Joshua 13
THE DIVISION OF THE TERRITORY (vs. 1-33)
1 “Now
Joshua was old” - This is usually regarded as the second
part of the Book of Joshua; the first being devoted to the history of the
conquest of
division among the conquerors. Dean Stanley, in his ‘Sinai
and
as well as in his ‘Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church,’ describes
this portion of the Book of
Joshua as the ‘Domesday Book’ of the land of
considerable difference between the great survey of the
William the Conqueror and
this one. The former was an accurate account, for purposes
of taxation,
national detente, and public order, of the exact extent of
soil owned by
each landowner, and it went so far as to enumerate the
cattle on his estate,
to the great disgust of the Saxon chronicler, who had an
Englishman’s
dislike of inquisitorial proceedings. There is no trace
either of such
completeness, or of such an inquisitorial character in this
survey, neither
has it quite the same object. It assigns to each tribe the
limits of its future
possessions, and enumerates the cities contained in each
portion of
territory. But it makes scarcely any effort to describe the
possessions of
particular families, still less of individual landowners.
Joshua and Caleb are
the only exceptions.
The most powerful tribes were first settled in their territory —
those, namely, of Judah and Joseph. The author must have had written sources
for his information, for no single Israelite could have
been personally acquainted
with all the details here given - “and stricken in years; and the LORD said
unto him, Thou art old and stricken in
years,” - Rather, advanced in age.
There is no foundation for the idea of some commentators
that the Jews, at the
time this book was written, made any formal distinction in
these words
between different stages of old age. The Hebrew language
rejoiced in
repetition, and this common phrase is only a means of
adding emphasis to
the statement already made - “and there remaineth yet very much land to
be possessed.” The Hebrew daom] is stronger than our version. Perhaps the
best equivalent in modern English is, “And the amount of
land that
remaineth for us to occupy is very great indeed.” We may observe here
that, as with the literal so with the spiritual
the Christian Church or the human heart, the work of
subduing God’s
enemies is
gradual. One
successful engagement does not conclude the war.
The enemy renews his assaults, and when force fails he
tries fraud; when
direct temptations are of no avail he resorts to
enticements. The only
safeguard in the war
is strength,
alertness, courage, patience. The faint
hearted and
unwatchful alike fail in the contest, which can be carried on
successfully only by him who has learned to keep guard
over himself, and
to direct his ways by the counsels of God.
Old Age (v. 1)
The most active servant of God may be overtaken by old ago
before he has
completed what he believes to be the task of his life. Reflect:
TOGETHER URGE UPON US THE NEED FOR DILIGENT
SERVICE.
Ø
We must not postpone
the commencement of work. Joshua
began to serve God in his
youth; yet his work was not finished
in his old age.
Ø
We must not be
satisfied with any amount of work done. Joshua
Had accomplished great
things, but much remained undone.
Ø
We must not be willing
to work at intervals or with wastefulness of
time. The work of life is
too great for the longest, most earnest life.
Time is short; the day of
work will soon pass. Jesus said “Work while
it is day for the night cometh when no man can
work! ” (John 9:4).
ACCOMPLISHED ALL WITHIN ITS POWER. Life is long
enough for
all that God
requires of us. We may not be able to
do all we wish, all we
set before ourselves, all that
appears to be needed, all that we think it our
duty to do. But God apportions
our duty according to our opportunities.
Therefore in His eyes the
broken, unfinished life is really finished if all is
done for which opportunities
have been given.
not they who effect much, but
they who serve truly, whom God accepts.
We cannot command success. The
finishing of our work is not in our
hands. We can be faithful
(Luke 16:10).
FUTURE LIFE. Our aspirations exceed our capacities. It is not simply
that
we desire the unattainable; but
we are conscious of duties which reach
beyond present opportunities,
and of possibilities within us which the limits
of life prevent us from
developing (see Ecclesiastes 3:11). If
God is too wise
to waste His gifts and too good
to deceive His children, we may take the
broken life, and still more the
incomplete life even of old age, as mute prophecies
of a larger life beyond.
of declining powers, of
insufficient time, and of all other limits of earthly
life will be gone. Eternity will give leisure for all service! The eternal
life
will not grow old, but FLOURISH
IN PERPETUAL YOUTH!
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH THE WORK THEY SET
BEFORE THEMSELVES.
It is well that they should leave work for
smaller men. The necessity thus
created becomes a stimulus to
others.
When one falls, another is
raised to continue his work (John 4:37-38).
The following is an excerpt from
notes on ch. 1 concerning Joshua
succeeding Moses in the above
scenario – CY – 2012):
We have A
NEW LEADER AND A FRESH START. As if to
magnify
Joshua in the eyes of the Israelites, the command is
at once given
to prepare for that entrance into the land of promise
which
Moses had so ardently longed for but was not permitted to
witness. “One soweth, another reapeth”
(John 4:37). The law
paved the
way for the gospel. It is well to follow
a period of inaction
by
vigorous measures. Active employment would turn away the people’s
thoughts
from unduly dwelling upon the absence of
Moses, and would
prove that all wisdom and energy had not died
with him, nor had God
also
perished in His servant’s death. And so
today the class in the
Sunday
school shall continue its training, though the much loved teacher
has
been compelled to renounce his work; THE CONGREGATION
SHALL BE INSTRUCTED AS HERETOFORE, THOUGH BY A
DIFFERENT
VOICE! Let
class and congregation rally
around
their
new chief. The
appointment of a new leader
should be the signal
for a
fresh advance. Let “Onward!” be the cry.
COMES WITHIN HIS POWERS. At best we are unprofitable servants;
but we are all also negligent and slothful. We have left undone many things
which we ought to have done
(Luke 17:10). None of us can say
with Christ,
“It is finished” (John 19:30).
Therefore we should review our
lives with
humility, contrition,
and repentance, seeking forgiveness for the failings
of the past and more grace
for the duties of the future.
ACCEPTANCE BY GOD.
Our work is unfinished. It is faulty for the
negligence it proves. It can earn
us nothing on its own merits. CHRIST’S
WORK IS
FINISHED On
this our faith can rest. Then we may
offer our own
imperfect work TO GOD THROUGH CHRIST and
He will transform
it for us by lifting it into the light of His merits,
till it will be worthy as dust
shines like gold
when the sunbeam passes through it.
2 “This is
the land that yet remaineth:” - The powerful league of
the Philistines, as well as the tribes near them, remained unsubdued. In the
north, likewise, the neighborhood of
hands of the enemy. Rabbis Kimchi
and Solomon Jarchi translate by
“borders” - “all
the borders of the Philistines,” - Literally, all the circles
(Geliloth) of the Philistines.
The expression is found in several places in this book
(see ch.18:17; 22:10-11). We may compare the expression the
circles of
Franconia, etc., in the history of Germany. The
expression here may have more
affinity with what is known as the “mark system” in the
history of ancient
and refer to the patch of cultivated ground which extended
for some distance round
each city. But this is rendered improbable by the fact that
one circle only
retained its name ( ch. 20:7;
21:32), and is still known as
passages).
