Joshua 24:1

The Book of Joshua closes with a solemn ceremony led by Joshua in which Israel again ratified the covenant with Jehovah their God, their true King and deliverer.

During the last two or three decades there has been a great breakthrough in understanding a feature of the Pentateuch and of Joshua that had never been known until very recently, and this new knowledge has made practically all of the comments that one may still read in many commentaries absolutely out-of-date and incorrect.

ERRONEOUS COMMENTS

Rather than taking time to refute the allegations of critical scholars on a verse-by-verse basis, we here cite a number of declarations applied by various critics to various verses, paragraphs, or even chapters in Joshua, which are no longer acceptable:

"The book appears to be a medley of contradictory narratives, most of which are unhistorical.[1] There were a number of editors of Joshua.[2] The last several verses were probably added by the final editor.[3] This is the address as "E" thought of it.[4]; Joshua 24:17-18, the people's response is a performed liturgical unit (later than Joshua, of course).[5] We have recognized Josiah's reign (about 621 B.C.) as the most probable setting for the first edition of Joshua (Deuteronomy 1)."[6] Etc., etc., etc.

The AUTHENTICITY of Joshua as an historical and genuine narrative given by Joshua himself within the very shadow of the days of Moses is today, by conservative scholars, accepted as virtually CERTIFIED and PROVED by the archeological discoveries a few years ago of many records of the old Hittite Empire regarding their relations with their vassal states, dated by George E. Mendenhall in the mid-second pre-Christian millennium (1450-1200 B.C.). Of very great significance are copies of the old suzerainty-treaties, summarizing the covenant obligations imposed upon vassals by the Hittite King. The form of those old covenants is followed closely both in Deuteronomy and here in the Book of Joshua, and this positively identifies both the Pentateuch and Joshua as having been written in that early period. There are no examples of that particular form of suzerainty-covenant treaty documents after the year 1000 B.C.[7] The major critical thesis that seventh-century B.C. priests "produced" large sections of these early books is DISPROVED by this. The very knowledge of that old form was lost for millenniums following 1000 B.C., and only in the last two or three decades has been "discovered." Yet, right here it is in Joshua!

Thus, as Kline said of Deuteronomy, we may also say of Joshua:

"The plain claims of Deuteronomy itself to be the farewell ceremonial addresses of Moses himself to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab are accepted by current orthodox Christian scholarship."[8]

Blair referred to this new information as, "One of the most important landmarks in recent study of the O.T."[9] It is based upon the publication of George Mendenhall's Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, published in the Biblical Archeologist in 1954.

Of course, there is no point in alleging that Joshua reported his own burial. Nor, is it in any way appropriate to refer to that account as the work of some "editor." That some INSPIRED MAN added the account is certain, but there is no need to call that unknown person an "editor," implying that he wrote the whole book, or revised it! Sir Isaac Newton in all probably was correct in his supposition that it was the prophet Samuel who added the record of the deaths of Moses and of Joshua, saying that, "Samuel had leisure in the reign of Saul, to put them into the form of the Books of Moses and of Joshua now extant."[10]

Many very reputable and learned men are accepting this new understanding that gives so much assurance of the historicity, accuracy, and authenticity of these Biblical books. Woudstra cited the following:

"Commentators who have applied this scheme to their interpretation of Joshua 24 include: J. J. De Vault, John Rea, C. F. Pfeiffer, E. F. Harrison, (editors), Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago, 1962), C. Vonk, P. C. Craigie (his Deuteronomy is structured entirely around the covenant-treaty pattern)."[11]

To the above list, we may also add Merrill F. Unger, Hugh J. Blair, and others.

It is also significant that practically all recent liberal scholars admit the existence of these ancient covenant-treaty forms, and describe them somewhat fully, yet cling in some instances to the very theories which are denied by this information. In fact, we are indebted to Morton for this good description of an ancient suzerainty-treaty:

Six elements are typically found in the Hittite treaty texts. Listed with each element are corresponding references from this chapter:

1. Identification of the Great King and author of the covenant (Joshua 24:2; Exodus 20:1-2).

2. Enumeration of the gracious acts of the King, obligating the vassal to loyalty (Joshua 24:2-13; Exodus 20:2).

3. Covenant obligations of the vassal, typically demanding absolute loyalty and expressly prohibiting official relationships with foreign powers (Joshua 24:14,23; Exodus 20:3).

4. Instructions for depositing the document in the sanctuary for regular public reading (Joshua 24:25,26; Deuteronomy 31:9-13).

5. Deities of covenanting parties invoked as witnesses (Joshua 24:22); in monotheistic Israel, an adaptation was required (Isaiah 1:2; Micah 6:1-2).

