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.
And they came to the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, to the land of Gilead, and spoke with them, saying,
Phinehas the priest and ten princes cross the Jordan into Gilead to meet Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh face to face about the altar they had built. Behind that short journey lie two questions: why were the tribes close to civil war, and why did the eastern tribes want an altar of their own?
The nation had already assembled for battle. Then they chose to send men first and hear an answer.
Israel gathered together at Shiloh prepared to go to war against the two and a half tribes (vv. 11-12). But they wisely waited before going to war. First they sent a delegation led by Phinehas the priest, which also included a ruler from each of the ten tribes west of the 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.
Another writer records what those questions uncovered:
Thankfully, however, they first sent Phinehas to ask questions. The two and a half tribes explained that they had no plan to offer sacrifices on this altar. It was meant to show future generations that they served the God of Israel. So a war between brothers was averted at the last moment.
Why send Phinehas and a prince from every tribe? One writer points to the deeper evil the other tribes feared behind the altar.
A spirit of worldliness had made this altar of Ed necessary. But behind it there might lie an even more serious source of evil. The very fact of its erection 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 see what is happening by the Jordan and deal with the two and a half tribes.
Why build the altar at all? One writer traces the unease of men living far from the ark and the tabernacle.
They are not fully at ease... They raise the altar and call it "Ed," 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. Shiloh was not in sight. Their souls could not hold on to the sense that Shiloh was their common centre with all their brothers. They had to give themselves some artificial help, to give their souls a crutch, if I may put it that way.
The visitors spoke for the whole nation, and they had an earlier disaster in mind.
These men speak for "the whole congregation of the LORD" (v. 16). They let the two and a half tribes know that they considered it treachery against the LORD that these tribes had built an altar for themselves, for it looked like rebellion against God's authority. They remember "the iniquity of Peor" (v. 17) and the plague God had sent on Israel 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 (v. 18). 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 with it" (1 Cor. 12:26).
Even when the outcome is peace, the errand itself is a mark of something gone wrong.
They have to ask questions and inspect their condition. Whatever that inspection turns up, the need for such a process is a poor thing at least. I believe the First Epistle to the Corinthians is very much a Phinehas crossing the river to look after a pillar. There were things at Corinth which alarmed Paul... Paul, in the zeal of Joshua 22, has to cross the river. Whatever he finds, the action is a painful one, and the need for it is a sad thing in the history of the Church.
- Crossing, not charging. Israel had gathered for war. They crossed the river to talk instead, and found the situation was not what it appeared.
- Crossing with the right men. A priest known for zeal went, with one prince from every tribe. The oneness of the whole people was at stake.
- Crossing to a people unsettled. Those living far from Shiloh needed a prop to convince themselves they still belonged.
- Crossing with a warning. They pressed the memory of Peor on them: what one part does, the whole body carries.
- Crossing is itself a sorrow. Peace came — but the need to send anyone at all is the painful sign that something had already slipped.
Thus saith the whole assembly of Jehovah What wickedness is this which ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following Jehovah, in that ye have built yourselves an altar, rebelling this day against Jehovah?
Israel sends ten leaders and a priest across the Jordan, with an armed nation waiting behind them. They open with a question, not a sword. Everything turns on that question: who has the right to ask it, and whether the charge is even true.
The ten princes and Phinehas do not speak for themselves. They come with the authority of the assembly, and they name what they think they are looking at.
These men speak for "the whole congregation of the Lord" (v.16). They tell the 2 ½ tribes that they call it treachery against the Lord for these tribes to have built an altar of their own, because it looked like rebellion against God's authority. Of course they reasoned that a separate altar could not be God's altar, and so that these tribes were turning away from following the Lord.
The army was already gathered. What saved the nation was the decision to talk first.
Israel gathered together at Shiloh prepared to go to war against the 2 ½ tribes (vs.11-12). But they were wise enough to hold back from war until they had sent a delegation. Phinehas the priest led it, and a ruler from each of the ten tribes west of Jordan went with him (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 anger was genuine, and it was based on a mistake. From the far bank, an act of worship looked like a breakaway.
A problem had come up about a pillar they had built. Their fellow Israelites thought it was a breakaway altar and were understandably angry, so they sent Phinehas. He proves he is the right man for the mission by his language: fair, yet considerate and peacemaking. A few kind words clear up 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 sometimes tend to think — the cold mists over the river distort what we see. What looked like an act of division was really meant only as an act of thanks and worship.
The messengers argue that the act of two and a half tribes puts twelve tribes at risk. One writer says the same rule still binds Christians to each other.
The nine and a half tribes treated the sin of the two and a half tribes as a sin that involved all Israel. "You rebel today against the Lord … tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation" (Joshua 22:18). Christians hardly grasp this serious truth: the sin of one affects the wellbeing of all (see v. 20). If they did grasp it, they would care more about one another and be far less eager to pile blame on one another. A Christian is not a separate unit on his own. He is one with all God's people; his behaviour affects others, and the behaviour of others affects him.
How they confront matters as much as what they say. Peor and Achan were Israel's own past sins.
Israel's zeal was stirred. When the heart burns for God as it looks at the failings of others, it also remembers its own sins, and remembers them with a humbled spirit. So "the iniquity of Peor" and "the trespass of Achan," with all their bitter fruit, stood before them. Israel judged themselves before they tried to judge the wrongdoers… Judgment must begin at home, and who is guiltless? … Any other spirit is only natural zeal.
The explanation settled the dispute. But the alarm had a source, and it was not the altar.
Now 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 fellow Israelites about the altar. But if they had not taken up a position that could be read two ways, there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, and no cause of alarm.
The suspicion was wrong. Confronting it was still right.
In the book of Joshua, the attempt to divide Israel was defeated in the dispute caused by the setting up of the altar called Ed (Joshua 22). Thanks to the energy of the tribes and the zeal of Phinehas, party divisions were kept out. When God's principles are at stake we must not fail to take our stand, even at the risk of war between brothers.
- Cause — the altar was only a symptom. The real fault was settling on the far side of the Jordan; without that there would have been no altar and no alarm.
- Charge — the messengers speak for the whole congregation. They read a second altar as treachery, because a separate altar could not be God's altar.
- Corporate — rebellion by a few brings God's anger on all; no believer stands alone.
- Caution — they gathered for war, but sent a delegation first. Talking before fighting showed them the situation was not what it looked like from across the river.
- Character — real zeal for God judges itself first. It remembers Peor and Achan; anything else is only natural zeal.
Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us? from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the assembly of Jehovah.
Israel's leaders answer the new altar by the Jordan with memory, not argument. They ask the two and a half tribes whether they have forgotten Peor — and whether they see that what they do lands on everyone.
The men from Shiloh did not treat the new altar as a building project. They read it as a break with God's authority — and their question assumes that one Peor was already more than enough.
These men speak as representing "the whole congregation of the Lord" (v.16). They let the two and a half tribes know that they considered it treachery against the Lord for these tribes to build an altar of their own. It looked like rebellion against God's authority. They reasoned, of course, that a separate altar could not be God's altar. So these tribes were turning away from following the Lord. They remember "the iniquity of Peor" (v.17) and the plague God had sent on Israel when Israelites mixed with Moab and their idols (Num. 25:9). They want no such judgment again.
