Original Meaning
Moses’ Assignment of the Transjordanian Lands (3:12–17)
MOSES’ RECOLLECTION OF THE distribution of the Amorites’ lands to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh differs from the procedure Yahweh prescribed for the apportionment of the land west of the Jordan (Num. 26:52–56), and the process actually followed in the event (Josh. 14–19). Moses does not mention Yahweh, so one might conclude he was acting on his own. However, since the memory of the event was still vivid in the people’s minds, there was no need to give all the details.
Numbers 32 tells the full story. Observing that the hills of Gilead and Bashan were ideal for raising livestock, the tribes of Reuben and Gad approached Moses for permission to claim this land as their possession (32:5). At first Moses interpreted the request as an act of rebellion against Yahweh (32:14–15), but when they assured him they would cross the Jordan with the rest of the tribes and assist them in the conquest of Canaan, he granted their request.3
Moses’ description of the allocations of the Transjordanian lands seems disjointed and repetitive, but the account exhibits a chiastic A B C B´ A´ structure:
A The allotments to Reuben and Gad (v. 12)
B The allotments to the half-tribe of Manasseh (v. 13a)
C The parenthetical historical/geographic note (vv. 13b–14)
B´ The allotment to the half-tribe of Manasseh: Makir (v. 15)
A´ The allotments to Reuben and Gad (vv. 16–17)
Moses treats the tribes of Reuben and Gad as a unit, perhaps because they had requested permission to claim this land together (Num. 32:1–5). The territory he assigned them extended from Kinnereth (Sea of Tiberias/Galilee; cf. Josh. 12:3; 13:27) to the slopes of Pisgah4 and the Salt Sea (the Dead Sea); it corresponded roughly to the territory of Sihon.5 The Jabbok served as a boundary between Manasseh and Reuben-Gad in the highlands of Gilead, though the eastern part of the Jordan Valley (here referred to as the Arabah), including the valley north of the Jabbok, was actually assigned to the latter. The territory assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh included the rest of Gilead, that is, the hill country north of the Jabbok as far as the Yarmuk River, and all of Bashan (vv. 13a, 15). Gilead in particular Moses assigned to Makir, the descendants of the grandson of Joseph (cf. Num. 32:39).
Another parenthetical geographical/historical note interrupts Moses’ report of the Manassite assignment (vv. 13b–14).6 After reminding the reader that Bashan has traditionally been known as the land of the Rephaites, the note observes that the clan descended from Jair, the great-great-grandson of Manasseh (1 Chron. 2:21–22), took the region of Argob (i.e., Bashan), adjacent to the Geshurites and Maacathites, and renamed it Havvoth Jair (“settlements/villages of Jair”) after himself.7
Bridging Contexts
THE TRANSJORDANIAN TRIBES. EACH of the four sections of this text has its own enduring theological significance. In the short run, the request of the two and one-half tribes to retain this land seems both logical and reasonable. This was a fertile region, especially suitable for grazing herds and flocks, as the two tribes recognized. Moreover, the Israelites’ elimination of the Amorites had created a power vacuum in the region. Nevertheless, this land had previously never been envisaged as part of the Promised Land, and one may assume that if the Israelites had entered from the south thirty-eight years earlier, it would never have become part of the land of Israel. Although Moses declared that these lands were Yahweh’s gift to the two and one-half tribes (3:18), the accounts here and in Numbers are strangely silent on the involvement of God in the process. Assuming Moses’ had access to God’s will on this matter, we are still surprised that God would allow the expansion of the territory of Israel in response to the people’s desires.
Nevertheless, in long-range terms, granting the people’s request yielded disastrous consequences. Whereas God’s original plan envisaged the Jordan as a barrier between Israel and the Transjordanian nations, in a matter of months it would divide the nation itself. The theological implications of their request dawned on the two and one-half tribes immediately after the backbone of Canaanite resistance had been broken (Josh. 22). Fearing the western Israelites would treat their descendants as second-class citizens, excluded from the people of Yahweh, they built an altar on the west bank of the Jordan to memorialize their membership in the people of Yahweh (vv. 24–25). Had cool heads not prevailed, this decision would have resulted in a civil war within Joshua’s own lifetime.
With the increasing Canaanization of Israelite society in the post-conquest period, on several occasions east and west came to blows with disastrous consequences.20 In the centuries that followed, these tribes would be the first to feel the ravages of foreign armies. Remarkably, in the sixth century BC, Ezekiel’s vision of the restored nation leaves the heartland of these Transjordanian territories between the Wadi Arnon and the Yarmuk River out of the picture of the Promised Land (Ezek. 47:15–20). The fact that the boundaries of the land apportioned to the other tribes corresponds closely to the territory promised to Abraham (Gen. 15)21 raises questions of what Yahweh really thought about the matter.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes (3:18–20) highlights the unity and solidarity of the people of Yahweh. Not only was the Promised Land Yahweh’s gift to all Israel, but the conquest of Canaan was also a national agenda; no tribe could be excused until the goal had been achieved and God had given rest to all. Unfortunately, in subsequent history this principle would be honored more in the breach than in the observance. The narratives of Judges demonstrate how quickly this unity would dissolve. The narrator of Judges laments the fact that instead of keeping alive the memory of Yahweh’s gracious saving acts on behalf of the entire nation, the Israelites forgot Yahweh and behaved more and more like Canaanites (Judg. 2:10–23). The inter-city rivalries of the peoples they displaced22 gave way to intertribal parochialism and jealousies.
Moses’ charge to Joshua. Moses’ charge to Joshua (vv. 21–22, 28) demonstrates that if courage and faith are prerequisites for serving in the infantry of Yahweh’s army, they are even more so for those who lead in kingdom work. Joshua’s confidence could not be based on his personal experience, qualifications, or training, but had to be based on God, and on God alone. This faith would be buttressed by keeping alive the memory of God’s past actions, by being reminded of God’s firm promises of future action, and by celebrating his presence in the conflict.
Moses’ request to enter Canaan. This is the first and last time we hear of Moses’ frank conversation with God about his request for permission to enter the Promised Land. However, having included this episode, the death of Moses outside the land hangs like a pall over the entire book. In fact, the addresses that follow take on the function of a last will and testament or a prefunerary oration. In 31:2 Moses acknowledges that his end has come, and he takes further steps to get his house in order before his demise. Yahweh will remind him again in 32:48–52 of the reason for his refusal, and in 34:1–4 Moses receives the consolation prize—sight of the Promised Land from one end to the other. However, not another word is said in the book or the rest of the Old Testament of Moses’ prayer and God’s rebuff. With time the image of Moses was increasingly idealized. In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether or not Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.23
Contemporary Significance
ON THINGS ABOVE. THE apportionment of the land east of the Jordan to the two and one-half tribes (3:12–17) illustrates the ambiguities that often characterize the life of faith. Like Lot in Genesis 13, these tribes desired the good land east of the Jordan, and God gave them what they desired. Although their request seemed reasonable, in the long term it proved a disaster. The episode reminds readers today to set their affections on things above, not on things below (Col. 3:2). It is not that what seems attractive to us is fundamentally wrong; it may even be logically defensible and economically wise. But when earthly considerations eclipse the divine agenda, we are in danger of losing our place in both.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes reminds readers today that a biblical ethic is not only driven by heavenly rather than earthly values; it also seeks the well-being of the next person ahead of our own. Flush from the victories over the Canaanites, in Joshua 22 these tribes declared their identity with their kinsfolk to the west. But within a generation the nation would begin to unravel. When people lose sight of their common spiritual heritage and their common mission, their sense of community also vanishes.