6. Blessings accompanying fidelity; curses resulting from violation (Joshua 24:20; 8:34; Deuteronomy 27-28).[12]

Another very important element that should be included in this summary is the provision for renewing the covenant from time to time. This has been called "the Dynastic Requirement." We shall notice it below.

Again from Morton, "From this summary, it appears that Joshua 24 bears a clear relation to the covenant forms of Near Eastern ancient treaties."[13] Morton indeed conceded that this indicates "the unity and antiquity of the core traditions on which the Shechem covenant was based," but, in our view it goes much further than that. It indicates the ANTIQUITY and UNITY of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.

"And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith Jehovah the God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

The mention here of all the judges and officers of the people stresses the strict formality of this solemn ceremony. Joshua 23 and Joshua 24 both feature an address by Joshua; and on that basis, critics rush to the conclusion that they are separate accounts of the same event; "But Joshua 23 is Joshua's informal address to the leaders of the people, and Joshua 24 is a formal, public renewal of the covenant."[14] Thus, the last public action of Joshua was that of leading his people in a formal and ceremonial renewal of the covenant at Shechem.

"To Shechem ..." (Joshua 24:1). Some scholars marvel that this ceremony was held at Shechem, instead of Shiloh where the tabernacle was located, apparently forgetting that the Tabernacle was a moveable thing. The simple and obvious truth is that it was moved down there to Shechem for this very occasion; the fact of its not being specifically mentioned is of no importance. The Tabernacle must have rested at a hundred different places in the history of Israel, and yet there is hardly any information given in the Bible concerning the actual making of such moves, an exception being the removal of it to Jerusalem in David's new cart! How do we know the Tabernacle with its ark of the covenant and all the other sacred furniture was at Shechem? The words, "before God" in Joshua 24:1 prove this. A hundred places in Exodus and Leviticus make it evident that when a worshipper came before God with a sacrifice, it was at the Tabernacle! The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) knew this, but in the year 255 B.C., when the Septuagint (LXX) was done, the "one place only" theory was widely accepted. So, in order to conform to that, they simply moved the location of this covenant renewal ceremony to Shiloh (Joshua 24:1,25 in the LXX), where of course, the Tabernacle rested until they moved it down to Shechem for this ceremony. Scholars reject the Shiloh location for this ceremony. The great probability of the Tabernacle's being moved to Shechem for the event described here clears up everything. The clause, "They presented themselves before God," simply cannot be understood in any other way. As Boling pointed out, "Before God implies the presence of the ark."[15] The deduction by Plummer regarding this question is simply that, "The Tabernacle was no doubt moved on that great occasion to Shechem."[16]

Woudstra pointed out that some do not think "before God" necessarily refers to the Ark or the Tabernacle; but, "The expression is sufficiently accounted for by Shechem's sacred associations going back to patriarchal times."[17] Such associations, of course, were very important, and we shall notice these under the article "Shechem," below, but we cannot accept the statement of Jacob after the dream at Bethel that, "Surely God is in this place," as any proof whatever that God had taken up PERMANENT residence in Shechem!

SHECHEM

Another great renewal of the covenant ceremony had already been conducted there, as we read in Joshua 8. The place was rich in the history of the patriarchs. It was the scene of God's first covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:6-7). Abraham built an altar here, the first built in Canaan, on his way from Haran, after the death of Terah. Jacob is supposed to have come here on his flight from Esau. It was here, in all probability that Jacob commanded his family to bury their idols. Jacob chose this as his residence and remained there until the rape of Dinah and the terrible vengeance against the citizens of that place by Simeon and Levi. It was a Levitical city, and one of the cities of Refuge. Jacob bought a field for a tomb here, and Joseph's bones were buried there. "Shechem was a locality calculated to inspire the Israelites with the deepest feelings."[18] (See further information on Shechem in Joshua 21.)

"Beyond the River ..." This is a reference to the Euphrates.

"Your fathers ... served other gods." Both Terah (Abraham's father) and Nahor, his uncle, were idolaters, but it is NOT stated that Abraham was an idolater. There is no reason to doubt the Jewish tradition that, "Abraham, while in Ur of the Chaldees was persecuted for his abhorrence of idolatry, and hence, was called away by God from his native land."[19] Throughout Israel's history, there remained for many years a preference by some of them for idolatry. It will be remembered that Laban's household gods were stolen by Rachel, and right here in this chapter, (Joshua 24:14), Joshua pleaded with the people to, "Put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River."

Blair pointed out that here in Joshua 24:1, we have the identification of the Maker of the Covenant in the preamble. "This is the regular pattern of the suzerainty-treaty covenants."[20] One of the features of that ancient form of covenant, "was the necessity for its renewal from time to time, and that is exactly what we have here at Shechem."[21]