Peor is a place name that carries a whole story. It is the place where Israel fell into the worship of Moab's gods.
Peor is where Balaam was called to curse Israel. It is where the people fell into the trap of sacrificing to the gods of Moab, eating things offered to their idols, and committing sexual sin. So Israel joined itself to Baal-peor. It shared fully in that demon worship and in the uncleanness that went with it.
Later in the same speech the delegation also brings up the sin of Achan. One writer sets the two side by side and calls Peor the worse of them, though it troubles God's people far less.
In the iniquity of Peor (v. 17) we find a still worse thing — yet in spiritual matters the hearts of the Lord's people are so little concerned about it. It was a corrupt alliance with the religious world, that is, the idol-worshipping world of those days. It brought this worldly religion right into the middle of the congregation of Israel, again with complete disregard of God's holiness.
The verse takes one thing for granted: the plague fell on the whole congregation, not only on the guilty. The same principle showed itself in Achan's case.
The evil involved the whole assembly. How was this? God's presence gave the whole assembly its unity. It bound them all together, so that the sin of one man involved them all. It was one assembly, so no one could stand on separate ground of his own. The sin of each was the sin of all, because God was among them, and He could not approve evil that went unjudged.
Notice the pronoun. They do not say "you." They say "we" — and so they put themselves inside the unfinished business of that old sin. That is the mark of a rebuke offered in the right spirit.
Zeal stirred in Israel. When the heart is zealous for God as it looks at the failings of others, it remembers its own sins with a humbled spirit. So "the iniquity of Peor" and "the trespass of Achan," with all their bitter fruits, were present before them. What is more, Israel judged themselves before they tried to judge the wrongdoers. They had gathered to root out the evils they mourned over in the two and a half tribes, yet they felt the seeds of those same evils among themselves.
Phinehas already had a history with Peor. That is why he leads this delegation.
The zeal of Phinehas first showed itself on this occasion. He took to heart the dishonour done to Jehovah, and he cleansed the congregation from this defilement. And now, in the matter of the altar of Ed, this same zeal moved him to stand in the breach.
The armies were already gathered. What saved the day was that Israel brought the charge of verse 17 face to face first.
Thankfully, however, they first sent Phinehas to ask questions. The two and a half tribes explained that they never meant to offer sacrifices on this altar. They had built it to show future generations that they served the God of Israel. That stopped a war between brothers at the last moment.
- Memory — The rebuke begins with Peor, where Israel joined itself to the gods of Moab. Israel quotes an old sin as present evidence, not as ancient history.
- Mixture — Peor was an alliance with the religion of the world, brought right inside the congregation. That sin alarms God's people far less than it should.
- Unity — The plague touched everyone because God lived among them. One assembly cannot have separate ground, so the sin of one became the sin of all.
- Self-judgment — "We have not cleansed ourselves" shows Israel judging itself before it judges its brothers. Only in that spirit can anyone bring such a charge.
- Enquiry — Zeal sent Phinehas, the man who had acted at Peor, to ask before striking — and the asking stopped a civil war.
And ye turn away this day from following Jehovah; and it will be, that since ye rebel this day against Jehovah, to-morrow he will be wroth with the whole assembly of Israel.
Reuben, Gad and half Manasseh had built a great altar by the Jordan. A delegation led by Phinehas the priest came to challenge them. Their argument reaches its point in this verse: what a few do today, God answers for on the whole nation tomorrow. Two questions follow. Why did an altar look like desertion? And why should everyone answer for what some did?
A writer explains how the delegation read the new altar, and why their warning ends with the whole nation:
These men speak as representing "the whole congregation of the Lord" (v.16). They let the 2½ tribes know they counted it treachery against the Lord that these tribes had built an altar for themselves. It looked like rebellion against God's authority. They reasoned that a separate altar could not be God's altar, and so that these tribes were turning away from following the Lord. They remember "the iniquity of Peor" (v.17) and the plague God had sent on Israel because Israelites mixed with Moab and their idols (Num. 25:9). They want no repeat of such judgment. For if these tribes alone turned away, then the Lord would be angry with the whole congregation of Israel (v.18).
The word tomorrow carries the weight of the appeal. Another writer asks what would change if Christians felt it:
The nine and a half tribes recognised the sin of the two and a half tribes as a wrong that involved all Israel. "If you too rebel against the LORD today then tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel." How little Christians realise this solemn truth: the sin of one affects the prosperity of the whole. If they did realise it, there would be less indifference toward one another and less desire to heap blame on one another. The Christian is not a mere unit. He is one with all the saints. His behaviour affects others, and the behaviour of others affects him.
The reason lies in God's presence among His people. A writer looks back at the case of Achan:
"The anger of the LORD burned against" — whom? Achan only? His household? His family? His tribe? No — "against the people of Israel"! The whole assembly was involved in the evil. How was this? God's presence gave the whole assembly a unity. It bound them all together in such a way that the sin of one involved them all. It was one assembly, so no one could take independent ground. The sin of each was the sin of all, because God was among them, and He could not approve evil that went unjudged.
The trouble traces back further than the altar. A writer points to where the failure really began:
Now 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 there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, no cause of alarm, if they had not taken up a position that could be read two ways.
Another writer notices how these tribes felt once they had settled outside Canaan:
They are not fully at ease, and that is especially telling. They raise an altar and call it "Ed," 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 it. They were not there… They had to give themselves some artificial help, a crutch for their souls, if I may put it that way, to support the confidence and joy of their hearts that, as Israelites, they shared fellowship, common interests and calling with their brothers.
Israel's zeal had a second side. They looked hard at their own record before they judged their brothers:
Zeal for God stirred in Israel. When the heart is zealous for God while looking at the failings of others, it remembers its own sins with a humbled spirit. So "the iniquity of Peor," "the trespass of Achan," with all their bitter fruits, were before them. Israel judged themselves before they tried to judge the wrongdoers… Judgment must begin at home, and who is guiltless?
The delay proved to be wisdom, not weakness:
They were wise to wait before going to war. First they sent a delegation headed by Phinehas the priest… They were thankful later that they did, for they found the situation was not what it appeared to be. We too must remember that a consultation is better than a confrontation.
- Position — the alarm began long before the altar did. These tribes had settled outside Canaan, and they needed a prop to prove they still belonged.
- Appearance — a second altar looked like turning from the Lord, because a separate altar could not be God's altar.
- Today — rebellion is never private. God lives among His people and binds them together, so the sin of one is the sin of all.
- Tomorrow — God's anger falls on the whole congregation. That is why indifference to one another is never safe.
- Inquiry — Israel judged themselves first, and asked before they attacked. The facts proved different from the appearance.
Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession is unclean, come over into the land of the possession of Jehovah, where Jehovah's tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession amongst us; but rebel not against Jehovah, and rebel not against us, in building for yourselves an altar besides the altar of Jehovah our God.
Phinehas and his delegation have just accused the eastern tribes of rebellion. Now, before a single blow falls, they make an offer: cross over and share our land. One verse holds a blunt warning and an open invitation together.
