DEVOTIONAL - The Spirit of Reconciliation (2)
At the Altar of Gilead
(Bible Study - March 2004)
How Israel reconciled with brethren on the other side of the Jordan
When brethren find themselves helpless to resolve the complexities of disparity, one question can be pressed with confidence: how did brethren reconcile in the scriptures? The answers are there. There is no judgment too difficult for the wisdom of God’s word. If the Master could command the weather with a word, he can direct us in the way of peace. What would his word be for us?
Settling controversy God’s way
In the past, when there was a “controversy
within the gates of Israel—a matter that was too hard” for them — the
priests were to direct them to a place of the Lord’s choosing. They would
pronounce judgment, and the judgment was to be followed to the letter. By
the Law, the place of reconciliation would not be chosen by men (Deut.
17:8-13).
There is a direct relationship between the handling of controversy in the past and the way it will be handled in the future. Just as it was in the way and the choice of place belong to God. Ezekiel describes the future role of priests in the temple, that they will,
“teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.” (Ezk. 44:23-24).
This particular prediction implies the complete absence of judgment made according to human standards and traditions. In that day controversy will be settled by God’s judgments from God’s laws in God’s assemblies because we will have “God with us.” His holy day will be peace; His judgments righteous. In the present, our high priest is Christ. Though he is not far from each of us, Christ is still in heaven. Except for the word of his record and its digest in us, he is silent. In our efforts to reconcile, what would be the place of his choosing? What would his word be for us?
The key idea of being a witness
Perhaps the word would be witness, as
it was with the reconciliation at Gilead’s altar. What witness can we make
that would proclaim for us, as it did for Israel, that “the LORD
is God?” If our witness is that “the LORD is God” – so we honor
His judgment, His laws, His assemblies, His altar -- then the LORD is the
center of our attention. God is our first concern.
Moreover, there is a witness to the world. How will the world believe that God sent His son into it? How do men groping in darkness know that the spirit of God’s Son is among them, unless they see it in the body of Christ? What witness between brethren proves the truth they claim to hold beyond the scope of its text? And finally, what will our witness be to the next generation? What will they see in our words and in our works? Will they perceive in us that God was, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself? Or will it instead be that familiar, deceptive alibi of abandonment the world loves to fall on: “there were irreconcilable differences?” A “witness between us” would be the spirit of reconciliation. It was the basis of Jesus’ prayer in John 17.
Learning from Gilead
Ironically, the reconciliation at Gilead
centered on an altar which appeared to be treachery. The altar meant two
different things, depending on which side of the Jordan you were on. Yet in
the end, the altar that looked like a witness of disparity was resolved to
be a witness of unity. What steps did the brethren on two sides of a river
take to reconcile the differences in their perceptions concerning the altar
of Gilead?
Step 1: Brethren gathered against brethren on hearsay (Josh. 22:11-12).
“The children of Israel heard someone say.” As is too often the
case in human controversy, people don’t get their information first hand.
They erringly trust what they hear others say. Knowing the truth doesn’t
exempt anyone from this particular weakness. It is the fire of the tongue.
On the evidence of gossip and the appearance of evil, and without any face
to face dialogue of the kind preached by Christ, all Israel gathered for war
against Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh. It was another
altar!
Step 2: Using restraint, they sent a delegation to talk (v. 15).
Everyone knew who Phinehas was. It had been Phinehas who was rewarded
directly by God with an everlasting covenant for his forceful zeal. He was
probably known as the priest not to cross. This time Phinehas knew, along
with ten representatives, to first present the case as it appeared to them.
Step 3: They stated their issue in plain language (v. 16).
The assumption was that their brethren had “turned away from
following the Lord.” It appeared that they had built another
altar, which would have been no less than treachery and rebellion before
God. They said what they thought and they thought what they heard. At
least they were honest about it. There were witnesses, but the witnesses
were wrong.
Step 4: They feared guilt by association (vs. 17-18).
Referring to the iniquity of Peor, they said they were still dealing
with past judgment, and that by virtue of that precedent, God would be angry
with the whole congregation of Israel. They were in effect saying that
their brethren would bring guilt on the whole congregation, if they had
raised an altar against the Lord.
Step 5: What looked like disassociation was an effort to sustain association
(v. 19).
As the delegation developed their case, they were convinced that their
brethren on the other side were testifying to an inclination toward the
unclean land of their possession. Consequently an invitation was issued to
cross over “where the Lord’s tabernacle stands.” But the warning
and their assumption persisted, “Do not rebel against the Lord, nor rebel
against us.”
Step 6: They argued from precedent (v. 20).
