Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadGreater Men and Women of the Bible by James Hastings: 212. The Faithful Servant
Subjects in this Topic:
Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister.- Jos_1:1.
It is obvious from the conclusion that the Book of Joshua was written neither by Joshua, nor within his lifetime. But there are certain entirely independent considerations that suggest so much at least as this: the book was written long after the age of Joshua, and in Judah.
(1) The presentation of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan as the result of a rapid and complete conquest appears to be due to the idealizing of long past events; the Book of Joshua must on this account be judged much later than the age which gave birth to the account in the first chapter, and to the stories that form the substance, of the Book of Judges: for the account in Judges, in its broad features, accords, the representation that dominates Joshua is entirely at conflict, with what the conditions and historical movements prevailing about 1400 b.c., and revealed to us by the contemporary Tell el-Amarna tablets, would lead us to expect the nature of the Hebrew settlement, which took place somewhat later, actually to have been.
(2) In Jos_15:63 we read: “But the Jebusite(s) the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel were unable to dispossess; and (so) the Jebusite has dwelt with the children of Judah in Jerusalem until this day.” With the substitution of “Benjamin” for “Judah” these words recur in Jdg_1:21. Probably in both books the words are cited from a common and ancient source; in any case there is no probability that Judges borrows from Joshua; and so in Joshua at least the words are a quotation. But these words throw back the (partial) conquest to a past age, which is tacitly contrasted with “the present day.” In any case the book which cites the passage must be later than the source it cites, and consequently the product of an age later certainly than Joshua, possibly also later than David.
(3) The reference to the Book of Jashar (10:13) certainly implies a date later than David, for that book contained, among others, poems of David (2Sa_1:18).
(4) Interest in South Palestine and specifically in Judah dominates the book. Both in the account of the Conquest and in that of the division of the land the South is dealt with much more fully, and the district of Judah is more minutely described than that of any other tribe. The conquest of Central Palestine, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, is entirely omitted, and it is only at the end of the book that this district comes into prominence; and then almost of necessity, for Joshua naturally goes to his own country to make his farewell and die.1 [Note: G. B. Gray, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, 56.]
2. There are in the Bible a few men who were so extraordinary in their moral stature that no higher tribute could be rendered to their unique personality and services than this, that they were “hard to follow.” Such a man was Elijah the Tishbite, whose life was so full of heroic achievement and dramatic incident that Elisha, although clad in the mantle of his predecessor, found it no easy task to succeed him in the prophetic office. Such a man was Moses, the man of God, whose character was such a beautiful blend of strength and tenderness, and whose career was distinguished by such signal tokens of Heaven's favour, that the son of Nun trembled at the thought of taking his place as leader of the host of Israel. Elisha and Joshua were good and great men, and their virtues and merits would have been more distinctly recognized by us but for the surpassing and overshadowing brilliance of the men whom they succeeded. No Hebrew prophet or ruler equalled Moses in nobility of character, greatness of mind, and extent of personal influence. Joshua was a small man in comparison with his predecessor. He was no prophet or constructive genius; he was not capable of the heights of communion and revelation which the lofty spirit of Moses was able to mount. He was only a plain, fiery soldier, with energy, swift decision, promptitude, self-command, and all the military virtues in the highest degree.
Joshua could claim neither the breadth of Moses nor the religious genius of Samuel; he reminds us rather of David by his military qualities, his unshakable faith in the help of Jehovah, and his lack of reliance on the loyalty of the tribes which he was leading on to victory. He set to work courageously, trusting to God more than man, and his chequered career shows us in the midst of perils a constancy of courage and faith which was the cause of his success.1 [Note: A. Westphal, The Law and the Prophets, 215.]
3. There is something at once beautiful and significant in the relationship between Moses and Joshua. It is the contact of maturity and youth, of the master and the scholar, and it suggests to us that deep natural order which ensures that the young evermore step into the heritage of the aged, and carry on the progress of the world. Moses made a firm, solid-set man out of his follower. He succeeded because he worked patiently for many years; and he did his work quietly. He let Joshua's union with him grow out of circumstances. We can well fancy the reverence and love which an unimaginative, plain, unthoughtful, un-mystical, but fiery nature like Joshua's would have for a subtle, many-sided, spiritual, imaginative, but fiery nature like that of Moses. For in fire, and ardour, and courage, they were equal and at one. By that reverence and love, growing deeper year by year, Joshua won the power of understanding the ideas of Moses, and of rooting them into his character.
The central thought of all the philosophy of Moses was that religion was the base of all thinking, that it was the spring of all right conduct, that it was the greatest thing in the world-the only great and worthy thing-and in these thoughts Joshua shared. He was a young man, with all a young man's heat of blood and thoughtlessness of impulse, but he learned this great lesson, and by learning it he fitted himself for a great life.1 [Note: W. J. Dawson, The Endless Choice, 88.]
The great leader attracts to himself men of kindred character, drawing them towards him as the loadstone draws iron. Thus, Sir John Moore early distinguished the three brothers Napier from the crowd of officers by whom he was surrounded, and they, on their part, repaid him by their passionate admiration. They were captivated by his courtesy, his bravery, and his lofty disinterestedness; and he became the model whom they resolved to imitate, and, if possible, to emulate. “Moore's influence,” says the biographer of Sir William Napier, “had a signal effect in forming and maturing their characters; and it is no small glory to have been the hero of those three men, while his early discovery of their mental and moral qualities is a proof of Moore's own penetration and judgment of character.”2 [Note: S. Smiles, Character, 17.]
To be a true disciple is to think of the same things as our prophet, and to think of different things in the same order. To be of the same mind with another is to see all things in the same perspective; it is not to agree in a few indifferent matters near at hand and not much debated; it is to follow him in his farthest flights, to see the force of his hyperboles, to stand so exactly in the centre of his vision that whatever he may express, your eyes will light at once on the original, that whatever he may see to declare, your mind will at once accept.3 [Note: K. L. Stevenson, Lay Morals.]