Bible Study - Sabbath School Podcast

Clear Boundaries

Using the same words that were addressed to him at the beginning of the book (Josh. 1:7-8), Joshua states that the task that lay ahead of Israel is not primarily military in nature. It is spiritual. It has to do with obedience to God’s revealed will in the Torah.

Why do you think Joshua took such a strong position concerning Israel’s relations with the surrounding nations? (Josh. 23:6-8, 12, 13).

The danger facing Israel is not the threat of the remaining nations’ animosity but the risk of their friendship. Their weapons might not represent any challenge to Israel; however, their ideology and values (or counter-values) could prove to be more harmful than any military force. Joshua draws the attention of the leaders to the crucial fact that the conflict they have been involved in is first, and ultimately, spiritual. Therefore, Israel has to maintain its unique identity.

The prohibition of invoking the name of a god, swearing by it, and serving or bowing to it has to do with idolatry. In the ancient Near East, the name of a deity represented his or her presence and power. Invoking or mentioning the names of foreign gods in everyday greetings or business transactions meant recognizing their authority and helped lead the Israelites to seek their power in time of need (compare with Judg. 2:1-3, 11-13).

The danger of intermarriage with the remaining Canaanites consisted in losing Israel’s spiritual purity. The intent of Joshua’s admonition is not to promote racial or ethnic purity, but rather to avoid idolatry, which can lead to the spiritual collapse of Israel. The case of Solomon is a dramatic example of the sad spiritual consequences of intermarriage (1 Kings 3:1, 1 Kings 11:1-8); in the New Testament, Christians are openly warned against seeking marital relationships with nonbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14), although, in the case of existing marriages, Paul does not advise divorce from the unbelieving spouse but calls them to live an exemplary Christian life in hope of winning the spouse to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:12-16).

Joshua’s warning against harmful associations inevitably leads to the question of the Christian’s relationship to the “world.” How can we find a balanced relationship with the society that surrounds us?

A Sign of Concern

The glorious conclusion of the whole section (Josh. 21:43-45) carries within it the fulfilled condition of obedience. Success is never to be taken for granted; it is always linked to obedience to God’s Word. Thus, the allotment of the land, besides being the token of God’s faithfulness to Israel (Neh. 9:8), creates space for an open-ended future development based on Israel’s attitude. Will Israel be able to secure what has been achieved?

Read Joshua 23:1-5. What are the major focal points of Joshua’s introduction?

Joshua’s speech moves from the old and aged speaker (emphasized twice) to the audience who will have to carry on the mission entrusted to them by God. He describes how the conquest of the land was possible: the Lord fought for them. Even though, because of their unfaithfulness and disbelief, the Israelites had to be involved in warfare after the Exodus, it was not through their military power but through God’s intervention that they managed to possess the land.

God has given rest to Israel from its enemies, but there are some nations left that still have to be dispossessed. Victory is not an accomplished, unchangeable reality for Israel but an ever-present possibility by constant reliance in faithfulness on God’s available help.

What are the similarities between how the Israelites conquered Canaan under Joshua’s leadership and the way Christians today can live a victorious spiritual life? Read Josh. 23:10, Col. 2:15, 2 Cor. 10:3-5, Eph. 6:11-18.

The victories of the Israelites could not be attributed to their strength and strategy. Similarly, spiritual victory over sin and temptation have been secured through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but God’s people today must constantly rely on the spiritual supplies provided by the Holy Spirit in order to live a triumphant life.

With so many wonderful promises before us, why do we still find it so easy to sin?

All Came to Pass

In Joshua 21:43-45, what picture does the book paint of God? How do these words apply not only to the historical Promised Land but also to the reality of our salvation (2 Tim. 2:11-13)?

These verses constitute the climax of the book and its theological summary. They highlight one of the major themes of the whole book: the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh, who keeps His promises and fulfills His oaths. This short section also summarizes the entire content of the book so far. Joshua 21:43 speaks of the allocation and settlement of the land (Joshua chapters 13-21), while Joshua 21:44 refers to victories won over the enemies and control gained over the land (Joshua chapters 1-12). All this retrospective is viewed through the prism of God’s faithfulness. The Israelites must always remember that they can never claim the victories over their enemies or the land as their inheritance—except through God’s loyalty to His given word.

