Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 32:6
And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?
Num 32:6-15
Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?
And wherefore discourage ye the heart of the children of Israel?
The expostulation of Moses
1. He shows them what he apprehended to be evil in this motion; that it would discourage the heart of their brethren (Num 32:6-7). What, saith he, with a holy indignation at their selfishness, shall your brethren go to war, and expose themselves to all the hardships of the field, and shall ye sit here at your ease? No, do not mistake yourselves; you shall never be indulged by me in this sloth and cowardice. It ill becomes any of Gods Israel to sit down unconcerned in the difficult concernments of their brethren, whether public or personal.
2. He minds them of the fatal consequences of the unbelief and faint-heartedness of their fathers when they were, as these here, just ready to enter Canaan. He recites the story very particularly (Num 32:8-13). Thus did your fathers, whose punishment should be a warning to you to take heed of sinning after the similitude of their transgression.
3. He gives them fair warning of the mischief that would be likely to follow upon this separation they were about to make from the camp of Israel; they would be in danger of bringing wrath upon the whole congregation, and hurrying them all back again into the wilderness (Num 32:14-15). Ye are risen up in your fathers stead to despise the pleasant land, and reject it as they did, when we hoped you were risen up in their stead to possess it. It was an encouragement to Moses to see what an increase of men they were, but a discouragement to see that they were withal an increase of sinful men, treading in the steps of their fathers impiety. It is sad to see the rising generations in families and countries seldom better, and often worse, than that which went before it. And what comes of it? why, it augments the fierce anger of the Lord; not only continues that fire, but increaseth it, and fills the measure often, till it overflow in a deluge of desolation. Note, if men did consider as they ought what would be in the end of sin, they would be afraid of the beginnings of it. (Matthew Henry, D. D.)
The faithful rebuke of Moses
I. The injustice of their proposal. Why should they have as their inheritance that country which all had assisted to conquer, and leave their brethren to conquer other possessions for themselves without their aid?
II. The tendency of their proposal to dishearten their brethren. Because the granting of this request would be likely to–
1. Reduce their numbers.
2. Engender dissatisfaction.
III. The wickedness of their proposal.
1. Unbelief of Gods word.
2. Depreciation of Gods goodness.
IV. The tendency of their proposal to call down the wrath of God.
1. The cause of His anger (Num 32:14).
2. The expression of His anger (Num 32:15).
3. The subjects of His anger. All this people.
V. The solemn example by which Moses enforced his rebuke (Num 32:8-13). (W. Jones.)
The sin of discouraging our brethren
The children of God are very prone to be discouraged. The truth is, that their path through the wilderness is not an easy one. The danger of discouragement being so very great, it is the duty of Christians to encourage each other, to exhort one another in words of kindness, cheerfulness, and love, to hold on their way. How beautiful is the example of Jesus, in the tenderness of the sympathy wherewith lie encouraged the weak. But Christians are too often unlike their Master, wanting in that gentle and encouraging sympathy. It may be well to note more carefully some of the ways in which Christians most frequently discourage each others hearts.
1. First, then, we may mention an inconsistent life. There is nothing so beautiful on earth as a consistent life, a life entirely consecrated to God–devoted to one great object, and guided by one great principle. Such a life makes people feel that there is something from God in true religion; and it greatly encourages those who are seeking Christ. On the contrary, the inconsistent lives of Christians are the greatest possible hindrance to the world, and to those who are weak in faith. There was great apparent inconsistency in the request of the Reubenites. They ought to have valued Gods promise, and have wished to settle within the limits of the Promised Land; but the rich pastures of the territories already won, and situated without its boundaries, were a temptation to them. And Moses saw at once the effect that this example would have upon the hearts of their brethren. It would discourage them. It is just so with those who ought to live for heaven, who profess to be looking for it, and yet set their affections on things below–on the creature, or the world, or on money. This contrariety between the profession and the life cannot be otherwise than a stumbling block to the world, and a great discouragement to those who are weak in faith. Some it hardens in their unbelief; others are led by it into painful doubt and perplexity. It is no small sin to discourage our brethren.
2. But again, the natural heart is very prone to think that religion is a gloomy thing, a system of sacrifices; and this we cannot wonder at, as it only sees what must be given up, but cannot perceive what is gained. It cannot understand that excellency of the knowledge of Christ which makes sacrifices easy and delightful, and renders things impossible to flesh and blood altogether possible. Now, when Christians are gloomy and desponding, when their look is melancholy and their language dissatisfied, it tends to confirm the notion that true religion does not make the heart happy, does not give it rest; and so the wanderer, discouraged at the outset, seeks cheerfulness and pleasure elsewhere, and not in Christ. Now, why should Christians ever give such an impression of religion? Surely it must be of all things the most blessed to be reconciled to God, to have the forgiveness of all sins. It is true that the Christian has many trials which are unknown to the world, fightings within, as well as fears without. But his fightings are not hopeless struggles. They are the precursors of victory; for, says St. Paul, we are made more than conquerors through Him that loved us.
3. Another way of discouraging our brethren is by showing want of sympathy in their difficulties. Hardness and want of sympathy have much to do with making the world as full of misery as it is.
