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 past, 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 that 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 descendants would say to their descendants, “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 descendants 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?”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One