And they drew near to him, and said, We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle, and cities for our little ones;
Moses had just rebuked Reuben and Gad for wanting to settle east of the Jordan. This verse is their answer: build first, then fight. The offer sounds generous. But it plants their home on the near side of the river, and commentators read what they build as a window into their hearts.
The verse is the first half of a plan. Here is the whole of it, in order.
They said they would first build sheepfolds for their flocks, and cities for their women and children to stay in, while the men went over Jordan to battle (vv. 16-17). Only when the other tribes had received their inheritance would they return to Gilead (v. 19).
Building is not a neutral act here. Up to this point Israel had lived in tents — movable homes for people on the way somewhere.
With Canaan in full view they say, We will settle down where we are. They were not content with a tent; they wanted a house... These tents had been forty years on the road, and the people living in them were going to get into the land... But sadly, these two tribes grew tired of the tent, and said, We will settle down. "We will build sheepfolds here for our livestock, and cities for our little ones" (Num. 32:16). God let them have their way, and they were the first to be carried into captivity (see 2 Kings 15:29).
Another writer counts what that permanent home cost them:
These two and a half tribes did not stop being Israelites. But they lived outside the promised land, so they lost the special privileges of the temple. They also lost the confidence the other tribes could have, that the power of the Lord shown in the battles with the Canaanites was for them. All their armed men went over the Jordan to help their brothers in the war. Yet they did not go to win an inheritance for themselves where God had chosen it for them. They went in order to come back to their own choice, where they made their home. And it was not a temporary home, for there they built fortified cities for their children... They became mere onlookers of the triumphs of Israel. The lessons of Ai and Gibeon reached them only second-hand.
(Ai and Gibeon are places inside the land where Israel learned hard lessons.)
Their offer really is brave. That is what makes the question sharper: brave for whose sake, and at what cost to their children?
It looked like a remarkable display of unselfishness and energy. They would leave all their loved ones behind, cross the Jordan, and fight only for their brothers. But where had they left those loved ones? They had left them short of the mark God had set. They had deprived them of a place and a portion in the true land of promise. That was the inheritance God had spoken of to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And for what? Just to get good pasture for their cattle.
Why treat a grazing decision as a spiritual failure? Because of what the river itself pictures.
We have already seen how unbelief shut crowds of people out of the land, though afterwards they wanted to go in. We now 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, recorded in Joshua 3, is a picture of 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.
Both halves of the verse stand: real cities behind, real war ahead. Brave service and a wrong address can go together.
So they build cities on the wrong side of Jordan, and raise their little ones there. Yes, their armed men may go to war with their brothers on the other side, and may do praiseworthy deeds there.
Commentators do not all judge these tribes the same way. One writer sees a weak faith here — real faith, but set on the things of this life.
For such believers, the main thing in the Christian life is the circumstances of this life: the everyday needs, plenty or want, pens for their cattle, or cities for their families (Num. 32:16). These Christians are not, strictly speaking, lacking in faith... Theirs is not a worldly Christianity, but an earthly one... Moses is angry at first, but afterwards he bears with them. He saw that their faith was weak, yet it was still faith, and that these earthly ties did not cut them off from their brothers.
- Order — Their plan builds first and fights second: folds for the livestock, cities for the children, then war.
- Permanence — Tents became fenced towns. Settling was the choice, and God allowed it.
- Cost — They left their children short of the promised inheritance, all for good pasture.
- Distance — The Jordan pictures death and resurrection with Christ. Stop short of it, and you watch Israel's triumphs second-hand.
- Verdict — Brave deeds on the far bank do not fix a home on the near one. Yet Moses bore with a weak faith that was still faith.
but we ourselves will go with diligence armed before the children of Israel, until we have brought them to their place; and our little ones shall dwell in the strong cities because of the inhabitants of the land.
Reuben and Gad asked Moses to let them settle east of the Jordan, where the land suited their cattle. Verse 17 is their answer to his rebuke: full service in the war, in exchange for a home outside the promised land.
The pledge in this verse is what drew Moses toward agreement. It sounded impressive — but the question is where it left their families.
Their promise to cross the Jordan, ready armed, before their brothers, drew a half-agreement from Moses. It seemed an extraordinary display of unselfishness and energy. They would leave all their loved ones behind and cross the Jordan only to fight for their brothers. But where had they left those loved ones? They had left them short of the divine mark. They had deprived them of a place and a portion in the true land of promise — that inheritance God had spoken of to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And for what? Just to get good pasture for their cattle.
The pledge was not empty talk. Years later, Joshua sent these men home with nothing held against them.
They had gone on armed before their brothers, to fight the enemies of the Lord in the land of promise. Now they receive permission from Joshua to return to their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan. They had been faithful to the commands of Moses and Joshua, had kept the commandment of the Lord, and had not forsaken their brothers. Obedience to clear commands and brotherly love marked them the whole time they lived away from the land of their possession. On the surface there was nothing to find fault with in them, but... their hearts (I do not say their thoughts) were not set on heavenly things.
