Dating is difficult. The covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem (Joshua 24:1-28) expands an event presented earlier in the book of Joshua (8:30-35). As some scholars see it, the first version is probably the more recent of the two, dating from the time of the Babylonian Exile (587-539 B.C.), while this version likely comes from the time of the religious reforms of King Josiah (ca. 622 B.C.; cf. II Kings 22-23). The covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem marks the end of an era in the history of early Israel. Both versions present the crowning event in the life of Joshua, successor to Moses (Numbers 27:12-23), and principle architect of the movement of the Hebrew people from the period of desert wandering to the occupation of the land promised to Abraham. The book of Joshua concludes with a covenant ceremony. Joshua desires to hear a basic commitment from the people. In locating the ceremony at Shechem, we remember this is the place where Jacob ordered the foreign gods to be put away in Genesis 35:1-4. He is speaking to the elite leadership.
Joshua selected Mt. Ebal as an unavoidable reference point because of its height and placement. One can see far distances. It used “undressed stones,” later considered in Amos 5:5 and 8:14 as being of pagan origin. In writing on the stones, Joshua utilized sacred pillars that had lost their old fertility cult significance. They served as a witness to the treaty. The precedent for this law is the covenant at Sinai. The yearly covenant festival, which eventually became every seven years, was an example of the cooperation among the Israelites. Gilgal also hosted a spring celebration of the Sinai covenant.
Joshua 24 dramatically concludes the book of Joshua; the book depicts a rapid conquest of the land that the Lord had promised to the Israelites, with the Lord’s harsh defeat of the land’s pagan occupants. Joshua has much in common theologically with the books of Judges (even with its much more slowly understood land-occupation), Samuel and Kings. All these are linked to the theology of Deuteronomy, to such an extent that they commonly are collectively called the Deuteronomistic History; notice Joshua 1:7-8 and 23:6, where Joshua and the people are to act in accordance with the law of Moses. Jewish tradition lists these books among the Former Prophets because they closely parallel prophetic viewpoints (such as those of Jeremiah); e.g., see Joshua 24:2, with its prophetic formula, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel ….” One can understand the book of Joshua to be a series of theologically interpreted historical narratives.
Joshua 24:1-28 follows, in many respects, a pattern common in the ancient Near East — that of a suzerainty treaty/covenant (the same Hebrew word berit is used for both). George Mendenhall links such treaties and certain Old Testament covenants. Hugh J. Blair summarizes:
“These suzerainty covenants followed a regular pattern: a preamble, in which the author of the covenant is identified; a historical prologue, in ‘I-thou’ form, describing past benevolent acts performed by the great king for the benefit of his vassal; stipulations, general and particular, indicating the obligations imposed upon and accepted by the vassal, including no dealings with the great king’s enemies …; a provision for … its periodic public reading …; and blessings and curses as sanctions of the covenant.”[1]
There are obvious connections in Joshua 24 to that pattern, in Yahweh’s relationship to the people of Israel, but also certain omitted or altered or abbreviated items. Barth wants to make the point that the Old Testament covenant is a covenant of grace. God instituted it, choosing Israel, while the people through their tribes choose the Lord as their God. One can look to its historical actuality that works itself out in institutional life. However, when the covenant and institution combined, such as early worship sites, God took another view. Eventually, the notion fell under prophetic criticism. As he sees it, then, while this passage is as close the Old Testament gets to bring such a covenant to a conclusion, such a conclusion of the covenant is impossible.[2]
After the conquest, before the Israelites settle by tribes into their newly acquired home-places, Joshua assembles them at Shechem, to give a farewell speech and to invite them to renew the covenant first made at Mount Sinai. See parallels in Deuteronomy, where Moses retells the prior history of God’s acts on behalf of Israel, including God’s relationship with the current generation. Shechem holds great significance; check a concordance for multiple Genesis references. Geographically it stood on the north-south ridge road and at an east-west pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. The New Testament refers to the site as Sychar, where Jesus met the woman at the well (John 4).