Why did the eastern tribes build a second altar? The delegation had a guess, and it started with the land itself.
Phinehas and the delegation with him thought the two and a half tribes might consider their land unclean, and still under the control of an idol god, since they placed their great altar there. They told them that, if so, they should come to the west side of the Jordan.
But the answer did not depend on the soil, or on anyone's opinion. It depended on the tabernacle — the tent where God lived among His people.
What made the land they lived in clean or unclean (see verse 19) was the presence of the Tabernacle among them. Human ideas and questions did not decide it. The cloud of glory and the ark did. They had every reason to invite their brothers to such a holy centre. Only where God is can His people live in purity and peace. If Christ Himself were more truly the centre of His people, His holy presence would rebuke sin and drive away bitterness and pride.
The warning was not the whole message. The same men who pressed the charge home also offered to share what they owned.
At that point they still felt that Israel was one people, and they cared about the honour of Him who lived among them. So they pressed the sin at Peor and the sin of Achan on their brothers' consciences. And they offered them room on this side of the Jordan, if their land was unclean.
The verse names the act that would count as rebellion: building "an altar other than the altar of the LORD." A second altar raised a worry bigger than the altar itself.
But behind this altar of Ed, which a spirit of worldliness had made necessary, there might lie a still worse 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 much to heart. Independence is on the point of creeping in, and their oneness is in danger.
The verse warns that the eastern tribes could make the whole nation rebels. One group's sin would land on everyone.
For if only these tribes turned away, then the Lord would be angry with the whole congregation of Israel (v.18). This is a solemn lesson for the Church of God too, and in some ways even more serious when some of its members turn away. For the Church is "one body," and "if one member suffers, all suffer together" (1 Cor. 12:26). We may not see this result clearly. That is because we lack the spiritual sense to grasp how much the disobedience of a small part damages the testimony of the Church.
What the eastern tribes had done looked bad. Israel's next move decided whether the nation survived.
The act of the forty thousand looked as dark as Israel feared. But God, who knows the motives of our hearts, gave Israel grace to find out by patient questioning what the motive really was. So He saved the nation from destruction. If Christians kept the same principle in a dispute, it would often save them from division and bitterness — which is at least as sharp as the edge of the sword, if not as deadly.
The episode ends with a warning aimed straight at the reader.
Beware of falling short of your proper position and your proper portion. Beware of being content with the things that belong to this world. Beware of taking any stand short of death and resurrection — the true, the spiritual Jordan.
- Portion — Never be content with a portion short of what God has promised.
- Centre — Land was clean or unclean by one measure: whether God's dwelling was there. Purity and peace exist where He is.
- Offer — The response to a brother in a bad place was to share their own inheritance with him, not to cut him off.
- Danger — A second altar opens the door to independence, and one group's sin lands on the whole people.
- Restraint — Patient questioning uncovered the real motive and saved the nation. The same habit spares Christians from division today.
Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing? and wrath fell on all the assembly of Israel, and he perished not alone in his iniquity.
Phinehas and the leaders with him have crossed the Jordan to challenge Reuben, Gad and half Manasseh about the great altar they built. Two names settle the case for them — Peor and Achan — and both say the same thing: what one part of the people does, the whole people carries.
The delegation offers Achan as their clinching example. One writer shows why this case carries more force than Peor:
They give one example of God's anger against all Israel because of the sin of only one man, Achan (v.20). The sin of Peor involved the guilt of many, but Achan's sin was only his, yet it affected all Israel.
The verse calls it a breach "in the devoted things." At Jericho God had put certain things under His curse, and Achan took some of them. One writer sets that sin beside the earlier sin at Peor and finds two dangers: the world's goods, and the world's religion:
The first (v. 20), after the crossing of Jordan, is the sin of Achan. He lusted after the things of the world. He took what God had cursed and brought it into the middle of the congregation of Israel, with no regard for the holiness of God. And what was the result? Divine judgment fell on all the people… In the iniquity of Peor (v. 17) we find something still worse… Peor was a corrupt alliance with the religious world — that is, the idol-worshipping world of those days. It brought that worldly religion right into the middle of the congregation of Israel, again with complete disregard for God's holiness.
The hard part of the verse is that God's anger burned against a whole nation for the act of one man. One writer finds the reason in God's presence among them:
"But the people of Israel broke faith in the matter of the devoted things, for Achan… took some of the devoted things, and the anger of the Lord burned against" — whom? Achan only? His household, his family, his tribe? No — "against the people of Israel"! The whole assembly was involved in the evil. How was this? The Divine Presence gave a unity to the whole assembly. It bound them together so that the sin of the one involved them all. It was one assembly, and so it was impossible for anyone to take independent ground. The sin of each was the sin of all, because God was among them, and He could not approve of evil that went unjudged. The whole congregation was involved, and had to clear itself of the evil before the Lord could lead it on to victory.
The last clause keeps Achan himself in view. One writer traces how far his sin spread:
Do not say you are not responsible for your family. Achan's whole family, his sons and his daughters, were brought into the valley of Achor. But one man was stoned — the head of the family. Achan was held accountable. His sin brought shame on his family, on his tribe, on his nation, and above all on the name of the Lord. His sin had changed his connections from holy privilege into defilement and national disgrace.
The lesson did not stop with ancient Israel. One writer applies it to God's people today:
The same principle applies to the Church of God and to local churches today. If one person in a church has sinned, the whole church is defiled by it. That church must deal with it, or God cannot go on with them… The Church is one as Israel was one, and the responsibility matches. God's principles never change. So the lesson God taught Israel at Jericho is a lesson for the Church too, and the New Testament teaches the same thing.
One writer traces the whole scare back to Reuben and Gad themselves:
All this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, came from a failure on the part of Reuben and Gad… There would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, no cause of alarm, had they not taken up a position that left room for doubt.
- One sin. One man took what God had placed under His curse, and the world's goods came in among God's people.
- One people. God's presence among them made them one, so no one could stand on independent ground. The sin of each was the sin of all.
- One anger. The wrath fell on the whole congregation, not on Achan alone. That is why Phinehas raises the case.
- One ruin. He did not perish alone: the shame reached his family, his tribe, his nation, and above all the name of the Lord.
- One lesson. God's principles do not change. Where one member sins, the whole company must judge it.
And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh answered and said to the heads of the thousands of Israel,
Israel was ready to go to war against its own eastern tribes over an altar built by the Jordan. This verse is the moment the accused finally speak. Everything turns on what the act really meant, and on whether brothers ask before they strike.
The western tribes read the altar as revolt. Before any blow fell, they sent Phinehas to ask what it meant.
Their brothers thought it was a sectarian altar, and they were angry — with reason. They sent Phinehas, who proves he was the right man for the errand by words that were fair, yet considerate and peace-making. A few kind words explain the misunderstanding. Our brothers across the water have no business to be there at all, it is true. But they are not as bad as we are sometimes inclined to think them. The cold mist over the river distorts what we see. What looked like a sectarian act was really only meant as an act of gratitude and worship. A dreadful war between brothers is prevented through Phinehas — and brotherly kindness is reaffirmed.