He gave “all the land” (Josh. 21:43, NKJV, emphasis added), delivered “all their enemies into their hand” (Josh. 21:44, NKJV, emphasis supplied), and according to “all that He had sworn” (Josh. 21:44, NKJV, emphasis supplied), “all came to pass” (Josh. 21:45, NKJV, emphasis supplied). The repeated use of the word kol, “all,” six times in three verses (Josh. 21:43-45), emphasizes once again the truth that the land is the gift of Yahweh, and Israel can take no credit for receiving it. It was the Lord who swore to “give” the land and who “had given” their enemies into their hands.

All Israel’s success has to be solely attributed to God’s divine initiative and trustworthiness. This is equally true concerning our salvation: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9, ESV).

Indeed, emphasizing God’s faithfulness, Paul also wrote: “The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:11-13, ESV).

How does God’s faithfulness in keeping His promises give us confidence that none of His promises for the future will fail? (See 1 Cor. 10:13, 2 Cor. 1:18-20.)

Sabbath Afternoon

Read for This Week’s Study: Josh. 21:43-45; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Joshua 23; Rev. 14:10, 19; Deut. 6:5

Memory Text: “Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” (Joshua 21:45, ESV).

When John F. Kennedy addressed America at his inauguration, on January 20, 1961, his speech was only 1,366 words, but it left an indelible mark on the American mind. As he encouraged his country to focus on their responsibilities instead of their privileges, he said: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

As Joshua, the aging leader of the Israelites, sensed that he was nearing the end of his life, he decided to address the leaders of the nation and the Israelites (Joshua 23, and 24). Joshua 23 is focused more on the future and on how to worship God: exclusively. Joshua 24 reviews God’s faithful acts in the past, with the purpose to prompt a decision concerning who alone deserves to be worshiped: Yahweh.

This week, we will study together the first speech of Joshua, in which he glances back at the victories of Israel, but at the same time traces the path of future success for Israel.

* Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, December 20.

Further Thought: Read Ellen G. White, “The Division of Canaan,” pp. 517-520, in Patriarchs and Prophets.

“While it is important on the one hand that laxness in dealing with sin be avoided, it is equally important on the other to shun harsh judgment and groundless suspicion. . . .

“The wisdom displayed by the Reubenites and their companions is worthy of imitation. While honestly seeking to promote the cause of true religion, they were misjudged and severely censured; yet they manifested no resentment. They listened with courtesy and patience to the charges of their brethren before attempting to make their defense, and then fully explained their motives and showed their innocence. Thus the difficulty which had threatened such serious consequences was amicably settled.

“Even under false accusation those who are in the right can afford to be calm and considerate. God is acquainted with all that is misunderstood and misinterpreted by men, and we can safely leave our case in His hands. He will as surely vindicate the cause of those who put their trust in Him as He searched out the guilt of Achan. Those who are actuated by the spirit of Christ will possess that charity which suffers long and is kind.

“It is the will of God that union and brotherly love should exist among His people. The prayer of Christ just before His crucifixion was that His disciples might be one as He is one with the Father, that the world might believe that God had sent Him. This most touching and wonderful prayer reaches down the ages, even to our day; for His words were, ‘Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word.’ John 17:20. While we are not to sacrifice one principle of truth, it should be our constant aim to reach this state of unity.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 519, 520.

1. How can the admonition of Paul to “count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3, ESV) help us to avoid surmising evil about our brothers and sisters?
2. Why do we often overreact to a situation because of our past failures or mistakes? How can we avoid this tendency?
3. Discuss the significance of listening to the viewpoint of others. How can we develop a culture of listening in our church? (Compare with James 1:19.)
4. We live in a society in which the requirements of our professional life, family responsibilities, church-related commitments, and other duties can seem overwhelming. How can the principle of doing everything as to the Lord not only make us more responsible but also bring us peace of mind?

Discussion Questions:

Conflict Resolution

Read Joshua 22:30-34. How does this entire incident give us some insights into conflict resolution and ways of ensuring the unity of the church? (Compare with Psalm 133; John 17:20-23; 1 Pet. 3:8-9.)

The story of Joshua 22 has several principles of communication that can apply to everyday human relationships in the family, church, and community.

