God chose a man who had the potential to be different. Another reading of "Terah" is that it means "One who tarries / remains", which would fit with his remaining in Haran and not going further towards Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac- </p><p>Note that God took Abram, when Abram had been asked to leave of his own volition. He didn't do this, and so God as it were muscled in and dragged him out. God made him obedient to the call. <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a> LXX has "when God brought me forth out of the house of my father"; we see the emphasis upon God bringing him out to separation from his relatives, rather than his obedience to the call to do so. By saying this, he would be growing closer to appreciating grace; that God caused him to be obedient when he of himself was not. This is the same work of the Spirit which continues in our days. The Gentile believers are in this sense 'made obedient' by the Spirit's work (<a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a>). Truly our salvation is not of works of obedience, lest any man should boast (<a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a>).</p><p>Our own calling out of this world is likewise a matter of God’s grace; He wishes to save us, and leads us out of situations and into new ones, when we ourselves ought to have made the moves of our own volition. He makes us wander from our father’s house (<a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a>). This is all part of the “blessing” to Abraham, which involves turning us away from sin (<a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>). God was the one who brought about Abraham’s obedience. "From thence [Haran]::. God removed him into (Canaan)" (<a href='B:510 7:4'>Act 7:4</a> R:V:).</p>


text:
<p>I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau. I gave to Esau Mount Seir, to possess it. Jacob and his children went down into Egypt- </p><p>We note the stress is on how Isaac was given children, the seed; whereas Esau was given possessions. This is a difference between the believer and the world. Esau as the direct grandson of Abraham could have had the promises of inheritance of the eretz relevant to him; but he chose to go out of that land. Mount Seir was just outside the promised land (<a href='B:60 15:10'>Jos 15:10</a>). And so God accepted that and gave him an inheritance in Seir, although without the promises of eternal inheritance and of the saviour seed. He wanted a possession immediately in this life, and God gave Esau what he really wanted. And this is part of a big theme, both in the Bible and in life- that we get what we truly want. And so what is so critical is a spiritual mind that wants the things of the Kingdom above all.</p>


text:
<p>I sent Moses and Aaron, and I plagued Egypt according to that which I did in its midst: and afterward I brought you out- </p><p>The idea is that this was all done by God with a view to bringing His people into Canaan, and their serving Him exclusively, with no worship of other gods. The plaguing of Egypt is mentioned in this context; for the plagues were each one targeting a specific idol (<a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a>). And it seems from <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a> that Israel had taken those gods with them, and were worshipping the very idols which Yahweh had plagued. This points up the hypocrisy of the western tribes in appearing so hyper zealous to destroy the eastern tribes because of their suspected, although unproven, idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>I brought your fathers out of Egypt: and you came to the sea. The Egyptians pursued after your fathers with chariots and with horsemen to the Red Sea- </p><p>They were brought out of Egypt just as Abraham was "taken" from Ur (see on :3). This was all by grace. Although the pursuit of Israel by the Egyptians was a historical act at a specific time, caused by God's direct action upon the hearts of the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a>), the pursuit and their destruction is described as ongoing "to this day" (<a href='B:50 11:4'>Deu 11:4</a>). God's word and His actions according to that word are somehow alive to this day. This is the unique nature of Biblical history. All the incidents within it speak to us of later generations. And so in Joshua 24; Joshua 6 and often, Israel are bidden understand their history as speaking directly to them, to perceive God's grace to them in history, and respond now. <a href='B:230 114:5-6'>Psa 114:5-6</a> RV describes the Red Sea as even now fleeing before God’s people. And thus because of the records of God's past activities, we should be motivated in our decisions now. <a href='B:60 24:13-14'>Jos 24:13-14</a> reminds Israel of the record of their past history with God, and then on this basis exhorts them: "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve Him::." .</p><p>This Divine speech relayed by Joshua is clearly repeating the argument and some phrases from <a href='B:50 11:2-9'>Deu 11:2-9</a>, which climaxes in the appeal to not serve idols but obey Yahweh exclusively. This was to be the power of history in human life. Yet human nature has a tendency to declare history as bunk, reflecting our preference to live for the immediate present and disregard the past.</p>


text:
<p>When they cried out to Yahweh, He put darkness between you and the Egyptians and brought the sea on them, and covered them; and your eyes saw what I did in Egypt; and you lived in the wilderness many days- </p><p>Darkness was believed to be somehow demonic and under the control of the gods. But those gods didn't exist, and therefore they should not worship them. For the darkness was controlled by God. "Your eyes saw::." could suggest that Joshua was particularly addressing the generation who were under 20 when they had left Egypt. But still they were worshipping the idols of Egypt (:14), and at least one of them was the god of darkness, whom Yahweh had targetted in the plague of darkness, and shown His supremacy over at the Red Sea crossing.</p>


text:
<p>I brought you into the land of the Amorites that lived beyond the Jordan; and they fought with you; and I gave them into your hand. You possessed their land; and I destroyed them from before you- </p><p>This conflict had been intended as a foretaste of their far larger scale victories against the Canaanites, and possession of Canaan. God gently leads us through one experience to prepare us for the next, larger one. AV "That you might possess their land". "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>Then Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab arose and fought against Israel. He sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you- </p><p>This conflict with Balak, and their salvation from him and Balaam by grace, had been intended as a foretaste of their far larger scale victories against the Canaanites, and possession of Canaan. God gently leads us through one experience to prepare us for the next, larger one.</p>


text:
<p>but I would not listen to Balaam; therefore he blessed you still. So I delivered you out of his hand- </p><p>Balaam, in his heart, didn't want to bless Israel; he wanted to curse them so he could get his hands on the riches Balak promised him if he did so. Balaam knew if God had told him to bless Israel, there was no way of changing things. But God says that He refused to hear Balaam's prayer to curse Israel. It seems that Yahweh read Balaam's latent, unexpressed desires as prayer to Him. It is our dominant desire which is read as prayer. For otherwise the efficacy of prayer would be related to how good we are at verbalizing things, and not everyone is good at that. Our innermost desires are read as prayer; hence Elijah was understood as praying against Israel in his heart, and God refused to hear that too (<a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). There is another example of this kind of thing in :11.</p>