“and all Geshuri,” Geshur
(see note on ch.12:5). It is
conjectured that these Geshurites
were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country (see I
Samuel 27:8), and were the same as
the Avites or Avvites.
See next verse, where the Avvites are distinguished
from the five
lords of the Philistines. It is worthy of remark that the
name Talmai, the name of one of
the “sons of Anak” (ch.15:14),
comes in again as the name of a king of Geshur
(II Samuel 3:3 13:37). It occurs, however, as a Hebrew name
in Bartholomew, or
Bar-Tolmai, i.e., the son
of Talmai, or Tolmai, one
of the twelve apostles. It is
hought that these
aborigines were dispossessed by the Canaanitish
tribes, and that
the old name of Geshur was still
applied to those regions on which this primitive race
had retained its hold.
3 “From Sihor,” - This word, which has the article in Hebrew, is literally
the black river. This
has been thought to be the
Latins by that title. The Greeks called it μέλας – melas
– black. The Septuagint
translates by ἀοίκητος – aoikaetou – Shihor. The phrase
which is “before”
(עַל־פְנֵי)
through the center of
בְּקֶרֶב.
Moreover, the Nile is always called either יְאֹר
or “the
The interpretation which has found most favor of late,
therefore, refers this
expression to a small river that flows into the sea at the extreme
southern border of
called the Wady-el-Arisch
(compare also ch.15:4, 47, as well as Numbers 34:5;
I Kings 8:65; Isaiah
27:12, where the word is nahal, or winter
torrent, a word
inapplicable to the
and especially I Chronicles 13:5, which seems decisive
against the
before
to the Canaanite:” - These words are connected by the Masorites
with what
follows: The five lords of the Philistines are reckoned
to the Canaanite -
“five lords of the
Philistines;” - The Philistines (Deuteronomy 2:23. Compare
Genesis 10:14, and I Chronicles 1:12) are supposed to be of
Egyptian origin. Ewald
believes Caphtor to be
who formed David’s body-guard (II Samuel 15:18) to be
Cretans and
Philistines (see Ezekiel 25:16). But this opinion is
disputed by many
commentators of note, and is far from probable in itself.
They were David’s
most trusted and faithful troops, and it seems hardly
probable that so truly
national a monarch would have assigned the post of honor
around his
person to the hereditary enemies of his race. Ritter,
however, believes the
Cherethites and Pelethites to be Philistines,
and appeals to I Samuel
30:14, and still more forcibly to Zephaniah 2:4-5. It
should be remembered, too,
that Ittai was a Gittite, or native of
translated lords (satraps, Septuagint), is
peculiar to the Philistines. It is to be found
also in Judges 3:3; I Samuel 5:8, etc. In I Kings
7:30 the word means an axle, or
perhaps the outside plating of the wheel, and in the
kindred languages it signifies a
wheel. The expression is remarkable in connection with the
phrase “circles
of the Philistines” - “the Gazathites,
and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites,”
–
The inhabitants of Ashkelon, as the Gittites
are of
Ekronites; also the Avites:” Literally, “and the Avites.” There
is no “also” in
the original, though the Avites or Avim are supposed (see
Deuteronomy 2:23, and note on Geshuri
in the last verse) to have been
aborigines preceding the Canaanites, and dispossessed by
the Philistines.
Keil, however, disputes this view, and holds that we have no
evidence that
any but a Canaanitish people
dwelt in southwestern
Canaanitish tribe, he thinks, was driven out by the Philistines. Some
few of
the Avites, or rather Avvites, continued to dwell among their conquerors.
But the coincidence between Deuteronomy 2:22-23, and I
Samuel
27:8, makes strongly for Ewald’s
view above. And Keil and Delitzsch,
in
their later joint work, incline to it. The word Avvim, like Havoth, or Havvoth
(see v. 30), is supposed to mean villages, or inhabited
enclosures.
4 “From
the south,” – The Septuagint and the best modern
commentators
connect these words with what precedes. This gives a better
sense than
joining it to what follows. For the south was not “all the
land of the
Canaanites,” but a large part of it belonged, as we have
just seen, to a tribe
not of Canaanitish origin, while
the land of the Canaanites (see note on ch 3:10)
extended far to the northward. Therefore we must understand
the words
“all the land of
the Canaanites” to begin a fresh section,
and to be descriptive
of the territory extending from Philistia northward towards
Syriac, and Arabic -
“all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah” - The margin
has “the cave.” But there is no article in the original The
Septuagint reads ἀπὸ Γάζης –
apo Gazaes - for Mearah, having clearly, as
Masius observes, substituted Zain for
Resh.
But this mistaken reading compels a
mistranslation of the passage. Vandevelde supposes it
to be a remarkable cave still existing near
municipium quoddam, and
states that it was commonly known as the “
“spelunca inexpugnabilis.”
It was afterwards “the last retreat of the Emir
Fakkr-ed-Din” (Vandevelde, s.v. Mearah). There is a village
now, north of
Sidonians” - Rather, near,
or in the direction of, or which belong to the
Sidonians - “unto Aphek,” - Or Aphekah. This
was the northern Aphek
(ch.19:30; Judges 1:31), in the tribe of Asher, known later
as Aphaca, and
now as Afka. Not the Aphekah of ch.15:53, probably the Aphek
of I Samuel 4:1.
It is the same Aphek which in
later times was captured by the Syrians, and was
the scene of several decisive victories of
It is doubtful which Aphek is
meant in ch.12:18, though it is probably
the southern Aphek. The situation
is described as one of “rare beauty”
(Delitzsch), “on the north.west slopes of
(Conder). Here the Syrian Astarte
was worshipped, and the ruins of her
temple, dedicated to her as mourning for Tammuz, or Adonis,
may still be
seen. Perhaps it was
never actually occupied by the Asherites, but
remained in the hands of
natural point to which the attacks of
however, believes in four and Conder
in seven cities of this name, and they
suppose the Aphek which was the
scene of the battle with the Syrians to
have been on the east of
in the narrative in I Kings 20. The term “Mishor” is, however, applied to
other places beside the territory east of
cannot be identified with any that have been named - “to the borders of the
Amorites:”
This can hardly be anything but the northern border of the
of Bashan, in the neighborhood of Mount Hermon.
5 “And the
land of the Giblites,” - The
inhabitants of Gebal, called Jebail
(i.e., hill
city, from Jebel) by the Arabs, and Byblus by the Greeks. This is Masius’s
idea, and other commentators have accepted it (see I Kings
5:18; Psalm 83:7; and
Ezekiel 27:9, where the Septuagint translates by Byblus). In the first named passage
the word is translated “stone squarers,”
in our version. All the other versions render
“Giblites” as here, and
no doubt the inhabitants of the Phoenician city of
meant, since in the ruins of Jebail
the same kind of masonry is found as is seen in
Solomon’s temple. Byblus was the
great seat of the worship of Tammuz, or Adonis.
Here his father Cinyras was
supposed to have been king, and the
licentious worship,
with its corrupting influences, was spread over the whole
region of
and even
(see for this passage also ch.11:8,17; and 12:7) - “and all
sunrising, from Baalgad under
mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath.”
