Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadWorks of Arthur Pink: Pink, Arthur - Gleanings in Joshua: 16.1-The Division of the Land 14:1-16:10
TOPIC: Pink, Arthur - Gleanings in Joshua (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 16.1-The Division of the Land 14:1-16:10
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Gleanings In Joshua
16. The Division of the Land
Joshua 14:1-16:10
Dividing the Land
"And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them. By lot was their inheritance, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes and for the half tribe" (Josh. 14:1, 2). Joshua was now old and stricken in years, and before the time came when no man can work the Lord had bidden him engage in the most important task of superintending the apportioning of Israel's heritage (Josh. 13:1, 6, 7). Invested with Divine authority to act as Israel's head, manifestly enjoying the favor of the Lord, possessing the full confidence of the people as their tried and faithful leader, none other was so well suited to perform this particular work. But like all the other duties which he had discharged, this one called also for the exercise of faith, for Joshua was now required to assign the entire country of Canaan which lay on the western side of Jordan: not only those portions of it which Israel had already conquered and taken possession of, but also the extensive sections which were still occupied by the Canaanites. This called for the most implicit confidence in the Lord-that He would grant the tribes possession thereof.
The land of Canaan had already been conquered, so far as its standing armies had been completely routed, its principal strongholds destroyed, and its kings slain. Yet much of its actual territory was still in the hands of its original inhabitants, who remained to be dispossessed. It is important to distinguish between the work which had been done by Joshua and that which still remained for Israel to do. He had overthrown the ruling, powers, captured their forts, and subdued the Canaanites to such an extent as had given Israel firm foothold in the country. But he had not exterminated the population in every portion of it, yea, powerful nations still dwelt in parts thereof, as is clear from Judges 2:20-23, and 3:1-4; so that much was still demanded from Israel. Therein we behold again the accuracy of the type. The antitypical Joshua has secured for His people an inalienable title to the heavenly Canaan, yet formidable foes have to be overcome and much hard fighting done by them before they enter into their eternal rest. The same is true of the present enjoyment thereof: faith and hope encounter much opposition ere there is an experiential participation of the goodly heritage which Christ has obtained for them.
The method appointed for the dividing of the land is deeply interesting and instructive. Two distinct principles were to operate, yet the giving place to the one appears to rule out the other. The first had been laid down by the Lord through Moses: "Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him" (Num. 26:53, 54-repeated in Numbers 33:54). There was the general rule which was to be followed in the dividing of Canaan and the quartering of the people: the size of the section allocated was to be determined by the numerical strength of the tribe to which it was given. Yet immediately after Numbers 26:54, a second law was named: "Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." That is to say, the disposition of the inheritance was to be determined by the sovereign will of God, for the lot was regulated by Him and made known His pleasure.
Those two principles seem to be mutually incompatible, and we are not acquainted with any attempt to show the agreement of the one with the other. It is the age-old problem of the conjunction of the Divine and human elements: in this instance, the human by the dimensions of the several tribes; the Divine by God's determining their respective portions. Yet, in the case now before us, no real difficulty is presented: the larger tribes would still obtain the biggest sections, but the "lot" specified the particular situation in Canaan which was to be theirs. Neither Joshua, Eleazar, nor the heads of the tribes were free to dispose of the land according to their own ideas or desires: the final locations were reserved to the providence of God, to whose imperial will all must acquiesce, howsoever contrary to their thoughts and wishes. Such an arrangement not only accorded unto God His proper place in the transaction, but it also precluded the exercise of any spirit of partiality or favoritism on the part of Israel's leaders, and at the same time served effectually to close the mouths of the people from murmuring.
The more those two apparently conflicting principles be pondered, the more shall we admire the wisdom of Him who appointed the same. Obviously, it was most equitable and advisable that the larger tribes should be accorded more extensive quarters than the lesser ones, for their requirements would be the greater. Yet, fallen human nature being what it is, it is equally evident that had Israel been left entirely unto themselves the weaker tribes would have been deprived of their rightful portions: for if not entirely denied a separate heritage, they would most probably have been obliged to submit unto having the least desirable sections of the land Nor would there have been any redress, for in such a case (numerical) might would be right. It was therefore necessary for there to be a Divine supervision: not only in fixing the exact boundaries of each allotment, but also in determining their several locations, so that the mountainous sections and the fertile valleys should be fairly distributed. This is one of many examples where we see how the Divine legislation protected the welfare of the weak, and how the Lord ever manifested a concern for the poor and needy.