text:
<p>You went over the Jordan and came to Jericho. The men of Jericho fought against you, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I delivered them into your hand-</p><p>There is no record of the men of Jericho fighting against Israel; perhaps their intention to do so was read by God as if they had done it. Shutting the gates against Israel and not submitting to the call to repentance which was implicit in the jubilee trumpet blasts was perhaps read as actively resisting Israel. For passivity can also be a form of 'fighting against' in aggression. This continues the theme discussed on :10, that internal attitudes are read by God as far more than that.</p>&nbsp;<p>We note there are typically seven nations listed as dwelling in the land, as here. This sets up the basis for understanding the 'kings of the earth / land' in later Biblical prophecy as referring to leaders within the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites- </p><p>The fear amongst the Canaanites prior to Israel's approach and the weakness of those nations was due to "the hornet" being sent before Israel (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>); it would seem that this is a reference to the Angels softening up the Canaanite tribes, perhaps through inciting the Egyptians to raid them and ruin the economy. And specifically, the two kings of the Amorites attacking the other Canaanites. "The hornet" could also refer to the Phoenician raiders, who had hornets as totems; they too weakened Canaan before the Israelites arrived, and would have been manipulated to do so by an Angel. In <a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a> God says He will "send My fear before you, and will destroy all the people to whom you shall come". Jacob likens his guardian Angel to "the God before whom my fathers walked" (<a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a>), who is called "the fear of&nbsp;Isaac" (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a>) when Jacob describes the personal presence of God in his life. So the "fear of God" is associated with an Angel; God sent His fear, an Angel, before Israel into Canaan, as promised explicitly in Exodus 23. "The hornet" could have referred to literal hornets, used by God to destroy the nations of Canaan. For they were indeed a problem in the land; "Zorah" in Judah means "place of hornets". But I prefer the idea that the Angel manipulated Gentile nations to soften up the Canaanites before Israel's arrival. The same figure is found in <a href='B:290 7:18'>Isa 7:18</a>, where God whistled for the "fly that is in Egypt and the bee that is in Assyria". We note that this was all built in to God's wider plan; for had Israel entered Canaan 40 years before they did, they would've found the Canaanites that much stronger than they were after "the hornet" had weakened them for 40 years. It's as if God recalculated the program according to the great weakness of Israel. They didn't enter when they could have done, and so He used the period of their wilderness wanderings to make their entrance to the land that much easier than it would otherwise have been.</p><p>Not with your sword, nor with your bow-</p><p>"Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>). Right at the very end of Jacob’s life, he lets slip a comment which would seem more appropriate to his earlier life: "Shechem::. which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>). The wrongness of this attitude seems to be alluded to in <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>, which says that God drove out the tribes "but not with your sword, neither with your bow". And <a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>; <a href='B:230 44:6'>Psa 44:6</a> also: "They got not the land in possession by their own sword::. I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me". So Jacob, right at the end of his life, still hadn't completely overcome that besetting weakness of self-reliance. This is, of course, a dangerous road to go down. In no way can we be complacent about our urgent need for spiritual growth. But on the other hand, we will never reach the stature of Christ without righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>I gave you a land whereon you had not laboured-</p><p>The spies' comment that not all the people needed to "toil" or "labour" to capture Ai betrays a wrong idea that victory was through their labour, rather than God's grace (<a href='B:60 7:3'>Jos 7:3</a>). And so <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> uses the word in saying that Israel were given a land for which they did not "labour" (s:w:). They were taught through Achan's sin that they were not defeating the Canaanites by their strength, but by God's undeserved grace. Their inheritance of the Kingdom was not according to works.</p><p>And cities which you didn’t build, and you live in them. You eat of vineyards and olive groves which you didn’t plant- </p><p>This continues the repeated reminder that they had been shown grace and a place in the Kingdom not according to works. This emphasis upon grace now leads up to the appeal to quit any other gods (:14)- because Yahweh alone is the God of grace. The other gods had no concept of this; it was unique to Yahweh. And true grace is likewise the unique feature of true Christianity.</p><p><a href='B:390 2:8'>Jon 2:8</a> reflects Jonah's understanding of this: "Those who regard lying vanities forsake their own mercy". This is a profound truth; true grace ["mercy" is hesed] and salvation is only found in Yahweh the God of Israel. To forsake Him is to forsake our own access to mercy and grace. Jonah was surely reflecting upon how the sailors had begged their idols and gods for salvation, and not found it. Only Yahweh had provided such saving grace, both to them and to Jonah. This reflection was surely to motivate Jonah to now go and try to persuade the Ninevites of Yahweh's grace. Jonah is constantly quoting from the Psalms, and here he may have in mind <a href='B:230 31:6'>Psa 31:6</a>: "I have hated them that regard lying vanities". But now Jonah doesn't hate the idolaters personally, but rather perceives the tragedy of the fact that they are rejecting their own access to Yahweh's grace. Yahweh is all about mercy, or grace; again, <a href='B:230 59:17'>Psa 59:17</a> "the God of my mercy" is in mind. But we preclude His grace if we trust in the lying vanities of this world.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore fear Yahweh, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth- </p><p>God's living word places us in their position; for the appeal to serve Him in "sincerity and in truth" applies to us (<a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a>; <a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a>; <a href='B:540 2:17'>2Co 2:17</a>).</p><p>Put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yahweh-</p><p>See on :13. Compare Joshua's earlier over positive statements. Now it seems he came to a final sense of realism about sin, obedience and Israel’s failure. They had taken the idols of Egypt with them (<a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a> also mentions this), even though God had judged those idols (:5). They worshipped that which had afflicted them, and they were to continue worshipping the idols of their enemies. <a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a> speaks of them carrying another tabernacle with them through the wilderness, and the star of Remphan along with the standards of the tribes. This is the idiocy of idol worship; but when it comes to spiritual matters, we act without attention to even basic logic.</p>


text:
<p>If it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh- </p><p>As we will see on :16, this is very similar to the exaggerated challenge made by the hypocritical western tribes to the eastern tribes in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a> "However, if the land of your possession is unclean, then pass over to the land of the possession of Yahweh". Joshua was speaking to the western tribes as they had spoken to the eastern tribes- and accusing them of idolatry, as they had [perhaps falsely, but hypocritically] accused the eastern tribes. The western tribes were being made to feel how they had made the eastern tribes feel; and were being reminded of their own idolatry. God likewise works with men today, often confronting those who confront their brethren, and trying to help them perceive their hypocrisy and repent.</p><p>Choose this day whom you will serve- </p><p>Elijah uses the same logic in <a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a>, offering Israel an 'all or nothing' choice between total devotion to Yahweh, and idolatry.</p><p>Whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell-</p><p>Joshua asks them to make two choices. Firstly, to decide whether they want to serve Yahweh exclusively, and any other choice apart from that would be "evil". And then, if they did choose other gods, they were to decide which of them they preferred, and serve them exclusively- either the gods of Abraham's family, or those of the land of Canaan. This second choice was surely sarcastic, but it was inviting them to see the seriousness of the situation. Israel however were to be characterized by serving many gods of many nations, whereas as the prophets point out, a nation usually only served one set of gods and didn't change their gods unless they were forced to by domination by other nations. But Israel were, as Hosea says, like a sexually addicted woman, ever seeking new religious experiences. See on :19.</p><p>As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh-</p><p>Joshua perhaps feels that he and his family alone have chosen to exclusively serve Yahweh. In the context of his argument in this verse, any other choice apart from total devotion to Yahweh is "evil". This is the logic of total commitment to the things of Yahweh. Joshua appears to be alluding to <a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>, as if raising a family devoted to Yahweh is the sign of being a true seed of Abraham. I will note on :19 that as in :15, Joshua almost encourages Israel not to try serving Yahweh whilst worshipping idols; and is perhaps implying that God's purpose with His people can continue through him and his family, as God had once offered to do with Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The people answered, Far be it from us that we should forsake Yahweh to serve other gods- </p><p>These are pretty much the words of the eastern tribes in <a href='B:60 22:29'>Jos 22:29</a> (see on :15). The western tribes were hypocritical in implying that they were so totally devoted to Yahweh alone that they had to slay their eastern brethren because of their possible idolatry. They are effectively accused of idolatry by Joshua in the same way as they accused the eastern tribes of it. And they are answering in the same way- even though they were guilty of idolatry themselves, and needed to "put away" their idols (<a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>for it is Yahweh our God who brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and who did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way in which we went, and among all the peoples through the midst of whom we passed- </p><p>The people repeat the words of Joshua, as if they assent to all he has said, and recognize Yahweh's grace and care toward them. And yet there is no evidence that they actually quit their idols, as demanded in :14. We expect and hope to read that they offered up their idols to Joshua and he destroyed them. But nothing like that happens; there is just an intellectual assent to being Yahweh worshippers, and an acceptance of His power in history. But they failed to translate that into present reality. And so it can easily be, as week by week God's people sing words and assent to such statements; and yet keep their idols.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples, even the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve Yahweh; for He is our God- </p><p>See on :18. They insist that Yahweh "is our God"; not "will be". They are arguing that Yahweh has always been their God and still is, and by implication, they have not wickedly departed from him, and are all set to continue with Him. They seem to be saying that they believe in His existence and in His historical actions for His people, but we expect to read a heartfelt repentance in response to the demand in :14 that they quit their idols. But that is not forthcoming. They refuse to engage with Joshua's accusation against them. What they say is disappointing for what it doesn't say. Their words therefore become nothing but a cultural and historical acceptance of "Yahweh", whilst refusing to engage with His demands upon His people. It was mere religion, and not spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, You can’t serve Yahweh-</p><p>The Lord Jesus alludes to this in <a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a>, warning His followers that they "cannot serve" God and mammon. He thereby interprets idols as "mammon", wealth and the good life. We will read in :31 that they did "serve Yahweh", but Joshua here says that they could not do so acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p><p>For He is a holy God. He is a jealous God. He will not forgive your disobedience nor your sins-</p><p>As in :15, Joshua almost seems to be encouraging them to devote themselves to their idols, and to stop claiming to be Yahweh's servants. This presumably was because he understood the principle that knowledge brings responsibility. They would be terribly punished if they continued to claim to serve Him and yet served idols; it were better for them in the long term to accept how they were, and to leave Him. Joshua seems to imply in :15 that God's purpose with His people can continue through him and his family, as God had once offered to do with Moses.</p><p>Joshua alludes to the words of warning to Israel in <a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a>. The jealousy of God is a natural result of the depth of His love and unique commitment to His people, as the prophets often state. Israel's adultery was going to provoke His jealousy and anger with them. And yet although the things stated here about God are absolutely true on one level, the passages which speak of God as the betrayed lover (Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 16, 23 and all Hosea) reveal that despite this, He so loves Israel that He wants to save them and love them all the same. This is the inexplicable paradox of God's love for His people.</p>