The spies penetrated nearly as far as this (Numbers 13:21),
and David
reduced the
land into subjection as far as the borders of this territory. But
the Israelites never
subdued it. Toi, king of Hamath, was an ally, not a tributary of David (II Samuel 8:9).
The border of
(I Kings 8:65; II Kings 14:25), though Jeroboam II is said to have “recovered” (Ibid.
v. 28) Hamath itself. This
“entering in of Hamath” commences at the end of the region
called Coele
the expression refers to an “entrance formed by nature
herself,” namely, the termination
of the
name to the territory, is situated on the
Epiphaneia, no doubt after Antiochus Epiphanes,
king of
6 “All the
inhabitants of the hill country from
and all the Sidonians,”
- The word lko
here, as elsewhere, must be taken in a
restricted sense. A large portion of the Sidonian territory was taken, but
retained its independence (see Judges 1:31-32). It is clear, too,
that the promise
was conditional. Had not the Asherites
been willing
to tolerate the existence of the
Canaanites in their midst, they need not have
done so (see Judges 1:28) -“them
will
I drive out from before the children of
The Israelites for an inheritance, as I
have commanded thee.” 7 Now
therefore
divide this land for an inheritance unto
the nine tribes, and the half tribe of
Manasseh,”
8 “With
whom” - Literally, with him. The
construction is defective, but the meaning
is clear enough. To avoid the repetition of the words “the
half tribe of Manasseh,”
the
historian writes עִמּו meaning thereby the other half of the tribe
- “the
Reubenites and the Gadites
have received their inheritance, which
Moses gave them, beyond
servant of the LORD gave them;”
9 “From Aroer,” - Three, or even
four, cities of this name were known, and
have been identified by modern travelers under names
somewhat similar.
of the
here, vs.9,16; and probably Jeremiah
48:19).
“Rabbah.” It was no doubt some short distance to the westward of
this chief city of the Ammonites
(see also Numbers 32:34, where the
Gadites are said to have built it). These two are probably the “cities of
Aroer” referred to in
Isaiah 17:2 (but see next note but one, where also
II Samuel 24:5 will be
discussed).
belonged Shammah
or Shammoth, the Hararite
or Harorite (II Samuel 23:11;
he is called Harodite
– Ibid. v.25, and I Chronicles 11:27) –
“that is upon the bank of the river Arnon,” - (see note
on ch.12:2) -“and the
city that is in the midst of the river,” - This city (or perhaps cities) has received
but little attention from commentators, probably by reason
of its bearing no name.
Those who have tried to identify it have failed In
Deuteronomy 2:36, in this
passage, and in II Samuel 24:5, it is mentioned in
connection with Aroer. In ch.12:2,
instead of “the city that is in the midst of the river,” we find simply “the middle
(תוך) of the river.” But as II Samuel
24:5 stands in our version, the city referred
to stood in the middle of the
derivation of Aroer by Wells and others from the word ry[i (city) doubled, with
the
signification of the double city, is nearer the mark
than that of wasteness, or
desolateness, or nakedness,
as of a region bare of trees, which has found
favor of late, and it is not without support in Hebrew
forms. A city,
moreover, in the midst of or “on the brink of” a winter
torrent would be
less likely to be waste or desolate than in other situations.
But we are not
yet at the end of our difficulties. The word Nahal, which comes before Gad
in the passage of which we are now speaking, has the
article. Thus the
translation, “river
of Gad” cannot be maintained. And besides, the
enumeration of the people must have begun at the Arnon, or southern
border of
here, as it is in other parts of II Samuel, and possibly
the meaning may be
that the officers pitched in Aroer,
passed through Reuben, and having
come within the confines of Gad arrived at Jazer. This again is rendered
doubtful by the close connection of Aroer
and Jazer in v.25. It
is of course, therefore, possible that the reference in II
Samuel 24 is to the
Jabbok, not the Arnon ravine. A
question, of such intricacy can only be
settled, if settled at all, by an investigation on. the
spot - “and all the plain” -
The word here is מִישׁור. This derived from the root rv;y;
signifies level ground,
and is applied to the region north of
belonged to Reuben. Flat, and almost unbroken, even by
trees, it was
particularly adapted for grazing land (see also note above,
and on v. 4) -
“of Medeba” - This is mentioned
in Scripture, together with Dibon, as here in
Numbers 21:30; Isaiah 15:2. It was on the level ground
before mentioned -
“unto Dibon;” - Dibon (see Jeremiah 48:18, 22, called Dimon
in Isaiah 15:9;
but Dibon in Ibid. v. 2; see also
Numbers 33:45-46). It was one of the cities built
by the children of Gad (Ibid. ch.
32:34). It is now called Dhiban, and is a short
distance
north of the Arnon. The Moabite
stone was found at Dibon in 1868. It mentions the
occupation of Medeba by Omri, and implies that Dibon, the
principal city in those
parts, was also subject to him, but recovered finally by Mesha.
10 “And
all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, which
reigned in Heshbon,
unto the border of the children of Ammon; 11 And
Geshurites and Maachathites,”
- See note on ch.12:5, of which this passage is
little
else but a repetition -“and all mount Hermon, and all
12 All the
who remained of the remnant of the giants:”
- See note on ch.12:4 - “for these
did Moses smite, and cast them out. 13 Nevertheless the children of
expelled not the Geshurites,
nor the
Maachathites: but the Geshurites
and the
Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day.”
14 “Only
unto the tribes of Levi” - See Numbers 18:20-24, where the original
command is recorded. Like the clergy under the Christian
dispensation, it was seen
that they could not at once perform the duties of the
priesthood, and act as instructors
of the people, if they were burdened, like the rest, with
the duty of carrying on war.
Their place was supplied by the division of the tribe of
Joseph into two, so that the
inheritance of
the Law and Word of God, to take measures for its being
properly kept by
the nation in general, to spread abroad a knowledge of the
precepts of the
religion of
not merely desirable, but absolutely necessary, that they
should be
scattered among the tribes. On the other hand, to secure a
proper esprit de
corps, a mutual
sustaining influence, and a common action, too complete a
dispersion would have been a mistake. Hence their
collection into the
Levitical cities, which, however (see note on ch.21:11), were not
given up wholly to them. The Divine wisdom which dictated
the provisions
of the Mosaic law is clearly visible here. The instinct of
the Christian
Church in early times devised a similar provision for the
evangelization of
the people in the organization of the ancient and mediaeval
cathedrals -“he gave
none inheritance; the sacrifices of the
LORD God of
are their inheritance, as he said unto
them.” This
quotation of Numbers 18:20,
24 by a later
writer would, under all ordinary circumstances,
be regarded as a proof
That the Book of Joshua was quoting one of the books of Moses. The
Sacrifices.
The word is derived from אֵשׁ fire. It does not
itself signify fire in any place in
Holy Writ, but it is used of the shewbread
in Leviticus 24:7, 9. It thus came to mean
any sacrifice, whether offered by fire or not.
