Introduction
Many readers will know that the OT contains a rich
vein of teaching for the believer, for it was “written for our
instruction, that through endurance and through encouragement of the
scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15: 4). The history of the two
and a half tribes is no exception to this rule—although more in
keeping with what is said in 1 Cor. 10: 11 (“Now all these things
happened to them [as] types, and have been written for our
admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come”). Still,
warning is as valuable as encouragement, and it will be good,
therefore, to see what the Spirit of God would have us learn from
the tragic record of the tribes who refused to inherit over the
river Jordan.
It may be as well to state some things very
clearly before we proceed with our subject.
The wilderness (or
desert) is what this world should be to the Christian, who has
nothing here, and has all his resources in heaven.
The Promised Land is not,
as often thought, typical of heaven, because the land was marked by
fighting and war. It is, rather, a picture of heavenly blessings
that the believer enters into
now despite the opposition of spiritual powers (see Eph. 1: 3;
6: 12 etc.).
The land settled by the two and a half tribes, represents the
world in a different light to that of the wilderness, for “the place
was a place for cattle” (Num. 32: 1) and, by implication, relatively
lush. It is typical of the world viewed by the believer as a place
to prosper, rather than him depending on the promises of God.
The Wrong
Choice
The land of promise was the land
over the river Jordan (see
Num. 34: 12). As God had told Moses at the burning bush, “I am come
down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring
them up out of that land unto a good and spacious land, unto a land
flowing with milk and honey, unto the place of the Canaanites”
(Exod. 3: 8). Despite this, in Numbers 32 we read that the children
of Reuben and Gad appealed to Moses to “bring us
not over the Jordan”
(v5, my emphasis). Now could any heart that thought, felt, and
judged with God have entertained the idea of selecting a portion
other than that which God had allotted? Impossible. Therefore it was
clearly a great failure. Reuben and Gad were governed by the sight
of their eyes and by carnal motives. They “saw the land of Jaazer,
and the land of Gilead, and behold, the place was a place for
cattle” (v1). They estimated it entirely according to their own
interests, and without any reference to the judgement and will of
God. Had they been simply looking to Jehovah, the question of
settling down short of the divine mark would never have been raised
at all, and had they been looking to the promises of God then there
would have been no looking at the land of Gilead. Rather than
investing their wealth in the land of promise (for they “had much
cattle, a very great multitude”—v1), they wanted to invest it in the
place of their own choosing. All is very logical: “the country that
Jehovah smote before the assembly of Israel, is a land for cattle,
and thy servants have cattle” (v4). Did God not know that they had
cattle? Of course He did, but they would rather trust to their own
wisdom than depend on the promises of God. A little later we find
half the tribe of
Manasseh associated with the proposal (see v33)—and thereafter ever
divided between those in the land and those not. What a picture of
the half-heartedness that was to be so characteristic of these two
and a half tribes: mere borderers who sought their own things, and
not God’s!
Moses’
Reaction
It is very evident that Moses had no sympathy
with the proposal of Reuben and Gad. His own heart was in the
Promised Land, and he longed to go there in person—and yet it was a
judgment upon his conduct that God did not allow him to go over the
Jordan (see Deut. 3: 23-28). How could Moses then approve of the
conduct of men who were not only prepared, but actually desirous, to
take up their abode somewhere else? Indeed, Moses drew an
uncomfortable parallel with Israel’s earlier history: “why do ye
discourage the children of Israel from going over into the land that
Jehovah has given them? Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from
Kadesh-barnea to see the land: they went up to the valley of Eshcol,
and saw the land, and discouraged the children of Israel, that they
should not go into the land that Jehovah had given them … And
behold, ye are risen up in your fathers’ stead, a progeny of sinful
men, to augment yet the fierce anger of Jehovah toward Israel. If ye
turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the
wilderness; and ye shall destroy all this people” (vs. 7-9, 14-15).
The ten spies saw problems for themselves with
going into the land; Reuben and Gad saw advantages for
themselves in
staying out.
Moses only relaxed his position when Reuben and
Gad promised to cross the Jordan with their brethren to fight for
them, so meeting in part the challenge of v6: “shall your brethren
go to war, and shall ye abide here?”. Indeed, on the surface, it
seemed an extraordinary manifestation of unselfishness to “go with
diligence armed before the children of Israel, until we have brought
them to their place … we will not return to our houses, until the
children of Israel have inherited each one his inheritance” (vs.
17-18). Reuben and Gad were even prepared to leave their “little
ones” (v26) behind in order to fight for their brethren. But where
had they left those loved ones? They had left them short of the
divine mark on the other side of the river. They had deprived them
of a place and a portion in the true land of promise—that
inheritance which God had repeatedly spoken about to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. And for what? Just to get good pasture
for their cattle! The
new proposal of Reuben and Gad is not a return to faith, but mere
expediency. Yes they promise to “pass over armed before Jehovah into
the land of Canaan” but the real objective is that “the possession
of our inheritance on this side the Jordan shall be ours” (v32). It
was a matter of will: “for we will not inherit with them on yonder
side the Jordan” (v19).
