# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man vows a vow to Yahweh, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to guard against the temptation to make a vow which was publically impressive before men, but then not to pay it. Any attempt to garner kudos for our spiritual devotion is absolutely wrong; such spiritual pride is the worst. God would therefore "require it" and severely judge those who did this (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>). Not being slack to pay a vow (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>) fits in with a wider Biblical theme of being quick in responding to God. It comes to full term in the New Testament accounts of immediate baptisms straight after people had grasped the basic message of the Gospel. "Yes straight away" is what God really seeks from His children. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples immediately left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also when a woman vows a vow to Yahweh and binds herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Girls married young in Semitic cultures of the time, usually in their teens. God here foresaw the possibility of a young girl wanting to do something extra special for Him. In contemporary religions, active participation in religion was typically something for older males. But such is God’s value of the human person that He eagerly anticipated young people, even children, making a special act of devotion to Him on their own initiative. Mary’s teenage ambition to become the mother of Messiah is the supreme example to today’s youngsters, growing up as they do in a world where selfish ambition is the order of the day as never before.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her father hears her vow and her bond with which she has bound her soul, and her father holds his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The insistence that the male head of the family had to agree was because the vow was likely to give part of the family property to Yahweh. The land had specifically been given to families as inheritances, and it usually passed on through the male line, to keep the name of the family identified with the inheritance. So the woman had no right to promise to give it away, without first having the agreement of her husband or male head of family.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her father disallow her in the day that he hears, none of her vows or of her bonds with which she has bound her soul shall stand; and Yahweh will forgive her, because her father disallowed her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Women got married young. But here is envisaged a situation where a girl promises something to Yahweh, before she gets married. The idea is that children too were in relationship with God, and could make a voluntary dedication to Him. The idealism and ambition of youth were to be channeled towards God’s service. And these regulations show that the law of Moses expected this kind of commitment from youth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she has a husband while her vows are on her, or the rash utterance of her lips with which she has bound her soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spirit of this legislation seems to assume that vows would be made rashly, and therefore these laws were required. The Lord Jesus therefore commanded that we should not swear at all, but rather just live integrity before God (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-36'>Mat 5:34-36</a></em>). This was an indication of how well the Lord understood human nature, since He also had it. He knew that vows and oaths were likely to be broken; and so we should accept our humanity and simply not make such vows.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her husband hears it, and hold his peace at her in the day that he hears it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds with which she has bound her soul shall stand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple principle established here is that there are times when silence means consent. The Proverbs wisely advise us not to meddle in others’ business and to hold our tongue in some cases. But there are other times when not to speak up can have damaging consequences upon others, especially those less mature than ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband forbids her in the day that he hears it, then he shall make void her vow which is on her, and the rash utterance of her lips with which she has bound her soul; and Yahweh will forgive her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Rash utterance" is the same word as used to describe how Moses "spoke rashly with his lips" (<em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>). He was denied entrance to the kingdom of God on earth because of that. That seems a rather heavy judgment for rash speaking. But here again, rash speaking in promising to give something and then not giving it- is presented as an unforgivable sin. People of the time were apparently used to making various exaggerated promises to God. And these were abhorrent to Him. He wishes those in relationship with Him to be serious and committed to Him, and to realize the extraordinary value He places upon human usage of words and language. This is reflected in the New Testament teaching about the power and eternal consequences of human words. See on :12. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the vow of a widow, or of her who is divorced, everything with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A divorced woman was counted as genuinely single; the sin of marriage breakup is in the factors leading to the breakup of the marriage, but afterwards the person is seen by God as single. Divorce under the Law of Moses was possible only for adultery, and adultery was punishable by death. Yet God foresaw that there would be women who had done this and yet remained alive by grace, or who had been falsely accused; and correctly imagined that such women would love to make a freewill dedication of themselves to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she vowed in her husband’s house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A vow appears to refer to a promise to give or dedicate something to God, whereas an oath tends to refer to an undertaking not to do something. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and didn’t disallow her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she bound her soul shall stand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Silence means consent (<em><a href='B:40 30:12'>Num 30:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 30:15'>Num 30:15</a></em>). This is a huge principle which challenges us in so many areas.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband made them null and void in the day that he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand. Her husband has made them void; and Yahweh will forgive her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To make a vow and not perform it was a sin. The implication is that it was only forgivable if a woman had vowed property over which her husband had a say, and he had disallowed it. We note that it is a vow and not an oath which is in view; a vow was associated with giving property to Yahweh, whereas an oath was a promise not to do something. Given the very serious nature of vowing and not performing it, apparently an unforgivable sin, we wonder why people would vow when it was not obligatory? The reasons appear here to be in the area of "rash utterance", getting carried away with words; or possibly pride. Contrary to what is the habit in some parts of Christianity, giving is never to be done under duress of whatever kind, nor 'rashly'. God wants us to give to Him on the basis of sober, reasoned commitment rather than the emotion of a moment. See on :8.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it or her husband may make it void- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Afflict your souls" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). The woman might vow to go through a period recalling how Israel had been in Egypt; but as this had huge domestic implications in an agrarian society, she could only do so if her husband agreed. Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember the state they had been in prior to their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them. All this is an abiding principle for us. True redemption of others has to be rooted in an awareness of our own affliction. This is particularly necessary for those who were as it were schooled into Christ by reason of their upbringing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her bonds which are on her. He has established them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To vow and then not give to God was a major sin, and as her vow involved dedication of property under his control, he shared in that sin, or, in the blessing of dedication. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he shall make them null and void after that he has heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here to bear iniquity seems to specifically mean to have responsibility for sin (as in <em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>)<em>. </em>"Bear iniquity" is therefore an idiom for being personally guilty. Yet the idiom is used about the Lord Jesus Christ in His bearing of our iniquity on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was our sin bearer and yet personally guiltless. This is the paradox which even He struggled with, leading to His feeling of having been forsaken by God (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). This means that although Christ never sinned, He knows the feelings of sinners, because His identity with us was so deep and complete.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the statutes, which Yahweh commanded Moses, between a man and his wife and between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father’s house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation may well have arisen in response to some specific cases which were not covered in the law given at Sinai. The Mosaic law was not designed as a deterministic legislation over every imaginable area of life. It was intended as a springboard towards personal relationship with God. And therefore it required interpretation and reverent engagement with God for help in understanding, and receipt of progressive revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh was to be avenged upon Midian (:3), and so was Israel (:2). Yahweh is His people and what is done to His people is done to Him. Just as the Lord Jesus asked Saul to stop persecuting<em> Him</em>. The Father and Son feel all done to their people as done to them. For the nature of true love is that identifies with others. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Avenge the children of Israel for the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in :3 we read of avenging Yahweh. The insults against God’s people are against Him. Many of His children struggle today with a sense of justice not having been done to them, and a desire to see some level of justice or vengeance against their abusers. This day will come, if indeed the injustice has been done to us because of our devotion to God; because whatever is done to God’s people is done to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to the people, saying, Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute Yahweh’s vengeance on Midian-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2,3. This conflict was apparently just before the people entered the land of promise and approached Jericho. So this was to provide them with battle experience, and more especially with experience of God’s saving grace; for not one of them was to perish in the conflict.&nbsp; The victory was to so clearly be from God. </p><p>Moses personally was commanded to destroy the Midianites and then die. But he sends Phinehas to do this job, possibly reflecting his continued struggle with God's command to die without entering Canaan. Perhaps Moses ordered only 12000 men to go war against a much larger enemy because he hoped they would be defeated and thus delay his death. They took 32000 virgin women prisoner, so the combined force of the enemy would have been huge. Israel had 600000 soldiers available according to the census. We likewise might probe why in :2 God tells Moses to avenge Israel against Midian, whereas here in :3 Moses tell Israel that they are going to war only because Yahweh wants His vengeance against Midian- possibly making Yahweh out to be a vengeful God. In all this we see how Moses was weak at the very end, and yet still saved. Like Gideon, Samson, Jacob, David etc.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of every tribe one thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, you shall send to the war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A "thousand" is not necessarily 1,000, but can refer to a group, family or military regiment. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>12,000 was a small army compared to what could have been raised- for there were over 600,000 fighting men numbered amongst Israel at this time. But throughout His military history, God has taken special pleasure in using small numbers to defeat far larger ones, and that principle continues in how He works today. However, 12,000 fighting men may be a way of describing a particular kind of military division, as it occurs later in <em><a href='B:70 8:25'>Jdg 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 21:10'>Jdg 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 60:1'>Psa 60:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent them one thousand of every tribe to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God chose Phinehas the priest to be the army commander, whereas Joshua was the more obvious human choice for that job at this time. But God wished to demonstrate that it is spiritual principle which must lead His people rather than human strength and appropriacy. It was Phinehas who had so well perceived the spiritual danger of the Moabites earlier (<em><a href='B:40 25:7'>Num 25:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They warred against Midian, as Yahweh commanded Moses; and they killed every male- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is every adult male, for the children were initially taken captive (:9). There is no record given of the strategy for the battle. The fact there was not a single Israelite casualty all contributes towards the impression that this was an unusual and Divine deliverance. It was given to them to encourage them that the whole of Canaan could be conquered in this way. For from this point they were based opposite Jericho, poised to enter Canaan. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they killed with the sword- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zur's daughter Cozbi means "liar", the daughter of "the rock" (Zur)- a fake god. For Yahweh alone is a rock to His people. Her message was indeed a huge lie: that Yahweh and Baal worship could be fused through her as a leader of Midian openly performing a sex act with a similarly ranking leader of Israel. In the tabernacle of Yahweh (see on <em><a href='B:40 25:6'>Num 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>). Zur was one of the five leading princes of Midian who was later slain along with Balaam. Balaam and Zur were clearly associated. And so it seems that Balaam suggested that Zur's daughter Cozbi be used to lead Israel into sin, so that their God would curse them- and Balaam would get his coveted reward which he so obsessed about. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their livestock, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a prey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were criticized for taking the women alive (:14,15). Although the more specific commandments about engagement with enemies are given in Deuteronomy, just a short time later, they were expected to use sanctified common sense. They ought to have realized that the women who had led them into sin in Numbers 25 needed to be destroyed and not taken as trophies. Whilst there was no specific command about this, they were expected to have perceived it. We see again that the law of Moses was not presented as a legal code to be obeyed in a literalistic way, but rather as a source of principle intended to guide behaviour in matters not specifically covered by the law. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All their cities in the places in which they lived, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "burnt with fire" is used many times in the Pentateuch and nearly always about sacrifices. These were to be offered to God rather than lived in by the Israelites; for it was God’s intention that all Israel should go over Jordan, although He later made concessions to those who wanted to inherit east of Jordan. But the destruction of the cities east of Jordan reflects His desire that the people should not inherit there at that time; the promise of Canaan was that they would live in the houses which they had not built (<em><a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of animal-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The prey" is literally "the jaws", and refers to the animals; "the spoil" refers to the men. As the male adults were all killed, this must refer to the underage males who would have been seen as good potential slaves and were therefore "spoil". But they were later rebuked for this (:17). They were intended to have worked out how to behave in this matter, despite the lack of specific commandment. But the people failed to use the law of Moses as it was intended to be- a springboard towards personal engagement and relationship with God. Instead at best they used it as a mere legal code. The areas where the law was silent were intended to be those areas where the Israelites worked out the implications of God’s revealed will, and saw for themselves how to behave.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab which are by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eleazar had now effectively replaced the aged Phinehas. We note that Israel were encamped opposite Jericho when they won this amazing victory. It was clearly intended to encourage them that this is how all their conflicts could go in Canaan. We too are given encouragement for later trials and situations we will experience. Life is not at all a random path. All is designed to confirm us in an upward spiral of faith and spiritual achievement.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the princes of the congregation went forth to meet them outside of the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorossa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds who came from the service of the war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :9, they were intended to have worked out for themselves, despite the lack of specific commandment, that taking these women was wrong and a way of entering into temptation; see on :16. Moses' anger was with the captains because this was a conscious policy decision they had made, and it would lead the people into sin (:16). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was distressed that the Israelite army had failed to perceive the spiritual reason for the battle- it was to stop the Midianites posing a temptation to Israel with their women as they had in chapter 25. Sometimes God’s people can fight His battles and even be given victory, whilst failing to perceive the spiritual intent behind the war.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, these caused the children of Israel through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"These..." could suggest that these were the very women who had offered their bodies to the Israelites in return for worship of Baal Peor. They were cult prostitutes and should have been destroyed.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a harder side of God, the side we'd rather not see. God almost seems to underline the hardness of it in the way He records His word; thus He emphasizes that the "little ones" of the Canaanite cities were to be killed by the sword (<em><a href='B:50 2:34'>Deu 2:34</a></em>), the male babies of the Midianites were to be killed by God’s command (<em><a href='B:40 31:17'>Num 31:17</a></em>; which was exactly what Herod ordered). The unfulfilled believer will accept the gracious side of God (which is undoubtedly the aspect more emphasized in the Bible), but refuse to really accept this other side, while passively admitting that this harder aspect of God is revealed in His word. But it's all or nothing. We either accept the self-revelation of God in the Bible, or we reject it- that's how <em>He</em> sees it. Our temptation is to think that God sees things as we see them, to think that God is merely an ideal human being. But the day of judgment will reveal otherwise (<em><a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a></em>). He is God, not man. It is not for us to set the terms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God makes concessions to human weakness. Having reminded Israel of how they sinned with the Midianites, He allows them to keep unmarried Midianites as wives (<em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:18'>Num 31:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Encamp outside of the camp seven days: whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This all rather sounds like the laws for purification from 'leprosy', which I elsewhere suggested was not Hansen's disease but a specific stroke from God. This legislation was also geared against the men immediately sleeping with the young women whom they had captured. They were to enter into serious relationship with them, and not use them as sexual trophies in hot blood. See on :46.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood, you shall purify yourselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :19, this recalls the legislation about 'leprosy', which I have suggested was a specific stroke of Divine judgment. Their taking of the Midianite women was seen by God as a serious sin, and they had as it were been stricken with judgment for this and had to be cleansed from it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle, This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had been expected to follow the principles inculcated by the law, although they hadn't been given specific legislation about spoil at this point. But they had failed to grasp this and so now they were given laws to precisely govern their behaviour. But these laws could have been given before the event. They were given after it. Because it was God’s intention that Israel ought to have perceived the right course of action on the basis of the principles so far revealed, rather than needing endless sets of laws to define behaviour in every life situation. But they failed in this, and so further law was given. See on :28. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>whatever gold, silver, brass, iron, tin and lead- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There appears to be an allusion to this passage in <em><a href='B:530 3:11-15'>1Co 3:11-15</a></em>: "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work shall be revealed. For the day of judgment shall declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire itself shall test each man's work of what sort it Isa. If anyone's work shall endure which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If anyone's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire". Paul doesn't really quote in direct context, but uses words and phrases apparently out of context, which was typical of Jewish midrash. <em><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a></em> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation (<em><a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a></em>).&nbsp;And it's the same idea here with the spoils from the Midianites. They represent our converts in the war of preaching the gospel. Their worth will be revealed at the last day. The fire of condemnation will as it were burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>everything that may withstand the fire you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water for impurity; and all that doesn’t withstand the fire you shall make to go through the water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"<em>The </em>fire" refers to the fire of the altar which was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. <em>"The</em> water" may refer specifically to the water of separation made from the ashes of the red heifer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and you shall be clean; and afterward you shall come into the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 14:9'>Lev 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em> uses this as the ritual for the cleansing of the leper. The people had been smitten with a stroke of punishment, which is what 'leprosy' was rather than what we now know as leprosy. And they were to repent and go through the cleansing process. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The principle is that the fighters / achievers must not keep their achievements for themselves but share them. This has never been popular, and so at David’s time it was as if this law was instituted for the first time (<em><a href='B:90 30:21-25'>1Sa 30:21-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of animal, you, and Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the booty was not to be numbered (:32). The idea was that people and animals could be used in the service of God in the tabernacle. Whereas the general booty couldn't be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and divide the prey into two parts between the men skilled in war who went out to battle, and all the congregation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This kind of policy of sharing the spoils of war with the congregation was repeated in Israelite history (<em><a href='B:90 30:24-25'>1Sa 30:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:12'>Psa 68:12</a></em>). It ensured that the minority called upon to do highly visible and humanly heroic work didn’t do it for themselves nor to settle their own scores, but always with an eye to benefitting the community of God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Levy a tribute to Yahweh of the men of war who went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of giving a portion of the spoils of war to Yahweh was taught by Abraham's example (<em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>). I suggested on :21 that they had been expected to follow the principles they already knew, without being given specific laws for every situation. Perhaps they likewise should have worked this out from Abraham's pattern of tithing the spoils of war. But they didn’t make the connection, and so had to be given this specific legal command. See on :48.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take it of their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest, for Yahweh’s wave offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The portion of meat to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God’s, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God’s and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>).&nbsp;As people and live animals were involved, this waving or swinging before God must have been done in spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Israel’s half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, of all the livestock, and give them to the Levites, who perform the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Duty" is a military term, implying warfare. They were therefore to be given the spoils of war, as their regimented, disciplined devotion to serving God was to be seen as a kind of military service. Just as we too fight the good fight of faith (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the prey over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The numbers given here are huge. We must remember that the term "thousand" doesn't have to mean 1,000 as a number, but can refer to a group or subdivision of some sort.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>seventy-two thousand head of cattle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Oxen". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>sixty-one thousand donkeys- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can summarize the distribution:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>675000 Sheep: 337500 to the soldiers, 337500 to the congregation; 675 to God, 6750 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>72000 Oxen; 36000 to the soldiers, 36000 to the congregation; 72 to God, 720 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>61000 Donkeys; 30500 to the soldiers, 30500 to the congregation; 61 to God, 610 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>32000 People (virgin women and young girls); 16000 to the soldiers, 16000 to the congregation; 32 to God, 320 to the Levites.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of the women who had not known man by lying with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would indicate a huge number of the Midianites in total. To have slain say 100,000 men without a single casualty (:49) was the kind of miracle possible only in God’s strength. But I have noted that "thousand" and "hundred" may be technical terms for groups or subdivisions rather than literal numbers. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The half, which was the portion of those who went out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The apparently pointless repetition of the figures was perhaps to show that indeed, not one person nor animal went missing, but the division of the prey was made precisely as commanded. For at times like these, things do tend to 'go missing'. But there was absolute integrity at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Yahweh’s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and seventy-five- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether this tribute given "to Yahweh" was the number of animals sacrificed to Him, or whether they too were given to the Levites.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which Yahweh’s tribute was seventy-two- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder if the Lord had this in mind when sending out the otherwise strange number of 72 apostles. They were "Yahweh's", dedicated to Him, to serve as oxen in His service.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred, of which Yahweh’s tribute was sixty-one-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The donkey was an unclean animal, and yet God was still able to find a use for 61 unclean donkeys. We all have some way of being useful for Him whatever our status. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The persons were sixteen thousand, of whom Yahweh’s tribute was thirty-two persons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>32 to God, 320 to the Levites makes 352 Midianite females devoted to God. This is the numerical value of the word "Hebrew". These women were to become true Hebrews, again indicating that racial purity was never significant to God in defining His people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses gave the tribute which was Yahweh’s wave offering to Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again the obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Israel’s half, which Moses divided off from the men who warred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sharing the results of our own labour has never been popular, it's why people don't like paying taxes. The ideal principle was as in <em><a href='B:90 30:21-25'>1Sa 30:21-25</a></em>, that those who fought should have the same part as those who didn’t. But in this case there was a large concession to human weakness; for the division was not proportionate per head of population. There were far more people in Israel than the 12,000 soldiers who fought, and per head, they each received far more than the other Israelites.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(now the congregation’s half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We enquire how exactly such a huge number of animals was divided amongst them. If proportionately, then each family would likely have received a few sheep. So they each individually felt and saw the blessing of the victory God had given.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty-six thousand head of cattle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, oxen. The only time we read the figure 36,000 again is in the number of soldiers in Issachar in <em><a href='B:130 7:4'>1Ch 7:4</a></em>. But Issachar was a strong ox (<em><a href='B:10 49:14'>Gen 49:14</a></em> LXX). I see no great semantic moment in this connection. But as with many such connections which appear to have no great interpretive significance, we sense here the same Divine mind throughout all Scriptural revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty thousand five hundred donkeys- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This huge number of donkeys implied they would be doing a lot of travelling and transporting. And indeed this was the intention- for they were about to enter Canaan and go to their specific inheritances. Although many of the people didn’t do so, and were satisfied just with a bit of fertile land wherever they found it, this was the Divine intention which He empowered potentially to be fulfilled. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and sixteen thousand persons)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why the term "persons", literally <em>nephesh adam</em>, is used rather than "virgin females" or something similar. I suggest it is in order to remind the Israelites that these females were persons and should be valued as such; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even of the children of Israel’s half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of animal, and gave them to the Levites, who performed the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The duty" is "the warfare". They were therefore to be given the spoils of war, as their regimented, disciplined devotion to serving God was to be seen as a kind of military service. Just as we too fight the good fight of faith (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands, and the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had been commanded by God to give part of the spoils of war in terms of the women and animals captured. The idea of giving a portion of the spoils of war to Yahweh was taught by Abraham's example (<em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>). I suggested on :21 that they had been expected to follow the principles they already knew, without being given specific laws for every situation. Perhaps they likewise should have worked this out from Abraham's pattern of tithing the spoils of war. But they didn’t make the connection, and so had to be given this specific legal command to share out the people and animals. But now they get the point, and of their own initiative come to Moses and offer the rest of the spoils of war, apart from the people and animals. The law of God is not a chain, a leash, for man is not a dog ever seeking freedom from the Divinely imposed ties that bind. Rather is His law a springboard to the freedom of serving God upon our own initiative. And here we have a rare example of where men 'got it' and did just that. See on :53. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they said to Moses, Your servants have taken the sum of the men of war who are under our command, and there lacks not one man of us-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s usual for military men to consider themselves as an elite in their own right. But these leading military leaders considered themselves as nothing but servants to their spiritual leader. Humility in leadership is vital amongst God’s people. That such vast numbers had been slain without a single Israelite casualty was clear evidence that this very large scale victory was of God. The victory was to encourage them that they could likewise conquer Canaan in God’s strength.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We have brought Yahweh’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and necklaces-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even in times of spiritual victory, we are to never lose sight of our basic sinfulness and need for atonement with God. The situation is similar to that at the exodus, when the wealth of Egypt was taken by the Israelites and then given back to God for the construction of the tabernacle. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To make atonement for our souls before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They are clearly aware of their serious failure in taking the Midianite women, which had resulted in their being stricken down in some way (see on :19,24). But we wonder whether they had made the mistake which many make- thinking that material wealth and donating it can somehow atone fore sins. When it was the shedding of blood, and faith in the Lord's future sacrifice foreshadowed in it, which alone is the basis for atonement (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest took their gold, even all the worked jewels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :50 that this donation of wealth was given under the misunderstanding that gold could atone for sin; when it was faith in God’s grace and His purification which was required. But despite that misunderstanding, God still accepted their offering. As He accepts all those who truly love Him, despite their misunderstandings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the gold of the wave offering that they offered up to Yahweh, of the captains of thousands and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a significant amount, likely around 200 kg. of gold and jewels (:51). They were so deeply moved by the principle of giving to Yahweh they had just been taught, that they now of their freewill offered this to Him. See on :48. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :48 that the way they now offer that booty to God was an act of repentance, realizing that indeed all they had taken "every man for himself" should not have been taken "for himself". Rather it was to be shared back to God as the giver of all. And they came to this position on their own initiative. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds and brought it into the Tent of Meeting, for a memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Likewise the bronze from the censers of the rebels were made a memorial for Israel "before Yahweh" by being made into plates around the altar. So we can assume that something was made from this gold and it remained in the tabernacle. </p>


