Joshua Chapter 4 verse 9 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 9. - And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan. A great deal of ingenuity has been wasted over this passage. Kennicott would read "from the midst," instead of "in the midst;" but this purely conjectural emendation is contrary to the fact that these stones were to be set up where the priests bearing the ark stood, while the others were to be set up where the Israelites rested for the night. Again: it has been asked why stones should be placed as a memorial in the Jordan itself, where no man could see them. The answer is a simple one. They were not placed in the Jordan, but at some distance from its banks. They were placed where the priests stood, i.e., at the brink of the Jordan ("juxta ripam," Jarchi), which at that time had overflowed its banks (Joshua 3:15). It is no reply to this to observe with the translator of Keil that the stones would by this interpretation be left high and dry for the greater part of the year, for this would be the very reason why that precise spot was fixed upon for a memorial. Nor does the word בְּתּוך in the midst, constitute any valid objection to this interpretation, for the same word is used in Joshua 3:17, although two verses previously we are told that the priests stood at the brink of the swollen river with the soles of their feet just dipped in the water (see note there). Thus while the Vulgate translates "in medio Jordanis alveo," the LXX. renders more accurately by ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Ιορδάνῃ. Thus Rosenmuller's objection to the two monuments, namely, that such monuments would never be placed in a rapidly flowing stream like the Jordan, vanishes; while, as Poole suggests, these stones might be heavier, and form even a more enduring memorial than that of the first resting place of the Israelites, constructed as it were of stones which were not beyond the power of one man to carry after all, it may be asked whether it is more probable that this passage is an insertion from another, and an irreconcilable account (Meyer, Knobel), or that it is a later gloss (Rosenmuller, Maurer, etc.), or that two monuments of so mighty and memorable a miracle should have been set up, one at the place where the priests stood, and the other where the Israelites rested after this wonderful interposition of God on their behalf. So Hengstenberg 'Geschichte des Reiches Gottes,' p. 203. The Syriac version only supports Rosenmuller's view. The LXX. and Vulgate render "twelve other stones." The supposition that the sacred historian gives all the commands of God to Joshua, and that therefore such parts of the narrative as are not contained in these commands are to be rejected, is refuted by a comparison, for instance, of Joshua 3:7, 8, with vers. 13, 17.

Ellicott's Commentary