The tribes scattered across their various allotments of the land of Canaan according to divisions detailed earlier in the book of Joshua (chapters 13-19). One of the most important achievements attributed to the warrior-leader Joshua, in fact, was the apportionment of the land of Canaan among the loosely federated tribes that collectively made up the “sons of Jacob/Israel/Israelites” (see Genesis 29-35).
The sociological history of the Israel tribes is difficult to reconstruct. In part, we can explain this because of the paucity of extrabiblical evidence for their existence. Further, the variegated biblical references we do have (i.e., the names and numbers of the tribes vary according to different tribal lists, some of which report as few as 11 tribes and sometimes as many as 13). What is clear, however, is that the tribal idea (and ideal) exercised considerable influence on the writers of the Bible and that the social organization of Israel was understood by them to be dependent on tribal structures and operating principles, whatever the actual reality may have been and however haphazardly those structures and principles may have worked themselves out historically.
Joshua 24:1 opens the covenant renewal ceremony: Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and summoned the elders [well known], the heads [less known], the judges [well known], and the officers [less known] of Israel. The list is neither exact nor comprehensive. In the present context, the exact status and function of these officials is less important than the fact of their inclusion in the list: Everyone who was anyone in Israel responded to Joshua’s call. And they presented themselves before God.
The site of Shechem is not accidental. Shechem was an ancient Canaanite/Israelite city, located in the hill country of Ephraim about 40 miles north of Jerusalem at modern Tell Balata near the modern city of Nablus. The city’s strategic importance — it guarded the pass between Mt. Gerezim to the south and Mt. Ebal to the north for centuries — guaranteed it a long and turbulent history. First inhabited during the Chalcolithic period (ca. 4000 B.C.), the city passed, probably peacefully, into Israelite control in the early Iron Age (ca. 1200 B.C.), and survived various upheavals and shifts in fortune until its final destruction by the Hasomenaean king John Hyrcanus in 107 B.C.
The ancestral narratives preserve numerous references to Shechem’s importance as a sacred as well as a military site. Immediately upon his arrival in the land of Canaan, Abraham established the worship of Yahweh (“the Lord,” written in small capital letters in modern English translations) at Shechem (Genesis 12:6-7), the first recorded instance of the worship of Israel’s god in the promised land. The city remained an important center of Yahwistic religion throughout the patriarchal period, and became a shrine when the remains of Joseph, the last patriarch, returned from Egypt and they buried there (Joshua 24:32).
The appropriateness of the site, therefore, for the renewal of the religious covenant binding the people of Israel to their god was long and well established. Although not mentioned by name, it is likely that they held the covenant renewal ceremony reported earlier in Joshua (8:30-35) at Shechem.
Shechem was an ancient Canaanite/Israelite city, located in the hill country of Ephraim about 40 miles north of Jerusalem at modern Tell Balata near the modern city of Nablus. During the period of the Tribal Federation, Shechem was a place of covenant renewal. Several noteworthy events in the lives of the Patriarchs took place here. In Genesis 35:1-4, Jacob ordered the putting away foreign gods at Shechem. At the covenant renewal ceremony, leaders from each of the tribes met to remember what the Lord had done to deliver them, protect them, and bring them into the Promised Land. They also renewed their covenant with each other as tribes. In Joshua 8:30-35 we have the reading of the Law at Shechem. It seems as if covenant renewal included remembering the Law. One could describe it as the crowning achievement of Joshua. He chose Mt. Ebal because of its height and placement. Schechem also stands on the north-south ridge road and at the east-west pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. One can see far distances. Amos 5:5 and 8:14 seems to think of the ceremony as being of pagan origin. It did have sacred pillars or undressed stones that served as a witness to the treaty. The pattern in this chapter is like the suzerainty treaty/covenant (Hebrew berit is the word for both). Such covenants followed the pattern of a preamble, a historical prologue that describes past benevolent acts performed by the king for the benefit of the vassal, stipulations indicating the obligation imposed upon the vassal that include no dealings with the enemies of the king, and a provision for the periodic public reading of the covenant.[3] George Mendenhall links such treaties with certain Old Testament covenants. It was a covenant of grace. The Lord instituted it by choosing Israel and the people respond by choosing the Lord as their God. The covenant will work itself out in the institutional life of the Tribal Federation.[4]
In Joshua 24:2-13, Joshua reminds the people about the Lord God’s relationship not only with their ancestors, but with them as well. 2 And Joshua, acting as a representative of the court of the Lord, he offers a quick historical synopsis. In verses v. 2b-13, we find a recital of events that became part of covenant celebrations. In verses 2-3, we find the covenantal theology that permeates the Hebrew Bible had its basis in the divine graciousness of God’s election of Israel as evidenced in the acts of liberation and deliverance God provided prior to Israel entering the covenant. It begins with a rehearsal of the story of the acts of the Lord, as Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Long ago your ancestors—Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. They were polytheists. In this story, Abraham hears a call from Yahweh to leave the land and the gods. Joshua is forthright here. Terah and his sons, Abram and Nahor, were, polytheists in the old country, and it was Abram’s conversion to monotheistic Yahwism that spawned the people who would in time become known as Israelites. 3 Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River Euphrates, and led him through all the land of Canaan and made his offspring many.