4. Another case of discouragement to others is our shrinking, or appearing to shrink, from difficulties. Moses evidently thought that this was the motive of the request of the Reubenites. They wished to settle down in a land already won, instead of sharing the danger of war with their brethren. Shall your brethren go to war, and ye sit here? The event proved that happily this was not the case. Moses was mistaken in his suspicions. But it is quite clear, that had this been the case scarcely anything could have discouraged the rest of the Israelites more completely. Now this, we fear, is not a very uncommon cause of discouragements. There are too many Christians who shrink from difficulties. They prefer some smooth and easy course, the pastures of Jazer and Gilead to the warfare and conflicts of Canaan. If some easy work is proposed to them, which is accompanied by no great difficulties, and which involves no real self-denial, they may be ready for it. But they do not like to take up the cross, and especially a daily cross–one that lasts long. We ought not to shrink from difficulties in doing the will of God. It is usually Gods way to surround His own work with difficulties, and often with such difficulties as His own hand alone can remove. And this He does to try His peoples faith, not to discourage them. Viewed at a distance, like the wall of some great fortress, they appear very formidable, but when grappled with in faith, one after another they fall away. There are beautiful promises to encourage us under difficulties (Isa 41:14; Isa 41:16; Zec 4:7). Let us then settle it well in our hearts that we must have difficulties in doing the work of God; but let not these dismay our hearts or lead us to discourage our brethren. (G. Wagner.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
In case and peace, whilst your brethren are engaged in a bloody war. Their words were ambiguous, and Moses thought this to be an act of unbelief and sloth and self-love and policy.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6-19. Moses said unto the childrenof Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war,and shall ye sit hereTheir language was ambiguous; and Moses,suspicious that this proposal was an act of unbelief, a scheme ofself-policy and indolence to escape the perils of warfare and live inease and safety, addressed to them a reproachful and passionateremonstrance. Whether they had really meditated such a withdrawalfrom all share in the war of invasion, or the effect of theirleader’s expostulation was to drive them from their original purpose,they now, in answer to his impressive appeal, declared it to be theirsincere intention to co-operate with their brethren; but, if so, theyought to have been more explicit at first.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses said unto the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben,…. Being displeased with their motion, as his following discourse shows, it having at first sight an appearance of covetousness and cowardice:
shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? it is not reasonable that your brethren should be left by you and engage in a war with your common enemies, to dispossess them of their land before they can settle in it and you remain here easy and quiet in the possession of a fruitful country.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Moses first of all blames their want of brotherly feeling: “ Shall your brethren go into the war, and ye sit here? ” He then calls their attention to the fact, that by their disinclination they would take away the courage and inclination of the other tribes to cross over the Jordan and conquer the land, and would bring the wrath of God upon Israel even more than their fathers who were sent from Kadesh to spy out the land, and who led away the heart of the people into rebellion through their unfavourable account of the inhabitants of Canaan, and brought so severe a judgment upon the congregation. , to hold away the heart, i.e., render a person averse to anything. The Keri , as in Num 32:9, is unquestionably to be preferred to the Kal , in the Kethib of Num 32:7. – In Num 32:8-13, Moses reminds them of the occurrences described in ch. 13 and 14. On the expression, “ wholly followed Jehovah,” cf. Num 14:24. The words, “ He drove them about in the desert,” caused them to wander backwards and forwards in it for forty years, point back to Num 14:33-35.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verses 6-15:
The proposal of Gad and Reuben implied that they intended to settle down quietly in the comfortable district of Gilead, and leave their brethren to fight alone for the Land God had promised them. Moses sternly rebuked them. This would discourage the other ten tribes, just as the faithless spies had done thirty-eight years earlier. This led to the death of an entire generation. If Gad and Reuben were at this point to settle in comfort and leave their brethren to fight alone, they would be responsible for the judgment of God which would surely fail.
This is a powerful lesson for Missions today. Many of God’s people are willing to sit in comfort, in pleasant surroundings, while their brethren are on the front lines of the spiritual warfare. This is discouraging to those who feel the brunt of the battle.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. And Moses said unto the children of Gad. So sharp and severe a reproof shews us the greatness of the wrong: for neither did inconsiderate warmth carry away Moses into such violent anger, nor did he fall into error, so as to deliver his opinion on a point which he did not well understand. He knew, therefore, what the sons of Gad and Reuben asked; and hence he inveighed against them thus vehemently, because they desired to lacerate the body of the Church by this wicked severance. He begins by expostulating with them with regard to their sinful and unreasonable covetousness, in that they sought to indulge in idleness, when their brethren were about to march through a hostile land; for they were possessed of no rightful superiority, so as to throw upon the others all the labors, perils, and burdens of the war. Since, therefore, God had imposed the same condition upon all, (213) it was not right that part of them should be exempted from it, as if by privilege. More severely, however, is their ingratitude and perverseness towards God chastised, than their injustice towards their brethren, whilst he alleges to their reproach, that thus the hearts of the children of Israel would be broken, (214) so that they wouht refuse to obey the call of God.
(213) “Que Dieu les avoit conjoints ensemble, afin que les uns teinssent compagnie aux autres;” that God had united them together, so that they should keep company with each other. — Fr.
(214) See Margin, A.V., Num 32:7, “ Heb. break.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
AMERICAS PART IN THE LATE WAR
Num 32:6-7.
And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?
And wherefore discourage ye the heart of the Children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord hath given them? (Num 32:6-7).