Side by side with Joshua 14:1, 2, should be placed Leviticus 25:23-28: "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the over-plus unto the man to whom he sold it; that it may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession." That was the Divine law respecting the real estate of the Hebrews and the transferring of the same: a law by which the rights of rich and poor alike were fully and equitably safeguarded. In cases of need, property might be sold conditionally, but not absolutely so that the same should never again return to its original owner.
The above passages set forth a remarkable and unique law of property, displaying a wisdom wherein righteousness and mercy were blessedly intermingled, encouraging as it did individual enterprise, and yet also curbing greed. That disposition and arrangement was the very reverse of "State ownership," for the land was portioned out to the twelve tribes, and within the territory of each tribe the land was divided among its families. If hardship and poverty required a family to mortgage or sell its property, thereby an opportunity was offered unto the thrifty and ambitious to enlarge their holdings. But in the jubilee year that property reverted to its seller, and thus the cupidity of "capitalists" was restrained, and thereby were they prevented from taking undue advantage of the distress of others by a permanent acquirement of their estates. Thus the Bible not only teaches the right of the individual to own his own house (cf. John 19:27) and possess real estate (Acts 4:34), but, by clear and necessary implication, condemns State ownership, which is a manifest violation of the rights and liberties of the individual. How many-sided and far-reaching is the teaching of Holy Writ!
"The Israelites had acquired the land by conquest, but they were not allowed to seize upon what they could, nor to have it all in common, nor to share it out by consent or arbitration; but, with solemn appeal to God Himself, to divide by lot; for Canaan was His land, and Israel were His people. This was likewise the readiest way of satisfying all parties, and preventing discontent and discord" (Thomas Scott). Yet it should be pointed out that the basic law that operated here has also obtained all through human history. The Lord God is the Proprietor as well as the Governor of both heaven and earth, the sovereign Disposer of all the affairs of the children of men. He is the One who controls the courses of empires and determines the lives of dynasties, and has also decided the limits of each person's territory. That principle is clearly enunciated in Deuteronomy 32:8, "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." And none of those nations ever has or will exceed those "bounds" which the Almighty originally prescribed.
As truly as the Divine "lot" assigned the particular parts of Palestine which the different tribes of Israel should possess, so has God predestined the precise portions of the earth which each nation shall occupy. "When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment" (Prov. 8:29), He gave a similar edict unto the nations. And military leaders impelled by the lust of conquest, and aggressive dictators aspiring to world dominion, have discovered that, like the restless sea (which is the scriptural symbol of the nations: Daniel 7:2, and cf. Revelation 17:15), God has set a bound which they "could not pass," "and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it" (Jer. 5:22, and cf. Job 38:11). Men like Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler might be dissatisfied with the allotments of providence, chafe against the restraints it had placed upon their greed, rage and roar against their neighbors, and attempt to acquire their Divinely given portions, but vain were their efforts. Thus will any present or future aspirant yet find out.
Deuteronomy 32:8, informs us that God had before His mind the children of Israel when He divided to the nations their inheritance, for, as the apostle told his saints, "all things are for your sakes" (2 Cor. 4:5). Thus there was a partial reference to the seven nations whose place and portion were assigned them in Canaan, so that the Hebrews found it in a high state of cultivation, provided with towns and houses, all prepared for their use! In like manner, the favored land in which the writer and the reader live, with all its natural and national advantages, and the temporal provisions we enjoy therein, is as much the special appointment and gift of God as Canaan was to Israel, and as truly demands our gratitude. God has the sole disposing of this life and the interests thereof, as truly as He has of the life to come. No man has a foot of land more than God has laid out for him in His all-wise providence: so whatever of this world's goods he obtains let him bear in mind, "thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth" (Deut. 8:18). This world is not governed by blind chance, but by Divine wisdom. However possessions come to us, they are from God as the first cause.