The nature and purpose of prayer. Verses 23–29 are extremely instructive on the nature and purpose of prayer. Some of the lessons to be learned from Moses’ conversation with God are obvious; others are not so clear. (1) Prayer is an act of worship. True worship involves reverential acts of submission and homage to the divine superior in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will. When Moses addressed God as “Sovereign LORD” and referred to himself as “your servant,” he illustrated the psychological and spiritual posture that is prerequisite to receiving a hearing with God.
(2) Prayer must be grounded in correct theology, which in biblical prayers is often expressed through exuberant adoration of the great and glorious God and doxologies of praise for his gracious but concrete acts on people’s behalf (4:32–40). David takes Moses doxology to a new level in 1 Chronicles 29:10–13:
Praise be to you, O LORD,
God of our father Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power
and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom;
you are exalted as head over all.
Wealth and honor come from you;
you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
to exalt and give strength to all.
Now, our God, we give you thanks,
and praise your glorious name.
But this is a prayer of praise. Although it is longer and more detailed, the prayer of petition by Peter and John in Acts 4:24–30 follows the pattern of Moses’ plea:
Invocation: “Sovereign Lord,”
Description: “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David. . . .”
Petition: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Like the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9–13), this is a helpful pattern for us, reminding us who we are in relation to God and who he is in relation to the universe. Confident prayer is based on the relationship that God has graciously established with his people.
(3) Prayer is an incredible privilege. As Moses will assert in the next chapter (4:8), of all the nations only Israel has a God so near that he hears them whenever they call on him. But even in prayer, God remains the Sovereign, and he retains the right to say “yes” or “no” to a human supplicant’s requests. Taking into account the overall biblical perspective, the effects of prayer may vary. As Moses had experienced in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14, through the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person, God’s disposition may be changed, and he may withdraw threats he had previously pronounced on people (cf. also Jonah 3–4). In other contexts, God may answer prayer affirmatively by effecting a change in one’s external circumstances, as we witness in the case of Peter in Acts 12:5–17.
(4) Finally, through prayer the persons praying may themselves be changed. Rather than being a means by which supplicants get God to do what they desire, sometimes prayer becomes the process whereby God brings the wills of those who pray into conformity with his own. As was the case with Moses, our faith may not necessarily be measured by the extent to which we can move God. Strong faith also may demand that we accept God’s “no” and get on with the tasks to which he has called us. Sometimes his “no” is final.
Some decades ago now, for nine months I served as the interim preacher of a wonderful church. The week I arrived we learned that a thirty-two-year-old woman, the mother of two lovely children, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her friends rallied around her, organizing round-the-clock prayer vigils. Sadly, eight months later, as one of my last duties as interim pastor, I conducted her funeral. By then most of her best friends had left the church, disillusioned and angry with the congregation for not praying seriously and for not having faith strong enough to heal this person. God could have granted Moses’ request. God can and does heal miraculously. But painful though it was, this family and congregation had to come to terms with God’s “no.” The measure of faith is not necessarily established by what we can get God to do for us; sometimes strong faith means simply casting ourselves into his loving and gracious arms, trusting him to be with us even in grief.
Responsible pastoral leadership. Finally, through Moses’ actions in these episodes, we learn a series of lessons on the nature and style of responsible pastoral leadership. (1) As the leader of this massive congregation, Moses was sensitive to the desires and needs of his people. He heard the two and one-half tribes’ request for land, and he granted the request. But this was not merely a sentimental acquiescence to their appetites; Moses also recognized the implications of the decision for the congregation as a whole. Accordingly, even as he granted the privilege of possessing the land east of the Jordan, he also highlighted their obligations toward the community of faith as a whole.
(2) Responsible pastoral leaders have the well-being of all the members of the congregation in mind (v. 19). Even as Moses impresses the men of the eastern tribes with their obligations to the larger community, he provides for the well-being of the vulnerable—their wives and children, not to mention their livestock. In so doing he both guarantees their security and spares them the horrors and violence of the wars to come.
(3) Responsible leaders recognize the symbiotic relationship that exists between divine and human activity (v. 20). Moses knows that the men must cross the Jordan to engage the enemy with the rest of the nation, but they will go confident in God’s promise to give rest to the warriors in particular and to the nation in general. Then they may return home and celebrate the rest he has provided.
(4) Responsible pastoral leaders hold up before the people a high view of God (vv. 22–24). Moses knows that the God of Israel is like no other, and he realizes the importance of keeping alive the memory of God’s saving action on behalf of his people. With this lofty theology, the people may charge onto the battlefield with confidence, realizing that the gods of the enemies they face are but foolish figments of a depraved human imagination.
(5) Responsible pastoral leaders place the well-being of the congregation over their own fortune. Moses had led the people for almost four decades through horrible physical circumstances and many bitter experiences, knowing full well that in the end he would be denied the trophy. But through all those years, he did not cease to represent the people before God and God to the people.
(6) Even responsible pastoral leaders are subject to the pressures of the office, which often drive them to bitter venting of personal feelings before God. On several occasions in this first address, Moses becomes embarrassingly transparent, openly expressing his disappointments and frustrations toward the people. Many leaders can identify with him in this critical moment and find some consolation in knowing that even the greatest leaders have feet of clay.
(7) Responsible leaders maintain open lines of communication with God. Not only was Moses open to the instruction and guidance of Yahweh at every turn, but he had also learned to cast his cares on Yahweh, knowing that God cared for him. Exodus 33 characterizes Moses’ relationship with God as a relationship of friendship—Yahweh used to speak to him face-to-face (i.e., directly) as a man speaks to a friend. In his plea to enter the land, Moses does indeed recognize his inferior position in this relationship, but the form of his request and the form of Yahweh’s answer are precisely how friends converse—directly, forthrightly, and without equivocation, ambiguity, or evasion. Moses walks away from this conversation with God bitterly disappointed, but he remains the friend of God.
(8) Responsible pastoral leadership knows when it is time to relinquish authority to a successor and to do so with grace and dignity. Although Moses is transparently bitter for having been refused entrance to the land and cynical toward the people because of it, with respect to Joshua he extends unwavering support. Despite the disappointment of unfulfilled dreams, he passes the mantle to his lieutenant and faithfully prepares him to take the reins of leadership.
