J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VERACITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE
Introduction
Part One:
The Books of Moses
Part Two:
The Historical Scriptures
Part Three:
The Prophetical Scripture
Part Four:
The Gospels and Acts
Appendix:
The Gospels, Acts
and Josephus

XXI. THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN AND GOD, AND THE EAST JORDAN

The arrangements of the camp suggest one point of coincidence more, not perhaps so remarkable as the last, yet enough so to be admitted amongst others as an indication of truth in the history.

In the 32nd chapter of Numbers (v. 1), it is said, “Now the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, had a very great multitude of cattle; and when they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, that behold the place was a place for cattle, the children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spake unto Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and unto the princes of the congregation, saying, Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Sheban, and Nebo, and Beon, even the country which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle; wherefore, said they, if we have received grace in thy sight, let this land be given unto thy servants for a possession, and bring us not over Jordan.”

Here was a petition from the tribes of Reuben and of Gad, to have a portion assigned them on the east side of Jordan, rather than in the land of Canaan. But how came the request to be made conjointly by the children of Reuben and the children of Gad?—Was it a mere accident?—Was it the simple circumstance that these two tribes being richer in cattle than the rest, and seeing that the pasturage was good on the east side of Jordan, desired on that account only to establish themselves there together, and to separate from their brethren? Perhaps something more than either. For I read in the 2nd chapter of Numbers (v. 10, 14), that the camp of Reuben was on the south side of the tabernacle, and that the tribe of Gad formed a division of the camp of Reuben. It may very well be imagined, therefore, that after having shared together the perils of the long and arduous campaign through the wilderness, these two tribes, in addition to considerations about their cattle, feeling the strong bond of well-tried companionship in hardships and in arms, were very likely to act with one common council, and to have a desire still to dwell beside one another, after the toil of battle, as quiet neighbours in a peaceful country, where they were finally to set up their rest. Here again is an incident, I think, beyond the reach of the most refined impostor in the world. What vigilance, however alive to suspicion, and prepared for it—what cunning, however bent upon giving credibility to a worthless narrative, by insidiously scattering through it marks of truth which should turn up from time to time and mislead the reader, would have suggested one so very trivial, so very farfetched, as a desire of two tribes to obtain their inheritance together on the same side of a river, simply upon the recollection that such a desire would fall in very naturally with their having pitched their tents side by side in their previous march through the wilderness?