The two and a half tribes had settled east of the Jordan, outside the land itself. Commentators trace the whole crisis back to that choice.
All this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, came from a failure on the part of Reuben and Gad. True, they are able to explain themselves and satisfy their brothers about the altar. But if they had not taken up such an unclear position, there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, and no cause of alarm.
Notice what they do not do. They were wrongly accused, and their answer is explanation rather than protest.
The spirit shown by the wrongly accused tribes here was beautiful. They did not resent what their brothers did out of pride, as if their brothers were trying to interfere with their discipline. They did not refuse to answer their questions, even though they could fairly have complained about the spirit and tone behind them.
Their defence calls on God Himself as the One who knows their hearts. The altar, they say, was for their children's sake.
The two and a half tribes called the God of Israel to witness how far they were from wrongdoing or rebellion in building the altar. They had no thought of offering on it apart from God's altar. They built it so that their children would not stop fearing the LORD: "A witness between us and you, and our generations after us, ... that your children may not say to our children in time to come, You have no part in the LORD." Whether the altar was, after all, an invention of man — always dangerous in divine things, since it takes the place of faith in God and His own memorials — is another question.
The nine and a half tribes stayed to hear the reply out. One writer draws from this a rule for every dispute among believers.
Nothing shows the true godly spirit of the nine and a half tribes more strongly than their patience. They listened to the arguments of the forty thousand warriors, or rather of the two and a half tribes (Joshua 22:21)... The act of the forty thousand looked as dark as Israel feared. But God, who knows the motives of our hearts, gave Israel grace to learn by patient enquiry what the motive really was, and so saved the nation from destruction. If Christians kept to this principle in their disputes, it would often save them from division and bitterness.
Israel is at its best in this exchange. The outcome reverses what the alarm threatened.
The tribes on the west of the river heard of the altar their brothers had set up in the east. Their jealousy and fear show everything in them that could satisfy us. The answer the Reubenites and their companions give to that jealousy is just as perfect in its own way. The Jordan threatened to be a dividing wall. Through exercises like these it becomes a link between them instead.
Mackintosh presses the lesson home: the best life needs no monument and no explaining.
In the language of Joshua 22, may we so carry ourselves that we need no altar for people to look at. May we need nothing to declare where we belong, where we worship, whose we are and whom we serve. Then everything about us will be clear and beyond question. Our testimony will be distinct, and the sound of our trumpet certain.
- Cause. The alarm grew out of an earlier choice. If the tribes had not settled in a doubtful position, no altar and no defence would have been needed.
- Charge. Distance distorted the act. What looked like a rival altar was meant as gratitude, worship and witness.
- Answer. The accused called God Himself to witness their motive. They denied any thought of offering apart from God's altar.
- Enquiry. Asking first saved both sides. Patient enquiry into motive is what spares believers division and bitterness.
- Result. The river that threatened to become a wall became a link, and brotherly kindness returned.
The God of gods, Jehovah, the God of gods, Jehovah, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know [it]; if it is in rebellion, or if in trespass against Jehovah, -- save us not this day!
Israel was ready for war against the tribes east of the Jordan over a great altar they had built. This verse opens their defence: they name God three times over, appeal to what He knows, and ask for no mercy if they are guilty.
The opening cry is three separate names for God, stacked together and then repeated. A reference work lists the Hebrew and where it occurs:
El Elohim Jehovah, Joshua 22:22, the LORD God of gods.
The last of the three names carries God's bond with Israel:
Jehovah. This is a name of relationship with men, especially with Israel, taken by God in time. It comes from havah, "to exist," and can be expanded into "who is, who was, and is to come." So God reveals Himself in time as the ever-existing One… Jehovah was the name made known to Israel, and one they could count on.
So the tribes open by naming the very God their accusers said they had abandoned. (Older translations render the phrase "the LORD God of gods"; the ESV has "The Mighty One, God, the LORD.")
Their defence has two parts. The first is what God already knows. The second is what they will accept if the charge is true.
They made it clear that they give every honor to "the Lord God of gods," and they appeal to God's knowledge, which understood what they were doing (vs.21-22). They say that, if they raised this altar in rebellion or treachery, then they would accept the judgment of not being saved that day.
The delegation from the west was not overreacting. They believed that sin in one part of the nation brought consequences on the whole nation, and they said so.
They reasoned that a separate altar could not be God's altar, and so that these tribes were turning away from following the Lord… If only these tribes turned away, the Lord would still be angry with the whole congregation of Israel (v.18). This is a solemn lesson for the Church of God too, and in some ways even more serious when some of its own depart. For the Church is "one body", and "if one member suffers all the members suffer with it" (1 Cor.12:26).
Israel armed for war. But the first move was a question, not a strike.
When 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. They sent Phinehas with ten princes to look into the supposed turning away from God. They heard the explanation and accepted 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.
Commentators differ on how to read the tribes' motive. Israel accepted their explanation and let the altar stand. But others look further back and ask why a sincere Israelite would ever need such a monument:
They raise the altar and call it "Ed," as a witness, a witness that Israel's God was their God. But why all this? If they had stayed in Canaan, where the ark and tabernacle of God were, they would not have needed this. But they were not there. Shiloh was not in view, and their souls could not hold the sense that Shiloh was their common centre with all their brothers. They had to give themselves some artificial help, to give their souls a crutch, if I may put it that way.
The episode leaves a question for our own lives:
May we, to use the language of Joshua 22, so live that we need no altar to point to, and nothing to declare where we belong, where we worship, whose we are and whom we serve. Then everything about us will be clear and beyond question, our testimony will be distinct, and the sound of our trumpet certain.
- Name. The cry stacks three names of God — El, Elohim, Jehovah. The last is the name of relationship, the ever-existing One who bound Himself to Israel.
- Knowledge. Their whole defence rests on what God already knows. They appeal past their accusers to the One who cannot be deceived.
- Cost. They ask for no mercy: if the charge is true, let God not spare them that day.
- Body. Israel's alarm assumed that one tribe's sin touches everyone, just as in one body every member feels what one member suffers.
- Clarity. Zeal sent messengers before soldiers. The lesson stands: live so clearly that you need no monument to prove whose you are.
-- that we have built for ourselves an altar to turn from following Jehovah, and if it is to offer up burnt-offering and oblation on it, and if to offer peace-offerings thereon, let Jehovah himself require it [from us];
Accused of building a rival altar by the Jordan, the two and a half tribes invite God's judgment on themselves if the charge is true. Everything turns on what the altar was for — and on why they felt they needed one at all.
The tribes answer the charge by placing themselves under God's verdict. Grant follows their words from the two verses before ours into this one.
They made it clear that they give every honour to "the Lord God of gods," and they appeal to God's own knowledge of what they were doing (vs.21-22). They say that, if they raised this altar in rebellion or treachery, then they would accept the judgment of not being saved that day. If they had built the altar to turn from following the Lord, or if they built it to offer sacrifices on it, then let the Lord call them to account for it (v.23).
The denial is specific: no offering of any kind would ever touch this altar. One writer takes them at their word and sets out what it was for.