Original Meaning
Moses’ Charge to the Transjordanian Tribes (3:18–20)
HAVING AUTHORIZED THE TWO and one-half tribes to settle east of the Jordan, Moses charged them to aid the rest of Israel in the conquest of the actual Promised Land (cf. Josh. 1:12–15). The charge consists of four parts. (1) Moses credits Yahweh with granting the land to the two and one-half tribes. This is striking because Yahweh is never mentioned in verses 12–17 and especially because he plays no active role in the fuller account of Numbers 32. But Moses acknowledges God’s role in Israel’s affairs; his decisions are by definition divine decisions.
(2) Moses issues the specific command: the two and one-half tribes must commit all their “able-bodied men” to the campaign so that their “brothers,” the “Israelites,” can wage war on the other side of the Jordan. Crossing the river ahead of their brothers fully armed, they are to function as the vanguard of the Israelite army.
(3) Moses authorizes the women, children, and livestock belonging to the two and one-half tribes to remain east of the Jordan in the towns he granted them.8
(4) Moses defines the time the two and one-half tribes are to commit themselves to the greater national interest—until “the LORD gives rest to your brothers,” just as he had given rest to those across the Jordan. Here Moses introduces the notion of “rest, resting place” for the first time. In this book, “rest” results from eliminating all outside threats, possessing the grant of land (naḥalâ) as their “the resting place” (hammenûḥâ), and living in security (beṭaḥ, 12:9–10). This “rest” is always portrayed as a gift from Yahweh (3:20; 12:10; 25:19; cf. Josh. 1:13; 11:23), and is a prerequisite to Yahweh’s choosing a permanent place for his name to dwell (12:10).
Bridging Contexts
THE TRANSJORDANIAN TRIBES. EACH of the four sections of this text has its own enduring theological significance. In the short run, the request of the two and one-half tribes to retain this land seems both logical and reasonable. This was a fertile region, especially suitable for grazing herds and flocks, as the two tribes recognized. Moreover, the Israelites’ elimination of the Amorites had created a power vacuum in the region. Nevertheless, this land had previously never been envisaged as part of the Promised Land, and one may assume that if the Israelites had entered from the south thirty-eight years earlier, it would never have become part of the land of Israel. Although Moses declared that these lands were Yahweh’s gift to the two and one-half tribes (3:18), the accounts here and in Numbers are strangely silent on the involvement of God in the process. Assuming Moses’ had access to God’s will on this matter, we are still surprised that God would allow the expansion of the territory of Israel in response to the people’s desires.
Nevertheless, in long-range terms, granting the people’s request yielded disastrous consequences. Whereas God’s original plan envisaged the Jordan as a barrier between Israel and the Transjordanian nations, in a matter of months it would divide the nation itself. The theological implications of their request dawned on the two and one-half tribes immediately after the backbone of Canaanite resistance had been broken (Josh. 22). Fearing the western Israelites would treat their descendants as second-class citizens, excluded from the people of Yahweh, they built an altar on the west bank of the Jordan to memorialize their membership in the people of Yahweh (vv. 24–25). Had cool heads not prevailed, this decision would have resulted in a civil war within Joshua’s own lifetime.
With the increasing Canaanization of Israelite society in the post-conquest period, on several occasions east and west came to blows with disastrous consequences.20 In the centuries that followed, these tribes would be the first to feel the ravages of foreign armies. Remarkably, in the sixth century BC, Ezekiel’s vision of the restored nation leaves the heartland of these Transjordanian territories between the Wadi Arnon and the Yarmuk River out of the picture of the Promised Land (Ezek. 47:15–20). The fact that the boundaries of the land apportioned to the other tribes corresponds closely to the territory promised to Abraham (Gen. 15)21 raises questions of what Yahweh really thought about the matter.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes (3:18–20) highlights the unity and solidarity of the people of Yahweh. Not only was the Promised Land Yahweh’s gift to all Israel, but the conquest of Canaan was also a national agenda; no tribe could be excused until the goal had been achieved and God had given rest to all. Unfortunately, in subsequent history this principle would be honored more in the breach than in the observance. The narratives of Judges demonstrate how quickly this unity would dissolve. The narrator of Judges laments the fact that instead of keeping alive the memory of Yahweh’s gracious saving acts on behalf of the entire nation, the Israelites forgot Yahweh and behaved more and more like Canaanites (Judg. 2:10–23). The inter-city rivalries of the peoples they displaced22 gave way to intertribal parochialism and jealousies.
Moses’ charge to Joshua. Moses’ charge to Joshua (vv. 21–22, 28) demonstrates that if courage and faith are prerequisites for serving in the infantry of Yahweh’s army, they are even more so for those who lead in kingdom work. Joshua’s confidence could not be based on his personal experience, qualifications, or training, but had to be based on God, and on God alone. This faith would be buttressed by keeping alive the memory of God’s past actions, by being reminded of God’s firm promises of future action, and by celebrating his presence in the conflict.
Moses’ request to enter Canaan. This is the first and last time we hear of Moses’ frank conversation with God about his request for permission to enter the Promised Land. However, having included this episode, the death of Moses outside the land hangs like a pall over the entire book. In fact, the addresses that follow take on the function of a last will and testament or a prefunerary oration. In 31:2 Moses acknowledges that his end has come, and he takes further steps to get his house in order before his demise. Yahweh will remind him again in 32:48–52 of the reason for his refusal, and in 34:1–4 Moses receives the consolation prize—sight of the Promised Land from one end to the other. However, not another word is said in the book or the rest of the Old Testament of Moses’ prayer and God’s rebuff. With time the image of Moses was increasingly idealized. In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether or not Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.23
Contemporary Significance
ON THINGS ABOVE. THE apportionment of the land east of the Jordan to the two and one-half tribes (3:12–17) illustrates the ambiguities that often characterize the life of faith. Like Lot in Genesis 13, these tribes desired the good land east of the Jordan, and God gave them what they desired. Although their request seemed reasonable, in the long term it proved a disaster. The episode reminds readers today to set their affections on things above, not on things below (Col. 3:2). It is not that what seems attractive to us is fundamentally wrong; it may even be logically defensible and economically wise. But when earthly considerations eclipse the divine agenda, we are in danger of losing our place in both.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes reminds readers today that a biblical ethic is not only driven by heavenly rather than earthly values; it also seeks the well-being of the next person ahead of our own. Flush from the victories over the Canaanites, in Joshua 22 these tribes declared their identity with their kinsfolk to the west. But within a generation the nation would begin to unravel. When people lose sight of their common spiritual heritage and their common mission, their sense of community also vanishes.
The nature and purpose of prayer. Verses 23–29 are extremely instructive on the nature and purpose of prayer. Some of the lessons to be learned from Moses’ conversation with God are obvious; others are not so clear. (1) Prayer is an act of worship. True worship involves reverential acts of submission and homage to the divine superior in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will. When Moses addressed God as “Sovereign LORD” and referred to himself as “your servant,” he illustrated the psychological and spiritual posture that is prerequisite to receiving a hearing with God.
