EL PALO ENCEBADO

Bibliography

See 1:1–9 and:

Barth, C. ―Die Antwort Israels.‖ Probleme biblischer Theologie, ed. H. W. Wolff. München: Chr.

Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 44–56. Mittmann, S. Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3. BZAW 139. Berlin: Walter de Gruytar, 1975. Wüst, M. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten

Testaments. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients B9. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert

Verlag, 1975.

Translation

12

Meanwhilea to the Reubenites, Gaddites, and half the tribe of Manasseh, Joshua said, 13―Remember the word which Moses, the servant of Yahweh, commanded you all: ‗Yahweh, your God, is giving you rest in that he has given you all this land.‘ 14a

Your women, children, and herds are to remain in the land which Moses gave to you all beyond the Jordan,b butc you all are to pass over armed before your brothers, all the warriors, so that you all may help them 15until Yahweh gives rest to your brothers just as to you all. They also are to possess the land which Yahweh your God is giving to them. Then you all may return to the land you all possess so that you all may possess that which Moses, the servant of Yahweh,a has given you all beyond the Jordan at the rising of the sun.‖

16_{They answered Joshua, ―Everything which you have commanded us, we will do;}

everywhere you send us, we will go. 17According to all the way in which we have obeyed Moses, so we will obey you. Onlya let Yahweh your God be with you just as he was with Moses. 18Every man who rebels against your order and does not obey your words, to the last detail which you command us, shall be put to death. Only may you have conviction and courage.‖

Notes

12.a. The section does not begin with a consecutive verb form which would indicate action subsequent to the preceding. Rather it begins with a nominal form. This introduces an episodeinitial circumstantial clause contemporaneous to the preceding (Andersen,

Sentence, 77-80). New actors are thus issued onto the scene.

is an infinitive absolute used for the emphatic imperative (GKC § 113bb).

The Mosaic command employs a participle followed by a perfect verb with the copula. This construction does not appear to have received adequate attention. The present context refers to the command of Moses in Deut 3:18 which presupposes the possession of Trans-Jordan. It must therefore refer to past or present possession and rest, not a future promise. D. Michel in reference to the Psalms says when the perfect appears after an imperfect or a participle, it does not carry the action further but rather introduces beside it an explanatory fact (Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen [Bonn: Bouvier, 1960] 99; cf. A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901] §§ 55c, 56; Jotion, Grammaire, § 119r, v).

14.a. It is not clear where the Mosaic ―quotation‖ ends. The language of v 14 comes from Deut 3:19 but speaks of Moses in the third person, unless one omits the reference to Moses on the basis of the LXX.

14.b. The LXX retains God as the giver of the land rather than Moses and omits the anachronistic localization ―beyond the Jordan.‖ However, LXX

itself is not consistent at this point, for in 15 it too speaks of land given by Moses beyond the Jordan. Here is one of many examples of a shorter LXX which may represent a text tradition which avoided repetition of pious terminology.

14.c.



introduces a contrast sentence (Andersen, Sentence, 150-52). The expectations for the men are contrasted to those of their family and flocks.

15.a. The MT is repetitive and difficult. The LXX omits



as do many modern commentators (e.g. Holzinger, 2; Soggin, 27). LXX apparently read



, ―each to his own possession‖ (Margolis, 13); however, this may be an attempt to translate a difficult MT. Either the original text or a later reader sought to underline the fact that the Trans-Jordan tribes would actually possess their land, another example of the textual tradition noted in v 4. The possession of territory outside the strict land of Canaan was important to this tradition.

The LXX also omits ―servant of Yahweh,‖ which is repetitious. Again the tradition of avoiding superfluous pious language is evidenced.

17.a. The particle



―only‖ in vv 17–18 introduces an exclusive sentence (Andersen, Sentence, 168–77) placing limits on the total commitment of the people. Such obedience is given to Joshua when God is present with him and Joshua is courageous.

Form/Structure/Setting

This section has in common with the previous one the fact that Joshua is giving orders. The previous section, however, stands isolated in its context, pointing forward to chap. 3. The present section is a unit with command (vv 12–15) and response (vv 16–18). Chap. 2 then turns to an entirely new subject, the sending out of spies.

