So, I've heard different interpretations on Numbers 32 and I have my own thoughts about the matter. But I'm curious as to what some of you think the significance of the children of Reuben and the children of Gad longing to stay on the other side of Jordan. They said specifically in verse 5, "bring us not over Jordan."

But yet the other side of Jordan was the Promised Land that God gave to them in the Abrahamic administration of the CoG, and it typifies the true Israel's eternal rest. Were they despising that by longing to stay on the other side of Jordan? Why did Moses seem o.k. with this as long as they went to war with their brethren to help them cross over Jordan?

Rev. Buchanan, Dr. Clark, others, what are your thoughts on the matter?

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton

Bp,
While I do think there is typology here, I haven't really read anything on the topic.

My instinct tells me that their reluctance might have earned Moses' (and the Lord's) more substantive rebuke, if they were truly lacking in desire for the Lord's promise. And we don't find that. They seem to have reflected all the rest of the national highs and lows. They began with Levites and cities of refuge, distributed as evenly as on the west side.

The territory on the east of Jordan was conquered, was for all intents Israelite land. What should be done with it? They could have simply abandoned it to the Ammonites and Moabites and Syrians, I suppose. How would the land west of Jordan have been apportioned differently with more population? All we can do is guess.

Reuben and Gad and half of Manasseh--they were vulnerable, in a sense, more so that the other tribes in that they were the first to be stripped away in judgment for the sins of Israel. But they were no more or less guilty than the rest of the 10 tribes, or Judah.

Lastly, one can make a positive observation regarding the increase in territory for the whole nation. A burgeoning population, one with a fantastic birthrate, (Ex. 23:26), one where alien peoples would seek to know the God of Israel, would certainly outgrow the confines of the land. God would need to add to their territory throughout their generations. But, as we know, such expectation would have needed to follow faithfulness and obedience, things that did not (indeed, could not) happen. So, perhaps what fruitfulness is vaguely hinted at in the extension of territory on the east side Jordan, is ultimately stillborn.

That's all I have to contribute, off the cuff.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

This is my thought as well. Through covenantal obedience the COI would eventually had dominion over the whole world. Same with Adam in the garden. He was to be fruitful and multiply and tend to an ever increasing garden.

__________________