Individual Portions

Our previous articles upon the distribution of Canaan were confined almost entirely to the typical side of things, adumbrating as it did that blessed heritage which God decreed and Christ purchased for His people. But we must now consider briefly some of the literal features connected with the same. The orderly dividing of the land was not only a wise provision, but a necessary arrangement, so that the particular section of each tribe should be clearly defined. In Joshua 14-19 a full and detailed description is recorded of the boundaries of each one. That was done by the immediate appointment and direction of God, and not by any human sagacity and prudence, still less by the dictates of partiality and greed. All was regulated by "the lot." This was done long before the whole of Canaan was actually conquered and possessed by Israel. There was to be no waiting until all the tribes had secured their respective portions: instead, they were now informed of the exact section to which they had been given a Divine title, so that they might go forward and possess their possessions. Thus were they called unto the exercise of faith and full confidence in God as they set about the performing of their respective tasks.

In our last we saw that the method which God selected for the allocating of Canaan unto Israel combined the principles of grace, sovereignty and righteousness: of grace, inasmuch as Israel's inheritance was a Divine gift; of sovereignty, for all was done by lot or submitting to the Divine will in the dispositions made; of righteousness, for the numerical strength of the tribe was taken into account in the size of the portion allotted it. The plan followed was thus the very opposite of what would be euphemistically termed a "Welfare State," for there was no dividing of the land into twelve equal parts. The whole of Scripture makes it plain that it is the Divine will that there should be distinctions both among nations, in the territory which they occupy, and among individuals, in the property which they possess. Likewise, it is required that each shall be contented with what the Lord has assigned them and him. "Thou shalt not covet" is as much a part of the Divine law as "Thou shalt not kill." When the antitypical Joshua was asked to appoint two of His disciples to the chief places of honor in His kingdom He replied, "to sit on My right hand, and on My left, is not Mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father" (Matthew 20:23), thereby acknowledging the sovereignty of the Father.

The benefits to be derived from the dividing of Canaan to Israel by Divine lot should at once be apparent. Not only did such an arrangement exclude the exercise of human avarice and injustice, but it also precluded any occasion for strife and wrangling between the several tribes, determining as it did the precise location assigned unto each of them, with the limits thereof. Thus all ground for jealousy, misunderstanding and lawsuits about their respective territories was obviated. But more: Israel were thereby taught to submit themselves to the good pleasure of the Lord. Therein lies the chief practical lesson which we should draw from this transaction: to surrender ourselves wholly to the Divine will and beg God to choose for us-whether it be in the matter of our earthly vocation, the selection of a life-partner, or the measure of temporal prosperity which will be most for His glory and our good. As an old writer truly remarked, "Such as refer themselves unto God to choose for them, will never find cause to repent of their lot." No, it is when we leave Him out, lean unto our own understanding, act by carnal impulse, that we bring trouble upon ourselves. How we should pray daily, "work in me both to will and to do of Thy good pleasure."

Before the lot was cast for the determining of the portions of the respective tribes, Caleb appeared before those who had charge of that business, and presented his claim unto Hebron for his own possession. A brief allusion was made to the same at the end of our October 1951 article, but a closer examination of the incident is now called for. Ere so doing, it should be pointed out that Joshua 14:5, is a general statement, which is amplified in Joshua 15:1, and onwards, the narrative being interrupted by what is now to be before us. "Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the Lord said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadesh-barnea" (v. 6). Observe here the gracious humility of the man! Caleb was himself one of those who had been Divinely appointed to serve as one of the commissioners, to see that the lot was carried out in a proper manner (Num. 34:17-19); yet, lest it might appear that he was seeking unduly to use his authority in furthering his own interests, he brought with him some of his brethren to act as witnesses. How careful was he to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22)! Equally circumspect should we be in all of our public transactions.

"Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to espy out the land; and I brought him word again as it was in mine heart" (v. 7, and cf. Numbers 13:30). Those last words are very expressive and blessed. It was in Caleb's heart that God was fully able to give what He had promised: that the gigantic Amorites with their chariots of iron were nothing to Him. Caleb was strong in faith, and therefore he was quite sure that Jehovah would make good His word. It was the Lord Himself who had put such a firm persuasion in his heart: just as at a later date, when faced with a task that was formidable unto flesh and blood, Nehemiah declared "neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem" (Josh. 2:12): that too was something which burned within and sustained him through heavy trials. David also had "found it in his heart to build the house of the Lord." How that language of Caleb's made it evident that his heart was set upon the Promised Land! His "treasure" was there, and so was his heart also. That was his animating hope all through the forty years he had to spend with his unbelieving fellows in the wilderness. And so it should be with each Christian: his affections set upon things above as he journeys through this world to the antitypical Canaan.

"Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed the Lord my God" (v. 8). His fellows walked by sight instead of faith, and consequently they were occupied with and appalled by the obstacles which stood in the way. Full of distrust themselves, they infected the whole of the congregation with the same, intimidating and discouraging them so far that their spirits sank. But Caleb refused to be influenced by them, yea, boldly withstood them. "I wholly followed the Lord my God" was not the language of presumption, but a plain declaration that he was neither daunted by the power of the enemy nor swayed by the skepticism of his brethren. It signified that on that occasion he had faithfully discharged his duty, remained steadfast in his faith in God, assured that He would enable His people to overcome the mighty sons of Anak. That meaning of his, "I wholly followed the Lord," is made clear by the contrast of Numbers 32:11, where the Lord complained of his unbelieving fellows, "they have not wholly followed Me," and from the fact that He there predicated the same fidelity and perseverance of Joshua. The great value which God set upon His servant's steadfastness appears in His having recorded it in His Word no less than six times: Numbers 14:2; 32:12; Deuteronomy 1:36: Joshua 14:8, 9, 14.

"And Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy children's for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the Lord my God" (v. 9). The sure word of prophecy he had hid-held fast, treasured-in his heart throughout the lengthy interval. It is to be considered that probably most of that generation of Israel would be ignorant of the Divine grant which had been made unto him and his descendants so long before, and therefore Caleb quoted the Lord's promise thereon for their benefit more than Joshua's, so that it might appear that he was not now making any selfish or unreasonable demand. The Divine promise was recorded in Deuteronomy 1:36, and treasured in the mind of Caleb. His object was to prevent this particular part of Palestine being put in the lot with the other portions of the country. He had a definite and valid claim upon the same, and he here insisted upon his right. Since God's own mind concerning it had been plainly made known, then it would be useless to appeal unto His will respecting it via the lot, as in the case of the sections for the tribes.

"And now, behold, the Lord hath kept me alive, as He said, these forty and five years, even since the Lord spake this word unto Moses, while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness: and now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old" (v. 10). What a God-honoring testimony was this! Passing through all the vicissitudes of Israel's wilderness wanderings, during which so many of his fellows were removed from this scene, engaged in the five years of fighting in Canaan, when no doubt there was often but a step betwixt him and death, Caleb here ascribed his preservation not to "good luck" or "fortune" (heathen terms!), but unto Him "which holdeth our soul in life" (Ps. 66:9). Caleb had something more than a general realization that his times were in God's hands (Ps. 31:15): his faith had laid hold of a special promise, as his "as He said" plainly shows. He was resting on the word of One who cannot lie-as David, at a later date, relied upon God's changeless veracity · "do as Thou hast said" (2 Sam. 7:25). We are on both sure and comfortable ground, my reader, when we take our stand upon God's promise, expecting a fulfillment. Caleb's repeated "and now" was tantamount to his saying, The time has at last arrived for the Lord to make good His engagement.

"As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in" (v. 11). In those words he was forestalling an objection which might be made against his appeal. Should the demurrer be advanced, But you are much too old for such a difficult and dangerous venture as the dispossessing of the giants from the mountainous district of Hebron, that such a strenuous and hazardous task called for a much younger man. Caleb here pressed his physical fitness for the same. The One who had preserved his life throughout the years had also renewed his youth like the eagle's (Ps. 103:5). Ah, my reader, God does nothing by halves when He appoints a man for any particular work, He also equips the worker and furnishes him with everything needful. Not only so, He sustains and animates the heart for the task. Faith inspires resolution and courage, and He who had enabled His servant to hold fast for so long to His promise also removed all hesitation and fear, so that Caleb was just as ready and eager to set about the task which lay before him as he was in the prime of life.

"Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the Lord spake in that day; for thou hearedst in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced: if so be the Lord will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the Lord said (v. 12). The second halt of this verse is very lovely, yet some have quite misunderstood its force. Though Caleb still retained his vigor, it was not that upon which he relied, nor yet upon his military ability and experience; but instead, upon the Lord. Thus his "if so be the Lord will be with me" was not the language of doubting, but of self-renunciation. He had no confidence in the flesh and felt his own insufficiency. There will not be faith in God, nor even a sincere looking to Him, my reader, while we retain faith in ourselves. Trust in the Lord is ever accompanied by distrust of self. No, Caleb was conscious that the successful accomplishment of the work before him was quite beyond his own powers, but he counted upon the faithfulness of God to undertake for him. Proof was this that the Divine promise was no empty theory to him, but a precious reality. Therein he differed sharply from his unbelieving companions: they were occupied with the power of the enemy and their own impotence; he with the omnipotent One and the sureness of His word.

"And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh Hebron for an inheritance" (v. 13). Thus was the promise of God through Moses made good by Joshua. This is very blessed, for it causes us to look beyond the shadow to the substance: the fulfillment of all the Divine promises is in and through the antitypical Joshua. "For all the promises of God in Him [Christ] are yea, and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us" (2 Cor. 1:20). Since Christ Himself is the end and chief object of all the promises, He has become by His mediatorial character both the channel of supply to all who receive the grace of God in truth and the medium of their responsive praise. To the certified promises thus declared to God's elect, in the person of His Son, the Church now sets the seal of her Amen, affirming thus adoringly to the glory of the Father what the lips of Christ have first spoken to her heart. In Christ we now have by an everlasting covenant of grace whatever good things God spoke aforetime. In the Lord Jesus the very fullness of God dwells, and in that holy humanity which He took upon Him for our sakes. The concentrating of God's mercies in the living and effective Vindicator of His promises-"the Amen, the faithful and true witness" (Rev. 3:14)-is declared to be "to the glory of God by us," because of the praise which He receives from His people as they realize that all is summed up for them in God's Beloved and in their Beloved.

"Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb . . . unto this day, because that he wholly followed the Lord God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba: which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war" (vv. 14, 15). Hebron signifies "fellowship," and may have been so named because of the wonderful communion which Abraham had with God there (Gen. 13:18, first mention). This is the place above all others which the enemy of souls seeks to prevent God's people occupying. What a suitable place was Hebron for Caleb! How appropriate an inheritance for the one who (we are once more told) "wholly followed the Lord God of Israel"-who persevered in the performing of his duty, though opposed by ten of his companions and menaced by the whole congregation; which shows us that the ones and twos who are out and out for God must not expect to be popular, no, not with their brethren. Nevertheless, Hebron or the place of intimate fellowship with God is ever the portion of such. Finally, let it be duly noted that upon Caleb was conferred the honor of the hardest task of all-the overcoming of the mighty sons of Anak. The next chapter tells us, "And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak" (Josh. 15:14). Of course he did ! God never fails such a one.

In Joshua 17:3, 4, another case is recorded of claim to an individual portion being laid before Joshua, which is in some respects similar to that of Caleb. It was made by the five daughters of Zelophehad, who belonged to the tribe of Manasseh. Those women had received promise through Moses that when Canaan was divided among Israel they should have an inheritance, and now they came before those who had charge of the allotting, making request for the implementing of the same. God's commandment and promise by Moses is recorded in Numbers 27:1-11. These women appeared before what might be termed the supreme court, pointing out that their father was dead and had left no son. Up to that time no legal provision had been made where the male issue had failed, and thus these daughters of Zelophehad, having neither father nor brother, found themselves destitute. Instead of murmuring and mourning over their hard lot, they wisely came before God's servants and asked for arrangement to be made for them to have a portion of their tribe's section. Moses did not presume to answer their inquiry personally, but brought the case before the Lord, and He declared, "thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them."

In Numbers 36 we learn that the case of those five women was brought again before Israel's high court. This time it was the chief fathers of the families of Gilead, to which Zelophehad belonged, who appeared. A difficulty was anticipated: should these five women intermarry with other tribes, then their portion would pass out of Manasseh's possessions unto another's, and that would probably occasion future strife and confusion. In reply thereto, a more specific law was enacted: "Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe" (vv. 6, 7). It is very blessed to see how the Lord honored the faith of those women by protecting their interests. At the time when they first appeared before the judges, Israel was in the wilderness! Canaan had not then been entered, still less conquered and possessed, yet so sure were these women that God would fulfill His promise to give that land unto His people that even then they put in their claim to a portion thereof. As Matthew Henry wittily remarked, "they were five wise virgins indeed."