(2) Prayer must be grounded in correct theology, which in biblical prayers is often expressed through exuberant adoration of the great and glorious God and doxologies of praise for his gracious but concrete acts on people’s behalf (4:32–40). David takes Moses doxology to a new level in 1 Chronicles 29:10–13:
Praise be to you, O LORD,
God of our father Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power
and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom;
you are exalted as head over all.
Wealth and honor come from you;
you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
to exalt and give strength to all.
Now, our God, we give you thanks,
and praise your glorious name.
But this is a prayer of praise. Although it is longer and more detailed, the prayer of petition by Peter and John in Acts 4:24–30 follows the pattern of Moses’ plea:
Invocation: “Sovereign Lord,”
Description: “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David. . . .”
Petition: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Like the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9–13), this is a helpful pattern for us, reminding us who we are in relation to God and who he is in relation to the universe. Confident prayer is based on the relationship that God has graciously established with his people.
(3) Prayer is an incredible privilege. As Moses will assert in the next chapter (4:8), of all the nations only Israel has a God so near that he hears them whenever they call on him. But even in prayer, God remains the Sovereign, and he retains the right to say “yes” or “no” to a human supplicant’s requests. Taking into account the overall biblical perspective, the effects of prayer may vary. As Moses had experienced in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14, through the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person, God’s disposition may be changed, and he may withdraw threats he had previously pronounced on people (cf. also Jonah 3–4). In other contexts, God may answer prayer affirmatively by effecting a change in one’s external circumstances, as we witness in the case of Peter in Acts 12:5–17.
(4) Finally, through prayer the persons praying may themselves be changed. Rather than being a means by which supplicants get God to do what they desire, sometimes prayer becomes the process whereby God brings the wills of those who pray into conformity with his own. As was the case with Moses, our faith may not necessarily be measured by the extent to which we can move God. Strong faith also may demand that we accept God’s “no” and get on with the tasks to which he has called us. Sometimes his “no” is final.
Some decades ago now, for nine months I served as the interim preacher of a wonderful church. The week I arrived we learned that a thirty-two-year-old woman, the mother of two lovely children, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her friends rallied around her, organizing round-the-clock prayer vigils. Sadly, eight months later, as one of my last duties as interim pastor, I conducted her funeral. By then most of her best friends had left the church, disillusioned and angry with the congregation for not praying seriously and for not having faith strong enough to heal this person. God could have granted Moses’ request. God can and does heal miraculously. But painful though it was, this family and congregation had to come to terms with God’s “no.” The measure of faith is not necessarily established by what we can get God to do for us; sometimes strong faith means simply casting ourselves into his loving and gracious arms, trusting him to be with us even in grief.
Responsible pastoral leadership. Finally, through Moses’ actions in these episodes, we learn a series of lessons on the nature and style of responsible pastoral leadership. (1) As the leader of this massive congregation, Moses was sensitive to the desires and needs of his people. He heard the two and one-half tribes’ request for land, and he granted the request. But this was not merely a sentimental acquiescence to their appetites; Moses also recognized the implications of the decision for the congregation as a whole. Accordingly, even as he granted the privilege of possessing the land east of the Jordan, he also highlighted their obligations toward the community of faith as a whole.
(2) Responsible pastoral leaders have the well-being of all the members of the congregation in mind (v. 19). Even as Moses impresses the men of the eastern tribes with their obligations to the larger community, he provides for the well-being of the vulnerable—their wives and children, not to mention their livestock. In so doing he both guarantees their security and spares them the horrors and violence of the wars to come.
(3) Responsible leaders recognize the symbiotic relationship that exists between divine and human activity (v. 20). Moses knows that the men must cross the Jordan to engage the enemy with the rest of the nation, but they will go confident in God’s promise to give rest to the warriors in particular and to the nation in general. Then they may return home and celebrate the rest he has provided.
(4) Responsible pastoral leaders hold up before the people a high view of God (vv. 22–24). Moses knows that the God of Israel is like no other, and he realizes the importance of keeping alive the memory of God’s saving action on behalf of his people. With this lofty theology, the people may charge onto the battlefield with confidence, realizing that the gods of the enemies they face are but foolish figments of a depraved human imagination.
(5) Responsible pastoral leaders place the well-being of the congregation over their own fortune. Moses had led the people for almost four decades through horrible physical circumstances and many bitter experiences, knowing full well that in the end he would be denied the trophy. But through all those years, he did not cease to represent the people before God and God to the people.
(6) Even responsible pastoral leaders are subject to the pressures of the office, which often drive them to bitter venting of personal feelings before God. On several occasions in this first address, Moses becomes embarrassingly transparent, openly expressing his disappointments and frustrations toward the people. Many leaders can identify with him in this critical moment and find some consolation in knowing that even the greatest leaders have feet of clay.
(7) Responsible leaders maintain open lines of communication with God. Not only was Moses open to the instruction and guidance of Yahweh at every turn, but he had also learned to cast his cares on Yahweh, knowing that God cared for him. Exodus 33 characterizes Moses’ relationship with God as a relationship of friendship—Yahweh used to speak to him face-to-face (i.e., directly) as a man speaks to a friend. In his plea to enter the land, Moses does indeed recognize his inferior position in this relationship, but the form of his request and the form of Yahweh’s answer are precisely how friends converse—directly, forthrightly, and without equivocation, ambiguity, or evasion. Moses walks away from this conversation with God bitterly disappointed, but he remains the friend of God.
(8) Responsible pastoral leadership knows when it is time to relinquish authority to a successor and to do so with grace and dignity. Although Moses is transparently bitter for having been refused entrance to the land and cynical toward the people because of it, with respect to Joshua he extends unwavering support. Despite the disappointment of unfulfilled dreams, he passes the mantle to his lieutenant and faithfully prepares him to take the reins of leadership.
Original Meaning
Moses’ Public Charge to Joshua (3:21–22)
HAVING REMINDED THE TWO and one-half tribes of their obligations to their kinsmen, Moses recalls his earlier charge to Joshua as well. Since he uses the same verb “to command” (ṣiwwâ) and adds “at that time,” these two charges seem to have been issued in close succession after the defeat of Sihon and Og. While Numbers 27–32 includes a variety of additional details and situates the commissioning of Joshua (27:18–23) before Moses authorized the two and one-half tribes to settle in the Transjordan (chap. 32), here Moses seems unconcerned about the chronological order of events. Nevertheless, the commissioning accounts are linked by the verb “command/charge” (ṣiwwâ, cf. Num. 27:19, 23), which suggests that Moses recalled the actual words he had used in the original context.
Moses’ charge to Joshua consisted of three elements. (1) He reminded Joshua of his own past experience of Yahweh’s intervention on Israel’s behalf, which Joshua had seen with his own eyes. (2) Moses declared that Yahweh’s triumph over Sihon and Og was paradigmatic for what he would do against the kingdoms on the other side of the Jordan. (3) Moses promised the continued presence of Yahweh, for Yahweh is the divine Warrior fighting for them.