"Until we have brought them to their place" describes a war fought for someone else's home. These tribes needed a special word of instruction, because their interests no longer matched the nation's.
The two and a half tribes need a special instruction. Their interests differ from those of the whole nation, and they have partly separated themselves from it. They are now to have the fighting without the personal reward. In the same way, no Christian is exempt from the conflict with the power of Satan; yet for many it may not carry its true meaning.
The verse names two places at once: where the men would fight, and where their families would stay. One of those addresses reveals more than the other.
Gilead, we say, was their home, and a Christian is in his life what he is at home. He may go out at times on the warpath, but the true test of his spiritual condition is the character of his inner life. All through their wars in Canaan, these forty thousand were fighting for others, not for themselves. It is a most serious thing when Christians in spiritual warfare are, in a sense, only support troops... Sooner or later these warriors would return home. Not one of them was a soldier across the Jordan for life.
Walled towns are not the language of a short stay. What the men built before they marched decided what their children would inherit.
All their armed men went over the Jordan to help their brothers in the war. But they did not go to win an inheritance for themselves where God had chosen for them. They went to return to their own choice, where they made their home. It was not a temporary home, for there they built fortified cities for their children. As tribes, Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh did not enter the land. They became mere onlookers of the triumphs of Israel.
Their whole plan began with cattle. That is where this chapter touches every reader.
The New Testament tells us plainly that those who have riches enter the kingdom of God with much difficulty, and that God calls not many wise or mighty or noble. Here we see that the rich and good things of earth make it hard for those who own them to lay hold of their heavenly possessions. It is so easy for us to agree with the truth of our heavenly calling. Then we settle down in our comfortable earthly circumstances, and never lay hold of that calling as a matter of faith's experience.
- Cause: Good pasture, not open rebellion, drove the choice. The good things of earth made the promised inheritance harder to grasp.
- Offer: Marching armed at Israel's head looked like unselfish devotion. It still left their families short of the promised land.
- Kept: They did what they said. Their obedience and love for their brothers were real. Their hearts were not set on heavenly things.
- Cost: They took the fighting without the personal reward. They became onlookers at victories for others.
- Result: Fortified cities for the children made the choice permanent. Comfort can still settle us short of our own calling.
We will not return to our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited each one his inheritance.
Moses had just rebuked Reuben and Gad for cutting themselves off from the rest of Israel. This verse is their answer. They pledge to keep fighting until every other tribe holds the land God promised it. Commentators read the promise two ways at once — as real devotion, and as the patch on a choice that should never have been made.
The pledge came as a counter-offer after Moses rebuked them. One writer sets out both halves of the deal — what the two tribes asked for, and what they promised in return.
Reuben and Gad had cattle. They saw the wide pasture land in the countries that had now been taken. So they ask for their inheritance to be given them in Gilead and Bashan, instead of going over the Jordan with the rest. Moses rebukes them for cutting themselves off from the common interest, but they still press the request. They only offer this: to leave their children in the fortified cities on the east side, and to send their men of war over armed ahead of all the rest. Those men will help the other tribes to their possession, and will not return from the war until the tribes are settled in it.
A generous vow does not settle whether the request was right in the first place. One commentator is blunt about the motive behind it.
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 what they did — the sight of their eyes — motives of the flesh. They looked over "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead," and they valued it by their own interests alone, with no reference to the judgement and will of God.
Their homes lay east of the river, outside the land God had promised. The same writer counts the cost to the families left there.
Their promise to cross the Jordan armed, ahead of their brothers, drew something like agreement from Moses. It seemed an extraordinary display of unselfishness and energy. They would leave all their loved ones behind and cross the Jordan only to fight for their brothers. But where had they left those loved ones? They had left them short of the divine mark. They had deprived them of a place and a portion in the true land of promise — the inheritance God had spoken of to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And for what? Just to get good pasture for their cattle.
Whatever their motives, the duty stood. Every fighting man had to cross the river. One writer notes the odd position this put them in.
They had made their choice and had found rest on this side of Jordan. But the coming war did not excuse them. They had orders to help their brothers by crossing the Jordan with them. Then, after their brothers had found rest, they were to return to their rest. They could not escape the conflict, though they had no reward in the land itself.
Another writer looks at the timing: no one goes home until the last tribe is settled. He reads that as a mark of Israel's unity, and applies it to us.
These warriors were not to return to their possessions east of Jordan until all Israel were settled in peace in the land. This was to be an effective testimony to the unity of Israel. We too should have such concern for the blessing of all the children of God.
Commentators differ over how much unity the pledge preserved. One hears a split in the pronouns of their own speech.