text:
<p>If you forsake Yahweh and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you evil and consume you, after He has done you good- </p><p>As discussed on :19, this was true, and yet God's love was such that He ever sought their return, and in wrath He remembered amazing mercy. Joshua also states things in rather too simple terms here, as if they would be consumed if they were to serve other gods. The reality was that they were serving foreign gods then at that time, just as they had in Egypt and throughout the wilderness journeys (:14). And still God had given them the Kingdom, and amazing victories against their enemies. He did eventually turn and consume them (<a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a>). "After He has done you good" was a reminder that no matter how much blessing they had received at that point, it is never a case of 'once saved always saved'. Despite all that, He could still destroy them.</p>


text:
<p>The people said to Joshua, No, but we will serve Yahweh- </p><p>We expect to read a heartfelt repentance in response to the demand in :14 that they quit their idols. But that is not forthcoming; there is no word of repentance or regret, no admission of wrongdoing. They refuse to engage with Joshua's accusation against them. What they say is disappointing for what it doesn't say. Their words therefore become nothing but a cultural and historical acceptance of "Yahweh", whilst refusing to engage with His demands upon His people. It was mere religion, and not spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, You are witnesses against yourselves that you yourselves have chosen Yahweh, to serve Him. They said, We are witnesses- </p><p>"You have chosen Yahweh" in the context means that out of the range of gods in their possession, they had chosen Yahweh. This is why Joshua goes on :23 to beg them therefore to put away their idols. "Witnesses against yourselves" suggests Joshua was confident, perhaps by Divine revelation, that they would not be uniquely loyal to Yahweh, and would suffer for it. There would be a future day of judgment, and they would be the witnesses called up to testify against them.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore put away the foreign gods which are among you- </p><p>See on :22. This is specific that there was idolatry going on amongst the western tribes at this time, so their attempt to exterminate the eastern tribes for unproven accusations of idolatry is to be seen as hypocritical (Joshua 22).</p><p>And incline your heart to Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This shows that the essence of idolatry, as well as service of God, is the heart. They were asked to make a conscious mental effort to incline their hearts to God, but Solomon prays that God will do this to His people (<a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a> s:w:). God is capable of working directly on the human heart and we can ask for His Holy Spirit to effect this; to give us a heart for Him, to incline our hearts to Him. And yet the same phrase is used of how Solomon's wives inclined his heart to idols (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>; <a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). Although God will work upon our hearts and deepest psychology, He will not force us, and will allow us to allow others to also incline our hearts away from Him.</p>


text:
<p>The people said to Joshua, We will serve Yahweh our God, and we will listen to His voice- </p><p>Again, we are disappointed by their lack of engagement with the call to put away their gods (:14,23). We expect to read their words of repentance, and pulling out their idols and burning them. But they instead just state that they will serve Yahweh and respect His word. This can be what His people say today, in the words of songs sung, liturgies recited, and loyalty to the church proclaimed. Whilst we are totally refusing to engage with the call to quit our idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem- </p><p>The covenant on Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a>) was reaffirmed in the plains of Moab (<a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a>) and on Joshua's death (<a href='B:60 24:25'>Jos 24:25</a>), and was to be reaffirmed every seven years (<a href='B:50 31:9-11'>Deu 31:9-11</a>; <a href='B:50 31:25-26'>Deu 31:25-26</a>). It is this reaffirmation of covenant relationship which we make in the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of Yahweh- </p><p>The oak in Shechem (:1) was that of <a href='B:10 35:4'>Gen 35:4</a>, at which the sons of Jacob / Israel had reaffirmed their covenant with God and had buried their idols. We eagerly hope to read that Israel likewise buried their idols there. But there is no word of that. They reaffirm the covenant, but don't ditch their idols. And this has poignant warning for we who regularly reaffirm the covenant through the breaking of bread service. The question is, have we buried our idols, or are we just reaffirming a covenant in words only?</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of Yahweh which He spoke to us. It shall be therefore a witness against you, lest you deny your God- </p><p>Some of the Bible’s language refers to pagan superstitions which are evidently untrue; thus stones listen (<a href='B:60 24:27'>Jos 24:27</a>), trees talk (<a href='B:70 9:8-15'>Jdg 9:8-15</a>), corpses speak (<a href='B:290 14:9-11'>Isa 14:9-11</a>). These ideas are clearly nonsense. And yet they are picked up and used by the Spirit in order to express God’s word to people in contemporary terms. The language of demons is used likewise in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance-</p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that, after these things, Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died, being one hundred and ten years old- </p><p>Numbers and ages in Hebrew literature are not necessarily to be taken literally. This was the age at which Joseph is recorded as reaching (<a href='B:10 50:26'>Gen 50:26</a>), and we will read in :32 of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, at the same time as Joshua is buried. We are clearly invited to see a connection between the two men, both of them maintaining spirituality and hope in the Kingdom whilst surrounded by unspirituality and terrible failure by God's people to realize their potential.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnathserah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash- </p><p>"In the border" may mean that they believed even then that one day he would be resurrected, and then immediately enter into his eternal inheritance. LXX adds: "There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel in Galgala, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord appointed them; and there they are to this day".</p>