In a striking address made in 1918 on the Virgin Birth, Dr. A.T. Scofield (not the editor of the Scofield Bible) pointed out that but for the above scriptures an insuperable difficulty had stood in the way of Christ's being "the King of the Jews." "Therefore in any case it seems our Lord could not be the inheritor of the throne of David, either through Joseph, for he was not born of Joseph, or through Mary, because a woman could not inherit it: and but for one remarkable circumstance it would be impossible for Him to be King of the Jews. In fact, the virgin birth in itself would appear to bar Him from the throne." Then the doctor went on to show that the "remarkable circumstance" which removed all difficulty was found in Numbers 27:8, "If a man die, and have no son [as in the case of Heli, the father of Mary], then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter." Thus our Lord, according to the flesh, had legal title to inherit the throne of David, while Numbers 36:6, shows why it was necessary for Mary to be espoused to Joseph. From which we may see that not only in the ceremonial law, but in the civil law of Israel also, God ever had Christ before Him !

Tribal Portions

We turn now to those chapters (Josh. 15-19) which offer the least scope to the expositor, the presence, of which has probably deterred not a few from attempting to write a connected commentary on this sixth book of the Word. Those chapters contain, for the most part, a geographical description of the different portions of Canaan which were allotted unto Israel's tribes. They consist largely of a list of places, many of which are never referred to again in the Scriptures, and which cannot now be identified; nor can we be sure, in the majority of instances, of the precise meanings of the names of those towns and villages; though in those cases where such is obtainable the typical and moral significance thereof is more or less apparent. That nothing has been recorded in the Bible without Divine design must be believed by every reverent heart-the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9 not excepted-and that all is of real value to the people of God is not to be questioned; yet, so far as we are aware, the Holy Spirit has not yet "opened" their purport and spiritual contents to the Church. Acknowledging our ignorance and refusing to speculate thereon, we can but single out a few of the more prominent details found in this section, and offer some remarks thereon.

"This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families" (Josh. 15:1). The first two of the tribes to have made known to them their allotments were Judah and Joseph: that being detailed here, the other in the next chapter. Upon which Matthew Henry said, "Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob on whom Reuben's forfeited birthright devolved. Judah had the dominion entailed on him, and Joseph the double portion, and therefore the two tribes were first seated: Judah in the southern part of the land of Canaan, and Joseph in the northern part, and on them the other seven did attend, and had their respective lots as appurtenances to these two; the lots of Benjamin, Simeon and Dan were attendant to Judah, and those of Issachar and Zebulon, Napthtali and Asshur to Joseph. These two were first set up to be provided for, it should seem, before there wag such an exact survey of the land as we find afterward [Joshua 18:9].

"It is probable that the most considerable parts of the northern and southern countries, and those that lay nearest to Gilgal, and which the people were best acquainted with, were first put into two portions, and the lot was cast upon them between these two principal tribes, of the one of which Joshua was, and of the other Caleb, who was the first commissioner in this writ of partition; and by the decision of that lot the southern country fell to Judah, of which we have an account in this chapter; and the northern to Joseph, of which we have an account in the two following chapters. And when this was done, there was a more equal dividend (either in quantity or quality) of the remainder among the seven tribes. And this, probably, was intended in that general rule which was given concerning this partition: 'to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth' (Num. 33:54): that is, 'Ye shall appoint two greater portions, which shall be determined by lot, to those more numerous tribes of Judah and Joseph, and then the rest shall be lesser portions, to be allotted to the less numerous tribes.' The former was done in Gilgal, the latter in Shiloh." It should also be pointed out that, as the injunction was given that when Israel were on the march "these [i.e. Judah] shall first set forth" (Num. 2:9), so the assigning of Judah's portion first was a prophetic intimation of the future pre-eminence of this tribe.

It is to be observed that the description given of Judah's heritage is broken into at Joshua 15:13, by mention being made of Caleb (who belonged to this tribe) receiving Hebron for his personal portion. This was before us in our last, but a further detail is here recorded which claims our attention. After informing us that he drove thence the three sons of Anak we are told that "Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife" (v. 16). This should not be understood as an exhibition of any personal sloth on Caleb's part, still less of fear, but rather as his affording an opportunity for another to obtain some laurels as well as himself. It is to be borne in mind that in the East the father is regarded as having the right to dispose of his daughter, and it is the regular custom for him to select her husband without consulting her-compare 1 Samuel 17:25. Kirjath-sepher was a fortress of the Anakims, one that was difficult of approach, being situated on a hill (note "went up" in verse 15). The offer made by Caleb was an incentive to bravery: he knew that only a man of faith and courage would attack such a place.

