This month I want to consider one side of this conflict. The two and a half tribes who settled in the eastern side of the Jordan River. What was their circumstances, what was their intent, and what did they do.
Last month we discussed why they were not settling with their brothers on the western side of the Jordan River. The other major circumstance that led to this conflict involved the geology and geography that divided them from their brothers. In our modern era we do not see the Jordan River as a major barrier that might divide a nation. According to the New Bible Dictionary, the Jordan river lay in the bottom of what geologist call a ’rift’ formed by a fault line similar but deeper than the famous San Andreas Fault in California. In fact it is the lowest depression on the surface of the earth. The Jordan River starts at a lake 70 meters above sea level, runs for 120 km and eventually plunges into the Dead Sea which is 393 meters below sea level. So the barrier between the western tribes and the eastern tribes is a deep valley with, depending on the season, a fast current. Apparently, the name Jordan comes from the Hebrew word yardēn which means ‘the descender.’ So we can see that for a culture without massive suspension bridges or the ability to build an extensive dam system to control the river, this was a substantial barrier to communication and trade. We do know that they had ferry boats and during certain seasons there were shallow ‘fords’ where traffic could cross. But these ways of crossing the river were limited and seasonal. Rainy season or even a serious thunderstorm would shut down traffic for days or even months.
They had a natural concern to remind both their separated brothers and their own children that they were still followers of Yahweh and part of the Nation. They were properly concerned that in time people were likely to forget that they were a legitimate part of a Nation called out from among the nations to serve and worship the LORD. Their intent was stated in verse 24: “we have done this out of concern, for a reason, saying, ‘In time to come your sons may say to our sons, “What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel? For the LORD has made the Jordan a border between us and you, you sons of Reuben and sons of Gad; you have no portion in the LORD.”
So what they did next was to build a memorial - in their own words, they called it a ‘witness’ (verse 27 & 28) between them and their brothers “… and between our generations after us …” They also admitted that it looked like an altar but that they had no intention of using it as an alternative to the proper worship of Yahweh, “… which is before His tabernacle” (verse 29) only!
Certainly we are warmed by the sincerity that we see in these concerns and even in their efforts to build a monument in order to remind their children that they were part of the people of God. But sometimes enthusiasm without wisdom can have unpleasant results. I think we can all relate to something we have done that in retrospect, we regretted doing - but it seemed like a good thing at the time!
From a plain reading of the biblical record it is apparent that this building project was their attempt to send a message to the western tribes. It is also clear that the western tribes interpreted their ‘message’ in a totally unexpected way. In fact, their western brothers were in the process of raising an army to exterminate them because of what was perceived as a heretical offense against Yahweh. Would you agree that prior to building a monumental witness they would have done better to send some of their own folks to explain to everyone what they intended to do? Probably would have been wise to communicate more directly. As it was, their Western brothers received a ‘hint’ but not a real clear message concerning their intentions in building the ‘witness.’
Many times, in our own homes, we also try to communicate indirectly. Hinting, suggesting, and questioning are ways that we attempt to communicate indirectly and are often not particularly effective. There is always the possibility that these kind of indirect communications will lead to misunderstandings rather than clarity. Thankfully, all-out war seldom occurs, but I fear sometimes small skirmishes start simply from a lack of clear communication. I think we sometimes use these indirect methods of communication when we are insecure about our relationship. In the case of the Easterners they were certainly insecure about the relationship between them and their brothers west of the Jordan. At times, hinting and suggesting can be entertaining and fun but when we are trying to seriously express ourselves we ought to carefully and clearly express ourselves.
We can see another contributing factor in the conflict. It appears that they may have been relying on non-verbal communication to some extent. Non-verbals comes naturally to us and is an important part of communication. By non-verbal I mean those parts of our conversations like our tone of voice, posture, facial expressions, and hand gestures. We need to remember that non-verbal communication can also be misinterpreted. The two and a half tribes east of Jordan thought they were sending a clear message of solidarity - perhaps they thought is was obvious that even though this memorial ‘witness’ looked identical to an altar intended for worship, it had no burn marks from sacrifice or other indication that actual sacrifice was happening. This was non-verbal and indirect communication that seemed clear to them but in retrospect it was obvious that the message was interpreted differently by the sons of Israel.
OK, I may be drawing at straws when I try to connect this thought with what is going on in Israel, but I know from my own experience that in conversations sometimes what is being said (verbal communication) is less important that how it is being expressed (non-verbal). One of the reasons that personal communications can be so challenging is that one may make the same statement with differing tones of voice or facial expression and totally change the meaning of what is being said. What the Eastern tribes were trying to say was clear to them - but they used an inappropriate physical expression to make their statement. They built an replica of the altar which was interpreted by the rest of the nation as a rejection of the proper worship of Yahweh. Again, they may have said later, ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time!’ There is a point where the receiving side of communication bears some responsibility for making sure they understand what was being said. Next month, Lord willing, we will look at how the sons of Israel resolved this communication problem.
Truly, with all the possible miscommunication opportunities between individuals and among nations one wonders how people can ever hope to maintain successful relationships! Experiencing these frustrations of communication we can thank our LORD that someday soon we will have glorified bodies without sin - perfect communication between individuals and nations—all in unison praising our Redeemer King!
No comments:
Post a Comment