text:
<p>Israel served Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work of Yahweh that He had worked for Israel- </p><p>This serving of Yahweh is not to say that they served Him exclusively. The idea may be that they did His "service" as required by the law of Moses in the sanctuary. Joshua in :19 had said that they could not 'serve Yahweh' acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>They buried the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money. They became the inheritance of the children of Joseph- </p><p>See on :29. Like Jacob, Joseph's heart was in the land of promise. Joseph's bones were 'carried up' with them when Israel left Egypt. The New Testament emphasizes the paradox: that the patriarchs bought land in the land which was their eternal inheritance. They couldn't bury their dead nor pitch their tent without having to realize that the land wasn't theirs. The same paradox was taught in Jacob having to call Esau his "lord", the younger serving the elder; but in faith that things would not eternally be that way. Joseph's bones were buried here later (<a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a>), which suggests that Jacob bought it with a view of it becoming a burial place and Israelite sanctuary. Yet <a href='B:510 7:16'>Act 7:16</a> says that Abraham bought this land as a burial place; perhaps the paradox deepens in that they were deceived out of their "own" land and had to pay for it twice, even though it was eternally theirs.</p>


text:
<p>Eleazar the son of Aaron died. They buried him in the hill of Phinehas his son, which was given him in the hill country of Ephraim- </p><p>LXX adds: "In that day the children of Israel took the ark of God, and carried it about among them; and Phinees exercised the priest's office in the room of Eleazar his father till he died, and he was buried in his own place Gabaar: but the children of Israel departed every one to their place, and to their own city: and the children of Israel worshipped Astarte, and Astaroth, and the gods of the nations round about them; and the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom king of Moab and he ruled over them eighteen years".</p><p>Judges: New European Christadelphian Commentary</p>


text:
<e>Judges: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>After the death of Joshua the children of Israel asked Yahweh, Who should go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them?- </p><p>Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed rather than spotlessly glorious- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e:g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Sir_46:11-12: "The judges too::. all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord::.". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us::.</p><p>After the leadership of Moses, there came that of Joshua. See on <a href='B:60 23:9'>Jos 23:9</a>. When he died, Israel expected that another such leader would be raised up: “After the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first?”. They expected a man to be named. But instead, they were told that the whole tribe of Judah must go up. The reality would have sunk home- no more charismatic leaders, now the ordinary people must take responsibility.</p><p>When faced with the prospect of driving out the tribes, they procrastinated by asking "Who shall go up for us?". They wanted someone else to do the job, just as all religious [rather than spiritual] people want a leader to do their spiritual work for them. God could have responded: 'I have already gone before you, all of you have a duty to go up and possess the land, and to help your brethren. The question of who goes first is totally faithless and irrelevant!'. But He didn't say this. He told Judah to go up first (1:3).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, Judah shall go up. Behold, I have delivered the land into his hand-</p><p>The fact we fail to realize our potentials doesn’t mean God quits working with us. Reflect how Judah was given the potential to possess the whole land, and yet they selfishly only focused upon their own inheritance (<a href='B:70 1:2-3'>Jdg 1:2-3</a>). And yet God still worked with them, giving them victory in what battles they did fight (<a href='B:70 1:4'>Jdg 1:4</a>). Yet even then, Judah didn’t follow through with the help God was so eager to give them. They took Jerusalem, but later we read that the Jebusites were soon back living there (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). But see on :22.</p><p><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a> had prophesied that Judah would defeat their enemies. But this was yet another example of conditional prophecy. For Judah didn't take the whole land, although potentially it was "delivered::. into his hand". God had worked through Joshua to subdue all the land, but they had failed to follow up on this. The soldiers of the eastern tribes had been intended to subdue the land for their brethren; but that had not worked out. Now God tries another path; the tribe of Judah were given potential power to subdue the land for the other tribes. But again they failed. The whole Divine-human relationship has been one of tragically missed potentials, and God by all means trying different methods to achieve His purpose- of giving His people the Kingdom.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Judah said to Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my designated portion so that we can fight against the Canaanites, and I likewise will go with you into yours. So Simeon went with him- </p><p>Judah refused to believe the promise of :2 that the whole land had been given to him. Instead, Judah chose to wilfully misunderstand this as meaning that just their tribal canton had been given into their power. And even then, they thought they needed the human help of Simeon, as Simeon thought too about their inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>Judah went up and Yahweh delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hand. They killed ten thousand men in Bezek- </p><p>"Thousand" when used of conflicts often refers not to a literal 1,000 but to a military subdivision. Bezek, 'place of lightning', could mean that God used natural causes, lightning, to destroy these people. For such seems His preferred style in defeating His enemies at the hands of His people, lest they be tempted to think it was their power which had won the victories. He is so sensitive to our temptations, and ever seeks to keep us from pride.</p>


text:
<p>They found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek and fought against him, and they killed the Canaanites and the Perizzites- </p><p>"They found" implies he had hidden. This verse summarizes the preceding and following verses. Bezek has not been located as a town; that of <a href='B:90 11:8'>1Sa 11:8</a> is too far north to be the same place. But they buried Adonibezek in Jerusalem (:7), and Adonizedek king of Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 10:1'>Jos 10:1</a>; <a href='B:60 10:3'>Jos 10:3</a>) is called Adonibezek in the LXX. It could refer to the same individual.</p>


text:
<p>But Adoni-Bezek fled, and they pursued him, caught him and cut off his thumbs and his great toes- </p><p>This kind of humiliation of a vanquished foe was common at the time, but seems inappropriate for God's people acting in faith that any victory was by His grace. This treatment was typically given to those who would later become the servants of the conquerors (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>; <a href='B:90 11:2'>1Sa 11:2</a>; <a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>). But Judah's intention was thwarted by the man dying (:7). God did not intend His people to humiliate others, not even their enemies.</p>


text:
<p>Adoni-Bezek said, Seventy kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, scavenged under my table. As I have done, so God has requited me. They brought him to Jerusalem and he died there- </p><p>See on :6. He had supposedly vanquished 70 tribal chiefs, probably only rulers of very small areas. He treated them like dogs (cp. <a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a>). We wonder whether this king came to repentance at the very end of his life, and accepted the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it, putting it to the sword, and set the city on fire-</p><p>Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames' (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>; <a href='B:60 11:11'>Jos 11:11</a>), surely because they were following the Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Yet quite naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel. Their victory however was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. For soon the Jebusites were entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Afterwards the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the South and in the lowland- </p><p>These three areas are how the area of Judah was divided up topographically. Judah had been given the power and potential victory throughout the land, but instead they focused only upon their own place in the Kingdom rather than seeking it for their brethren too (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p>Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (the name of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba), and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai- </p><p>We must compare this and :11 with the record of what actually happened in <a href='B:60 15:13-15'>Jos 15:13-15</a>: "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he [Joshua] gave Hebron. And Caleb drove out thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. And he went up thence against the inhabitants of Debir". It was Caleb who took Hebron and went against Debir. But the record here speaks as if the "he" was the tribe of Judah. We would expect to read "they went::." in :11, but the "he" clearly alludes to how it was Caleb who did this. We can conclude therefore that Caleb's victory was assumed by Judah as theirs, in their attempt to show that they had won victories against the local inhabitants within their tribal canton. This attempt to personally claim the spiritual conquests of others is not unknown amongst God's people today.</p>