The shift from singular (“You have seen with your own eyes”) to plural (“all that the LORD your [pl.] God has done to these two kings”) suggests that while Moses issued the charge to Joshua, he also intended his message for the wider audience. This conclusion is reinforced by the plural verb in the injunction, “[You (pl.)] do not be afraid,” and by grounding confidence in the presence of Yahweh, who fights for them. A personal charge has become a public challenge and is now recalled in order to renew the courage and faith of this congregation.
Bridging Contexts
THE TRANSJORDANIAN TRIBES. EACH of the four sections of this text has its own enduring theological significance. In the short run, the request of the two and one-half tribes to retain this land seems both logical and reasonable. This was a fertile region, especially suitable for grazing herds and flocks, as the two tribes recognized. Moreover, the Israelites’ elimination of the Amorites had created a power vacuum in the region. Nevertheless, this land had previously never been envisaged as part of the Promised Land, and one may assume that if the Israelites had entered from the south thirty-eight years earlier, it would never have become part of the land of Israel. Although Moses declared that these lands were Yahweh’s gift to the two and one-half tribes (3:18), the accounts here and in Numbers are strangely silent on the involvement of God in the process. Assuming Moses’ had access to God’s will on this matter, we are still surprised that God would allow the expansion of the territory of Israel in response to the people’s desires.
Nevertheless, in long-range terms, granting the people’s request yielded disastrous consequences. Whereas God’s original plan envisaged the Jordan as a barrier between Israel and the Transjordanian nations, in a matter of months it would divide the nation itself. The theological implications of their request dawned on the two and one-half tribes immediately after the backbone of Canaanite resistance had been broken (Josh. 22). Fearing the western Israelites would treat their descendants as second-class citizens, excluded from the people of Yahweh, they built an altar on the west bank of the Jordan to memorialize their membership in the people of Yahweh (vv. 24–25). Had cool heads not prevailed, this decision would have resulted in a civil war within Joshua’s own lifetime.
With the increasing Canaanization of Israelite society in the post-conquest period, on several occasions east and west came to blows with disastrous consequences.20 In the centuries that followed, these tribes would be the first to feel the ravages of foreign armies. Remarkably, in the sixth century BC, Ezekiel’s vision of the restored nation leaves the heartland of these Transjordanian territories between the Wadi Arnon and the Yarmuk River out of the picture of the Promised Land (Ezek. 47:15–20). The fact that the boundaries of the land apportioned to the other tribes corresponds closely to the territory promised to Abraham (Gen. 15)21 raises questions of what Yahweh really thought about the matter.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes (3:18–20) highlights the unity and solidarity of the people of Yahweh. Not only was the Promised Land Yahweh’s gift to all Israel, but the conquest of Canaan was also a national agenda; no tribe could be excused until the goal had been achieved and God had given rest to all. Unfortunately, in subsequent history this principle would be honored more in the breach than in the observance. The narratives of Judges demonstrate how quickly this unity would dissolve. The narrator of Judges laments the fact that instead of keeping alive the memory of Yahweh’s gracious saving acts on behalf of the entire nation, the Israelites forgot Yahweh and behaved more and more like Canaanites (Judg. 2:10–23). The inter-city rivalries of the peoples they displaced22 gave way to intertribal parochialism and jealousies.
Moses’ charge to Joshua. Moses’ charge to Joshua (vv. 21–22, 28) demonstrates that if courage and faith are prerequisites for serving in the infantry of Yahweh’s army, they are even more so for those who lead in kingdom work. Joshua’s confidence could not be based on his personal experience, qualifications, or training, but had to be based on God, and on God alone. This faith would be buttressed by keeping alive the memory of God’s past actions, by being reminded of God’s firm promises of future action, and by celebrating his presence in the conflict.
Moses’ request to enter Canaan. This is the first and last time we hear of Moses’ frank conversation with God about his request for permission to enter the Promised Land. However, having included this episode, the death of Moses outside the land hangs like a pall over the entire book. In fact, the addresses that follow take on the function of a last will and testament or a prefunerary oration. In 31:2 Moses acknowledges that his end has come, and he takes further steps to get his house in order before his demise. Yahweh will remind him again in 32:48–52 of the reason for his refusal, and in 34:1–4 Moses receives the consolation prize—sight of the Promised Land from one end to the other. However, not another word is said in the book or the rest of the Old Testament of Moses’ prayer and God’s rebuff. With time the image of Moses was increasingly idealized. In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether or not Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.23
Contemporary Significance
ON THINGS ABOVE. THE apportionment of the land east of the Jordan to the two and one-half tribes (3:12–17) illustrates the ambiguities that often characterize the life of faith. Like Lot in Genesis 13, these tribes desired the good land east of the Jordan, and God gave them what they desired. Although their request seemed reasonable, in the long term it proved a disaster. The episode reminds readers today to set their affections on things above, not on things below (Col. 3:2). It is not that what seems attractive to us is fundamentally wrong; it may even be logically defensible and economically wise. But when earthly considerations eclipse the divine agenda, we are in danger of losing our place in both.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes reminds readers today that a biblical ethic is not only driven by heavenly rather than earthly values; it also seeks the well-being of the next person ahead of our own. Flush from the victories over the Canaanites, in Joshua 22 these tribes declared their identity with their kinsfolk to the west. But within a generation the nation would begin to unravel. When people lose sight of their common spiritual heritage and their common mission, their sense of community also vanishes.
The nature and purpose of prayer. Verses 23–29 are extremely instructive on the nature and purpose of prayer. Some of the lessons to be learned from Moses’ conversation with God are obvious; others are not so clear. (1) Prayer is an act of worship. True worship involves reverential acts of submission and homage to the divine superior in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will. When Moses addressed God as “Sovereign LORD” and referred to himself as “your servant,” he illustrated the psychological and spiritual posture that is prerequisite to receiving a hearing with God.
(2) Prayer must be grounded in correct theology, which in biblical prayers is often expressed through exuberant adoration of the great and glorious God and doxologies of praise for his gracious but concrete acts on people’s behalf (4:32–40). David takes Moses doxology to a new level in 1 Chronicles 29:10–13:
Praise be to you, O LORD,
God of our father Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power
and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom;
you are exalted as head over all.
Wealth and honor come from you;
you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
to exalt and give strength to all.
Now, our God, we give you thanks,
and praise your glorious name.
But this is a prayer of praise. Although it is longer and more detailed, the prayer of petition by Peter and John in Acts 4:24–30 follows the pattern of Moses’ plea:
Invocation: “Sovereign Lord,”
Description: “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David. . . .”
Petition: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Like the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9–13), this is a helpful pattern for us, reminding us who we are in relation to God and who he is in relation to the universe. Confident prayer is based on the relationship that God has graciously established with his people.
(3) Prayer is an incredible privilege. As Moses will assert in the next chapter (4:8), of all the nations only Israel has a God so near that he hears them whenever they call on him. But even in prayer, God remains the Sovereign, and he retains the right to say “yes” or “no” to a human supplicant’s requests. Taking into account the overall biblical perspective, the effects of prayer may vary. As Moses had experienced in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14, through the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person, God’s disposition may be changed, and he may withdraw threats he had previously pronounced on people (cf. also Jonah 3–4). In other contexts, God may answer prayer affirmatively by effecting a change in one’s external circumstances, as we witness in the case of Peter in Acts 12:5–17.
