them (the Manassites of the other side) with a blessing, in order that the words might be appended with which Joshua dismissed the two tribes and a half to their homes, namely, the admonition to share the rich booty which they had accumulated with their brethren at home, in accordance with the instructions which Moses had given them with reference to the war with the Midianites (Num 31:25.).
Verses 9-10
On the way home, when the two tribes and a half had reached the border of Canaan, they built a large conspicuous altar in the district of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan, i.e., on this side of the Jordan: “a great altar to see to,” i.e., one which caught the eye on account of its size, since it was to serve for a memorial (Jos 22:24.). The definition appended to Shiloh, “in the land of Canaan” (Jos 22:9), serves to bring out the antithesis “into the land of Gilead,” by which we are to understand the whole of the country to the east of the Jordan, as in Num 32:29; Deu 34:1; Jdg 5:17, etc. נאחז, both in the form and meaning the same as in Num 32:30, made possessors, i.e., settled down. היּרדּן גּלילות, the circles of the Jordan, is synonymous with היּרדּן כּכּר in Gen 13:10, and signifies that portion of the Ghor which was upon the western side of the Jordan.
Verses 11-12
The Israelites (on this side) heard that the tribes in question had built the altar “opposite to the land of Canaan” (lit. in the face or in front of the land of Canaan), אל־אבר, “at the opposite region of the children of Israel” (two descriptions which may be explained on the supposition that the name of Canaan is used in a restricted sense, the valley of the Jordan being expressly excepted, and Canaan considered as only extending to the valley of the Jordan). When they heard this, the whole congregation (in its heads and representatives) assembled at Shiloh, to go up, i.e., with the intention of going, to make war against them. The congregation supposed that the altar had been built as a place for sacrifice, and therefore regarded it as a wicked violation of the commandment of God with regard to the unity of the sacrificial altar (Lev 17:8-9; Deu 12:4.), which they ought to punish according to the law in Deu 13:13. This zeal was perfectly justifiable, and even praiseworthy, as the altar, even if not erected as a place for sacrifice, might easily be abused to that purpose, and thus become an occasion of sin to the whole nation. In any case, the two tribes and a half ought not to have erected such a building without the consent of Joshua or of the high priest.[1]
- ↑ “We know how sternly the law prohibited the use of two altars: because it was the will of God that His worship should be restricted to one place. When, therefore, from the very appearance it could not fail to occur to the mind of any one that they were establishing a second altar, who would not have condemned them as guilty of sacrilege, for introducing rites and ceremonies at variance with the law of God? And since it might so naturally be regarded as a wicked deed, they ought certainly to have consulted their brethren in so grave and important a matter; and it was especially wrong to pass by the high priest, when the will of God might have been learned from his lips. They were deserving of blame, therefore, because they acted as if they had been alone in the world, and did not consider what offence might easily arise from the novelty of their proceedings.” - Calvin.
