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.