(4) Finally, through prayer the persons praying may themselves be changed. Rather than being a means by which supplicants get God to do what they desire, sometimes prayer becomes the process whereby God brings the wills of those who pray into conformity with his own. As was the case with Moses, our faith may not necessarily be measured by the extent to which we can move God. Strong faith also may demand that we accept God’s “no” and get on with the tasks to which he has called us. Sometimes his “no” is final.
Some decades ago now, for nine months I served as the interim preacher of a wonderful church. The week I arrived we learned that a thirty-two-year-old woman, the mother of two lovely children, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her friends rallied around her, organizing round-the-clock prayer vigils. Sadly, eight months later, as one of my last duties as interim pastor, I conducted her funeral. By then most of her best friends had left the church, disillusioned and angry with the congregation for not praying seriously and for not having faith strong enough to heal this person. God could have granted Moses’ request. God can and does heal miraculously. But painful though it was, this family and congregation had to come to terms with God’s “no.” The measure of faith is not necessarily established by what we can get God to do for us; sometimes strong faith means simply casting ourselves into his loving and gracious arms, trusting him to be with us even in grief.
Responsible pastoral leadership. Finally, through Moses’ actions in these episodes, we learn a series of lessons on the nature and style of responsible pastoral leadership. (1) As the leader of this massive congregation, Moses was sensitive to the desires and needs of his people. He heard the two and one-half tribes’ request for land, and he granted the request. But this was not merely a sentimental acquiescence to their appetites; Moses also recognized the implications of the decision for the congregation as a whole. Accordingly, even as he granted the privilege of possessing the land east of the Jordan, he also highlighted their obligations toward the community of faith as a whole.
(2) Responsible pastoral leaders have the well-being of all the members of the congregation in mind (v. 19). Even as Moses impresses the men of the eastern tribes with their obligations to the larger community, he provides for the well-being of the vulnerable—their wives and children, not to mention their livestock. In so doing he both guarantees their security and spares them the horrors and violence of the wars to come.
(3) Responsible leaders recognize the symbiotic relationship that exists between divine and human activity (v. 20). Moses knows that the men must cross the Jordan to engage the enemy with the rest of the nation, but they will go confident in God’s promise to give rest to the warriors in particular and to the nation in general. Then they may return home and celebrate the rest he has provided.
(4) Responsible pastoral leaders hold up before the people a high view of God (vv. 22–24). Moses knows that the God of Israel is like no other, and he realizes the importance of keeping alive the memory of God’s saving action on behalf of his people. With this lofty theology, the people may charge onto the battlefield with confidence, realizing that the gods of the enemies they face are but foolish figments of a depraved human imagination.
(5) Responsible pastoral leaders place the well-being of the congregation over their own fortune. Moses had led the people for almost four decades through horrible physical circumstances and many bitter experiences, knowing full well that in the end he would be denied the trophy. But through all those years, he did not cease to represent the people before God and God to the people.
(6) Even responsible pastoral leaders are subject to the pressures of the office, which often drive them to bitter venting of personal feelings before God. On several occasions in this first address, Moses becomes embarrassingly transparent, openly expressing his disappointments and frustrations toward the people. Many leaders can identify with him in this critical moment and find some consolation in knowing that even the greatest leaders have feet of clay.
(7) Responsible leaders maintain open lines of communication with God. Not only was Moses open to the instruction and guidance of Yahweh at every turn, but he had also learned to cast his cares on Yahweh, knowing that God cared for him. Exodus 33 characterizes Moses’ relationship with God as a relationship of friendship—Yahweh used to speak to him face-to-face (i.e., directly) as a man speaks to a friend. In his plea to enter the land, Moses does indeed recognize his inferior position in this relationship, but the form of his request and the form of Yahweh’s answer are precisely how friends converse—directly, forthrightly, and without equivocation, ambiguity, or evasion. Moses walks away from this conversation with God bitterly disappointed, but he remains the friend of God.
(8) Responsible pastoral leadership knows when it is time to relinquish authority to a successor and to do so with grace and dignity. Although Moses is transparently bitter for having been refused entrance to the land and cynical toward the people because of it, with respect to Joshua he extends unwavering support. Despite the disappointment of unfulfilled dreams, he passes the mantle to his lieutenant and faithfully prepares him to take the reins of leadership.
Original Meaning
Moses’ Private Prayer (3:23–29)
THIS PARAGRAPH CATCHES THE reader by surprise on several counts. First, Moses’ prayer seems embarrassingly self-serving. From other texts we learn that he would pray for others, even to the point of sacrificing his own life for them (Ex. 32:30–34; cf. Deut 9:19–20, 25–26). But not since his call in Exodus 3–5 have we observed him so preoccupied with his personal fate.9 Although Numbers 20:1–12 provides the background to this prayer and Numbers 27:12–14 probably describes the context, the only clue Moses provides here to the occasion for this prayer is the phrase “at that time” (v. 23), that is, after the defeat of the Amorite kings. Israel’s overwhelming triumph over the enemy must have excited this 120-year-old man, and we should understand his intense desire to see his dream of entering the Promised Land fulfilled. From where he stands he can see the land just across the Jordan. In the prayer Moses pleads with Yahweh to be gracious and let him cross. The prayer itself takes up only verses 24 and 25, but it contains several typical features of biblical prose prayers.10
1. The invocative address: “O Sovereign LORD.” The double invocation establishes contact with God (cf. 9:26). By opening with ʾ adônây (“lord, master, suzerain”), Moses expresses his subordination before God, a disposition that he reinforces by referring to himself as “your servant.”11 But Moses also addresses God by name, which is possible only because God in his grace has revealed it to him (cf. Ex. 3:13–15; 34:6–7). Indeed Moses has the courage to address Yahweh because of his personal relationship with Israel’s gracious Suzerain.
2. The description. “You have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?” In prayers imbedded in Old Testament narratives, the opening invocation is often followed by a description of the divine addressee, proclaiming his power and uniqueness.12 This particular declaration consists of a statement followed by a rhetorical question. The former alludes to Yahweh’s mighty acts; this is the beginning of demonstrations of Yahweh’s greatness and “strong hand.”13 In effect Moses laments that he has been able to witness only the beginning of Yahweh’s great project. The rhetorical question asks whether there is any other god in heaven or earth who can match what Yahweh has done for Israel. The question obviously anticipates an emphatic negative response: “There is no god like Yahweh!” Moses will elaborate fully on this notion in the next chapter (4:32–40).
3. The petition. Next comes Moses’ petition: “Let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan—that fine hill country and Lebanon.” Moses expresses his desire forthrightly and passionately. The intensity of his pain at the prospect of missing this opportunity is reflected by his heaping of adjectives to describe the goal: “the good [i.e., fertile] land,” “that fine [i.e., fertile] hill country,” “and Lebanon,” which serves as a metaphor for any lush landscape.
