And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had much cattle, a very great multitude; and they saw the land of Jaazer, and the land of Gilead, and behold, the place was a place for cattle.
Israel has stopped east of the Jordan. The land ahead is Canaan, the land God promised. But Jazer and Gilead, the conquered country on this side of the river, are good grazing ground — and two tribes with huge herds notice. The verse turns on one detail: livestock. Commentators have long asked whether what follows is a fair plan or a quiet loss of nerve.
The chapter opens with the word "saw." One writer traces the whole story back to that word, and sets it beside Lot's choice of the Jordan Valley.
But note how this great altar began. We read: "They saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, and behold, the place was a place for livestock." It was exactly the same principle at work in Lot, who "lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt." The sight-principle confuses the garden of the Lord with the land of Egypt. Just think of those two put together — "Egypt" and "the garden of the Lord"! What a contrast! The one is above and unseen; the other is below and visible. Jordan separates them. And sadly many today have lifted up their eyes like Lot and like Reuben. They have seen well-watered plains and places for livestock, and they are settling down on this side of Jordan.
Their herds came from God's own hand. That is what makes the next step so searching.
Two tribes, Reuben and Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh asked Moses to let them settle on the conquered lands east of Jordan. They would not find their portion in what was definitely the land of God's promise. What particularly moved them to want this was the abundance of cattle they had gained. The good things God had granted took away their desire for Canaan.
Several writers judge the plan by one question. Where had God placed Israel's inheritance?
First of all, where was Israel's proper portion — the inheritance God had destined for them? Most surely on the other side of Jordan, in the land of Canaan… It was a mistake, a failure, a stopping short of God's mark, for Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh to choose any boundary line short of the river Jordan… They surveyed "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead," and they valued it entirely according to their own interests, with no reference to the judgement and will of God.
One writer reads the Jordan itself as a picture. That shows what the two tribes gave up.
So they have to cross the Jordan (the river of death) to enter the land, a picture of heavenly places. But sadly, two and a half tribes prefer the "other side of Jordan," the land of Gilead, which is "a place for livestock" — in other words, earthly prosperity.
Another writer turns the same picture into a test of what drives daily life:
There, the motive for our walk will no longer be "much cattle"; it will no longer be a question of arranging our life more or less faithfully according to what we own.
Commentators differ on the men themselves. Some set them beside Lot. One writer refuses that comparison.
In moral power they fell short of the call of God. Yet they held to the hope of that calling, and claimed fellowship only with those who shared it… I do not regard them like Lot, a people of mixed principles who had deliberately shaped their lives by something inconsistent with the call of God, but rather as a generation who own that call, and prize it, and refuse any other, yet are not found in the full moral power of it.
The choice was not punished on the spot. Its cost showed up generations later.
One thing more we must notice. When Israel declined, captivity began with the two and a half tribes. Even in the days of Ahab, Ramoth in Gilead was in the hands of the Syrians. Later those parts were the first to fall captive to Assyria. In just the same way, the spirit of the world captures the earthly-minded Christian most easily.
Yet God did not abandon them to their own boundary. What He did next says more about Him than about them.
Here we have a lovely display of the grace of God rising, as it always does, above human weakness and failure… Despite this failure, God in His abounding grace would not leave the poor manslayer without a refuge in the day of his distress. If man cannot rise to the height of God's thoughts, God can come down to the depths of man's need. He does it so richly here that the two tribes and a half were to have as many cities of refuge on this side of Jordan as the nine tribes and a half had in the land of Canaan.
- Sight — the story starts with what the eye valued. The same principle moved Lot toward the well-watered plain.
- Gift — the herds were God's provision, yet that blessing dulled their hunger for the land He promised.
- Short — choosing a border this side of Jordan meant settling short of the portion God had assigned.
- Slow — no immediate judgment fell, but the border tribes were the first taken captive.
- Grace — God still set cities of refuge on their chosen side. He came down to the need of people who fell short of His thoughts.
And the children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spoke to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the princes of the assembly, saying,
Israel camps east of the Jordan, with the promised land just across the river. Two tribes now ask Moses, Eleazar the priest and the nation's leaders to let them stay on the near side — a choice readers still debate.
The chapter opens a debate instead of settling it. One writer states the problem before answering it:
The fact recorded in this chapter has given rise to considerable discussion. Were they right or were they wrong in choosing their inheritance on the wilderness side of Jordan? Was their action the expression of power or of weakness?
His answer rests on one fact: God had already fixed where their portion lay.
Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh chose a boundary line short of the river Jordan. That was a mistake, a failure, a stopping short of the divine mark. Worldly and selfish thinking governed their conduct — the sight of their eyes, the motives of the flesh. They looked over "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead." They valued it by their own interests alone, with no reference to the judgement and will of God. Had they been simply looking to God, the question of settling short of the river Jordan would never have been raised at all.