THERE are men who believe that the preacher and the pulpit have nothing whatever to do with the secular subject of war. They argue that the nationswhatever their professions may bein practice, ignore God, and that it is not the business of the Church to attempt the righting of a world that willingly remains subject to our adversary. They appeal to Scripture to remind us that we are not citizens of earthly commonwealths, but are pilgrims and strangers, citizens of an Heavenly Kingdom, instead; and they push their plea still further by reminding us of the very name of the Church itselfEcclesia, a called-out company, or those who are called to quit the ways of the world and walk in another and a new fellowship. When I read a volume from the pen of a man who pleads for other-worldliness, I find him quoting Scripture so copiously as to well-nigh persuade me of his position. When, on the other hand, I read a volume from the pen of some exponent of Social Service, I discover that he also can deal in Scripture almost as copiously. I am compelled, therefore, to conclude that the Christian holds a dual citizenship, and that the division of these Scriptures involves a false exegesis. As a Christian, and by reason of my second birth, I have a citizenship in the heavenlies; as an American, and by reason of my first birth, I have a citizenship in the United States and in Minnesota, and I suspect there are obligations, serious and unshakable, that belong to both.
To me there is not necessarily an in harmony between these two; and yet, if I believed with some men that bloodshed was never justifiable under any possible circumstances; that war was murder and nothing better, I would be compelled to take their position and endure the consequences, though they were ignominy, jail, or even death. The men who endure for conscience sake, and who believe honestly that there is a conflict between the command of the Lord and the demand of man, and who say, When we are compelled to choose between these, we will abide by the first, are true men. The fact that there are cowards, hypocrites, pretenders, soul-slackers, does not disprove the fact that there are also conscientious and courageous Christian men who refuse to go to war for conscience sake; and such men will forever retain respect. In fact, I am speaking for such men more than any other class, when I discuss this theme, Is War Justifiable? And yet, incidentally, I will also have some words to say to that company who are engaged in criticism; who make it their business to take the offside of every subject; who opposed war when war was, and who would have opposed peace on the same ground had our government continued the policy of neutrality. Of such there seem to be not a few.
One can stick to a proper interpretation of a Biblical text, Num 32:6-7, and yet fairly discuss our question.
THE PRESIDENTS RESPONSIBILITY.
Moses was Israels leader, Israels captain, Israels president, if you please; and Moses is the man who was speaking in the text. And Moses said unto the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? (Num 32:6). Here was the one man and the only man, who could speak with authority. That fact suggests some others that grow out of it.
First of all, National life involves leadership. Leadership results from a combination of facts and experiences. It commonly expresses natural forcefulness, and unusual resources. To be effective, it must also express popularity or influence with the people. Never was a man better adapted to office than was Moses. There never was a man by nature more forceful or resourceful than Moses. The favor of God was upon him from the first, and it was no more manifest in his miraculous preservation against the kings decree than it was in his unusual education in the kings palace, and his ever-deepening conviction, as he witnesses the sufferings of the oppressed people, and grew into an appreciation of the fact that though he was a son of the court, and they were the slaves of the same, they were his people and he belonged to them and with them.
The Lord, in His choice of leaders, never ignores character nor circumstances. He knew that these combined to make Moses an unusual man; and his leadership was not an election by a popular vote which had been unduly influenced by party friends!
It came, rather, by a Divine appointment, in recognition of indisputable powers. When I review the history of the United States, it seems to me that in the instance of almost every president we have had, the clear indication of the Divine appointment is seen. What nation of earth ever knew a line of rulers more remarkable, or more righteous? The exception has so seldom occurred as to merely emphasize the rule, and remind us afresh of the fact that partisanship sometimes thwarts the Divine purpose, but not often. Scarcely in a lifetime have I voted the straight democratic ticket; and not once since I reached my maturity have I been an ardent advocate of its every leader. But I am fully convinced that when Mr. Wilson, the educator, was taken out of the office of college president to become a state governor, God had begun to move toward a leader for the stressful days that He saw coming to our country. No man had ever held that office since America had a beginning who was compelled to meet as many exigencies as arose while Woodrow Wilson was president; and his mistakes were few, while his counsels had about them the aroma and clear hints of a higher source.
In the late war, it fell to President Wilson to speak and say whether we should sit still or join our brethren across the sea in use of canon and sword. For many months influential men in all parts of the country criticised and severely condemned his attempt to keep America out of this awful maelstrom. His neutrality was denounced in scathing terms, and the newspapers of the country very generally joined in the fusillade and confusion of noise in the midst of which it must have been difficult for the chief executive to think clearly and counsel wisely. When the historian of the future comes to report the world events of the three years that preceded our declaration of war, his statement of facts will involve a tribute to the leadership America enjoyed, a leadership not excelled in the course and conduct of national potentates.
Political prominence creates personal responsibility. Moses leadership of Israel compelled him to be her mouthpiece. Whether he wished it or not, he must determine whether it would be war or neutrality for the children of Gad and Reuben. He must have hated to send those men to the conflict. Doubtless he loathed the shedding of blood. I suspect that in his heart he verily wished the customs of war were wiped from the face of the earth, for Moses was no rude barbarian; he was the biggest man the world has ever produced, the Man from Nazareth excepted. He had the clearest vision granted to any prophet since God appointed that office. He had the profoundest regard for the human race ever finding expression in literature or in language. And yet the day struck when Moses spake the word that sent Gad and Reuben to the scene of conflict.
