Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Keil and Delitzsch <strong>Commentary</strong> on the Old Testament
"opposite to the land of Canaan" ( lit. in the face or in front of the land of Canaan),
'el-`eeber , "at the opposite region of the children of Israel" (two descriptions which
may be explained on the supposition that the name of Canaan is used in a restricted
sense, the valley of the Jordan being expressly excepted, and Canaan considered as
only extending to the valley of the Jordan). When they heard this, the whole
congregation (in its heads and representatives) assembled at Shiloh, to go up, i.e.,
with the intention of going, to make war against them. The congregation supposed
that the altar had been built as a place for sacrifice, and therefore regarded it as a
wicked violation of the commandment of God with regard to the unity of the
sacrificial altar (Lev 17:8-9; Deut 12:4ff.), which they ought to punish according to
the law in Deut 13:13ff. This zeal was perfectly justifiable, and even praiseworthy, as
the altar, even if not erected as a place for sacrifice, might easily be abused to that
purpose, and thus become an occasion of sin to the whole nation. In any case, the two
tribes and a half ought not to have erected such a building without the consent of
Joshua or of the high priest.
(Note: "We know how sternly the law prohibited the use of two altars: because it was the will of God that
His worship should be restricted to one place. When, therefore, from the very appearance it could not fail
to occur to the mind of any one that they were establishing a second altar, who would not have
condemned
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos133.html (2 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:19:25 p.m.]