In the above we obtain a further insight into Caleb's character and see what a well-balanced one it was: he was not only a man of strong faith, an intrepid warrior, but a dutiful father as well. It was not only that he desired to stir up Israel generally to set about the tasks which still required performing (Josh. 16:10, shows that some of them had already become slack in their duty), but that he desired to make sure that his daughter obtained a worthy husband. Caleb's challenge was accepted by his own nephew, for we read: "And Othniel the son of Kenez, the brother of Caleb, took it" (v. 17). It is noteworthy that, years later, this same Othniel who acted so admirably and valiantly on this occasion became both a deliverer, and a judge in Israel (Judg. 3:9), and, in fact, the first person who presided over the nation after Joshua's death. "It is good for those who are setting out in the world to begin betimes with that which is great and good, that, excelling in service when they are young, they may excel in honor when they are old" (Matthew Henry).

"And he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife" (v. 17). It is to be borne in mind that there was nothing in the Mosaic Law which forbade the marrying of cousins. As others before us have suggested, it is highly probable that Othniel was in love with Achsah before her father made this proposal. It is also likely that Caleb was aware of it and looked favorably upon him, but decided thus to put him to the test before finally committing himself. It was both an honor to wed the daughter of the man who was the chief of his tribe and a great privilege for Othniel to marry into a family so marked by faith and piety, and to be united to one who we cannot doubt had been brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: such a woman is to be desired far above one who is endowed with the riches of this world, or possesses little else than a pretty face.

"And it came to pass, as she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldest thou?" (v. 18). Here we behold some of the becoming traits which marked the character of Caleb's daughter. The "as she came unto him" means to her husband, her father accompanying them from his house where they would be married. First, her meekness appears in the owning of Othniel as her head-desiring that he should be the one to present her request unto Caleb. Apparently Othniel considered that the request would come better from her direct; and though contrary to her own inclination she deferred to her husband's judgment. Second, her getting down from her mount betokened her respect and reverence for her father (compare Genesis 24:64, where Rebekah did the same when Isaac approached her), which showed that marriage had not "turned her head"; she was as ready to honor her parents now as formerly.

Perceiving that his daughter desired to ask him for some favor, Caleb said to her, "What wouldest thou?" And she answered, "Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south-land; give me also springs of water" (v. 19). We do not understand from the first clause that she meant the paternal benediction, or that he should supplicate Jehovah for a blessing upon her, but rather an inheritance over and above what he had already given her. She desired this bounty because it would add to the comfort of her settlement: teaching us thereby that it is no transgression of the commandment "Thou shalt not covet" to desire those conveniences and comforts which may be obtained in an honest and honorable way. Caleb had already given her some land which was much exposed to the sun and poorly watered: having married according to his orders, she felt he would the more readily grant what she now petitioned him for. Her modesty appears in the simplicity of her request, namely some field with springs of water in it. She might have asked for jewels to adorn her person, or servants to make her lot easier in the home; instead, she confined herself to bare necessities, for land without water could not be very productive.

"And he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs," probably bestowing upon her more than she had asked. Plain is the celestial lesson illustrated for us here: if earthly parents are ready to bestow upon their children that which is good for them, how much readier is our heavenly Father to give both spiritual and temporal blessings when we ask Him in faith! This is indeed a lovely domestic picture, and each of its features claims our admiration and imitation. Here we see the wife in subjection to her husband, and he declining to take advantage of his authority. When husbands and wives mutually advise and jointly agree about that which is for the common good of the family, the domestic machinery will run smoothly. Here we see a married woman despising not her father when he was old, and she lost not by honoring him. Here we see how wise parents will not deem that lost which they bestow upon their children for their real advantage, especially when they are dutiful ones. "When the character of parents, the education of their children, and the children's consequent prudent and pious conduct combine, there is the fairest prospect that they will be settled in life to the mutual comfort and advantage of all the parties concerned" (T. Scott).