I am by nature opposed to the shedding of blood. It seems to me that by confession of the person and principles of Jesus Christ, I am irrevocably committed to pacification and belong absolutely with those who believe that the Church of God, as such, should not fail to miss the unspeakable blessing pronounced upon the peacemaker; and yet, I am quite confident that had I been in the position of leadership, and had known as President Wilson knew for many, many months, the insults, intrigues, and intentions of the enemy, I should have reached the exact conclusion to which he finally came, and said, We can keep out of this conflict no longer! President Wilson realized the awfulness of flinging a peaceful people into the most deadly conflict the world had ever seen, and one so unusual in nature and character that few men in the world imagined that such a holocaust could occur at the close of nineteen centuries of Christian teaching. But the devilish features which that conflict took on will forever remain the defense of our nations participation in it. Had the well-established rules of warfare been regarded; had humanity seemed to be expressing itself on the field of conflict; had the questions involved rested for their settlement in a test of strength as between Old World powers, then our land would as well have stood aside, and should have so done, and let Europe and Asia settle the conflicts which they themselves had created. But when war takes such a form as to convince the man who holds the destinies of a nation in his own hand, that it is a conflict between barbarism and civilization, between the savagery of materialism and the sanctity of idealism, between might and right, then we must either unsheathe the sword, or consent to lose all the advantages accrued in twenty centuries of Christian teaching, and return to the times and customs of Goths, Vandals, and Huns. I am ashamed to admit that twenty centuries of Christian teaching have not more profoundly influenced the conduct of men; and yet, since the facts face us, I am compelled to say war were better than a return of barbarism, and the triumph of the sword is to be preferred above the triumph of savagery, and thereby to justify the man whose political prominence compelled him to speak the word of battle. As Lowell says:
New times demand new measures and new men;
The world advances, and in time outgrows
The laws that in our fathers days were best.
I had hoped that human nature had been a bit improved by all the tedium and toil of twenty centuries of teaching; but, like many of my more deluded brethren, I reckoned without my host, and again I find myself corrected by the Word of the Lord, and impressed with the truth that in the natural man there is no good thing.
National exigencies call for new counsels. When this moment broke, Moses rose to the occasion and uttered the words of wisdom herein recorded. Mr. Wilson did the same. Think of the method employed! He had never declared war, and perhaps never would have so done. He recognized that war was upon us, and called the nation to self-defense; and there is a distinction with a difference. The sinking of the Lusitania was scarcely a sufficient occasion for war. It is impossible for great combatants to fight without passersby getting in their path and suffering serious injury; but now that it comes out that our executive at Washington knew that in addition to the violation of neutrality, there had been repeated insults, injustices, and threats from the highest source and intrigues involving our closest neighbors in a frame-up against us, and an attempt even to control our own Congress and Senate, and a spy system reporting the sailing of our ships with the sinister intent of having them sunken, and practically every other form of an open fight, save the frank declaration of itthat exigency, I say, called for action.
Those of us who were born in America, whose ancestors for generations enjoyed its free institutions, and profited by its equitable and righteous laws, and who have been privileged an undisturbed exercise of our conscience in all matters of faith as well as conduct, may not as fully appreciate our inheritance as men who have come into it by adoption. The most ardent advocates of war with whom I have talked were either at one time citizens of Germany or sons of such citizens. These men have the keenest appreciation of the freedom enjoyed in America, and are the most eloquent in their laudations of our democracy. The only thing that can reconcile a pacifist to such a conflict as that in which we are now involved is the fact that we could not avoid it, and at the same time vindicate the principles of righteousness and safeguard the rights of the people; and both of these must of necessity ever remain dearer than life itself.
It was on that basis that Moses made
THE FRATERNAL APPEAL.
Serious as the present situation is, it has its humorous features. It is little short of humorous to see those men who have been talking of the mistakes of Moses and who have been using pulpits, dedicated to the honoring of the Word of God, for the purpose of degrading the word of the greatest authority, now turning back to tell the people what Moses had to say! Several times Israel concluded it could dispense with Moses services; but in each instance, learned from the saddest experiences and the most serious consequences, the folly of that attempt.
The new Israelthe Church of Godis now being taught after the same manner, and being compelled to turn back to Moses for both counsel and guidance. It is a perfect marvel how he outlined for that people in that time, and for our people in our time, and all people in all times, the basis of righteousness in battle.
His first plea is on the ground of blood-kinship.
Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? (Num 32:6).
Brethren then expressed blood-kinship and kinship in faith. Israel was one at both points. She descended from Abraham and it was a common blood that coursed through all her veins. She believed in one God, the Creator of the universe, and the only rightful Ruler in it.
We have a twofold fellowship to be defended now also. As in Moses day, so now, blood and belief are the only fraternal ties that will endure the last possible test. George Lorimer, referring to the sneer that Bismark once made concerning America, namely, that it was a mongrel population and could not claim kinship with anything, answered, Substantially we are one race upon this continent, and that race has more in common with Great Britain than with any other. The Celt and Saxon originally occupied the north of Germany and Denmark, Sweden and Norway, but on the little Isle they came together and, mingling their bloods, made the Anglo-Saxon, a result exactly such as has been wrought out on American soil. Somebody has written,
And now that the two are one again,
Behold on their shield the word Refrain,
And the lion cubs fain sing the eagles song
To be stanch and valiant and free and strong.
For the eagles beak and the lions paw,
And the lions fangs and the eagles claw,
And the eagles swoop and the lions might
And the lions leap and the eagles sight,
Shall guard the flag with the word Refrain
Now that the two are one again.
It was on a basis of an advance civilization. Moses was not advocating a ruthless slaughter for the sake of war itself. He believed the Canaanite an enemy of the Lord, and so described him. And he looked upon the occupancy of that land by Israel as the only hope of its future good. As between battles that would send men to an untimely death and the barbarism that would retain the land as the special theater of sin in its worst form, Moses chose battle rather than barbarism. In the average nation a man imagines its civilization superior. I have no question whatever that Germany really felt that, in attempting to force its ideas upon the world, it was conferring a favor; and yet when one remembers that Germany has been the seat and source of skepticism; that by its scholars Christ has been despised and the Scriptures have been discredited, he is not enamored of the notion that rationalism would right the world, or militarism the sooner bring the millennium, or German kultur quicken civilization.