And thus the tenth which (Numbers
18:21, 23-24) was given to the Levites, as being offered
for God’s service,
might be reckoned as in some sense a sacrifice. With this
passage we may
compare various passages in the New Testament, where, in
this respect at
least, the Christian ministry stands on the same footing (I
Corinthians 9:11,13;
Galatians 6:6-7). Thus the maintenance of the Christian
ministry is a kind of
sacrifice — as we find such deeds called, in fact, in
Hebrews 13:16. And an order
of men who are set apart to the ministry of souls has a
right to claim a sufficient
maintenance at the hands of those to whom they minister — a
point which in these
days of affluence and clerical destitution combined ought
to be more largely
recognized than it is (see Numbers 18:20-24). “For the law
is entrusted to the
priests and Levites, and they
devote their energies to this alone, and without any
anxiety are able to give their time to the Word of God. But that they may
be able to do this, they ought to depend upon the support
of the laity. For
if the laity do not allow the priests and Levites all the
necessaries of life,
they would be obliged, to engage themselves in temporal
occupations, and
would thus have less time for the law of God. And when they had no time
to spare for the study of God’s law, it is thou who wouldst
be in danger.
For the light of knowledge that is in them would grow dim,
because thou
hast given no oil for the lamp, and through thy fault it
would come to pass,
what the Lord said, ‘If
the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into
the ditch?’” (Origen, Homily 17 on Joshua). These words are well worthy
of
attention now, when a multiplicity of worldly business and
a weight of worldly
cares are devolved upon God’s ministers by a laity which
has to too great an extent
washed its hands of all cooperation in the work of God’s
Church.
15 “And
Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben” - This passage
is an expansion of Numbers 32:33-42. We learn from it that
the Israelites actually
took possession of this land. But in the reigns of the wicked kings Omri and Ahab
the power of
and death of Ahab, the Moabites succeeded in shaking off
the Israelitish yoke, and
in wresting from
Sihon. In the next reign an attempt was made to regain
possession of the
lost territory. We learn from the Moabite stone that the
important towns
here mentioned, Medeba, Dibon, Baalmeon, Kiriathaim (or Kirjathalm, as it
is here called), Ataroth, Nebo, Aroer, had fallen into the hands of Mesha
at
the rebellion, and that he had erected a citadel at Dibon, which had become
his capital. Hence the endeavor to invade
in I Kings 3, which, however, though successful as a military
promenade,
was attended with no permanent results. For Isaiah (ch. 15.)and Jeremiah
(ch. 48.) mention most of these
places, as well as Elealeh and Heshbon,
the
former capital of Sihon, as being
strongholds of the Moabite power. Jahaz,
too, the place where Sihon gave
battle of the Israelites, is numbered by
Mesha, as well as at a later date by Isaiah and Jeremiah, among
the
possessions of
cities by the two prophets, is incidentally noticed by Mesha as having been
captured from the Edomites. In this early
extinction of the tribe of Reuben
we may see the fulfilment of Jacob’s prophecy (Genesis 49.) -“inheritance
according to their families. 16 And their
coast was from Aroer, that is
on the bank of the river Arnon, and the city that is in the midst of the river,
and all the plain by Medeba;”
- See v.
10; so again in the next verse.
17 “Heshbon, and all her cities that are in the plain; Dibon, and
Bamothbaal, and Bethbaalmeon,”
- Bamoth Baal. The high places or altars
of Baal. The frequent
mention of Baal in this passage shows how common the
worship of Baal was in
Chemosh, to whom Mesha, on the Moabite
stone, attributes all his victories
(compare Numbers 21:29; Judges 11:24; I Kings 11:7, 33. So
Beth-Peor below
(compare Numbers 25:3).
18
And Jahaza, and Kedemoth,
and Mephaath,”
19 “And Kirjathaim, and Sibmah,” - (see Numbers 32:38). The vine of Sibmah
forms a feature in the lament of Isaiah 16:8 and Jeremiah
48:32 over
close by Heshbon, on the borders
of Reuben and Gad (compare v. 17 with ch.21:39) –
“and Zarethshahar”
– or the splendor of the dawn, now garar, was on the borders
of the
coloring of the landscape here, more beautiful and
varied, no doubt, at dawn than at
any other time of the day - “in the mount of the valley, 20 And Bethpeor, and
Ashdothpisgah, and Bethjeshimoth,”
21 “And all
the cities of the plain,” - “Mishor” once more. See above, v. 9,
not as in Genesis 19, where the word is Ciccar.
These, therefore, were not
which display the minute acquaintance of our author with
his subject, are
almost of a necessity lost in a translation. But where our
version has
“plain,” the original has Mishor when the
uplands of Gilead and
meant, Arabah when the writer is speaking of the Wadys in the
neighborhood of the
of Western Palestine, bordering on the
speaks of the great valley of Coele
territory due north of
the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with
the princes of Midian,”
- The word
here used, נְשִׂיא
signifies exalted
persons, persons of
rank, as we should say. It would seem to imply rather
civil functions than the more absolute authority which the word שַׂר
also
rendered “prince”
in Hebrew, carries with it. With this passage compare
Numbers 31:8. The Hebrew has no “with,” so that the
difficulty some have
found in the passage need not have arisen. It is nowhere
said that Moses
smote the “princes of
Midian” together with Sihon.
All that is stated is that
they, as well as Sihon, were
smitten, as the history in Numbers tells us they were -
“Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, which were dukes of Sihon,”
-
According to Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, and others, the word here translated “dukes”
is
derived from נָסַך - to pour out, means “anointed.” See Psalm 2:6, where it
is translated “set.”
But Keil rejects this interpretation, and says that
the
word never signifies to anoint. It is always used, he says,
of foreign
princes. But he has overlooked Micah 5:4 (Hebrews). See Knobel, who
explains it of drink offerings, and regards these “dukes”
as men pledged by
a solemn treaty to be Sihon’s
allies, though not vassals. Kimchi thinks that
Sihon, before his reverses at the hand of
Midian, and these were his prefects, or under-kings. The term is
applied to
Zebah and Zalmunna in Psalm 83:12-13
(in the Hebrew) -“dwelling in the
country.”
22 “Balaam
also the son of Beor, the soothsayer,” - Or diviner, one who
pretended to foretell future events. Balaam, it would seem,
instead of returning to
his own land, went to visit the Midianites,
whose elders had joined in the invitation
given by
into idolatry and licentiousness (see Numbers 25.) For this
crime he met
with the punishment he had deserved, and was involved in
the destruction
which fell on the Midianites by God’s
express command, in consequence of
their treachery (Numbers 25:16-18 -“did the children of
sword among them that were slain by them.”
The Fate of Balaam (v. 22)
PURPOSES THEY LOSE THEIR SPIRITUAL VALUE. In the Book of
Numbers (chps.
22-24, 31) Balaam appears as a prophet inspired by God.
In the Book of Joshua he is only
named as a common soothsayer. All
spiritual gifts, of insight, of power, of
sympathy, are worthy only so long
as they are well used. As they become
degraded by evil uses they lose
their Divine character and become mere
talents of cleverness and ability.
SIN WHICH CANNOT GO UNPUNISHED. Balaam had sold his
prophetic powers for money, consenting to use them on the side of evil
and falsehood. Now his sin has
found him out. He who receives great gifts
incurs great responsibility. No
spiritual power is bestowed for merely
selfish uses. The greater the
talents we abuse, the greater will be the
judgment we shall invoke.