text:
<em>Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock. When they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead that behold, the place was a place for livestock-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record sounds as if it were only these tribes; it is Reuben and Gad who make the agreement to not return to the land East of Jordan until the other tribes are settled (:25). But the bad attitude spread to Manasseh, according to Joshua 22; at this time, only three individuals from Manasseh were given an inheritance East of Jordan (32:40-42). But this spread to half the tribe wanting such an inheritance there. A theme of this chapter is how bad attitudes spread so easily.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> etc.) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<em><a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a></em>). As Eve saw the fruit and fell for it, so the people of Reuben and Gad saw the land East of Jordan and imagined how good it would be to have it, despite having been given 'all the land' West of Jordan to enjoy (cp. Adam and Eve's dominion in Eden) (<em><a href='B:40 32:1-2'>Num 32:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:7'>Num 32:7</a></em>). In all these allusions (and they exist in almost every chapter of the Bible) we are being shown how human sin is a repetition in essence of that of our first parents. The insistent emphasis is that we should rise above and <em>not</em> be like them. And yet this call for personal effort and struggle with ourselves in order to overcome sin is muted and misplaced by all the stress upon a supposed Devil tempting Eve, pushing the blame onto him, and thereby de-emphasizing our role in overcoming sin within ourselves. And so we see so many loud-mouthed condemners of the Devil totally not 'getting it' about the need for personal self-control and spiritual mindedness in daily life and private character. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A very great multitude of livestock</em>- Remember that wealth in those days was not measured by bank accounts but by animals. They had worked hard for this because many animals would have died at some points in the wilderness journey- see on <em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em>. Their temptation to seek the Kingdom now arose from being wealthy; they saw a good place for their animals and they wanted the Kingdom right away. The Lord in the wilderness faced the same essential temptation- to take the Kingdom now. This was what first century Israel wanted, and it led them to reject their Messiah. And it's what we all would like. To have our nice homes and villas now, rather than bear the cross before the eternal crown.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<em>The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spoke to Moses and to Eleazar the priest and to the princes of the congregation, saying- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gad are repeatedly mentioned as leading this request. And it seems <em><a href='B:50 33:21'>Deu 33:21</a></em> LXX comments upon this in Moses' blessing of Gad: "And he saw his first-fruits, that there the land of the princes gathered with the chiefs of the people was divided; the Lord wrought righteousness, and his judgment with Israel". The reference may be to how Gad was apparently the leader of the "heads of the people" of Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh who wanted to take their inheritance east of Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:2'>Num 32:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:6'>Num 32:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:25'>Num 32:25</a></em>). The idea therefore was that they were told by Moses to see the inheritance they were allowed east of Jordan as merely a firstfruit of greater inheritance. Just as we are invited to receive&nbsp; firstfruit of inheritance of the Kingdom through the gift and experience of the Holy Spirit. But as with so many today, the first fruit was treated as the full experience, with no spiritual ambition to inherit more. "He executed the righteousness of Yahweh, His ordinances with Israel" would then be a very positive take on how the men of Gad apparently obeyed the agreement to go over Jordan and help their brethren inherit the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<em>Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Sebam, and Nebo, and Beon-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>These place names occur in the later Old Testament, but always with reference to the fact that Gentiles lived there. So Reuben and Gad’s short term desire for inheritance didn’t last for long; subsequent generations lost those lands. Although they changed the names of these cities (:38), their original names evidently stayed with them because the Gentiles re-took them from Reuben and Gad.</p>


text:
<em>the land which Yahweh struck before the congregation of Israel, is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have just read in Numbers 31 of the huge amount of livestock they had received after the amazing victory over the Midianites. The records corroborate so perfectly, as we would expect from their having one ultimate Divine author.</p>


text:
<em>They said, If we have found favour in your sight, let this land be given to your servants for a possession. Don’t bring us over the Jordan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>They said this to Moses, who so dearly wished to enter the land but wasn’t able to. The paradox is obvious and intentional; Moses could easily have answered their request with reference to it, but he omits all personal reference, in his selfless way; and focuses instead on the impact their choice would have on God’s people as a whole. For their salvation and not his own was uppermost in his mind.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were intended to themselves go over Jordan into the promised land of Canaan. But they speak as if they are being brought over by Moses, as if against their will, or at best, as a result of their submission to a will more powerful than their own. This is not how we should see our journey to the Kingdom. We ourselves should want to enter the land. This could be read as meaning that they despised the land promised. Although comparing the various definitions of that land, it is so that the territory was open to re-definition according to Israel's strengths and weaknesses. The final crossing over Jordan as recorded in Joshua 4 is however clearly typical of our final entry into the Kingdom, and to opt out of it can be therefore read quite negatively. 'Crossing over Jordan to enter Canaan' is seen in the Bible as the point of entering the land of Canaan, which had effectively become the promised land for Israel (e.g. <em><a href='B:40 33:51'>Num 33:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:10'>Num 35:10</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> "I shall pass over Jordan into the land the Lord gives us"). Not going over Jordan was the punishment given to Moses in excluding him from the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:27'>Deu 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>). To not wish to do so was therefore voting themselves out of the land of Canaan. But the Eastern bank of Jordan was within the land promised to Abraham. So I would conclude that they were using a Biblical argument to justify their desire for an immediate Kingdom, and this is just how the flesh justifies our weaknesses.</p>


text:
<em>Moses said to the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brothers go to the war, and shall you sit here?- You sit here</em>- The contrast is between 'sitting', being passive and sedentary, and 'possessing' Canaan (:5)- the Hebrew meaning to seize. We are to seize the Kingdom, not passively; we are to by all means lay hold upon it (<em>Php_3:12</em>), taking the Kingdom as storm troopers (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). They wanted the easier way- dwelling in an area which was apparently offering less opposition than the land West of Jordan. We likewise can take the easy way to the Kingdom (or so it seems), taking the path there which appears the way of least resistance, convenience and passivity.&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<em>Why do you discourage the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which Yahweh has given them?-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our attitude to the Kingdom has far greater influence on others' hearts / thinking than we realize. The Hebrew is usually translated "disallow" or once "break" (<em><a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a></em>); attitude is hereby described in proactive terms. We can break others' hearts without saying a word to them- by our attitude. And the final equilibrium of God’s judgment will take this into account. It's not so much what laws we broke, but the effect we had upon others which is to be so significant in that day. Our attitudes to possessing the Kingdom affect others; if we don’t want to go over ourselves, we will discourage others. The power of example is far greater than we realize. Jesus may have referred to this incident when He condemned the Pharisees for not entering the Kingdom of God themselves and not sending forth others on their way there either (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em> Gk.).</p>


text:
<em>Your fathers did so when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gaddites and Reubenites didn’t say a word to the others, didn’t at all in so many words discourage them from entering the land. But in essence, their attitude was as bad as what their fathers did in stating that the land was too hard to possess. It could be that Moses' perceived that really, they were fearful of the opposition in the land, just as their fathers had been. And again we can infer that the land East of Jordan was perceived as not giving any insurmountable opposition to them.</p>


text:
<em>For when they went up to the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel, that they should not go into the land which Yahweh had given them- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in the Biblical record, Abraham is held up as a very real example, in whose steps all God’s people are to tread. For example, as Abraham was bidden leave Ur and go and "see" the "land" of promise which God would "give" him (<em><a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a></em>), so the spies were told to go and "see" the "land" which God had "given" them (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:8-9'>Num 32:8-9</a></em> - the same three words as in the promises to Abraham)- yet they lacked the faith of Abraham to believe that really, they could possess that land. They did "see" the land, yet they were punished by being told that they would not now "see the land" (<em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>). They saw it, but they didn’t "see" it with the eyes of Abraham. And so it can be with our vision of God’s Kingdom. Remember that Moses was the author of both Genesis and Numbers- such connections aren't incidental. Moses wished the people to see themselves as going forward in the spirit of Abraham- and hence he wrote up the Genesis record for Israel's benefit an inspiration. </p>


text:
<em>Yahweh’s anger was kindled in that day, and He swore, saying- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>If God’s wrath burns hot against people, it means death for them (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 22:24'>Exo 22:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:33'>Num 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>). But Moses averted this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em> by his intercession. He likewise averted it to some extent in that God’s intention was to destroy all Israel immediately, but instead Moses' intercession changed the outworking of God’s kindled wrath- for Israel continued, the unbelievers over 20 died in the desert, but the younger ones survived to enter Canaan. We see here how open God is to the mediation of third parties, and how open ended therefore is His purpose. </p>


text:
<em>‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me -</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Caleb' can mean 'dog', and so this is appropriate. Joshua and Caleb were characterized by the comment that they “wholly followed the Lord” when they went to spy out Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:11-12'>Num 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:8-9'>Jos 14:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a></em>), and urged Israel to go up and inherit it. This refers to the way that the Angel had gone ahead of them, and they faithfully followed where the Angel had gone, and believed that Israel could follow that Angel wherever it led. When Israel finally did go into the land, they were told that Joshua would ‘go before’ them, and they were to follow him and thereby inherit the land (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>). From this we see that circumstances repeat in our lives. As Joshua had been told to be strong good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<em><a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a></em>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<em><a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a></em> cp. 23:6). </p>


text:
<em>except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, because they have followed Yahweh completely’-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was a Gentile (<em><a href='B:60 15:17'>Jos 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:11'>Gen 36:11</a></em>); and yet in <em><a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 34:19'>Num 34:19</a></em> his descendants are incorporated into the tribe of Judah. Likewise Samuel, an Ephraimite (<em><a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a></em>), was counted as a Levite (<em><a href='B:130 6:16-28'>1Ch 6:16-28</a></em>). Indeed it would appear that 'genealogies' in the Bible very often reflect themes of associations rather than being literal accounts of blood descent. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<em><a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a></em>). But "Kenizzite" (also <em><a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a></em>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<em><a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<em>Yahweh’s anger was kindled against Israel, and He made them wander back and forth in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, who had done evil in the sight of Yahweh, was consumed-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>That generation disbelieved that they could enter the land. They didn’t 'do' any evil but their mental attitudes, their heart, was counted as doing evil. This continues the theme noted on :7 and :8; mental attitudes are counted as actions.</p>


