Original Meaning

HOME ON THE RANGE. When the Israelites conquer the Transjordanian lands of kings Sihon and Og (21:23–35), they do not intend to permanently occupy them. They are bound for the Promised Land, the borders of which (ch. 34) coincide with those of the Egyptian province of Canaan on the other (western) side of the Jordan River during the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries B.C.1 These borders indicate that Israel is to displace the Egyptian presence on the continent of Asia. However, when members of the tribes of Reuben and Gad look around them east of the Jordan, they like what they see. They have cattle, and the land is ideal cattle country. How can they do better than this?

When the Reubenites and Gadites approach Moses and other leaders to request the Transjordanian territories as their possession (32:1–5), they cause a major misunderstanding by concluding their petition with the words: “Do not make us cross the Jordan” (v. 5). Moses “hits the roof” and delivers one of the most sizzling speeches of his oratorically distinguished career (32:6–15). He assumes that they are faithless, indolent cowards, trying to get out of fighting for Canaan, and he accuses them of discouraging (lit., “restraining [nwʾ ] the heart of”) the other Israelites from crossing over into the Promised Land (v. 7) as the majority of scouts sent from Kadesh had discouraged (also nwʾ ) the earlier generation (vv. 8–9).2 Although he does not mention Dathan and Abiram, Moses cannot have forgotten that they were Reubenites (16:1).

Moses thinks he has just aborted a rebellion by a “brood of sinners” (32:14), and no doubt expects the representatives of Reuben and Gad to slink away “with their tails between their legs.” He must be surprised when they courageously come closer (ngš) to him instead (32:16). They clarify their intentions and outline a plan for their men to go not just with the rest of the Israelites, but to be deployed in advance of them3 to help them fight for their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan (32:16–18). Moses approves, provided that they will follow through (32:20–24). So the Gadites and Reubenites reinforce their promise by repeating it, referring to their idea as their lord’s (Moses’) command (32:25–27). They are rapidly learning the art of diplomacy!

When Moses grants Transjordanian land to Gad and Reuben, he also allots a portion east of the Jordan to half of the tribe of Manasseh (32:33). The biblical text does not explain why Manasseh enters the picture at this point. Perhaps after Reuben and Gad pave the way with Moses, some Manassites decide they want to live in the Transjordan too. In any case, it serves Moses’ interests to have the tribe of Manasseh straddling the Jordan. At least members of the half-tribe of Manasseh on the east will have a strong vested interest in assisting their fellow tribesmen on the west and making sure that the Reubenites and Gadites join them in this. Later the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan do make good on their pledge to send their army across the Jordan in front of the other Israelites (Josh. 4:12), after which they return home (22:9).

Incredible journey, homeward bound. Numbers 33 provides a straightforward list of “forty distinct stages between Egypt and the plains of Moab across the Jordan River from Canaan.”4 Condensed as it is, the summary does not make room for value judgments on the Israelites’ behavior. The point is where the Lord has led them.

God’s people maintain a balanced perspective by reviewing their journey and remembering how he has led. In this way they simultaneously reinforce their sense of dependence on him and confidence that he will take care of them each step of the way. As one member of an urban church replied when her pastor asked how she was getting along: “I find myself living somewhere between ‘thank you, Lord’ and ‘help me, Jesus.’”5

The summary in Numbers 33 is more complete than the accounts in Exodus and earlier in Numbers, which concentrate on places where memorable events have occurred.6 While we know the overall contours of Israel’s movement from Egypt to Canaan, modern scholars have not succeeded in definitively working out all the details because there is inadequate evidence to pinpoint all the locations named in the Bible.7 Remember that the Israelites were camping in an uninhabited area, without building anything that would remain.

Because archaeological remains dating to the period in question (Late Bronze Age II, about 1400–1200 B.C.) have not yet been found at key sites such as Dibon, east of the Jordan (33:45–46), a number of scholars reject the reliability of the biblical record, even to the extent of denying that Israel’s journey from Egypt occurred at all. In response, C. R. Krahmalkov points out the witness of Late Bronze Age Egyptian topographical lists:

In short, the Biblical story of the invasion of Transjordan that set the stage for the conquest of all Palestine is told against a background that is historically accurate. The Israelite invasion route described in Numbers 33:45b–50 was in fact an official, heavily trafficked Egyptian road through the Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age. And the city of Dibon was in fact a station on that road in the Late Bronze Age.8

Verses 3–15 cover journeys from Egypt to the Desert of Sinai (cf. Ex. 12–19). Numbers 33:4 adds that the Lord has accomplished judgment on the gods of the Egyptians. In other words, the plagues (Ex. 7–12) were not simply to discomfort the Egyptians; they were strategically calculated to attack their religious system by displaying God’s power over things they worshiped. Another addition by Numbers 33 is in verses 12–14, which name Dophkah and Alush as the stops between the Desert of Sin and Rephidim (cf. Ex. 17:1).