On their altar, they openly admit, they could offer no burnt offerings, grain offerings or peace offerings (verse 23). It was simply something to look at, so that their children should not stop fearing the Lord, and a witness of their place and portion in Israel.
(Older translations read "meat offerings" where the ESV has "grain offerings.")
The reaction of the other tribes looks extreme until you see what the altar meant. Sacrifice belonged at one place only, and that single altar held the nation's worship together.
The altar was, among its other features, the expression of the unity of worship, just as the Lord's Table is today for Christians. Long ago under Joshua, at the altar called Ed (Joshua 22), Israel had understood this. They had risen up with zealous energy against anyone who sacrificed on an altar other than the one at the tabernacle.
Take the denial in verse 23 at face value, and the altar's purpose stands out. They built it to be seen, not to sacrifice on — a silent claim to belong.
It was of immense size, so that it might be seen far and wide as a silent witness... 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 Jordan, are one people. But where is the witness in the Christian world today that there is one body? That witness seems to have been lost.
The explanation worked. But commentators press a further question: why was any explanation needed at all?
Now 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 the rest of Israel about the altar. But if they had not taken up an ambiguous position, there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, no cause of alarm.
Bellett reads the altar as a sign of unrest. What they built was a prop for a confidence that should have needed no prop.
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... They had to give themselves some artificial help — a crutch for their souls, if I may put it that way. It was to support the confidence and joy of their hearts: that as Israelites they shared fellowship, common interests and calling with the rest of their people.
- Appeal — Charged with rebellion, the tribes ask God Himself to judge them if the charge is true. Their defence rests on what He knows.
- Denial — No burnt offering, grain offering or peace offering would ever touch this altar. They built it to look at, not to sacrifice on.
- Unity — One altar expressed one people, as the Lord's Table does for Christians today. A second altar looked like the end of Israel's common worship, so the alarm made sense.
- Witness — Cleared of rivalry, the altar stood as "Ed," a witness that the Lord is God and that tribes divided by a river are one people. Gaebelein asks where that witness is among Christians today.
- Warning — The whole crisis grew out of an ambiguous position. A heart settled where God put it needs no monument to prove where it belongs.
and if we have not done it from fear of this thing, saying, In future your children will speak to our children, saying, What have ye to do with Jehovah the God of Israel?
The eastern tribes stand accused of rebellion. Here they give their reason: fear of the future. A river now ran between them and the rest of Israel. They dreaded the day when the children on the other side would tell their children they had no share in the Lord.
The fear was not imaginary. The Jordan really did divide them, and it divided them because of where they had settled.
Certainly Jordan was a border. It was plain to them that crossing it looked like leaving the Lord, with His holy tabernacle and its blessings, and that doing so was full of danger.
Their choice had been made long before, when good pastureland east of the river seemed reason enough to stop short.
They evidently thought less of God's call to Canaan and the pilgrimage of their brothers than of present advantages. Abraham, their ancestor, knew nothing of that side of Jordan. Moses had not mentioned it, and when they left Egypt nothing short of the promised land was before them.
In their speech the threat comes from the tribes living beside the tabernacle. Nobody on the western side had ever said such a thing.
Their brothers had never suggested divisions among the Israel of the Lord. They had never said that the Jordan was a separation between them. They had never said that their children should stop fearing the Lord. But so it is. Suppose a believer leaves his more devoted companions for a worldly tie. He will always blame those who stay with God for the results. Blaming godly people is a common ointment for an uneasy conscience. Finding fault with your brother is a universal remedy for covering your own shame.
Their fear was not the start of the problem. It was the bill arriving. A position taken for convenience keeps producing new complications.
A Christian may stop living by faith and let the principles of the world govern his conduct, even in part. Then his position is bound to become very complicated. Yet nothing is simpler than the path of faith… The Jordan separates them from the rest of the tribes. They are uneasy. They fear that the bond of fellowship between them and their brothers may not be strong enough to resist the force of the river. Their position exposes them to division. They see with worry that a moment may come when their brothers will treat them as strangers.
Another writer names the root cause, and what the altar came to stand for.
The fears of the two and a half tribes would never have arisen had they not decided to remain on the east of the Jordan, to stop short of God's purpose for His people… The altar of Ed, which means witness, stayed as a witness that the two and a half tribes belonged to Israel.
Their answer to the fear was to build something visible for miles. It carried no sacrifice, and it could not give back what distance had cost them.
They were far from the tabernacle, with its ark of the covenant and the mercy seat that went with it. Of that place God had said, "There I will meet with you and… I will speak with you." No altar, however "imposing" its size, could ever make up for the loss of this. On their altar, as they openly admit, no one could offer burnt offerings or grain offerings or peace offerings. It was only something to look at. It was there to keep their children from ceasing to fear the Lord, and to witness to their place and portion in Israel.
The western tribes were not overreacting. They feared where the new altar could lead.
But behind this altar of Ed, which a spirit of worldliness had made necessary, there might lie a still worse source of evil. Building it at all 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, their oneness is threatened.
The same failure appears among believers today.
How many there are whose place and portion among the people of God no one can question! Yet they are not ready to take possession of their heavenly position. So they settle down in comfortable surroundings on the wrong side of Jordan… They are content to keep up their Christian profession in a religious world, where there is often "an altar of imposing size." They fall short of their heavenly calling, and often become world-borderers.
- Choice — The tribes settled east of the Jordan for good pasture. They stopped short of what God had promised. Every later trouble in the chapter grows out of that one choice.
- Border — The river they chose as a home boundary became a line they feared in worship. A compromise made for convenience turns into a division.
- Blame — Their speech blames the tribes living near the tabernacle, who had said nothing. Faulting the faithful is an old way to quiet an uneasy conscience.
- Substitute — Their large altar carried no offerings. It could not replace the place where God promised to meet His people.
- Borderers — A second altar put Israel's oneness at risk. Believers today can still settle on the wrong side of Jordan and fall short of their heavenly calling.
Jehovah hath made the Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and children of Gad, ye have no portion in Jehovah! And so shall your children make our children cease from fearing Jehovah.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And we said, Let us now set to work to build an altar, not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice,
Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh had settled east of the Jordan. On their way home from the wars they built a large altar by the river. This verse is their defence. They explain what the altar was for — and what it was not for.
They copied the real altar at the tabernacle. But they ruled out ever offering anything on it.
They explain therefore the real reason for the altar. They were worried about the future. The children of Israel west of Jordan might question their right to any relationship with Israel, because the Jordan came between them (vv. 24-25). So they decided to build the altar, not to offer sacrifices, but as a standing witness to their identification with the rest of Israel (vv. 26-27). It was not an independent altar, but a replica of Israel's altar (vv. 28-29).
The altar was huge, and Israel drew the worst conclusion from it.
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, they thought it meant a separate worship set up by these two and a half tribes, and they were ready to go to war.
Their "therefore" points back to a fear about their children. One writer asks what that fear revealed.
They had lost the place in the land where the Lord had recorded His name. There, in the priesthood and the sacrifices, He had also provided for their worship and for their restoration when defiled. The returning tribes build an altar by Jordan, "a great altar to look at," in case the children of the other tribes should say to their children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD." They name the altar Ed, which means "witness." But was it not a witness that they were not in the place of privilege where they might have been?