It is difficult for visitors to the land of Palestine today to conceive of the region as the fabulously good land described here. In trying to understand Moses, we should keep in mind three factors. (1) Archaeologists and climatologists agree that in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age the landscape of Palestine differed markedly from what we find there today. The invention and manufacture of more efficient agricultural implements in the Early Iron Age (1200–900 BC) enabled the clearing of large tracts of land to make way for human settlement and agriculture, which over time denuded the landscape and precipitated erosion of the soil to bedrock.14
(2) This description may be passionately hyperbolic. To anyone who had been wandering around in the desert of Sinai for forty years, the landscape across the Jordan would have seemed Edenic.
(3) For Moses, the land of Canaan was much more than a geographic place; it was a theological idea. Seen with spiritual eyes, the land was good, not because it was fertile, but because it was the land that Yahweh had reserved for his people; this was the destination that Yahweh had set for Moses when he called him to lead the people out of Egypt (Ex. 3:8).
With intense pain, in verses 26–28 Moses describes Yahweh’s response to his prayer. (1) Angry with Moses because he had not accepted as final his earlier pronouncement (Num. 20:9–11), Yahweh refused to grant his request with an emphatic order for Moses to stop making this request;15 he would hear no more about the matter. As he had done in 1:37, Moses had blamed the people for Yahweh’s anger with him, obviously overlooking his own culpability in the event at Meribah (Num. 20:1–13). Technically he was correct. If Israel had trusted Yahweh at Kadesh Barnea and entered the land, the events at Meribah would never have happened. But the image of this great leader passing off responsibility is disappointing.
(2) Yahweh offered him a consolation prize: he could climb Mount Pisgah and take in the sight of the Promised Land, gazing in all directions across the Dead Sea and the Jordan River.16
(3) Adding insult to injury, Yahweh charged Moses to prepare Joshua his lieutenant to take his place, to lead the people across the Jordan, and to deliver the grant of land into the people’s hands.17 Since the Canaanites were as formidable as ever (cf. 1:28), Moses must “encourage” and “strengthen” Joshua.18
Moses concludes his recollections of this painful episode abruptly by noting simply that he and the people remained in the valley opposite Beth Peor on the plains of Moab (34:1), the place where he delivered this address. The valley in question was probably Wadi ʿAyn Musa, “The Valley of Moses’ Well,” at the foot of Pisgah. Beth Peor is probably an abbreviation for the fuller name, Beth Baal Peor, “the house of Baal of Peor,” which suggests the location of a shrine to Baal (cf. 4:3).19 The Israelites are still at the place where they had recently engaged in spiritual prostitution and physical harlotry (Num. 25:1–9).
Bridging Contexts
THE TRANSJORDANIAN TRIBES. EACH of the four sections of this text has its own enduring theological significance. In the short run, the request of the two and one-half tribes to retain this land seems both logical and reasonable. This was a fertile region, especially suitable for grazing herds and flocks, as the two tribes recognized. Moreover, the Israelites’ elimination of the Amorites had created a power vacuum in the region. Nevertheless, this land had previously never been envisaged as part of the Promised Land, and one may assume that if the Israelites had entered from the south thirty-eight years earlier, it would never have become part of the land of Israel. Although Moses declared that these lands were Yahweh’s gift to the two and one-half tribes (3:18), the accounts here and in Numbers are strangely silent on the involvement of God in the process. Assuming Moses’ had access to God’s will on this matter, we are still surprised that God would allow the expansion of the territory of Israel in response to the people’s desires.
Nevertheless, in long-range terms, granting the people’s request yielded disastrous consequences. Whereas God’s original plan envisaged the Jordan as a barrier between Israel and the Transjordanian nations, in a matter of months it would divide the nation itself. The theological implications of their request dawned on the two and one-half tribes immediately after the backbone of Canaanite resistance had been broken (Josh. 22). Fearing the western Israelites would treat their descendants as second-class citizens, excluded from the people of Yahweh, they built an altar on the west bank of the Jordan to memorialize their membership in the people of Yahweh (vv. 24–25). Had cool heads not prevailed, this decision would have resulted in a civil war within Joshua’s own lifetime.
With the increasing Canaanization of Israelite society in the post-conquest period, on several occasions east and west came to blows with disastrous consequences.20 In the centuries that followed, these tribes would be the first to feel the ravages of foreign armies. Remarkably, in the sixth century BC, Ezekiel’s vision of the restored nation leaves the heartland of these Transjordanian territories between the Wadi Arnon and the Yarmuk River out of the picture of the Promised Land (Ezek. 47:15–20). The fact that the boundaries of the land apportioned to the other tribes corresponds closely to the territory promised to Abraham (Gen. 15)21 raises questions of what Yahweh really thought about the matter.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes (3:18–20) highlights the unity and solidarity of the people of Yahweh. Not only was the Promised Land Yahweh’s gift to all Israel, but the conquest of Canaan was also a national agenda; no tribe could be excused until the goal had been achieved and God had given rest to all. Unfortunately, in subsequent history this principle would be honored more in the breach than in the observance. The narratives of Judges demonstrate how quickly this unity would dissolve. The narrator of Judges laments the fact that instead of keeping alive the memory of Yahweh’s gracious saving acts on behalf of the entire nation, the Israelites forgot Yahweh and behaved more and more like Canaanites (Judg. 2:10–23). The inter-city rivalries of the peoples they displaced22 gave way to intertribal parochialism and jealousies.
Moses’ charge to Joshua. Moses’ charge to Joshua (vv. 21–22, 28) demonstrates that if courage and faith are prerequisites for serving in the infantry of Yahweh’s army, they are even more so for those who lead in kingdom work. Joshua’s confidence could not be based on his personal experience, qualifications, or training, but had to be based on God, and on God alone. This faith would be buttressed by keeping alive the memory of God’s past actions, by being reminded of God’s firm promises of future action, and by celebrating his presence in the conflict.
Moses’ request to enter Canaan. This is the first and last time we hear of Moses’ frank conversation with God about his request for permission to enter the Promised Land. However, having included this episode, the death of Moses outside the land hangs like a pall over the entire book. In fact, the addresses that follow take on the function of a last will and testament or a prefunerary oration. In 31:2 Moses acknowledges that his end has come, and he takes further steps to get his house in order before his demise. Yahweh will remind him again in 32:48–52 of the reason for his refusal, and in 34:1–4 Moses receives the consolation prize—sight of the Promised Land from one end to the other. However, not another word is said in the book or the rest of the Old Testament of Moses’ prayer and God’s rebuff. With time the image of Moses was increasingly idealized. In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether or not Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.23
Contemporary Significance
ON THINGS ABOVE. THE apportionment of the land east of the Jordan to the two and one-half tribes (3:12–17) illustrates the ambiguities that often characterize the life of faith. Like Lot in Genesis 13, these tribes desired the good land east of the Jordan, and God gave them what they desired. Although their request seemed reasonable, in the long term it proved a disaster. The episode reminds readers today to set their affections on things above, not on things below (Col. 3:2). It is not that what seems attractive to us is fundamentally wrong; it may even be logically defensible and economically wise. But when earthly considerations eclipse the divine agenda, we are in danger of losing our place in both.
