Preservation Of Divine Unity

by P.L. Hickling, Southport, U.K. | Category: Spiritual Lessons From Joshua | Nov 1985

THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROMISE

After Lot had left him, Abraham stood on the hills between Bethel and Ai, and heard the voice of God: "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring for ever" (Gen. 13:14,15-the scriptural quotations are from NIV unless otherwise noted). Looking along the line of the Jordan valley, perhaps he could lust see the peak of Mount Hermon, a hundred miles away to the north. To the east there lay the lush pastures of the Jordan valley, for which his nephew had forsaken him, and beyond it the TransJordan tableland. South were the Judaean uplands. To the west his view would be obscured by higher grounds, but beyond it lay the wooded lands of the Shephelah (lowlands) and the coastal plains of Philistia. Abraham looked, believed God, and resumed his dwelling in a land in which he was still a stranger and a nomad.

Some six hundred years late? Joshua, with his headquarters in Shiloh, only about ten miles from where Abraham had stood, was able to supervise the apportionment of the land between the tribes of Israel. The Lord had given to Israel "all the land He had sworn to give to their forefathers" (Josh. 21:43), and so the promise was fulfilled. God had been faithful to His promise, and the gift was there for the taking, but it was not all possessed. Fear of the iron chariots of the Canaanites of the plain (Josh. 17/16), and perhaps insufficient determination to continue fighting when they already seemed to have conquered enough, prevented their taking all that Abraham had seen, particularly towards the north. Unwillingness to purge the land then was to make the nation a constant prey to Canaanite practices later on. Despite this, the conquest was now substantially completed.

THE WARRIORS RETURN HOME

Consequently Joshua now felt able to permit the fighting men of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh to return to their families, whom they had left on the east side of the Jordan (Josh. 1:14). Half of the tribe of Manasseh, of course, had an allotment in Canaan proper, to the north of Ephraim (Josh. 17:10), but the other half had their inheritance in Gilead and Bashan, along with the Reubenites and Gadites. They had asked for this area for themselves when the Israelites first approached Canaan (Num.

32:5-6), and had incurred the wrath of Moses because of the potentially divisive nature of the request. Moses had said "Shall your countrymen go to war while you sit here? Why do you discourage the Israelites from going over into the land the LORD has given them?" He could see how important it was that the whole people should fight together until all the land was conquered. Disunity and half-heartedness in the face of the enemy would certainly have led to defeat. Unity was maintained by the promise of the fighting men of the two and a half tribes to go over Jordan and fight until the land was subdued, when they might return "free from ... obligation to the LORD and to Israel" (Num. 32:22). Their duties had been fulfilled, and Joshua could bless them and send them away. Conscious perhaps of the physical barrier that the Jordan would place between them and the rest of Israel, he particularly charged them to "be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, to obey His commands, to hold fast to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul" (Josh. 22:5).

THE BUILDING OF THE ALTAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Before they crossed the Jordan, the returning men built a great altar on the west bank, and this unexpected action caused dismay in Israel. The nation had learned by bitter experience that the Lord had one altar and one house where he should be worshipped, and they feared the worst when they heard of the new construction. They remembered when some had worshipped Baal at Peor, and twenty four thousand died in a plague; they remembered the disastrous defeat after Achan had sinned in relation to things devoted to the Lord, and they knew that sin in Israel had to be dealt with, or God would punish the nation. An act of this sort was not just the responsibility of the individuals who did it; as the people of God, they were bound together in a corporate unity, and the whole nation was responsible for errors committed by a part of it. Doubtless with great reluctance, the rest of Israel gathered together at Shiloh, prepared to fight again. They must have been tired of fighting, after the campaign in Canaan, and the prospect of fighting against their own kin, who had helped them to conquer the land, must have dismayed them. Nonetheless they came, ready to extirpate the wrong, by force if necessary.

Although the leaders of Israel were determined, and although there seemed to be clear-cut evidence against the two and a half tribes in the very existence of the altar, their approach to their brethren was hortatory and conciliatory, rather than threatening. A deputation of princes was sent, on behalf of "the whole assembly of the LORD" (22:16), to point out that to worship at an altar of their own would be rebellion against the Lord, and would bring the wrath of God on the whole congregation of Israel. Thinking perhaps that a motive for the building of the new altar had been a sense of separation from the evident presence of God in the eastern territories, they even offered to share their own inheritance in "The LORD'S land, where the LORD'S tabernacle stands" (Josh. 22:19). In reply, the people of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh, solemnly averred before God that there had been no thought of rebellion in their mind, and no intention to offer sacrifices. They had built it quite deliberately ("out of carefulness ... and of purpose" - 22:24,RV) as a witness that those on the east side of the Jordan had as much right to share in the worship of the Lord as those on the west. Their intention had been to cement unity, rather than to cause division, but their manner of doing it, without consultation with the other tribes, had caused a crisis, and might have caused a war, if the other tribes had reacted less prudently. The explanation was accepted, and Israel lived in peace.

LESSONS FOR TODAY

The people of God today have entered into a spiritual possession, and they have a corporate responsibility for the maintenance of the law of God. It is not in keeping with the analogy of the Old Testament, or the direct teaching of the New, that sections of the people', such as individual churches, should claim autonomy for themselves. What is done by the part affects the whole, and this inter-dependence must be acknowledged both in the structure of the holy nation and in its day to day operation (1 Cor. 11:16). It is possible for us to take actions which may be perfectly legitimate, and done for the best of reasons, but which are liable to be misunderstood by others. The elders of the churches of God today have the responsibility to keep the unity of God's people by conferring together and agreeing about practices and doctrines which affect the whole people (Acts 15:1-16:5). This does not necessarily mean that all details of practices should be identical in every place - in our example the altar by the Jordan was peculiar to that place. But practices should not be, or be seen by others to be, contrary to the teaching of the Faith.

The way in which the dispute was dealt with is instructive. Perhaps the leaders of Israel were a little hasty in assuming the worst from the beginning, but their argument was based on the word of God to His people, appealing to that which all the people had in common. Furthermore, they offered to share their own lands with their brethren, although they might well have pointed out that the two and a half tribes had had the first choice, and should abide by it. In order to preserve the unity of Israel, they were willing to give up what was rightfully their own (Eph. 4:1-3). This spirit is a fitting one for leaders of the people of God. Where the commandment of the Lord is concerned, they must stand fast, but where concessions can he made, even at the cost of legitimate rights and cherished practices, they should be made in a spirit of grace. Teaching based on Scripture, and a gracious, considerate manner towards those who seem to have erred will do much to preserve the unity of the people of God (Gal. 6:1).

The passage from Joshua also illustrates how easy it is to jump to wrong conclusions on hearsay or insufficient evidence from elsewhere. This lesson applies to each individual in a church of God today; it is well to assume that others act in good faith and good conscience unless we have definite evidence to the contrary. Cynics may think such an attitude naive, but its adoption would eliminate some of the needless acrimony and criticism which can mar assembly life. It is better to err on the side of generosity (Col. 3:12-14). The Lord requires love to one another to be a characteristic of His disciples; it can be shown by a care to ensure that we are all keeping the unity of the Spirit, and by a parallel consideration for others' thoughts.

P.L. Hickling, Southport, U.K. | Nov 1985
Spiritual Lessons From Joshua