Bible Commentaries

After the conquest and division of the land, Joshua sent the auxiliaries of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh back to their homes, with a laudatory acknowledgment of the help they had given to their brethren, and a paternal admonition to adhere faithfully to the Lord and His law, and with a parting blessing (Joshua 22:1-6). By the expression “then Joshua called,” etc., the occurrence described in this chapter is placed in a general manner after the conquest and subjugation of Canaan, though not of necessity at the close of the distribution of the land. As the summons to these tribes to go with their brethren into Canaan, to assist them in the war, formed the commencement of Joshua's plans for the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 1:12.), their dismission to their home very properly forms the conclusion to the history of the conquest of this land by the Israelites. We might therefore assume, without in any way contradicting the words of the text, that these auxiliaries had been dismissed immediately after the war was ended. Even in that case, the account of their dismission would stand in its proper place, “since it was only right that the history itself, which relates to the conquest and possession of the land, should be fully completed before any other narratives, or any casual occurrences which took place, were introduced to break the thread” (Lightfoot, App. i. p. 42). On the other hand, however, the circumstance that the two tribes and a half were dismissed from Shiloh, where the tribes assembled for the first time during the casting of the lots, favours the conclusion that the dismission did not take place till after the lots had been cast; that is to say, contemporaneously with the advance of the other tribes into their possessions.

Joshua 22:2-3

Joshua acknowledged that they had done all that they were under any obligation to do towards Moses and himself (Numbers 32:20.; Joshua 1:16-17). “Kept the charge of the commandment,” i.e., observed what had to be observed in relation to the commandment of the Lord (see at Leviticus 8:35 and Genesis 26:5).

Joshua 22:4

Joshua 22:4 points back to Joshua 1:15. “Unto your tents,” for to your homes, - an antiquated form of expression, as in Deuteronomy 16:7; Judges 7:8, etc.

Joshua 22:5

Remembering, however, the changeableness of the human heart, Joshua appends to the acknowledgment of their fidelity in the performance of their duty the pressing admonition, to continue still to observe the law of Moses faithfully, to walk in the ways of the Lord and serve Him with the whole heart, which was simply a repetition of what Moses had impressed in a fatherly way upon the hearts of the people (see Deuteronomy 4:4, Deuteronomy 4:29; Deuteronomy 6:5; Deuteronomy 10:12; Deuteronomy 11:13, etc.).

Joshua 22:6-8

Thus Joshua dismissed them with blessings. - In Joshua 22:7, the writer, for the sake of clearness, refers again to the fact that only half of Manasseh had received its inheritance from Moses in Bashan, whereas the other had received its inheritance through Joshua on the west of the Jordan (cf. Joshua 14:3, and Joshua 18:7). To us such repetitions appear superfluous; but they are closely connected with the copious breadth of the early historical style of the Hebrews, which abounded in repetitions. The verb נתן (gave) wants its object, אחזּתו or נחלתו, which may easily be supplied from the context. This interpolation involved a further repetition of the fact, that Joshua also dismissed them (the Manassites of the other side) with a blessing, in order that the words might be appended with which Joshua dismissed the two tribes and a half to their homes, namely, the admonition to share the rich booty which they had accumulated with their brethren at home, in accordance with the instructions which Moses had given them with reference to the war with the Midianites (Numbers 31:25.).

On the way home, when the two tribes and a half had reached the borderof Canaan, they built a large conspicuous altar in the district of the Jordan,in the land of Canaan, i.e., on this side of the Jordan: “a great altar to seeto,” i.e., one which caught the eye on account of its size, since it was toserve for a memorial (Joshua 22:24.). The definition appended to Shiloh, “in theland of Canaan” (Joshua 22:9), serves to bring out the antithesis “into the land ofGilead,” by which we are to understand the whole of the country to theeast of the Jordan, as in Numbers 32:29; Deuteronomy 34:1; Judges 5:17, etc. נאחז, both in the form and meaning the same as in Numbers 32:30, madepossessors, i.e., settled down. היּרדּן גּלילות, thecircles of the Jordan, is synonymous with היּרדּן כּכּר in Genesis 13:10, and signifies that portion of the Ghor which was upon thewestern side of the Jordan.

