Bird's-eye view
This passage is the heart of the defense offered by the trans-Jordanian tribes, and it is a masterful piece of covenantal theology. A crisis has erupted that threatens to plunge Israel into a bloody civil war. The tribes west of the Jordan, zealous for the purity of worship, see a new altar on the east bank and immediately conclude it is an act of apostasy, a rival to the one true altar at Shiloh. But here, the accused tribes, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, mount their defense. Their response is not a simple denial. It is a profound, passionate, and orthodox appeal to the God of the covenant, to the terms of that covenant, and to their deep-seated desire to remain part of the covenant people. They are not building an altar for sacrifice, which would be a heinous sin, but an altar of witness. Their great fear is not the wrath of their brothers, but the thought that future generations might be excluded from the assembly of Yahweh. This entire episode is a high-stakes lesson on the importance of unity, the dangers of presumptive judgment, and the right way to secure a covenantal inheritance for our children.
The core of their argument is that their actions, far from being rebellious, are motivated by a fear of being cut off from Yahweh. The Jordan River, a geographical boundary, threatened to become a theological boundary. Their altar was a memorial, a copy, designed to perpetually testify that the people on the east side of the river serve the same God, offer the same sacrifices at the same tabernacle, and possess the same portion in Yahweh as their brothers on the west. It is a powerful reminder that physical separation must never be allowed to create spiritual alienation within the people of God.
Outline
- 1. The Great Misunderstanding (Josh 22:10-34)
- a. The Accusation of Apostasy (Josh 22:10-20)
- b. The Passionate Defense (Josh 22:21-29)
- i. An Appeal to the Omniscient God (Josh 22:21-22)
- ii. A Denial of Sacrilegious Intent (Josh 22:23)
- iii. The True Motive Revealed: Fear of Exclusion (Josh 22:24-25)
- iv. The Altar's Purpose: A Witness, Not for Worship (Josh 22:26-28)
- v. A Final Declaration of Loyalty (Josh 22:29)
- c. The Resolution and Peace (Josh 22:30-34)
Context In Joshua
This chapter comes at a pivotal moment in the book of Joshua. The conquest of the land is largely complete, and the tribes have received their inheritances. The Lord has given them rest from their enemies (Josh 21:44). The two and a half tribes, who had settled east of the Jordan, have faithfully fulfilled their promise to fight alongside their brothers until the conquest was finished. Now, Joshua has blessed them and sent them home (Josh 22:1-8). This incident occurs as they are returning to their land. It is the first major internal crisis for the nation of Israel in the promised land. Having defeated their external enemies, they now face an internal threat: disunity and schism rooted in a misunderstanding over worship. How they handle this crisis will set a crucial precedent for how Israel is to maintain its covenantal unity as one people before Yahweh, despite geographical divisions.
Key Issues
- The Centrality of Worship
- The Sin of Schism
- The Nature of Covenant Memorials
- The Danger of Rash Judgment
- Generational Faithfulness
- The Unity of God's People
An Altar of Fearful Fidelity
It is easy to get things backwards. The western tribes saw a new altar and assumed rebellion. They saw a structure and imputed to it the worst possible motive. They were ready to go to war over it, and in one sense, their zeal was commendable. God had commanded one place of sacrifice (Deut 12:5-6), and any rival altar was an abomination, a direct assault on the unity and purity of the worship of Yahweh. An attack on right worship is an attack on God Himself. Their mistake was not in their zeal for the first commandment, but in their failure to investigate before they unsheathed their swords.
But the response from the eastern tribes is what we must focus on here. They understood the gravity of the charge. They knew that building a schismatic altar was a capital crime against the covenant. And so their defense is not casual. It is an impassioned, solemn, God-fearing appeal. They show that their motive was the polar opposite of rebellion. It was a deep and abiding fear of God, and a desperate desire to ensure their children would never be separated from that same fear. Their altar was not an act of rebellion, but an act of fearful fidelity.
Verse by Verse Commentary
21 Then the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered and spoke to the heads of the thousands of Israel.
The defense begins. Notice that this is a formal response to the official delegation from the western tribes, which included Phinehas the priest. The accused do not fly off the handle. They do not respond to the threat of war with threats of their own. They answer. They engage with their brothers. This is the first step in resolving any great misunderstanding within the church: a willingness to stop, listen, and speak reasonably to one another instead of immediately assuming the worst and preparing for battle.
22 “The Mighty One, God, Yahweh, the Mighty One, God, Yahweh! He knows, and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion or if in an unfaithful act against Yahweh, do not save us this day!
Their defense opens with a thunderous appeal to God Himself. They stack His names for emphasis: El, Elohim, Yahweh. This is not just pious throat-clearing. They are calling the highest authority in the universe to the witness stand. They are saying, "The ultimate Judge knows our hearts." This is the foundation of their entire case. Before they explain their motives to men, they declare that their motives are already known to God. And they immediately invite the ultimate penalty if they are lying. "Do not save us this day" is a self-maledictory oath. They are saying, "If we are guilty as charged, may we be struck down right now. We are willing to perish if we have committed this sin." This is how seriously a godly man takes an accusation of unfaithfulness to God.
23 If we have built for ourselves an altar to turn away from following Yahweh, or if to perform a burnt offering or grain offering on it, or if to offer sacrifices of peace offerings on it, may Yahweh Himself require it.