text:
<p>From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. The name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher- </p><p>See on :10. "Now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher" (<a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). "Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife- </p><p>As noted above, Caleb was then 85, so Othniel was not a young man at all; and Achsah was presumably a virgin. So valiant young, faithful men were apparently not to be found:&nbsp; For surely they were the kind of candidate Caleb was looking for.</p><p>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>; <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a>). But "Kenizzite" (also <a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a>). And <a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps the note at :16 about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.</p>


text:
<p>When she came, she got him to ask her father for a field, and she alighted from off her donkey and Caleb said to her, What would you like?- </p><p>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired another woman to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, Give me a blessing, for that you have set me in the land of the South; give me also springs of water. Then Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs- </p><p>The idea of being given a blessing is of receiving an inheritance, as in <a href='B:60 14:13'>Jos 14:13</a> AV: “And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb… Hebron for an inheritance”. "A south land" presumably refers to Debir, which was apparently without a good water supply. Debir is on a hill, and there is a valley at the foot of the hill with springs. The territory made presumably been conquered by Caleb and was his own- but he gave away what he had conquered.</p>


text:
<p>The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the men of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they went and lived with those people- </p><p>This note may be inserted at this point to support the idea that Caleb was also a Kenite / Kenizzite. See on :13. "These people" may refer to the people of Caleb, which would make sense if Caleb was ethnically related to them. LXX "with the people of Amalek" would corroborate with the connection between the Amalekites and Kenizzites made in <a href='B:90 15:6'>1Sa 15:6</a>; <a href='B:40 24:20-22'>Num 24:20-22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah went with Simeon his brother and they attacked the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed the town. The name of the town was Hormah-</p><p>Hormah ["devoted"] was the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"]. The strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>). What was taken from the world was devoted to Yahweh by the faithful Israelites involved in this area. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Also Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border- </p><p>LXX says the opposite, "and Judah did not dispossess::.". But that is perhaps an attempt to reconcile this statement with the reality that these Philistine areas remained in Philistine hands (<a href='B:70 3:3'>Jdg 3:3</a>). But <a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a> says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over Jerusalem recorded in <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>, soon after which the Jebusites were soon again entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with Judah and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron- </p><p>The inhabitants of the valley had been defeated by Joshua. But Judah would not 'drive them out'. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>They gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had promised, and he drove out from there the three sons of Anak- </p><p>As discussed on :10, it was Caleb who had taken Hebron. But then Judah made out that they were so righteously granting it to him, as if they had won the victory. It was in any case given to Caleb by God through Moses and Joshua, not by them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day- </p><p><a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a> says that "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day". It seems that as Jerusalem was on the border between Judah and Benjamin, they both had the opportunity to possess Jerusalem, but both chose not to. See on :19. As explained on :8, Judah defeated the king of Jerusalem. But they failed to possess his territory. They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and Yahweh was with them- </p><p>This term "house of Joseph" presumably refers to Ephraim and eastern Manasseh, but the term is used to describe a Benjamite in <a href='B:100 19:16'>2Sa 19:16</a>; <a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>. God's intention was that each family within each tribe had a specific inheritance, from which they drove out the local inhabitants and lived there with His blessing. But it seems that contrary to this intention, they often moved to other tribes, ever seeking for a better deal some place other than that which God intended for them.</p><p>"Yahweh was with them" is LXX "And Judah was with them", reflecting the one Hebrew letter difference between the two words Yahweh and Judah in the original. In this case, we would have some evidence that some in Judah saw the potential of :2, that all the land, for all the tribes, had been given into the possibility of Judah to conquer for them.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. The name of the city before was Luz- </p><p>Although Luz was called Bethel (<a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a>; <a href='B:70 1:23'>Jdg 1:23</a>), <a href='B:60 16:2'>Jos 16:2</a> implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel" refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>)".</p>


text:
<p>The spies saw a man come out of the city and they said to him, Please show us the entrance into the city and we will deal kindly with you-</p><p>They were perhaps seeking to emulate Joshua's victory over Jericho, and the preservation of Rahab (<a href='B:60 6:23'>Jos 6:23</a>). The word translated “keep” in <a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a> is that translated “spies” here. The spies were the keepers in the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded. Israel’s guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (<a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a>), clearly echoing how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep” themselves in the way (<a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a> and many others; s:w. “take heed”, “observe” etc:), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is developed in <a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a>, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them:, but they were to keep to the Angel. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual relationship with our guardian Angel, leading to Him strengthening us in the one way.</p>


text:
<p>He showed them the entrance into the city and they put the city to the sword, but they let the man go and all his family- </p><p>The conquests of Joshua were nearly all as a result of the local inhabitants coming against him. Even the men of Jericho are described as proactively fighting against Israel (<a href='B:60 24:11'>Jos 24:11</a>). These later conflicts are a result of not having possessed the land as God intended, and so they seem to feature Israel now attacking the local peoples. This was it seems not God's ideal intention; His intention was that those peoples came against Israel and were therefore defeated.</p>


