Çölde Sayım 32:37 Yorum

In this chapter we have, I. A particular account of the removals and encampments of the children of Israel, from their escape out of Egypt to their entrance into Canaan, forty-two in all, with some remarkable events that happened at some of those places (v. 1-49). II. A strict command given them to drive out all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, which they were not going to conquer and take possession of (Num 33:50-56). So that the former part of the chapter looks back upon their march through the wilderness, the latter looks forward to their settlement in Canaan.

INTRODUCTION TO NUMBERS 32 This chapter relates, how that the tribes of Gad and Reuben requested a settlement in the country of Jazer and Gilead, being fit for the pasturage of their cattle, Num 32:1 at which Moses at first was very much displeased, as being unreasonable, and tending to discourage the rest of the people; and as acting a part like that their fathers had done before them, which brought the wrath of God upon them, so that they all but two perished in the wilderness; and this he suggests would be the case again, if such measures were taken, Num 32:6 upon which they explain themselves, and declare they had no intention of forsaking their brethren, but were willing to leave their children and cattle to the care of divine Providence, and go armed before Israel, until they were brought into, and settled in the land of Canaan; nor did they desire any part or inheritance in it, Num 32:16, this satisfied Moses, and he agreed to it, that the land they requested should be their possession, provided the conditions were fulfilled by them, which they proposed, Num 20:20, and which they again agreed unto, and promised to perform, Num 32:25, wherefore Moses gave orders to Eleazar, Joshua, and the chief fathers of the tribes, to put them in possession of the land of Gilead on those conditions, Num 32:28 and which were again promised that they would observe, Num 32:31, and at the same time Moses made a grant of the kingdoms of Sihon and of Og to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and to half the tribe of Manasseh, Num 32:33 and the chapter is closed with an account of the cities built or repaired by the children of Gad and Reuben, Num 32:34 and of the cities in Gilead taken and possessed by the children of Machir, and by Jair, who were of the tribe of Manasseh, Num 32:39.

And Nebo, and Baalmeon, (their names being changed,).... For Nebo was the name of an idol, after which perhaps the city was called: Baalmeon signifies "Baal's habitation", and where it is highly probable was a temple of his; and the children of Reuben, not liking to retain such idolatrous names, gave them others, but what they were it is not said; and certain it is, that when these places came into the hands of the Moabites, their ancient names were restored to them, as appears from Isa 15:2. and Shibmah; the same with Shebam, Num 32:3, and gave other names unto the cities which they built; but they are neither known, nor did they always continue, as has been observed.

The prophetical and historical song of Moses, showing forth the nature of God's doctrine, Deu 32:1-3. The character of God, Deu 32:4. The corruption of the people, Deu 32:5, Deu 32:6. They are called to remember God's kindness, Deu 32:7, and his dealings with them during their travels in the wilderness, Deu 32:8-14. Their ingratitude and iniquity, Deu 32:15-18. They are threatened with his judgments, Deu 32:19-28. A pathetic lamentation over them because of their sins, Deu 32:29-35. Gracious purposes in their behalf, mixed with reproaches for their manifold idolatries, and threatenings against his enemies, Deu 32:36-42. A promise of salvation to the Gentiles, Deu 32:43. Moses, having finished the song, warmly exhorts the people to obedience, Deu 32:44-47. God calls him up to the mount, that he may see the good land and then die, Deu 32:48-52.

THE REUBENITES AND GADITES ASK FOR AN INHERITANCE. (Num. 32:1-42) the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead--A complete conquest had been made of the country east of the Jordan, comprising "the land of Jazer," which formed the southern district between the Arnon and Jabbok and "the land of Gilead," the middle region between the Jabbok and Jarmouk, or Hieromax, including Bashan, which lay on the north of that river. The whole of this region is now called the Belka. It has always been famous for its rich and extensive pastures, and it is still the favorite resort of the Bedouin shepherds, who frequently contend for securing to their immense flocks the benefit of its luxuriant vegetation. In the camp of ancient Israel, Reuben and Gad were pre-eminently pastoral; and as these two tribes, being placed under the same standard, had frequent opportunities of conversing and arranging about their common concerns, they united in preferring a request that the trans-jordanic region, so well suited to the habits of a pastoral people, might be assigned to them.

Division of the Conquered Land Beyond the Jordan Among the Tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Half-Manasseh - Numbers 32 (Note: This chapter is also cut in pieces by Knobel: Num 32:1, Num 32:2, Num 32:16-19, Num 32:24, Num 32:28-30, and Num 32:33-38, being assigned to the Elohist; and the remainder, viz., Num 32:3-5, Num 32:6-15, Num 32:20-23, Num 32:25-27, Num 32:31, Num 32:32, and Num 32:39-42, to the Jehovist. But as the supposed Elohistic portions are fragmentary, inasmuch as it is assumed, for example, in Num 32:19, that the tribes of Reuben and Gad had already asked for the land of the Jordan and been promised it by Moses, whereas there is nothing of the kind stated in Num 32:1 and Num 32:2, the Elohistic account is said to have been handed down in a fragmentary state. The main ground for this violent hypothesis is the fancy of the critic, that the tribes mentioned could not have been so shameless as to wish to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan, and leave the conquest of Canaan to the other tribes, and that the willingness to help their brethren to conquer Canaan which they afterwards express in Num 32:16., is irreconcilable with their previous refusal to do this, - arguments which need no refutation for an unprejudiced reader of the Bible who is acquainted with the selfishness of the natural heart. The arguments founded upon the language employed are also all weak. Because there are words in Num 32:1 and Num 32:29, which the critics pronounce to be Jehovistic, they must proceed, both here and elsewhere, to remove all that offends them with their critical scissors, in order that they may uphold the full force of their dicta!)