God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26) As Toplady remarked thereon, "The very places which people inhabit are here positively averred to be determined and fore-appointed by God. And it is very right it should be so, else some places would be overstocked with inhabitants, and others deserted Whereas by God's having fore-appointed the bounds of our habitations, we are properly sifted over the face of the earth, so as to answer all the social and higher purposes of Divine wisdom." God has appointed where each person shall reside: the particular country in which he should be born, and the very city, town, village, and house in which we shall dwell, and how long he shall remain there; for our times are in His hand (Ps. 31:15). A striking illustration of that is seen in connection with both the birthplace and the subsequent abode of the Savior. It was ordained that He should be born at Bethlehem, and though circumstances appeared to prevent. God set in motion a Roman census throughout the whole of its empire, requiring Joseph and Mary to journey unto Bethlehem, (Luke 2:1-6). Later, they resided at the appointed Nazareth (Matthew 2:23).
The distribution of Canaan was by lot. To ascertain precisely what it consisted of and how the mind of God was made known therein, Scripture has to be carefully compared with Scripture, and even then we cannot be quite certain of the exact method followed. The first time (which is always of most importance) the lot is mentioned is in Leviticus 16:8, "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat": i.e. to determine which of them should be used for the God-ward side of the atonement (propitiation) and which the man-ward (the removal of sins). Thus the first occurrence of "the lot" associates it with Israel's high priest, and shows that it was employed in determining the will of God. So too "Eleazar the priest" is expressly mentioned both in Numbers 34:17, and Joshua 14:1, in connection with the transaction we are here considering. Likewise, when the claim was made by the daughters of Zelophehad to a portion of Canaan their case was determined before Eleazar the priest, Joshua, and the princes of the tribes (Josh. 17:3-6), because the use of the lot was there involved, as the word "fell," or more literally "came forth" (v. 5), indicates.
Personally we incline strongly to the view taken by the author of The Companion Bible (unprocurable today) that God's will in "the lot" was obtained by means of the mysterious "Urim and Thummim," which were probably two precious stones, for there was no commandment given to "make" them, and which were "put in the breastplate" of the high priest, (Ex. 28:30). Apparently they were "put" in a bag in "the ephod" or robe of the high priest, which bag was formed by doubling a part of the garment-note "doubled" in Exodus 28:16, and "inward" (v. 26). In Proverbs 16:33, we are told, "The lot is cast into the lap [Hebrew "bosom," which is put for the clothing covering it-cf. Exodus 4:6, 7]; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." Thus "the lot" was for the purpose of giving a judgment or infallible decision, and the breastplate is designated "the breastplate of judgment" (Ex. 28:15), because by it God's judgment or verdict was given when the same was needed-compare 1 Samuel 28:6, where the Lord refused to oblige the apostate Saul.
Thus it seems that when the lot was needed the high priest placed his hand in the bag or pocket behind his breastplate, and drew forth either the Urim or the Thummim, the one signifying Yes, and the other No, for in Joshua 18:11, we are told that the lot "came up," in Joshua 19:1, that it "came forth," and in Joshua 19:17, that it "came out." Joshua 19:51, informs us that this important transaction took place at the entrance to the house of God: "These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." This casts light upon a number of passages treating of incidents in the later history of Israel. Thus, when they were uncertain as to whether or not they should go up against Benjamin again, they came to the house of God and inquired of the Lord, and it was Phinehas the high priest who obtained answer for them (Judg. 20:26-28). In Ezra 2:61-63, no verdict could be given unless the high priest were present, with his breastplate of judgment, with "the lot," Urim and Thummim, which would give Jehovah's decision-guilty or innocent.
It is to be duly noted that, in addition to Eleazar the priest and Joshua himself, "the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel" (Josh. 14:1) were also present when the official distribution of the land was made. This was in obedience to the Divine injunction given through Moses that "one prince of every tribe" (Num. 34:18) should be taken to serve as commissioners on this occasion. They were entrusted with the oversight, to be witnesses that everything had been conducted fairly and properly in the distribution of the land according to the size of the tribes and in the casting of the lot. Thus would they protect the rights of the tribes, preclude all suspicion that any partiality had been shown, and be qualified authoritatively to determine any controversy which might later arise. "Public affairs should be so managed, as not only to give their right to all, but, if possible, to give satisfaction to all that they have right done them" (Matthew Henry). It is very striking to note that God not only selected those commissioners during the lifetime of Moses, but actually named them all (Num. 34:19-29), which thereby guaranteed their preservation from death during the long interval, either from natural causes or from the fighting in Canaan.