The section concludes the introductory theological narrative of the Deuterohomist. As such its genre remains a literary theological narrative. It is not, however, independent literature. Rather, it repeatedly quotes other literature. As such it can be classified as a collection of quotations. The quotations themselves are not simply strung together loosely. They are imbedded in a particular form. Christoph Barth has called this the ―Answer of Israel‖ or ―Declaration of Readiness‖ (―Die Antwort Israels,‖ 52–56). From examples in Exod 19:7–8; Exod 24:1–7; Ezra 10:10–12; Neh 8:2–6, joined with Deut 27:11–26; 1 Kgs 18:17–40; Josh 24:14–28; 2 Kgs 23:1–3; Num 32:28–32; Deut 31:9–13 and the present section, Barth has isolated elements of the structure of Israel‘s answer (―Die Antwort Israels,‖ 48–53). The entire people speak unanimously in true dialogue with God. The answer is to follow definite directions given by God. Such directions are issued through a mediator to the people. The people pledge themselves to obey the divine directions through the use of a verb of action in the first person plur imperfect. This represents a declaration of readiness to follow God‘s directions. The place of such an event is the cultic liturgy, says Barth, but it is not any specific festival. It is rather a celebration sui generis, wherein the congregation was confronted with the expressed will of God. This ritual grew out of the Deuteronomic paraenesis, particularly in the seventh century B.C. (―Die Antwort Israels,‖

53, 55).

Barth‘s suggestion bears some problems within it, particularly in light of the restriction to Deuteronomic theology at such a late date. As so many questions, this one hangs together with the question of the liturgical practices, apparently in northern Israel, which lay behind the Deuteronomic paraenesis. Still, the suggestion is illuminating for our passage. The form of the passage rests on liturgy between man and God. The content of the passage reports vows between man and men. The leaders of Israel pledge to Joshua what men normally pledge to God. This is not absolute, however. Two exclusions are made. These lay requirements upon Joshua. He must show the two basic requirements of Israelite leadership (see 1:1–9). God must be with him. He must be a man of great conviction and courage.

The problem of Israelite tribes choosing to live in Trans-Jordan rather than in the land of Canaan forms the basis of Num 32 and Deut 3. The tradition history behind these may never be known, but it is generally agreed that the early settlement of Reuben and probably of Gad is reflected in the narrative. Deuteronomistic and Priestly redactors have incorporated the narrative into the Israelite conquest tradition to underline the unity of all Israel and the joint responsibility shared by all the tribes (cf. Num 32:20–23). Our passage reflects the tradition after it has reached a written stage in the Deuteronomistic school and presupposes the incorporation into the all-Israel context. Similar material has been used, however, for distinct purposes. Deut 3 seeks to remind the Trans-Jordan tribes of their responsibility while encouraging Joshua in his. Num 32 seeks to justify the separation of Israel into Cisjordan and Trans-Jordan parts and to underline the common loyalty of both groups to Yahweh and to one another. Josh 1:12–18 uses the same tradition to demonstrate the total obedience of all Israel to Joshua.

Josh 1:12–15 virtually quotes Deut 3:18–20. The few distinctions can be explained from the new historical context given the tradition and from particular theological interests in the Joshua narrative. Thus v 12 sets the context for what follows even if this involved an abrupt shift in the Joshua narrative. The call to remembrance sets the stage for the quotation from Deut 3. Significant changes occur in v 13, where Joshua adds ―is giving you all rest‖ to introduce the key word of promise for this section. The ―servant of Yahweh‖ attribution

again takes up a theological refrain of the chapter (see 1:1–9). In v 14 Joshua substitutes ―in the land‖ for Deuteronomy‘s ―in your cities.‖ This must be viewed in light of the change in v 15 from Deuteronomy‘s picture of each man returning to his possession (3:20) to all the tribes returning to their collective possession. Here Joshua is consistent in introducing Joshua as the leader of the conquest of united Israel seeking a united land. This is also seen in the addition of ―to help them‖ in v 14. The Joshua text goes its own way in introducing



, ―in battle array‖ (v 14) for

_{}

_{}

_

, ―sons‖ (v 18). The significance of the changes is uncertain if they are not an attempt to make the military tone of the passage even stronger. They do not give reason for making source distinctions.