text:
<em>Behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, an increase of sinful men- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :7,8,13,15 and elsewhere, a theme of this incident is that mental attitudes are counted as proactively sinful behaviour. They were an "increase" or descendants of the sinful men mentioned in :8, their 'fathers' who had likewise not wanted to enter the land. Again their motives are being revealed as identical to that of their fathers- fear of opposition, and preferring to sacrifice the Kingdom for the sake of non-action. The particular "fathers" (:8) and "sinful men" in view would have been the princes of Reuben and Gad who had reported that the land was unable to be possessed: Shammua son of Zaccur (of Reuben) and Geuel son of Machi (of Gad) (<em><a href='B:40 13:4'>Num 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:15'>Num 13:15</a></em>). The sin of those two men appears the worse when we see it twice mentioned here that their attitude had influenced a whole generation of their tribal descendants. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To augment yet the fierce anger of Yahweh</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s anger had been kindled 38 years ago over this matter of not having faith to enter the Kingdom He had prepared. By not learning the lesson of our fathers' failures, and repeating in essence their sin, we provoke that anger yet more. Failure to learn from history is therefore highly significant before God; and this is where the historical record which is the Bible becomes of such supreme importance. There are degrees of sin. Paul seems to reason that sexual sin involving the body of God’s creation is especially culpable. And here <em><a href='B:40 32:14'>Num 32:14</a></em> speaks of ‘augmenting yet the fierce anger of the Lord’ by premeditated sin, as&nbsp; if there is a scale of offence to God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<em>For if you turn away from after Him</em>-They would have argued that all they were doing was asking for what seemed a logical, practical concession. But because of the attitudes underlying it, they are spoken of as having actually done the most awful things in practice. See on :14. Turning away from behind God is the language of :11- not wholly following God into the promised land. He is leading us into His Kingdom- it is wilful pulling out of that program which will provoke His anger. And if we remain within the path lead by Him, we shall surely get there. He is not passive. He has not merely enabled a future Kingdom and remained willing to give it to whoever makes the journey. He is leading us there, going before us, dragging us there... <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will yet again leave them in the wilderness</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet God had earlier implied that after that previous generation had died, then the next generation, their children, would enter the land. He had apparently limited the time that Israel would remain in the wilderness- to 40 years (<em><a href='B:40 14:33-34'>Num 14:33-34</a></em>). But here we see that once again, God’s purpose is conditional and can change; even if there are no hints of the conditions at earlier points. The forty year time period had the possibility of becoming longer. This reflects God’s sensitivity to human behaviour. We who pray so half-heartedly for victory against temptation, who so easily assume that God will understand that we can't fully change... need to realize that extreme sensitivity which He has to our choices and thoughts. Let's get it clear: the whole people of Israel would have been left in the wilderness and not allowed to enter the land, if Gad and Reuben refused to cross the Jordan river (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). But this would have broken the Divine promise of <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> that all those under 20 would enter the land. Even that promise, therefore, had unstated conditions attached to it. And yet God had yet another option- if they refused to go over Jordan, then they would forfeit their land and receive a different inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 32:30'>Num 32:30</a></em>). The complexities of these conditions are of course beyond us, because we are seeing only a part of the working of God’s infinite mind. The point is, there are conditions attached to God’s promises which aren’t always made apparent to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Yet again" may refer to God’s temporary desire to leave Israel in the wilderness and make of Moses a new nation, at the time of the golden calf apostasy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you will destroy all this people</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may sound extreme language, but this is the theme of the chapter: internal attitudes have huge affect upon others. We must again remember that the area they wished to possess was still part of the land promised to Abraham, although not strictly part of the land of Canaan which God wished to take His people to. They had a quasi-Biblical justification for their attitude. At first sight this may appear unreasonable- that the whole community would be punished for the sake of the sin and short-termist thinking of two tribes. But the eternal wellbeing of others is in our hands in that our example can discourage others from entering the Kingdom, and God may not compensate for our causing them to stumble.</p>


text:
<em>They came near to him, and said, We will build sheepfolds here for our livestock, and cities for our little ones-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We shouldn't seek isolation from our brothers and sisters; we should seek to be with them and interact with them. Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh didn’t want to go over Jordan and be with their brethren; they chose the good pasturelands East of Jordan to live in because it was good cattle country. But in later Scripture, every reference to the towns they settled in records those towns (Dibon, Ataroth, Heshbon etc.) as being in Gentile hands (<em><a href='B:40 32:33-38'>Num 32:33-38</a></em>); and it would seem from the 1 Chronicles 5 genealogies that they went off into Assyria and assimilated into the tribes there. By choosing separation from God’s people, they drifted off with the world. See on :24.</p>


text:
<em>but we ourselves will be ready armed to go before the children of Israel, until we have brought them to their place, and our little ones shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>This contrasts favourably with their attitude that <em>they</em> were being <em>brought</em> to Canaan (:5). It could be argued from the positive attitude of the Gaddites and Reubenites (and the way in which things were resolved in Joshua 22) that actually they were brought around to a more spiritual attitude by Moses' challenge. Such spiritual success and response to challenge is rare, but perhaps at least that generation did positively respond. But their misjudgment still had a terrible effect upon future generations, because it's clear that the Israelite population soon effectively died out of the areas they were so keen to inherit.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They thought that their human strength would give Israel their inheritance, whereas God had promised that <em>He</em> and not they (“<em>we</em>”) would give the inheritance. Moses therefore corrects them by saying that <em>God</em> will drive out “His enemies from before Him” (:21). It was exactly because they failed to believe that <em>God</em> would do this that they preferred to stay the other side of Jordan and not enter Canaan; and they wished to share that attitude with others.</p>


text:
<em>We will not return to our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "houses" probably refer to their families. We too cannot enjoy our own "house" if we have paid no attention to the inheritance of others in God’s Kingdom. Yet all too often, family is elevated to a status which means that the needs and inheritance of others is ignored. </p>


text:
<em>For we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan, and forward, because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastward-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was how they wanted it, but God confirmed it. We to some extent can choose out our eternal inheritance, and yet in another sense God chooses it for us. This is the playful yet constructive tension which there is between freewill and predestination. </p>


text:
<em>Moses said to them, If you will do this thing, if you will arm yourselves to go before Yahweh to the war,-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had told the Reubenites and Gadites that they could return to their possessions when “the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, and they also possess the land” (<em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em>). But Joshua tells them to go to their possessions simply because their brethren were now at “rest” (<em><a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a></em>). He significantly omits the proviso that their brethren must also possess the land- because much of the land wasn’t possessed. Was this Joshua getting slack, thinking that the main thing was that people were living in peace, even though they weren’t possessing the Kingdom? Or is it a loving concession to human weakness? Indeed, the conditions of <em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <em><a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses stresses four times (:20,21,27,29) that they should go over armed "before the Lord". The Hebrew translated "before" doesn't have to mean 'in front of', because :11 and :15 (see notes there) have spoken of the need to <em>follow</em> Yahweh into Canaan. The idea is rather of 'before the face of', i.e. 'in the presence of' (this is how it is used in :22 "a possession before Yahweh"). God was going to drive out His enemies from before Him, i.e. from His presence (:21), and if Israel were in God’s presence, this meant that the tribes would be driven out from before them. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<em>and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before Yahweh, until He has driven out His enemies from before Him,-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew means 'prepared' rather than referring to men literally carrying military equipment. The tension is between them being armed / prepared, and then the later part of the verse which states that <em>God</em> would do the driving out of the Canaanite tribes. But what was required was a preparedness and willingness to be used in whatever capacity.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But not "every armed man of you" passed over. The offer they made was fulfilled but far from all their men went with the rest of Israel. The census of Numbers 26 shows that the tribe of Reuben had 43,730 men of military age; Gad, 40,500; Manasseh, 52,700; the half of whichis 26,350, making 110,580. But only 40,000 went with the Israelites (<em><a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a></em>), and the land was never fully subjugated, so they were released to return by grace alone.</p>


text:
<em>and the land is subdued before Yahweh; then afterward you shall return, and be guiltless towards Yahweh, and towards Israel; and this land shall be to you for a possession before Yahweh-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words are found in <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>, where the land / earth was to be "subdued" before man. It's as if it was God’s intention to re-establish Eden in Israel; indeed, a case can be made that Eden <em>was</em> the geographical land promised to Abraham, or Canaan, although the flood changed the location of the rivers mentioned in early GenesIsa. The later casting of sinful Israel out of the land is likewise replete with reference to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. Joshua 22 says that the deal was kept, and the men from these tribes were allowed to return. And yet the land was hardly subdued; "I will give you rest", the Angel had said (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>). But they did not enter that rest- <em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>. "Rest" was defined as the land being subdued before God with all the tribes driven out (<em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 22:18'>1Ch 22:18</a></em>). This being conditional on Israel's faithfulness, we conclude that when the Angel said "I will give thee rest" He was speaking of what was possible in prospect; or perhaps He over-estimated Israel's obedience, or was unaware of the degree to which their entering the rest was conditional on their obedience. Or perhaps simply by grace, the land was counted as being subdued and at rest when it was not.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Adam and Eve failed to "subdue" the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Israel failed to fully "subdue" (s.w.) the tribes of the land (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>). They subdued a few local to them; but they never really rose up to the reality of being able to have the whole land area promised to Abraham subjected to them. And so Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promised a curse to come upon the land (of Eden / Israel) for their failure within it, just as happened to Adam and Eve; and of course ultimately they were driven out of the land just as Israel's very first parents had been. As the <em>eretz</em> / earth / land was initially "without form and void", so the same term is used of the land of Israel after the people had been driven out of it (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>). As thorns and thistles came up in the land (and those plants are unknown in some parts of the planet), so they did again when Israel were driven from their land (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>). As Adam was punished by returning to dust, so Israel would be destroyed by dust (<em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against Yahweh; and be sure your sin will find you out-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sense is more that you will know / find your sin. The LXX has "ye shall know your sin, when afflictions shall come upon you". We can willfully make ourselves ignorant of sin; but in suffering for it, we come to realize it. Therefore, Moses is saying, there's no point in pretending we don't see a problem with our behaviour. We will know it, when we suffer for it. We shall not be left ignorant of our sin, and so we shouldn't allow our own deceitful flesh to kid us that we are ignorant of it. Adam likewise confessed his sin as a result of God’s questioning (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). Realization of sin will finally be elicited (<em><a href='B:330 6:9'>Eze 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, <em>then </em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins. <em>Then</em> the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected (how else to understand <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>?). Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them...they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God’s grace. <em><a href='B:40 32:23'>Num 32:23</a></em> prophesied of Israel in their time of condemnation: "You will be sensible of your sin when evil overtakes you" (LXX). </p>


text:
<em>Build cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep; and do that which has proceeded out of your mouth- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>And notice how Gad asked for permission to build dwellings East of Jordan "for our cattle and for our children / little ones", but God gave them permission to build such dwellings "for your little ones and for your cattle" (<em><a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:24'>Num 32:24</a></em>). Gad and co. put cattle before kids; God put kids before cattle. And how many times have we seen this come true- those who move away from fellowship with their brethren drift off to the world, they put cattle before kids, materialism before raising a Godly seed... And of course we can go far from our brethren in many ways other than geographically moving away from them; there can be a distance within us from them which is just the same. And time and again one sees the same nexus of thought playing itself out- people put their cattle, their materialism, before their children. And God wants it the other way around. Working mothers, late working fathers, kids in day care from babyhood- all so the family can live here and not there, have this car rather than that one, holiday here rather than stay at home, have the latest toys and gadgets... all, of course, in the name of 'for the sake of the kids'; when it's actually cattle before kids. Interestingly, the names of the towns which Reuben and Gad built, the territory they so desired, only occur in later Scripture in the context of their being part of Gentile territories (<em><a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:2'>Jer 48:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:45'>Jer 48:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a></em>). So they never ultimately kept hold of that for which they sacrificed the promised inheritance of Canaan. God in His total love and grace was willing to go along with their weakness- He compromised, as it were, by saying they could have that coveted territory if they helped their brethren totally inherit their possessions West of Jordan. Ultimately this never happened, as not all the Canaanite territory was possessed; yet still God allowed Reuben and Gad to have their part of the deal which they never fully kept. And there's great grace in the way that <em><a href='B:50 3:19'>Deu 3:19</a></em> records God saying to them at this time: "I know that you have much cattle". God knew their weakness. He knew they'd never even seen the wonders of the promised land, which was far more fertile than the land East of Jordan. But He went along with them, so much did He thirst for relationship with them. And so it is with our cattle-before-kids materialism. God may not cast us off because of it in itself. His grace and love is too strong for that. But by permitting us the compromise, we find ourselves in a far harder situation and a path which long term won't lead to permanent inheritance of the promised land, just as it didn’t for Reuben and Gad. See on :16.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>The children of Gad and the children of Reuben spoke to Moses, saying, Your servants will do as my lord commands-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>But as explained on :27, they didn’t. And yet God kept His side of the agreement, and didn’t punish them directly for their disobedience.</p>


text:
<em>Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our livestock, shall be there in the cities of Gilead- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 31:9'>Num 31:9</a></em> uses this same phrase "flocks and livestock" for the vast numbers of such animals captured from the Midianites. This material blessing of God was not responded to wisely by the two and a half tribes. They became obsessed with planning how they could keep and maintain for themselves all that huge blessing. Rather than perceiving that this was God’s unexpected gift of grace, and they had received it despite the majority of them not having laboured for it. And so it often happens with God’s material blessing; the recipient becomes obsessed with madly preserving it, even if as with the two and a half tribes, they make decisions to effect this which are spiritually damaging to them in the long term. One wonders why God ever grants material blessing to His children when He clearly knows that it usually leads to their spiritual declension. We can only conclude that He does so because He simply loves us as a doting Father.<em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p>


text:
<em>but your servants will pass over, every man who is armed for war, before Yahweh to battle, as my lord says- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>But not "every armed man of you" passed over. The offer they made was fulfilled but far from all their men went with the rest of Israel. The census of Numbers 26 shows that the tribe of Reuben had 43,730 men of military age; Gad, 40,500; Manasseh, 52,700; the half of whichis 26,350, making 110,580. But only 40,000 went with the Israelites (<em><a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a></em>), and the land was never fully subjugated, so they were released to return by grace alone.</p>


text:
<em>So Moses commanded concerning them to Eleazar the priest, and to Joshua the son of Nun, and to the heads of the fathers’ households of the tribes of the children of Israel- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was aware that he would not be alive once Israel were in Canaan. Instead of getting bitter about this, in characteristic humility he accepts it. He asks them to ensure that indeed "every man who is armed" from these tribes would pass over Jordan (:29), but in reality this never happened; see on :27. The record breathes God’s grace at every point. <em></em></p>


text:
<em>Moses said to them, If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass with you over the Jordan, every man who is armed to battle, before Yahweh, and the land shall be subdued before you; then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to subject the animals in Eden (the land promised to Abraham?) corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>but if they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The location and nature of their possession in the Kingdom depended upon them and their choices. And the same is true with us. This is an insight into the tremendous significance of life, our attitudes and decision making. We are affecting how we shall eternally be, the nature of our eternity and inheritance.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole people of Israel would have been left in the wilderness and now allowed to enter the land, if Gad and Reuben refused to cross the Jordan river (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). But this would have broken the Divine promise of <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> that all those under 20 would enter the land. Even that promise, therefore, had unstated conditions attached to it. And yet God had yet another option- if they refused to go over Jordan, then they would forfeit their land and receive a different inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 32:30'>Num 32:30</a></em>). The complexities of these conditions are of course beyond us, because we are seeing only a part of the working of God’s infinite mind. The point is, there are conditions attached to God’s promises which aren’t always made apparent to us. </p>


text:
<em>The children of Gad and the children of Reuben answered saying, As Yahweh has said to your servants, so will we do- </em><em></em>Moses had told the Reubenites and Gadites that they could return to their possessions when “the Lord has given rest unto your brethren, and they also possess the land” (<em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em>). But Joshua tells them to go to their possessions simply because their brethren were now at “rest” (<em><a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a></em>). He significantly omits the proviso that their brethren must also possess the land- because much of the land wasn’t possessed. Was this Joshua getting slack, thinking that the main thing was that people were living in peace, even though they weren’t possessing the Kingdom? Or is it a loving concession to human weakness? Indeed, the conditions of <em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <em><a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a></em>.