On the other hand, there may come out of that late conflict a decided quickening to certain desirable features of the higher civilization. The Crusaders engendered bloodshed and battle, and yet Dr. Richard Storrs has called attention to the effects of the same: They mobilized the population of Europe; they accustomed nations hitherto hostile to work together; they broke the yoke of baronical tyranny; they changed and equalized properties; they stimulated invention and geographical research. Dr. Lorimer believes that they also led indirectly to the revival of learning, to the Reformation under Luther, and to the methods of modern commerce.
When I say this I am not forgetting the undesirable features of every war, and it will take a century or more for the world to recover the evil effects of the awful conflict lately perpetrated under cover of battle.
And yet, if out of it good comes, it will only be a new illustration of the fact that after all God can work His will in spite of the devils greatest endeavors, and can make all things work together for good, notwithstanding Satans world-supremacy.
It was also in the interest of the Divine plan. God had His purpose to accomplish through Israel, and He had elected her to work out His will on Canaans soil. Doubtless it will be discovered again that all was not chaos, that the fortunes of battle were not matters of accident, and that the final victory will not be such because it so happened that we won, but because God was with us. If Americas participation in this war, and her method of conducting it were not such as to bring the Divine approval, there would be little hope of her final success. When Abraham Lincoln, in the darkest days of the Civil War, called upon the nation for a day of fasting and prayer and humiliation, he set his seal to it that God would be the determining force in conflict; and when he expressed the wish, not so much that God might be on the side of the Northern armies, but that the Northern armies might be on the side of God, he showed himself at once an astute statesman and a Spirit-instructed man. Sir William Dawson, a man whose knowledge of science and loyalty to the Scriptures created in one person an ideal combination, in later life wrote, In my time I have seen so many abuses rectified and so many great evils overthrown, and so much done for the material and spiritual welfare of humanity, that I look forward to better things to come. At the same time there are dangers ahead that may lead to great catastrophes for the time being. Yet, somehow, good seems to come out of great wars and other evils. Just now the dangers that appear to threaten the world from political and military causes do not alarm me, because I have seen so many things come on like storms, yet pass away and leave good behind. I am certainly prepared to testify that all the time I have been in it, the world has really been advancing both in the removal of great sins and the propagation of truth and light. The future is in the hand of God, and we may trust in Him, more especially upon His work in the hands of the Saviour and the Holy Spirit.
Certainly the true Christian cannot exercise a less confidence, and as he responds to the call of the country, he ought to go convinced that his contention is not a selfish one, and that the warfare he is making can be so made as to meet the Divine approval, and help to bring about the Divine plan.
But Moses dealt with one thing more,
THE DIVINE PROMISE
The land had been apportioned to these tribes. Some men will say that God had no such right; but all such forget the ownership of land. We live in a day when the Government deeds to the individual and the individual deeds to another individual, and the individual and the government alike have forgotten that God owns. The earth is His and the fullness thereof. The cattle upon a thousand hills and the silver and gold are His and He has a right to do what He will with His own. He gave Canaan to the Israelites. His conduct has justified itself in the course of human history. The savages who perished from that portion of the earth, yielded up a soil which became the source and center of every sacred influence that has been felt to the ends of the earth. It is just possible, you know, that when God made America the refuge for the oppressed of the Old World, and pushed the savage back to give the Puritan a new standing ground, that He was only determining a new Canaan in which to build a light, the shining of which would be seen afar and the warmth and radiance of which should yet keep the world from freezing by infidelity, and from dying from increasing darkness.
Modern Protestant missions were born in England and received their original impetus from Carey, the cobbler; but this civilizing and Christianizing of men has found its most fruitful source upon our own soil, and the representatives of the American church have been the missionaries to every land on earth.
From Greenlands icy mountains,
From Indias coral strand,
Where Africs sunny fountains
Roll down their golden sand;
From many an ancient river,
From many a palmy plain,
They call us to deliver
Their land from errors chain.
Who can doubt that God had this movement in His mind, and was simply making ready for it when He turned the prow of Columbus ship to these shores, and followed his landing with scores of others, and brought to this continent the most consecrated and Christian?
They accepted the land appointed. The war to which Moses advised was not to be animated by the greed of gain. Reuben and Gad were not to go forth on a war of aggression; they were not to destroy the kings of weaker kingdoms, and subject the people to slavery and possess themselves of the land; in fact, they were to have nothing whatever from this conflict save the privilege of establishing their brethren in the place appointed of God. That once done, they were to go back on the East side of Jordan and settle upon the soil they already possessed. What a parallelism with our late position! Had it been announced that the intent of war was to take Germany away from the Germans, and make an American dependency of it, the majority of our people would have repudiated the idea. The grievance grew out of Alsace Loraine, the occupancy of Belgium and France, the oppression of Poland, the deception and undoing of Russia, the determination of the enemy to take every possible quarter and make subjects of every conquered people. Before the war they demanded a place in the sun and never said how large that place should be, and the nations of the earth came to fear that if they were not defeated, those who had appropriated God and made Him a German God, might, with equal propriety, occupy the earth and make it a German world.