The verse just before gives their reason: they owned large herds.
Two tribes, Reuben and Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh asked Moses to let them settle on the conquered lands east of Jordan. They did not want their portion in what was definitely the land of God's promise. What moved them most was the great number of cattle they had gained. The good things that God had granted took away their desire for Canaan.
Strangest of all is how they put it. They call it grace not to have to go in:
How could they possibly refuse the very land that God had promised to Abraham? Moses would have loved to enter the land, but his earlier failure barred him. Yet these two and a half tribes regard it as a sign of having found grace if they do not need to go in. Their reasoning was clear and sobering: the land they were in "is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock." Their thoughts never rose above livestock — that is, their material possessions.
They were not deserters. One writer sets them apart from those who deliberately choose another path:
In moral power they came short of the call of God. Yet they held to the hope of that calling, and claimed fellowship only with those who were the objects of it. In power they were not a risen people, though by faith they were one with those who were. I do not see them as a people of mixed principles, who had deliberately shaped their lives by something inconsistent with the call of God. I see them instead as a generation who owned that call, prized it, and refused the thought of having any other — yet they did not live in its full moral power.
Their request reminded Moses of something in Israel's past:
This move by Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, makes Moses uneasy at once. He expresses this uneasiness with much force. He tells them that they bring to his mind the conduct of the spies he had sent out years before from Kadesh-barnea. The way those spies acted discouraged their brothers and caused the forty years of wandering in the wilderness.
One writer draws out what this pictures for believers today:
The sight of their eyes swayed them, and they settled down on the wrong side of Jordan. It is a picture of true believers who are content to settle down. They never do the spiritual work of learning the truth of death with Christ, which the crossing of the Jordan teaches. So they do not enjoy the truth that they are now "blessed... in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3). How many there are in this condition today!
Commentators differ over how harshly to judge the choice. One weighs it against God's purpose, and traces what it cost Israel later:
God's purpose was Canaan, which lies beyond Jordan. They did not choose Egypt. Their choice lay beyond the Red Sea, yet it was still not Canaan. Losing sight of the call of God, they made their choice in these mournful words: "Do not take us across the Jordan." ... Later, Israel's sin and weakness left them easy prey for their foes. The lovely country east of Jordan was the first to pass into enemy hands.
- Sight — They looked at good grazing land and priced it by their own interests, with no reference to God's will.
- Short — The gifts God had given them killed their appetite for the land He had promised. Their own prosperity stopped them at the river.
- Sincere — They owned Israel's calling and prized it, but never lived in its full moral power.
- Startled — Moses heard in their request the same note as the spies who turned Israel back years before.
- Stripped — The land they chose by sight was the first the enemy took.
Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jaazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elaleh, and Sebam, and Nebo, and Beon,
These nine towns are the list Reuben and Gad lay before Moses. They name the country they want before they even ask for it. Every town on the list sits east of the Jordan, outside the land God had promised. So one question hangs over the list: what was driving the choice?
This was land Israel had just taken from two Amorite kings. It was rich pasture, and these tribes owned a lot of cattle.
Reuben and Gad looked at the beautiful territory Israel had taken from the two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og. They were very rich in cattle, and the territory was very fertile, so they were eager to have the land. The half tribe of Manasseh seems to have made the same request and joined them. A long dispute followed between Moses and these tribes. Moses saw at once the evil bound up in such a request. They despised the land of promise. God had commanded them to take that land as their own. By their request they showed they were ready to disobey God. What is more, by wanting the land of Jazer and Gilead they would end up separated from their brothers. They would let them go and fight alone in the land. The whole request showed selfishness.
One writer quotes Matthew Henry, who names what lay behind the choice — and what came of it long afterward.
"Two things common in this world led these tribes to make this choice and this proposal: the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. The land was pleasant to look at, and it was good for pasture. Too many seek their own things, and not the good of all or the things of Christ, and so stop short of the heavenly Canaan. Their choice implied: 1. A contempt for the land of promise. 2. A distrust of the power of God. 3. A neglect of the interests of their brothers. 4. An excessive regard for their own convenience and wealth... It is worth noticing something. These tribes were now placed first, before the other tribes. Long afterward they were also the first to be driven out."
Some of these names carry meanings worth knowing. One writer works through what fell to Reuben, starting with Heshbon.
Reuben rebuilds Sihon's capital, Heshbon, which falls to him. "Heshbon" means "the reason, cause, or ground of a thing as an object of thought or study." ... "In Heshbon they have devised evil against her," says the prophet, playing on the name. Sihon cannot hold Heshbon against Reuben. In the same way, reason is not foreign to faith. Faith destroys reason only in its foreign form, and then builds it up again more firmly... Dibon also ("enough knowledge"?) falls to Reuben... And he purifies and renames the places dedicated to Baal.