text:
<em>We will pass over armed before Yahweh into the land of Canaan, and the possession of our inheritance shall remain with us beyond the Jordan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is (see AV) 'so that the possession...'. Our receipt of the inheritance is related to others receiving their inheritance; just as in Paul's shipwreck, all had to remain in the ship if all were to be saved. This apparently strange condition of salvation is surely to emphasize that whilst salvation is in one sense individual, it is in another sense collective. And that collective dimension to it cannot be simply ignored.</p>


text:
<em>Moses gave to them, even to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land according to its cities and borders, even the cities of the surrounding land-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>In later Scripture, every reference to the towns they settled in records those towns (Dibon, Ataroth, Heshbon etc.) as being in Gentile hands (<em><a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:2'>Jer 48:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:45'>Jer 48:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a></em>); and it would seem from the 1 Chronicles 5 genealogies that they went off into Assyria and assimilated into the tribes there. By choosing separation from God’s people, they drifted off with the world. </p>


text:
<em>The children of Gad built Dibon, and Ataroth, and Aroer- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>They didn’t want to go over Jordan and be with their brethren; they chose the good pasturelands East of Jordan to live in because it was good cattle country. But in later Scripture, every reference to the towns they settled in records those towns (Dibon, Ataroth, Heshbon etc.) as being in Gentile hands (<em><a href='B:40 32:33-38'>Num 32:33-38</a></em>); and it would seem from the 1 Chronicles 5 genealogies that they went off into Assyria and assimilated into the tribes there. By choosing separation from God’s people, they drifted off with the world. </p>


text:
<em>and Atrothshophan, and Jazer, and Jogbehah- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is often not appreciated that the extent of the area given to the two and a half tribes on the east of Jordan, as defined in <em><a href='B:60 13:10-12'>Jos 13:10-12</a></em>, was roughly the same as the entire territory given to the nine and a half tribes on the west of Jordan. The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants (see on <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>)- which they probably didn’t realize at the time.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>and Beth Nimrah, and Beth Haran: fortified cities, and folds for sheep-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Beth Haran means 'house of the high places' and clearly has reference to idolatrous high places. Beth Nimrah, house of the leopard, likely has similar reference; for "house" probably referred to an idol shrine. But although the Israelites changed some names, e.g. in :42, they often left the names connected with idolatry. They at best allowed the subliminal associations with idolatry to remain, and likely in practice they used these idol shrines. See on :38.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>The children of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kiriathaim- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elealeh means literally the 'going up' of God, 'El'. The same word for 'going up' is used of Israel's 'going up' to inherit Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em> and very often). So it seems that some faithful ones did rename the towns with spiritual, Godly names. But see on :36,38. </p>


text:
<em>and Nebo, and Baal Meon, (their names being changed), and Sibmah; and they gave other names to the cities which they built-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <em><a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a></em>, by the time of <em><a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a></em> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nebo and Baal were the names of Canaanite gods, and Yahweh forbad His people to even mention their names (<em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:17'>Hos 2:17</a></em>). The principle for us is that we shouldn’t surround ourselves with things which even suggest or stimulate the idea of being anything other than totally dedicated to the one true God, or which may trigger the idea of idolatry. </p>


text:
<em>The children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites who were therein- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :40. Machir's family wanted to inherit the Kingdom, whereas many others were just initially happy to farm whatever land they could and weren't bothered about the inheritance God had given them. The daughters were keen to maintain their father’s name (<em><a href='B:40 27:1'>Num 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 36:1'>Num 36:1</a></em>). There was even a child named "Gilead" in the family (<em><a href='B:40 26:29'>Num 26:29</a></em>). And so God confirmed their desire for Gilead by giving it to them (<em><a href='B:50 3:15'>Deu 3:15</a></em>), even though inheritance east of Jordan was not God’s ideal intention for them. But He encouraged them in the way they wished to go. And so He will with us. </p>


text:
<em>Moses gave Gilead to Machir the son of Manasseh, and he lived therein- </em><em></em><em><a href='B:40 32:39'>Num 32:39</a></em> describes how the tribes of Gilead were displaced by Machir; but <em><a href='B:40 32:40'>Num 32:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:15'>Deu 3:15</a></em> says that God through Moses "gave Gilead to Machir". The land they took was not therefore taken so much by their human effort, swords and bows, even though they played a role- but by the gracious gift of God. And it's the same with our inheritance of the Kingdom. We note that it was God’s intention that Israel lived permanently in the promised land. Yet their specific inheritances were related to their behaviour during the time when they took the kingdom; thus Machir received the territory which he had ethnically cleansed. And so our eternal inheritances, the nature of our eternity, will be a direct reflection of our work in this life. It's not that works can save us. Salvation itself is the gift of grace, represented by how Gilead was given to Machir by God. But it is so that the nature of our eternity will is being forged by our experiences and spiritual intentions now. We are right now shaping the nature of our eternal future.


text:
<em>Jair the son of Manasseh went and took his towns, and called them Havvoth Jair-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some claim that the Bible doesn't recognize genealogy through women, and find some problem in the Lord Jesus being descended from Abraham and David through a woman. But there are Biblical examples of genealogy being reckoned through a woman. We have one here. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (<em><a href='B:130 2:22'>1Ch 2:22</a></em>); yet in <em><a href='B:40 32:41'>Num 32:41</a></em> he is described as "the son of Manasseh", showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father.</p>


