9 Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant stood; and they are there to this day.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
And Joshua set up twelve stones, etc Apparently there was no use of stones under the water, and it may therefore seem to have been absurd to bury stones at a depth. The others which were placed in Gilgal being publicly visible, furnished occasion for inquiry; but stones hidden from the eyes of men at the bottom of the water could have no effect in inciting their minds. I admit that a monument altogether buried in silence would have been useless. [1] But when they talked among themselves of the evidence of the passage left there, the hearing even of what they did not see, strongly tended to confirm their faith. The ark of the covenant was shut up in the sanctuary and covered by a veil placed over against it, and yet its hidden splendor was not without benefit, when they learned from the Law that the covenant of God was deposited in it. It might also happen, that when the river was low, the tops of the heap would sometimes appear. But what I have already said is more probable, that though Joshua buried the stones in the middle of the stream, he did a useful act by establishing a testimony in presence of the people, which would afterwards become the subject of general conversation.
1 - French, "Or je confesse bien que c'eust este un tesmoignage du tout inutile, si on l'eust laisse la comme enseveli sans en parler;" "Now, I confess, that it would have been an entirely useless testimony had they left it there, as it were, buried without speaking of it." -- Ed.
Another set of stones is intended than that before mentioned. The one set was erected by the command of God at the spot where they passed the night Joshua 4:3; the other by Joshua on the spot where the priests' feet rested while they bore up the ark during the passage of the people. This spot was near, or perhaps on, the eastern brink (compare Joshua 3:8). These stones would therefore mark the spot at which the people crossed, as the others marked the place in which they lodged the night after the crossing; nor, as the stones would only be reached by the water in flood time, and then by the utmost edge of it, is there any reason why they could not both be seen, and continue in their place as the writer asserts they did up to the time when he wrote.
And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan - It seems from this chapter that there were two sets of stones erected as a memorial of this great event; twelve at Gilgal, Joshua 4:20 and twelve in the bed of Jordan, Joshua 4:9. The twelve stones in the bed of Jordan might have been so placed on a base of strong stone-work so high as always to be visible, and serve to mark the very spot where the priests stood with the ark. The twelve stones set up at Gilgal would stand as a monument of the place of the first encampment after this miraculous passage. Though this appears to me to be the meaning of this place, yet Dr. Kennicott's criticism here should not be passed by. "It is well known," says he, "that when Joshua led the Israelites over Jordan, he was commanded to take twelve stones out of the midst of Jordan, to be a memorial that the ground in the very midst of that river had been made dry. But where was this memorial to be set up? The ninth verse says; Joshua set up these stones In the midst of Jordan. But is it likely that the stones should be placed or set down where they were taken up; and that the memorial should be erected there where, when the river was again united, it would be concealed, and of course could be no memorial at all? This however flatly contradicts the rest of the chapter, which says these stones were pitched in Gilgal, where Israel lodged in Canaan for the first time. The solution of this difficulty is, that בתוך bethoch In the midst, should be here מתוך mittoch, From the midst, as in Joshua 4:3, Joshua 4:8, Joshua 4:20, and as the word is here also in the Syrian version. The true rendering therefore is, And Joshua set up the twelve stones (taken) From the midst of Jordan," etc. I confess I see no need for this criticism, which is not supported by a single MS. either in his own or De Rossi's collection, though they amount to four hundred and ninety-four in number. Twelve stones might be gathered in different parts of the bed of the Jordan, and be set up as a pillar in another, and be a continual visible memorial of this grand event. And if twelve were set up in Gilgal as a memorial of their first encampment in Canaan, it is still more likely that twelve would be set up in the bed of the river to show where it had been divided, and the place where the whole Israelitish host had passed over dry-shod. The reader may follow the opinion he judges most likely.
And Joshua set up (d) twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant stood: and they are there unto this day.
(d) Besides the twelve stones that were carried by the tribes and set up in Gilgal.
And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan,.... Twelve other stones, as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, and so Jarchi; which he set one upon another, so that they might be seen above the water; or however the water of Jordan being clear, they might easily be discerned by those who either passed over the river, or walked by the side of it, where they were; and perhaps may be the very stones John the Baptist pointed at in Matthew 3:9; since it was at Bethabara he was baptizing, supposed to be the very place of the passage of the children of Israel over Jordan, and had its name from thence, John 1:28,
in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant stood; and which was done in commemoration of it: the words will bear to be read "under the station" of the feet of the priests: hence Jarchi fancies these were set, that their feet might not sink in the mud at the bottom of the river; but this, though here recorded, might be done by Joshua immediately after the priests were come out of Jordan, or as they were coming up: hence some think Joshua was the last that came up from it; but Abarbinel observes, that the word signifies "in the room" or "stead of"; see Gill on Exodus 21:24; so that these stones were placed in the room and stead of the station of the priests, in the midst of the river, and in memory of it:
and they are there unto this day; to the time of the writing of this book, which is no objection to Joshua being the writer of it, though it is by some made one; since it might be wrote by him, as doubtless it was, when such an observation could not be impertinent; and if what has been before observed is true, these stones were in the same place in the times of John the Baptist; and that they were in the order in which they were first set; for that they were in the waters of Jordan, there could scarce be any question of it. This was done to perpetuate the memory of this remarkable event: so Alexander the great set up twelve altars on the borders of India, by the river Oraxes, in commemoration of his exploits (k).
(k) Arrian. Expedit. Alex. l. 5. Curtius, l. 9. sect. 3.
TWELVE STONES SET UP IN THE MIDST OF JORDAN. (Joshua 4:9)
Joshua set up twelve stones . . . in the place where the feet of the priests . . . stood--In addition to the memorial just described, there was another memento of the miraculous event, a duplicate of the former, set up in the river itself, on the very spot where the ark had rested. This heap of stones might have been a large and compactly built one and visible in the ordinary state of the river. As nothing is said where these stones were obtained, some have imagined that they might have been gathered in the adjoining fields and deposited by the people as they passed the appointed spot.
they are there unto this day--at least twenty years after the event, if we reckon by the date of this history (Joshua 24:26), and much later, if the words in the latter clause were inserted by Samuel or Ezra.
Twelve stones - These stones are not the same with those which a man could carry upon his shoulder, Joshua 4:5. They might be very much larger; and being set up in two rows one above another, might be seen, at least when the water was low, especially where it was shallow, as it was ordinarily, though not at this time, when Jordan overflowed all its banks. Add to this, that the waters of Jordan are very clear; therefore these stones might be seen in it, either by those who stood upon the shore, because the river was not broad; or by those that passed in boats. Unto this day - This might be written, either by Joshua who probably wrote this book near 20 years after this was done: or, by some other holy man divinely inspired, who inserted this and some such passages both in this book and in the writings of Moses.
*More commentary available at chapter level.