The explanation satisfied Israel. Another commentator presses further back, to the choice that made any explanation necessary.
All this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, came from failure on the part of Reuben and Gad. True, they are able to explain themselves and satisfy the other tribes 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.
They lived far from Shiloh, where the tabernacle stood. There they could not feel their oneness with the other tribes. So they built something they could feel.
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. Shiloh was not in view. Their souls could not hold the sense that Shiloh was their common centre with all the other tribes. They had to give themselves some artificial help. They needed a crutch for their souls, to support the confidence and joy of their hearts — that as Israelites they shared fellowship, common interests and calling with the other tribes.
Their whole story began with what looked good to the eye, and the altar matched it.
Their "great altar to look at" fitted perfectly with their choice of what they had seen on this side of Jordan. It was a craving after the visible. It was a subtle trap too. They did not mean to abandon the worship of the God of Israel. But they had made a false choice in settling down in Jazer and Gilead. Their human solution is the building of the great altar to look at, something great that appealed to the eye — in reality an effort to bring God to man's ground instead of man to God's.
The name they chose carries the point of the verse. The same writer then turns that name into a question for today.
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 Jordan, are one people. But where is the witness in Christendom today that there is one body? That witness seems to have been lost.
The alternative is a life so clear that it needs no marker to explain it.
May we, to use the language of Joshua 22, so carry ourselves that we need no altar to look at. May we need nothing to declare where we belong, where we worship, whose we are and whom we serve. Then everything about us will be transparent and beyond question. Our testimony will be clear, and the sound of our trumpet certain.
- Choice. Settling short of the land created the whole problem. A clear position would have needed no altar and no explanation.
- Distance. With Shiloh out of sight, they lost the sense of a shared centre. So they propped up their hearts with something of their own making.
- Copy. They copied the real altar but barred it from sacrifice — a monument, not a place of worship.
- Witness. Named Ed, "witness," it declared that the Lord is God and that tribes divided by a river are still one people.
- Transparency. Aim at a life so plain that it needs no monument to show whose we are and whom we serve.
but to be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us, that we might do service to Jehovah before him with our burnt-offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace-offerings; that your children may not say to our children in future, Ye have no portion in Jehovah.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And we said, If it shall be that in future they so say to us and to our generations, we will say, Behold the pattern of the altar of Jehovah which our fathers made, not for burnt-offering, nor for sacrifice, but as a witness between us and you.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Far be it from us that we should rebel against Jehovah, and turn this day from following Jehovah, in building an altar for burnt-offering, for oblation, and for sacrifice, besides the altar of Jehovah our God that is before his tabernacle.
The two and a half tribes east of the Jordan stood accused of turning away from the Lord. Verse 29 is their flat denial. The altar they built was never meant to rival God's altar at the tabernacle. So why did one altar matter so much to Israel — and why did these tribes feel they needed anything at all beyond it?
Israel's alarm was not an overreaction. The altar at the tabernacle was the one place where the whole nation met God. The people were bound up with it, so a second altar looked like a second nation.
The people were so identified with the altar that they were to eat certain parts of some of the offerings presented to God. So we read, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" (1 Cor. 10:18). This was their altar. They were rightly jealous if anything seemed to interfere with THE ALTAR for all Israel, because they knew it linked them to the Lord in a remarkable way. So when the other tribes heard that the Reubenites had built an altar on the borders of the Jordan — "an altar of imposing size" — they were alarmed. They rebuked them sharply. The new altar seemed to divide the one nation. It seemed to rival the one altar that belonged to all the people who formed the one family of Israel.
The defence in verse 29 turns on what the altar was for. Fear of being cut off lay behind it.
They were afraid that one day the Israelites west of the Jordan might question their right to any part in Israel, because the river came between them (vv. 24-25). So they decided to build the altar, not to offer sacrifices, but as a standing witness that they belonged with the rest of Israel (vv. 26-27). It was not an independent altar. It was a copy of Israel's altar, and they stated plainly that it was not for offering sacrifices (vv. 28-29), but for a witness.
Israel was ready to act, but not before hearing an answer.
When the rest of Israel heard of this altar, they thought it meant a separate worship set up by these two and a half tribes. They were ready to go to war. They showed great zeal for the Lord and were ready to carry out His Word... But they were wise as well as zealous. They sent Phinehas with ten princes to look into the supposed turning away. The explanation follows, and they accept it. They then called the altar Ed, which means "witness." It was to witness between them that the Lord is God, and that the tribes, though the Jordan separates them, are one people. But where today, among Christians, is the witness that there is one body? That witness seems to have been lost.
Behind the explanation lies unease. One writer asks why they needed such a sign at all.
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. Shiloh was out of sight, and their souls could not hold on to the sense that Shiloh was their shared centre with all their fellow Israelites. So they had to give themselves some artificial help — a crutch for their souls, if I may put it that way. It was there to support the confidence and joy of their hearts that, as Israelites, they shared fellowship, common interests and calling with the rest of their people.
Verse 29 honours the true altar, yet the tribes themselves lived far from it. A great structure by the river could not supply what closeness to the tabernacle gave.
So they returned to the wilderness side of the Jordan, and on settling down in their chosen possessions, we read they "built there an altar by the Jordan, a great altar to see to" (Joshua 22:10). But it was not the altar. They were far from the tabernacle with its ark of the covenant and the mercy seat that went with it, of which God had said, "There I will meet with you and I will commune with you" (Ex. 25:22).
Note: the ESV renders that promise, "There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat... I will speak with you."
One writer turns the scene into a test for the reader.
Let us judge ourselves honestly, as in the very presence of God. Let us put away everything, no matter what, that hinders us from giving ourselves completely — in spirit and soul and body — to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. May we, to use the language of Joshua 22, so carry ourselves that we need no altar for people to look at. May we need nothing to declare where we belong, where we worship, whose we are and whom we serve. Then everything about us will be clear and beyond question. Our testimony will be distinct, and the sound of our trumpet certain.
- One altar. The altar at the tabernacle belonged to all Israel, so a second altar looked like a divided nation. That is exactly what the tribes deny in verse 29.
- One alarm. Israel was ready to fight for God's honour, yet sent Phinehas to ask first. Hearing the answer turned war into peace.
- One witness. Their altar was a copy, built to be seen and never used for sacrifice. They named it Ed, which means "witness."
- One weakness. Living far from the place where God met His people, they reached for a visible sign that they still belonged.
- One lesson. Had they stayed near the ark and tabernacle, they would have needed no prop. Live so clearly for God that nothing about you needs explaining.
And when Phinehas the priest and the princes of the assembly and the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it was good in their sight.
Phinehas the priest and ten leaders of Israel came expecting to find rebellion, but they heard an explanation instead. In this verse suspicion turns into satisfaction, and Israel calls off a war between brothers.
Israel had already gathered for war. One writer shows why they were glad afterwards that they waited.
Israel gathered together at Shiloh prepared to go to war against the 2½ tribes (vs.11-12). But they were wise. They waited before going to war and first sent a delegation. Phinehas the priest led it, and it also included 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.
