Originally Posted by
Bobbye
"And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad called the altar 'ED,'for it shall be a witness between us that the Lord is God. Joshua 22:34
WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THIS TERM "ED" OTHER THAN "DIVISION." PLEASE CITE SOURCE. Thank you.
Bobbye
P.S. I just want the origin/definition of the term "Ed" -- not the interpretation of the verse(s). Thanks.
Perhaps this will assist you?
The
Altar of witness” in Joshua 22, was the name of the altar erected between the tribes of Israel that had settled either side of the Jordan. It reminded them of their common heritage, and a binding of them by their God to the land itself, which vouchsafed to them a permanent inheritance for as long as they served Him. The altar itself was the witness, or reminder to the tribes that they belonged together and were bound by the Sinaiatic Covenant.
‘ed [no capitals in Hebrew], 'ed, sounding as along ‘a’ as in 'mate', is used to signify: witness, testimony, evidence (of things), and witness (of people). ‘ed is used several times in the Old Testament of witness, except where a plural form is required, in which case the word is, 'edah – sounds like Ada, but with the last ‘a’ drawn out. This form is always plural and refers to testimony, witness, and is only ever and used in relation to laws as divine testimonies.
In the case of Joshua 22:23, we have a Priestly account of the departure of the trans-Jordanic tribes, at which time the Altar of Witness was erected. I am tempted to say that it was as if two lovers were parting and broke a token in half to be perpetual reminders of their love, but that does not quite fit the case. What they did was to raise an altar as a symbol of their unity in separation.
The altar was built on Jordan’s West Bank, (some say on the East Bank!) and was probably intended to underscore the religious unity of the tribes on either side. It is possible, that it refers to an incident occurring as a result of King Josiah’s reforms, and which the Priestly writer has transferred to this earlier period for didactic purposes.
The speculation for this rests upon the fact that Deuteronomistic writers do not regard the law of the single sanctuary as binding until the after the Temple was built, but those of the Priestly school believe that it was always in force.
So, it is suggested, the writer here wishes to point a moral for the men of his day by adorning a story of the zeal displayed by their forefathers in upholding the law.
The theological standpoint of Joshua is covenental, and reflects the religious traditions of both Exodus and Deuteronomy. Joshua records the faithfulness of God to the provisions of the Covenant, but it is also clear that concurrently the Israelites failed at an early period of their history to conform to the Divine Plan for their Destiny (see 17:13, 18:3).
Although Hebrew morale was doubtless higher under Joshua than it had been under Moses, the threat of a lapse into pagan nature-worship and a return to polytheism was a real and present danger (see Numbers 25:2f, Deuteronomy 4:3, 23).
The Altar of Witness would also, it was hoped, serve as a reminder of their Covenant relationship with
el shaddai. The Hebrews were required to bear spiritual witness to the essentially moral and holy nature of their god, and fidelity to this cause would determine the way in which the kingdom ideals would be realized.
Although the Israelites failed in this high endeavour, as their subsequent history proves, the concept of a divine kingdom became from that time an indelible element of Hebrew spiritual consciousness.
MORGANITE
:)