And they came to the districts of the Jordan that are in the land of Canaan; and the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of grand appearance.
Joshua had just sent the fighting men of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh home to their land east of the Jordan. On the way they stopped at the river and built a huge altar — was this rebellion, as the rest of Israel first thought, or something else?
They stopped at the very point where they had to decide whether to keep going.
These men of war had fought and endured hardship with their brothers. As they travelled to their inheritance, they came to the Jordan. There they made a halt and questioned among themselves. The sight of the river recalled grand memories of God's ways for Israel. They had entered Canaan by the dry bed of the stream they were about to cross on their homeward way. They had helped to set up the memorial at Gilgal of the whole nation's crossing. Were they then indeed going to leave the promised land?
Crossing back meant leaving the place where God had put His name.
The two and a half tribes who had chosen their inheritance on the eastern side of the Jordan were sent home to their families by Joshua with a blessing. But they soon discover what their sorrowful choice had cost them. They had lost the place in the land where the Lord had recorded His name. There also, in the priesthood and the sacrifices, He had provided for their worship, and for their restoration when defiled. The returning tribes build an altar by the Jordan, "a great altar to see to," so that the children of the other tribes would not one day say to their children, "You have no portion in the LORD." They name the altar Ed (witness), for "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."
The size was not an accident.
They erected, after their homegoing, a great altar (Hebrew: an altar great to the sight). It was of immense size, so that it might be seen far and wide as a silent witness. When the rest of Israel heard of this altar, and thought that it meant a separate worship set up by these two and a half tribes, they were ready to go to war.
Another writer asks when people build monuments:
What then was this great altar for? "To see to!" To recall the brilliant past! To witness that, in days gone by, those who had built it were soldiers in Canaan and worshippers at Shiloh! … No man on a field of battle builds his monument; monuments are built when the soldiers have returned home. The twelve stones at Gilgal were a monument to what God had done for Israel. The altar of the forty thousand was a monument to the memory of what they themselves had been.
The tribes themselves insisted the altar was never meant for sacrifice. That admission exposes what it could not replace.
But it was not the altar. They were far from the tabernacle with its ark of the covenant and its mercy seat. God had said of that place, "There I will meet with you … I will speak with you." No altar, however "great to see to," could ever make up for the loss of this. They freely admit that no one could offer burnt offerings, grain offerings or peace offerings on their altar. It was only to "see to," so that their children would not stop fearing the Lord.
Commentators differ. Some take the altar as a genuine witness; others take the need for it as a sign of an uneasy conscience.
They are not fully at ease; and there is something especially significant in that. They raise an altar. … They raise the altar and call it "Ed," as a witness, a witness that Israel's God was their God. But why all this? Had they remained in Canaan, where the ark and tabernacle of God were, they would not have needed this. But they were not there. … They had to give themselves some artificial help, to give their souls a crutch, if I may put it that way.
One writer traces the trouble to its root.
All this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, was the result of failure on the part of Reuben and Gad. True, they are able to explain themselves and satisfy their brothers about the altar. But then there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, no cause of alarm, had they not taken up an ambiguous position.
- Choice. They had chosen their inheritance east of the Jordan. At the riverbank that choice came due.
- Cost. Settling east of the river cost them the place where God had recorded His name. With it went the priesthood, the sacrifices and the way back when defiled.
- Crutch. They could not point to the tabernacle, so they built something visible instead. Had they stayed where the ark was, they would not have needed it.
- Confusion. A monument meant to prevent a future misunderstanding almost caused one at once. The rest of Israel was ready to go to war.
- Character. Live for God so clearly that no monument is needed: "not needing any altar to see to, nor anything to declare where we belong, where we worship, whose we are and whom we serve" (C. H. Mackintosh).
And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the districts of the Jordan, separately from the children of Israel.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And when the children of Israel heard [of it], the whole assembly of the children of Israel gathered together at Shiloh, to go up against them to war.
The tribes east of the Jordan built a large altar by the river, and the news reached the rest of Israel. Was arming for war against them zeal, or an overreaction?
Where Israel gathered was itself an answer to what the eastern tribes had built.
News of the altar of Ed reached Israel. The whole congregation gathered at Shiloh, at the one altar of Jehovah. They saw in the building of a second altar nothing less than rebellion against the Lord of the twelve tribes.
The trouble did not begin with the altar. It began when Reuben and Gad settled on the near side of the Jordan.
Here we have the first sorrowful effect of the ambiguous conduct of Reuben and Gad. They had to build an altar — "an altar of imposing size" — in case their brothers might disown them in the future. What does all this prove? It proves that they were completely wrong in taking up their position on this side of Jordan. And just notice the effect upon the whole assembly — the disturbing, alarming effect of this altar. At first glance, it wore the appearance of actual rebellion.
Israel did not treat this as a private matter between the eastern tribes and God. Their own history had taught them that judgment on a few can fall on all.