THE ASSURANCE OF PERSONAL SALVATION. Balaam had great
gifts, yet he suffered the fate
of the heathen. Our privileges are no proof of
a Divine favor which will
overlook our sins. Salvation comes not from the
gifts of the Spirit, but from
the grace of God in Christ. The least gifted
has
as good ground
for salvation as the most highly endowed. Pulpit power,
the “gift of prayer,” theological
insight, and religious susceptibilities may
all be found in a Christless life, and if so
they will be of no avail as grounds
of merit in the day of judgment.
GUILT OF THOSE WHO WILL NOT FOLLOW IT. Balaam knew the
true God and the way of right. But not living according to his knowledge,
his guilt was
aggravated, and HIS DOOM CERTAIN!
It is worse
than useless to know Christian
truth unless we obey it (James 1:22-24).
The faith in Christ which
secures to us salvation is not the bare intellectual
belief in the doctrines of
redemption (Ibid. 2:19), but submissive trust and
loyal obedience to Christ as
both Lord and Saviour (Mark 2:14).
God is patient in the exercise of His justice as well as in
His compassions, for He
is the Lord, with whom “a
thousand years are as one day” (II
Peter 3:8). He
knows that His threatenings, like
His promises, cannot fail. Of this we have a
striking proof, both in the punishment which came upon Balaam, during
the war
for the conquest of
Balaam. For many years Balaam had been untrue to his own
conscience, in
going back to the idolatries of
organ of the most glorious oracles of the true God. He is thus an illustration
of the truth that the baser passions of the
heart, if not subdued, will
always quench the clearest light of the intellect. Balaam chose wittingly
the evil part. He plunged again into the corrupt practices
of the heathen.
For a long time it seemed to the eyes of men, who judge only
by the
appearance, that he had made the right choice. Was it not better to sit
under his own vine and fig tree, and enjoy the riches
heaped upon him by
Balak, than to join the Israelites in their dreary desert
pilgrimage, beneath a
blazing sky, and over the burning sand? Had not Balaam
acted wisely?
Unquestionably he had if the rule of true philosophy be, “Let us eat and
drink, for tomorrow we die;” that is to say, if God does not reign in
righteousness forever and ever. But when the old soothsayer fell beneath
the sword of those Israelites whose warfare he had not been
willing to
share, HE
UNDERSTOOD TOO LATE it was these
despised people
who had alone been wise, and that, in spite of all the light
he had received, he had
lived and acted like a fool. (I recommend Proverbs ch14 v14 – Spurgeon Sermon –
How a Man’s Conduct Comes Home to Him – this web site – CY – 2012)
How many are there now living who recognize with their
minds the truth of the
gospel, but who are unwilling to
give up their sinful indulgences, UNTIL
THERE
ARISES UPON THEM THE TERRIBLE DAY OF THE LORD!
(Peter
says “the
Day of the Lord WILL COME” (II Peter 3:10). Happy those
for whom this day of awakening comes before death, so that
they do not go down
to the grave with their hearts made gross by merely
material prosperity, only to be
aroused by the stroke of Divine retribution. Let us remember the punishment of
Balaam, which came
surely, though it seemed to tarry, when the prosperity of the
wicked seems to us a stumbling block. (See Psalm 73:3-22*** - CY – 2012)
Caleb.
The promises of God’s love are not
less faithful and sure than His
threatenings, though they also may seem slow of fulfillment. This is
illustrated in the history of Caleb, who courageously
served his people
through a long lifetime, bringing back a good report of the
land garrisoned
by the enemy, which Moses sent him to explore. “Therefore Moses sware
on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet
have trodden shall be
thine inheritance and thy children’s forever, because thou
hast WHOLLY
FOLLOWED THE LORD THY GOD,” (ch.14:9). This promise was
not
forgotten. Caleb received, as an inheritance, that hill of Hebron
which was
assured to him in the name of the God whom he served. Thus
the promises of
God are yea and amen.
(II Corinthians 1:20)
Balaam (v. 22)
A study of pathetic interest; one of
the great “MIGHT-HAVE-BEENS of the
world. One
capable of winning an immortal fame, but actually finding only
an immortal infamy. The Judas of the Old Testament: one travelling
on the
right road till within sight of
heaven, and then TURNING ASIDE UNTO
PERDITION! Consider:
great dignity and influence. He
has raised himself to priest-kingship among
the Midianitish
tribes. He is considered to have such power in divination
and forecast that he is brought
all the way from a city in
the borders of Canaan to “curse
expect to find him at least a
man possessed of great spiritual insight; able at
least to guess well concerning
all moral probabilities, He has, moreover,
reached a clear knowledge of God;
has not become entangled by any
service of the lower deities
whose degrading worship was so prevalent;
showing that he was a
spiritually minded man, who had gone on and on
following the light which
reached him, until that light exceeded that of any
one else among his people. His
divination is no black art — carried on by
appeals to demons — but by pure
sacrifices offered to the supreme God.
He had evidently been accustomed to utter exactly what God imparted.
Pleasant or painful, what God
sent him he said. And his honesty and
courage are conspicuous in his
actual declarations concerning
we have put together these
qualities: spirituality sufficient to discover and
serve the true God; great
strength of integrity; the keen perception which
can discern the essential
differences and destinies of things; the fear of God
to which “the secret of the Lord is always revealed” — you get a
character of the first quality,
one that has in it the making of a Moses or an
Abraham, one who could and
should have been one of the grandest of the
prophets of the Lord. If only he
had reached the full development of his
spiritual powers, Midian might have been another
source of highest good.
Doubtless till
middle life this course of high
righteousness, consecration to and communion with God had
gone on.
But beginning well and running
well, he falls
at last into ignominy and
shame. Mark:
temptation before which he fell.
There is always, or almost always, some
declension
before a fall. No one falls into crime
by one stumble. Can we
trace the process? The writer of
the Apocalypse, with his power of going
straight to the mark, sums up in
one word: He loved the wages of iniquity;
not iniquity, but
what iniquity could give him (Revelation 2:14). First the
selling of his spiritual power
was a declension. To seek God’s
light in order
to get man’s
money was an activity damaging to his conscience. Whether
it be the sale of masses,
absolutions, indulgences, or oracles, the vitiation is in
each case the same. A
seemingly slender line divides Samuel’s acceptance of an
honorarium (I Samuel 9:6-10)
from Balaam’s eager desire for it. But seeming
alike, they essentially differ.
In Balaam’s case the greed got headway, and instead
of the prophet’s simple
acceptance of gifts as a means of living, there was a
valuing of all his spiritual
powers and privileges only for their market value.