text:
<p>The man went into the land of the Hittites and built a city and called it Luz, which is its name to this day-</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements; the Canaanites continued to dwell in that land- </p><p>In the list of cities given to the Levites,&nbsp; "Bileam" meaning 'not of the people', is called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>When Israel had grown strong they put the Canaanites to forced labour and did not utterly drive them out-</p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. To 'grow strong' can be a technical term for having military superiority (s:w. <a href='B:110 20:22'>1Ki 20:22</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, but the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Zebulun didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or Nahalol, but the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labour- </p><p>One reason why Israel failed to drive out the tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to take tribute from them (<a href='B:60 17:13'>Jos 17:13</a>). <a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>Asher didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob- </p><p>According to the definition of Asher's territory in <a href='B:60 19:24-31'>Jos 19:24-31</a>, these were their border towns. Perhaps they settled down to inherit the territory in the midst of their canton, and just couldn't be bothered to subjugate the peripheral towns. For "drive out", see on :19. Many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Asher were a minority amongst a majority. The extent of disobedience to the commands to slay the inhabitants of the land is quite astounding. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Naphtali didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath, but he lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land who became subject to forced labour- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Naphtali were a minority amongst a majority. For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. The two towns mentioned here were idol sanctuaries, 'house of the sun god' and 'house of Anath', another Canaanite idol. These ought to have been destroyed, and not doing so was tantamount to breaking covenant with Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill country, for they would not allow them to come down to the valley- </p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise "the border of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Amorites continued to dwell in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and in Shaalbim. Yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became subject to forced labour- </p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. Mount Heres is ‘mount of the sun,’ probably the same as Ir-shemesh, ‘city of the sun’, in <a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>. As noted on :33, these pagan sanctuaries ought to have been destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock and upward- </p><p>"The rock" may be that at Kadesh of <a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a>, or Petra / Sela ["the rock", <a href='B:380 1:3'>Oba 1:3</a>]. The point is that the local population drew a boundary line in the area which was supposed to be Israel's, and defended and enforced it. This was how weak Israel were from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came up from Gilgal to Bochim. He said, I brought you up out of Egypt- </p><p>The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God's actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God's historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him.</p><p>And have brought you to the land which I swore to your fathers, and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you-</p><p>The promises made to Abraham were made by an Angel. This is implied in the Genesis account and repeated later- e. g. <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> describes the Angel which led the people of Israel out of Egypt and into Canaan reminding them of "the covenant which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you". Thus when we read passages talking of the covenant God made with them and with Abraham, let us watch out for further allusions to Angelic work. When we read of God breaking His covenant, are we to understand that the Angels can speak like this, but God Himself doesn’t and can’t? Or that God has such passion and emotion that He can say ‘contradictory’ things like this?</p><p></p><p>Consider the following examples of God 'repenting'. For each, try to explain it in terms of God Himself changing His mind, and then think how an understanding of Angels could do better: <a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a>; <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> AVmg:; <a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a> mg:; <a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> cp. <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>. If you like this line of approach, consider the following examples, of where 'God' says He won't do something; and then does: <a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a> cp. 34:9; <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a> cp. 31:17. See on <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>.</p><p>Although the idea of Angels changing their minds has some attraction, my own conviction is that God as it were limits His omniscience and omnipotence in order to enter into real relationship with His people. He has emotions, and speaks in the fire of His wrath, as we do, who are made in His image. And so He utters judgments which by grace He didn't totally follow through on. Perhaps the repentance or intercession of a minority ameliorated His judgments; or perhaps the pole of grace and love is stronger within Him than that of judgment. For mercy rejoices against judgment, even within His personality.</p><p>God promised that even if Israel sinned, He would never break His covenant with them (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>). But He did (<a href='B:450 11:10'>Zec 11:10</a> cp. <a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a>), as witnessed by the termination of the Law of Moses, which was the basis of His covenant with Israel. His love creates yet another Bible paradox. Israel broke the covenant by their disobedience (<a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a> and many others). God therefore broke His part of the covenant. Yet God made His promises concerning the unbreakable covenant because He chose to speak in words which did not reflect His foreknowledge that Israel would sin. The apparent contradiction is resolvable by realizing that God did not set His mind upon Israel's future apostasy when He made the 'unbreakable' covenant with them. And yet the paradox still ultimately stands; that He broke His covenant with them when they sinned. He worked through this punishment in order to establish an even more gracious new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>and you must make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; break down their altars’. But you have not listened to My voice; why have you done this?- </p><p>As discussed on :1, their covenant with the inhabitants of the land was an undoing and abrogation of the exclusive covenant with Yahweh which they had signed up to. And yet He still remained in covenant. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh (:1). The existence of pagan place names throughout the record of the conquest, e:g. Bath Dagon, house of Dagon, Beth Shemesh, house of the sun god, all demonstrates that they didn't break down the altars.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out from before you, but they shall be thorns in your sides-</p><p>I noted on Judges 1 that many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p><p>And their gods will be a snare to you- </p><p>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a>), and the snare of wanting wealth (6:9). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>When the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the children of Israel, the people lifted up their voice and wept- </p><p>As in their response to Joshua's speech challenging their idolatry, we rather wait with expectant hope to read that like Jacob's sons, they bring out their idols and bury or burn them. If only we could achieve a second naivety in reading the records, we would at this point be on the edge of our seats, waiting for them to now ditch their idols. But we read only of their tears, the emotion of a religious moment, rather than any lasting response to the blunt warning they had been given.</p>


text:
<p>They called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there to Yahweh-</p><p>We notice that they had the opportunity to rename or name places in Israel. But they retained so many place names which have clear associations with Baal and Dagon. As noted on :4, they went through the motions of religious worship and repentance- but there is no record of them actually ditching their idols.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Joshua had sent the people away, the children of Israel went every man to his inheritance to possess the land- </p><p>They were to quit their idolatry and then possess the land in God's strength. They went forward to possess the land, but with no record of having ditched their idols. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>The people served Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh that He had worked for Israel- </p><p>As discussed on Joshua 24, I suggest that the 'service of Yahweh' in view here refers to the operation of the tabernacle rituals. For 'serving Yahweh' can be a technical term which refers to this and nothing else. This is not to say that they were faithful nor exclusively committed to Him. Joshua in <a href='B:60 24:19'>Jos 24:19</a> had said that they could not 'serve Yahweh' acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died, being one hundred and ten years old- </p><p>Numbers and ages in Hebrew literature are not necessarily to be taken literally. This was the age at which Joseph is recorded as reaching (<a href='B:10 50:26'>Gen 50:26</a>), and we will read in <a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a> of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, at the same time as Joshua is buried. We are clearly invited to see a connection between the two men, both of them maintaining spirituality and hope in the Kingdom whilst surrounded by unspirituality and terrible failure by God's people to realize their potential.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnah Heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash- </p><p>"In the border" may mean that they believed even then that one day he would be resurrected, and then immediately enter into his eternal inheritance. LXX adds: "There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel in Galgala, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord appointed them; and there they are to this day".</p>


text:
<p>Also all that generation were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who didn’t know Yahweh, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel- </p><p>The "fathers" served other gods (<a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a>), but the Bible describes death as a gathering to the fathers. Clearly the differentiation between good and bad men is not made at death. Death is unconsciousness, and the ultimate division and reward will be at the return of the Lord Jesus and the judgment seat He will then set up:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and served the Baals- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake Yahweh (:12,13). But 'forsaking Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh the God of their fathers who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods of the peoples who were around them and bowed themselves down to them- </p><p>See on :11.</p><p>And they provoked Yahweh to anger-</p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh and served Baal and the Ashtaroth- </p><p>As explained on :11, this was how Yahweh felt. They themselves didn't think they had forsaken Him. The Bible at times speaks from God's viewpoint, at others from the perspective of the people whose actions are being described. To forsake Yahweh was to break covenant with Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>). Israel did forsake Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a>), but still He remained faithful to them, as Hosea remained faithful to Gomer despite her infidelity to their marriage covenant. Instead of forsaking them as He threatened, He instead by grace sent them saviours, judges, looking forward to His grace in sending the Lord Jesus, Yah's salvation.</p><p>The punishment for forsaking Yahweh was that "Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion and rebuke in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him. Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land into which you now go in to possess it" (<a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>). We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God's amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He delivered them into the hands of raiders who plundered them, and He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around so that they could no longer stand before their enemies- </p><p>As noted on :13, this was a very restrained response from Yahweh, and not actually according to the judgments threatened for forsaking Him in <a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>. The judgments of <a href='B:50 29:23-27'>Deu 29:23-27</a> were likewise the prophesied outcome of Israel forsaking Yahweh; and this too didn't happen at this time, by grace alone: "The whole land is sulphur, salt and burning, that it is not sown nor giving produce and no grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in His anger and in his wrath. They and all the nations shall say, Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean? Then men shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they didn’t know and that He had not given to them. Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curse that is written in this book". But instead we are to read that although God punished them, He raised up saviours to save them from the judgments; and this looks forward to His grace in the Lord Jesus, 'Yah's salvation'.</p>


text:
<p>Wherever they went the hand of Yahweh was against them for evil, as Yahweh had spoken and as Yahweh had sworn to them; and they were very distressed- </p><p>See on :18. But as noted above, He did not bring upon them all the things which He had spoken, in wrath He remembered mercy. This "distress" is the word used of the distress of the historical Jacob / Israel (<a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a>), when like Israel he was confronted with his sins and led to cast himself upon God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh raised up judges who saved them from those who plundered them- </p><p>The judgments for forsaking Yahweh were of total destruction- see on :13,14. We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God's amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people. And those saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Yet they didn’t listen to their judges; for they played the prostitute after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly out of the way in which their fathers walked, who had obeyed the commandments of Yahweh. They didn’t do so- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>; <a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a>; <a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>; <a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a>; <a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a>; <a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His.</p>