Years ago this thought was not nearly as offensive as it is today. The conflict made exhibition of a spirit which many of us never believed existed, and which we were indeed slow to receive. But the stormy day adds new illustrations of what it would mean for the Allies to fail. Victory was never passed to men on platters, and it never will be. If Canaan was to be occupied by Israel, they must contend for it and fairly win; and they reminded themselves every inch of the way that apart from God they could do nothing.
Rudyard Kipling, had he never written anything else, would have made himself immortal by the single poem, The Recessional:
Far-called our navies melt away
On dune and headland sinks the fire,
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forgetlest we forget
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the law;
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forgetlest we forget.
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard;
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord.
Amen.
Now, may we conclude by reminding of another thing, namely, that there is a greater war to be won and a greater land to be occupied? I speak of the war against the great Adversary, Satan, himself, and the Land that lieth on high, to which human wars will never come. There was a theory, rather widespread in Europe, that every man who died on a battle-field won both. I do not believe it! I can find nothing in the Book called the Bible that indicates that the world-warrior is assured as a reward, Heaveneternal life. But I do find that if he resists the Adversary, deliberately chooses Jesus Christ to be his Leader, finds under the bloodstained banner of Calvary his place, he will be a victor indeed, and Heaven and immortality are his sure inheritance. The plea that the Government made then to our boys had some kinship to that which I now make to boys and girls alike, to men and women in middle life, and in old age,
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore, take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph 6:11-17).
The papers recently reported that the famous ring veteran, Bob Fitzsimmons was dying, and said that Jim Jeffries had sent in a telegram saying, Tell Bob that Jim is in his corner pulling for him to win. But the only pull against death that will be successful and will give the fighter the victory is not Jim Jeffries, but Jesus Christ. Paul said, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? and then shouted the shout of victory, I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord! He alone can deliver!
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
F. REBUKE BY MOSES vv. 615
TEXT
Num. 32:6. And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? 7. And wherefore discourage ye the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord hath given them? 8. Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land. 9. For when they went up into the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel, that they should not go into the land which the Lord had given them. 10. And the Lords anger was kindled the same time, and he sware, saying, 11. Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me: 12. Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun; for they have wholly followed the Lord. 13. And the Lords anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed. 14. And behold, ye are risen up in your fathers stead, an increase of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel. 15. For if ye turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the wilderness; and ye shall destroy all this people.
PARAPHRASE
Num. 32:6. But Moses said to the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, Shall your brothers go to war while you yourselves sit here? 7. And why do you now discourage the children of Israel from crossing into the land which the Lord has given them? 8. This is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land. 9. For when they went up to the wady of Eshcol and saw the land, they discouraged the children of Israel so that they did not go into the land which the Lord had given them. 10. So the Lords anger burned in that day, and He swore, saying, 11. Indeed, none of the men who came up from Egypt, twenty years old and up, shall see the land which I pledged to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob because they have not fully followed me. 12. excepting Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have fully followed the Lord. 13. So the Lords anger burned against Israel, and he made them wander forty years in the wilderness, until the entire generation of those who had sinned in the sight of the Lord were destroyed. 14. And behold, you are risen up in your fathers place, a brood of sinful men, to add still more to the fierce anger of the Lord toward Israel. 15. For if you turn away from following Him, He will once more abandon them in the wilderness; and you will destroy all these people.
COMMENTARY
The anxieties and fears shown by Moses are readily understandable. Above all other things, he most wanted to prevent another fiasco like that at Kadesh-Barnea. There the disobedient people incurred the righteous wrath of God, and their stubbornness had cost the lives of virtually the entire group, besides the forty years of time lost in the wilderness. The suggestion from Gad and Reuben at this juncture conceivably could produce a rift among Gods people again, and who could predict the possible consequences? Moses conclusion that the two tribes hoped to avoid having to participate in the military campaign in the west is logical. He further, concluded that such action would disturb the essential unity of the tribes. Almost exactly the same charge would later be leveled against the two tribes by Deborah (Jdg. 5:16-17), and with sound reason. For one-sixth of the group to stand back now and disengage themselves arbitrarily from Israels advance into the Promised Land would have dulled the glory of the moment of triumph to say the least; at most, it could have served as a disquieting and discouraging element of such magnitude as to cause the remainder of the people to refuse to advance any farther. Thus the situation of Kadesh-Barnea could easily have been repeated.
Are the words of Moses unnecessarily harsh? His response to the circumstantial request is immediate; he has not asked for an explanation: and he does not consult the Lord first before voicing his own objections: this hardly seemed necessary. But he was not omniscient, and regardless of the manner in which the issue came to its settlement, his forthright zeal to protect Gods people had been evidenced. Moses was not being stubborn or inconsiderate or illogical; he was taking a positive stand for right as he understood it. That he later qualified his stand is irrelevant, excepting to show the great stature of the man who, when all the facts are introduced into the picture, was willing to modify his position when he was satisfied that the principle for which he contended would not fall. Beyond doubt those who made the suggestion among the two tribes were young men whose minds had little or no recollection of the analogous circumstance to which Moses compared this one. He speaks from wisdom and experience. Nothing in the incident can be understood as a reflection upon his integrity, his character, or his intelligence. He simply does not want disastrous history to repeat itself if he can prevent it.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS
583.
What did Moses fear as possible results if Gad and Reuben were permitted to settle east of the Jordan?
584.
What possible motives might they have had?
585.
To what historical situation and incident did he compare the choice before them?
586.
Defend the propriety of Moses words.
587.
What is there in the incident which makes you think more highly of Moses?
