p. 124Ladies and Gentlemen,—
I now call your attention to an episode in which you might not expect to find particular evidence of the truth of the Bible, and yet which may be found, in that respect, as full of suggestion as anything we have looked at. There is no miracle in it, and nothing specially dramatic: yet its bare existence as a matter of record calls for explanation that may bring with it mighty conclusions. I refer to that passage in Israel’s history set forth in the 22nd chapter of Joshua.
You may recollect that before the crossing of the Jordan, Moses made war upon and overcame the two kings of the eastern, or Trans-Jordanic section of the Holy Land—Og, king of Bashan, and Sihon, king of the Amorites. Their territories, Gilead and Bashan, were so specially suitable for the rearing of cattle, that the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who had much cattle, p. 125 requested Moses that they might be allowed to settle in these territories, instead of finding their inheritance on the Canaanitish side of the Jordan. After momentary demur, Moses consented to their request on condition that their armed men should accompany the other tribes across the Jordan and remain with them, and help them, till the whole land should be subdued. In accordance with this covenant, the men of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh crossed the Jordan with the other tribes, and fought with them against the Canaanites till the end of the war, which occupied five years. At the end of the war Joshua dismissed them to go to their cities and their families on the eastern side of the Jordan, saying, “Ye have not left your brethren these many days unto this day, but have kept the charge of the commandment of the Lord your God. And now the Lord your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he promised them: therefore, now return ye and get you unto your tents and unto the land of your possessions which Moses, the servant of the Lord, gave you, on the other side Jordan.”
The Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites, who had been encamped at Shiloh during the interesting ceremony of dividing the conquered land, then struck their tents, and marched towards Jordan. Arrived there, they bethought themselves of the possibility in days to come of the river proving a barrier between their descendants and the descendants of their brethren on the west side of the Jordan and leading the latter to disown the former. Holding conference on the matter, they resolved to erect and leave behind them on the western side of the river some memento of their connection with the western tribes. They decided that this memento should take the shape of p. 126 a facsimile of the great altar that stood in front of the tabernacle at Shiloh, inside the court. Such a monument they thought would be indisputable evidence of their connection. This altar they accordingly built on the bank of the Jordan at the spot where they made the passage over the fords of the river.
Rumours of what they had done reached the other tribes at Shiloh, who, not knowing its object, imagined it was an act of rebellion and separation, and holding hasty conference, resolved to make war on the two-and-a-half tribes, if it should prove that it was as they suspected. They first sent a deputation to them, consisting of Phineas, son of the high priest, and ten chief princes of the tribes, demanding an explanation of their action. “What trespass is this,” said they, “that ye have committed against the God of Israel to turn away this day from following the Lord, in that ye have builded you an altar that ye might rebel this day against the Lord?”
The two-and-a-half tribes soon explained matters: “God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord and turn this day from following the Lord to build an altar for burnt offerings. . . . besides the altar of the Lord our God that is before His tabernacle.” We have done it “for fear of this thing; in time to come, your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have ye to do with the Lord God of Israel?. . . . Therefore we said, Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, but that it may be a witness between us and you and our generations after us that we might do the service of the Lord before him.”
The explanation completely disarmed the resentment of the deputation who returned to the congregation at Shiloh and caused great gratification by their p. 127 report. “The thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God.” Instead of making war, they agreed that the altar should be recognized for the purpose designed by the two-and-a-half tribes, and should be called Ed or Witness.
Such are the facts of this simple and touching transaction. And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the question to consider is one that I have frequently submitted to you in the course of this argument. How came such a narrative to be written? Here it is: and here it has been as long as ever these Jewish writings have had existence. There must have been an object in the writing of it. The man who first took pen in hand to write it had a motive in making the record. The object was either to record facts or to produce an effect. What effect could such a narrative produce? There is no miracle in it. There is no prodigy in it. There is nothing sensational in it—nothing to gratify patriotism—nothing to cause Israel to appear great—nothing that could serve any conceivable human purpose whatever. If you think there was, or could be, try and suggest it. You must necessarily fail. Yet here it is; you must account for its existence, for records do not come into existence without a cause. Is it possible to account for it on any other principle than the simple one that the thing happened, and was recorded as a matter of fact? You cannot rank it with exaggerated narrative, or with legends that arise from the colouring of plain occurrences. It is too simple for that. There is no clothing about it of any kind, it is absolutely literal and colourless. What more simple or commonplace than a bit of prudent foresight, and a misunderstanding, and a deputation, and an explanation?
p. 128 Ladies and Gentlemen,—the incident happened. The existence of the record is proof of it, for in no other way could the record have come into existence. Now if this be so, consider what the occurrence of the incident proves. It proves many things outside of itself. What made the congregation at Shiloh so sensitive with regard to the altar-building of the two-and-a-half tribes? Some of the details of their message not yet quoted shew us. It was previous experience that made them so hot as to threaten war. It was fear of the Divine anger. “It will be,” said they, “seeing ye rebel to-day against the Lord that to-morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel.” Why should they be so apprehensive on this score? Because they had had heavy experience of what the Lord’s anger meant. This is the reason they give. “Is the iniquity of Peor (the trepass in the matter of Balaam’s counsel) too little for us from which we are not cleansed until this day although there was a plague in the congregation of the Lord?. . . . Did not Achan, the son of Zarah, commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.” Here is a reference to two incidents only five or six years old at the time; so that the challenge of the Jordan-altar brings with it proof of the overthrow of Jericho (when Achan trespassed) and the plague-punishment of the congregation for trespass with the daughters of Moab; and with the proof of these comes the proof of God’s miraculous co-operation with Israel, without which neither the one incident nor the other could have happened.
The circle of inferential proof goes far wider than that. There is the altar itself with a history: the p. 129 existence of the tabernacle in Israel’s midst; the fact of Canaan’s overthrow by an unmilitary nation from Egypt under Moses; these and many other things come into view as we contemplate the witness-altar on the bank of the Jordan: and all of them bring God with them: none of them are possibly susceptible of a rational account apart from the fact of God working with Moses; and if God worked with Moses the whole Bible is proved, for it is inconceivable that God would begin a work that He would not finish and carry forward to its appointed completion.