Verses 16–17 are related to content but not the phraseology of Num 32. The language itself may rather be that of liturgy. The final verse stems certainly from the author of the chapter and ties it together.

The entire section is thus Deuteronomistic, dependent upon Deut 3:18–20, but going its own way to make specific points.

Comment

Repetition of key terms continues to demonstrate the emphasis of the text. Themes repeated in vv 1–9 reappear: Moses (vv 13, 14, 15, 17a, b); give (13, 14, 15a); land (13, 14, 15a, b). Each section then has its own emphasis. Verse 13 introduces the new theme of rest (cf. v 15). Verse 14 uses repeated references to military preparations. Verse 15 speaks of possessing the land. Verses 16–17a underline the obedience of the people, while 18a speaks of the consequences of disobedience. Enumeration of these themes points to the typical Deuteronomistic emphasis on the divine gift of the land to an obedient people through the mediation of Moses. A shift in form and context has introduced the familiar themes into service for a radically distinct Deuteronomistic point. The context is a call to battle, not worship, issued by Joshua, not Moses. The form indicates call to obedience to divine command, but is utilized for oath of allegiance to Joshua, which in turn is modified by the final exclusive clauses in vv 17, 18, calling for obedience by Joshua.



, ―rest,‖ is the new word of promise in this section. The term has a variety of contexts within the OT. The cult speaks of ―divine deliverance‖ to the individual as bringing rest (Ps 116:7; 23:2; Jer 45:3; Job 3:13, 26; cf. Exod 33:14). It also speaks of the cult as the place of divine resting (Ps 132:8, 14; 1 Chr 28:2; cf. the earlier ark tradition of Num 10:33, 36; contrast the later prophecy Isa 66:1). The early Sabbath commandments spoke of human rest (Exod 23:12; cf. Deut 5:14), which the priests reinterpreted to speak of divine rest (Exod 20:11; cf. Gen 2:2–4,



). The term appears also to have roots in early legal language (2 Sam 14:17).

Isaiah used the term to apply to the life God desired for his people, who rejected it (28:12). Prophecy then eschatologized the term (Isa 14:3, 7; 11:20; 32:18; cf. Dan 12:13). Prophetic schools also used the term to speak of the gift of the divine spirit (Num 11:25–26; 2 Kgs 2:15), a usage that also became eschatologized (Isa 11:2; 63:14; Zech 6:8).

The Deuteronomistic school took up the term so widely used to speak of peace and rest from the problems of life and gave it a specific theological meaning: rest from war and enemies (Deut 3:20; 12:9–10; 25:19). Our passage takes precisely this line from Deut 3:20 and points it a step forward to its eventual realization (Josh 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). But realization is not a static thing. It can be lost (Judges) and regained (2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kgs 5:18; 8:56). The exile of 597–586 is precisely the time when Israel through her disobedience lost her rest (Deut 28:65; Lam 1:3). The line of thinking connecting rest with salvation history is also taken up by other schools of thought in Israel (Ps 95:11; Isa 63:14; 1 Chr 22:9, 18; 23:25; 2 Chr 14:5; 15:15; 20:30; Neh 9:28). Rest can be a reality for Israel. It can be a goal lost and looked forward to again. It can even be a goal regained. Whatever stage Israel finds herself in, rest is a term with concrete content. It represents freedom from enemy oppression and deadly war. It represents life lived with God by the gift of God. (See G. von Rad, ―Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes,‖ Zwischen den Zeiten 11 [1933] 104–11=Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament I [München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958] 101–8=The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, [Tr. E. W. T. Dicken; Edinburgh; Oliver & Boyd, 1966] 94–102). Josh 1 thus pictures Israel in Trans-Jordan looking across the river into the promised land. Surrounded by the memory of the difficult years in the wilderness and by the knowledge of the giants in the land, Israel must choose to enter and fight or to turn back to the wilderness (cf. 7:7). Motivation to fight comes from the divine promise of rest first uttered by Moses and now repeated by Joshua. Such rest may be the possession of a part of Israel in East Jordan, but that is not enough. Guarantee of that rest depends upon the conquest of the whole of the gift of God so that the whole of the people of God have rest. Rest, not war, is the ultimate goal of Israel for the Deuteronomist. But he sees the dialectic that rest could be won only through war. The dialectic style points then to a dialectical intention. This is best seen in the outline.