588.
What later historical events seem to suggest that Moses fears were not entirely ungrounded?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Moses Is Angry At Them For Discouraging The Other Tribes ( Num 32:6-9 ).
Num 32:6
‘And Moses said to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, “Shall your brethren go to the war, and shall you sit here?” ’
Moses took their words as an indication that they were trying to find an easy way out and were unwilling to enter Canaan and confront the nations there. He had cause to remember how Yahweh had punished their fathers for backing down from a conquest of the land. He asked them whether it was really their intention to leave their fellow Israelites to invade Canaan on their own.
Num 32:7
“ And for what reason do you discourage the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which Yahweh has given them?”
Did they not recognise that this would discourage the others from going forward into the land which Yahweh had given them? Why then were they doing it?
Num 32:8-9
“ Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to see the land. For when they went up unto the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel, that they should not go into the land which Yahweh had given them.”
By discouraging the people in this way they were no different from the scouts who went to the valley of Eshcol and saw the land, and also discouraged the hearts of the people (Num 13:21-33), thus preventing them from going into the land which Yahweh had given them, thus rejecting His gift.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Num 32:6-15. And Moses said, &c. Those two tribes had applied to Moses for a settlement in the country where they were, and desired that they might not be brought over Jordan, Num 32:5. This justly irritated the spirit of Moses, who, with a proper indignation, said unto them, shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? He remarked, that their ill example would certainly much dishearten the rest of their brethren; in which view he tells them that they are acting the part of their predecessors, the spies, who discouraged the rest of the people by their fears, and so kindled the Lord’s anger against that generation, that they were all, for their mutinous and distrustful spirit, excluded from the land of Canaan. He, therefore, exhorts them to beware of the same spirit, lest the same evil consequences should follow, and the people be left to perish in the wilderness; Num 32:15.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 182
MOSES REPROVES THE REUBENITES
Num 32:6-7. And Moses said unto the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here? And wherefore discourage ye the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord hath given them?
ACTIONS are good or evil according to the motives from which they proceed: but, as these are known only to God, it must often happen that our conduct is either viewed in too favourable a light, or subjected to unmerited censure. Our inability to dive into the hearts of men should certainly incline us at all times to lean rather to the side of charity, and to hope and believe all things of a favourable nature, as far as circumstances will admit. This consideration however is not to operate so far as to blind our eyes to what is manifestly evil, or to keep us from reproving those who act amiss. Magistrates in particular must proceed with firmness in suppressing wickedness of every kind, and by timely interference must stop the contagion of bad example. Thus did Moses, when the Reubenites and Gadites presented a request to him, which he deemed injurious to all the other tribes. They asked to have the land on the east side of Jordan for their portion, instead of any part of the land of Canaan: and Moses, conceiving their request to proceed from improper and unjustifiable motives, expostulated with them, and reproved them with great severity. Let us consider,
I.
The grounds of his jealousy
There was ample reason for the fears he entertained respecting them
[Their request seemed to be dictated by selfishness, worldliness, and unbelief. As soon as Sihon king of the Amorites, and Og the king of Bashan were subdued, and their fertile territories were seized, these two tribes requested to have the exclusive possession of their land, under a pretence that it was pre-eminently suited to them, on account of the number of their flocks and herds. As for their brethren belonging to the other ten tribes, let them go and fight their way among the Canaanites, and get possession of whatever they could: but the land which was already subdued, and which was of the richest quality, they desired to have allotted to themselves without any further trouble.
This land was not within the precincts of Canaan: moreover, it would be far removed from the ordinances of religion and from the house of God: but they did not seem to regard either of these considerations in comparison of an ample, easy, and immediate settlement.
The inhabitants of the promised land were exceeding numerous and warlike; and could never be dispossessed without many sanguinary contests. Perhaps, after all, the victory over them might be dearly purchased, or possibly might never be attained: hence also might arise the willingness of the suitors to forego their share in what was uncertain, if they might be permitted to possess what was already gained.
Such was the construction which Moses put upon the conduct of these two tribes, and such was the ground of those reproofs which he administered.]
And is there not ground for similar fears whenever a similar conduct obtains?
[If a minister at this day see his hearers selfish, mindful of their own comforts, but inattentive to the wants and miseries of others, has he not reason to fear concerning them? When it is eminently characteristic of the true Christian to mind, not his own things, but the things of others [Note: Php 2:4.], and there is a manifest failure in this respect amongst his people, ought he not to be jealous over them with a godly jealousy, and to warn them of their self-deceit?
Again, if he observe any professors of religion to have become worldly; if he find them so intent on their present interests, as to be comparatively indifferent about the ordinances of religion, and the ultimate possession of the heavenly land; if he see them studious of their present ease, and averse to spiritual conflicts, must he not of necessity stand in doubt of such persons? Does not love itself require him to change his voice towards them, and to adopt the language of admonition and reproof?
Once more, if he see them yielding to unbelief, and resting satisfied with a present portion, through desponding apprehensions respecting the attainment of a better inheritance, does it become him to be silent? Ought he not to exert himself in every way to repress such a spirit, and to stimulate his people to a more becoming conduct? Must he wait for open and notorious transgressions before he opens his lips in expostulations and reproofs? No surely: the example of Moses in the text, and of St. Paul on various occasions [Note: 2Co 11:2; Gal 4:19-20.], shews, what are the emotions which every such instance should produce, and what methods every faithful minister should adopt to counteract such evils.]