16. The Division of the Land
Joshua 14:1-16:10
Dividing the Land
"And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them. By lot was their inheritance, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes and for the half tribe" (Josh. 14:1, 2). Joshua was now old and stricken in years, and before the time came when no man can work the Lord had bidden him engage in the most important task of superintending the apportioning of Israel's heritage (Josh. 13:1, 6, 7). Invested with Divine authority to act as Israel's head, manifestly enjoying the favor of the Lord, possessing the full confidence of the people as their tried and faithful leader, none other was so well suited to perform this particular work. But like all the other duties which he had discharged, this one called also for the exercise of faith, for Joshua was now required to assign the entire country of Canaan which lay on the western side of Jordan: not only those portions of it which Israel had already conquered and taken possession of, but also the extensive sections which were still occupied by the Canaanites. This called for the most implicit confidence in the Lord-that He would grant the tribes possession thereof.
The land of Canaan had already been conquered, so far as its standing armies had been completely routed, its principal strongholds destroyed, and its kings slain. Yet much of its actual territory was still in the hands of its original inhabitants, who remained to be dispossessed. It is important to distinguish between the work which had been done by Joshua and that which still remained for Israel to do. He had overthrown the ruling, powers, captured their forts, and subdued the Canaanites to such an extent as had given Israel firm foothold in the country. But he had not exterminated the population in every portion of it, yea, powerful nations still dwelt in parts thereof, as is clear from Judges 2:20-23, and 3:1-4; so that much was still demanded from Israel. Therein we behold again the accuracy of the type. The antitypical Joshua has secured for His people an inalienable title to the heavenly Canaan, yet formidable foes have to be overcome and much hard fighting done by them before they enter into their eternal rest. The same is true of the present enjoyment thereof: faith and hope encounter much opposition ere there is an experiential participation of the goodly heritage which Christ has obtained for them.
The method appointed for the dividing of the land is deeply interesting and instructive. Two distinct principles were to operate, yet the giving place to the one appears to rule out the other. The first had been laid down by the Lord through Moses: "Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him" (Num. 26:53, 54-repeated in Numbers 33:54). There was the general rule which was to be followed in the dividing of Canaan and the quartering of the people: the size of the section allocated was to be determined by the numerical strength of the tribe to which it was given. Yet immediately after Numbers 26:54, a second law was named: "Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." That is to say, the disposition of the inheritance was to be determined by the sovereign will of God, for the lot was regulated by Him and made known His pleasure.
Those two principles seem to be mutually incompatible, and we are not acquainted with any attempt to show the agreement of the one with the other. It is the age-old problem of the conjunction of the Divine and human elements: in this instance, the human by the dimensions of the several tribes; the Divine by God's determining their respective portions. Yet, in the case now before us, no real difficulty is presented: the larger tribes would still obtain the biggest sections, but the "lot" specified the particular situation in Canaan which was to be theirs. Neither Joshua, Eleazar, nor the heads of the tribes were free to dispose of the land according to their own ideas or desires: the final locations were reserved to the providence of God, to whose imperial will all must acquiesce, howsoever contrary to their thoughts and wishes. Such an arrangement not only accorded unto God His proper place in the transaction, but it also precluded the exercise of any spirit of partiality or favoritism on the part of Israel's leaders, and at the same time served effectually to close the mouths of the people from murmuring.
The more those two apparently conflicting principles be pondered, the more shall we admire the wisdom of Him who appointed the same. Obviously, it was most equitable and advisable that the larger tribes should be accorded more extensive quarters than the lesser ones, for their requirements would be the greater. Yet, fallen human nature being what it is, it is equally evident that had Israel been left entirely unto themselves the weaker tribes would have been deprived of their rightful portions: for if not entirely denied a separate heritage, they would most probably have been obliged to submit unto having the least desirable sections of the land Nor would there have been any redress, for in such a case (numerical) might would be right. It was therefore necessary for there to be a Divine supervision: not only in fixing the exact boundaries of each allotment, but also in determining their several locations, so that the mountainous sections and the fertile valleys should be fairly distributed. This is one of many examples where we see how the Divine legislation protected the welfare of the weak, and how the Lord ever manifested a concern for the poor and needy.