They of course reasoned that a separate altar could not be God's altar, and therefore that these tribes were turning away from following the Lord. They remember "the sin at Peor". God had sent a plague on Israel then, because Israelites mixed with Moab and their idols. They want no repetition of such judgment. For if only these tribes turned away, then the Lord would be angry with the whole congregation of Israel. This is a solemn lesson for the Church of God too… For the Church is "one body", and "if one member suffers, all suffer together" (1 Cor. 12:26).
The mustering at Shiloh was not a burst of temper. Their anger came with the memory of their own past failures.
The zeal of Israel was stirred. When the heart is zealous for God while considering the failings of others, it remembers its own sins with a humbled spirit. So the sin at Peor and the trespass of Achan, with all their bitter fruits, were present before them. Israel judged themselves before attempting to judge the wrongdoers. They felt that the seeds of the very evils they mourned over in the two and a half tribes were among themselves. Those were the very evils they had assembled to root out… Judgment must begin at home, and who is guiltless? … Any other spirit is only the zeal of mere nature.
Israel was ready to fight, but did not strike first.
However, they were wise to wait before going to war. First they sent a delegation. Phinehas the priest led it, with a ruler from each of the ten tribes west of Jordan. They would afterwards be thankful they did this, for they found the situation was not what it appeared to be. We too must remember that a consultation is better than a confrontation.
Commentators do not fault Israel for arming. They see in it a stand for the unity God had given the nation.
The energy of the tribes and the zeal of Phinehas kept sectarian principles from taking root. When divine principles are at stake we must not fail to stand in the breach, at the risk of war between brothers. Keeping Israel's unity, as God had established it, mattered more to the saints then than polite relations between brothers.
The quarrel ended better than it began.
The Jordan threatened to be a dividing wall. Through such exercises as these it becomes a link between them instead… In heart, and in the sympathies of their common faith, all must have been bound together more firmly and happily than if nothing had happened. Each must have valued the other more, because of the witness they had generously borne to their common Lord.
- Ground — The altar was the first sad fruit of settling on the wrong side of the Jordan. A wrong position makes trouble long after the choice.
- Alarm — A second altar looked like rebellion, so the whole nation gathered at Shiloh. The sin of a part endangers the whole body.
- Self-judgment — Real zeal remembered Peor and Achan at home before naming the fault abroad. Anything else is only the zeal of nature.
- Enquiry — They armed, but sent Phinehas and ten rulers first. Consultation before confrontation spared them a needless war.
- Bond — Once each side had spoken for the same Lord, the river that threatened to divide them bound them closer.
And the children of Israel sent to the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest,
Israel had gathered at Shiloh, armed to fight their own brothers over an altar beside the Jordan. Before anyone drew a sword, they sent a priest and ten princes across the river to ask what the altar meant. That one decision turned the whole chapter.
The two and a half tribes had settled east of the Jordan. To the rest of the nation, the huge altar they raised there looked like a break with God. One writer traces the alarm back to their original choice of territory:
They had to build an altar — a great altar for all to see — in case their brothers should one day disown them. What does all this prove? It proves that they were all wrong to take up their position on that side of the Jordan. And notice the effect on the whole assembly — how disturbing and alarming this altar was. At first sight, it looked like actual rebellion.
They were not simply angry. Notice what the same men did before they marched:
The rest of Israel heard of this altar. They thought it meant a separate worship, set up by these two and a half tribes, and they were ready to go to war. They showed great zeal for the Lord and were ready to carry out His Word. But while they were zealous, they also showed wisdom and sent Phinehas with ten princes to look into the supposed falling away. The explanation follows, and Israel accepts it. The altar was then called Ed, which means "witness." It was to bear witness between them that the Lord is God, and that the tribes, though separated by the Jordan, are one people.
The delegation was not sent over a building project. Behind the altar lay a principle that could split the nation in two:
A spirit of worldliness had made this altar of Ed necessary. But behind it there might lie an even graver source of evil. The very fact that they built it might open the door to independence. This was what the children of Israel dreaded, and we see them taking it very much to heart. Independence is on the verge of creeping in, and their oneness is threatened. So Phinehas, a pattern of zeal for Christ, is chosen to go with the princes. He is to take note of what is happening by the Jordan and to deal with the two and a half tribes.
Phinehas had shown this kind of zeal before. One writer explains what it made him do now:
And now, in the matter of the altar of Ed, this same zeal drove him to stand in the breach. His senses, trained by practice to tell good from evil, made him see the danger. He feels that this second principle, independence, would be the ruin of the testimony. Setting up another altar is nothing less than the sin of rebellion against the Lord and against the congregation of Israel (v. 19). The holy zeal of Phinehas meets the danger. In principle the danger did exist, but the intentions of their hearts were right, and the evil came to a stop.
What saved Israel from civil war was the order of their actions — ask first, fight second:
Israel wisely waited before going to war. First they sent a delegation headed by Phinehas the priest, made up also of a ruler from each of the ten tribes west of the Jordan (vs.13-14). They would afterwards be thankful they did this, for they found the situation was not what it appeared to be. We too must remember that a consultation is better than a confrontation.