Whilst we justify Moses on reviewing the grounds of his jealousy, we shall find reason to congratulate him on,
II.
The effects of it
From himself it produced a faithful remonstrance
[It is but too common to express our fears and jealousies to others, and to conceal them from the person who is the subject of them. But Moses abhorred any such concealment: he felt the importance of suggesting all his fears to those who were most interested in being made acquainted with them; and he accordingly addressed himself to the people themselves.
He set before them the pernicious tendency of their example, which was calculated to discourage all the children of Israel: he also reminded them of the similar conduct of their fathers, which had involved them all in one common ruin; and assured them, that they would bring a similar destruction on the present generation, if they persisted in such unreasonable desires [Note: ver. 615.].
Thus he acted like a true friend, and a faithful servant of the Lord. It was thus that St. Paul also acted towards Peter, when by a temporizing and timid policy he was endangering the liberty of the Christian Church: and thus also are we to act, agreeably to that precept, Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and shalt not suffer sin upon him [Note: Lev 19:17.].]
From them it called forth a satisfactory explanation
[They did not, on the one hand, either acknowledge, or deny, the fault imputed to them; nor on the other hand, did they take the slightest offence at it. But for the satisfaction of Moses they voluntarily engaged to accompany their brethren in arms, and even to go before them to the battle; and to continue with them till the whole land should be subdued, and every tribe should be in possession of its destined inheritance. This was fair and equitable: and Moses readily acquiesced in the proposal. He warned them however, that, if they should ever recede from their purpose, and violate their engagement, their sin should surely find them out, and be visited upon them.
Thus were matters settled to the satisfaction of all parties: the jealousy of Moses evinced his concern for their welfare; and, if it did not give birth to the proposal which was made, it certainly confirmed the people in their determination to execute it with boldness and fidelity. A similar instance of jealousy towards these very tribes occurred, when they were returning to their families after the conquest of Canaan [Note: Jos 22:11-33.]. On that occasion indeed they were evidently blameless, notwithstanding the appearances were, as in the present case, very much against them. But the issue in both was happy: and we learn from both to admonish with candour, and to receive admonitions with humble gratitude; being more intent on satisfying the minds of those who are offended, than on lowering our accusers by any recriminations.]
This subject will naturally furnish us with some important hints:
1.
Maintain on all occasions a jealousy over yourselves
[The heart is justly said to be deceitful above all things: and Satan can easily transform himself into an angel of light. Even the Apostles themselves on some occasions knew not what spirit they were of: they supposed themselves actuated by pure and holy zeal, when they were influenced by nothing but pride and revenge. It is highly probable that these two tribes took credit to themselves for far more disinterestedness than they possessed; and that Moses saw more of their real disposition, than they themselves were aware of. This appears from the solemn charge which Moses gave them, even after he had acceded to their proposal. And we are sure that this is frequently the case amongst ourselves: under the idea of a prudential regard for our families and our property, we are very apt to indulge a worldly and selfish spirit; and to be unconscious of evils which are but too visible to others. Let us remember this: we see it in others; let us guard against it in ourselves ]
2.
Be ready to assign the reasons of your conduct to others
[It may easily happen that our conduct may appear to others in a more unfavourable light than it ought; and if they knew our real views, they would form a different judgment respecting it. Now then we should not be angry with them because they express their doubts respecting any particular action; but should be ready to satisfy their minds, precisely as we would, if they inquired into the grounds of our faith [Note: 1Pe 3:15.]. The Apostle Peter, when called to an account by all the other Apostles for going to uncircumcised Gentiles and eating with them, thought it no degradation to assign his reasons to them, but was glad of an opportunity of removing their misapprehensions [Note: Act 11:2-4.]. Though they seemed to have been somewhat hasty in condemning him, he was not angry with them: he knew the purity of their motives, and felt a pleasure in declaring to them the designs of God towards the Gentile world. Happy would it be for us, if there were in all of us such a mind as this. But, alas! the quick sensibility which is manifested by us when any fault is pointed out; our extreme backwardness to acknowledge it, and our proneness to condemn our monitors rather than ourselves, render the duly of admonishing one another extremely difficult. Let us however cultivate a better spirit, and esteem it a kindness, if the righteous smite and reprove us: let us receive their admonitions as an excellent oil, which shall not break our head [Note: Psa 141:5.], but rather heal the wounds which our own misconduct may have occasioned.]
3.
Endeavour so to walk, that your actions may carry their own evidence along with them
[In some circumstances our actions must of necessity be open to misconstruction. St. Paul in circumcising Timothy and not Titus, and in becoming all things to all men, must appear to many to be guilty of inconsistency. But his general spirit would bear such ample testimony to the integrity of his mind, that all candid persons must at least withhold their censures, even when they could not discern the exact propriety of his conduct. Where there was real danger of his laying a stumbling-block before others, he invariably leaned to the safer side, and would deny himself in things that were most innocent, rather than by indulgence ensnare the consciences of others [Note: 1Co 8:13.]. Thus should we endeavour to act. We should abstain from all appearance of evil. We should be careful that our good may not be evil spoken of [Note: Rom 14:16.]. In a word, we should be circumspect in all things; and so make our light to shine before men, that all who behold it may be constrained to glorify our Father which is in heaven.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
We may in some measure account for the feelings of the man of GOD. He had earnestly requested that he might see the good land, and that the LORD would give him to enjoy it. And the Reubenites, and the Gadities, were indifferent about. Deu 3:23-25 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
shall ye sit here: 2Sa 11:11, 1Co 13:5, Phi 2:4