Side by side with Joshua 14:1, 2, should be placed Leviticus 25:23-28: "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the over-plus unto the man to whom he sold it; that it may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession." That was the Divine law respecting the real estate of the Hebrews and the transferring of the same: a law by which the rights of rich and poor alike were fully and equitably safeguarded. In cases of need, property might be sold conditionally, but not absolutely so that the same should never again return to its original owner.
The above passages set forth a remarkable and unique law of property, displaying a wisdom wherein righteousness and mercy were blessedly intermingled, encouraging as it did individual enterprise, and yet also curbing greed. That disposition and arrangement was the very reverse of "State ownership," for the land was portioned out to the twelve tribes, and within the territory of each tribe the land was divided among its families. If hardship and poverty required a family to mortgage or sell its property, thereby an opportunity was offered unto the thrifty and ambitious to enlarge their holdings. But in the jubilee year that property reverted to its seller, and thus the cupidity of "capitalists" was restrained, and thereby were they prevented from taking undue advantage of the distress of others by a permanent acquirement of their estates. Thus the Bible not only teaches the right of the individual to own his own house (cf. John 19:27) and possess real estate (Acts 4:34), but, by clear and necessary implication, condemns State ownership, which is a manifest violation of the rights and liberties of the individual. How many-sided and far-reaching is the teaching of Holy Writ!
"The Israelites had acquired the land by conquest, but they were not allowed to seize upon what they could, nor to have it all in common, nor to share it out by consent or arbitration; but, with solemn appeal to God Himself, to divide by lot; for Canaan was His land, and Israel were His people. This was likewise the readiest way of satisfying all parties, and preventing discontent and discord" (Thomas Scott). Yet it should be pointed out that the basic law that operated here has also obtained all through human history. The Lord God is the Proprietor as well as the Governor of both heaven and earth, the sovereign Disposer of all the affairs of the children of men. He is the One who controls the courses of empires and determines the lives of dynasties, and has also decided the limits of each person's territory. That principle is clearly enunciated in Deuteronomy 32:8, "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." And none of those nations ever has or will exceed those "bounds" which the Almighty originally prescribed.
As truly as the Divine "lot" assigned the particular parts of Palestine which the different tribes of Israel should possess, so has God predestined the precise portions of the earth which each nation shall occupy. "When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment" (Prov. 8:29), He gave a similar edict unto the nations. And military leaders impelled by the lust of conquest, and aggressive dictators aspiring to world dominion, have discovered that, like the restless sea (which is the scriptural symbol of the nations: Daniel 7:2, and cf. Revelation 17:15), God has set a bound which they "could not pass," "and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it" (Jer. 5:22, and cf. Job 38:11). Men like Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler might be dissatisfied with the allotments of providence, chafe against the restraints it had placed upon their greed, rage and roar against their neighbors, and attempt to acquire their Divinely given portions, but vain were their efforts. Thus will any present or future aspirant yet find out.
Deuteronomy 32:8, informs us that God had before His mind the children of Israel when He divided to the nations their inheritance, for, as the apostle told his saints, "all things are for your sakes" (2 Cor. 4:5). Thus there was a partial reference to the seven nations whose place and portion were assigned them in Canaan, so that the Hebrews found it in a high state of cultivation, provided with towns and houses, all prepared for their use! In like manner, the favored land in which the writer and the reader live, with all its natural and national advantages, and the temporal provisions we enjoy therein, is as much the special appointment and gift of God as Canaan was to Israel, and as truly demands our gratitude. God has the sole disposing of this life and the interests thereof, as truly as He has of the life to come. No man has a foot of land more than God has laid out for him in His all-wise providence: so whatever of this world's goods he obtains let him bear in mind, "thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth" (Deut. 8:18). This world is not governed by blind chance, but by Divine wisdom. However possessions come to us, they are from God as the first cause.
