The alarm (vv. 11–14). The word traveled quickly that the tribes east of the Jordan had erected an altar. While these Transjordanic tribes had been very sincere in what they did, their action was misunderstood, and the other tribes prepared for possible war. But wisely, they waited while an official delegation investigated what was going on. “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18: nkjv).
The delegation of ten princes, one from each tribe, was led by Phinehas, the son of the high priest, a man who had already proved himself courageous in defending the law of the Lord (Num. 25; Ps. 106:30–31). It was the responsibility of the tribal leaders and the priests to investigate every situation in Israel that appeared to be a breach of the law (Deut. 13). God had instructed the Jews to destroy the altars of the heathen nations in Canaan and not to build altars of their own. There was to be one altar of sacrifice at the one sanctuary that God had appointed (Deut. 12; Lev. 17:8–9).
The appeal (vv. 15–20). It’s likely that Phinehas made the speech, but note that his address represented the agreement of all the tribes. Phinehas called what they had done a trespass (vv. 16, 20, 22 [transgression, kjv], 31), which means “an act of treachery.” Joshua had commended these two and a half tribes for their loyalty, and now they had proved faithless. They had turned away (vv. 16, 18, 23, 29), which meant they were no longer following the Lord (see v. 5). This word carries the idea of “backsliding,” gradually moving away from the Lord.
The strongest word used was rebel (vv. 16, 18–19 [twice], 22, 29), which means deliberately resisting God’s will and disobeying His law. In building an unauthorized altar, these two and a half tribes were guilty of apostasy. “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam. 15:23).
From the nation’s recent history Phinehas cited two serious cases of rebellion as warning to these tribes. The first was the participation of Israel in the heathen rites of the Moabites, when the men committed harlotry with the Moabite women (Josh. 22:17; Num. 25). As a result, 24,000 people died. The second was the sin of Achan after the victory at Jericho, when he deliberately took the spoils that belonged to the Lord (Josh. 22:20; see Josh. 7). His sin led to defeat at Ai and the deaths of thirty-six Jewish soldiers. It also led to his own death and that of the members of his family.
The delegation gave a wise word of counsel: “Come over and dwell with us, because we have the Lord’s tabernacle in our land” (22:19, paraphrase). No man-made altar could substitute for the presence of the Lord among His people in His tabernacle. It’s too bad the two and a half tribes didn’t take this advice and claim their inheritance within the land that God had promised to bless (Deut. 11:10–32).
The argument (vv. 21–29). The accused tribes invoked the name of the Lord six times as they replied to the charges, and in so doing, they used the three fundamental names for the Lord: “El [the Mighty One], Elohim [God], Jehovah [the Lord].” It was a solemn oath that their intentions were pure and that the Lord knew their hearts.
Of course, the fact that the Lord knows our hearts, and that we’ve taken an oath, is no guarantee that our actions are right, because we don’t know our own hearts (Jer. 17:9). All sorts of questionable activities can be shielded by, “But the Lord knows my heart!” Paul gives us the right approach in 2 Corinthians 8:21; “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men” (niv). When a whole nation misinterprets what is supposed to be a good deed, and it brings them to the brink of war, then there must be something wrong with that deed.
The accused tribes made it clear that they weren’t setting up a rival religion because the altar they built wasn’t for sacrifices. Rather, they were putting up a witness that would remind the tribes west of the Jordan that Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh were a part of the Jewish nation.
It’s interesting that the Transjordanic tribes pointed to the children as their concern. But it wasn’t their children who would ask, “What have we to do with the Lord God of Israel?” No, their children would be provoked by the children of the tribes in Canaan! Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh were not even living in the land of God’s choice, yet they feared lest the children across the river would lead their children astray! It seems to me that the danger was just the opposite.
Not only did the Transjordanic tribes accuse their fellow Jews of having worldly children, but they even accused God of creating the problem in the first place! “For the Lord has made the Jordan a border between you and us” (Josh. 22: nkjv). No! They were the ones who had made the Jordan River the dividing line! In choosing to live east of the Jordan, the two and a half tribes separated themselves from their own people and from the land God had given to all of them. They put their cattle ahead of their children and their fellow Jews, but they blamed God and the other tribes for the problem that they created.
What kind of “witness” was this huge pile of stones? Was it a witness to the unity of the nation and to the obedience of the Transjordanic tribes? No, it was a witness to expediency, the wisdom of man in trying to enjoy “the best of both worlds.” The two and a half tribes talked piously about their children, but it was their wealth that really motivated their decision to live east of the Jordan.
Somewhere near this “witness altar” were the twelve stones that the men had carried from the midst of the Jordan River (4:20–24). It reminded the Jews that they had crossed the river and buried their past forever. Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh had crossed the river and gone back again. Their “altar” contradicted the altar that Joshua had erected to the glory of God. “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God” (Col. 3: nkjv).