We know about covenant renewal ceremonies. Couples will renew their vows. Congregations will have their ways of renewing their baptismal vows. We also know we are weak. We need such reminders of who we are and to whom we belong.
Joshua 24:14-24 has the theme of choosing between religious alternatives. The story has a serious and grim tone. This is a tombstone issue. What will the tombstone say? What is the essence of the life we live? What is the controlling and ruling matrix, or rubric? What is the North Star position as we plot and navigate our way through an uncharted life? This story calls us to think about our relationship with God.
Joshua issues the challenge. 14 “Now therefore, based upon the gracious acts of the Lord recounted in verses 2-13, revere the Lord, and serve .They are to offer their worship and obedience to the Lord. They are to serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods that your ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt, thereby turning from sin, and serve the Lord, turning back to the ways of the Lord. We have a simple summary of the biblical understanding of repentance in this statement. Joshua then invites them to choose this day whom they will serve. He also testifies that that as for him and his household, they will serve the Lord. He frames the religious alternatives before the people. 15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” The alternative is between allegiance to Yahweh, who delivered them and brought them to the Promised Land, and the real alternative of serving other gods. The point here is that in their minds, these other gods exist, but Israelites must reject them and serve Yahweh. There is no suggestion that Joshua believed that the gods of either his religious ancestors or “the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living” were figments of their devotees’ imaginations. Most of the Hebrew Bible takes for granted the existence of other deities, and only in its later stages (e.g., Second/Third Isaiah, dating from the period of and after the Babylonian Exile of 587-539 B.C.) does the notion of other deities as human illusions come to be widespread. We need to remember, however, that the idea of the existence of divine beings distinguishable from God (e.g., angels, Satan, the second and third persons of the Trinity) remains firmly a part of both Judaism and Christianity today. In Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Moses insisted that the people choose between life and death. Joshua testifies on behalf of his household, his wife, children, slaves, and the families of the slaves. As the head of the household, Joshua had the right to speak on behalf of all of them. It’s not that others in his household had no mind or tongue of their own, but frequently in the cultures of the OT (and NT — see the baptisms of entire households in the book of Acts, upon the coming-to-faith of the head of the household) an entire household is considered a single entity, so the head of the household speaks/acts for the family/clan unit. 16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods. Verses 17-19 have a liturgical feel. 17 For it is the Lord our God who brought us and our ancestors up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight. He protected us along all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed; 18 and the Lord drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the Lord, for he is our God.” It ends with a reference to the shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, proclaiming Yahweh as their God. Joshua continues to push them, as if to stress the seriousness of this decision. 19 But Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God (or El the Zealous). Other deities are available to them, but they must choose Yahweh. The decision is a serious one. The zealous quality of the Lord can turn against the elect, the people whom the Lord has chosen if they turn from allegiance to the Lord. Such holiness becomes a threat if the people become apostate. Joshua reminds his hearers, including us, that if we abandon our delivering God, then he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. Given what Jesus says about forgiveness and the forgiveness found in the cross, such a statement hardly seems valid. Yet, people need to count the cost. To go back on it would be more disastrous than never to have made the commitment (similarly the harsh statements in the NT book of Hebrews and Jesus’ own words in Luke 9:62 and his reminders in Luke to count the cost of being his disciple. [5] The holiness of the Lord leads to becoming a holy people in the sense of setting ourselves apart to worship and serve the Lord. We need to remember the rejection of adultery and idolatry as well in the Old Testament as consistent with this theme. Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 have their practical application here. In other words, false gods are always available to us. The people of God are to recognize the supremacy of Yahweh. There is to be no “limping around” (Elijah — I Kings 18:21) between gods. See Jesus’ statements about not being able to serve both God and mammon (KJV). Further, if Jesus is Lord (number one and only), then his followers follow him and his ways exclusively (or do we?). The God who has redeemed us invites us to exclusive service and ongoing blessing. 20 If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good.” 21 And the people said to Joshua, “No, we will serve the Lord!” 22 Then Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord, to serve him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.” 23 He said, “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel.” We can see here the emphasis in Deuteronomy on the heart. As Jesus put it, we cannot serve God and wealth. 24 The people said to Joshua, “The Lord our God we will serve, and him we will obey.” Joshua keeps challenging them, regardless of what they say.