God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26) As Toplady remarked thereon, "The very places which people inhabit are here positively averred to be determined and fore-appointed by God. And it is very right it should be so, else some places would be overstocked with inhabitants, and others deserted Whereas by God's having fore-appointed the bounds of our habitations, we are properly sifted over the face of the earth, so as to answer all the social and higher purposes of Divine wisdom." God has appointed where each person shall reside: the particular country in which he should be born, and the very city, town, village, and house in which we shall dwell, and how long he shall remain there; for our times are in His hand (Ps. 31:15). A striking illustration of that is seen in connection with both the birthplace and the subsequent abode of the Savior. It was ordained that He should be born at Bethlehem, and though circumstances appeared to prevent. God set in motion a Roman census throughout the whole of its empire, requiring Joseph and Mary to journey unto Bethlehem, (Luke 2:1-6). Later, they resided at the appointed Nazareth (Matthew 2:23).
The distribution of Canaan was by lot. To ascertain precisely what it consisted of and how the mind of God was made known therein, Scripture has to be carefully compared with Scripture, and even then we cannot be quite certain of the exact method followed. The first time (which is always of most importance) the lot is mentioned is in Leviticus 16:8, "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat": i.e. to determine which of them should be used for the God-ward side of the atonement (propitiation) and which the man-ward (the removal of sins). Thus the first occurrence of "the lot" associates it with Israel's high priest, and shows that it was employed in determining the will of God. So too "Eleazar the priest" is expressly mentioned both in Numbers 34:17, and Joshua 14:1, in connection with the transaction we are here considering. Likewise, when the claim was made by the daughters of Zelophehad to a portion of Canaan their case was determined before Eleazar the priest, Joshua, and the princes of the tribes (Josh. 17:3-6), because the use of the lot was there involved, as the word "fell," or more literally "came forth" (v. 5), indicates.
Personally we incline strongly to the view taken by the author of The Companion Bible (unprocurable today) that God's will in "the lot" was obtained by means of the mysterious "Urim and Thummim," which were probably two precious stones, for there was no commandment given to "make" them, and which were "put in the breastplate" of the high priest, (Ex. 28:30). Apparently they were "put" in a bag in "the ephod" or robe of the high priest, which bag was formed by doubling a part of the garment-note "doubled" in Exodus 28:16, and "inward" (v. 26). In Proverbs 16:33, we are told, "The lot is cast into the lap [Hebrew "bosom," which is put for the clothing covering it-cf. Exodus 4:6, 7]; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." Thus "the lot" was for the purpose of giving a judgment or infallible decision, and the breastplate is designated "the breastplate of judgment" (Ex. 28:15), because by it God's judgment or verdict was given when the same was needed-compare 1 Samuel 28:6, where the Lord refused to oblige the apostate Saul.
Thus it seems that when the lot was needed the high priest placed his hand in the bag or pocket behind his breastplate, and drew forth either the Urim or the Thummim, the one signifying Yes, and the other No, for in Joshua 18:11, we are told that the lot "came up," in Joshua 19:1, that it "came forth," and in Joshua 19:17, that it "came out." Joshua 19:51, informs us that this important transaction took place at the entrance to the house of God: "These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." This casts light upon a number of passages treating of incidents in the later history of Israel. Thus, when they were uncertain as to whether or not they should go up against Benjamin again, they came to the house of God and inquired of the Lord, and it was Phinehas the high priest who obtained answer for them (Judg. 20:26-28). In Ezra 2:61-63, no verdict could be given unless the high priest were present, with his breastplate of judgment, with "the lot," Urim and Thummim, which would give Jehovah's decision-guilty or innocent.
It is to be duly noted that, in addition to Eleazar the priest and Joshua himself, "the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel" (Josh. 14:1) were also present when the official distribution of the land was made. This was in obedience to the Divine injunction given through Moses that "one prince of every tribe" (Num. 34:18) should be taken to serve as commissioners on this occasion. They were entrusted with the oversight, to be witnesses that everything had been conducted fairly and properly in the distribution of the land according to the size of the tribes and in the casting of the lot. Thus would they protect the rights of the tribes, preclude all suspicion that any partiality had been shown, and be qualified authoritatively to determine any controversy which might later arise. "Public affairs should be so managed, as not only to give their right to all, but, if possible, to give satisfaction to all that they have right done them" (Matthew Henry). It is very striking to note that God not only selected those commissioners during the lifetime of Moses, but actually named them all (Num. 34:19-29), which thereby guaranteed their preservation from death during the long interval, either from natural causes or from the fighting in Canaan.