[It is an awful thing when a
Christian minister values his creed and his
experience only as a means of
making money.] Then hankering after
money, he soon loses the fine
edge of honor. When once God refused to
give him leave to go with the
messengers of Balak, there
should have been
no reopening of the
question. But so anxious is he for the “rewards
of
divination,” that on their second embassy he goes to God for a second
time, for the chance of finding Him PERMIT WHAT HE HAD ALREADY
REFUSED! Declining
to accept a reluctant service, God at once permits
and punishes a less honorable
course. Again and again he tries to get
permission
to curse
from what God has given him is degrading and demoralizing. Each
dishonorable and dishonoring
attempt to get God’s anathemas to hurl
against a righteous nation fails
to hurt
until, hunting after some means
of possessing himself of Balak’s gold, in
the pursuit he falls down, and
down in degradation until, God refusing to
inspire him with evil, his heart
is ready to welcome and utter an inspiration
from below. And his character is so disintegrated in this hankering
after money, that at last he gives the most
diabolical advice that
man could give; viz., that instead of fighting
to corrupt them (Numbers 31:16).
The licentious feasts, the heathen orgies
are of his counseling, and but
for Phinehas (Ibid. 25:7-8) might have been
as disastrous to
level of highest
character, influence, and opportunity, down to the
level of A
SATANIC CRIME! The love of money is DAILY
MAKING WRECKS
EQUALLY DISASTROUS AND IRREPARABLE.
BEWARE OF IT!
and was for a moment as
pleased as Achan. But had he satisfaction in it?
Ø
world’s best help, is
crippled, degraded, weakened through his advice,
and that would pain him.
Ø
Midian is all but completely annihilated. All the males and most
of the
women are slain (Numbers
31.).
Ø
Balaam himself has but
a short lived enjoyment of his wealth, for he
also is slain (Ibid. v. 8).
Ø
The loss of life probably
pained less than the everlasting infamy that
made what hitherto had been
an honored name a proverb for the
vilest form of treacherous
wickedness. These penalties are obvious.
In the world of spirits
there must have been others more serious still.
May we fear dishonorable
gold, as that which makes the heaviest of
all millstones to drown men
in perdition! (Matthew 18:6)
23 “And
the border of the children of Reuben was
thereof.” -
These words have been omitted in the Vulgate,
which does not
understand them. The Septuagint translates, “And the borders of Reuben were
the
Jordan-border.” This seems to be the meaning of the original. The phrase
often occurs, as in ch.15:12 and
Numbers 34:6. The phrase probably means
the natural boundary marked out by the river or sea and its
banks. Reuben, as
predicted by Jacob (Genesis 49:4), sank at once into
insignificance. No ruler, no
judge arose from this tribe and its territory -“This was the inheritance of the
children of Reuben after their
families, the cities and the villages thereof.”
Villages. Hebrew חַצְרֵי, Septuagint ἐπαύλεις – epauleis - Vulgate viculi.
The original meaning is a piece of ground enclosed by a
hedge or wall. Here it
would mean, either farm hamlets, or perhaps clearings of
cultivated ground, which
in
of wild beasts. In the primitive villages of Servia, where wild beasts are not
entirely extirpated, not only are all the homesteads
enclosed, but a fence is
placed across the road, and removed when a vehicle has to
pass through.
Or perhaps the primitive Jewish community was similar to
the primitive
Teutonic community as described by
Practical Treatise on Landed Property,’ published in 1804,
who described
the early distribution of land in this country as follows:
“Round the village
lay a few small enclosures for rearing young stock. Further
a field the best
land for arable purposes was chosen, and divided into three
parts, for the
necessary, rotation of fallow, wheat or rye, and spring
crops. The meadows
near the water courses were set aside for the growth of
fodder for the
cattle or for pasturage for milk cows, etc. The irreclaimable
lands were
left for what we now call ‘common’ uses for fuel, and the
inferior
pasturage.” These arrangements are found to exist in
necessity for water was the cause of important
modifications. Since the
word is used to denote the court
and as it is used of the enclosure of a nomadic camp
(Genesis 25:16,
where our version has towns; perhaps Deuteronomy
2:23, where our
version has Hazerim, following
the Septuagint — which, however, alters the
word to the more usual Hazeroth
— and the Vulgate; Isaiah 42:11, with which
compare the expression tents of Kedar,
Psalm 120:5), the translation villages
can hardly be the correct one here or elsewhere (see also
v. 28).
24 “And
Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad,” - The border of
Gad extended further eastward than that of Reuben.
Westward, of course, its
border was the
land of
southernmost point of the sea of Galilee. Many of these
places also are
mentioned in Isaiah 15 and Jeremiah 48. (see note above, v.
16) - “even unto the
children of Gad according to their
families.”
25 “And
their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of
land of the children of Ammon,
unto Aroer that is before Rabbah;”
A different Aroer to that
mentioned in v. 9. This was near (Hebrew, opposite to,
the expression being equivalent to the French en face)
Rabbah, or the great city of
the children of Ammon. It is proable that this territory had been taken from
the Ammonites by Sihon, since the
Israelites were not permitted to possess
themselves of the land of the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19).
For Rabbah,
see II Samuel 11:1; 12:26. It is called Rabbath
in Deuteronomy 3:11.
26 “And
from Heshbon unto Ramathmizpeh,”
- This is idenitified
with
Ramoth-Gilead by Vandevelde, and must
have been the Mizpeh of Gilead
mentioned in Judges 11:29. It is supposed to be identical
with the place called
Mizpah, Galeed, and Jegar-sahadutha
by Jacob and Laban respectively
(Genesis 31:47-49). If it be the same as Ramoth-Gilead, it is the scene
of the celebrated battle against the Syrians, in which Ahab
lost his life (I Kings 22.),
and where the fall of the dynasty of Omri
was brought about by the revolt of Jehu
(II Kings 9). Conder, however,
thinks the two are distinct places, and fixes
Ramoth-Mizpeh on the north border of Gad, about 25 miles west of Bozrah -
“and Betonim; and from Mahanaim” - The dual of מַהֲנהֶ two hosts or
camps. It received its
name from Jacob, who with his own company met the
angels of God, and who commemorated the meeting by this
name (see Genesis
32:2). Here Ishbosheth was crowned (II Samuel 2:8). Here David took
refuge
when he crossed the
17:24) -“unto
the border of Debir;” - Not
the Debir mentioned in ch.
10., but
another Debir in the
27 “And in the valley,” - The Emek (see
ch.8:13) “Betharam,
and Bethnimrah,” -
(see Numbers 32:36). Afterwards Nimrim
(Isaiah 15:6; Jeremiah 48:34). Now Nimrin –
“and
Succoth,” - i.e., booths. Here Jacob rested after his meeting with
Esau
(Genesis 33:17). Here Gideon “taught the men of Succoth,” who had declined to
provide food for his army (Judges 8:5, 7, 16). It is mentioned in connection with Zarthan,
or Zaretan (compare
ch.3:16) as being in the tract or כִכַּר
of the
metal work of the temple was cast (I Kings 7:46; II
Chronicles 4:17) - “and Zaphon,” –
Perhaps, and the North; what remained of the
above, the part which was not assigned to Reuben - “the rest of the
Sihon king of
(see note on v. 23) - “even unto the edge” - Rather, the end
(see note on v.24).