Numbers 33:15–16 includes the Desert of Sinai, where the tabernacle was constructed and the laws of Leviticus were given, as just another stop along the way. Taberah (11:3) is not included, apparently because it was sumbsumed under Kibroth Hattaavah as the same place, or very close by, with no journey recorded between the two locations.9 Verses 16–49 cover the decades of travel from the Desert of Sinai to the plains of Moab by the Jordan River (cf. Num. 10–25), listing many place names that we have not encountered earlier in Numbers because no noteworthy events occurred there during the years of wandering (cf. Deut. 2:1).

Kadesh raises a question that remains unresolved. According to Numbers 33, after leaving the Desert of Sinai (33:16a), the Israelites camped at Kibroth Hattaavah (33:16b; cf. 11:34–35a), at Hazeroth (33:18a; cf. 11:35b; 12:16a), and then at a series of places not mentioned earlier in Numbers (33:18b–36a), before arriving at Kadesh in the Desert of Zin (33:36b). This is the Kadesh where the “waters of Meribah” were located (20:1–13; Deut. 32:51) and from which Moses petitioned the king of Edom for passage (Num. 20:14; Judg. 11:16–17).

From Kadesh they went to Mount Hor, where Aaron died in the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt (Num. 33:38–39; cf. 20:22–29). This was at the end of the desert wandering, as the Israelites were making their way toward Moab (see 33:40–49). The question is: Why doesn’t Numbers 33 mention the long stay at Kadesh (Barnea; cf. 12:16; 13:26; 32:8; Deut. 1:19, 46; 2:14)? Was it perhaps a different Kadesh from the one where the Israelites stayed thirty-eight years later?10

The summary of past journeys in Numbers 33 returns to the present at the plains of Moab by the Jordan, where the Israelites are encamped (33:49). Here, across from Jericho, the Lord instructs them how to treat the Canaanites when they cross the Jordan: Drive them out, destroy all their objects of worship, and settle in their land, dividing it up by casting lots (33:50–56).

Numbers 34 addresses the settlement and division of the land. First, the boundaries of the Promised Land are specified in the order: southern (34:3–5), western (34:6), northern (34:7–9), and eastern (34:10–12), aside from the Transjordanian territory of the Gadites, Reubenites, and half-tribe of Manasseh (34:13–15).11 Next, chapter 34 lists the leaders who will be responsible for dividing up the land (34:16–29). Reuben and Gad are not represented among these leaders because their inheritance is on the other side of the Jordan (see ch. 32).

Bridging Contexts

“YOUR SIN WILL find you out.” It is understandable that Moses overreacts to the request of the Reubenites and Gadites to settle in the Transjordan (Num. 32:6–15). He has long and hard experience with fickle failure to honor commitments. Even after Moses accepts their plan, he engages them in extended dialogue to confirm the agreement as a legal contract and spell out contingencies (32:20–33).

It is much the same today. If you agree to buy or sell a major item, such as real estate, or if you take out a bank loan, there is a substantial legal process that follows the initial agreement. The reason why a loan contract requires special safeguards is because the borrower receives money before performing the obligation to pay it back. When people already have what they want, as the Gadites and Reubenites will, the natural tendency is to relax and neglect their commitment.

At Nineveh, Iraq, in 1989, I needed one worker on the last day of our excavation season to re-cover and thereby protect some partially exposed Assyrian skeletons that had been crushed at the entrance to the Halzi Gate when the city fell in 612 B.C. Since our regular workers had already been dismissed, our director found it convenient to pay the local man who had been guarding our site to help me with the job. Until he did the work, his pay was a loan. However, having received his pay, he had no incentive and was in the process of leaving without performing his obligation. Because the job had to be done that day and I could not do it all myself, I imitated our Iraqi foreman by shoving him back to work amid a torrent of the most fluent Arabic I have ever mustered.

There is a saying that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” So modern law protects a lender from a borrower’s default by enforcing the right of repossession or seizure of collateral. But how could the Israelites foreclose on two entire tribes if they refused to budge in order to help the other tribes across the Jordan? A civil war to force their cooperation (cf. Judg. 20) would defeat the purpose of strengthening Israel’s position against its enemies.

Recognizing the danger inherent in loaning the Reubenites and Gadites territory that they would already possess, Moses warned: “But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Num. 32:23). There was a higher authority with power to enforce the contract.

Moses did not say that God would directly punish them. Rather, he said that their sin (ḥaṭṭaʾt) itself would find (Qal of mṣʾ ) them. In other words, sin would inevitably boomerang back to haunt them with evil results. In the Bible this prominent theme is often expressed by the metaphor of evil deeds returning on the heads of those who perpetrate them.12 Today we say, “chickens come home to roost” or “what goes around comes around.”

