§ 4. Return of the Trans-Jordanic Tribes.—Joshua’s Last Exhortations.—Accounts Given in Other Places of the History of Joshua.—Condition of the Israelites under Him
After the distribution of the land, the two and a half tribes were dismissed to their territory by Joshua. The departure took place at Shiloh. A decree which met them upon their way back had almost given rise to a bloody civil war; the event is of importance so far as it shows us how the strict judgments of God in the wilderness, and His manifestations of grace on the taking of the land, did not fall short of their aim, since they had inspired even the mass of the people with the desire to be well-pleasing to the Lord, and with holy awe of incurring His displeasure by neglect of His commands. When the tribes had come to the Jordan, therefore to the eastern boundary of the land of Canaan in the stricter sense, they there built an altar, on the shore on this side, not on the opposite side, as some have supposed, contrary to the clear, literal sense, and with total misapprehension of the meaning of the act. Their intention was that this altar, an image of the altar in the tabernacle of the covenant, should bear witness to posterity that its builders had communia sacra with those in whose land it was built, had part and inheritance in the Lord. The trans-Jordanic country was never expressly mentioned in the promises to the patriarchs, which is remarkable, and shows that they were not made only post eventum. They feared that because the land on their side of the Jordan was the true land of promise, the seat of the sanctuary of the Lord, the descendants of the tribes on this side might, at a future time, contest with them the participation in the prerogatives of the covenant-nation, and exclude them from the sanctuary of the Lord. In accordance with the spirit of antiquity, as it speaks most characteristically in the words of Joshua to the nation on another opportunity, Joshua 24:27, “Behold this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which He spake unto us,” they believed that they could meet this danger in no better way; and the very fact that they sought so carefully to meet it shows that faith had struck its roots into them. They did not transgress the command of Moses to build no other altar besides that in the tabernacle of the covenant. What they erected bore the name of an altar only in a figurative sense. They had no intention of sacrificing there, in opposition to Deuteronomy 12:13, “Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest.” Their altar was nothing more than an image and memorial. They were to blame only in not telling their plan and design previously to Joshua and the high priest Eleazar, and obtaining their approval. The news of their undertaking caused great disturbance among the tribes on this side, who were ignorant of its object. It did not indeed occur to them that the altar was dedicated to another god than the God of Israel; so flagrant an apostasy could not have been imagined at that time. But the opinion was that they wished to honour the true God by sacrifice in a self-chosen place, and even this appeared as the beginning of a greater and complete apostasy, to guard against which had been the very object of the law relative to the imity of the sanctuary. The ἐθελοθρησκεία with regard to places leads to the ἐθελοθρησκεία with regard to objects of worship. This is the deepest reason of the Mosaic regulation. Worship must be withdrawn from the province of caprice, from the invention of the nation. Just as they were to worship God not after their own subjective ideas, but as He had revealed Himself, so also they were to worship Him where He had revealed Himself, where He had promised to be. The people flocked together to Shiloh, determined, to prevent the intended evil. But before going any further, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the high priest, who had formerly distinguished himself by his zeal for the Lord, comp. Numbers 25, was sent in company with the ten princes of the tribes to the two and a half tribes, in harmony with the regulation in Deuteronomy 13:15, according to which the truth of the report of such evil was first to be examined into, before proceeding to punishment. His address to them is earnest and severe. The answer of the two and a half tribes removes the misunderstanding, restores peace, and awakens great joy. With the distribution of the land Joshua had fulfilled his vocation. He now retired to his town Timnath-Serach upon Mount Ephraim, Joshua 19:50, and there spent the last years of his pilgrimage in quiet retirement. When he perceived that his end was approaching he sent for the people—i.e., as appears from the limiting definition in Joshua 23:2 and Joshua 24:1, the representatives and officers of the nation, perhaps also those who had repaired voluntarily to the prescribed place of assembling—and there addressed them in the affecting speeches related in Joshua 23-24. Some—for example, Calvin and Maurer—have assumed that both chapters contain one and the same address of Joshua, uttered at Sichem—the former by extract, the latter in detail. But Masius, on Joshua 23, has already pointed out the contrary very clearly. The new mention of the assembly of the whole