Did not the precedent of Achan’s trespass show that God’s wrath would
generalize “against the whole congregation of Israel?” Their
reasoning was that “man does not perish alone in his iniquity.” A
bad apple spoils the whole basket. Interestingly, all their arguments,
their logic, the soundness of their accusation made sense, but it happened
to rest only on hearsay. And, as such, it was wrong.
Step 7: Brethren answered with humility and faith (vs. 21-22).
Facing their accusers with faith, their appeal was first to God and then
to reason. “The LORD God of Gods — He knows — and let Israel know.”
If the accusation was true, then let the punishment be as it was
determined. Let even the LORD Himself bring judgment upon them if they
meant to produce an altar to turn away from Him.
Step 8: They provided clarification (vs. 24-26).
But something the chiefs of Israel never expected was the case. The ear
couldn’t read the heart. The brethren on the other side were dealing with
fear from faith. They were afraid that they would lose contact with their
brethren over time, being separated and on the other side of the Jordan.
Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh hadn’t wanted to be separated,
but were forced to accept it because that was their lot. In fact, it was
their fear of the long-term effects of separation that caused them to build
another altar. Their faith drove them to an action designed to survive
separation. And they were afraid for their children. They rightly feared
that Israel’s descendents would say to their descendents, “What have you
to do with the Lord; the Lord made a border between us; you have no part in
the Lord.” So they built another altar as a witness to their unity for
subsequent generations. It was their intent to preserve the offerings for
sin and fellowship so that their descendents would be regarded as brethren.
It only looked like a different altar because it was in a different place.
They clarified, “It is a witness between you and us.”
Step 9: On hearing the assurance, they had mercy on their brethren (v. 31).
Honesty, faith and mercy are the elements of reconciliation. On both
sides of the Jordan, brethren in Israel had God first in mind. They both
regarded the offerings for sin and of fellowship to be of vital importance
to their relationship with each other, and the legacy of their children. It
was not their intent to turn from the Lord, but to remember
Him. On hearing the truth of their intent, it pleased Phinehas and the
rulers of the congregation to rightfully and mercifully conclude, “This
day we perceive that the LORD is among us because you have not committed
this trespass against the LORD.” The great wonder and testimony of this
response is that atonement took place that day, resulting in God
manifestation. Honesty, humility, zeal, faith, and mercy combined to make
reconciliation a reality. They were the elements of implementation,
eradicating fear, suspicion, and accusation.
Step 10: They dropped the issue, returned home, and passed the word (v.
32).
After that, the delegation simply returned home from the land of Gilead
to the land of Canaan. It was over. But what a change of perspective they
brought home! An assumption of disunity proved to be a preservation of
unity. They “brought back word to them.” The word was “witness.”
Step 11: They spoke no more against them (v. 33).
This was one of those rare times in history where the spirit of
reconciliation put hearsay, accusation, slanderous strife, gossip, barren
topics, and senseless matters to rest which is rare, but not impossible with
God. The fire of the tongue was, in this instance, put out. In its absence
there was nothing but the breath of God, brotherly trust, and a continuation
of peace. It is not insignificant that Israel trusted the testimony of the
eleven delegates whose direct experience resolved the matter. The history
of Israel, indeed the history of human nature, shows this to be a
short-lived victory over the flesh. But at that sacred moment, the victory
was the Lord’s. For it came to pass that it was a “long time…[after
that]…the Lord had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about
(23:1).”
Step 12: An altar of disparity became a witness of unity (v. 34).
But that was not the end of the story. One more significant change took
place. The real meaning of the altar was assigned and understood by all.
They recognized that this particular controversy — this altar — was special
because it looked like its opposite. Instead of being a witness to their
disunity, it proved their desire for unity. More than unity, the altar was
a testimony to the one true God. “The LORD is one.” So to manifest
the priority of the name of God, the altar was identified — even to this
day; perhaps even for another purpose — as “a witness between us that the
LORD is God.”
In summary
It is a story of gossip and judgment; of fear
and tradition; of honesty, clarification, hope and mercy. It is a story of
reconciliation at its finest — never easy, but always possible with God.
Were we to take these lessons to heart, could we not solve complex problems
with a word in the spirit of their reconciliation?
To summarize, this is what Phinehas and his brethren did to implement reconciliation:
-
They gathered to talk.
-
They tested their assumption.
-
Their brethren gave an answer.
-
Clarification and mutual assurance were provided.
-
They went home and spoke no more against their brethren.
-
They named the altar: “Witness Between Us.”
What can we do to make a “witness between us that the LORD is God?”
Mark Giordano