text:
<p>When Yahweh raised up judges for them- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn't want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized.</p><p>Yahweh was with the judge and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge, for it grieved Yahweh because of their distress because of the oppression- </p><p>The hand of their enemies was effectively Yahweh's hand (:15). Yet God's grace worked as it were against His own judgment. We see here the tension between mercy and judgment deep within the personality of God; and the pole of grace wins out over that of necessary judgment. And this God is our God. "Grieved" is the word for "repent" (as AV); He changed His mind, because He was grieved for them. And so we read in <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a> of how His repentings were kindled together deep within Him.</p>


text:
<p>But when the judge was dead they turned back and behaved more corruptly than their fathers in following other gods to serve them and to bow down to them. They didn’t cease from their evil practices or from their stubborn ways-</p><p>The book of Judges reflects this grace of God- showing, incidentally, that grace isn't only a New Testament theme. We are so wrong if we imagine that Judges is all about a cycle of sin, judgment, repentance, raising up a judge-saviour, salvation and restoration to God. For one thing, the cycles are never the same- for God is in passionate relationship with His people, and passionate love doesn't work to the 'same ole same ole' plan every time. Time and again we find that Israel sin, do not repent (<a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>)- and yet all the same God sends them a Saviour. They are saved without repentance, simply because God pities them (<a href='B:70 2:15-16'>Jdg 2:15-16</a>). They do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them (see on :13,14)- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant (<a href='B:70 3:1'>Jdg 3:1</a>). In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God's passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God's love for us!</p><p>After each judge they did "more corruptly" than the previous generation. We get the same impression in the record of the kings. It all gives the impression of an ever downward slide into the final apostacy which elicited the captivities in Assyria and Babylon. These are therefore presented as only happening after an amazing display of patient grace over many generations.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He said, Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to Me- </p><p>To keep covenant was thus paralleled with listening / being obedient to God. The covenant was broken, because they had broken it rather than God. And yet for generations (see on :19), He still kept His side of it. <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn't happen "quickly". God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. He changed His mind, or 'repented', because of His grace; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>I also will no longer drive out from before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>So by them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Yahweh to walk therein as their fathers did, or not- </p><p>As discussed on :21, the test of Israel was really leading them further down the downward spiral which they themselves wanted. We note Yahweh graciously considered that "their fathers" had "kept the way of Yahweh", clearly alluding to Abraham and the patriarchs (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>). But this too was an imputation of righteousness by grace, for the patriarchs often strayed from that covenant, Jacob especially.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua-</p><p><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn't happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn't drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p><p>The implications that we should respond ‘quickly’ to the Gospel surely mean that we should not have any element of indifference in our response to the call of God, and yet the foundations of a true spiritual life cannot be laid hastily. The Father drove out the tribes from Canaan slowly, not immediately- or at least, He potentially enabled this to happen (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>). But Israel were to destroy those tribes “quickly” (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Here perhaps we see what is meant- progress is slow but steady in the spiritual life, but there must be a quickness in response to the call of God for action in practice. Compare this with how on one hand, God does not become quickly angry (<a href='B:230 103:8'>Psa 103:8</a>), and yet on the other hand He does &nbsp;get angry quickly in the sense that He immediately feels and responds to sin (<a href='B:230 2:12'>Psa 2:12</a>); His anger ‘flares up in His face’.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the nations which Yahweh left to test Israel, those who had not known all the wars of Canaan-</p><p>Israel do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant. In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God's passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God's love for us! See on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>. <a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a> says that "Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua". <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>, this didn't happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn't drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p>


text:
<p>so that the later generations of the children of Israel might learn battle experience, those who before knew nothing of it- </p><p>As discussed on :1, this is putting it so positively. For the reason He didn't drive out the nations was because they had broken covenant with Him (<a href='B:70 2:19-23'>Jdg 2:19-23</a>). Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience. His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually " The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath- </p><p>But <a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a> says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over Jerusalem recorded in <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>, soon after which the Jebusites were soon again entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They were left to test Israel, to know whether they would listen to the commandments of Yahweh which He commanded their fathers by Moses- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods- </p><p>Many passages make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>. <a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a> RV dogmatically predicts that a Gentile man will definitely turn away the heart of his Hebrew son-in-law… So certain is it that marriage to Gentiles leads to accepting their idols that <a href='B:150 9:1-2'>Ezr 9:1-2</a> reasons that Israel hadn't separated from idols because they had married Gentiles. Time and again, those who marry out of the covenant claim that they feel strong enough to cope with it, that marriage is only a human thing, and that their spiritual relationship with God is between them and God, and unaffected by their worldly partner. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what God's word says. It's not true that you can marry into the world and be unaffected in your own spirituality. Solomon thought he could handle it; and apparently, he did- for the first 20 years or so. But his Gentile wives were his spiritual ruin at the end.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and forgot Yahweh their God, and served the Baals and the Asherahs- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake or forget Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:12-13'>Jdg 2:12-13</a>). But 'forsaking / forgetting Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He sold them into the hand of Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. The Israelites served Cushan Rishathaim for eight years.</p><p>The pattern of 'serving' their Canaanite conquerors and then 'crying unto the Lord' (<a href='B:70 3:8-9'>Jdg 3:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:14-15'>Jdg 3:14-15</a>) recalls their servitude to the Egyptians, resulting in Israel 'crying to the Lord' (<a href='B:20 2:23'>Exo 2:23</a>), and being answered by the Passover deliverance - which looked forward to the events of the Lord’s second coming. Their deliverances by the judges therefore also typify this. "Saviours (judges) shall come up upon mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau (so that) the Kingdom shall be the Lord's" (<a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a>). “Saviours / judges" may be an intensive plural referring to the one true saviour / judge, Jesus. </p><p></p><p>The phrase " the Lord sold them into the hand of::." , which occurs here in <a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>, runs as a refrain throughout the record of Israel's punishment at the hand of her enemies:&nbsp;The force of what this will mean in practice is brought out in <a href='B:50 32:30'>Deu 32:30</a>:&nbsp; "How should one chase a thousand (Jews), and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock (protecting Angel) had sold them:::?". Given the huge numerical superiority of Israel's Islamist enemies, this shows a total military collapse by the Israelites in the face of this aggression:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a far cry from the arrogance, confidence, bravery and 'fight to the death' attitude of modern Israelis.</p>


text:
<p>When the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn't want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came on him and he judged Israel. He went out to war and Yahweh delivered Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Cushan Rishathaim- </p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This king of Cush (also featured in <a href='B:330 38:5'>Eze 38:5</a>, N:I:V:) has the epithet 'Rishathaim', meaning 'double wickedness':&nbsp;These things point forward to the conflicts of the latter days between the Lord Jesus, Israel's ultimate judge / saviour, and the latter day enemies of Israel within the land promised to Abraham. This serves to emphasize how the latter day invasion will be headed up by an individual who is unashamedly a 'man of sin', a true anti-Christ:&nbsp;He was "king of Mesopotamia" (<a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>), literally meaning 'Aram (Syria) of the two rivers" , i:e. Tigris and Euphrates:&nbsp;This would point to a geographical location in modern Iran/Iraq. </p>


