unity or disunity......you decide.

Numbers 32 describes the events that led up to Reuben and Gad inheriting east of the Jordan rather than in the promised land. I’ve been chewing the cud over this passage and would like some help from fellow coffee drinkers!

Here’s my take. Moses is livid that the request comes (v1-13) because it is essentially a repeat of their forefathers rejection of the land. They lack the vision to go into the Promised Land and will be in great danger of splitting apart the unity of the nation which has just ensured them a decisive victory over the Midianites. The verb “discourage” literally translates “restraining the heart.”

The two tribes propose a compromise (v16-18) which includes sending in their “shock” troops (probably an elite – phrase not translated in NIV). Moses adapts this compromise (presumably with YHWH’s approval?) to be all the men must go over and fight. He reinforces this by repetition: “ALL of you armed, ALL go over the Jordan” – an adaptation which the two tribes apparently accept (v27). The rest of the chapter describes how this is accepted by the remaining tribes and the initial success Gad and Reuben have in settling their lands.

All the commentaries I have draw the line here (perhaps with some reference to Joshua 22 where the tribes are released from their obligation because they have fulfilled all Moses asked of them). Therefore this chapter becomes a chapter on UNITY and how successful it is to fight together. End of story.

But I can’t help feeling there is something deeper going on. Numbers 33 deliberately breaks up this section from the next which describes the inheritance – and in Numbers 34.12 the land that Gad and Reuben receive is deliberately omitted from the Promised Land; it appears they have placed themselves outside of God's plans. By the time the kingdom had reached its largest point (at the division of the two kingdoms), Gad and Reuben had all but disappeared, subsumed into Ammon and Moab, two key enemies of Israel.

Taking a longer term view, then, could it be argued that this chapter is about DISUNITY, not UNITY? Moses does all he can to minimise the impact of a split, and in the short term this appears to paper over the cracks. But essentially you can’t ignore the fact that these two tribes have rejected God’s goodness and gone their own way. Sure, God’s grace treats them with blessings way beyond what they deserve – but ultimately it will only end in tears.

When Christians are disunited, it is possible that in the short term it can be papered over, even be a benefit in some perverse way (e.g. troublemakers leaving a church, phew!). But, in the longer term it is always disastrous for the gospel.

Quite a different message! Your expertise amongst the coffee grounds very welcome….. Am I quite mad? I am always nervous when I see something that no commentators pick up on - it nearly always means I'm wrong. Is that the case here?