Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: More on Joshua 22’s Altar.

TITLE: Critical thought commended.

A couple of days ago, @Wedgetweets asked a question about the trans-Jordanian altar, and I shared some initial thoughts on it.

Here are some better-organised ones, which I find more persuasive.

BACKGROUND

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 the half-tribe of 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 replica of YHWH’s altar—a fact Israel soon becomes aware of.

In response, the Israelites gather at Shiloh to discuss what to do.

Or at least we assume they discuss what to do.

All we’re actually told, however, is the end result of their discussion,

which suggests the Israelites 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 Gilead (cp. 22.32) to speak to the trans-Jordanian tribes and find out what they’ve done,

which seems a sensible course of action. (Always get the facts straight before you go to war.)

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 say.

They don’t even intend to offer sacrifices on it.

The altar is simply a replica of Israel’s altar in order to serve as a witness to the unity between the trans-Jordanians’ and Israel proper—a symbol of the their connection to 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?

Do they really not plan to offer sacrifices on their altar?

Or should Phinehas demand to see the altar for himself?

(Or does it not make much difference either way since a replica of Israel’s altar is unacceptable whatever they plan to do with it?)

Phinehas’s response is described in 22.30–33 in rather summary fashion.

Phinehas accepts the trans-Jordanians’ explanation; the war is called off; and the Israelites return to their hometowns. And all in the space of a handful of verses.

Peace is hence maintained in Israel,

and normal service is able to resume.

Or at least so it might seem.

But was Phinehas’s the right decision? Not as far as I can tell.

For a start, the justification for Phinehas’s decision has a rather ominous ring.

Phinehas endorses the trans-Jordanians’ altar simply because ‘it seem right in his eyes’ (22.30)—a phrase which is repeatedly associated with the immorality of the era of the Judges.

Furthermore, our narrator makes the trans-Jordanians’ report sound slightly suspicious.

The trans-Jordanians only give the altar the name ‘Witness’ after they have explained (away) their actions to Phinehas.

And, when they do so, its name of is curiously absent from the text (22.34).

In addition, their denial of the people’s accusation seems slightly over-zealous/mysterious (‘The Mighty One, God, YHWH! The Mighty One, God, YHWH, he knows… Far be it from us,…etc.’).

Meanwhile, our narrator’s reference to ‘what seems right’ in Phinehas’s eyes seems intended to draw our attention to the text of Deuteronomy 12,

where Moses describes how the Israelites are to worship when they enter Canaan.

The Israelites, Moses says, are not to worship YHWH in the way the nations worship their gods (12.1–4),

nor are they to do what they presently do, where ‘every man does what is right in his own eyes’ (12.8), i.e., where everyone worships in his own way and locale.

Rather, the Israelites are to worship communally and corporately (12.9–14).

In Joshua 22, then, Phinehas seems to give a green light to precisely the kind of ‘every-man-in-his-own-way’ worship which Moses wants to avoid.

And he does so because ‘it seems right in his eyes’ to do so (Josh. 22.30),

which is met with agreement by the rest of the Israelites (who say the matter seems right in their eyes too: 22.33).

A cursory consideration of Phinehas’s decision does not, therefore, reflect well on it.

Furthermore, deception lurks in the background of our text, since the first time we read about Gilead in Scripture is in Genesis 31,

where Jacob deceives Laban (by means of Rachel’s actions) and a ‘witness’ is set up in order to commemorate Jacob and Laban’s (already broken) covenant.

Might, therefore, the trans-Jordanians’ (alleged) witness be associated with a similar act of deception?

I suspect so.

And, as we’ll now see, other intertextual allusions confirm the point.

JOSHUA 22 IN ITS BROADER CONTEXT

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’s incomplete;

and sometimes it’s false (or partly false).

A pertinent example can be found in Joshua 9, where Joshua is presented with misinformation 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 in Joshua 9.14.

That is not always, however, what is done.

And Joshua 22’s intertextual connections suggest Phinehas’s decision is a case in point.

THE SHILOH CONNECTION

Joshua 22 contains a number of unusually specific details.

For instance, we’re told about where the Israelites gather,

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 size of the trans-Jordanian altar,

and a whole host of other things.

Why does the text of Scripture provide us with all these details?

Why 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, I suspect, is to bring to mind the tragic events of Judges 20–21,

where, in a virtual replay of Joshua 22’s events, the Israelites again gather at Shiloh,

again receive second-hand and incomplete information (cp. Judg. 20.4–7 w. 19.21–29),

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 decidedly negative light.

Phinehas should, I believe, have sought counsel from YHWH, but neglected to do so.

That Joshua 22’s events are to be viewed negatively is also hinted at—unusual though the idea may sound—in 22.8’s list of metals.

In 22.10, the Israelites accuse the trans-Jordanians of treachery (ma‘al).

More specifically, they claim the trans-Jordanians have committed the same ma‘al as Achan/Achar,

who took bounty from the forbidden ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’ of Jericho (cp. Josh. 7.1 w. 6.19, 24)—a list which exactly matches 22.8’s (its order included).

Also relevant, perhaps, is the unusual state of affairs associated with Mizpah (a town in/near Gilead: Judg. 10.17ff.) in Judges 11.

There, Jephthah is involved in what appears to be a horrific act of sacrifice, and is said to speak ‘before YHWH’ in Mizpah,

which is indicative of the presence of a temple/cult there.

At any rate, things do not end well for the Gileadites.

In 1 Chronicles 5’s genealogy, the tribe of Manasseh is said to have been carried away into exile as a result of its treacherous behaviour (ma‘al) (5.25–26),

which lends further weight to the Israelites’ initial assessment of the trans-Jordanians’ actions.