Beon is one of those places. It goes by several names in Scripture, and it was no small town.
A city of Reuben east of the Jordan. It is apparently also called Baal-meon, Beth-baal-meon, and Beon (Joshua 13:17; Numbers 32:3; Numbers 32:38, which notes that their names were changed). Ezekiel 25:9 speaks of it as a city that was "the glory of the country."
All nine towns lie east of the Jordan. That river marked a line.
The Jordan can also be seen as the boundary of the promised land. So the two and a half tribes who stayed east of it stopped short of their privileges. They picture many Christians who never take up by faith the heavenly portion God intends for them. That portion is reached through death and resurrection. So the enemy attacks them more easily. That is what happened to the two and a half tribes: they were the first to be carried away into captivity.
Take Elealeh, one of the nine. Reuben held it, but not forever.
A city east of the Jordan. Reuben held it, but the Moabites took it later.
The same pattern held for the tribes as a whole when Assyria came.
The Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser comes up against Pekah, king in Samaria. He carries away captive the Reubenites, the Gadites, and that half tribe of Manasseh — all the people settled beyond the Jordan... The kingdom of Ephraim starts to break up with these tribes. For their own convenience, they had chosen their portion on the other side of the Jordan.
- Sight — they picked these towns because the pasture looked good. The motive was the lust of the eye and the pride of life.
- Short — every town lies east of the Jordan, the boundary of the promised land. To settle there was to stop short of their privileges.
- Spoil — this was captured Amorite land. It held Sihon's capital, Heshbon, and a town named after Baal that had to be renamed.
- Exposed — those who stop short are more open to enemy attack. The kingdom began to break up with the tribes east of the river.
- Displaced — these tribes were placed first, and they were the first to be carried away captive. The towns they asked for ended up in Moab's hands.
the country that Jehovah smote before the assembly of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle;
The two and a half tribes make their case in one breath: God has just cleared this land, it suits herds, and herds are what they own. The plea sounds practical, even grateful — so why do commentators call it a mistake and a failure?
Their case fits the ground to the herds. One writer asks what that reasoning leaves out, and points to something stranger — they treat staying out of the land as a mark of God's grace:
How could they refuse the very land that God had promised to Abraham? Moses would have loved to enter the land, but his earlier failure shut him out. Yet these two and a half tribes treat it as a sign of having found grace if they do not need to go in. Their reasoning was as clear as it was sobering: the land they were in "is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock." Their thoughts did not rise above livestock, that is, their material possessions.
One writer names what their survey left out:
Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, chose a boundary line short of the river Jordan. That was a mistake, a failure, a stopping short of the mark God had set. Worldly and selfish thinking ruled their conduct — what their eyes could see, what their flesh wanted. They surveyed "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead," and they judged it only by their own interests. They gave no thought to God's judgement and will.
The same habit appears much earlier. Lot, Abraham's nephew, chose his ground by the look of it:
Long before this, Lot thought he could trust the sight of his eyes (Gen. 13:10-11). He felt no need to think about the Lord's guidance. But his own choice led him into deep trouble. Abram depended on the Lord to lead him, and the Lord kept him safe.
It was not poverty that held them back. It was prosperity, and the herds were God's own gift:
Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh asked Moses to let them settle on the conquered lands east of Jordan, rather than take their portion in the land God had promised. What moved them was the abundance of cattle they had acquired. The good things that God had granted took away their desire for Canaan.
Their request touched more than themselves. It touched the other tribes, and God's command:
Moses saw at once the evil in such a request. They despised the land of promise. God had commanded them to take that land. By asking as they did, they showed they were ready to disobey God. Also, by wanting the land of Jazer and Gilead they would be cut off from their brothers. They would let them go and fight alone in the land. The whole request showed selfishness.
Was the east side outside God's gift? One writer answers, and marks where God meant His people to live:
after
The land of Israel's inheritance lay on both sides of the Jordan, as God had settled beforehand. Even so, it does not appear that He meant any of them to live on the east of that river. The tribes who asked for their portion there did get it. But they soon discovered the drawback of it.
That drawback surfaced twice — once in their own anxiety, and once under God's hand:
On returning to their possessions, the two and a half tribes built an altar by the Jordan, afraid that in time they would be disowned as not belonging to God's people Israel. This fear was only one of the results of coming short of God's purpose. A second result: they were the first to come under God's discipline when Israel turned away from Him.