text:
<em>Nobah went and took Kenath, and its villages, and called it Nobah, after his own name-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Nobah changed the name of this town- although "Kenath" simply means "possession". This thereby throws into a worse light the way that the Israelites often didn’t change the names of areas which had associations with idols, even though changing the names was within their power. See on :36,38. We ought to do all within our power to remove even subliminal reminders of sin and temptation. And that principle has a huge practical moment in our lives in this world. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the journeys of the children of Israel, when they went forth out of the land of Egypt by their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel moved only 33 times in the first 39 years of wandering, meaning that they stayed on average for over a year in each of their resting places. Yet in the fortieth, final year, Israel moved nine times- and at least eight of those moves were in the last seven months of the fortieth year (:38). The tempo of God’s activity increases towards the end of our lives and in the final entry period into God’s Kingdom during the tribulation. The temp is also strong at the start of our journey- the first nine stops on the journey were relatively soon after leaving Egypt, within the first year. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Yahweh, and these are their journeys according to their goings out-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb.: "Moses recorded the starting points of their various marches as directed by the Lord; their marches, by starting point, were as follows". Each stage of the journey (Heb. 'departure') was a starting point- each day is the first day of the rest of our lives. Israel perhaps wanted to move on from a sense of boredom, a desire for something new- just as many do today, kidding themselves that this is a spiritual 'journey'. For those truly on a journey to the Kingdom, our moving on is "at the commandment of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:20 17:1'>Exo 17:1</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses kept this record of their journeys in the spirit of how God commanded His people to each one remember the way by which God had brought them out from Egypt to Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). We need to keep at least a mental diary of how God has led us in our lives, to look back with feelings of gratitude and grace as we see how He has led us, how life for us is no mere succession of chance events, but has a definite direction and end point in entering the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Goings out"(AV) suggests that each stage of our journey, even if it at times seems two steps back and three forward, is in fact a 'going out' from Egypt. And yet we know from Acts 7 and Ezekiel 20 that Israel took the idols of Egypt with them and in their hearts turned <em>back</em> to Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>), even though the external journey was a going out, away from Egypt. And so our church life can have the same semblance, whilst in our hearts we have turned back. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word is used about the entire ‘going out’ of Israel from Egypt to the promised land. Our total journey from the world through the Red Sea of baptism to the Kingdom of God involves much wandering, backwards and forwards (32:13). But it’s all under God’s control and part of our total exodus from Egypt to the Kingdom. Although humanly the journey was a zigzag and circular route, it is described in <em><a href='B:230 107:7'>Psa 107:7</a></em> as a “right” or ‘straight’ way- from God’s perspective. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God wanted Moses to record the journey so that Israel could recount it when they entered the land: "You shall remember (Heb. 'to recount', to mark) all the way which Yahweh your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that He might humble you, to prove you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not" (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>). The command to recount the way was perhaps a command to recite Numbers 33. In the type, it may well be that in the Kingdom age we look back on this brief life so that we never forget 'how we got here'. What may seem now an endless chasing of our tails in a desert we will then perceive to have been purposeful strides towards the Kingdom. There <em>is </em>meaning attached to event in our lives, even if we will only perceive that meaning when the record is written up.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel crossing the Red Sea is one of the most well-known types of baptism / the new creation (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>). They were being chased by the Egyptians, and were trapped against the sea. The only way of escape was for that water to open and allow them to go through it. If any Israelite had refused to go through, there would have been no salvation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea. Israel ate Passover (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>) (14th Abib), as the Lord died on the cross as the Passover lambs were slain; Israel left Egypt the next day (<em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>) (15th Abib) and journeyed three days (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>)&nbsp;(15th-17th Abib), and the Lord Jesus was three days in the tomb. Israel then came through the Red Sea (17th Abib), connecting with the Lord's being resurrected. As we come out of the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord- a new creation. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world- all this becomes ours. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 33:4'>Num 33:4</a></em><em> while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom Yahweh had struck among them. On their gods also Yahweh executed judgments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each of the plagues targeted a specific Egyptian god, and it seems that on Passover night something dramatic happened to all the gods- maybe the idols to them fell over or were destroyed. Yet Israel still took the gods of Egypt with them through the Red Sea and worshipped them on the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:330 20:7'>Eze 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). The pull of idolatry is against all reason, and yet there is such a strong tendency within us not to devote ourselves to only one God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:11'>Exo 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:4'>Num 33:4</a></em>). The “gods” are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh’s total superiority over them to the point that they didn’t exist. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>); their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. Mk. 32. The judgment upon Egypt’s gods is brought out by an otherwise obscure reference in <em><a href='B:20 7:19'>Exo 7:19</a></em> to how “there shall be blood in all the land of Egypt on wood and in stone”. “Wood and stone” is a term usually used in the Bible for idols; and “the Egyptian priests used </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plagues specifically targeted Egyptian gods: Nile water turned to blood = HAPI – the god of the spirit of the Nile; Frogs = HEKOT – the goddess of magic who had a frog’s head; “The dust of the land” turned to lice or gnats (<em><a href='B:20 8:16'>Exo 8:16</a></em>) = SEB – god of the dust of the earth; “Swarms of beetles” (<em><a href='B:20 8:21'>Exo 8:21</a></em> Hebrew) = RA and the forerunner of BEELZEBUB were likened to beetles; much pagan Egyptian jewelry features beetles; Murrain of cattle = APIS – the sacred bull god; Boils (<em><a href='B:20 9:8-9'>Exo 9:8-9</a></em>) = NEIT – the queen of the heavens; Thunder and hail = SHU – god of the atmosphere; Darkness = RA – the sun god; Locusts = SERAIJA – protector of Egypt from locusts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled from Rameses, and encamped in Succoth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The distance was about 120 miles. It would appear there was no stopping place. The longest segment of their journey was immediately after they left Egypt and had started upon the salvation journey. It's tempting to imagine that Rameses was the city which they were employed building by slave labour, and it was named after the Pharaoh called Rameses. But Egyptology and Egyptian chronology is hopelessly confused. But we note the similarity between "Rameses" and "Meses", the Egyptian name for Moses. And thus we perceive how the two men were set up in antithesis to each other- Moses / Meses, the one drawn out by Yahweh, and Ra-Meses, the man drawn out to Ra, the Egyptian sun god.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that Etham is a form of Khetam, fortress, which was part of the great wall of Egypt. In this case, there was another deliverance or miracle involved in that the people were allowed through it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Etham, and turned back to Pihahiroth, which is before Baal Zephon: and they encamped before Migdol-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "turning back" is typical of how our path towards the Kingdom makes no sense in secular terms. There are points at which we turn back upon ourselves, and wonder why we weren't led more directly to the destination. We shall never be able to fully attach meaning to event in this life, and only in the Kingdom will we realize how there could have been no other way.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from before Hahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness; and they went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and encamped in Marah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their dramatic passage through the Red Sea is described in the same way as any other stage on their journey; our baptism into Christ is our Red Sea crossing (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), but the other stages of our journey are no less led by God and part of our final deliverance into His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Marah, and came to Elim. In Elim were twelve springs of water, and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were twelve wells- one for each of the tribes. The lesson was that God had foreseen Israel's need for water long ago, and arranged those wells for them. As for us in our wilderness journeys. Yet 70 is the number of the Gentile nations in Genesis 10. They were being shown that God’s intention was to combine Israelites and Gentiles within a new multiethnic people of God. Perhaps this arrangement of 12 springs and 70 palms was to help Israel to better incorporate the "mixed multitude" amongst them, as being equally God’s people. Hence "Elim" implies "holy trees", or "trees of God", as if to remind Israel that He accepted the mixed multitude of Gentiles as equally His redeemed people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Elim, and encamped by the Red Sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This stop next to the Red Sea was perhaps to help them reflect further upon the wonder of their deliverance through that sea. And God arranges our wanderings likewise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the Red Sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the point at which they murmured against Moses and were given manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:1-2'>Exo 16:1-2</a></em>). But there's no mention of that, nor of other events on the journey which we might consider significant. And so it is with our own journeys to the Kingdom. There are things we might consider highly significant towns along the way; but in God’s spiritual mapping of our lives they weren't that significant. And what we considered insignificant was to His mind highly significant.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 15:22'>Exo 15:22</a></em> adds: "Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water". "Shur" means 'the wall', and may refer to the wall built to define the boundary of Egypt by an earlier dynasty. <em><a href='B:40 33:8'>Num 33:8</a></em> defines the part of the wilderness as being near Etham, where there was a garrison of Egyptians (see on <em><a href='B:20 13:20'>Exo 13:20</a></em>). It had been God’s intention that they would go three days journey from Egypt into the wilderness and then worship Him (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>). But they didn’t. It seems God purposefully didn’t provide water for them- because this great trial was intended to lead them to worship and faith. But instead they rebelled, and His intention they would worship Him then didn’t come to fruition. How many billions of such plans are made and frustrated each day by human short-sightedness... We note that very soon after their baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), they ran into testing. Just as the Lord did, and as we do.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dophkah means to knock, beat or hit hard. Clearly enough a message that the school of hard knocks is required to lead us to the Kingdom. Through much tribulation we shall enter the kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The exodus through the Red Sea represented our baptism into Christ, and so the wilderness journey to the Kingdom represents our journey there (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We can therefore legitimately look for meaning in the names of the places they camped in. But the 42 stopping places may connect as well with the 42 generations to the birth of Jesus recorded in Matthew's genealogy. This means that the wilderness journey looks ahead somehow to Israel's intended journey to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Alush, and encamped in Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The events of Exodus 17 are the basis for Psalms 95. This is largely a Psalm of praise for what God did for Israel in the wilderness, whilst also commenting on the way they tragically put God to the test, and complained about His care for them. Now the words of <em><a href='B:230 95:7-11'>Psa 95:7-11</a></em> are directly quoted in <em><a href='B:650 3:7-11'>Heb 3:7-11</a></em> concerning the experience of the new Israel. The simple conclusion from this is that we are really intended to see the events of Exodus 17 as directly relevant for us.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rephidim, and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 19:2'>Exo 19:2</a></em> adds: "When they had departed from Rephidim, and had come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mountain". We are intended to connect this with how they had arrived in Rephidim and rebelled (<em><a href='B:20 17:1'>Exo 17:1</a></em>). They moved on from there apparently repentant, and now encamp before Yahweh in the mountain. The impression is of a repentant people, now suitably humble to receive God’s law. At least that is the idealized picture given. For God fell in love with Israel in the wilderness and spread His skirt over them at Sinai, accepting them as His wife, despite all their idolatry and weakness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped in Kibroth Hattaavah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No mention is made of the giving of the law and entry into covenant with Yahweh. We could conclude that this itinerary actually focuses upon their weaknesses, building up the impression that this is an account of God’s patience and grace which had led them all the way to the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kibroth Hattaavah, and encamped in Hazeroth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The graves of lust". It is a theme of the Bible that in essence, God gives men their own desires, just as the prodigal son was given what he wrongfully demanded. Here, Israel lusted (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 78:29'>Psa 78:29</a></em>) and God gave them what they lusted after. Those who lusted for meat were given it; yet “they were not estranged from their lust” (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em> AV). Sin never satisfies. Giving in to temptation will not lead to the craving being permanently resolved. This is to point up the huge importance of our innermost desires, our heart, our dominant passions- being upon the things of God and His Kingdom. David could say that all his desire was for the things of God (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 38:9'>Psa 38:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:8'>Isa 26:8</a></em>). More than anything else we should desire to please Him and be in His Kingdom. And all who thus love the Lord's appearing will be eternally with Him (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hazeroth, and encamped in Rithmah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 33:18'>Num 33:18</a></em> says that "They departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah", whilst <em><a href='B:40 12:16'>Num 12:16</a></em> has "the people travelled from Hazeroth, and encamped in the wilderness of Paran". Rithmah was in the wilderness of Paran, which covered a large area. The intellectual desperation of Bible critics in raising this kind of supposed "contradiction" speaks more about them than anything else. Such intellectual desperation is symptomatic of a struggling, uneasy conscience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rithmah, and encamped in Rimmon Perez- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rithmah is identified by some with Kadesh Barnea, to where the spies returned with their evil report of the land. "Rithmah" means "juniper", a symbol of bitterness and hard words (<em><a href='B:220 30:4'>Job 30:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 120:4'>Psa 120:4</a></em>). Perhaps because this itinerary focuses upon their sins, it is given this name rather than Kadesh Barnea, which means 'the sanctuary of the wandering son'. See on :20. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rimmon Perez, and encamped in Libnah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Libnah is perhaps that of <em><a href='B:60 10:29'>Jos 10:29</a></em>, between Kadesh-Barnea and Gaza. This confirms the idea that Rithmah is Kadesh Barnea (:19).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Libnah, and encamped in Rissah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continued stress upon the word "encamped" is perhaps alluded to in the later comment that believers are like the patriarchs and always on the move, having "no continuing city" in this life (<em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>)- even if we lived all our days in the same house in which we were born.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rissah, and encamped in Kehelathah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kehelathah is 'place of gathering / assembly', and is the word commonly used for how the congregation gathered themselves together before the tent of meeting. Perhaps there was some significant gathering held at this place. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kehelathah, and encamped in Mount Shepher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 42 stopping places were not necessarily the only places they stopped at. In Revelation, the faithful are to be 42 months or three and a half years in the wilderness (Revelation 11-13), and 42 is 12 (the number of tribes, God’s people) times three and a half. And 42 months are three and a half years. This is clearly a period associated with testing and tribulation. And so Israel's 42 stopping places in the wilderness are likely selected in order to develop the number 42. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Mount Shepher, and encamped in Haradah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Haradah" is 'place of fear / trembling'<em>.</em> As the theme seems to be the failures of Israel, this may refer to some place where they greatly feared / trembled before God. Perhaps this is one of the many scenes of failure the details of which aren't recorded in the other records.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Haradah, and encamped in Makheloth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Makheloth' is a form of 'Kehelathah' (:22). It could mean that that they returned to this point, having travelled in a circle. Just as our wilderness journeys feature an element of going in circles. Although the word means 'assembly / gathering', so perhaps these place names were both memorializing some significant gathering of the people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Makheloth, and encamped in Tahath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Looking back on all these various moves and places, Moses in his final maturity concluded that Yahweh "went before you in the way, to seek you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night to show you by what way you should go, and in the cloud by day" (<em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>). "Pitch your tents" is s.w. "encamped". The wanderings even of the condemned generation were not random. All was part of God’s progressive intention to bring the body of His people to His Kingdom.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Tahath, and encamped in Terah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Terah" could mean 'wild goat', and goats are associated with rejection. Again we have the impression that this itinerary reflects the guidance of God of His people, even through the history of their failures and rejection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Terah, and encamped in Mithkah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Mithkah" is 'place of sweetness', as if God was giving them some respite in the otherwise harsh environment. In wrath with His people (for their wanderings were a result of His judgment), He still remembered mercy. We see here His essentially kind and gracious nature. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Mithkah, and encamped in Hashmonah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Hashmonah' can mean pleasant or fertile place; see on :28. It was a sign of God’s grace to them even in their experience of condemnation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hashmonah, and encamped in Moseroth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Moseroth' is 'place of correction'. As if it was God’s intention that the condemned generation would still be corrected, so that ultimately they could be resurrected to eternal inheritance of the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Moseroth, and encamped in Bene Jaakan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 10:6'>Deu 10:6</a></em> comments about Moseroth that "There Aaron died and there he was buried". "Moserah" means 'place of chastisement / correction'. Aaron and Moses will be in the Kingdom despite their sin, but it needed Aaron's death for them to be corrected. The punishment was therefore their correction, and was not the angry lashing out of an offended Deity. Moses only mentions this place name at the end of his life, indicating how he looked back and perceived that indeed he had been corrected and learned his lesson, even if it cost him his life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Bene Jaakan, and encamped in Hor Haggidgad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Haggidgad' is literally 'water holes', and is called "Gudgodah" in <em><a href='B:50 10:7'>Deu 10:7</a></em>. "A land of brooks of water" is precisely the phrase used of Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>). They were constantly given foretastes of the Kingdom before entering it, just as we are on our wilderness journey</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hor Haggidgad, and encamped in Jotbathah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 10:8'>Deu 10:8</a></em> comments about Jotbathah that "At that time Yahweh set apart the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day". Although the Levites had been set apart for Divine service immediately after God’s meeting with Israel at Sinai, as outlined in Leviticus and Numbers, it seems that not until Aaron died at the end of the 40 years wandering did they actually in practice begin to serve as intended. This might imply that Jotbathah was visited near to the end of the wanderings. Another option is that Jotbathah was visited twice, because their condemnation involved wandering in circles. It could be that the reason was that the Levites were ever slow to accept their responsibilities. And they generally failed in their calling over Israel's history, climaxing in the priests arranging the murder of God’s own Son.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Jotbathah, and encamped in Abronah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They went from "Jotbathah, a land of brooks of water (<em><a href='B:50 10:7'>Deu 10:7</a></em>) to "Abronah", which is from the root for word for 'Hebrew', 'the place of crossing over'. So perhaps there was here some incident of crossing over water, to prepare them for the later miraculous crossing of Jordan. God continually works to prepare us for future stages in our wilderness walk.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Abronah, and encamped in Ezion Geber- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was on the Red Sea. This was to remind them of the great work God had done in bringing them across the Red Sea. Constantly God sought to remind them of their spiritual history and beginnings, which were all of His grace. He does the same with us.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Ezion Geber, and encamped in the wilderness of Zin (the same is Kadesh)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They appear to have visited Kadesh several times; just as we tend to revisit the same places during our wilderness wanderings. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kadesh, and encamped in Mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hor" and "mount" are the same word in Hebrew. <em><a href='B:40 20:20-21'>Num 20:20-21</a></em> comment: "He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with many people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him". We must put this together with <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em>: "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed the way". So when Edom "refused to give Israel passage through his border" (<em><a href='B:40 20:21'>Num 20:21</a></em>), their refusal was because they were "dismayed" and terrified, not because they had some nonchalant confidence against Israel. This is an example of where we must place scripture together to get an accurate picture. Soon after this incident, Israel were commanded not to despise an Edomite (<em><a href='B:50 23:7'>Deu 23:7</a></em>)- although this is just what Edom had done to them. We aren’t to treat others as they treat us, but leave their judgment with God. These incidents took place in the 40th year of their wanderings (<em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>), and the commands of Deuteronomy were given at the same time. Moses could have reasoned that "the elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob)" (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>) and engaged him in battle. But the way of wisdom is to always walk away from conflict with our brethren, even if they are unreasonable.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of Yahweh and died there in the fortieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come out" is s.w. "brought forth". Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God’s Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron was one hundred and twenty-three years old when he died in Mount Hor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The death of Aaron was typical of the end of the Mosaic system and priesthood, able to only bring Israel to see the Kingdom, but unable to enable them to enter it. That was the work of Joshua / Jesus. Eleazar could be seen then as the priest who replaced Aaron, and also a type of the Lord Jesus. Aaron, an apparently Egyptian name with no clear meaning and not used about any other Biblical character, was replaced by Eleazar, 'helped by God' or 'helper of God', seeing that God was ultimately Israel's saviour. The numerical value (gematria) of "Eleazar the priest" is the same as "Joshua", the Greek form of which is "Jesus".&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the South in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:1'>Num 21:1</a></em> adds that "he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive". Again we have the impression that this itinerary focuses upon their failures, and God’s grace. The promise that an obedient Israel would make their enemies flee before them was not operational here. The conclusion is surely that Israel had sinned and therefore were defeated. These words are frequently used about Israel's judgment at the hand of their enemies because of their sinfulness. All this lends weight to the conclusion that this was another attempt by Israel to enter Canaan as happened immediately after the news of their rejection (<em><a href='B:50 1:44'>Deu 1:44</a></em>). Those rejected from the Kingdom at judgment day will likewise desperately want to be there, nobody will be passive in that day, nor shrugging their shoulders as people do today when encountering the possibility that they may not be there. The wilderness journey speaks of our lives after baptism. It's not a story of glorious victory after glorious victory. There are defeats and failures, partly from our failures, and partly because God in His wisdom knows that this too is part of our path towards the Kingdom. The initial defeat was required in order to make the people trust in Yahweh for victory (<em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em>); and we have multiple such experiences in life.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Mount Hor and encamped in Zalmonah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em> again makes it clear that this was a time of spiritual weakness for the people: "They travelled from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way". "Much discouraged" is Heb. 'reaped down', the same word used about how they felt in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a></em>). They adopted the same attitude they had in Egypt, ever searching for something better, and now not wanting to accept what God had planned for them, not looking at the end of their journey but just caught up in the immediacy of their daily feelings. Yet they had just had the exhilaration of having made a vow to God about the cities of Canaan, obeying it, and seeing God answer them. Before that, they had sinned (see on :1). And now, they were again discouraged and low. This is the yo-yo path through the wilderness we all experience. It's not going to be entirely positive. They likely reasoned that God should have spared them this awful part of the journey because they had just been obedient to Him. But that's not how the path to the Kingdom Isa.