people, and of the place where it was convened, in Joshua 24, is totally inexplicable on the other hypothesis. The place where the first discourse was held—in which Joshua begins by reminding the nation of all the mercies of the Lord, and then represents to them the blessings which they have to expect if they are faithful, and the punishments if they are unfaithful—is not defined. And just because this is not done, we must conclude that the assembly was held at Shiloh, beside the holy tent, which from Joshua 18:1 to the death of Joshua appears throughout as the centre of the nation. The second, and far more solemn assembly, was called at Sichem. The reason why a second assembly was convened lies in the character of the place. It gave the people an incitement which had been wanting in Shiloh. The LXX. regarded it as so strange that Shiloh should not rather have served for the place of assembling, that they substituted Shiloh for Sichem. Some think they can explain it from the sole circumstance that Sichem was the place where the rulers of the people were assembled in order to bury the bones of Joseph, comp. Joshua 24:32. It is at least possible that this happened at that time, although it might equally well have happened before (which is even more probable), since in the passage referred to it is only told by way of supplement. But in no case is this supposition necessary to explain the choice of Sichem. We have already seen that it was a place especially hallowed by memorials of the patriarchs. There the patriarch Jacob had undertaken a similar consecration of his house, comp. Joshua 24:23, Joshua 24:26 with Genesis 35:2-4. Shiloh had nothing of the kind to show; already the name of the town, from שׁלה, to be at rest, and the way in which, in the book of Joshua, it is combined with the observation that the whole land rested from war, Joshua 18:1, appears to indicate that the town was first founded by the Israelites, and increased rapidly; because, by means of the national sanctuary, it had become the national centre. Sichem had received new meaning through Joshua himself, who there solemnly renewed the covenant with the Lord, immediately after the first entering the land; and perpetuated this renewal by a memorial. Owing to this very circumstance, it must have appeared to Joshua specially fitted for his present design, because it was his intention, before his end, to constrain the people once more to keep the covenant. From the circumstance that in Joshua 18:1 it is said that the Israelites appeared before the Lord at Sichem, many have supposed that Joshua had either the ark of the covenant alone, or else the whole sacred tabernacle brought to Sichem. לפנייהוה, certainly, is not unfrequently used of the ark of the covenant, and there is no lack of examples of its having been brought from its usual place to another on special occasions. But it follows from Joshua 24:26 that this was not the case here; at least we are not at liberty to assume that the words “before God,” לפניהאלהים, have reference to it. Here we read: “And Joshua took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak (not, as some maintain, an oak) that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.” By the “sanctuary of the Lord” it is impossible here to understand the ark of the covenant, or the tent, because we read that the oak stands in it. But even if we were to grant that the במקדשׁ might here mean “in the neighbourhood of the sanctuary,” although the ב can never exactly mean “near to,” it would yet be quite unsuitable to say that the oak was beside the ark of the covenant, since the latter would rather have been beside the former. The ark would only have been here temporarily, while the oak remained permanently. Evidently it is the author’s object to give an exact definition of the place where the memorial was. But how could the ark of the covenant or the tent serve as such, when it might perhaps be carried away again on the following day? Without doubt the correct view is the following: The oak is that tree under which Abraham had his first vision of the Lord, after his immigration into Canaan, and near which he had built an altar: comp. Genesis 12:6-7. Under the same oak Jacob had afterwards buried the idols which his wives had brought with them from Mesopotamia, Genesis 35:4. The environs of this oak were sacred by the events which had occurred there. They were therefore called מקדשׁ, sanctuary; just as Jacob called the place where he had a vision ביתאל, “the house of God.” Great was the number of sanctuaries in this sense in Canaan, because great had been the revelations of the Lord in the past. Their recognition was not at variance with the law respecting the unity of the sanctuary. For this had reference only to the sanctuary as a place of sacrifice. Here, therefore, where the nearness of God was especially palpable, Joshua summoned the nation before God. And here he begins by recounting to the Israelites the whole series of the benefits of God, beginning with the call of Abraham. The only difficulty we have is that in Joshua 24:12 it is said that the Lord sent hornets before the Israelites, which destroyed the Canaanites out of their land. We find no mention of this in the book of Joshua. Nevertheless many expositors have thought it necessary to assume that a number of the Canaanites were really driven away by hornets. The Catholics were the less able to do otherwise, since in the Book of Wisdom, Ws 12:8, the plague of hornets seems to be narrated as a historical occurrence. Some try to meet the objection drawn from the silence of the book of Joshua by supposing that reference is here made to an event prior to the occupation of the Israelites—a view whose untenableness, however, may readily be shown. In order to prove the possibility of the thing, those passages have carefully been collated which tell of great damages caused by flies, wasps, etc.: comp. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 4, 13. But neither here nor in the promises, Exodus 23:28, Deuteronomy 7:20, to which Joshua alludes, and which he characterizes as fulfilled, is there any argument in favour of the view that the sending of hornets by the Lord is to be understood literally; which would only be the case if the history told of a literal fulfilment. With equal justice we might also maintain that Joshua 23:13 is to be understood literally, where we read that the Canaanites were made “snares and traps “to the rebellious Israelites, scourges in their side and thorns in the eyes. We find similar images elsewhere: comp. Deuteronomy 1:44; Isaiah 7:18. The hornets are an image of the divine terror, by which the minds of the Canaanites were first made soft and cowardly, so that they lost the power of resistance, as appears from Exodus 23:28, comp. with Exodus 23:27. Augustine already takes this view, August. Quoest. 27 in Josh.: “Acerrimos timoris stimulos quibus quodammodo volantibus rumoribus pungebantur ut fugerent.” Joshua then puts to the nation the solemn question, whether they will continue to serve the Lord. And when this is answered in the affirmative, and reiterated in the affirmative, after he has placed before the nation all the greatness of the promise, he solemnly renews the covenant of the Lord with them. On this renewal a document was written and appended to the law of Moses, to the Pentateuch, which lay by the side of the ark of the covenant. Later, when the book of Joshua had been composed, and the original documents had been incorporated in this, it ceased to be appended to the Pentateuch. Some, indeed, try to understand Joshua 24:26, where this particular is recorded, as referring to the whole book of Joshua; but the entire context speaks so clearly against this view, that its origin can only be attributed to the effort to make the book itself bear testimony to its having been composed by Joshua. Not long afterwards Joshua died at the age of 110 years (about the year of the world 2570). In ancient times much trouble was taken to find in heathen authors confirmations of the history of Joshua. In this respect those were most in error who made him the Hercules of the Greeks, a jeu d’esprit which now scarcely deserves mention. But, with special interest, in the same spirit in which people now in England inquire concerning the ten tribes of Israel, investigations were made concerning the region to which the Canaanites who fled before Israel repaired. There is scarcely any country of the earth in which some one has not placed the escaped Canaanites, drawing a strong proof for his assumption from the names of countries, places, and nations. It would be loss of time for us to subject these productions of a vain imagination to profound examination. Even the opinion, which has comparatively the best foundation, that the Canaanites fled to Africa, and especially to Numidia, of which theory the main support is a passage from the late and uncertain Procopius (Vand. ii. 20), does not deserve a thorough examination. We refer to the discussion of Anton v. Dale, at the end of the work de origine et progressu idololatrias, Amstld. 1696, p. 749 sqq., after reading which it will appear incomprehensible how Bertheau can still maintain that scarcely any objection can be made to its authenticity; or how Lengerke can speak of the well-known authentic inscription. At all events it is certain that the Canaanites were not all destroyed by the sword of the Israelites. Yet there is nothing inconsistent with the supposition that those who did not perish, nor, like the Jebusites, maintain themselves for a long period in the land taken by the Israelites, in that part of the country which had not been reached by the conquests of the Israelites, may have found refuge in Phoenicia and in the district of Lebanon and Antilebanon. It is also possible that a portion of these fugitive Canaanites may have helped to form Phoenician colonies. But it is improbable that great hosts of them emigrated and peopled whole countries, which is certainly not warranted by any consideration.