The Lord holds people accountable by bringing to completion the consequences inherent in their own actions.13 Thus, key Hebrew terms for moral evil (including ḥaṭṭaʾt, pešaʿ, and ʿawon; see comments on Lev. 16) can refer both to sinful acts and their consequences, implying that the consequences are inseparable from the actions themselves.14

For the Israelites as a whole, their sin will find them if they fail to drive out the Canaanites, destroy their idolatrous objects, and obliterate their places of worship (33:52). There can be no attempt to preserve the culture of these people, even in an anthropological museum. Needless to say, this is “politically incorrect” today. But if the Israelites bond to the Canaanites and their culture, they will bond to their sins. If God’s people permit remnants of spiritual “cancer,” they will set themselves up for overwhelming “metastasis.” Détente would be the prelude to defeat.

The Lord warns: “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them” (33:55–56). By later failing in this regard, the Israelites do indeed bring on themselves untold misery during the long and dark period of the judges (see esp. Judg. 1–3).15

Contemporary Significance

DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY. Dwight L. Moody understood the value of delegating responsibility, saying, “I’d rather get ten men to do the job than to do the job of ten men.”16 Because Moses was running a nation, he had to delegate in all kinds of ways, but this was not always easy for him. Jethro found him trying to do the job of ten men and urged him to appoint judges, which he did (Ex. 18:13–26). The Lord found him crushed by the burden of leading the people and instructed him to choose seventy elders, which he also did (Num. 11).

H. Finzel lists several reasons why it is difficult for leaders to delegate: fear of losing authority, fear of work being done poorly, fear of work being done better, unwillingness to take the necessary time, fear of depending on others, and lack of training and positive experience.17

Moses was not jealous for his own authority or afraid that others could do things better than he could (see Num. 11:29). Nor would this former prince of Egypt have lacked training. However, Moses was concerned for God to maintain authority (e.g., 16:5–11), and he was conscientious, knowing that the stakes involved in cooperation with the divine will were high. So when it came to matters of crucial importance, it is not surprising that he would have some reservations about depending on others, especially when even his own brother let him and the Lord down by making a golden calf at Sinai (Ex. 32).

The way a leader should supervise those who follow him or her depends, of course, on their levels of motivation, interest, and skill.18 P. Hersey and K. Blanchard present a model of situational leadership involving four styles of supervision, which are to be applied according to the readiness of the followers. Fully “delegating” is best for people who are able and willing or confident. If they are able but unwilling or insecure, it may be necessary for a leader to be “participating” with them in getting a job done. “Selling” people on doing a job through dialogue and clarification to support their motivation and commitment is helpful if they are unable but willing or confident. For those with low ability/skill and willingness, strongly “telling” people what to do, whether they like it or not, is the approach that works.19

If we don’t feel comfortable with the strong way God and Moses ordered the Israelites to do things or else, we should keep in mind that these people had just come out of slavery. In many areas of life, a lot of them had low interest, motivation, and skill, so they needed the “telling” approach. Even if we are well motivated, highly skilled, and therefore ready for someone to lead us by “delegating,” we can still learn a lot from prescriptive passages of the Pentateuch. Formulation of messages as law in this part of the Bible is part of the leadership style and does not invalidate the messages themselves as “legalistic.”

Although Moses was cautious about delegating some tasks, one of his greatest strengths was the fact that he believed in his people more than they believed in themselves.

It’s easy to have faith in people who have already proved themselves. It’s much tougher to believe in people before they have proved themselves. But that is the key to motivating people to reach their potential. You have to believe in them first, before they become successful, and sometimes before they even believe in themselves. French writer and moralist Joseph Joubert said, “No one can give faith unless he has faith. It is the persuaded who persuade.” You need faith in others before you can persuade them to believe in themselves.20

Theodore Roosevelt said: “The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”21 Finzel agrees that an effective leader does not micromanage or make decisions behind the backs of workers. He tells of a boss who gave a new employee a challenging problem to work on, but when the young man had toiled long and hard to come up with an impressive report, the boss simply said “Looks good, Sam . . . but we’ve decided to take another approach with that project.” The boss failed to give him the authority, freedom, and respect that should have gone with the assignment. Nor did he bother to check up on how Sam was doing.22

That was not Moses’ style. When he assigned a job, he delegated the authority necessary to accomplish it. He did not overmanage by hovering over and interfering with his subordinates, but with his respect for the responsibility of others, he expected and demanded that tasks be done right for the sake of God and Israel (e.g., Lev. 10:16–18; Num. 31:14–18).

When Christ was about to leave his earthly ministry in order to commence his priestly ministry in heaven, he commissioned his followers in Matt. 28:18–20:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Finzel draws attention to the fact that Jesus “promised to follow up on that delegation by His presence: ‘Surely I am with you always.’ He is going to hold His followers accountable, but He also intends to encourage them along the way. Excellent practice of delegation!”23

The messages and styles of Moses and Jesus teach us both the message and method of our mission. Bound for our promised Paradise, we are not to hoard tasks or the authority that goes with them, but to pass them on as Christ multiplies empowerment the way he did the loaves and fish (cf. Matt. 14; Mark 6; Luke 9).