THREAD: In the tweet embedded below, Steven Wedgeworth (@Wedgetweets) raises some insightful questions about the text of Joshua 22.
Here, I suggest how I think the text can, and perhaps even *should*, be read.
Please feel free to share better ideas.
Here, I suggest how I think the text can, and perhaps even *should*, be read.
Please feel free to share better ideas.
In Joshua 22, at the end of Joshua’s first campaign, the land of Canaan is divided up and allotted to different tribes.
Per their agreement with Moses, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh are allotted land on the far side of the Jordan,
which, in 22.6, they go to inherit.
Per their agreement with Moses, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh are allotted land on the far side of the Jordan,
which, in 22.6, they go to inherit.
When they arrive, however, they erect a copy (tavnit) of YHWH’s altar,
which Israel soon comes to hear about.
which Israel soon comes to hear about.
In response, the Israelites gather at Shiloh and discuss what to do.
Or least we would *assume* they discussed what to do.
All we’re actually told, however, is the upshot of their discussion,
which suggests they did not confer for long.
Or least we would *assume* they discussed what to do.
All we’re actually told, however, is the upshot of their discussion,
which suggests they did not confer for long.
‘When the people of Israel heard about the altar’, we read, ‘the whole assembly gathered at Shiloh to make war against the people of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh’ (22.12).
Before they set out, the Israelites send Phinehas (together with ten tribal heads) to speak to the trans-Jordanian tribes and find out what they’ve done,
which is surely a sensible course of action.
(Always get the facts straight before you start a war.)
which is surely a sensible course of action.
(Always get the facts straight before you start a war.)
But, when Phinehas speaks to the trans-Jordanians, he gets a surprise.
The trans-Jordanians haven’t built a copy of Israel’s altar in bad faith, they tell him. They don’t even intend to offer sacrifices on it.
The trans-Jordanians haven’t built a copy of Israel’s altar in bad faith, they tell him. They don’t even intend to offer sacrifices on it.
The altar is simply a replica of Israel’s altar in order to symbolise the trans-Jordanians’ unity with Israel’s worship and sacrifices.
As such, the text of 22.1–29—which is a fairly long and protracted narrative—ends on a note of suspense.
What should Phinehas do?
Can the trans-Jordanians be trusted?
Should Phinehas demand to see the altar for himself?
What should Phinehas do?
Can the trans-Jordanians be trusted?
Should Phinehas demand to see the altar for himself?
Or does it not make much difference either way since any replica of Israel’s altar would be unacceptable?
The answer is described in 22.30–33 in decidedly terse terms.
Phinehas accepts the trans-Jordanians’ explanation (since it ‘seems right in his eyes’);
the war is called off;
and the Israelites return to their towns (since Phinehas’s decision ‘seems right in their eyes’ too),
Phinehas accepts the trans-Jordanians’ explanation (since it ‘seems right in his eyes’);
the war is called off;
and the Israelites return to their towns (since Phinehas’s decision ‘seems right in their eyes’ too),
and all in the space of a handful of verses.
Peace is hence maintained in Israel, and all is well.
Or at least so it seems.
But was Phinehas’s decision the correct one?
I’m personally not so sure.
Here’s why.
Peace is hence maintained in Israel, and all is well.
Or at least so it seems.
But was Phinehas’s decision the correct one?
I’m personally not so sure.
Here’s why.
The Biblical narrative describes a number of incidents where people are presented with second-hand information and are required to make a decision on the basis of it.
Sometimes that information is accurate;
sometimes it is incomplete;
Sometimes that information is accurate;
sometimes it is incomplete;
and sometimes it is simply false (or partly false).
A relevant example can be found in Joshua 9, where Joshua is presented with false information by the Gibeonites and makes a bad decision on the basis of it.
A relevant example can be found in Joshua 9, where Joshua is presented with false information by the Gibeonites and makes a bad decision on the basis of it.
In such situations, the right decision is invariably to seek YHWH’s counsel, as is stated explicitly in Joshua 9.14.
But that’s not always what *is* done.
But that’s not always what *is* done.
In my view, Joshua 22 is a case in point.
The Israelites fail to seek YHWH’s counsel. And, as a result, they make a bad decision,
which marks the start of the break-up/disntegration of Israel.
Below are some reasons why I think Joshua 22 should be read in such a way.
The Israelites fail to seek YHWH’s counsel. And, as a result, they make a bad decision,
which marks the start of the break-up/disntegration of Israel.
Below are some reasons why I think Joshua 22 should be read in such a way.
The text of Joshua 22 contains a few unusual and unusually specific details.
For instance, we’re told where the Israelites gather when they decide to go to war,
who they send to speak to the trans-Jordanian tribes,
For instance, we’re told where the Israelites gather when they decide to go to war,
who they send to speak to the trans-Jordanian tribes,
the nature of the plunder taken back to the trans-Jordanian region (‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’),
the unusual size of the trans-Jordanian altar,
and many other things.
the unusual size of the trans-Jordanian altar,
and many other things.
Why do we need to know all these details?
Who does it matter, for instance, where the Israelites gather?
And why are the plundered metals listed in the order ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’? Why not in order of value?
Who does it matter, for instance, where the Israelites gather?
And why are the plundered metals listed in the order ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’? Why not in order of value?
One purpose of these details is to bring to mind the tragic events of Judges 20–21,
which, like the events of Joshua 22, are framed within the context of a time when men do what seems right ‘in their (own) eyes’.
which, like the events of Joshua 22, are framed within the context of a time when men do what seems right ‘in their (own) eyes’.