The western tribes judged their brothers from across a river, on the basis of a report. One writer draws out what distance does to a verdict:
Their brothers thought it was a breakaway altar, and they were understandably angry. So they sent Phinehas. He proves he is the right man for the mission by his just but considerate and peace-making words. A few kind words explain the misunderstanding. Our brothers across the water have no business being there at all, that is true. But they are not as bad as we are sometimes inclined to think them. The cold mists of the river distort. What looked like a breakaway act was really only meant as an act of gratitude and worship. Phinehas is the instrument who prevents a dreadful war between brothers — and brotherly kindness is confirmed again.
- Cause. A wrong position produced a doubtful act. The great altar grew out of settling on the wrong side of the Jordan, and it looked to everyone else like rebellion.
- Concern. The nation dreaded independence — a second altar, a separate worship, and the end of their oneness.
- Caution. Zeal for God's honour was right; acting on a report before asking was not. Israel armed, then paused, and sent men to enquire.
- Character. The man chosen had proved his zeal before. Now he used it to stand in the breach — firm on the principle, considerate in his words.
- Conclusion. A few kind words cleared a misunderstanding that would otherwise have cost a war. Distance distorts; a consultation is better than a confrontation.
and with him ten princes, of each father's house a prince, out of all the tribes of Israel; and each of them was head of a father's house, of the thousands of Israel.
The two and a half tribes east of the Jordan have built a great altar. Israel heard the report, and the whole congregation gathered at Shiloh ready for war (vv. 10–12). Then, before anyone drew a sword, eleven men crossed the river instead. Who those men were, and why Israel sent them in place of an army, is the weight of this verse.
The verse names each of the ten princes as the head of a father's house, one from every tribe west of the Jordan. No single offended group dealt with this on its own. The tribes still felt that what touched one touched all.
Before going to war, however, they sent Phinehas, and with him ten princes representing the other tribes. These men charged them with their trespass against the God of Israel in rebelling against the Lord. As yet they realized the solidarity of Israel and the honour of Him who dwelt in their midst.
War was Israel's first impulse. What they did instead carries a lesson for any dispute.
Israel gathered together at Shiloh prepared to go to war against the 2½ tribes (vv. 11–12). However, they wisely waited before going to war. First they sent a delegation. Phinehas the priest headed it, and it also included a ruler from each of the ten tribes west of Jordan (vv. 13–14). They would afterwards be thankful they did this, for they found the situation was not what it appeared to be. We too must remember that a consultation is better than a confrontation.
The alarm was not really about stones. Behind the altar lay a worse danger: that the eastern tribes would begin to act apart from the rest.
But behind this altar of Ed, which a spirit of worldliness had made necessary, there might lie a still graver source of evil. The very fact that it was built might open the door to independence. This was what the children of Israel dreaded, and we see them taking it very much to heart. Independence is on the verge of creeping in, and their oneness is threatened. So Phinehas, a pattern of zeal for Christ, is chosen to go with the princes. He is to look into what is happening by the Jordan and to deal with the two and a half tribes.
Phinehas had shown this zeal before. Now the same zeal had to judge what the altar by the Jordan really meant.
And now, in the matter of the altar of Ed, this same zeal moved him to stand in the gap. His "senses trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil" make him see the danger. He feels that this second principle, independence, would be the ruin of the testimony. He feels that setting up another altar is nothing less than the sin of rebellion against the Lord and against the congregation of Israel (v. 19). The holy zeal of Phinehas meets the danger. That danger really did exist in principle, but the intentions of the heart were right, and the evil was stopped.
A priest leads the eleven, not a general. That fits the whole closing section of the book.
Here is further proof of the important and necessary place the priest holds throughout these chapters. In Joshua 21 "the heads of the fathers of the Levites came to Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and spoke to them in Shiloh, in the land of Canaan," about the cities and pasturelands Moses commanded should be given to them to live in. Finally, in chapter 22, "the great altar, Ed," had been set up on the other side of the Jordan. It was the priest, Phinehas, son of Eleazar, who was sent with ten princes to investigate this serious matter. On their return, "the children of Israel blessed God," and gave up their intention of going to war against Reuben and Gad.
One writer sees the same errand repeated in the New Testament, when Paul writes to Corinth.
A great stir is made among the tribes who were now in Canaan... and a delegation is formed to inquire into this matter. Something caught their eye, they do not know what, and it seemed to be at odds with the common calling of Israel. At the very least it must be explained... I believe the apostle in the Letters to the Corinthians is very much a Phinehas in New Testament form. He is a son of Eleazar the priest, crossing the river to inquire after the pillar in the land of Gilead.
- Alarm. An act that looked like rebellion stirred the whole congregation. The tribes still felt that one tribe's sin touched all Israel.
- Restraint. The army waited; eleven men went instead. Consultation came before confrontation, and appearances proved misleading.
- Representation. Each tribe sent the head of a father's house. So the whole congregation, not a faction, addressed the matter.
- Discernment. Phinehas's zeal saw a danger that was real in principle. It also saw that the hearts behind it were right, so the evil stopped without bloodshed.
- Priesthood. A priest led the delegation, matching the place priests hold through these closing chapters. One writer sees Paul on the same errand at Corinth.