In summary, we have a group of people who,
while not denying the promises of God, prefer their own plans.
Furthermore, while they are happy to be associated with God’s people
who are seeking to realise those promises, their hearts are
naturally back in the land to which they have allocated themselves a
possession, and where, indeed, their families are firmly
established. The modern-day parallel is not difficult to discern.
These are earthly-minded Christians, whose horizon is this world and
whose possessions and comforts are their treasure. They may actively
participate in the spiritual battles of God’s people, but have no
real interest in making the ground won their own. Saddest of all,
the generations following them are left in the world, and, as we
shall see later, held captive by the world
“unto this day” (1 Chron. 5: 26). What more saddening spectacle can
there be than those who make a lofty profession, talk loudly of
death and resurrection, boast of their high doctrines and heavenly
privileges, but whose walk and ways give the lie to their words?
Serious damage is done to the testimony of the Lord, by Christians
denying (in a practical sense) their heavenly calling and character,
and acting as though they were citizens of this world. People ask
why Gospel preaching is so ineffective these days while ignoring the
fact that the answer is in themselves. Many of us are not epistles
of Christ anymore (see 2 Cor. 3: 3)—at least, men do not read us
that way. What we urgently need today are earnest, whole-hearted,
unmistakable witnesses for Jesus Christ—men and women who declare
plainly by their unworldly lives that they seek another country (see
Heb. 11: 14).
Going Back
“We will not inherit with them” (Num. 32: 19)
had been the declaration of the two and a half tribes, and so the
sorrowful day eventually came for the backward journey of their
warriors from the Land of Promise: “Then Joshua called the
Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and
said unto them … Jehovah your God hath given rest to your brethren,
as he said unto them; and now return, and get you unto your tents,
unto the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of Jehovah
gave you beyond the Jordan” (Josh. 22: 1, 4). Solemn moment! Joshua
commended the two and a half tribes for their faithfulness and
obedience, and entreated them to love the Lord and to walk in all
His ways. He then sent them away saying:
“Return unto your tents with much
wealth, and with very much cattle ... divide the spoil of your
enemies with your brethren” (v8). Sharing in the spoil of the
nation’s warfare cannot, however, take away the solemnity of that
word “return
… beyond the Jordan” (v4, my
emphasis). Still, there is a sense in which the Lord accepted them
in the position which they had chosen (see the end of v9), even
though it fell short of what He had in mind for them. “He abides
faithful” (2 Tim. 2: 13) even when His people are in a false
position.
The Altar of
Witness
As these men of war from the two and a half
tribes journeyed to their inheritance, they came to Jordan, and
there they made a halt. The sight of the river surely recalled
memories of God’s ways with Israel: they had entered Canaan by the
dry bed of the river which they were about to ford on their homeward
way, and they had helped to erect the memorial in Gilgal of the
passage of the Jordan by the nation (see Josh. 3, 4). Were they
really going to leave the Promised Land? Were their own feet about
to put the river between themselves and the twelve stones of Gilgal
and the tabernacle of Shiloh? No wonder they had a concern that
their children would one day be told “Jehovah hath made the Jordan a
border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and children of
Gad, ye have no portion in Jehovah” (Josh. 22: 25)! In response,
they could have adopted the course
which the nine and a half tribes later
proposed—“come over into the land of the possession of Jehovah,
where Jehovah’s tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession amongst us”
(v19)—but no. Instead, they built “an altar of grand appearance”
(v10).
This altar was not the Lord’s altar—it was
merely a memorial. Its perceived value consisted in evidencing that
those who had erected it had
once been at Shiloh! Such
a necessity demonstrated the untenableness of the position on the
other side of the Jordan. Grand in appearance the altar may have
seemed, but in reality, what a poor thing it was! It was not for
worship, for the two and a half tribes did not mean that
“burnt-offering and oblation” or “peace-offerings” (v23) should ever
be placed upon it. What then was this great altar for? To look at!
To witness that, in days gone by, those who had built it had
once been soldiers in the
Promised Land and had
once been gathered to
Jehovah’s tabernacle in Shiloh! And so people talk of what they used
to be, how they served God, how they enjoyed seasons of heartfelt
worship—and, by the sign of the past, would prove the soundness of
their present condition. Traditions and memories, not the living
energy of the present, possess such souls. Our conflict is not over
until life is ended—therefore let our
daily life testify for us,
not some altar of witness, however grand.