1. When things go wrong, or seem to go wrong, the best thing to do is to communicate instead of suppressing our observations until they explode. It is good for God’s people not to remain indifferent when problems seem to arise. Of course, had the Transjordanian tribes communicated their intent of building an altar, the whole issue could have been avoided.
2. Even if one is convinced about their judgment, do not jump to hasty conclusions. The West Jordan tribes were quick to believe the rumor that reached their ears and to draw the false conclusion that the East Jordan tribes already had apostatized.
3. Talk about the real or perceived problems before you act on your conclusions.
4. Be willing to make a sacrifice in order to achieve unity. The West Jordanian tribes were willing to give up part of their allotment to accommodate the other tribes, if being on the other side of the Jordan was the cause of their assumed apostasy.
5. When accused, falsely or rightly, give a gentle answer that turns away wrath. To answer an accusation with a counter-accusation will never lead to peace. Try to understand before attempting to be understood.
6. Rejoice and bless God when peace is re-established. It is wonderful to see that the main Israelite congregation experienced genuine joy when they learned about the true motivation of the two-and-a-half tribes. They were not so proud of their judgment that they could not admit they were wrong in making it.

Had the East Jordan tribes apostatized, the people of Israel would have applied the requirements of the covenant. Unity can never be an argument to water down truth or give up on biblical principles. However, church discipline should always be the last (and not the first) resort, after attempts at reconciliation and pastoral assistance based on God’s Word have failed. How different would our churches look if these simple principles were consistently applied!

A Gentle Answer

Read Joshua 22:21-29 in the light of Proverbs 15:1. What can we learn from the answer of the eastern tribes?

The answer of the accused, as straightforward and powerful as the accusation, constitutes both thematically and structurally the heart of the chapter. So far, the tribes have not replied to the accusations but instead have quietly listened to the allegations against them. Given the seriousness of the charges, their patience is exemplary as they display the true meaning of the proverb: “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1, NKJV).

The opening sentence of the defense is a string of divine names attributed to Israel’s God: El, Elohim, Yahweh (Josh. 22:22). It is repeated twice with a growing force, as it becomes a solemn oath in order to dispel the doubts and false accusations that almost lead to a civil war in Israel. They are strongly convinced that God fully knows and understands the situation, and they hope that the present delegation will arrive at the same conclusion. The two-and-a-half tribes also recognize their accountability before the Lord by calling Him to take vengeance (compare with Deut. 18:19, 1 Sam. 20:16) if they are indeed guilty.

A surprising revelation follows, which on the one hand proves the basis of the indictment void (an altar cannot serve only as a place of sacrifice) and, on the other hand, discloses their true motivation. Fear of separation from Israel, rather than apostasy, was the true ground for their action. Thus, the building of the altar is not evidence of apostasy, as had been supposed. Actually, the contrary is true: they have acted out of fear of the Lord, just as the western Jordan tribes did. The true basis of Israel’s unity is not geography or the physical extent of the inheritance but their spiritual allegiance to the requirements of the Lord.

The genuine concern of the tribes on the west side of the river is also revealed in their authentic joy as the innocence of the tribes on the east is ascertained. Instead of feeling defeated by the arguments of their brothers, they show sincere happiness that their suspicions turned out to be wrong. Civil war in Israel was avoided and the unity of the nation preserved.

How do you handle false accusations? Share some of the principles that guide your attitude. For inspiration, see Psalm 37:3-6, 34, 37.

Haunted by the Past

Read Joshua 22:13-15 again, but now in the light of Numbers 25. Why do the Israelites choose Phinehas as the head of the delegation to the two-and-a-half tribes?

Before giving full credit to the rumors of what might be perceived as a declaration of independence, the nine-and-a-half tribes, labeled twice as “the sons of Israel,” send a delegation to clarify the intent and meaning of the altar. The delegation consisted of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the high priest, who would succeed Eleazar after his death (Josh. 24:33). Phinehas already has gained some visibility as the priest who put an end to the debauchery of Israel at Baal Peor (Numbers 25).

“Now when Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel” (Num. 25:7-8, NKJV).

Phinehas surely had some influence. The other emissaries were representatives of the nine-and-a-half tribes west of the Jordan, each being the head of a tribal family (literally, “head of his father’s house”), within the clans of Israel.

