the whole assembly of Israel
The term "assembly" comes from the Hebrew "עֵדָה" (edah), which refers to a congregation or gathering. This highlights the collective identity of the Israelites as God's chosen people. The "whole assembly" suggests a unified body, emphasizing the importance of community in decision-making and spiritual matters. In the context of ancient Israel, such assemblies were crucial for maintaining order and ensuring that the community adhered to God's laws.

gathered at Shiloh
Shiloh was a significant religious and cultural center for the Israelites, serving as the location of the Tabernacle before the temple was built in Jerusalem. Archaeological findings at Shiloh have uncovered remnants of ancient worship practices, affirming its historical importance. Gathering at Shiloh indicates that the Israelites were preparing to address the issue with a sense of gravity and reverence, as Shiloh was a place where they sought divine guidance.

to go to war
The phrase "to go to war" reflects the seriousness of the situation. The Hebrew word for "war" is "מִלְחָמָה" (milchamah), which can denote both physical and spiritual battles. This readiness for war underscores the Israelites' commitment to preserving the purity of their worship and obedience to God. In a broader scriptural context, it reflects the ongoing struggle between faithfulness to God and the temptations of idolatry or disobedience.

against them
The "them" refers to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who had built an altar by the Jordan. This action was perceived as a potential breach of covenant, prompting the rest of Israel to consider war. The historical context reveals the deep concern for maintaining the unity and purity of worship among the tribes. The Israelites' willingness to confront their own brethren highlights the seriousness with which they regarded any deviation from God's commands. This phrase serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability and the lengths to which God's people must go to preserve their covenant relationship with Him.

Another passage in a different part of the Old Testament corroborates indirectly, but in a striking manner, the tone of this (Nehemiah 8:17): "The congregation. . . . made booths, and sat under the booths" (as required by the law of Moses in the Feast of Tabernacles); "for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so."

(1) The children of Israel were not remarkable for their obedience to the law, or to heaven-sent leaders. Both their previous and subsequent history forbid us to predicate for them the quality of obedience. Whence, then, comes this new born and ephemeral "zeal for the Lord," which displays itself in such a remarkable manner on the present occasion? Whence, but from the long catalogue of splendid victories and wonderful Divine interpositions recorded in this book, and from the sense of security arising out of them? Whence, but from the great fear of the children of Israel that had fallen upon the inhabitants of Canaan, so that, to use the striking expression of our historian in Joshua 10:21, "none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel."

(2) The offence and its penalty are recorded in the book of t. he law, and especially in the Book of Deuteronomy. Unless, therefore, we are to conclude that all this history, in spite of its natural and life-like character, was entirely the invention of later ages, we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that Deuteronomy, as well as the other books of the Pentateuch, was in existence when these events occurred. For if not, where was the offence of the two tribes and a half? How was its gravity to be determined? What induced the rest of Israel, including apparently the other half of the tribe of Manasseh, to prepare for war with their brethren? The only rational explanation of the history is that the tribes beyond Jordan had contravened the provisions of the law of Moses, contained in the Book of Deuteronomy, and that the rest of Israel were preparing to inflict the punishment decreed in that law against such contravention. And these provisions and that punishment we find in the five books of that law as it is at present handed down to us. Our only alternatives, then, would seem to be, to reject the history, or to accept the law in tote. And if we take the former, we have to explain how it is that the law and the subsequent history, though entirely fabulous, came to be arranged into so harmonious and consistent a whole. To go up to war against them. Calvin blames the Israelites a little unjustly here. They did not act rashly, as he asserts. Though they prepared to visit the offence with instant chastisement, they gave their brethren an opportunity of explanation. And when that explanation was given, it proved so entirely satisfactory that all hostile intentions were laid aside. "Not onely wisdom, but charitie moved them to this message. For grant they had been guilty, must they perish unwarned? Peaceable meanes must first be used to recall them, ere violence be sent to persecute them" (Bp. Hall). It is to be feared that Christians have not always so restrained their impetuosity when the cry that the faith was in danger has been raised, and that the zeal, so well tempered by discretion, of the Israelitish congregation at this time, is an example of both qualities which puts many Christians to shame. Even Masius cautions us here that we should not "temere moveamur suspicionibus." But he derives hence an argument, and cites St. Augustine in favour of it, for the doctrine that heretics may be proceeded against by the civil sword. Knobel's remark upon this verse is a perfect gem of the "destructive criticism." The account of all Israel gathering together to war against the two tribes and a half "is unsuitable to the circumspect and mild Elohist." Are all writers of history, except those who have no battles or sieges to describe, rash and savage by nature? And even the "circumspect and mild Elohist," or a member of the Peace Society itself, might venture to describe a gathering which, though at first it assumed a warlike form, ended in mutual explanations and a perfect understanding. Of a very different stamp is Bp. Hall's apostrophe, "O noble and religious zeale of Israel! Who would think these men the sonnes of them that danced around the molten calf?"

Parallel Commentaries ...