The two and a half tribes could not have
“Jehovah’s tabernacle” except by going over into “the land of the
possession of Jehovah” (v 19). However, their affections, their
families, and their possessions were on the other side Jordan, and
so there they had returned. We have already noted their reasoning
for building this new altar, and their words are worth quoting more
fully: “in future your children will speak to our children, saying,
What have ye to do with Jehovah the God of Israel? Jehovah hath made
the Jordan a border between us and you, ye children of Reuben and
children of Gad, ye have no portion in Jehovah! And so shall your
children make our children cease from fearing Jehovah” (vs. 24, 25).
Certainly the Jordan was a border, and it was clear to Reuben, Gad
and Manasseh that crossing it might appear to others like leaving
the Lord. Yet upon considering this danger, they ungraciously placed
the burden of their children’s forsaking Jehovah upon those who
remained near His tabernacle! Sadly, the believer who leaves his
more devoted companions for some worldly association will often, as
here, lay the blame for the consequences upon those who abide with
God. The nine and a half tribes had never spoken of division, or
that the children of Reuben and Gad would cease fearing the Lord. It
was completely unjust even to suggest it.
Conflict and
its Resolution
When the news of the altar of witness reached
Israel, the whole congregation assembled itself at Shiloh where the
altar that was by Jehovah’s tabernacle was (comp. Josh. 18: 1; 22:
12, 19, 29). They saw the erection of a second altar as nothing less
than rebellion against the Lord of the twelve tribes. The zeal of
the nation was stirred—and when the heart is zealous for God in the
contemplation of the failings of others, it remembers with a
chastened spirit its own sins. Hence the iniquity of Peor and the
trespass of Achan (see vs. 17, 20), along with all their bitter
fruits, were refreshed in the national memory. They judged
themselves before attempting to judge the wrong-doers, for they felt
that the seeds of the very evils they mourned over in the two and a
half tribes, and which they were assembled to root out, were even
among themselves. Again, the nine and a half tribes charged the sin
of the two and a half tribes as a transgression
involving all Israel: “ye rebel this day against Jehovah, to-morrow
he will be wroth with the whole assembly of Israel” (v18). Yet how
little do Christians appreciate the solemn truth of the sin of one
affecting the prosperity of the whole: “did not Achan the son of
Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing and wrath fell on all
the assembly of Israel?” (v20). The Christian is not a mere unit—he
is one with all the saints and his behaviour affects others, and the
behaviour of others affects him.
The altar of witness seemed destined therefore
to bring about civil war. However, “when Phinehas the priest and the
princes of the assembly and the heads of the thousands of Israel
that were with him heard the words that the children of Reuben and
the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it was good
in their sight” (v 30). Disaster was thus averted—but
there would have been no danger at all if the two and a half tribes
had wholly followed after Jehovah in taking their possession in the
land of promise.
The Long
Decline
Years pass, and in a day of weakness, a woman is
raised up as a judge in Israel (see Judges 4: 4), and another woman,
not even an Israelite, is taken up to bring about the national
deliverance (see v21). Where were the two and a half tribes then?
Did the great altar of witness inspire them to devote their lives to
the cause of the Promised Land? Not a bit of it. “Gilead abode
beyond Jordan” (Judges 5: 17)—remained at home at ease. Certainly
“in the divisions of Reuben there were great resolves of heart”, but
nothing was done! “Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, To hear
the bleating of the flocks?” (v16). The sarcasm is palpable.
Time rolls on, and the sad day arrived when
“Jehovah began to cut Israel short; and Hazael smote them in all the
borders of Israel; from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead,
the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites” (2 Kings 10:
32, 33). In such a day of declension, when the people of God are
afflicted under the government of God, it is those elements on the
fringes—“the Jordan eastward”—that are most at risk. And thus the
two and a half tribes were smitten.
Now Reuben, Gad and Manasseh had “mighty men of
valour” even “famous men” (1 Chron. 5: 24), and some of their
battles are noted as being when “they put their trust” in God, for
“the war was of God” (vs. 20, 22). All these things are commendable,
for even a Christian in a wrong position may be used of the Lord.
Eventually, however, we read that “they transgressed against the God
of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of
the land, whom God had destroyed before them. And the God of Israel
stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of
Tilgath-Pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, the
Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and
brought them to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan,—unto
this day” (vs. 25, 26). So ends the sad history of those who refused
to inherit “on yonder side the Jordan” (Num. 32: 19). Eventually, of
course, all of the Northern Kingdom were taken by the Assyrians into
captivity, but these borderers were the first to go. It is hardly
surprising that those who are only half and half believers are the
most vulnerable to being taken captive by the god of this world.
What then of their “cattle” and “their little ones” (Num. 32: 16?
What then indeed!
Conclusion
How solemn is this history of the two and a half
tribes—and how pregnant with meaning! Let us ensure then that we
take the lesson to heart, as being for ourselves and not for others,
and let us determine with God’s help to be preserved from any spirit
that distracts from our going to possess “the good land that is
beyond the Jordan” (Deut. 3: 25). Let us resolve never, ever to be
mere borderers!
