Have You Ever Been Wrongly Accused?
Moses said to the members of the tribes of Gad and Reuben: "Shall
your brothers go to war and you remain here? You have risen up in place of your fathers as a culture of wicked people, to
add yet more to the burning wrath of YHVH against Israel." Num 32:6,14
This was Moses' reply to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, when they requested to be allowed to settle on
the east bank of the Jordan, on the land conquered from Sichon and Og.
Their petition seemed reasonable. They had abundant cattle and the land in question was suitable for
grazing. (Num 32:1) Reuben and Gad had already participated in the conquest of the land on the east bank of the Jordan.
After they explained their true motives, Moses agreed to let them settle on the other side of the Jordan River, though
at first he judged them as a product of a 'culture of wicked people'? Why?
A similar situation occurred again some fifteen years later after Joshua divided up the Land amongst the tribes.
The same two and a half tribes had been very fully engaged in the wars conquering the Holy Land, and when their work was completed,
they returned to Trans-Jordan, where they had settled with Moses' agreement. They then built an altar in their locality. When
the Israelite leaders, under Joshua, heard about it, they immediately prepared for civil war, saying that building the
altar was an act of rebellion against YHVH. They thought that the two and half tribes were building a local altar for
sacrifices, and such arrangements were forbidden so long as the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) were functioning. When Gad
and Reuben explained their true motives to the other tribes, they were accepted - the altar was to be strictly a reminder
to future generations that, despite geographical separation, they would serve YHVH in the appropriate location, and that in
the future, "your children should not say to our children that we have no portion in the Almighty."
Joshua 22:27
In both cases - first under Moses, and secondly under Joshua, the tribes of Reuben and Gad appear to
have been wrongly accused before their case was investigated - and subsequently approved! Why were they not given
the benefit of the doubt before they had the opportunity to explain themselves?
Why weren't they given the benefit of the doubt before they had the opportunity to explain themselves?
One explanation may be found in considering how far the rule of giving the benefit of the doubt extends. Scripture
implies that there are certain cases that one should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
"For the ways of YHVH are upright. The righteous shall walk with them and the transgressors
shall stumble with them." Hosea 14:10
An illustration of this may be found in the story of Lot and his two daughters. (Gen 19:30-38) The daughters
intended to do a good deed. They gave their father intoxicating wine, and subsequently lured him into making them pregnant
in the honest belief that after the destruction of Sodom they were the only people left, and they did not want the human
population to become extinct. Lot, however, intended to sin when he allowed himself to become drunk the second time,
knowing that he had inadvertently committed incest on the first occasion through drinking wine.
The judgment on Lot seems harsh. Maybe Lot shared his daughters' concern about the future of mankind. Or perhaps
he knew that only Sodom and not the whole world, was going to be destroyed, but he genuinely believed that he would not commit
a second act of incest even if he drank wine.
Lot's wish to go to the wealthy though evil city of Sodom in the first place (Gen 13:10) reflects on
his general propensity to sin. Therefore the rule of giving him the benefit of the doubt did not apply.
Reuben was described by his father Jacob as being "unstable, like water", following his interfering with
his father's marital arrangements. (Gen 35:22; 49:4)
Let us examine the background and requests of the tribes of Reuben and Gad on those two occasions, and why
their request appeared improper:
Greed: The tribes of Reuben and Gad had 'many cattle' (Num 32:1) showing they loved
their wealth. They wanted to isolate themselves from the other tribes to enjoy their material gains. Therefore they were the
first tribes to be exiled.
Fear and lack of faith: Implied in their words, "do not make us cross the Jordan" - shirking
communal responsibility. (Num 32:5) When Jacob blessed his sons before his death, he highlighted the individualities of
each tribe. Gad's strengths were in military leadership - "Gad will march out as a regiment." (Gen 49:19)
In asking Moses "not to make us cross the Jordan" Gad effectively refused to contribute the special skills he received
from YHVH, to the Israelite communiny.
Unethical priorities: Later in their exchange with Moses, they proposed to build "pens for
their cattle and cities for their children." (Num 32:16) Notice the obvious defect in the order of
preferences.
Like with Lot, the request of the tribe of Reuben and Gad emerged from a background tinged with greed, and
association with the wicked. Therefore Moses did not give them the benefit of the doubt, since their behavior was seen
as a threat to the physical and spiritual well-being of all Israel. (Num 32:7-15)
Moses attached an important provision in eventually agreeing to their wish to settle in Trans-Jordan, subject
to their helping the other tribes conquer the Land: "You shall be clean from YHVH and Israel" - meaning that it is not
enough to know that one's actions are proper in YHVH's eyes. One must endeavor to avoid even the "appearance of evil" before
men.
When the two and a half tribes built the altar on their return from the conquest they seemed to have forgotten
that point. They did not consider how their behavior could appear to the other tribes as rebellion against YHVH. They did
not initially send a message with their intentions to the leaders explaining the reason for the altar. They disregarded
Moses' admonition to conduct themselves above reproof. Therefore they were not given the benefit of the doubt.
We learn from this that however praiseworthy it is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, one should exercise
caution if the background and facts of the case warrant it, to avoid arousing suspicion, especially when other people
are involved.
"So you shall find favor and good understanding in the eyes of Elohim and Man."
Prov 3:4
