excerpt from Joshua and the Promised Land
by Roy H. May, Jr.
The tribes of Israel east of the Jordan River were settled when the movement for land in Canaan began. Sharing the same faith, the same culture, and the same concerns for land, they joined the struggle west of the Jordan River (1:12-18). Their solidarity was crucial for the success of the peasant uprising. Without their help, the movement for land in Canaan might have failed. They fulfilled Joshua's command that they be "strong and courageous" (1:18, 22:2-3). Now they were returning to their own land (22:4).
Before withdrawing to the east side of the Jordan River, these tribes "built and altar of great size" (22:10). This nearly caused civil war! The land where the altar was constructed belonged to Canaan. That land was not the inheritance of the eastern tribes. It didn't matter how faithful and necessary their service had been! Likewise, and altar was feared to be an intent to displace Yahwism. This was a serious political problem. Why!
Land claims and political-religious influence may have been the issues. Behind these issues was the question of the real Israel. A large altar could have been perceived as a landmark that established a land claim. It would represent a permanent presence of the eastern tribes west of the Jordan River. As a one-sided action, it could have been seen as a move to grab a little bit of Canaan. This would have led to conflict. However, the western tribes offered land in Canaan if the eastern tribes needed it (v. 19). Therefore it is more likely that the altar was viewed as an attempt to have a permanent presence.
An altar or sanctuary influenced daily life and tribal decisions. It combined religious and political functions. This altar was a new altar. It could have been seen as an effort to build a sanctuary rival to Gilgal, Shiloh, and Shechem, which were sanctuaries of Canaan. This would give those in charge of the altar--the eastern tribes--a permanent say in the life of Canaan. It would undermine the authority of the other sanctuaries and their leaders. This would account for the accusation of "treachery" (v. 16). During negotiations, the eastern tribes claimed that the altar was not for sacrifice (v. 26) and therefore it was not a rival to other sanctuaries. Rather, it was a memorial to their solidarity in the struggle for Canaan (v. 27). It was a sign of unity, not rebellion.
Negotiations about the altar established that the eastern tribes were Yahwist and were part of "greater" Israel. They also determined that Canaan belonged to the western tribes. The eastern tribes remained allies and followers of the same faith, but without a say in the internal affairs of Israel. Israel thus established its autonomy, even in relationship to its nearest kindred.
This old story may recall conflicts among the tribes as the people called Israel tried to consolidate their emerging nation. It is evident in the scriptures that the tribes maintained much autonomy. They had their own separate tribal histories and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, it is not surprising that well-established groups such as the eastern tribes would seek a permanent presence in the affairs west of the Jordan. Such internal struggles must have been a reality as Israel formed itself into a nation.
This story, however, has been shaped by the Deuteronomistic Historians. In the sixth century B.C.E., tensions were real. Judah was oppressed by a foreign power. Questions regarding the true Israel and the true place of worship were urgent. What was to become of the Yahwist faith and God's people with the temple in ruins and the land taken away? For the Deuteronomistic Historians, the story of the conflict between the eastern and western tribes explained that true faith was not dependent on a particular place. Rather, it was dependent on faith. What finally counted was the "witness between us that the Lord is God" (V. 34). Jerusalem and the Temple would remain in their hearts as the religious center and place of sacrifice. Nevertheless, true worship could continue even in other lands. Knowing that was important to maintaining the faith in a time of exile. (2)
2. Robert G. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1982), p. 509. return to text)
Return to Joshua: Altar and Law
 Order the Study Guides |
 Visit our other Joshua pages |
|
The Joshua
Website is a resource from:
Created by the Joshua Project Team who would appreciate your feedback. |