Israel's anger had a reason behind it. One writer explains what the nine and a half tribes believed about the sin of one group.
The nine and a half tribes treated the sin of the two and a half tribes as a sin involving all Israel. "If you rebel against the Lord today, then tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel" (Joshua 22:18). How little Christians grasp this solemn truth: the sin of one affects the well-being of the whole. If they grasped it, they would neglect each other less and pile less blame on each other. A Christian is not a separate unit. He is one with all the saints. What he does affects others, and what others do affects him.
One writer notes what could have prevented the misunderstanding. He also says what the explanation showed the altar to be.
The wiser course here would have been to tell Israel beforehand that they meant to build such an altar. That would have avoided any misunderstanding. Still, the explanation fully satisfied Phinehas and the other delegates of Israel. Phinehas spoke their thankful approval of it. He saw that this altar was a confirmation of the unity of all Israel, and not a tragic declaration of division.
The next writer points to one quality in the nine and a half tribes above all others. He also draws a lesson for Christians who argue with each other.
Nothing proves the true godly spirit of the nine and a half tribes more strongly than their patience in listening to the arguments of the forty thousand warriors, that is, of the two and a half tribes (Joshua 22:21). Their brothers accepted those arguments, and peace was kept. Their words were good in the eyes of Israel, and they rejoiced that the Lord was among them. He kept them from openly turning away from Him. He saved them from the consuming hand of His judgment, and from the bitter necessity of fighting their brothers. The act of the forty thousand looked as dark as Israel feared. But God knows the motives of our hearts. He gave Israel grace to learn by patient enquiry what the true motive was, and so saved the nation from destruction. If Christians in dispute kept to the same principle, it might often save them from division and bitterness.
The answer settled the quarrel. One writer still asks why there was a quarrel at all.
Now all this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, came from the failure of Reuben and Gad. True, they are able to explain themselves about the altar and satisfy their brothers. But if they had not taken up an ambiguous position, there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for an explanation, and no cause for alarm.
The tribes gave the altar a name, and the name carried its message. Writers differ on whether the altar was needed, but they agree on what it said — and on how rare that witness is now.
The altar was then called Ed, which means "witness." It was to be a witness between them that the Lord is God, and that the tribes are one people even though the Jordan separates them. But where in the Christian world today is the witness that there is one body? That witness seems to be gone.
- Alarm — Israel was not petty. They held that the sin of one part harms the whole, so this altar was everyone's business.
- Enquiry — they armed for war, but sent men to ask first. They were thankful later, because the case was not what it looked like.
- Hearing — patient listening turned the crisis around. The same patience among Christians who argue might spare them division and bitterness.
- Reversal — explained, the altar confirmed unity instead of declaring division. That answer fully satisfied Phinehas.
- Witness — the altar, named Ed, said the tribes were one people though the Jordan lay between them. Writers ask where that witness is today.
And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the children of Manasseh, This day we perceive that Jehovah is among us, because ye have not committed this trespass against Jehovah now have ye delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of Jehovah.
Phinehas and ten princes came to the great altar by the Jordan expecting to find rebellion, and they left sure that none had happened. His verdict ties three things together: God's presence with Israel, the guilt one act of unfaithfulness would have spread through the nation, and the judgment Israel has escaped.
Phinehas says Israel is rescued "from the hand of the LORD" — not from the hand of an enemy. The same way of counting guilt goes back to Achan. His private theft made the whole nation guilty, because of who was living among them.
The whole assembly was involved in the evil. How was this? The divine presence gave a unity to the whole assembly; it bound them all together in such a way that all were involved in the sin of the one. It was one assembly, and so it was impossible for anyone to take independent ground. The sin of each was the sin of all, because God was in their midst, and He could not countenance unjudged evil.
If the altar had been a rival altar, the Lord's presence would have turned against all of them. Because it was not, Phinehas can now say that the LORD is among them.
Israel had already gathered for war. Then they sent men to find out the facts, before anyone drew a sword.
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 investigate the supposed falling away from God. The explanation follows, and they accept it. The altar was then called Ed, which means "witness."
Phinehas had just charged these men with treachery against God. The way they answered, not only their innocence, helped the matter end in peace.
The spirit shown by these falsely accused tribes was beautiful. They did not resent their brothers' action with pride, as if it were interference in their own discipline, and they did not refuse to answer. They could fairly have complained about the spirit and tone in which the questions were put.
Phinehas names the LORD on both sides: the trespass would have been against Him, and the rescue is from His hand. The men Israel sent were guarding more than tribal borders.
At that time they still saw Israel as one, and still valued the honour of Him who lived among them. They pressed on their brothers' consciences the evil of Peor and the sin of Achan... This calmed the rising anger of their brothers, who admitted that they were now delivered from the hand of Jehovah over the trespass they had feared.
Phinehas had shown this same zeal before, at Peor. Writers note that his alarm at the Jordan had a real basis, even though the tribes were cleared.
And now, in the matter of the altar of Ed, this same zeal moved him to stand in the gap... He feels that independence would be the ruin of the testimony. To him, setting up another altar is nothing less than the sin of rebellion against Jehovah and against the congregation of Israel. The holy zeal of Phinehas meets the danger. In principle the danger did exist, but the intentions of the heart were right, and the evil stopped.
The chapter closes in peace. Still, commentators trace the whole crisis back to an earlier failure in these tribes.
All this serious misunderstanding, all this trouble and alarm, came from the failure of Reuben and Gad. True, they are able to explain themselves and satisfy their brothers about the altar. But if they had not taken up such an unclear position, there would have been no need of the altar, no demand for explanation, no cause of alarm.
Kelly leaves one question open even after the peace.
Was the altar, after all, an invention of man? That is another question. In the things of God, human invention is always dangerous, because it takes the place of faith in God and His own memorials.
- Presence. God living among His people makes the sin of one the sin of all. No one can take independent ground while He is there.
- Peril. A false altar would have brought the hand of the LORD against the whole nation, not just its builders.
- Enquiry. Zeal for God was right, but wisdom sent Phinehas to ask questions before Israel drew the sword. The questions, not the army, saved the day.
- Answer. The accused tribes replied without resentment. The danger was real in principle, but their hearts were right, and the evil stopped there.
- Aftermath. Peace returned, but the alarm was never needed. An unclear position breeds the very suspicions it then has to explain away.
And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and the princes, returned from the children of Reuben, and from the children of Gad, out of the land of Gilead, to the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and brought them word again.
Joshua 22 ends with a war that never happened. The great altar by the Jordan had looked like rebellion to the tribes west of the river. Here the delegation heads home with an answer instead of a sword.
Before Phinehas could bring any word back, someone had to ask instead of attack. One writer finds the clearest proof of godliness in the western tribes in their willingness to listen:
Nothing shows the truly godly spirit of the nine and a half tribes more strongly than their patience in listening to the arguments of the forty thousand warriors — or rather of the two and a half tribes (Joshua 22:21). Their fellow Israelites accepted those arguments, and the peace held. Israel thought their words were good... The act of the forty thousand looked as dark as Israel feared. But God, who knows the motives of our hearts, gave Israel grace to learn by patient enquiry what the motive really was. So He saved the nation from destruction. If Christians in a dispute followed the same principle, it would often save them from division and bitterness — and such bitterness is at least as sharp, if not as deadly, as the edge of the sword.
