Joshua 22 "Ed"



Around 1830 an elderly man and his sister sat down with a lawyer to draw up their will.

Neither had ever married,

and they wanted to do something useful with their life's savings,

so they determined to endow a scholarship at Princeton Seminary.

They had been born and reared in Scotland,

under the ministry of John Brown of Haddington,

one of the finest preachers in 18th century Scotland.

They had settled in Orange County, New York,

where they had taught school for many years.



This is what Robert and Marian Hall said in their bequest:

Whereas, after a life of nearly fourscore years, much of which has been spent in examining the Word of God, we are fully satisfied of the correctness of the doctrines of religion as laid down in the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and as held by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, we desire that the scholarship which is endowed by this our bequest of two thousand five hundred dollars, be called the ED Scholarship, as a witness between us and the Theological Seminary, that the Lord he is God, agreeable to the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Farther, it is our will, that the Professors in said Seminary be careful, that no person holding sentiments inconsistent with the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, be ever admitted to the benefit of said Scholarship.



The lawyer who was drawing up the will was puzzled as to the meaning of the name "ED."

Marian Hall replied, "And dinna ye ken, young mon? E'en go and read your Bible."

"Well, I have read it, and still I do not recollect the meaning or use of ED."

After explaining its significance as the name of a monument in Joshua 22:34,

the elderly lady summarized the heart of the issue-as far as she was concerned:

"I dinna like your Hopkinsian. I believe in the doctrines of the Bible,

as expressed in the Confession of Faith."(1)



Robert and Marian Hall understood well that the doctrinal divisions of the 1820s and 1830s

might result in division (the Presbyterian church did divide in 1837),

just as the erection of an altar nearly led in the division of the east and the west

in Joshua's day.

And they hoped that their scholarship could do its part as a witness-

a testimony of the unity of the church, united around the "doctrines of the Bible,

as expressed in the Confession of Faith."

The Halls would not live to see the division of 1837 or the reunion of 1869,

but they understood that they lived in a time that paralleled the situation of Joshua 22:

a time when the church was in danger of being split apart,

and only faithfulness to God's Word could preserve the church.



This is a very useful example of how we, as Christians,

should think of ourselves and our own lives in terms of the history of God's people.



But what is going on here in Joshua 22.



1. The Eastern Tribes Return Home (22:1-9)

Reuben, Gad, and east Manasseh are permitted to return home.

Moses had given them an inheritance on the east side of the Jordan.

But notice the warning that is given:

you must remember who you are.

You are about to go across the Jordan again,

out of the heart of the land.

But even if you are physically on the wrong side of the Jordan,

do not go out of the land spiritually



2. The Eastern Altar (22:10-12)

on western soil



it sounds bad



3. The Western Objection to the Altar (22:13-20)

Phineas's delegation

notice that Joshua is not mentioned

his job is finished

he is no longer the one that leads Israel into battle

he will summon Israel one last time,

but he is not the ruler in the land,

he is merely the one that brought them into their inheritance



the priest comes to the fore-it is a religious/cultic issue, so Phineas is sent

along with ten chiefs-one from each of the western tribes



Two examples as to why this is a bad idea:

The sin at Peor (Num 25:3)

when Israel yoked itself by marriage to the Baal of Peor.

The idea that "even yet we have not cleansed ourselves" suggests that

there were still mixed marriages (even the best generation was not sinless)

But at Peor, Phineas had taken the lead in purging Israel

by obeying the LORD and slaying the wicked.

The erection of an altar other than the LORD's altar is forbidden:

remember Achan:

one man's sin brought judgment upon all Israel.

Achan had sought to give himself religious significance by taking God's gold,

and a pagan priestly garment,

but instead he became the cause of the slaughter of the Israelites at Ai.

"He did not perish alone for his iniquity"



4. The Eastern Response (22:21-29)

The eastern tribes respond by pleading their innocence:

v22-23

This is not an altar for sacrifice, but only for witness.

It is to be a monument-a visible sign of the unity of the people of God.

5. Resolution (22:30-34)

And this satisfies Phineas.

Intent is a significant part of the question of sin.

Building an altar is not inherently sinful.

Sacrificing on an altar other than the one the LORD has appointed is sinful!

Indeed, Phineas declares that the answer of the eastern tribes has

"delivered the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD."

Israel will not need to go to war because the eastern tribes have spoken and acted faithfully.



And so Israel blesses God for his provision of deliverance (recall Song of Simeon and 1 Chr 29)



Judges will end with a similar situation:

Israel gathering together to go to war,

but their delegation will get a different response,

and judgment will fall against one of the tribes of Israel.





Conclusion:



In the end, what do we have?

An altar that speaks.

An altar that witnesses to that Yahweh is God

An altar that witnesses to the unity of the people of God.

1. "The ED Scholarship at Princeton Seminary," Presbyterian Magazine 7.8 (August, 1857) 369-70.