“of
the
28 “This
is the inheritance of the children of Gad” – The
cause of
the difference between the Reubenites
and the Gadites may perhaps be thus
explained. While both inhabited a similar tract of country,
a country from
its open and pastoral character likely to develop a hardy
and healthy race of
men, the Reubenites were exposed to the
seductions of the Moabitish
worship of Chemosh, which, when combined with an ancestral
temperament by no means prone to resist such influences
(see Genesis 49:4),
soon proved fatal to a tribe, itself not numerous
(Deuteronomy 33:6), and
hemmed in on every side but the north by the unbelievers.
The temperament
inherited by the Gadites added to
their more favorable situation and the nature
of their pursuits, developed a hardy and warlike race ready
to do battle, and
fearless of their foes (I Chronicles 5:18). Of this tribe came the valiant Jephthah,
and of it also came the brave soldiers of David, whose
qualifications stir to poetry
the sober chronicler of Judah (I Chronicles 12:8). We may
see here the influence of
circumstances on the character of a people. Originally (I
Chronicles 5:18) the
Reubenites and the Gadites were alike. But
the Reubenites, as we have seen, from
unfavorable surroundings, lost the character which the Gadites, more favorably
situated, were enabled to preserve. And the distinctions of
tribes, producing as they
did a separate esprit de corps in each tribe, will
serve to explain why one tribe did
not immediately succumb to influences which proved fatal to
another. In the end,
as we know, all the people of Gad fell victims to the
temptations which surrounded
them, and, save in the case of
Israelites who went over to them, irrevocably. The same
phenomenon may
be observed in the history of nations generally. As long as their manners
were simple and their morals pure, they have preserved
their liberty, and in
many cases have acquired empire. As soon as their bodies were enervated
by luxury, and their minds corrupted by vice, they fell a
prey to foes whom
formerly they would have despised. Thus fell the Greek and Roman republics,
thus the Britons became an easy prey to the Saxons, and the
Saxons to the Danes.
In every instance the history of a tribe and of a nation
serves to illustrate the maxim
that “RIGHTEOUSNESS EXALTETH A ANATION, BUT SIN IS A
REPROACH TO ANY PEOPLE!” - “after their families,
the cities, and
their villages.”
29 “And Moses gave inheritance unto the
half tribe of Manasseh:” - The
word used for “tribe”
in the first and second half of this verse is not the same..
Is is eriously
contended that one half of this verse is taken from one author,
and the other from another? Or is it possible that the
writer of the book
may actually have understood the language he was using, and
meant to use
the two words in somewhat different senses? Gesenius, it is true, would
explain the words as being precisely synonymous. But his
own
etymological remarks are fatal to his theory. מטה
the latter of the two
words, is a bough, or shoot (derived from a
word signifying to grow),
capable of throwing out blossoms (Ezekiel 7:10). It refers,
therefore, to
the natural descent of the tribe from Manasseh their father. But שבט is
allied to שׁפט; to judge, and the Greek σκήπτρον – skaeptron –
and perhaps the English shaft, and signifies a rod
as the emblem of authority.
Thus it is used in Genesis 49:10, of a royal scepter. So
Psalm 2:9, an iron
scepter, Psalm 45:6. Thus the latter word has reference to
the tribe as an
organized community, the former to it in reference to its
ancestral
derivation. This view would seem to be supported by v. 24,
where the
מטה of Gad is further explained to mean his sons and their
families, as
well as by this verse, where the שׁבט
is used absolutely, the מטה
in
connection with the family - “and this was the possession of the half
tribe of the children of Manasseh by
their families.”
30 “And
their coast was from Mahanaim, all
of Og king of
as in Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14. The word חַיִּת
is derived from חוה
to
live, and the word is compared by Gesenius to
the names Eisleben and the
like in
Why the term is confined to these particular cities is not
known. Gesenius
regards it as equivalent to “nomadic encampment.” But the
ruins of the
giant cities of
Graham, in 1857), and displaying all the signs of high
civilization, dispose
of this idea. These cities are mentioned in Deuteronomy 3:4
as
“threescore
cities, all the region of Argob,” and again in v. 13, “all
the
region of Argob with all
the east he (Abraham) would leave the barren and craggy
fatnesses of the
formidable Argob, still (i.e.,
in Abraham’s time, not Joshua’s) the asylum
of the fiercest outlaws; and would jealously avoid the
heathen haunts in
groves and on high places where smoke arose to the foul
image, and the
frantic dance swept round.” (Tomkins, ‘Studies on the Time
of Abraham,’
p. 69. See also note on ‘
well as the half tribe of Manasseh, that qualified him to
receive and subdue
this important territory with its wide extent and teeming
population. In the
article on Manasseh in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible,’
reference is made
to the fact that, while Ephraim only sent 20,800, and
Western Manasseh
18,000, Reuben, Gad, and Eastern Manasseh sent the immense
number of
120,000, and this while Abner,
the supporter of Ishbosheth, had his
headquarters at Mahanaim. But the
numbers are suspicious, especially
when Judah, always a powerful tribe, comes below the
insignificant tribe of
Simeon in number. And a comparison of II Samuel 5:1 with I
Chronicles
12:22-23, would lead to the idea that the coronation of
David after the death
of Ishbosheth is the event
referred to (see also I Chronicles 12:38-40).
31 “And
half
of Og in
son of Manasseh, even to the one half of
the children of Machir” –
See this question fully discussed in note on ch.17:5-6 - “by their families.”
32 “These
are the countries which Moses” - (see Numbers 22:1; 34:15) –
“did distribute for inheritance in the
plains” - Hebrew, Araboth
(see ch.3:16.)
“of
33 “But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any
inheritance: the
LORD God of Israel
was their inheritance, as He said unto them.”
The Allotment of the Inheritance (vs. 1-ch.14:5)
OTHERS. Joshua felt
that his end was drawing nigh, and most likely, since
we are not told otherwise, as in
the case of Moses, his natural force was
abated. So with ourselves. We cannot expect to see the end of our work.
We must do what God has set before
us, and LEAVE THE RESULTS
TO HIM. Yet we, unlike Joshua, need not fear the
failure of our efforts.
The law could not make its
votaries perfect; but the bringing in of a better
hope did (Hebrews 7:19). In this later dispensation no work shall altogether
fail of its effect IF
DONE TO GOD!
HENCE. Though Joshua
had to leave the completion of the task to others,
he did not fall to put it in
train. So we, when we have begun a good work,
are bound to make proper and
reasonable provision for its being carried on
when God warns us that our time
draws nigh. (I hope to get all the Bible
from the Pulpit Commentary on this web site before I
die. I have found
out that for $999 the web site
will be available for 100 years. Whether
the Lord will come before then,
I know not but I am working towards
this goal. Will you pray with me that it will be useful
to the spiritual needs
of both the lost and
Christians. In the mean time, “Even
so, Come Lord
Jesus.” – Revelation 22:20 – CY – 2012) We are not to expect God to
work miracles where our own
reason would suffice. We must leave the
result to God, but not until we
have done all in our power to procure the
fulfillment of His will. We must
leave proper directions behind us to
indicate what our wishes are,
and a proper organization, so far as possible,
to carry out our purposes. We
find nothing left to God in the Bible but
what is plainly beyond the reach
of man.
the
severally as He
will” (I Corinthians 12:11). The various powers and
faculties we have, bodily,
mental, spiritual, are given us by God. Each one
has his own proper share,
according to the work God requires of him. There
must be no murmuring or
disputing. The foot must not ask why he is not the
hand, nor the hand why he is not
the head (Ibid. vs. 14-31). Each has his
own
proper portion of the good gifts
of God, and according as he has so will it be
required of them. All murmurings were hushed in
committed the disposal of the inheritance to the Lord. We are
equally bound
to refrain from discontent because it is clear that God has
portioned out the
gifts of the spiritual Israel One man has wealth, another
strength, another
intellect, another imagination, another wisdom, another energy,
another power
over others, or these various gifts are apportioned in various
degrees for God’s
own purposes. Let none think of
questioning the wisdom of the award.
