How do we reconcile the building of a separate altar in Joshua 22:10 with earlier commands to worship at one central sanctuary? 1. Introduction to the Passage Joshua 22:10 states, “When they came to the region of the Jordan in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built an imposing altar there by the Jordan.” The apparent problem arises because the Israelites had previously been commanded to offer sacrifice only at the one central sanctuary, as set forth in earlier passages such as Deuteronomy 12:5–14. This presents an important question: How do we reconcile the building of a separate altar with the command to worship at one place? The text itself clarifies that this altar was not intended for sacrificial use. However, many read the account and wonder if a contradiction or disobedience occurred. The following sections examine the biblical text, explore historical and archaeological considerations, and show how these passages align in unity without contradiction. 2. The Command for a Central Sanctuary Throughout the Torah, emphasis is placed on worshiping in the singular location where God set His Name. Deuteronomy 12:5 exhorts, “Instead, you must seek the place the LORD your God will choose...” While in the wilderness, this place was the tabernacle, and later, as the Israelite settlement became permanent in the land, this central location was at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1). This principle underscored Israel’s need for unity in worship and obedience to the instructions given through Moses. The unity of worship at a central sanctuary was to guard Israel from idolatry and from the fragmenting practices seen in surrounding cultures. Thus, from the outset, building separate altars for sacrificial use would be out of line with the commands given in Deuteronomy. 3. Context of Joshua 22: The Eastern Tribes’ Return Home After the land was subdued, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh—who had been granted territory on the east side of the Jordan—were released by Joshua to return to their inheritance (Joshua 22:1–9). They had faithfully helped the other tribes in conquest, so Joshua blessed them and they departed. When crossing back east of the Jordan, they built a large altar (Joshua 22:10). Immediately, there was deep concern among the other tribes that this signaled a break from worship at the central sanctuary. If the Eastern tribes were establishing a competing site for sacrifices, it would threaten Israel’s unity and stand in direct violation of God’s command. Hence, the other tribes gathered at Shiloh, ready for confrontation (Joshua 22:12). 4. The Nature and Purpose of the Altar The resolution comes when the Eastern tribes clarify their motive: • Not for Sacrifice or Offerings: They explain, “Far be it from us to rebel against the LORD…” (Joshua 22:29). The altar was never meant to replace the legitimate worship at the central sanctuary. • A Witness or Memorial: Their stated aim was to create a reminder or witness to future generations that they, too, were part of the covenant community. The altar symbolized the unity shared with the other tribes so that future descendants on either side of the Jordan would not doubt it (Joshua 22:26–27). Because the altar was not used for burnt offerings or sacrifices (Joshua 22:28–29), it did not violate the command against multiple worship centers. Instead, it stood as an outward sign of their shared faith and membership in the community bound by the covenant at the central sanctuary. 5. Addressing the Appearance of Contradiction When commands in Scripture appear contradictory, the broader context usually clarifies the intent. Deuteronomy’s instruction remained clear: sacrifices were to be offered only at the single approved altar. Joshua 22’s altar was never intended to rival Shiloh. A straightforward reading of the end of Joshua 22 confirms that once “the Reubenites and Gadites named the altar Witness, for they said, ‘It is a witness between us that the LORD is God’” (Joshua 22:34), the rest of Israel was satisfied. The conflict arose from the appearance of wrongdoing, but the tribes’ explanation removed the suspicion. The account actually reaffirms the central worship principle rather than negating it. 6. Biblical Theology of Memorial Altars Throughout the Old Testament, altars sometimes served as memorials or markers rather than ritual sacrifice centers. For example, in Joshua 4, stones from the Jordan were set up as a memorial to remind future generations of God’s miraculous provision. In a similar vein, the altar in Joshua 22 stands as a testimony of unity and identity in the covenant, rather than a competing place to duplicate sacrifices. Such monuments assist communal memory and bind the present generation to the past faithfulness of God. 7. Insights from Historical and Archaeological Context • Common Practice of Boundary Markers: In the ancient Near East, large stones or altars could serve as boundary or treaty markers. While Joshua 22 does not explicitly call it a boundary marker, the principle of having a shared sign of commitment fits the pattern. • Tabernacle and Central Sanctuary at Shiloh: Excavations at Shiloh have uncovered structures and pottery remains from the earlier periods of Israel’s settlement, suggesting a stable, centralized place of worship. This corroborates the central location commanded in the Bible and shows a singular significant site, aligning with the biblical account in which the official sacrifices occurred at Shiloh (e.g., Joshua 18:1). These pieces of cultural context highlight that an altar-like structure or large memorial construction did not necessarily always function as a place for sacrifices. Indeed, in harmony with the text, it often symbolized a significant covenant or important communal moment. 8. Pastoral and Theological Application • Guarding Against Misinterpretation: The tribes acted promptly to calm suspicions, illustrating the importance of explaining motives and actions that may appear contrary to established commands. Likewise, misunderstandings still arise today, and a humble approach can preserve unity. • Keeping the Main Sanctuary Central: The account powerfully reinforces the principle of worshiping God in the way He commands, emphasizing unity under one core authority. • Sacred Reminders: Scripture consistently shows that physical memorials can guide future generations to remember God’s works and remain faithful. In the same way, believers use tangible reminders (communion, baptisms, Scripture readings) to keep God’s covenant and promises at the forefront. 9. Conclusion The reconciliation of Joshua 22 with Deuteronomy 12’s command for a single worship place is rooted in understanding the Eastern tribes’ intention. They built the altar as a memorial, a witness to the unity of all Israel in worshiping God at the central sanctuary, rather than as an alternative site for sacrifice. Once their motives were clarified, it became evident that no contradiction existed. The earlier commands in Deuteronomy remain intact, and the Eastern tribes faithfully upheld communal worship at the main altar in Shiloh. Far from being a rebellious act, this secondary altar functioned as a unifying monument. Both the narrative details and subsequent acceptance by the other tribes underscore that true worship, as prescribed by God, steadfastly continued at the one sanctuary. Hence, Joshua 22:10 demonstrates Scripture’s consistent message of calling believers to a single, divinely appointed center of worship, while allowing for meaningful symbols that honor the same covenant. The building of a “separate altar” did not violate God’s commands but rather reinforced the shared faith and covenantal identity of all Israel. |
    |