One writer draws out what crossing the Jordan pictures:
We have already seen how unbelief shut great numbers out of the land, even though afterwards they wanted to go in. Now we see how the good things of earth may lead people to shut themselves out. To enter the land, they had to cross the Jordan. That crossing pictures death and resurrection with Christ. It is the way into the real enjoyment of the heavenly portion God has called us to, as we see in Colossians 2 and 3. Only then can we truly seek the things that are above, and not the things on the earth.
- Sight — They judged Jazer and Gilead by their own interests, not by God's will. Lot chose that way too, and it cost him.
- Substance — Their thoughts did not rise above their livestock. The very abundance God had given them took away their desire for Canaan.
- Separation — Their request left their brothers to fight alone. Moses saw the selfishness at once.
- Shortfall — They asked, and they got it. Then came the drawback: an altar built from fear of being disowned, and first place under God's discipline.
- Summons — The land lies beyond Jordan. Crossing pictures death and resurrection with Christ, and there the heart seeks what is above.
and they said, If we have found favour in thine eyes, let this land be given to thy servants for a possession bring us not over the Jordan.
Israel has reached the edge of Canaan after the long desert journey. Now two and a half tribes ask Moses to let them settle where they already stand, east of the Jordan. Was this a fair thing to ask, or a quiet refusal of everything God had promised?
One writer answers the whole case with one earlier question. Where had God said Israel's portion was?
First, where was Israel's proper portion — the inheritance God had appointed for them? Surely, on the other side of Jordan, in the land of Canaan. Well then, should not that fact have been enough? What about a true heart — a heart that thought and felt and judged with God? Would such a heart ever have considered choosing a portion other than the one God had allotted and given? Impossible. For Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh to choose any boundary line short of the river Jordan was a mistake. It was a failure, a stopping short of God's mark.
So what put the idea in their heads? One writer points to what they already owned.
They asked Moses to let them settle on the conquered lands east of the Jordan, and not to take their portion in the land of God's promise. What moved them most to want this was the large number of cattle they had acquired. The good things that God had granted took away their desire for Canaan.
One writer compares them to Lot, who also chose land by what he saw.
Their own separate history begins the way Lot's did. They saw the well-watered plains — land good for their cattle on the wilderness side of the Jordan. They think of their cattle rather than of the call of God and the pilgrimage of their brothers. Had their hearts been full of Christ, they would not have seen anything until they had crossed the river. Abraham, their father, had not stayed on that side of the river. And Moses had said nothing to them about these plains in the land of Gilead.
Notice the words they choose. They make staying out of the land sound like a favour granted to them.
How could they refuse the very land that God had promised to Abraham? Moses would have loved to enter that land, but because of his earlier failure he was not allowed in. Yet these two and a half tribes regard it as a sign of having found grace if they do not need to go in. Their reasoning was as clear as it was sobering. The land they were in "is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock." Their thoughts did not rise above cattle — that is, their material possessions.
One writer sees the same choice being made today.
They did not want or intend to stop being Israelites — not at all. But they would be Israelites on this side of Jordan. And is it not the same today? Are there not believers who, for one supposed reason or another, stop short of the call of God? They do not lack zeal or earnestness. But some hold back through fear and timidity, and others from dislike and distaste. Both alike say: "Do not take us across the Jordan."
Crossing the Jordan is not a picture of dying and going to heaven. It stands for something a believer can enter now.
Will you say, that is when we die? When Israel crossed the Jordan, they entered a scene of conflict. I ask, when we die and go to heaven will we have to fight there? No. Well then, it is wrong to make it our dying and going to heaven. Crossing the Jordan means bringing the believer into "the heavenly places." And it brings him there in such a way that he will fight and win the victory too.
The choice did not end with them. It shaped what happened to their land long after.
Blinded like this, they lost sight of the call of God. They put their choice into these sorrowful words: "Do not take us across the Jordan." Alas, these beautiful meadows, so well suited to feed their flocks, have found far too many Lots and tribes of Israel to settle in them to their loss. Such was their history. In later days Israel's sin and weakness left them easy prey to their foes. This lovely country on this side of Jordan was the first to pass into enemy hands.
One writer turns the lesson on the reader:
Beware of falling short of your proper position and your proper portion. Beware of being content with the things that belong to this world. Beware of taking any stand short of death and resurrection — the true, the spiritual Jordan.
- Sight — They looked at pasture, not at promise. Their eyes made the choice for them.
- Gift — The good things God gave them on the journey killed their appetite for Canaan.
- Grace, misnamed — They called it grace to skip the inheritance Moses himself longed to enter.
- Short — This was not rebellion. They stayed Israelites, only on the wrong side of the river.
- Cost — What they chose short of God's mark they could not keep. Their land was the first to fall to the enemy.