text:
<p>The land had rest forty years. Othniel the son of Kenaz died- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God's people often do.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh. Yahweh strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>This hints, perhaps, at a relatively sudden revival / strengthening of Israel's enemies, allowed by God in order to punish His people. They dominate Israel, they repent, and then cry to Yahweh for a saviour- and the Lord Jesus will be sent:&nbsp; It could be argued that this has indeed occurred since the discovery of oil in the Arab states;&nbsp; alternatively it could refer to a sudden revival after a dramatic defeat by Israel and/or her Western allies. <a href='B:300 48:47'>Jer 48:47</a> NIV clearly speaks of a revival of Moab's fortunes in the last days.</p><p>The repeated mention of Edom, Moab and Ammon in the prophets is hard to interpret specifically, seeing that these nations covered relatively small geographical areas which are now in Jordan and Syria:&nbsp;&nbsp; It may be that it is from these nations that the latter day onslaught is launched. We can, perhaps,&nbsp;therefore look&nbsp; to those countries becoming increasingly radicalized against Israel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He gathered to him the Ammonites and Amalek and he went and struck Israel; and they took possession of the city of palm trees- </p><p>This should be seen against the background of many Scriptural indications that the latter-day&nbsp; entity dominating Israel in their land will comprise a confederacy of surrounding nations, united by the single desire of attacking Israel. Psalms 83 is a notable example of this. We note these attackers came from the east, over Jordan, and took Jericho (<a href='B:50 34:3'>Deu 34:3</a>), perhaps making it their headquarters on the west bank of the Jordan. However, "the city of palm trees" could also have been En-gaddi, since Jericho had been destroyed by Joshua and wasn't rebuilt until the time of Ahab (<a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites served Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years- </p><p>"Eglon" means 'calf', the same word used of the calves later worshipped by Israel. He was named after his idol, and yet Yahweh strengthened him (:12) in order to punish His people. God may use people, but that usage doesn't mean that He therefore approves of them. We too may be used by God, but this is no evidence of our accpetability with Him.</p>


text:
<p>But when the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Ehud the son of Gera the Benjamite, a left-handed man. The children of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab-</p><p>It seems from <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> that Ehud's family were carried captive to Mahanath, a place in Moab. And this would explain his motivation in fighting to free Israel from Moabite domination. The Ehud of <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> was also a Benjamite [from Geba] who was related to Gera; see note there. Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>), and also the left handed Jael (<a href='B:70 5:26'>Jdg 5:26</a> LXX). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud made himself a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he wore it under his clothing on his right thigh- </p><p>This is presumably measuring by the "short cubit," i:e. the length from the elbow to the knuckles, about 13 inches or 33 cm. The idea of a saviour with a two edged sword looks ahead to the Lord Jesus and His latter day deliverance of His people from the same neighbouring peoples (<a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He offered the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man- </p><p>There is a strange emphasis on Eglon's physical form. "Eglon was a very fat man" is supported by the detailed and gory record of his death by stabbing:&nbsp; "Ehud::. thrust it (the dagger) into his belly: and the haft also went in after the blade;&nbsp;and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly" (<a href='B:70 3:17'>Jdg 3:17</a>; <a href='B:70 3:21-22'>Jdg 3:21-22</a>):The men of Moab are likewise described as "lusty" (<a href='B:70 3:29'>Jdg 3:29</a>), the Hebrew word meaning literally 'oily, greasy', and implying fatness:&nbsp;All this emphasis - and it is that - must be for a reason:&nbsp;Surely it suggests that the Moabites had indulged themselves in the good life, eating and drinking to excess - doubtless at the expense of the Israelites whom they were then dominating:&nbsp;This would indicate that the latter day enemies of Israel will be enjoying great material prosperity, yet most standard-of-living indicators show that Israel's neighbours generally are far from having this:&nbsp;A massive redistribution of wealth brought about by revolutions, coupled with holding the West to ransom with oil prices and pillaging the wealth of Israel, would easily bring about this situation.</p>


text:
<p>When he had finished offering the tribute he sent away the people who carried the tribute- </p><p>This could have happened at Eglon's palace in Moab, or at his field headquartes in the "city of Palm trees" (:13), which I suggested was En-gaddi or Jericho (see on :28). It seems Ehud wanted to operate totally alone; possibly because there was nobody of exactly the same mind in the group of Israelites accompanying him. This would be a sad reflection on how willing they were to be subjugated; and also a parade example in serving God alone, even if our brethren are weak; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p>but he himself turned back from the idols that were by Gilgal and said, I have a secret errand to you, king. The king said, Keep silence! All his attendants left him- </p><p>This language could suggest that "he himself" turned away from idolatry, but his brethren were happy to remain with the idols. The assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in the cool upper room. Ehud said, I have a message from God to you. He arose out of his seat- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed close in here upon the two men. We are told that the room is an upper room, and cool; we see Eglon arising out of his seat, perhaps with some difficulty if he were obese.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud put forth his left hand and took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his body- </p><p>Again there is the stress on the fact that Ehud used his left hand; see on :15. He presumably was grasping the king, about to whisper in his ear a message from God. And perhaps he did indeed have a message from God which he whispered as he stabbed him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The handle also went in after the blade and the fat closed on the blade, for he didn’t draw the sword out of his body, and it came out behind- </p><p>It would seem that AV "and the dirt came out" may be correct. Ehud knew he only had one chance, to kill the man immediately without him screaming in agony to attract attention. So he would have struck him with full force. But the idea may also be that the man was as it were pierced right through; the image of total victory used several times of God's piercing through of His latter day enemies. Or we could render the phrase to the intent that he immediately went out into the parshedon, or inner chamber, and thence to the next chamber (:23). This would continue the very fine attention to detail noted on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ehud went out into the porch and shut the doors of the upper room on him and locked them- </p><p>As noted on :20, we have a very close attention to detail here. He managed to make the door lock after he closed it.</p>


text:
<p>Now when he had gone out, the servants came and saw that the doors of the upper room were locked, and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper room- </p><p>Covering the feet is an idiom for sleeping (<a href='B:90 24:3'>1Sa 24:3</a>), but it could be that it also means 'to go to the toilet'. His obesity may have been such that he had frequent bowel problems, of which he was embarassed, and they assumed he had locked the doors for the sake of his own privacy.</p>


text:
<p>They waited until they were ashamed; but still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room, therefore they took the key and opened them and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth- </p><p>"Still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room" is written from the perspective of the servants. For we know, as the readers, that their king is lying there dead. But the Bible chops and changes in whose perspective it adopts, and this is helpful to remember when assessing the language of demons in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud escaped while they waited and passed beyond the idols and escaped to Seirah- </p><p>This was a daring, single handed assassination that reflected a deep faith within Ehud. I suggested on :19 that the assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. His brethren were happy to remain with the idols (:19), but Ehud passed beyond them- to true relationship with Yahweh. "Seirah" has not been defined as a town, and may be the name for the forests of the hill country of Ephraim (:27):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When he had arrived, he blew a trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went down with him from the hill country, and he went before them- </p><p>I suggested on :19 and :26 that Ehud was pretty much alone in his high level of devotion to Yahweh. But although the other Israelites were spiritually weak, they still had some potential strength; and Ehud's example inspired them to come forward for the Lord. If [like Elijah] he had despised them for their unspirituality, then they would not have rallied to him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He said to them Follow me, for Yahweh has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. They followed him and took the fords of the Jordan opposite the Moabites and didn’t allow any man to pass over- </p><p>I suggest that Eglon was based at "the city of palms" which he had made his headquartes on the western side of Jordan. Now he had been slain, the Moabites wanted to flee back over the Jordan to Moab. Ehud guessed this would happen, and so took the fords of Jordan. "Opposite the Moabites" would then mean "before the Moabites arrived":&nbsp;</p>