We shall now make a few observations on the history of religion in Joshua’s time. That in this period there was no further advance of the Old Testament principle, such as took place afterwards by the prophets, may be inferred from the character of it, as portrayed in the previous historical sketch; so that we must regard it à priori as a totally useless undertaking when Ewald here tries to insert a whole series of religious institutions, which he has torn away from their natural soil, that of the Mosaic time. Inter arma silent leges. The main theme of the age was rather an external one—that of putting Israel in possession of the promised land, and so securing the condition of future development. The most fitting emblem for this period is the Angel of God with the drawn sword, which meets us just on its threshold. Joshua himself, the representative of Israel at this time, is throughout a warlike figure. Already the Pentateuch places him in remarkable contrast with Moses. But at the same time this period was entrusted with the task of exercising the nation in obedience to the law given by Moses, of teaching them to learn this law by heart. And the latter aim, as we have already fully seen, was attained in a high degree. In Judges 2:7 we read: “And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord that He did for Israel.” Yet this applies, as is self-evident, only to the mass of the people; it would clash with all experience and with the scriptural idea of human nature if we were to assume that every individual among the Israelites was free from idolatry. Idolatry was, as unbelief is now, the form in which at that time the mind of the natural man appeared. We can never separate it from this its basis, and regard it as something accidental, as an incomprehensible absurdity. Among the mass of the Israelites this natural tendency was suppressed and hindered from breaking out, if not completely destroyed, partly through love to the true God, whose magnanimous acts they had just experienced, partly through fear of Him and of the strict control of His servant Joshua. How distinctly Joshua stands out in the foreground at this time, and how little it helps the current interchange of theocracy and hierarchy, appears from the remark of Paulus: “This high priest (Eleazar) must have led Joshua with great delicacy, since his name appears so little in the history, while Joshua seems to do everything.” Nevertheless we cannot but suppose that individuals transgressed this barrier, and if not openly, yet in secret, practised idolatry—or at least did homage to subordinate gods besides the true God. For it is very difficult to conceive the complete non-existence of the heathen deities, those giant images, which had the consensus gentium against it. But we can prove by definite testimony that it was so. Joshua says in his farewell speech, Joshua 24:14 : “And put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt;” and Joshua 24:23 : “Now, therefore, put away the strange gods which are among you.” It is true that Augustine in the Quaest. 29 in Josuam, Calvin, and recently Keil, have supposed that reference was here made, not to external idolatry, but to idolatrous fancies and thoughts. But if these cannot be excluded in any way, the words clearly imply the putting away of literal idols. And, moreover, it is impossible to conceive of idolatrous thoughts without an effort after their realization in idolatrous worship. That the fear of God had not become absolutely universal also appears from Joshua 22:17, where the messengers of the ten tribes say to the two and a half tribes to which they are sent: “Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day?” Some understand these words in a sense according to which they would not belong here. Thus Calvin thinks that “from which we are not cleansed until this day” is equivalent to “which we still have fresh in our memories;” Michaelis: “which even now tends to our reproach and shame.” But already Masius has shown that this meaning does not satisfy the text. The being cleansed from a fault means the granting of forgiveness for it, according to the prevailing usage of Scripture, which cannot be abandoned even here. It had, indeed, already been granted, after the heroic act of Phinehas, with regard to the whole nation, in so far that a stop was put to the destructive punishment, comp. Numbers 25:2. But the absolute bestowment of forgiveness was not yet implied in the cessation of the punishment. This was attached to a condition, the repentance of the individuals involved in the guilt; and, since the whole nation had more or less participated in it, to the repentance of the whole nation. Phinehas here explains that the unconditional bestowment of forgiveness had not yet come to pass; and hence we are justified in concluding that, even at that time, a considerable portion of the nation continued in a perverse mind; for if they had truly turned away from the sin, they would also have been freed from the divine anger which rested upon them. Concerning the external form of religion in this period there is little to be said. The sole remarkable change which took place in that respect, viz. the transfer of the sanctuary to Shiloh, has already been commented on. The impression made on the after-world by the events of Joshua’s time, the incitement thus afforded to the love of God, and their significance for the religious development of the nation, we and others learn from the beginning of the 44th Psalm: “We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work Thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How Thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand, and plantedst them; how Thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favour unto them.”