Phinehas is named first in the returning party, and that name carries history: he is the man who had acted with deadly speed at Baal-peor. One writer sets his two appearances side by side and finds the same man suited to a very different task:
We see him a second time when the dispute arose with the two and a half tribes who stopped outside the Jordan. Their fellow Israelites thought the altar they had built was set up in separation, and they had good reason to be angry. So they sent Phinehas, who shows he was the right man for the mission by his fair yet thoughtful and peace-making words. A few kind words clear up 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 sometimes tend to think them — the cold mists of the river distort what we see. What looked like an act of division was only meant as an act of gratitude and worship. Phinehas is the instrument who turns aside a dreadful war between brothers, and brotherly kindness is restored.
The report did more than call off an invasion. It showed the western tribes what their brothers across the river actually wanted:
When this news came back to Israel, it was not only a relief but a pleasure to them. They saw that the two and a half tribes wanted to keep unity with the other tribes as close as possible (verses 32-33).
Phinehas did not travel alone, and the chiefs brought their report back to all Israel. One writer presses the principle behind that:
How little Christians grasp the solemn truth that the sin of one affects the well-being of all (see verse 20). If they grasped it, there would be less indifference toward each other, and less eagerness to pile blame on each other. The Christian is not a mere unit. He is one with all the saints. His behaviour affects others, and the behaviour of others affects him.
Peace held, yet the altar stayed where it was. Commentators differ over how much comfort to take from that. One finds its name a lasting confession of oneness, and turns it into a question for today:
The explanation follows, and Israel accepts it. They then called the altar Ed, which means "witness." It was to bear witness between them that the Lord is God, and that the tribes, though the Jordan separated them, are one people. But where in the Christian world today is the witness that there is one body? That witness seems to have been lost.
Another writer sees the need for such a witness as the real problem:
But why was any of this needed? If they had taken their portion in Canaan, they would not have needed it. They would have had the original, not a reflection. Their souls would have had the witness inside, and "Ed" would not have been needed outside.
- Enquiry — Israel asked before it attacked. Patient enquiry, not the sword, found the true motive and saved the nation.
- Envoy — Phinehas proves the right man for the errand by fair and peace-making words. Distance had distorted how his brothers across the river looked.
- Explanation — the answer brought back gave relief and pleasure. It showed the two and a half tribes wanting unity, not separation.
- Everyone — the chiefs reported back to all Israel. No believer is a mere unit, and one group's conduct affects all.
- Ed — the altar stands as "witness" that tribes split by a river are one people. Yet the need for it shows a portion taken short of Canaan.
And the thing was good in the sight of the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and no more said that they would go up in warfare against them, to destroy the land in which the children of Reuben and the children of Gad dwelt.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad gave a name to the altar; for it is a witness between us that Jehovah is God.
The near-war of Joshua 22 ends not with a battle but with a name. The two and a half tribes east of the Jordan give their great altar a name, and the name fixes its purpose. But can a monument make up for living far from the place God chose?
The name is one Hebrew word, "Ed," and the manuscripts do not all agree about it.
The Authorised Version adds this word, meaning "witness," in Joshua 22:34. Some translate the verse "gave a name to the altar" instead of "called the altar Ed." The word "Ed" appears in some Hebrew manuscripts, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions. It is not in the Greek Old Testament.
The size of the altar was part of its message.
After they went home, they built a great altar (Hebrew: an altar great to the sight). It was huge, so that people far and wide could see it as a silent witness… They then called the altar Ed, which means "witness." It was to witness between them that the Lord is God. It also showed that the tribes, though the Jordan divided them, are one people. But where today is the witness in Christendom that there is one body? That witness seems to have been lost.
The builders explain why an altar could stand with no sacrifice ever burning on it.
They were afraid of the future. The children of Israel west of Jordan might question their right to any relationship with Israel, because the Jordan came between them (vv. 24-25). So they decided to build the altar. It was not for offering sacrifices, but a standing witness that they belonged with the rest of Israel (vv. 26-27). It was not an independent altar, but a replica of Israel's altar. They declared firmly that it was not for offering sacrifices (vv. 28-29), but a witness.
Israel's alarm was not an overreaction. One altar belonged to the whole nation.
This was their altar. Their jealousy stirred, and rightly so, if anything seemed to interfere with THE ALTAR for all Israel. They knew that this altar tied them to Jehovah in a remarkable way. Then the other tribes heard that the Reubenites had built an altar on the borders of Jordan — "a great altar to see to." That alarmed them greatly, and they rebuked them sharply. It appeared to divide the one nation and to rival the one altar that belonged to all the people who formed the one family of Israel.
The confrontation itself is treated as a model of how a real danger was stopped early.
In the book of Joshua, marked by the power of the Holy Spirit with Israel, this attempt was defeated at the time of the dispute caused by the setting up of the altar, Ed (Joshua 22). Thanks to the energy of the tribes and the zeal of Phinehas, the introduction of sectarian principles was avoided. When divine principles are at stake we must not fail to stand in the gap, even at the risk of war between brothers.
Commentators differ on how to read the outcome. Some see real proof of unity. Others see the need for such a monument as an admission of loss.
But why all this? If they had taken up their portion in Canaan, they would not have needed this. They would have had the original and not a reflection. Their souls would have had the witness within, and they would not have needed "Ed" outside. They were not in Canaan; they were in Gilead. Shiloh was not in view. So they had to give themselves some artificial, secondary help. They propped up their confidence with a crutch of their own making, so that everyone would know that they and the Israel of God were one.
The danger they feared never came from where they expected.
It is all well, and their brothers (even Phinehas with his unflinching zeal for God) are satisfied with their explanations. Yet it is plain that an uneasy sense of insecurity is already haunting them. The danger may never appear from the direction they expect. We do not read that it ever did. Yet the sense of danger may still be a true warning. They have barred the door in one direction, but another door may be wide open.
The same thing happens today. A believer's place among God's people can be beyond doubt, yet his settled position falls short of God's call.
There are many whose place and portion among the people of God no one can question. Yet they are not ready to take possession of their heavenly position. So they settle down in comfortable surroundings on the wrong side of Jordan… They are content to keep up their Christian profession in a religious world, where there is often "a great altar to see to." They fall short of their heavenly calling, and often become world-borderers.
- Name. "Ed" means witness. Some Hebrew manuscripts carry the word; other texts simply say the tribes gave the altar a name.
- Witness to what. It declared two things at once: that the Lord is God, and that tribes divided by a river are still one people.
- Witness, not worship. It was a replica of the true altar, built to be seen, never to be sacrificed on — Israel had only one altar.
- Witness worth fighting for. The other tribes were alarmed because a rival altar would have divided the one nation. Only the builders' explanation satisfied them.
- Witness that cut both ways. They needed a monument only because they had settled short of the land. The same stones spoke of their faith and of what their choice had cost.