THE SAMARIA/BETHEL CONNECTION

Another passage where second-hand information is presumptuously acted upon (at the expense of Israel’s unity) is found in 1 Kings 12–13.

In 1 Kings 12, Jeroboam decides to set up two golden calves in Israel, one in Bethel and the other in Dan.

Soon afterwards, a Judahite man of God is sent to Jeroboam to deliver God’s word to him.

The man is instructed to travel to Samaria, curse the king and his altar, and return to Judah without delay.

On the way back, however, the man is met by a false prophet, who claims to have a message from YHWH for him.

The prophet says an angel told him (in YHWH’s name) to invite the man of God to his house for a meal.

Contra YHWH’s command, the man of God accepts the prophet’s invitation. (Like Phinehas, rather than seek clarification, he assumes YHWH has changed his mind.)

And, as a result, after he has finished his meal, he becomes the meal of a nearby lion.

The man of God’s disobedience has a major effect on Israel’s history, since it emboldens Jeroboam in his idolatry (1 Kgs. 13.33).

Indeed, after the man’s death, Jeroboam appears to have rebuilt the altar he initially tore down in fear (cp. 2 Kgs. 23).

As such, the events of 1 Kings 13 reflect the continued disintegration of Israel’s worship, which was set in motion in Joshua 22.

Initially, Israel has only one altar (on Mount Ebal: Josh. 8);

in the days of Joshua 22, she acquires a second;

and, in the days of Jeroboam, she acquires two more (courtesy of the calves in Bethel and Dan).

These notions of disobedience and disintegration find an instructive echo in the book of Daniel.

THE GENTILE WORLD CONNECTION

The shape of world history often mirrors the shape of Israel’s history (and vice-versa), which is apparent in some of Daniel’s visions.

In the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel is given a vision of an idolatrous image/colossus constructed of gold, silver, bronze, and iron (2.31–45).

Daniel’s image/colossus shares a number of features with the multiplication of altars in Israel.

First, it depicts a gradual disintegration.

Second, it depicts the disintegration of a single united empire into a twofold empire (Medo-Persia: cp. Dan. 8.20) and subsequently into a fourfold empire (Greece: cp. Dan. 8.21),

which parallels the progression from the single altar of Joshua’s early years to the twin altars of his later years to the four altars of Jeroboam’s day.

Third, like the trans-Jordanian altar, it is notable for its size and appearance (cp. Josh. 22.10 w. Dan. 2.31).

Fourth, when it starts to disintegrate—which it does because Belshazzar rejects Daniel’s counsel—, its metals are listed in the same order as they are in Joshua,

namely ‘silver, gold, bronze, and iron’—an order found in only three Biblical passages: in Joshua 6.19 (Achan’s story), in Joshua 22, and here in Daniel 5.23.

CONCLUSION

In sum, then, I take Phinehas’s decision in Joshua 22 to have been a bad one.

Given the trans-Jordanians’ textual connections with Samaria’s false prophet (as well as Achan), their report seems likely to have been untrustworthy (like the Gibeonites’).

Like Joshua, Phinehas should have been wise to that fact/possibility, and should have sought guidance from YHWH.

But he instead gave a green light to a highly dubious practice, which facilitated the disintegration of Israel’s unity and worship over the years.

Of course, some of the connections I have posited between Joshua and other texts may seem a bridge too far in the view of some readers.

But, unless we are prepared to consider such connections (and allow them to inform our exegesis),...

...it is hard to see how we can make much progress with a text like Joshua 22.

We simply find ourselves faced with an unusual story, an odd decision, no clear statement as to its merits (or otherwise), and no obvious way to proceed.

Yet the Biblical narrative is supposed to teach us and speak to us.

And it frequently does so, I submit, by means of its interconnectedness.

One of the unique features of Scripture is its presentation of continuous narrative from the time of creation to the time of Israel’s exile (and beyond).

And, as students of Scripture, we are expected to read individual texts in light of that narrative.

To close, then, two brief points.

First, a practical point.

Phinehas stumbles because he does not seek God in prayer. Let us, therefore, make sure we do not make the same mistake ourselves.

Second-hand information should never be accepted uncritically. And important decisions should always be preceded by prayer.

If they are not, hastily-made decisions can have undesirable long-term consequences.

Second, an eschatological point.

How is what we’ve considered so far anything other than a disaster? How is it Gospel?

The answer requires us to view it in light of consider God’s longer terms plans.

Whenever a structure falls in history, God has another ready to take its place.

When Israel finally crumbles and is carried away into exile, it does not mark the end of her story.

Rather, it marks the start of a new phase of Israel’s existence—a diasporised existence,

a time when Israel will exist as a community scattered throughout the nations rather than gathered together in her own land (cp. Jer. 29 w. Dan. 1).

Prophetically, that period is depicted as ‘the time of the Gentiles’, i.e., a time when Israel dwells under the shadow of Daniel’s colossus (Dan. 2).

Yet, despite the hopes of men like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, Daniel’s colossus will not last for ever.

The time will come for Daniel’s colossus to crumble, at which point an uncut stone (like the stones of Joshua’s altar) will strike the colossus at its feet and bring the whole structure to the ground,

from the dust of which a new kingdom will arise—a kingdom of stone,

a kingdom ruled by an obedient Messiah, which will ultimately grow into a mountain and fill the entire earth.

Even, therefore, when good and godly structures (like Israel’s monarchy) seem to be on the wane, God’s purposes are on the move.

Our God does not fail, and his plans inexorably advance.

‘Fear not, therefore, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom!’ (Luke 12).

THE END.

For a pdf version:

academia.edu/42091676/

P.S. Thanks to @brianjlund, @isaacsoon2, and @joelmichael24 for helpful comments.