I. Call to remember the Mosaic marching orders (vv 12–15) II. Response of loyalty to loyal Joshua (vv 16–18)

Explanation

The text shifts abruptly from preparations to march to an admonition to fulfill a former pledge to fight. Here it becomes most evident that the text is not simply interested in relating pure historical narrative. Rather, specific pieces of tradition have been joined without logical consistency or narrative harmony to illustrate a theological teaching.

The earlier sections of the chapter have demonstrated the nature of Israelite response to that leadership. The present section then illustrates the nature of Israel which makes that response and sets Israel under oath to make such response perpetually.

Israel is defined as a unified body. The Jordan rift does not divide Israel. Threat to Israelite unity does not lie in geography but in loyalty. Israelites outside the narrow confines of the land promised by Yahweh must be loyal and contribute to Israelites within the land. Despite geographical separation, Israel must remain one body dedicated to one land.

Such a definition of Israel is based on one word, that of Moses given to Israel outside the land. Obedience to that law was once expressed by direct cultic statement through use of the cultic form ―Answer of Israel.‖ When such direct response is not available, another type of response is made available. This is response to the man who has taken over the Mosaic office. This manner of telling the ancient story has far-reaching consequences

within the setting of the Deuteronomistic movement. If the movement has pre-exilic roots, the story would speak to the Josianic situation wherein northern Israel, or its remnants, is called back to loyalty to the leader of God in the land of God. In the exilic period, even more relevance can be seen. The exilic community in Babylon with its Priestly element seeking to compile and transmit the Torah of Moses is reminded of the central identifying characteristic of Israel. Israel is the people of the law of Moses living in the land promised to Moses. Any part of Israel living outside the land must help those in the land. Rest, peace, security can exist for Israel only when Israel has the land given by Moses. Exiles in Babylon cannot simply rest on the Mosaic law and in the comfort of living in the center of the world empire. They, too, must find a way to help the tribes living in the land to find peace and security in that land. Such peace and security appears to rest on loyalty to the occupant of the Mosaic office. For Deut 17:18–20, this appears to be the Israelite king. The Deuteronomistic history ends with reference to an Israelite king in Babylon (2 Kgs 25:27–30). Is this loosely constructed narrative at the beginning of the story a pointer to the hope of the Deuteronomistic historian? This would point to a newly unified Israel, obedient to a new king, dedicated to the old Mosaic law, seeking to find rest in the land which God would again give his loyal people.

The first chapter of Joshua centers on the identity of the people of God and its relationship to its human leader. The Christian church has taken up much of this identity for itself. The leadership has changed from Moses and Joshua to Jesus and his present-day interpreters. The geography has changed from one small piece of land to the universe. The intention of the text still points to the identity of the people of God. People of God must have strong leadership from men loyal to the incomparable pioneer of the faith. Such leadership must face the task given by God with strong conviction and courage. Such leadership can find its authority only in the presence of God. Only then can such leadership expect a declaration of readiness to follow from the congregation.

The book of Joshua set this out in dialectical terms. Leader and congregation look for the free gift of God; yet they must be prepared to go to war to win that gift. God is giving, but he gives only to an obedient people. This dialectic remains in the NT call to accept justification by faith without any works of the law coupled with the call to follow after Christ in perfect obedience demonstrating faith through works.

The book of Joshua dealt extensively with the dialectic of unity in geographical divergence. The Christian church may face this as its biggest hurdle. Released from identity with one geographical spot, the church continues to struggle with the problem of expressing its loyalty to the one body when it is separated by so many different conditions produced by its historical development.