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their route took them back on themselves at this point, heading back towards Egypt. This may have been the psychological trigger for their desire to be back in Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). We must try to avoid things and situations which may stimulate a desire to leave the way to the Kingdom and return to the world. "Because of the way" reflects how this was indeed geographically one of the worst parts of Israel's journey, through shifting sands blown by the strong sirocco winds. Only camels can survive here, so it's likely that the sheep and oxen Israel had brought from Egypt would've died at this point. And this was just immediately prior to their entry of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 33:41'>Num 33:41</a></em>, so this may look forward to the final tribulation for His people before the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Zalmonah, and encamped in Punon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Punon" means 'perplexity'; there should have been no such perplexity as they were now approaching Canaan. Again, we are left with the impression that this list of places in Numbers 33 focuses upon incidents of their spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Punon, and encamped in Oboth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Oboth" is 'water skins'. Perhaps here too we have a hint at their problems with water, which would have been provided by God. But they used water skins perhaps to preserve what they saw as more tasty water at this place.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Oboth, and encamped in Iye Abarim, in the border of Moab-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Iyeabarim means heaps or ruins. Perhaps now as they approached the promised land, they were being encouraged that once mighty civilizations all rise and fall, so nothing is invincible- even if at one stage it may appear that way. We too are constantly given encouragement, even if apparently obliquely, along the route of our journey towards the Kingdom.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Iyim, and encamped in Dibon Gad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dibon was settled by Gad but this territory was lost to them in the long term (<em><a href='B:290 15:2'>Isa 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:18'>Jer 48:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:22'>Jer 48:22</a></em>). Their short termist desire for land other than that God planned to give them in His Kingdom didn’t have long term blessing. And it will be the same for us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Dibon Gad, and encamped in Almon Diblathaim-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Diblathaim, 'place of the holy cakes', clearly has idolatrous associations. The word is used for the cakes of raisins used in idol rituals (<em><a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a></em>). And it is from this word for "cakes", <em>dibla</em>, the raisin cakes used in the Baal cult, from which the word Diblaim comes, the father of Gomer. Again we have the3 sense of weakness at every point of their journey to the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Almon Diblathaim, and encamped in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God’s people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the mountains of Abarim, and encamped in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"By" is "beyond" (<em><a href='B:40 22:1'>Num 22:1</a></em>). To describe the Israelite encampment as beyond Jordan implies the author is west of Jordan. Moses' writing here may well have been edited under inspiration later. It was at this point that the apostasy connected with Balaam happened; and again we see how their faith was deeply weak and compromised at every point of their journey, right up to entrance to the Kingdom. They only entered the land by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They encamped by the Jordan, from Beth Jeshimoth even to Abel Shittim in the plains of Moab-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Beth Jeshimoth is an example of how some of the places they had known in their wilderness journeys (cp. our life now after baptism, which is like crossing the Red Sea, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>) were revisited and taken by Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 12:3'>Jos 12:3</a></em>), and incorporated into God’s Kingdom. Perhaps situations and places we know in this life will then become eternally ours when we possess them in God’s Kingdom.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why the command to destroy idols etc. is here defined as specifically concerning the territory on the west of Jordan. We wonder why the same commandment wasn't given regarding the territory on the east of Jordan which the two and a half tribes had claimed. It was of course implicit in earlier statements that they were to do so there too. But the lack of specific commandment and reminder was perhaps another example of where inheritance east of Jordan wasn't God’s ideal intention for Israel, and so they were making their path to eternal inheritance of the land that much harder. Any short cut to the Kingdom ends up actually making the journey far more difficult. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite the very long list of places where they had failed and sinned, God urges them to inherit the Kingdom and always speaks as if they are going to make it ultimately. He is similarly positive with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their stone idols, destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must compare this command to drive out all the inhabitants of the land with the fact God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and apparently offered the local inhabitants the chance of covenant relationship with Him. Perhaps the people in view were those who had rejected that; or had refused to become tributary in the terms of <em><a href='B:50 20:10-11'>Deu 20:10-11</a></em>. Or perhaps they are peoples other than the seven nations of Canaan specifically mentioned elsewhere. Or again, maybe there were some they should slay, and others they should "drive out" beyond the borders of Canaan. Or maybe Israel and the local inhabitants were given this range of outcomes- because it was God’s desire they accept covenant relationship with Him. If they refused, they were to be forced to leave the land, and if they refused that, then they were to be totally destroyed as in <em><a href='B:50 20:16'>Deu 20:16</a></em>. The Mosaic law continually assumes the presence of Gentiles within Israel on a permanent basIsa. So we have to really conclude that this driving out was of those who refused to repent and accept covenant with Yahweh. For it is mentioned along with the need to destroy idolatry.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take possession of the land and dwell therein; for I have given the land to you to possess it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were to possess the land because God had given them the land- we are to inherit the Kingdom because God has given it to us to inherit. Believing that God has really given us the Kingdom and accepting this is so hard to do. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance. Wherever the lot falls to any man, that shall be hIsa. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were not to seek to exchange or ammend the lot given them. There is an element to which our lives, our talents, our portion of intended service and inheritance is from God- and yet we so often seek to change thIsa. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those you let remain of them will be as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you dwell-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What can appear mere harmless associations with the world can in the end destroy us. Whilst we are to be in this world in the same sense as the Lord Jesus was, mixing and identifying with them to bring them too to God, the basic principle of separation from unbelievers must never be forgotten.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall happen that as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That is, drive them out of the land. And this is what happened to Israel. There is a theme in the Bible that the judgments of this world will come upon the unfaithful amongst the children of God; there’s a need to be radically different from this world or else we will share this world’s condemnation (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God has had various intentions which He ‘thought’ to do, but because of human weakness they don’t actually become reality. He told Israel about His plan / intention / <em>logos</em> of driving out the Canaanites: “If ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land… I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them” (<em><a href='B:40 33:55-56'>Num 33:55-56</a></em>). He ‘thought’ to do things to them through the agency of His people; but those ‘thoughts’ never became flesh. The extent to which Jesus made the word flesh needs some reflection.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The definition of Canaan stresses that "this is the land" which was their intended inheritance (:2), and it excludes the area east of Jordan which the two and a half tribes chose. Clearly this was not God’s ideal intention, and yet He went along with it and worked through it. For as the Father with the prodigal son, He gives us ultimately what we truly want. And then helps us through the consequences, as far as we permit Him to. Such is His grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you come into the land of Canaan (this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan according to its borders)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The land promised to Abraham was from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea, but here God redefines it as much smaller. He perhaps perceived that they simply didn’t have the spiritual vision to possess that vast area. There is so much made possible for us in prospect; maybe we will ultimately receive less than we could have had because of our limited vision in this life. Yet He encouraged the people to go exploring beyond the bounds which He here gave them, right up to the Euphrates, promising to give them whatever land they walked upon (<em><a href='B:50 11:24'>Deu 11:24</a></em>). It seems none rose up to that challenge. God invites His people to assume that they would receive this land and make preparations as if they had- for at this time they had not yet crossed Jordan into it. We are likewise asked to believe that we have been moved into the sphere of the Kingdom of God’s Son, and have received an inheritance by reason of our being in Him (<em><a href='B:580 1:13'>Col 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the side of Edom, and your south border shall be from the end of the Salt Sea eastward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The borders of the land were rewritten by God in accordance with the spiritual vision and response of Israel. Initially the land was to be as in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em> "I will set your border from the Red Sea even to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River (Euphrates)". But now that is redrawn by God, especially the southern border. And when they actually inherit the land in Joshua's time, there are further redefinitions. And we note the inheritance of the two and a half tribes east of Jordan was not God’s ideal intention for them, even though that territory was within that promised to Abraham. God’s intentions for His people are therefore open. He desperately wants to save us, even if we turn away from the maximum extent of the great salvation He has potentially prepared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and your border shall turn about southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass along to Zin; and the goings out of it shall be southward of Kadesh Barnea; and it shall go forth to Hazar Addar, and pass along to Azmon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies a birds eye perspective, looking at lines on a map. The perspective is clearly God’s heavenly one. See on :11. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall turn about from Azmon to the brook of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is not to the Nile, but to the Wady el Arish. "Egypt" is 'Mizraim' and at that time may not have referred to Egypt as we now know it, but specifically to an area to the east of Egypt. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the western border, you shall have the great sea and its border: this shall be your west border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This simple statement was so hard for Israel to accept; because the coast line of the Mediterranean included Gaza and Ashdod, Philistine strongholds which they never really conquered until David’s time. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This shall be your north border: from the great sea you shall mark out for you Mount Hor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Most commentators on :7,8 lament that "the geographical description of the northern boundary of the land of Israel is so indefinite, that the boundary line cannot be determined with exactness" (Delitzsch, typical of many). Why the unclarity? I suggest it was because as discussed on :3, the borders were still flexible and God would define them in more detail according to Israel's vision and obedience. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from Mount Hor you shall mark out to the entrance of Hamath; and the goings out of the border shall be at Zedad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :7, the northern border is unclear, not least because it is not clear whether "Hamath" refers to the town on the Orontes river in Syria, or to a region called "Hamath", as in <em><a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go forth to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazar Enan: this shall be your north border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies detailed geographical knowledge of the area. It is doubtful anyone from Israel knew that area, and so we have here the direct transmission of fact from God to man through His word.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall mark out your east border from Hazar Enan to Shepham-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was an intention that some kind of border fence or marker system should be put up. This was practically important, because many of the Mosaic laws were specifically intended to be obeyed within the land of promise. But there is no evidence Israel ever obeyed this command.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down, and shall reach to the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, "pressed upon the shoulder of the lake of Chinnereth towards the east”. The descriptions are written as if the author has a bird's eye satellite view of the topography. And so that author was ultimately only God. See on :4.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go down to the Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the Salt Sea. This shall be your land according to its borders around it’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The eastern border roughly follows the river Jordan southwards from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. This is significant, because it reminds us that the two and a half tribes had chosen territory to the east of that which was not God’s ideal intention to give them at that stage. We are reminded of His eagerness to work with us, despite our less than ideal decisions.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which Yahweh has commanded to give to the nine tribes and to the half-tribe- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The land within God’s ideal territory for Israel at the time was to be distributed to each family by lot. That lot would have been overruled by God (<em><a href='B:240 16:33'>Pro 16:33</a></em>). Just as we each have our specific calling and eternal place in His purpose, unique to us, so Israel had a specific inheritance for each family within the land. But those who wanted their land east of Jordan didn’t have this gift of individual lots to each family to inherit. They tried to arrange the Kingdom their way, and in the end, it didn’t work out well for them.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their fathers’ families and the tribe of the children of Gad according to their fathers’ families, have received, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received, their inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is often not appreciated that the extent of the area given to the two and a half tribes on the east of Jordan, as defined in <em><a href='B:60 13:10-12'>Jos 13:10-12</a></em>, was roughly the same as the entire territory given to the nine and a half tribes on the west of Jordan. The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants (see on <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>)- which they probably didn’t realize at the time.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The triple emphasis here that those who chose immediate inheritance east of Jordan had already received their inheritance may be behind Christ’s triple emphasis that some “have their reward” in this life rather than waiting for the future, eternal reward (<em><a href='B:470 6:2'>Mat 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:16'>Mat 6:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We now have a list of the ten princes of the tribes who were to practically distribute the land allocations. Reuben and Gad aren't listed here as they had taken the land for themselves east of Jordan; and so were excluded from the Divine system of distributing individual inheritances by lot to each family. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to you for inheritance: Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Divided" is s.w. "inheritance" or "inherit", and also "possessed". I have noted elsewhere the difference between Joshua slaying the kings, and Israel possessing or inheriting the land- which they generally failed to do. But here we read that Joshua also 'inherited' it to them. So much was done for them. We note too the king-priest association, again looking ahead to the work and dual office of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take one prince of every tribe to divide the land for inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apart from Caleb, we don't read of these men elsewhere as leaders. They are called in <em><a href='B:60 14:1'>Jos 14:1</a></em> "the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The order of the tribes here runs from south to north, especially if we take the tribes as being mentioned in pairs, as if this was the order in which the land was to be possessed. But the original intention to take the land from south to north wasn't followed. Israel were consistently disobedient and short termist in their approach to the conquest of Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In contrast to previous lists of names from this period, we find the suffix 'El' common in this list of names. But we note that they had therefore failed to accept or appreciate the revelation of the Yahweh Name which Moses had given to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'God of love', the son of 'hopeful'. Here we see some spiritual progress. The people had complained that Yahweh sought to slay them in the wilderness, and it seems this family had rejected that terrible idea. They were no longer just hopeful for something better, but had come to appreciate the love of God. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Dan a prince, Bukki the son of Jogli- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Bukki" means 'wasteful'. Surely no mother would have named her baby that (as with Mahlon and Chilion). But the Hebrews often had several names, which were reflective of later life experience, character and achievement. So we can assume that this man became known like this, and was likely named this way because he failed to help Dan take the inheritance intended for them but rather wasted it. The name Bukki stands in sharp contrast to the spiritual meanings of the names of most of the other princes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Joseph: of the tribe of the children of Manasseh a prince, Hanniel the son of Ephod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Grace of God', son of 'shortened', perhaps slain prematurely in the wilderness for his apostasy. Here we see some spiritual progress, as in :21. Hanniel realized that the inheritance of the land was by grace alone given the people's spiritual weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Ephraim a prince, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Established by God', the same word used in <em><a href='B:20 6:4'>Exo 6:4</a></em> of how God established His covenant to give Canaan to Israel. The names of the princes are generally reflective of spirituality, but just as Joshua enabled their inheritance of the land, Israel as individuals still had to personally respond to spiritual leadership. And they generally didn’t.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Zebulun a prince, Elizaphan the son of Parnach- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Hidden / treasured by God', the same word used for how Moses was hidden and preserved. Again we have the sense that this man appreciated grace, that Israel were only inheriting the land because God had preserved them to do so, despite all their catalogue of rebellions against Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Issachar a prince, Paltiel the son of Azzan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Paltiel', delivered by God, as noted on :25, is another reflection of how God alone had delivered Israel to receive the Kingdom inheritance which they didn’t deserve.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Asher a prince, Ahihud the son of Shelomi- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>'</em>Ahihud' is a form of the Hebrew word often used for the glory / majesty of God. He saw the possession of the Kingdom as a manifestation of God’s glory, rather than being due to Israel's obedience. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Naphtali a prince, Pedahel the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Pedahel' means 'God has ransomed', using the word commonly used for His ransom of Israel from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:15'>Exo 13:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:8'>Exo 21:8</a></em> etc.). Nearly all these names reflect an awareness of God’s saving grace in giving Israel the Kingdom. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are they whom Yahweh commanded to divide the inheritance to the children of Israel in the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is emphasized because it was not God’s intention that the people just grabbed whatever bit of farmland appeared attractive to them. Likewise we are not to as it were decide how we would like to serve God, but to accept that we have a specific inheritance uniquely prepared for us; and to inherit that, rather than hankering for something else. For God intends only what is best for us in our latter end.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had no land inheritance, only cities. Or better, towns. As explained on <em><a href='B:30 25:29-30'>Lev 25:29-30</a></em>, God’s intention therefore was that Israel lived in small settlements and not walled cities. Ideally, the only cities were to be those of the Levites. This detailed potential intention was never realized by Israel; just as the extensive&nbsp; and intricate commands about the restoration of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 never were. One of the greatest tragedies for God must be all the wasted potentials He sets up in countless lives. And His joy is when we at least begin to realize them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance of their possession some cities to dwell in, and you shall give suburbs for the cities around them to the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This meant that the Levites were divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel, enabling them to teach God’s ways to the whole nation (<em><a href='B:30 10:11'>Lev 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9-10'>Deu 33:9-10</a></em>). In this way, the curse upon Levi that his children would be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>) turned into a blessing for all- and God so loves to work in this way, using the consequences of sin to bring about His work, purpose and glory.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities shall they have to dwell in and their suburbs shall be for their livestock, and for their substance, and for all their animals- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eve was "the mother of all living" (<em><a href='B:10 3:20'>Gen 3:20</a></em>), in its primary application explaining to the Israelites in the wilderness where <em>they</em> ultimately originated from. Israel were to trace their first origins and parents back not merely to Abraham, but to Adam and Eve. <em><a href='B:40 35:3'>Num 35:3</a></em> (Heb.) uses the term to describe the "all living" ("livestock") of the congregation of Israel; indeed, that Hebrew word translated "living" is translated "congregation", with reference to the congregation of Israel (<em><a href='B:230 68:10'>Psa 68:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 74:19'>Psa 74:19</a></em>). Note how the Hebrew idea of 'all living' repeatedly occurs in the account of the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:19'>Gen 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em> etc.)- which I suggest was a flood local to the area which the Israelites knew and which had been ultimately promised to Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The suburbs of the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be from the wall of the city and outward two thousand cubits around it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The measurements of the "suburbs" or agricultural land around the Levitical towns was in a square with the measurements taken from the city wall. This implies that their towns were to be built as perfect squares within a town wall. The tabernacle was rectangular, not square. So they were not being asked to imitate the tabernacle but rather the altar, which is repeatedly described as foursquare (<em><a href='B:20 27:1'>Exo 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 38:1'>Exo 38:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:2'>Exo 30:2</a></em> cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:16'>Rev 21:16</a></em>). The Levites were to have towns which were effectively the local altar for the people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall measure outside of the city for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the midst. This shall be to them for the suburbs of the cities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This grant of agricultural land to the Levites was really an indication of God’s tacit acceptance that the whole system was not going to work as He ideally intended. If Israel were obedient to the covenant, they would be blessed with bumper harvests, of which they would tithe 10% to the Levites, and additionally the Levites received various tithes from the offerings, and also the freewill offerings. They would have no need to work the land but could dedicate themselves completely to studying and teaching God’s law to the people, which would confirm them in their obedience to the covenant and continued receipt of blessing. But God foresaw this situation would break down, and so He gave them land on which to grow their own food. His law continually reflects His gracious awareness of likely human failure. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, which you shall give for the manslayer to flee to: and besides them you shall give forty-two cities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number 42 recalls the 42 stopping places of Israel in the wilderness, just listed in Numbers 33. The idea was that the priestly cities were places of teaching which would be stages towards Israel's eternal inheritance of the Kingdom of God in its full sense. We think likewise of the 42 generations to the Lord Jesus which are listed in Matthew' genealogy of the Lord. The Levites were to teach the people and lead them towards Christ, for the law they taught was a schoolmaster which led to Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:24'>Gal 3:24</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be forty-eight cities together with their suburbs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Suburbs" is translated by some as "cattle drives". <em><a href='B:60 21:41'>Jos 21:41</a></em> adds: "All the cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the children of Israel were forty-eight cities with their suburbs". The idea was that the Levites would live "in the midst" of the people, teaching them God’s way. But Israel's apostasy is often blamed upon the failure of the priesthood; and yet that in turn was partly due to Israel not providing for the Levites. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Concerning the cities which you shall give of the possession of the children of Israel, from the many you shall take many; and from the few you shall take few. Everyone according to his inheritance which he inherits shall give of his cities to the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the reality was that many of the cities the Israelites gave the Levites were in marginal areas or areas still under Canaanite domination. Thus Kedemoth was given to the Levites (<em><a href='B:60 21:37'>Jos 21:37</a></em>) but was in fact a town which had not been captured from the local population (<em><a href='B:60 13:18'>Jos 13:18</a></em>). They failed to learn the principle of <em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation assumes that the revenger of blood was free to operate. The structure of the law of Moses seemed to almost encourage the idea of serving God on different levels. After much study of it, the Rabbis concluded that there was within it “a distinction between holy and holy just as much as there is between holy and profane”. They were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so (<em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God’s</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could imply that establishing the cities of refuge, of which we will now read, was to be immediately attended to. But there is no evidence Israel did thIsa. They were satisfied with a bit of farmland, and showed no real interest in the development of a system of blessing and salvation as God had potentially enabled. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person unknowingly may flee there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But as noted several times in Joshua 19, some of these cities they had not even taken from enemy hands.&nbsp; "Appoint" is the usual word for "give". The tribes were to give these cities. But several of them they had not even bothered to take from the local inhabitants. Their disobedience to these commandments made their personal salvation so much more difficult. And so we again see the upward spiral, the self reinforcing nature, of God’s commandments. They were not a burden, a chain that binds, but rather an opportunity to prosper spiritually.