The Israelites (on this side) heard that the tribes in question had built thealtar “opposite to the land of Canaan” (lit. in the face or in front of the landof Canaan), אל־אבר, “at the opposite region of the children of Israel”(two descriptions which may be explained on the supposition that thename of Canaan is used in a restricted sense, the valley of the Jordan beingexpressly excepted, and Canaan considered as only extending to the valleyof the Jordan). When they heard this, the whole congregation (in its headsand representatives) assembled at Shiloh, to go up, i.e., with the intentionof going, to make war against them. The congregation supposed that thealtar had been built as a place for sacrifice, and therefore regarded it as awicked violation of the commandment of God with regard to the unity ofthe sacrificial altar (Leviticus 17:8-9; Deuteronomy 12:4.), which they ought to punishaccording to the law in Deuteronomy 13:13. This zeal was perfectly justifiable,and even praiseworthy, as the altar, even if not erected as a place forsacrifice, might easily be abused to that purpose, and thus become anoccasion of sin to the whole nation. In any case, the two tribes and a halfought not to have erected such a building without the consent of Joshua orof the high priest.

(Note: “We know how sternly the law prohibited the use of two altars: because it was the will of God that His worship should be restricted to one place. When, therefore, from the very appearance it could not fail to occur to the mind of any one that they were establishing a second altar, who would not have condemned them as guilty of sacrilege, for introducing rites and ceremonies at variance with the law of God? And since it might so naturally be regarded as a wicked deed, they ought certainly to have consulted their brethren in so grave and important a matter; and it was especially wrong to pass by the high priest, when the will of God might have been learned from his lips. They were deserving of blame, therefore, because they acted as if they had been alone in the world, and did not consider what offence might easily arise from the novelty of their proceedings.” - Calvin.)

The congregation therefore sent Phinehas, the son of the high priest and hispresumptive successor in this office, with ten princes, one from each tribe(not the tribe-princes, but a head of the fathers' houses of the families ofIsrael), to Gilead, to the two tribes and a half, to call them to account forbuilding the altar.

Assuming at the outset that the altar was intended for a second place ofsacrifice in opposition to the command of God, the delegates, withPhinehas no doubt as their speaker, began by reproaching them for fallingaway from the Lord. “What faithlessness is this (מעל: see at Leviticus 5:15) that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away thisday from Jehovah, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebelthis day against Jehovah?” מרד (to rebel) is stronger than מעל.

To show the greatness of the sin through apostasy from the Lord, thespeaker reminds them of two previous acts of sin on the part of the nation,which had brought severe judgments upon the congregation. “Is there toolittle for us in the iniquity of Peor (i.e., with Peor, or through the worshipof Peor, Numbers 25:3), from which we have not cleansed ourselves till thisday, and there came the plague upon the congregation of Jehovah?” את־עון is an accusative: see Ges. §117, 2; Ewald, §277, d. That plague, of which 24,000 Israelites died, was stayed through the zeal of Phinehas for the honour of the Lord (Numbers 25:4-9, Numbers 25:11). The guilt connected with the worship of Peor had thereby been avenged upon the congregation, and the congregation itself had been saved from any further punishment in consequence of the sin. When Phinehas, therefore, affirmed that the congregation had not yet been cleansed from the crime, he did not mean that they were still bearing or suffering from the punishment of that crime, but that they were not yet cleansed from that sin, inasmuch as many of them were still attached to idolatry in their hearts, even if they had hitherto desisted from it outwardly from fear of the infliction of fresh judgment.

“And to-day ye turn away from the Lord again,” and are about to bring Hiswrath upon the whole congregation again through a fresh rebellion.

“And truly,” the speaker continued, “if the land of your possession shouldbe unclean,” sc., so that you think it necessary to have an altar in theneighbourhood to expiate your sins and wipe away your uncleanness,“pass over into the land of Jehovah's possession, where His dwelling-placestands, and settle in the midst of us ('settle,' as in Genesis 34:10); but do notrebel against Jehovah nor against us, by building an altar beside the (one)altar of Jehovah our God.” מרד is construed first of all with בּ,and then with the accusative; the only other place in which the latteroccurs is Job. Joshua 24:13.

He finally reminded them of the sin of Achan, how that had brought thewrath of God upon the whole congregation (Josh 7); and, moreover, Achanwas not the only man who had perished on account of the sin, but thirty-six men had fallen on account of it at the first attack upon Ai (Joshua 7:5). The allusion to this fact is to be understood as an argument a minori ad majus, as Masius has shown. “If Achan did not perish alone when hecommitted sacrilege, but God was angry with the whole congregation, whatthink ye will be the consequence if ye, so great a number, commit sogrievous a sin against God?”