One false step usually leads to another — evil leads to evil. These tribes began in the spirit of convenience. To convenience they added self-will, and to self-will division — "We will not inherit with them." They were ready to split Israel to get what they wanted. "We," and "them," they said, of the LORD's one undivided family.
Another writer is kinder to the same men. He counts their weak faith as faith all the same.
The two and a half tribes picture those who lower Christianity to a life of faith for the earthly circumstances they pass through. They make their life consist in these things. "They had a very great number of livestock." Moses is angry at first, but later he bears with them. He sees that their faith was weak, yet it was still faith, and that these earthly ties did not separate them from their brothers.
Years later, in Joshua, the promise came due.
They kept the promise they had made, carefully and in full. The time had come for them to return to their homes. Joshua commends them for their faithfulness.
- Choice. They saw good pasture, judged it by self-interest, and never asked what God wanted.
- Compromise. The vow to fight won Moses over. It still left their families settled short of the promised land.
- Obligation. Settling early bought no escape. They fought the whole war and held no reward in the land itself.
- Unity. They stayed until every Israelite had his inheritance. That showed Israel was one, and we should care as much for the blessing of all God's children.
- Verdict. They kept their word, and Joshua commended them. Commentators still read it as faith that stopped short of God's purpose.
For we will not inherit with them on yonder side the Jordan, and further, because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side the Jordan eastward.
Israel is camped east of the Jordan, ready to cross into the land God promised. In verse 19 two tribes and a half announce a settled decision: they will stay on this side of the river, and leave "the other side" to everyone else.
The whole nation was facing one direction, and these tribes turned the other way. One writer finds two things in these words:
To settle on the eastern side of the river and build cities there was to fall short of God's purpose for Israel's blessing. Their words, "For we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan and beyond" (v.19), mark a set determination to refuse to live in the portion that truly belonged to Israel. They also show a spirit of separation from those who would be faithful to the word of promise.
Notice the pronouns. The same writer traces the steps from convenience to a divided nation:
One false step usually leads to another — evil leads to evil. These tribes began with the spirit of convenience. To convenience they added self-will, and to self-will division — "We will not inherit with them." To get what they wanted, they were ready to split Israel in two. "We," and "them," they said of the Lord's one undivided family. The Lord had given one inheritance to His people. But they would have their inheritance, and Israel should have theirs!
They say the inheritance has already fallen to them east of the river. One commentator asks what was really driving the choice:
Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, chose a boundary line short of the river Jordan. It was a mistake, a failure, a stopping short of God's mark. Worldly and selfish thinking ruled how they acted — what their eyes saw, what their appetites wanted. They looked over "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead," and they judged it by their own interests alone, with no regard for the judgement and will of God.
What held them back was a gift. As one commentator puts it: "The good things that God had granted took away their desire for Canaan." (F. B. Hole)
Moses was angry at first. He agreed once they promised to fight for their brothers. One commentator weighs the cost of that bargain:
It seemed a remarkable show of unselfishness and energy to leave all their loved ones behind, and cross the Jordan, only to fight for their brothers. But where had they left those loved ones? They had left them short of God's mark. They had robbed them of a place and a portion in the true land of promise.
Another writer points to a later verdict in Scripture that does not match the one Moses gave:
Moses said that if they went armed over the Jordan, then afterward "you shall be free of obligation to the LORD" — older translations read, "you shall be guiltless before the LORD". Guiltless! So said Moses, but not the Lord. On the contrary, the divine record in 1 Chronicles 5:25 is, "But they broke faith" — older translations read, "And they transgressed". Those words point to their great sin: they chose for themselves when God had chosen for them.
The Jordan is more than geography. Crossing it stands for something the New Testament applies to believers:
To enter the land, they had to cross the Jordan. That crossing, recorded in Joshua 3, is a picture of death and resurrection with Christ. This is the way into 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.
Their choice looked safe. History says otherwise:
When Israel declined, captivity began with the two and a half tribes. Even in the days of Ahab, Ramoth in Gilead was in Syrian hands, and later those parts were the first to fall captive to Assyria. In the same way, the spirit of the world captures the earthly-minded Christian most easily.
Yet the story does not close there. One writer sums up their history: they refused God's land, turned to other gods, and Assyria carried them away. Then he adds: "Sovereign grace will bring them back at the end. Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh will take their place with the other tribes, and in equal numbers (Revelation 7), at least in symbol." (The Bible Treasury)
- Short. They stopped short of the mark God set. They drew their boundary by the sight of their eyes, not by His will.
- Split. "We will not inherit with them" turned a preference into a division. One inheritance became two.
- Snare. What held them back was not poverty but prosperity — God's own gifts took away their desire for the land.
- Sanctioned. Moses agreed in the end. But a later record calls it transgression, and the two verdicts do not agree.
- Seized. Living on the wrong side cost them first: captivity began with these tribes. Yet grace names Reuben, Gad and Manasseh again at the end.