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities shall be to you for refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word<em> go'el</em> translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", <em>elpis</em>, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities which you shall give shall be for you six cities of refuge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em> adds that they were to do so "for yourselves", or here "for you". The emphasis was very much upon <em>them</em> making the cities of refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in the land (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities for yourselves" (<em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em>). Yet the record in Joshua 18-20 shows that Israel didn’t do this, because they didn’t even capture all the cities which were to be cities of refuge. All God’s laws are and were for the spiritual benefit of His people, rather than simple tests of obedience. Disobedience therefore harms us more than anyone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan and you shall give three cities in the land of Canaan. They shall be cities of refuge-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:8-9'>Deu 19:8-9</a></em> make it clear that more cities would be added if Israel were obedient and their land borders were enlarged. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of thIsa. Israel would be provided with more cities of refuge if they were obedient; the way of escape from sin would become easier, as it does for us the more we are obedient to God’s principles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the foreigner living among them, these six cities shall be for refuge; that everyone who kills any person unintentionally may flee there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are all in the position of the person who unintentionally killed another person and is therefore liable to death. We have all sinned, and yet as it were in the spirit of how Paul describes our sin in Romans 7 - committed against our better intentions. <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> speaks of us fleeing for refuge into Christ- suggesting we are the one who flees after committing manslaughter, and becoming “in Christ” by baptism is our entry into Him as our city of refuge. But we must abide in Him- for if we leave Him then we are liable to death (:26). And our final salvation from the effects of sin is guaranteed by the death of the High Priest, the Lord Jesus (:25).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he struck him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em> expresses this as "you must put away the innocent blood from Israel". We would rather expect that guilty blood must be put away. AV has "the guilt of innocent blood", LXX "so shalt thou purge innocent blood". The idea was that the guilt for innocent blood must be purged by blood. The Lord's blood was the ultimate innocent blood, and so Israel were being prepared to accept that blood was to be shed for His blood. And thus it happened (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:28'>Act 5:28</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he struck him with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the system of cities of refuge was (<em><a href='B:50 19:10'>Deu 19:10</a></em>) "so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so guilt for blood be upon you". Innocent blood would not be shed because there was a system of judging and punishing those who shed it (<em><a href='B:50 19:12'>Deu 19:12</a></em>). If Israel were indifferent to preparing the way for others’ salvation, then innocent blood would be shed and they would be responsible for it (<em><a href='B:50 19:10'>Deu 19:10</a></em>). This is powerful stuff. Indifference to providing others with a way of escape from their sin and death means we are actually guilty of their lack of salvation. And yet we tend to think that committed sin is all we have to worry about / avoid. The lesson here, however, bites far more caustically and insistently into our comfort zone. If we are indifferent to marking out the way of escape for others, their blood will be upon our heads. Our chief excuses for not witnessing enthusiastically basically amount to laziness, indifference, not getting our act together because we don’t see we have to… when actually, there is an intense urgency about our task. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if he struck him with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you" (<em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em>). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from revenge murder, after he had slain another man (<em><a href='B:100 14:8-10'>2Sa 14:8-10</a></em>). The woman pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood, even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death. When he meets him, he shall put him to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of blood vendettas, whereby a family member of the murdered has a legal right to hunt and kill the murderer, is widespread in primitive societies. Yet the Law of Moses seems to make provision for it. Seeing that God is presented as the ultimate avenger (see on <em><a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a></em>), this may seem strange. Instead of grace and forgiveness being inculcated, revenge seems allowed. Yet the desire to repay murder with murder is so great within primitive society that it seems God made a concession to this weakness, and allowed it, whilst seeking to control it from being applied in any wrongful or doubtful context. The fact God makes concessions to human weakness doesn’t mean we should eagerly make use of them; the spirit of all God’s revelation to us in His word is that we should forgive and leave vengeance to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he thrust him from hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a></em> defines this in more detail. The person was innocent of intentional murder "was not worthy of death because he didn’t hate him in time past". We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death. John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our brother is effectively a living death sentence (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a></em>). It was to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer (<em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is taught here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or in enmity struck him with his hand, so that he died; he who struck him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy for her (<em><a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a></em>), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as Israel’s <em>go’el </em>, redeemer (<em><a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 47:4'>Isa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a></em>). The redeemer could redeem a close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times (<em><a href='B:30 25:25-26'>Lev 25:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:47-55'>Lev 25:47-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:12'>Rth 3:12</a></em>). The redeemer was also the avenger of blood (<em><a href='B:40 35:9-28'>Num 35:9-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:3'>Jos 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:9'>Jos 20:9</a></em>). All these ideas were relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are slaves this day in the land you gave…” (<em><a href='B:160 9:36'>Neh 9:36</a></em>). The wonderful prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive brethren? </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled on him anything without lying in wait-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :20, the essential difference between manslaughter and murder was whether or not there was "enmity" or hatred in the heart. Time and again, God’s law judges matters of the heart, in a way which no human, secular law ever could. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or with any stone, by which a man may die, not seeing him, and cast it on him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Secular law would go into questions as to whether the man had taken due reasonable precautions, and judge him accordingly. But that aspect isn't considered under Divine law. The simple division was over the question of whether or not the person had intentionally harmed another, and whether he had previously had hatred in his heart for the person (:22). Questions of 'But did you take precautions? Were you careful enough?' were totally made irrelevant by the immense value God gives to the question of the state of heart.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the congregation shall judge between the striker and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so in some cases (see too <em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God’s</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative. Rather than continually make use of God’s many concessions to human weakness, we should seek to live on a higher level.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the congregation shall deliver the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, where he was fled. He shall dwell therein until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The death of the High Priest enabled the ‘guilty’ person to be totally freed because the principle that death was required to atone for death had been thus fulfilled (:33)- as if in his death, the High Priest was taking upon himself the guilt of the sin of murder, as a total representative of the sinner. In this we see foreshadowed the representative nature of Christ’s death for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command "You shall not kill" in <em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em> must be understood in the context of a situation where the same Law also commanded certain sinners to be put to death within the community, and at times Israel were Divinely commanded and enabled to kill others outside of the community. We have to look, therefore, for a more specific meaning for this commandment- and it seems it is speaking specifically of blood revenge, killing the person who murdered one of your relatives. According to <em><a href='B:40 35:25-28'>Num 35:25-28</a></em>, if the murder was unintentional, i.e. manslaughter rather than murder, then the person could flee to a city of refuge lest he be slain by the avenger of blood. There is no guidance for the avenger of blood in these 'cities of refuge' passages; rather is there the assumption that he might well attempt to take revenge even for manslaughter, and in this case the unintentional murderer should flee from him into a city of refuge. But clearly enough, this was not God’s will- for "You shall not kill". But such is God’s grace that He built into His law a recognition that His people would fail. This isn't what we would expect of a 2+2=4 God, where broken commandments are to be punished and period. In this case, we see here a tacit recognition even within the Mosaic Law that the commandments- in this case "You shall not kill"- wouldn't always be obeyed, and therefore extra legislating was added to enable this situation to be coped with. This isn't only an example of God’s sensitivity to human sin and weakness of hot blood (although it is that). It's an insight into how the very structure of His law is such that He understands human weakness, and is eager to ensure that it hurts others as little as possible. No more human 'god' would have dreamed this up. This grace has the stamp of the ultimately Divine, and any attempt to understand it within the frames of literalistic, legalistic analysis are doomed to failure. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the border of his city of refuge where he flees- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These borders are defined in :4 as 2000 cubits from the foursquare city wall of the Levitical city; and the cities of refuge were Levitical cities. The Levitical towns were representations of the altar, which is repeatedly described as foursquare (<em><a href='B:20 27:1'>Exo 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 38:1'>Exo 38:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:2'>Exo 30:2</a></em> cp. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:16'>Rev 21:16</a></em>). The Levites were to have towns which were effectively the local altar for the people. Hence the manslayer could flee to those towns as if fleeing to an altar. And that city of refuge represents finally the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>). Going out from it is therefore rather like leaving Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the avenger of blood find him outside of the border of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the manslayer; he shall not be guilty of blood-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This ruling was in order to point up the importance of the cities of refuge, and the need to take manslaughter seriously. Even if in fact the avenger of blood was acting in a morally deficient way. For slaying a morally innocent man out of personal anger and blood lust, not in order to cleanse the land of innocent blood, was surely far below ideal behaviour. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; but after the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return into the land of his possession- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One day, the manslayer who wandered outside the city of refuge could be slain; but the next he couldn't be, because the High Priest had died. This was to point up the huge significance of the death of the High Priest. This was clearly presented as a kind of atonement through death, and served no practical purpose apart from to point ahead to the atoning death of the great High Priest to come, the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Throughout your generations" is a kind of way of saying 'for ever', but "in your dwellings" may suggest we are to interpret it as meaning 'for as long as you live in the land'. The significance of Israel being deported from their land was therefore that effectively the law of Moses had thereby been ended. And the destruction of the temple, tabernacle furnishings, the loss of the ark and Biblical priesthood, all meant that it was obvious that the law could no longer function. It effectively ended well before the death of the Lord Jesus, so the Israelite wanting relationship with God had to return to the promises to Abraham for that basis of relationship. And those promises were the essence of the new covenant. It was the Lord's death which confirmed the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Insisting on more than one witness before accepting the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant that He didn’t advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>). The implication is that death under the Old Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor reasons. And yet the Lord appears to go a step beyond this; for I detect in <em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em> a reference to this law, but He goes on to suggest that the higher level in interpersonal offences is not to apply this but to simply forgive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ransom" is the word for atonement or covering, <em>kapher</em>. There is a position where there is no atonement possible. And yet David was at this point- there was no sacrifice or fine to get him out of his guilt over the sin with Uriah. But the 'sureness' of the command here was by grace not carried out, just as the 'sure' promise of death in the day Adam ate the fruit was not carried out. Possibly God factored in the way that David had not hated Uriah in his heart in the past; see on :20,23.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take no ransom for him who is fled to his city of refuge, that he may come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We died and rose with Christ, if we truly believe in His representation of us and our connection with Him, then His freedom from sin and sense of conquest will be ours; as the man guilty of blood was to see in the death of the High Priest a representation of his own necessary death, and thereafter was freed from the limitations of the city of refuge (<em><a href='B:40 35:32-33'>Num 35:32-33</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you shall not pollute the land in which you are: for blood, it pollutes the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet see on :31. Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both the Lord's death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it. <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em> and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I, Yahweh, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that if Israel were morally defiled, then Yahweh would be unable to dwell in the midst of them. Seeing they lived in the land of Canaan, this would mean that He would have to depart from that land. And that is the significance of Ezekiel's visions of the shekinah glory of Yahweh departing from the sanctuary and forsaking the land. The idea is not that the land of Israel was defiled in some metaphysical sense.&nbsp; The defilement was clearly related to the moral defilement of the people within the land. Hence <em><a href='B:30 18:24-25'>Lev 18:24-25</a></em> Don’t defile yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled. The land was defiled; therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out her inhabitants". But there was no ritual of cleansing the physical land; rather was the land intended to bring forth great harvests in reflection of Israel's obedience to the covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The heads of the fathers’ households of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They raise the matter of the special agreement and interpretation of the law given in Numbers 27. They perhaps raised it again after hearing the discussion about the dividing up of the land in Numbers 35 and wished to ensure that this special clarification was going to be upheld. For as noted on :3, this was to be a departure from social norms, in allowing land to be passed on through the female line.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Yahweh commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord was commanded by Yahweh to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a></em>); and this in turn inspired the daughters of Zelophehad to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<em><a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a></em>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a></em>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on <em><a href='B:40 27:3'>Num 27:3</a></em> that we can identify Zelophehad as the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe unto which they shall belong: so will it be taken away from the lot of our inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In most societies of the time, a woman didn’t get her father’s inheritance, but instead was intended to marry into another family. The inheritance of land passed through the male line. But these women had been perceptive, and realize that the inheritance was going to be eternal, and so they wanted their father to have his name preserved in association with his inheritance- otherwise he would as it were lose his inheritance because he had no sons. And so they were granted their request. We see from <em><a href='B:150 2:61'>Ezr 2:61</a></em> another case of how this worked out in practice. God cannot be accused of being against women; His legislation valued every human person to a degree unseen in any contemporary legislation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong: so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not the only example of where the Mosaic law was structured so as to intentionally need further interpretation and clarification. It was designed to provoke relationship with God, rather than as a legalistic total statement of how to live in every part of life. One wonders why this statute had not been included within the Law of Moses. Perhaps God had reserved it in potential, waiting the initiative of these women? </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of Yahweh, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks right- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What was important was that the man's inheritance should pass on in his own name, or that of his family. As discussed on :10, the reasoning behind this was because it was God’s intention that Israel should eternally inherit their allotments in the land, at the time of resurrection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the thing which Yahweh does command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them be married to whom they will; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This verse is alluded to by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em>, where we read that a Christian widow can marry whom she will but only to someone “in the Lord”- in the same way as the women here could marry whom they wished, but only in the tribe of their fathers, unless they would lose their inheritance permanently. It could be that Paul is teaching that marriage within the faith, to those also “in the Lord” by baptism into Him, is so important that doing otherwise may cause us to lose the promised inheritance of the Kingdom. Marriage within the faith is indeed an important principle and ignoring it often has terrible spiritual consequences. But note that she was free to marry whom <em>she </em>wanted- in a culture where arranged marriage was the norm, God valued the dignity and free choice of the woman.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we deny our covenant with God by marrying into the world, we have effectively cut ourselves off from Him. The command for widows to marry "whom she will; only in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em>) is alluding back to the command to Zelophehad's daughters to marry "whom they think best", but <em>only</em> "in" their tribe, otherwise they would lose the inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 36:6-7'>Num 36:6-7</a></em>). The implication is that those who do not marry " in the Lord" will likewise lose their promised inheritance. And this rather strange allusion indicates one more thing: the extent of the seriousness of marriage out of the Faith is only evident to those who search Scripture deeply. As man and woman within Israel were joint heirs of the inheritance, so man and wife are&nbsp; joint heirs of the inheritance of the Kingdom&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>).&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall all keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God’s Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units. This was "The inheritance of fathers", "your possession" (<em><a href='B:30 25:27-28'>Lev 25:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 36:7-8'>Num 36:7-8</a></em>). God had given specific inheritances to His people, that this was not to be sold or traded. The division by lot in <em><a href='B:60 15:1'>Jos 15:1</a></em> presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was given a specific inheritance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For land inheritance to pass on through the female was unheard of in contemporary legal codes. We are all somewhat in Zelophehad's position. He sinned and died for it, but he has the hope still of eternal inheritance in the Kingdom at the resurrection- in his own name. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall each keep his own inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This repetition of :7 is because it was so important to God that each family kept the inheritance He had spied out for them and given them. The laws about redeeming sold property at the year of Jubilee shows the same special interest of God in this matter. We need likewise to take seriously the fact that Israel's individual inheritance in the land looks ahead to the specific, unique inheritance each of us shall have in eternity. We are being developed in this life so that we can inherit it. God had given each family a specific inheritance and wanted that to remain within the family name; see on <em><a href='B:40 30:1'>Num 30:1</a></em> for other legislation which defends this Divine intention. The fact the legislation about female heirs is repeated twice (here and in Numbers 27) reflects the same Divine concern.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The daughters of Zelophehad did as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact God allows His children to live His truth on different levels needs to be grasped firmly by us, lest we become discouraged that others live on an apparently lower level than we do in some aspects of life. Being surrounded by ‘lower levels’ ought to inspire us to the higher levels. Zelophehad had only daughters; usually, in his context, a man would have taken concubines in order to produce sons. The record of his only having daughters is presented in the context of genealogies which show that many Israelite men had more than one wife (<em><a href='B:130 7:15'>1Ch 7:15</a></em>). But Zelophehad wasn’t dragged down by this; God inspired him to maintain the higher level which he had chosen to live by. He didn’t use the principle of Jephthah's vow. And his daughters likewise refused to be limited by their status as females, but obtained an inheritance amongst their brethren (<em><a href='B:40 27:1-7'>Num 27:1-7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to their father’s brothers’ sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of these women all feature the 'Yah' suffix. This is unusual as most of the names we read at this time at best have 'el' for God, or are just of secular meaning. All these women had accepted the revelation of the Name of Yahweh given by Moses. I say they accepted it because it is clear that many people didn’t keep their birth names but acquired other names later in their lives, reflective of their life experience and developed beliefs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Considering the low status of women at that time, we see here a commendable spirit of initiative and spiritual ambition for these women to dare ask a male dominated society to change their rules to allow them to have an inheritance. We see too how God and Moses weren’t at all anti-women, and responded positively. Note how the women were allowed to come directly to the decision makers, without needing to appoint a male representative for their case, as was common in surrounding cultures. The value of the human person is consistently seen throughout the Pentateuch. They asked about this matter <em>before</em> the land had been possessed, reflecting their strength of faith that God would fulfil His promise of giving His people the Kingdom; they imagined what it would be like there, and acted accordingly even before they got there, as if the land was already theirs in possession- just as we should. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the commandments and the ordinances which Yahweh commanded by Moses to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ordinances" is "judgments" (AV), perhaps referring to judgments expanding and further defining the law, as we have just read about the matter of female inheritance. The contrast may be with the similar comment in <em><a href='B:30 27:13'>Lev 27:13</a></em> concerning the laws given <em>at Sinai</em>. There was clearly some progressive revelation of God’s laws and covenant, and now we will come to Deuteronomy, the second law, where again there are additions, clarifications and ammendments. This reflects how the law was not a chain upon Israel, but part of a living dialogue and real relationship between Yahweh and His people. And it is even more evident under the new covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran, Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Critics have made much of the apparent contradiction between the geographical details in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> and the location details in <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>. But I suggest that the names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> are not intended to be pinned down to specific locations. There are six of them, and it was unlikely that any reader would be able to pinpoint a location in the uncharted desert from these vague places. Rather, we are given a word picture of what the desert was like. The place names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> mean (in order)&nbsp; "Ornamental", maybe referring to the appearance of sand sculptures made by the wind; "quagmire", "whiteness", "tower" and "golden". <em></em></p><p>Another take is that these six places are all the locations of various apostacies of Israel. Six is a number associated with sin. And at each of them, Moses had appealed to Israel with the words we now have in the speech transcripted in the book of Deuteronomy. The Hebrew name for the book is Debarim "These are the words...", suggesting these words were repeated often. They may indeed be the "words of this song" which Moses is described as singing to Israel- as if the whole book is "this song". Israel's failures and God's abiding grace and love is indeed a theme of this song. Deuteronomy records the sins of the generation that entered the land- at Massah (Dt. 6:16, 9:22), Horeb (Dt. 9:8–21) and at Taberah, Kibroth-hattaavah and Kadesh-barnea (Dt. 9:22,23). The context seems to indicate that it was the audience of Deuteronomy, "you", that generation and not their fathers, who had sinned at these places. Moses speaks as if he is talking with that generation when he says that the covenant was made "not with our ancestors... but with us" (Dt. 5:3). And it was "us", "you", whom he says had so sinned in the desert. They entered the land by grace.  </p><p>