FLOCKS FOR SUPPORT. Such
is the meaning of Paul when he
speaks of the double honor (no
doubt in a pecuniary sense, as we use the
word “honorarium”) to be given
to the elders who rule well (I Timothy
5:17). In consequence of their special aptitude for
the work, they were to
be relieved from the burden of
their own maintenance, that they might be able
to devote more time to the
supervision of the flock. Not necessarily that each
minister should be maintained by
his own flock, for he might be thereby
deterred from speaking
faithfully to them in the name of Christ. We do not
find that each individual priest
and Levite was maintained by some special
synagogue of the Jews. But they
who ministered in holy things lived of the
sacrifice nevertheless. The
offerings made at the temple at
formed a general fund out of
which the tribe of Levi was maintained, as its
members went up by rotation to
perform the duties of their office. And
beside this, a proper number of
cities was provided them, with a share,
most probably (see note on
ch.21:12), in the privileges of their
fellow citizens, of the tribe to
which the land belonged. This ample
provision for the ministers
under the old law is in striking contrast, save in
some special instances, to the
provision made by Christians for their
ministers now. A due maintenance
for their clergy was one of the special
characteristics of the Jewish
religious system.. According to the principles
laid down by the apostles of
Christ, and always acted upon, save in some
special instances, it was an
equally marked characteristic of the Christian
Church.
those who are in straitened
circumstances, as many are. They may
remember the words, “I have been young and now am old, yet saw I
never the righteous forsaken, nor his seed
begging their bread”
(Psalm 37:25). If they abstain from murmuring, rigidly adapt their
expenditure to their means,
careless of appearances,
careful only to do right,
they wilt
find their reward in God’s love and favor.
He will be in truth their
portion. (Nothing can top God’s
promise to Abraham! “I AM THY
SHIELD AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD!” – Genesis
15:1 – CY – 2012) Having food and raiment, they will be therewith content
(I Timothy 6:8), for they will
have abundance of spiritual blessings, the reward
of an approving conscience, and
the respect of all right thinking men. Nor is the
promise confined only to those
who lack the good
things of this life, but it is
given to those who, by God’s
disposition possessing
them, know how to use
them. All God’s ministers who love and serve Him SHALL HAVE HIM
AS THEIR PORTION and they will treasure this above all earthly
goods.
“They that fear
Him lack nothin.” (Psalm
34:8-9). The
Lord is the
strength of their life, and their portion forever. (Ibid. 27:1; 28:7-8)
The Border Keep (v. 31)
“Machir was a ‘man of war,’ therefore
he had Gilead and
cities include the group which form such a striking
stronghold in the
northern part of the land beyond
cities — the failure of even three thousand years of change
and wear to
render the houses unfit for habitation; and has also
described the strange
formation of the district of Argob,
rendering it a natural fortress of the
most formidable kind. Here, by special adaptation of place
with people, this
district is assigned to the family of Machir.
It was wisely so assigned, for
through all the succeeding generations the keeping of the
frontier in this
direction was well done. We may gather one or two hints not
altogether
valueless from this assignment. Observe:
HE HAD CONQUERED. From
Numbers 32:39 we learn that, gigantic
as were the inhabitants of
its natural fortress seemed, the children of Machir “took it,”
and
dispossessed the Amorite that was in it. Now they enjoy that which
their
unusual valor won. Like Caleb, whose daring made him ask
when it was in the hands of the enemy, they chose a difficult
spot, and
conquering, inherited it. More than any other they had a right to
this, for
their courage had conquered it. Your best inheritance will
always be some
DISCOVER WILL DO YOU THE MOST GOOD! (This is why
I encourage you to study the Bible on your own and with God’s help
it is to be made available for you in an easy format such as this – CY –
2012).
The
experience you develop for yourself will be your best guide.
Even the money you make for
yourself will be that which you at once
employ and enjoy the best. Conquer what you want to have. By
courage,
diligence, enduring hardness, achieve what you would like to keep.
The Jacobs in the middle; the Esaus are better on the borders of the land.
The bravest should be those
nearest the foe. They who keep the gates of a
kingdom should be those to whom conflict has no terrors. Theologians that
keep the frontiers of truth should be brave. Timid Christians that think all
the world is going to turn infidel are not men for warfare on
the
border. Against assaults there should be placed those who have
been
through all the fights of faith and unbelief in their own hearts,
and who can
bring a strenuous, cheerful energy to the task of fighting for
the truth.
Those strong enough to expect a
perpetual victory of truth are those alone
fit to deal with the assaults of error. Ministers of religion, keeping the
frontier between the Church and the world, should be in a good sense
men
of war; on their guard
against encroachment of worldliness;
strong
enough to brave opposition and to be above the seductions of the
flattery
which a compromising spirit may win from the world; strong enough to
keep out the intrusions of the SECULAR SPIRIT in all its forms of
caste feeling, of cold heartedness, of indifference to the perishing; strong
enough to carry the war into the enemy’s country, and secure by
extending the
Wherever the enemy is near, set what is bravest and
stoutest in you to
watch. The pugnacious
element in our nature is very valuable
— if it
operates in
it is, it is just in some position where it quarrels with its
friends instead of with
the temptations and the wrongs and the difficulties which are
its proper foes.
For frontier work of all kinds, courage is the prime
qualification. Lastly:
ENEMY. What he
won was his reward, but it was something more. It was
the best stronghold he could have against the enemy. The
conquered
fortress makes the best defense. The vigor enough to win it grows
stronger and becomes the power to keep it. A victory is always a
point of
strength and a stronghold conquered, a vantage ground against the
foe.
The Church differs from all
other communities in this, that she is never
weaker by extension; each new conquest gives her a better
frontier; every
impregnable against attack. By God’s blessing, conquer a rebellious
heart
and subdue it to Him, and it becomes a fortified post from
which you can
assail or defend more powerfully than before. Graces that are
easily gained
are easily lost. But those that are won with arduous
difficulty are invariably
much more securely held. None keep truth like those who have
fought hard
to get it. None are more generous than those who have fought
hard with
selfish tendencies within them. None keep elevation of thought and
feeling
more persistently than those who have reached it by crucifying
the flesh. A
conquered temptation is a grand fortress in which you
are stronger to
resist
seduction than ever before. A grief
conquered by faith becomes
a quiet resting place, and one
secure against all assaults of despair. Keep
making daily some conquest, and so you will perfectly secure all
that you
have won.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.