In Judges 20–21, in a virtual replay of Joshua 22, the Israelites again gather at Shiloh,
again receive second-hand and incomplete information,
again fail to seek YHWH’s counsel,
and again decide to go to war (ill-advisedly).
again receive second-hand and incomplete information,
again fail to seek YHWH’s counsel,
and again decide to go to war (ill-advisedly).
Moreover, Phinehas is again at the centre of things (cp. Judg. 20.18 w. 27–28).
As such, the wider Biblical narrative casts the events of Joshua 22 in a distinctly negative light.
Phinehas should have sought counsel from YHWH, but failed to do so.
As such, the wider Biblical narrative casts the events of Joshua 22 in a distinctly negative light.
Phinehas should have sought counsel from YHWH, but failed to do so.
That Joshua’s events are to be seen negatively is reinforced by 22.8’s list of metals.
In 22.10, the trans-Jordanians are accused of treachery. Specifically, they are said to have followed the example of Achan,...
In 22.10, the trans-Jordanians are accused of treachery. Specifically, they are said to have followed the example of Achan,...
...who took bounty from the forbidden ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’ of Jericho (cp. Josh. 7.1 w. 6.19, 24)—a list which does not mirror Joshua 22’s by coincidence.
Another passage where second-hand information is presumptuously acted upon (and Israel’s unity is the casualty) is found in 1 Kings 12–13.
In 1 Kings 12, Jeroboam decides to set up two sites where the Israelites can worship golden calves—one in Bethel and one in Dan.
Soon afterwards, a man of God is sent to Jeroboam to deliver God’s word to him.
The man of God is told to go to Samaria, deliver God’s word of judgment to the king, and return to Judah without hesitation.
The man of God is told to go to Samaria, deliver God’s word of judgment to the king, and return to Judah without hesitation.
On the way back, however, he encounters a false prophet, who claims to speak on YHWH’s behalf.
The false prophet invites the man of God to turn aside and eat and drink with him.
The false prophet invites the man of God to turn aside and eat and drink with him.
Foolishly, the man of God declines to seek counsel from YHWH.
Like Phinehas, he thinks YHWH might have changed his mind.
Like Phinehas, he thinks YHWH might have changed his mind.
He hence takes the false prophet at his word, and perishes soon afterwards.
The man of God’s disobedience has a major effect on Israel’s history.
‘After this thing occurred’, we are told (i.e., after the man of God disobeyed God’s word and died), ‘Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way’.
I.e., Jeroboam was emboldened by the man of God’s death.
‘After this thing occurred’, we are told (i.e., after the man of God disobeyed God’s word and died), ‘Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way’.
I.e., Jeroboam was emboldened by the man of God’s death.
As such, the events of 1 Kings 13 continue the story of decline which begins in Joshua 22.
Israel goes from one centre of worship in the wilderness,
to two centres of worship in the days of Joshua 22,
to four in the days of Jeroboam (courtesy of the calves in Bethel and Dan).
Israel goes from one centre of worship in the wilderness,
to two centres of worship in the days of Joshua 22,
to four in the days of Jeroboam (courtesy of the calves in Bethel and Dan).
These notions of disobedience and disintegration find an instructive echo in the book of Daniel.
In Scripture, the shape of world history often mirrors the shape of Israel’s history (and vice-versa)—a point I might tweet on some time—,
which is very evident in Daniel’s visions.
In Scripture, the shape of world history often mirrors the shape of Israel’s history (and vice-versa)—a point I might tweet on some time—,
which is very evident in Daniel’s visions.
In the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel receives a vision of an idolatrous image/colossus constructed of gold, silver, bronze, and iron.
Daniel’s image/colossus shares a number of features with Israel’s history as we read from Exodus through to 1 Kings 13.
First, it tells a story of disintegration.
First, it tells a story of disintegration.
Second, and more specifically, it depicts the disintegration of a single united empire into a twofold empire (Medo-Persia) and eventually into a fourfold empire (Greece),
which mirrors the progression from the Tabernacle worship of Exodus to the twin altars of Joshua 22 to the four centres of worship of 1 Kings 12–13.
Third, like the trans-Jordanian altar, Daniel’s colossus is notable for its size and appearance (cp. Josh. 22.10, Dan. 2.31).
Fourth, when Daniel’s colossus starts to disintegrate (because Belshazzar rejects Daniel’s counsel), its metals are listed exactly as they are in Joshua 6–7, 22 (viz. ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’: Dan. 5.23)—an order only found in these three passages.
CONCLUSION:
In sum, then, I take Phinehas’s decision in Joshua 22 to have been a bad one.
Viewed in light of the wider Biblical narrative, Phinehas’s decision seems to have kickstarted the gradual disintegration of Israel’s unity and worship,
In sum, then, I take Phinehas’s decision in Joshua 22 to have been a bad one.
Viewed in light of the wider Biblical narrative, Phinehas’s decision seems to have kickstarted the gradual disintegration of Israel’s unity and worship,
which is a sad and tragic story.
Either way, it’s been fun to think about some of these things (I hope), and the lesson for us is fairly clear.
Either way, it’s been fun to think about some of these things (I hope), and the lesson for us is fairly clear.
Don’t accept second-hand information uncritically.
And, before important decisions are made, always seek counsel from the Lord.
Pray, Pray, and, again I say, Pray!
THE END.
And, before important decisions are made, always seek counsel from the Lord.
Pray, Pray, and, again I say, Pray!
THE END.