The delegation opens the indictment of sacrilege and rebellion with the official prophetic formula “thus says”. The distinction here is that it is not the Lord speaking but the “whole congregation of the LORD” (Josh. 22:16, NKJV). They launch the accusation that Israel committed trespass, treachery, and rebellion. The term “trespass” is the same Hebrew word that was used to describe Achan’s sin (Josh. 7:1) and appears several times in the first five books of Moses (for example, Lev. 5:15; Lev. 6:2; Num. 5:6, 12). The examples of Achan and Baal Peor serve as precedents: one for treachery and the other for rebellion. They also express the fear of the nine-and-a-half tribes that the act of building an unauthorized altar will lead to apostasy, idolatry, and immorality, which will incur the wrath of the Lord upon the entire nation of Israel.

We all have negative experiences from the past that will shape the way we deal with similar incidents in the future. How can God's grace help to ensure that the tragedies of our past do not determine the way we treat our neighbors in the present?

Accusations...

Read the story of the returning tribes in Joshua 22:9-20. What accusations do the West Jordan tribes level against the East Jordan tribes? To what extent were these accusations well founded?

In contrast with verse 1, where the tribes on the east side are called by their usual form (Reubenites, Gadites, etc.), here a different expression is used: “sons of Reuben,” “sons of Gad,” and “the half-tribe of Manasseh,” which is in contrast to the “sons of Israel” (Josh. 22:11, NASB), thus representing a different entity.

In the narrative, the expression “the whole congregation of Israel” refers only to the nine and a half West Jordanian tribes, underlining the rift that developed between the two groups. Indeed, the underlying question of the ensuing story is whether the tribes on the east side of the river can be seen as Israelites.

We would expect a smooth conclusion to the story; however, tension arises as the tribes from the east are reported to have erected an altar at the Jordan. The text here does not offer any reason for the act, nor does it describe the function of the altar or specific activity related to it. The ambiguity concerning the meaning of this altar is increased even more if we observe the flashbacks to the first crossing of the Jordan, in chapters 3 and 4, where all Israel entered the edge of the Jordan to cross the river into mainland Canaan. Here a part of Israel comes to the region of the Jordan, but now to cross the river in the opposite direction.

In both cases, a structure of stones is erected. The first served as a memorial, while the second is perceived to be an impressive altar. The question that inevitably comes to mind is: “What do these stones mean?” (compare with Joshua 4:6, 22). Is this altar built for sacrifices, or is it only a memorial? Are these other tribes already starting to fall into apostasy?

Lack of consultation with Joshua, Eleazar, or the tribal leaders creates room for a misunderstanding that potentially can lead to terrible conflict.

What are Jesus and Paul referring to when they admonish us to avoid judging others? Read Luke 6:37, John 7:24, 1 Cor. 4:5. Why is it so easy to jump to wrong conclusions about the motives of others?

Commitment

Read Joshua 22:1-8. What do these verses tell us about the commitment of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh?

Joshua affirms that the tribes from the other side of the Jordan have fully satisfied the obligations set out by Moses and himself, which meant a significant dedication to, and sacrifice on behalf of, Israel’s common cause. They fought alongside their brothers for “many days,” which in reality meant about six to seven years (compare with Josh. 11:18, Josh. 14:10, Deut. 2:14). Their wives and children were left at home, on the east side of Jordan, yet they decided to fight loyally along with their brothers, facing the threat of injury and death in war.

These verses indirectly underline the importance of the unity of the nation and that of the land. They also prepare the way for the ensuing story, which is ultimately about unity. Will the Israelite tribes stay united, despite the strong natural border that the Jordan forms between them? Will they allow geography to set its mark on their national identity, or will they let their common worship of the only God keep them as His chosen nation, united and strong under His theocratic guidance?

Joshua explains the only way that such fidelity has been possible: they did not serve their fellow Israelites but Yahweh Himself, who charged them with their mission.

We find this same principle in the New Testament. The apostle Paul admonished Christians to render their service as if they were working for God and not only for human beings (see Eph. 6:7, Col. 3:23, 1 Thess. 2:4). What higher calling is there than working for, ultimately, the Creator of the cosmos?

In everyday life, we often face challenges and difficulties that can easily discourage us and make us want to give up the fight. That’s easy, at times, to do. Yet we can call upon the power of the Lord, who promises to be with us and enables us to do what He asks of us. If we keep our higher calling before us, we can be motivated to press on ahead, despite the inevitable challenges and discouragements that are part of our fallen existence here.

Joshua 22:5-6 reports that Joshua appealed to the departing tribes to remain faithful