There is one other detail recorded here of the tribe of Judah, and it is in marked contrast with the above. "As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day" (Josh. 15:63). It is to be recalled that in the tenth chapter we saw how that the king of Jerusalem persuaded four of his fellow monarchs or chieftains to join him in launching an attack upon Gibeon (which made peace with Israel), and how that Joshua completely vanquished their combined forces, slew the five kings (v. 26), and took all their land (v. 42). Judges 1:8, supplies an additional detail, informing us. "Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire." However, it would appear that during the next few years, while Israel were occupied in conquering other parts of the country, the Jebusites recovered the fort of mount Sion at least, which remained in their hands till the time of David (2 Sam. 5:7). Matthew Henry suggested: "It may, therefore, be justly looked upon as the punishment of their neglect to conquer other cities which God had given them, that they were so long kept out of this." So today, if the Lord's people be slack in performing their duties, they need not be surprised if some important centers of Christendom remain under the control of the enemy, having the management of the same-how many of the denominational boards, seminaries, etc., are now governed by modern Jebusites!

"And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto," etc. (Josh. 16:1). The order of procedure among the tribes of Israel was always Judah first, the sons of Joseph second, which is in full accord with that parenthetical but important statement in 1 Chronicles 5:1, 2. "Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's)." As Ellicott pointed out, "Accordingly, in the division of the land of Canaan under Joshua, there are three successive stages. First, the settlement of the tribe of Judah in the strongholds in the south of Palestine. Second, the estating of Ephraim and Manasseh in the center of the country, and in some strong positions in the north. Third, the settlement of the remaining tribes, so as to fill up the gaps between Judah and Joseph, and also upon the outskirts of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shelter of their wings."

Reuben's portion was much inferior to that of Joseph, for it lay on the wilderness side of the Jordan (Josh. 13:7, 15-21), separating them from the tribes on the western side, thereby exposing them to be attacked more easily by enemies. As a matter of fact, this tribe, with that of Gad (which adjoined it) was sorely stricken by Hazael (2 Kings 10:32, 33), and afterwards carried into captivity twenty years before the general seizure of the ten tribes by the king of Assyria (1 Chron. 5:26); whereas Joseph and his posterity were highly favored in their lot, for their position lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan, extending from the Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. It is therefore very striking indeed to note how that on the one hand we behold in Reuben's heritage and its history a solemn demonstration of God's "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate" Him; and on the other hand we see in the case of Joseph's posterity a blessed exemplification of the Divine promise "showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments" (Ex. 20:4, 5). The disposings of Divine providence are not capricious or arbitrary, but regulated by moral and spiritual considerations which accord with the principle of sowing and reaping.

"And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages" (Josh. 16:9). This was because the tribe of Ephraim was now much more numerous than that of Manasseh. Matthew Henry appropriately called attention to the fact that "though when the tribes were numbered in the plains of Moab, Manasseh had got the start of Ephraim in number, for Manasseh was then fifty-two thousand and Ephraim but thirty-two thousand (Num. 26:34, 37); yet, by the time they were well settled in Canaan, the hands were crossed again (Gen. 48:13, 14) and the blessing of Moses was verified: 'They are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasseh.'" Since the Ephraimites were much more plentiful than the Manassites, additional cities were given them besides "the lot" which fell to them. Those cities were in the heritage of Manasseh, God having assigned them more than their own needs required. No doubt that was to test them, to afford an opportunity of showing kindness to their brethren, by giving of their abundance to those who lacked. This is one reason why Providence so orders things that "ye have the poor always with you" (Matthew 26:11): note that "always"-sure intimation that Socialism, the Welfare State, will never become universally and permanently established.

"And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer" (Josh. 16:10), which marked the boundary of this tribe, and was close to the sea (v. 3). Their failure to do so was much worse than that of Judah to recapture Jerusalem (Josh. 15:63), for they made an attempt to do so, whereas these did not. No specific reason is given for their wanting in duty, whether it was because of cowardice, slothfulness, or something else; but the fact remains that they disobeyed the commandment in Deuteronomy 20:16. There is no intimation that these Canaanites renounced their idolatry and became worshippers of Jehovah. But the second half of the verse seems plainly to indicate that their disobedience was due to the spirit of greed: "But the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute." Since the Ephraimites were strong enough to subject the Canaanites and compel them to play tribute, no excuse can be made for allowing such to live with them. They considered their financial gain more than submission to God or the good of their country, which was in keeping with their general character-compare Hosea 12:8. They soon followed the ways of those heathen, and became idolators themselves (Judg. 17:1-5). The Canaanites continued to dwell in Gezer until the days of Solomon, when the king of Egypt took and gave it to his daughter who had married Solomon (1 Kings 9:16, 17).