They now specify the sins they are being accused of and deny them point-blank. They list the three main purposes of the one true altar: burnt offerings, grain offerings, and peace offerings. They state clearly that if their intention was to use this new altar for any of these purposes, thereby turning from Yahweh's prescribed worship, then they assent to God's own judgment. "May Yahweh Himself require it" means, "May He call us to account; may He exact the penalty." They are in complete agreement with their brothers about the wickedness of setting up a rival place of sacrifice. They share the same theological convictions. The dispute is not over the law, but over the facts.
24-25 But truly we have done this out of concern, for a reason, saying, ‘In time to come your sons may say to our sons, “What have you to do with Yahweh, the God of Israel? And Yahweh has made the Jordan a border between us and you, you sons of Reuben and sons of Gad; you have no portion in Yahweh.” So your sons may make our sons stop fearing Yahweh.’
Here is the heart of the matter, the true motivation. It was not rebellion, but concern, or anxiety. They were thinking generationally. They looked at the Jordan River, that great geographical dividing line, and they saw a future problem. They could hear the argument in their heads, spoken by a future generation of western Israelites to their own children: "The Jordan is the border God made. You live outside the land proper. You have no portion in Yahweh." And the result of this theological exclusion would be catastrophic: it would make their sons stop fearing Yahweh. Their great fear was that their children would be excommunicated from the covenant community and consequently fall into apostasy. This is a profoundly pastoral concern. They are not worried about their land or their wealth, but about the souls of their children.
26-27 “Therefore we said, ‘Let us build an altar, not for burnt offering or for sacrifice; rather it shall be a witness between us and you and between our generations after us, that we are to perform the service of Yahweh before Him with our burnt offerings and with our sacrifices and with our peace offerings, so that your sons will not say to our sons in time to come, “You have no portion in Yahweh.” ’
Having stated the problem, they now explain their solution. The altar was a preventative measure. They state its purpose negatively and positively. Negatively: it is not for burnt offering or for sacrifice. Positively: it is to be a witness. A witness to what? A witness to the fact that the eastern tribes are full participants in the "service of Yahweh" at the one true tabernacle. The memorial on their side of the river points away from itself, to the central sanctuary at Shiloh. It is a perpetual, visible sermon declaring their unity in worship with the rest of Israel. It is a claim staked for their children, a testimony against any future attempt to disenfranchise them from their covenant inheritance.
28 Therefore we said, ‘It will also be that if they say this to us or to our generations in time to come, then we shall say, “See the copy of the altar of Yahweh which our fathers made, not for burnt offering or for sacrifice; rather it is a witness between us and you.” ’
They explain how the witness is intended to function. When the accusation of exclusion comes in a future day, their children will have a ready answer. They will point to the structure and say, "Look. See this? It is a copy of the altar of Yahweh." It is not the real thing, and was never intended to be. A copy is not a rival; it is a testimony to the reality and importance of the original. This altar is our proof of citizenship. It is our family crest. It proves that our fathers belonged to the commonwealth of Israel and that we, their sons, belong there too. It is a memorial built to settle future arguments before they begin.
29 Far be it from us to rebel against Yahweh and turn away from following Yahweh this day, by building an altar for burnt offering, for grain offering or for sacrifice, besides the altar of Yahweh our God which is before His tabernacle.”
They conclude their defense with one final, emphatic declaration of loyalty. The phrase "Far be it from us" is an expression of utter abhorrence. The very thought of rebelling against Yahweh is repulsive to them. They reaffirm their allegiance to the one central sanctuary, "the altar of Yahweh our God which is before His tabernacle." They are not theological liberals seeking to innovate. They are conservatives, seeking to conserve their place within the established, God-ordained system of worship. Their actions, once explained, demonstrate a deep and orthodox piety.
Application
This story is thick with application for the church today. First, we see the absolute necessity of judging with righteous judgment (John 7:24). The western tribes were ready to launch a holy war based on a misunderstanding. They assumed the worst possible motive. How often do we do this in the church? We see something we don't understand, a ministry that does things differently, a brother who makes a decision we find odd, and we immediately impute to them rebellion, compromise, or sin. This story teaches us to slow down, to ask questions, and to believe the best of our brothers until the facts prove otherwise.
Second, we see a model for how to respond to false accusations. The eastern tribes did not respond with carnal anger. They responded with a solemn, reasoned, theological defense. They appealed to God's knowledge of their hearts and then calmly laid out their true motives. When you are misunderstood or slandered, the temptation is to lash out. The godly response is to appeal to God and then, as much as possible, to patiently explain the truth to your brothers.
Most importantly, we see a profound concern for generational faithfulness. The entire motivation for this controversial altar was a desire to keep their children in the covenant. They knew that theological drift begins when one generation loses its sense of identity as part of the people of God. We must ask ourselves if we have this same kind of long-term vision. Are the things we are building in our churches, our families, and our schools designed to be a witness to our grandchildren? Are we building memorials that will testify to our children that they have a portion in Yahweh? Or are we so consumed with the present that we are letting our children drift away, cut off by the cultural river of secularism? This altar on the banks of the Jordan should provoke us to consider what "altars of witness" we are building for the generations to come.