In utter amazement at the suspicion expressed by the delegates of thecongregation, the two tribes and a half affirm with a solemn oath, that itnever entered into their minds to build an altar as a place of sacrifice, to fallaway from Jehovah. The combination of the three names of God-El, thestrong one; Elohim, the Supreme Being to be feared; and Jehovah, the trulyexisting One, the covenant God (Joshua 22:22), - serves to strengthen the invocationof God, as in Psalm 50:1; and this is strengthened still further by therepetition of these three names. God knows, and let Israel also know, sc.,what they intended, and what they have done. The אם whichfollows is the usual particle used in an oath. “Verily (it was) not inrebellion, nor in apostasy from Jehovah,” sc., that this was done, or thatwe built the altar. “Mayst Thou not help us to-day,” sc., if we did it inrebellion against God. An appeal addressed immediately to God in the heatof the statement, and introduced in the midst of the asseveration, whichwas meant to remove all doubt as to the truth of their declaration. The words which follow in Joshua 22:23, “that we have built,” etc., continue the oath: “If we have done this, to build us an altar, to turn away from the Lord, or to offer thereon burnt-offering, meat-offering, or peace-offering, may Jehovah himself require it (דּרשׁ, as in Deuteronomy 18:19; cf. 1 Samuel 20:16). Another earnest parenthetical adjuration, as the substance of the oath, is continued in Joshua 22:24. “But truly (לא ואם, with an affirmative signification) from anxiety, for a reason (lit. on account of a thing) have we done this, thinking (לאמר, since we thought) in time to come your sons might say to our sons, What have ye to do with Jehovah, the God of Israel?” i.e., He does not concern you; He is our God. “Jehovah has made the Jordan a boundary between us and your sons; ye have no part in Jehovah. Thus your sons might make our sons cease to fear Jehovah,” i.e., might make them desist from the worship of Jehovah (for the infinitive form ירא instead of the abbreviated form לרא used in 1 Samuel 18:29, there are analogies in יצק in Ezekiel 24:3, and לישׁון, Ecclesiastes 5:11, whereas יראה is the only form used in the Pentateuch). There was some reason for this anxiety. For, inasmuch as in all the promises and laws Canaan alone (the land on this side of the Jordan, Numbers 34:1-12) is always mentioned as the land which Jehovah would give to His people for their inheritance, it was quite a possible thing that at some future time the false conclusion might be drawn from this, that only the tribes who dwelt in Canaan proper were the true people of Jehovah.

“So we thought, we will make ourselves to build an altar (an expressionderived from the language of ordinary life, for 'we will build ourselves analtar'), not for burnt-offerings and slain-offerings; but it shall be a witnessbetween us and you, and between our generations after us, that we mayperform the service of Jehovah before His face (i.e., before the tabernaclein which Jehovah was enthroned), with our burnt-offerings, slain-offerings,and peace-offerings,” - in order, as they repeat in Joshua 22:27 from Joshua 22:24, Joshua 22:25,that they might not be denied a part in Jehovah in time to come. For if itshould so happen in time to come, that this should be said to them and totheir descendants, they would say (or reply), “Behold the copy of the altar of Jehovah, which our fathers made, not for burnt-offerings,” etc. (Joshua 22:28 , as in Joshua 22:26 , Joshua 22:27 ). For this reason they had built the altar according to the pattern of the altar before the tabernacle, and that not in their own land, but on the western side of the Jordan, where the dwelling-place of Jehovah was standing, as a witness that they worshipped one and the same God with the tribes on this side.

The speakers conclude with an expression of horror at the thought ofrebelling against Jehovah. ממּנּוּ לנוּ חלילה, “far be it from us away from Him (ממּנּוּ =מיהוה, 1 Samuel 24:7; 1 Samuel 26:11; 1 Kings 21:3), to rebel against Jehovah,”etc.

This explanation pleased the delegates of the congregation, so thatPhinehas bore this testimony to the tribes on the east of the Jordan: “Now(to-day) we perceive that Jehovah is in the midst of us; because (אשׁר, quod, as in Genesis 31:49, etc.) ye have not committed thisunfaithfulness towards Jehovah, since (אז, then, if ye had onlythis intention) ye have saved the children of Israel out of the hand ofJehovah,” i.e., preserved them from His judgments.

They then returned to Canaan and informed the congregation. And thething pleased them, so that they praised the Lord, sc., for having kept theirbrethren on the other side from rebellion, and they thought no more ofgoing to war against them, or laying waste the land of the tribes on the eastof the Jordan.

The Reubenites and Gadites (half Manasseh is omitted in Joshua 22:33, Joshua 22:34, forthe sake of brevity) called the altar “witness is it between us that Jehovahis God” (כּי introduces the words). This is at once a name and anexplanation, namely in this sense: they gave the altar the name of “witnessbetween us,” because it was to be a witness that they also acknowledgedand worshipped Jehovah as the true God.