Moses’ charge to the two and one-half tribes reminds readers today that a biblical ethic is not only driven by heavenly rather than earthly values; it also seeks the well-being of the next person ahead of our own. Flush from the victories over the Canaanites, in Joshua 22 these tribes declared their identity with their kinsfolk to the west. But within a generation the nation would begin to unravel. When people lose sight of their common spiritual heritage and their common mission, their sense of community also vanishes.
The nature and purpose of prayer. Verses 23–29 are extremely instructive on the nature and purpose of prayer. Some of the lessons to be learned from Moses’ conversation with God are obvious; others are not so clear. (1) Prayer is an act of worship. True worship involves reverential acts of submission and homage to the divine superior in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will. When Moses addressed God as “Sovereign LORD” and referred to himself as “your servant,” he illustrated the psychological and spiritual posture that is prerequisite to receiving a hearing with God.
(2) Prayer must be grounded in correct theology, which in biblical prayers is often expressed through exuberant adoration of the great and glorious God and doxologies of praise for his gracious but concrete acts on people’s behalf (4:32–40). David takes Moses doxology to a new level in 1 Chronicles 29:10–13:
Praise be to you, O LORD,
God of our father Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power
and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom;
you are exalted as head over all.
Wealth and honor come from you;
you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
to exalt and give strength to all.
Now, our God, we give you thanks,
and praise your glorious name.
But this is a prayer of praise. Although it is longer and more detailed, the prayer of petition by Peter and John in Acts 4:24–30 follows the pattern of Moses’ plea:
Invocation: “Sovereign Lord,”
Description: “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David. . . .”
Petition: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Like the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9–13), this is a helpful pattern for us, reminding us who we are in relation to God and who he is in relation to the universe. Confident prayer is based on the relationship that God has graciously established with his people.
(3) Prayer is an incredible privilege. As Moses will assert in the next chapter (4:8), of all the nations only Israel has a God so near that he hears them whenever they call on him. But even in prayer, God remains the Sovereign, and he retains the right to say “yes” or “no” to a human supplicant’s requests. Taking into account the overall biblical perspective, the effects of prayer may vary. As Moses had experienced in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14, through the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person, God’s disposition may be changed, and he may withdraw threats he had previously pronounced on people (cf. also Jonah 3–4). In other contexts, God may answer prayer affirmatively by effecting a change in one’s external circumstances, as we witness in the case of Peter in Acts 12:5–17.
(4) Finally, through prayer the persons praying may themselves be changed. Rather than being a means by which supplicants get God to do what they desire, sometimes prayer becomes the process whereby God brings the wills of those who pray into conformity with his own. As was the case with Moses, our faith may not necessarily be measured by the extent to which we can move God. Strong faith also may demand that we accept God’s “no” and get on with the tasks to which he has called us. Sometimes his “no” is final.
Some decades ago now, for nine months I served as the interim preacher of a wonderful church. The week I arrived we learned that a thirty-two-year-old woman, the mother of two lovely children, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her friends rallied around her, organizing round-the-clock prayer vigils. Sadly, eight months later, as one of my last duties as interim pastor, I conducted her funeral. By then most of her best friends had left the church, disillusioned and angry with the congregation for not praying seriously and for not having faith strong enough to heal this person. God could have granted Moses’ request. God can and does heal miraculously. But painful though it was, this family and congregation had to come to terms with God’s “no.” The measure of faith is not necessarily established by what we can get God to do for us; sometimes strong faith means simply casting ourselves into his loving and gracious arms, trusting him to be with us even in grief.
Responsible pastoral leadership. Finally, through Moses’ actions in these episodes, we learn a series of lessons on the nature and style of responsible pastoral leadership. (1) As the leader of this massive congregation, Moses was sensitive to the desires and needs of his people. He heard the two and one-half tribes’ request for land, and he granted the request. But this was not merely a sentimental acquiescence to their appetites; Moses also recognized the implications of the decision for the congregation as a whole. Accordingly, even as he granted the privilege of possessing the land east of the Jordan, he also highlighted their obligations toward the community of faith as a whole.
(2) Responsible pastoral leaders have the well-being of all the members of the congregation in mind (v. 19). Even as Moses impresses the men of the eastern tribes with their obligations to the larger community, he provides for the well-being of the vulnerable—their wives and children, not to mention their livestock. In so doing he both guarantees their security and spares them the horrors and violence of the wars to come.
(3) Responsible leaders recognize the symbiotic relationship that exists between divine and human activity (v. 20). Moses knows that the men must cross the Jordan to engage the enemy with the rest of the nation, but they will go confident in God’s promise to give rest to the warriors in particular and to the nation in general. Then they may return home and celebrate the rest he has provided.
(4) Responsible pastoral leaders hold up before the people a high view of God (vv. 22–24). Moses knows that the God of Israel is like no other, and he realizes the importance of keeping alive the memory of God’s saving action on behalf of his people. With this lofty theology, the people may charge onto the battlefield with confidence, realizing that the gods of the enemies they face are but foolish figments of a depraved human imagination.
(5) Responsible pastoral leaders place the well-being of the congregation over their own fortune. Moses had led the people for almost four decades through horrible physical circumstances and many bitter experiences, knowing full well that in the end he would be denied the trophy. But through all those years, he did not cease to represent the people before God and God to the people.
(6) Even responsible pastoral leaders are subject to the pressures of the office, which often drive them to bitter venting of personal feelings before God. On several occasions in this first address, Moses becomes embarrassingly transparent, openly expressing his disappointments and frustrations toward the people. Many leaders can identify with him in this critical moment and find some consolation in knowing that even the greatest leaders have feet of clay.
(7) Responsible leaders maintain open lines of communication with God. Not only was Moses open to the instruction and guidance of Yahweh at every turn, but he had also learned to cast his cares on Yahweh, knowing that God cared for him. Exodus 33 characterizes Moses’ relationship with God as a relationship of friendship—Yahweh used to speak to him face-to-face (i.e., directly) as a man speaks to a friend. In his plea to enter the land, Moses does indeed recognize his inferior position in this relationship, but the form of his request and the form of Yahweh’s answer are precisely how friends converse—directly, forthrightly, and without equivocation, ambiguity, or evasion. Moses walks away from this conversation with God bitterly disappointed, but he remains the friend of God.
(8) Responsible pastoral leadership knows when it is time to relinquish authority to a successor and to do so with grace and dignity. Although Moses is transparently bitter for having been refused entrance to the land and cynical toward the people because of it, with respect to Joshua he extends unwavering support. Despite the disappointment of unfulfilled dreams, he passes the mantle to his lieutenant and faithfully prepares him to take the reins of leadership.