Joshua 8:31

Jos 8:31 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up [any] iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

Ver. 31. Over which no man hath llft up any iron.] To polish or garnish it; for this was to defile it. {Exo 20:25 Deu 27:5} In God’s service we must neither be curious nor careless. Holy things must be handled Sancte magis quam scite, neither is it for men to worship God as they please.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

an altar of whole stones--according to the instructions given to Moses (Exo 20:25; Deu 27:5).

over which no man hath lifted up any iron--that is, iron tool. The reason for this was that every altar of the true God ought properly to have been built of earth (Exo 20:24); and if it was constructed of stone, rough, unhewn stones were to be employed that it might retain both the appearance and nature of earth, since every bloody sacrifice was connected with sin and death, by which man, the creature of earth, is brought to earth again [KEIL].

they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings--This had been done when the covenant was established (Exo 24:5); and by the observance of these rites (Deu 27:6), the covenant was solemnly renewed--the people were reconciled to God by the burnt offering, and this feast accompanying the peace or thank offering, a happy communion with God was enjoyed by all the families in Israel.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

31. an altar of whole (or, “unhewn”) stones] Thus the Law required in general (Exo_20:25), and in this case it had been specially ordained.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses,.... Deu 27:5,

an altar of whole stones, on which no man hath lift up any iron; See Gill on Exo 20:25; see Gill on Deu 27:5, and; see Gill on Deu 27:6,

and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings; by way of thanksgiving for the good land they were introduced into, and this was what they were ordered to do by Moses, Deu 27:6.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Iron. Spencer complains that the Protestants have not translated barzel, "iron tool," as [in] Deuteronomy xxvii. 5. This translation is found in their more ancient editions of 1537-49, &c. (Kennicott) --- But the difference is very unimportant. The reason of this prohibition is given, Exodus xx. 25. --- He offered; so we read that he wrote, blessed and cursed, &c., because these things were done at least by his authority. It is not necessary to suppose that he engraved the words of the law with his own hands, or that he passed from Garizim, where he had been pronouncing the blessings, to Hebal, in order to denounce the curses. (Haydock) --- He probably commissioned some of the princes on Hebal to perform the office of cursing, after he had repeated the blessings himself from Garizim; and the select company of Levites before the ark, having answered or repeated the words, the whole multitude stationed at the foot of Hebal, giving their consent that the transgressors should be cursed. (Kennicott) --- Hence Josue must have sacrificed by the hands of the priests. (Haydock) --- Various instances are produced to show that princes and prophets have, on extraordinary occasions, performed this office themselves, 1 Kings vi. 15., and vii. 9., and 3 Kings xviii. 32. (Calmet) --- But these must have either received a dispensation from God, or they must have employed the ministry of the legal priests; or, in fine, their actions, like that of Saul, (1 Kings xiii. 9,) of Absalom, (1 Kings i. 9,) Herod, &c., may have been deserving of blame. (Haydock) --- The Jews assert that in the desert no one was permitted to sacrifice, except in the tabernacle; but that this prohibition ceased at Galgal, as the ark had no fixed abode, and thus Josue might offer sacrifice himself. Afterwards the law was enforced, while the ark was at Silo. But upon its being removed to Nobe, Maspha, and Gabaon, people resumed their former liberty; and hence there was nothing to hinder Samuel, Saul, and David from offering sacrifice, till the temple was erected. (Outram de Sac. i. 2; Grotius in Deuteronomy xii. 8.) This sacred office was formerly exercised by kings, particularly at Athens, where, after the people became more numerous, Theseus appointed the king of sacrifices to keep up the memory of the ancient practice. (Demost. c. Neream.) (Calmet) The like was done at Rome under the republic. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

31. An altar of whole stones — That is, stones on which no tool of iron had been used to chisel down or polish. According to the law of Exo_20:25, a stone altar must not be built of hewn stones, for the touch of an iron tool upon it was regarded as a pollution. And an unhewn stone would the better symbolize that Living Stone, (1Pe_2:4.) cut out of the mountain without hands, (Dan_2:45,) which has become the head of the corner, (Eph_2:20,) and certainly owes none of its excellence to human culture or polish.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded. (see Exo_20:25 Deu_27:4, Deu_27:5) Here, and in ver. 33, we find the writer making an extract from the Book of Deuteronomy. As has been before said, the natural explanation is that the Book of Joshua was written after the Book of Deuteronomy, and that the Book of Deuteronomy was written by Moses, or how could Joshua have carried out instructions which had never been given? The Elohist, Jehovist, and Denteronomist theory supposes the compiler of the Book of Joshua to have done his work in so perfunctory a fashion, that it is quite possible for critics living at a distance of three thousand years and more to detect the various fragments of which his mosaic is constructed. He is so void of common sense as to have inserted this narrative in a place so obviously unsuitable that it involves a palpable contradiction to probability and common sense, and this when he could have placed it in a dozen other parts of the book where no such improbability would be involved. Yet, in spite of the incredible carelessness with which he put his materials together, we are required to believe that "the Deuteronomist" had the foresight to insert the fulfilment of the command of Moses which he had invented in Deu_11:26-30, Deu_27:1-26; and that in so doing he abbreviated the narrative so as to leave out many details of his own invention. Now, under the supposition of a later fabrication of supplementary observances to be imposed upon the children of Israel, it is hardly probable that the account of the plaster with which the stones were to be plastered, and the enumeration of the tribes and the curses, would be omitted, since by the hypothesis the object of the Deuteronomist was to secure implicit obedience to the sacerdotal enactments he was inventing. But on the hypothesis of the genuineness of both writings everything fits in naturally enough. An altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron. As though to intimate (see Exo_20:25) that all should be natural and spontaneous in the worship of God, and that as little of human devising should be introduced as possible. The altar must be raised by man, but the principles of the worship must not be devised by him. This interpretation, however, is rejected by Calvin, who thinks that all that was meant was to preclude the perpetual existence of the altar (though how the substitution of whole for hewn stones could effect this is not apparent); and Keil and Bahr ("Symbolik," 1. pp. 487, 488), who think that the altar ought (Exo_20:24) properly to be of earth, since sacrifice is rendered necessary by man"s earthly or carnal nature, and that unhewn stone is the only substitute for earth which is allowed. But surely man"s handiwork is the offspring of his unregenerate nature, and therefore may, from this point of view, be rightly employed in sacrifice. Hengstenberg ("Gesehichte des Reiches Gottes," p. 223) thinks that the reason of the command was that, since only one place of worship was permitted for all Israel, an altar had sometimes to be hastily thrown up. But when we consider the symbolic character of the Mosaic worship, we are compelled to reject this interpretation as unsatisfactory. Benjamin of Tudela (see Drusius in loc. ) appears to have supposed that these stones were those which had been taken out of Jordan. Masius devotes considerable space to the refutation of this opinion (see also note on last verse). And they offered thereon. Delitzsch remarks on the inversion of the order here, as compared with Deuteronomy 27. But this is obviously the true order. The worship would naturally precede the ceremony rather than follow it.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.