Font Size
Somewhat unexpectedly, representatives of two tribes of Israel (Reuben/Gad) and of the half-tribe of Manasseh approached Moses with a double request: (1) to be settled east of the Jordan (vv.1-5a) and (2) not to be made to cross the Jordan (v.5b).
Moses responded angrily (vv.6-15), but primarily to the first request rather than to the second. Moses, furthermore, justified his position by invoking the spy story of Nu 13-14. The behavior of these would-be Transjordanians, he claims, was like that of the ten spies whose negativism discouraged the people. Here one people about to enter the land became two groups with different territorial intentions. It is interesting that Moses did not ever consult Yahweh about the Transjordanians' request as he did, say, with the concern of Zelophehad’s daughters (ch. 26). The reason is likely his conviction that the daughters were venting a legitimate concern, while the request of these tribes was illegitimate.
The two-and-a-half tribes then offer a compromise (vv.16-19). If they are allowed to make temporary provision for their property and dependents, they will accompany the other tribes across the Jordan. Then once they are settled, they themselves will return to Transjordan to claim their inheritance. Thus, the first request is nonnegotiable; the second may be surrendered.
Moses agreed to this proposal (vv.20-24) and left such instructions with Joshua (vv.28-30). Jos 22 records the implementation of this agenda. Bracketing Moses' directive to Joshua was a pledge of faithfulness by the Transjordanians (vv.25-27, 31-32). The incident concludes with Moses (not God!) giving this territory to the Transjordanians (vv.33-42). Thus potential friction between reluctant bargainers and a reluctant giver was avoided.
Had Moses chosen to be obstinate or the Transjordanians to be uncompromising, an explosion would have occurred. How a community handles and resolves conflict is a clear indication of its spiritual mettle. There are three ways in which conflict may be dealt with: (1) avoidance (“We have no problems”); (2) conquest (“There’s not enough room for both of us”); (3) procedural resolution (reconciliation/compromise). Where the third method is pursued, unity (even if shaky) will prevail.