The Reubenites built Heshbon, the capital of king Sihon (see Num 21:16), which was allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Jos 13:17), but relinquished to the Gadites, because it was situated upon the border of their territory, and given up by them to the Levites (Jos 21:39; Ch1 6:66). It stood almost in the centre between the Arnon and Jabbok, opposite to Jericho, and, according to the Onomast., twenty Roman miles from the Jordan, where the ruins of a large town of about a mile in circumference are still to be seen, with deep bricked wells, and a large reservoir, bearing the ancient name of Hesban or H׬sban (Seetzen; Burckhardt, p. 623; Robinson, Pal. ii. 278; cf. v. Raumer, Pal. p. 262; and Ritter's Erdkunde, xv. p. 1176). - Elealeh: half-an-hour's journey to the north-east of Heshbon, now called el Aal, i.e., the height, upon the top of a hill, from which you can see the whole of southern Belka; it is now in ruins with many cisterns, pieces of wall, and foundations of houses (Burckhardt, p. 523). - Kirjathaim, probably to the south-west of Medeba, where the ruins of el Teym are not to be found (see at Gen 14:5). Nebo, on Mount Nebo (see at Num 27:12). The Onomast. places the town eight Roman miles to the south of Heshbon, whilst the mountain is six Roman miles to the west of that town. Baal-Meon, called Beon in Num 32:3, Beth-Meon in Jer 48:23, and more fully Beth-Baal-Meon in Jos 13:17, is probably to be found, not in the ruins of Maein discovered by Seetzen and Legh, an hour's journey to the south-west of Tueme (Teim), and the same distance to the north of Habbis, on the north-east of Jebel Attarus, and nine Roman miles to the south of Heshbon, as most of the modern commentators from Rosenm׬ller to Knobel suppose; but in the ruins of Myun, mentioned by Burckhardt (p. 624), three-quarters of an hour to the south-east of Heshbon, where we find it marked upon Kiepert's and Van de Velde's maps. (Note: Although Baal-Meon is unquestionably identified with Maein in the Onom. (see v. Raumer, Pal. p. 259), Ch1 5:8 is decidedly at variance with this. It is stated there that "Bela dwelt in Aroer, and even unto Nebo and Baal-Meon," a statement which places Baal-Meon in the neighbourhood of Nebo, like the passage before us, and is irreconcilable with the supposition that it was identical with Maein in the neighbourhood of Attarus. In the case of Seetzen, however, the identification of Maein with Baal-Meon is connected with the supposition, which is now generally regarded as erroneous, namely, that Nebo is the same as the Jebel Attarus. (See, on the other hand, Hengstenberg, Balaam; and Ritter's Erdkunde, xv. pp. 1187ff.)) Shibmah (Num 32:3, Shebam), which was only 500 paces from Heshbon, according to Jerome (on Isa 14:8), has apparently disappeared, without leaving a trace behind. (Note: The difference in the forms Shibmah, Baal-Meon (Num 32:38), and Beth-Nimrah (Num 32:36), instead of Shebam, Beon, and Nimrah (Num 32:3), is rendered useless as a proof that Num 32:3 is Jehovistic, and Num 32:36-38 Elohistic, from the simple fact that Baal-Meon itself is a contraction of Beth-Baal-Meon (Jos 13:17). If the Elohist could write this name fully in one place and abbreviated in another, he could just as well contract it still further, and by exchanging the labials call it Beon; and so also he could no doubt omit the Beth in the case of Nimrah, and use the masculine form Shebam in the place of Shibmah. The contraction of the names in Num 32:3 is especially connected with the fact, that diplomatic exactness was not required for an historical account, but that the abbreviated forms in common use were quite sufficient.) Thus all the places built by the Reubenites were but a short distance from Heshbon, and surrounded this capita; whereas those built by the Gadites were some of them to the south of it, on the Arnon, and others to the north, towards Rabbath-Ammon. It is perfectly obvious from this, that the restoration of these towns took place before the distribution of the land among these tribes, without any regard to their possession afterwards. In the distribution, therefore, the southernmost of the towns built by the Gadites, viz., Aroer, Dibon, and Ataroth, fell to the tribe of Reuben; and Heshbon, which was built by the Reubenites, fell to the tribe of Gad. The words שׁם מוּסבּת, "changed of name," are governed by בּנוּ: "they built the towns with an alteration of their names," mutatis nominibus (for סבב, in the sense of changing, see Zac 14:10). There is not sufficient ground for altering the text, שׁם into שׁוּר (Knobel), according to the περικυκλωμένας of the lxx, or the περιτετευχισμένας of Symmachus. The Masoretic text is to be found not only in the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Saadic versions, but also in the Samaritan. The expression itself, too, cannot be justly described as "awkward," nor is it a valid objection that the naming is mentioned afterwards; for altering the name of a town and giving it a new name are not tautological. The insertion of the words, "their names being changed," before Shibmah, is an indication that the latter place did not receive any other name. Moreover, the new names which the builders gave to these towns did not continue in use long, but were soon pressed out by the old ones again. "And they called by names the names of the towns:" this is a roundabout way of saying, they called the towns by (other, or new) names: cf. Ch1 6:50.