How does this story make you feel? One word that comes to mind is "grim." "Decide" comes from a Latin word meaning "to cut off." Making a once-for-all-time decision about anything means severing all other opportunities and possibilities in that realm.
Some decisions seem quite poor. I lived through the 1960s, witnessing many people my age choosing rebellion in the form of sex, drugs, and violence in the name of peace. Every generation can be a spearhead of progress and carry the torch for the best humanity can become. Rebelling against the thinness and emptiness of much of modern life is a virtue and for which I have some sympathy. I find it sad that the demand for unlimited sexual expression, drugs, and the use of violence against people who do not share our allegiance to a tribe or code has become the passion of the moment. I want to see newness of life. I want to see new works of great art, adventure, and courage. Such notions seem old fashioned, but to me, far too much of what I see is nothing more than self-centered folly.[6]
I have learned that none of my decisions are lifetime, once-or-all-time decisions. What are the values by which I will live my life? what are the basic beliefs that will guide my life. what is my vocation? Who will choose to have in my inner circle of family and friends? As I experience life, relationships change, tasks change, and therefore my understanding of the beliefs and values by which I seek to live will also change. Some of my beliefs have changed dramatically. I have gone through the process of reaffirming, rethinking, and tossing away beliefs and values I once held. I do not assume everyone shares such experience of life, but I hope it speaks to some. Every decision I make at one stage of my life may require re-thinking at another stage of my life. I look at the decision differently. I may want to renew the decision, but I may also need to abandon it. faithfulness to an unwise decision is not a virtue. Deepening our understanding of a decision shows the rightness of the decision.
I can imagine some people receive Christ and never look back. I am not among them. I must keep rethinking and recommitting at various stages of life. Do I still affirm this? As we work through such new challenges, we often emerge with a deeper appreciation of life and faith that will help us face the inevitable challenges of life. Of course, we have Jesus' words that "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62), which in some ways seems the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament story from Joshua. But it is usually not looking back that is happening when we are rethinking our faith commitment but looking ahead and asking if that which we have embraced by faith will be sufficient to carry us as we move forward.
Such a passage invites reflection upon the significance of human decisions. “The Road Not Taken” is a famous Robert Frost poem. It refers to that moment when we have a decision to make. When we make the decision, too many of us will all too often regret the decision and ponder with a sigh over the rejected alternative. Some of us will be sorry about the decision, no matter which one we make. Some of us keep thinking that we surely miss some good in the path we did not take. Thus, we come to that moment and we do not want to decide. Of course, the paralysis of indecision is also a decision.
[1] (The New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans, 1970, 250)
[2] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [57.2] 23.
[3] Hugh J. Blair (The New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans, 1970, 250)
[4] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 [57.2] 23.
[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 399.
[6] Inspired by Malcom Muggeridge in a 1968 address, as he resigned from his teaching post due to changing drug use standards at the university.
I found the history of this story to be very interesting. Lots of potential for renewal of our commitments. Got alot out of this.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
Delete