The meanings of the place names as mentioned above could all have idol worship connotations. But the song of "Deuteronomy" is indeed the deuteros nomos, the second law, which is the name of the book in Russian [vtoroe zakon]. And the law as repeated here by Moses often differs to that given previously, reflecting God's adjustment of His requirements in harmony with His grace towards them. We see here that God's 'law' can change and His requirements do change as He Himself progresses in appreciation of His peoples' frailty. We see the same after the flood, where God promises Himself not to judge the earth with a flood again because He now perceives more the wickedness of the human heart.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh Barnea-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It took Israel 38 years to complete this journey, but it was only 11 days if they walked directly. Their exit from Egypt through the Red Sea represents our baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), and the wilderness journey is the prototype of our walk to God’s Kingdom. We tend to walk around in circles as Israel did, rather than perceiving our end destination clearly and keeping our focus upon it. The theme of Deuteronomy is the conviction of Israel for their sins and an appeal to faithfulness to the covenant. And so Moses begins by posing the question- How come a journey of 11 days took 40 years? "The fortieth year" is mentioned in the very next verse. The answer of course was because of Israel's sin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, Moses spoke to the children of Israel according to all that Yahweh had given him in commandment to them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was now at the end of his life; Israel stood on the borders of the promised land, which he was disallowed from entering. He now gives his swansong, perhaps in the last month or even day of his life he gave Israel the address transcripted for us as ‘Deuteronomy’, literally ‘the second (giving of the) law’. He repeats some of the laws he had previously given them, with some additional comments and clarifications, and shares with them his reflections upon their journey. In this book, therefore, we perceive a man at the point of spiritual maturity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>after he had struck Sihon the king of the Amorites who lived in Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan who lived in Ashtaroth, at Edrei- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ashtaroth was the name of one of the deities which the surrounding tribes worshipped; Edrei means "strength". The message is that the apparent strength of the idols and those who trusted in them had been overcome. And having won victories which were foretastes of those Israel would win in Canaan, Moses now urges the people to go forward in faith. In Yahweh's strength, they could overcome the idol worshipping tribes, despite their apparent strength. But Israel still kept those idols with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses began to declare this law saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"This law" suggests that the law he was now given was significantly different from the previous law that it could be spoken of as "this law". Clearly, God’s law was open to change and reinterpretation, from its very beginning. It is mere literalism and legalism which insists that a Divine law cannot be changed by Him and is therefore eternal in a literal sense.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "Yahweh our God" is used 46 times in Deuteronomy but hardly ever earlier in the law. Moses is exalting in the fact Yahweh was really their God, He was abiding by His promise to Abraham to be the God of Abraham's seed- despite their weakness.  This is what we also perceive in our spiritual maturity, that Yahweh is my very own God, and not just generic "God".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You have lived long enough in this mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They arrived at Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 19:1-2'>Exo 19:1-2</a></em>); and left it on the 20th day of the second month of the second year, so they were there nearly a year. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>turn, and take your journey and go to the hill country of the Amorites and to all the places near there, in the Arabah, in the hill country, in the lowland, in the South and by the seashore, the land of the Canaanites and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the boundary of the land promised to Abraham. But sadly Israel lacked the spiritual ambition to even go there, let alone settle and inherit the land. It may well be that we inherit the Kingdom, but not to the extent that we could do. We in this brief life are deciding the nature of how we will spend eternity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I spoke to you at that time saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jethro had advised Moses to appoint elders so that "they shall bear the burden with you" (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em>). These words recorded here were presumably said after Moses had accepted Jethro's advice. <em><a href='B:20 18:12'>Exo 18:12</a></em> says that this happened before they arrived at Sinai; whereas here we have the impression it happened afterwards. Although "at that time" can be vague. I suggest Moses is here recollecting the incidents of that broad period, but arranging them in terms of their significance and not chronologically. Or it could be that Moses accepted Jethro's advice, but not until some time later did he operationalize it. After their sin with the golden calf he may have realized more fully the weakness of the people and his own inability to personally cope with all the stress.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God has multiplied you and behold, you are this day as the stars of the sky for multitude- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He reminds them of the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham in them, although this is sandwiched in between his lament at their unspirituality (:9,12). The new covenant, which is based upon the promises to Abraham, is fulfilled only by grace. The idea is that the stars could not be counted, but we have in Numbers a very precise account of the numbers of the people. So we can assume that Moses is seeing the fulfilment as potential. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>May Yahweh the God of your fathers make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as He has promised you!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The allusion is to the blessing promised to Abraham's seed; but that is interpreted in the New Testament as the blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em> etc.). And Moses is speaking here in the context of their spiritual weakness (:9,12). The fact the people had been numbered (see the book of Numbers) showed that the promises of the seed becoming innumerable as the stars had not in fact been fully fulfilled. Moses wished for the fuller fulfilment to come; and we might detect in that wish a desire for the coming of the Messianic seed through whom alone that could happen. We can also conclude that there are degrees of fulfilment of the promises of the Kingdom, just as one star differs from another in glory, some reign over more cities than others. "Yahweh your God has multiplied you" (:10), but Moses wishes for more fulfilment. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How can I myself alone bear your encumbrance and your burden and your strife?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jethro had observed how stressed Moses was with the burdens of the people, and we get the sense that they were at constant strife amongst themselves. Moses' sense of inability to bear the effects of the sins of the people could be read as a desire for the Messianic figure who would bear those sins and their effects; which was to come to full term in the sin carrying of the Lord Jesus on the cross. For the "burden" was of sin (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>). These feelings of Moses were not of themselves to be read as frustration or weakness; for the same words are used of how God Himself was weary of bearing the "encumbrance" of His people (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 1:14'>Isa 1:14</a></em>). Moses was sharing God’s feelings. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Moses didn’t respond to this burden as he might have done; for in frustration he asks God to slay him, as he just couldn't bear the "burden" of the people (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>). God responded at that point by giving 70 Spirit endowed elders to assist Moses (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>), and we can assume this was because the sharing of the "burden" with a system of many elders (as suggested by Jethro and as described in <em><a href='B:50 1:13-16'>Deu 1:13-16</a></em>) hadn't worked. Because those men were themselves weak and unspiritual. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Strife" specifically refers to legal arguments, which were common amongst the Israelites (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:2-3'>Exo 23:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:8'>Deu 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:1'>Deu 25:1</a></em>). Paul's command not to take our brother to court is an appeal for us to not be like natural Israel in this matter.</p><p>These are the words of Jethro in Ex. 18 "the thing is too heavy for you, you are not able to do it alone". His negative opinion of Moses' capabilities ["you are not able"] was absorbed by Moses and came to be felt by Moses. Yet now Moses looks back and sees what happened; he admits this weakness, and later in this chapter speaks of how Yahweh carried the people. He is recognizing that he ought to have believed that, rather than Jethro's opinion of him. And in any case, Jethro's suggested answer to Moses' weakness never worked out in practice and was replaced by the priestly system.  I discuss on Num. 11:11 how Jethro's words about "all this people" were clearly unduly on Moses' mind at this time. He was wrongly influenced by Jethro.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take wise men of understanding and well known according to your tribes and I will make them heads over you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :12, this system didn’t really work. The 70 Spirit endowed elders had to be appointed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You answered me and said, The thing which you have spoken is good to do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people liked the idea of a lay leadership, but it didn’t really work. They were effectively rejecting the idea of direct Divine rule over them. It was the essence of their later desire for a human king and princes (<em><a href='B:350 13:10'>Hos 13:10</a></em>), which was a rejection of God’s rulership over them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties and captains of tens and officers, according to your tribes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This system didn’t really work, because Moses again felt the burden was too great for him, and the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>). But this too didn’t really work; because in <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em> we seem to read of the priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses and Aaron. </p><p>We note Moses set "wise men and known", but this contrasts with the qualifications required by Jethro: "You shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God: men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them" (Ex. 18:21). Clearly there weren't that many qualified men to be judges, and so the system didn't work. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I commanded your judges at that time, saying, Hear cases between your brothers and judge righteously between a man and his brother and the foreigner who is living with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can deduce from this that one of the frequent causes for interpersonal strife was the tension between the "mixed multitude" and the Hebrews. But the entire community was to be accepted as the Israel of God. It was refusal to accept this which led to so much strife; just as happens today, due to a like rejection of the idea of all Christian believers being members of the same body of Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God’s laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God’s ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God’s grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God’s rightness / justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I commanded you at that time all the things which you should do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses repeated to them the various laws he had received on Sinai, as recorded in the Exodus record. Or the specific reference may be to the commandments given there about how to judge. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We travelled from Horeb and went through all that great and terrible wilderness which you saw, by the way to the hill country of the Amorites, as Yahweh our God commanded us, and we came to Kadesh Barnea-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"We travelled" may mean this is Moses addressing the new generation born in the wilderness. Likewise :20, "You have come to the hill country of the Amorites". For he is speaking 40 years after Israel left Egypt and the older generation were dead. So this journey from Horeb or Sinai could suggest that the people returned to Sinai, re-entered the covenant, and then journeyed to the promised land. The itinerary of Num. 33 would allow for this. It's as if God is starting over with His people; although Moses' criticisms of that new generation are significant. We get the impression of God trying and trying to forge a covenant relationship with the objects of His love, chosen by grace. And Moses / God appreciated how awful the wilderness was, just as He appreciates the difficulty of our path to His Kingdom.  This journey was indeed through a terrible wilderness, full of aggressive snakes. It speaks of how terrible indeed is our journey after the experience of baptism / crossing the Red Sea. It was by God’s grace alone they were preserved. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I said to you, You have come to the hill country of the Amorites, which Yahweh our God gives to us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "mountain of the Amorites" could be a way of describing the land of Canaan. The following context seems to imply this because Israel send out spies into Canaan to assess how possible it was to take the land. Thereby they lacked faith in the simple statement that it was God’s will to give them the Kingdom. We can fail to accept the simple implications of the same promise to us (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>). Hence GNB summarizes :20,21: "You have now come to the hill country of the Amorites, which the LORD our God, the God of our ancestors, is giving us. Look, there it is. Go and occupy it as he commanded. Do not hesitate or be afraid". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, Yahweh your God has set the land before you; go up, take possession, as Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has spoken to you. Don’t be afraid, neither be dismayed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Let not your heart be troubled… neither let it be afraid” (<em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>) repeats Moses’ final encouragement to Israel “fear not, neither be dismayed” (<em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:29'>Deu 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:18'>Deu 7:18</a></em>). "Afraid" can carry the idea of hesitation (as GNB). If they had entered immediately, in faith in God without feeling the need to send out spies, then victory would have been certain. Quick response, "yes straight away", is part of the life of faith. This is not reckless abandon, but the way of faith. So often the way of disbelief takes refuge behind all manner of delaying tactics which the flesh suggests to us, often in the name of wisdom and prudence.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to subject the animals in Eden (the land promised to Abraham?) corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You came near to me every one of you and said, Let us send men before us that they may search the land for us and bring us word again of the way by which we must go up and the cities to which we shall come-</em></p><p>The Divine promise was that His angel would go ahead of them. But making use of this concession to weakness led them to the sin of believing the faithless spies. There is no easy way, no short cut to the Kingdom. The apparently easier ways are only harder.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sending out of the spies was a concession to human weakness; <em><a href='B:40 13:17-20'>Num 13:17-20</a></em> says that they were sent in order to find out whether the land of Canaan was a good land, and the feasibility of overcoming the people who lived there. But God had categorically given assurances on these points already; yet Israel preferred to believe the word of men than that of God. They had been told not to hesitate but immediately enter the land (see on :21). However, God made a concession to their weakness, and gave the command to send out the spies (<em><a href='B:40 13:2'>Num 13:2</a></em>). But when Israel heard their faithless tales of woe, they decided they didn’t want to inherit the Kingdom prepared for them. When we make use of concessions to human weakness, we often end up in situations of temptation which we find too strong for us. The best way is to simply go straight forward in faith in God’s word of promise rather than relying on human strength.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The thing pleased me well and I took twelve men of you, one man for every tribe-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In this time of final spiritual maturity, Moses was keenly aware of his own spiritual failings (as Paul and Jacob were in their last days). This is one of the great themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. He begins his Deuteronomy address by pointing out how grievously they had failed thirty eight years previously, when they refused to enter the good land. He reminds them how that although God had gone before them in Angelic power (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>), they had asked for their spies to go before them. And Moses admits that this fatal desire for human strength to lead them to the Kingdom "pleased me well". It seems to me that here Moses is recognizing his own failure. Perhaps he is even alluding to his weakness in wanting Jethro to go before them "instead of eyes", in place of the Angel-eyes of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 10:31-36'>Num 10:31-36</a></em>). Moses at the end was aware of his failures. And yet he also shows his thorough appreciation of the weakness of his people. Moses admits at the end that Israel’s faithless idea to send out spies “pleased me well”- when it shouldn’t have done (<em><a href='B:50 1:23'>Deu 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:32-33'>Deu 1:32-33</a></em>). He realized more and more his own failure as he got older. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They turned and went up into the hill country and came to the valley of Eshcol and spied it out- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be as GNB "as far as Eshcol". <em><a href='B:40 13:24'>Num 13:24</a></em> explains: "That place was called the valley of Eshcol because of the cluster which the children of Israel cut down from there". The Hebrew word for "spied out" in <em><a href='B:50 1:24'>Deu 1:24</a></em> also means 'to slander' (s.w. <em><a href='B:100 19:27'>2Sa 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 15:3'>Psa 15:3</a></em>). Their slander of the land was in that they misrepresented the strength of the people there, who were in fact fearful of the Israelites. They brought up an evil report of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took of the fruit of the land in their hands and brought it down to us and brought us word again, and said, It is a good land which Yahweh our God gives to us-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is a very positive perspective on what the spies said; they said that Canaan was a good land, but the inhabitants of the land were far too strong for Israel, effectively calling God a liar. Moses is very positive about Israel in Deuteronomy. It’s a sign of spiritual maturity that we impute righteousness to others and seek to focus on the positive rather than for ever dwelling on the terrible failures of God’s people.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They brought up an evil report of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), characterizing it as not "good" but "evil", as if inhabited by insuperable forces of cosmic evil. They disbelieved God’s simple statement that He was bringing them a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>), although here they accept on one level that it was true. Moses therefore repeatedly calls the land a "good land", denying their wrong idea that the land was inhabited by 'evil spirits' (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>). We see here how belief in 'evil spirits' or 'demons' militated against their faith in God and His eagerness to give His good Kingdom to His people. That continues to be His "good pleasure" (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>) toward us, but like Israel, we are tempted to disbelieve this and allow our own perceptions and empirical conclusions to lead us away from simple faith in this. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If they had accepted the power of God, then <em>whatever</em> ‘adversary’ was in the land, in whatever form, was ultimately of no real power (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:36'>Num 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>). And yet it was not God’s way to specifically tell the people that there was no such dragon lurking in the land of Canaan – instead He worked with them according to their fears, by making the earth literally open and swallow up the apostate amongst them (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>) – emphasizing that by doing this, <em>He</em> was doing “a new thing”, something that had never been done before – for there was no dragon lurking in any land able to swallow up people. And throughout the prophets it is emphasized that <em>God</em> and not any dragon swallowed up people. “The Lord (and not any dragon) was as an enemy; <em>He</em> has swallowed up Israel” (<em><a href='B:310 2:5'>Lam 2:5</a></em> and frequently in the prophets). The people of Israel who left Egypt actually failed to inherit Canaan because they believed that it was a land who swallowed up the inhabitants of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), relating this to the presence of giants in the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). As Joshua and Caleb pleaded with them, they needed to believe that whatever myths there were going around, God was greater than whatever mythical beast was there. And because they would not believe that, they failed to enter the land, which in type symbolized those who fail to attain that great salvation which God has prepared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yet you wouldn’t go up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This of course applied to a generation previous to that whom Moses was addressing at this point. There are examples of where the individual Israelite had the actions of the body of Israel in the past imputed to him (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:2'>Deu 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a></em>). This isn’t ‘guilt by association’, but rather an example of the ineffable unity of all God’s people, wherever and whenever they lived, over time as well as over space. Thus the most lonely individual can read the historical records of God’s people in the past and feel a true sense of community with the people of God, knowing that these things are his very own personal legacy and spiritual inheritance. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that. Israel had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore couldn't enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:7'>Deu 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23-24'>Deu 9:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:4'>Num 27:4</a></em>); they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father’s commandment (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:20'>Deu 21:20</a></em>). For he himself had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 20:24'>Num 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites "rebels" (<em><a href='B:40 20:10'>Num 20:10</a></em>), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different way. </p><p>Verses 26-28 form the central point of the chiastic structure of Deuteronomy 1. The essence was that they refused the offer of the Kingdom:</p><p>
A. go in and possess the land (vv. 6-8)
B. triumphs and multiplication of Israel (vv. 9-12)
C. wise leaders chosen (vv. 13-18)
D. go up and possess the land (vv. 19-21a)
E. do not fear the peoples (v. 21b)
F. request for spies (vv. 22-24)
G. good report of spies (v. 25)
H. BUT, you were not willing, you rebelled; you did not believe
(vv. 26-28) 
-G'. evil report of spies (v. 28)
- F'. rejection of the spies (v. 28)
-E'. expressed fear of the peoples (v. 28)
-D'. land is withheld, and given to others (vv. 34-40)
-C'. foolish choice by the leaders (v. 41)
-B'. defeats and decrease of Israel (vv. 42-44)
-A'. do not go in and possess the land (vv. 42, 45, 46)</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you murmured in your tents and said, Because Yahweh hated us He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>). "In your tents" reflects how God judges apparently secret conversations and thoughts, muttered in the unspoken assumption of confidentiality or within human minds. Their words as stated here were likely their thoughts rather than their actual spoken words. But God counts thoughts as spoken words. Again we have highlighted the importance of being spiritually minded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We marvel at how the passionate love of God for Israel at this time, falling in love with them and not beholding iniquity in Jacob, could be perceived now as hatred for Israel. It is a psychological classic, revealing the fickleness of the human mind when it is not firmly based in faith in God’s stated words.</p><p>The bizarre claim that "Yahweh hates us" [perhaps they never said this, but their belief system implied it] means that their lack of faith influenced their theology. This often happens. Because a man had an angry and abusive father, and refuses to break free from that, he ends up believing God is like his father. Either God is very good, or very bad. We continually face that choice. As Paul puts it, we place God in the dock. He is either true, or a liar. Dt. 7:8 and elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Moses seeks to correct them by teaching them quite simply that God loves them and doesn't hate them: "it is because the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out" (RSV). "Because He loved your fathers therefore He brought them out [of Egypt]" (Dt. 4:37) is Moses' answer to Israel's belief that it was because Yahweh hated Israel that He brought them out of Egypt (Dt. 1:27). This is the abiding challenge- do you feel God's huge love or not? And we see it above all in the cross, wherein "God so loved the world". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our heart melt, saying, ‘The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to the sky, and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ten spies perceived the people as so strong that they could never defeat them, whereas Joshua and Caleb perceived how things really were- which is how Rahab described it. The paradox is that the hearts of the Canaanites melted (<em><a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a></em>), and this is the phrase used of how the hearts of the Israelites melted (<em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>). Both sides were scared of each other; but victory could have been with Israel. They wasted so much potential. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelites were aware of the existence of unusually large people – the Zamzumin, Zumin, Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Anakim (<em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:10-11'>Deu 2:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:20-21'>Deu 2:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>). The bed of Og, King of Bashan, a Rephaim, was nine cubits long, over four meters (14 feet) – <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>. In Canaanite mythology these giants came from intermarriage between human beings and the gods; but Moses in <em><a href='B:10 6:1-22'>Gen 6:1-22</a></em> is surely addressing this myth and correcting it. He’s saying (by implication) that this didn’t happen, but rather the Godly seed and the wicked intermarried; and yes, at that time, there were giants in the earth, but they were judged and destroyed by the flood, and the implication surely was that the Israel who first heard Moses’ inspired history could take comfort that the giants they faced in Canaan would likewise be overcome by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then I said to you, Don’t dread, neither be afraid of them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact we were called to baptism therefore inspires us to believe that we really will be there in the Kingdom. This is prefigured by the way in which Moses pleaded with those who doubted in the wilderness that the fact they had been brought through the Red Sea was a guarantee that God would likewise bring them into their inheritance in Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:29-33'>Deu 1:29-33</a></em>). Yet they failed to believe this; they forgot the wonder of their Red Sea deliverance, just as we can forget the wondrous implications of our baptism, and thus lose faith in our ultimate salvation.</p><p>We note that Moses in true humility doesn't mention his amazing intercession, which resulted in the anger of God being turned away in that He did not destroy Israel immediately: "I have pardoned according to your word" (Num. 14:20). Deuteronomy is after all autobiography, and yet Moses doesn't mention some of his finest spiritual moments. They remained between him and his God. And so it should be with us. Possibly Israel never knew how much they had been saved from by Moses' private intercession. Just as only in the Kingdom will we understand how much we were saved from, and how the Lord interceded for us to save us, without our knowledge. </p><p>
This appears to be an offer of repentance, even at this very late stage. They decided not to enter Canaan, God says He will destroy them, Moses intercedes and this is changed; and now there is this offer to the condemned of a second chance. But they refuse it. They are then judged and told they will wander to death in the desert, and all too late they decide they want to be in the Kingdom. We get this by meshing this record with that in Numbers. Again we marvel at God's patient grace and desire to make it work with Israel. And this is such a theme of Deuteronomy. It was something Moses perceived in his maturity, and God's grace is something perceived likewise by all as they spiritually mature. "It's all of His grace" is a comment often heard in Christian old age facilities when you chat with the residents.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God who goes before you, He will fight for you, according to all that He did for you in Egypt before your eyes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had 'gone before' Israel through the Angel which was to lead them through the desert (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:23'>Exo 23:23</a></em>). But as with all religious but not spiritual people, they wanted a visible leader. And so when Moses apparently disappeared in the mountain, they demanded that gods be made to "go before us". It was only by grace that God responded that despite their apostacy, He would still "go before you" through the Angel (<em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>). Even the Gentile world had more faith than Israel in this; they believed that Yahweh "went before" His people in an Angel (<em><a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a></em>). But Israel themselves at the time of the golden calf didn’t believe that. Moses in his final speech therefore urges the people to believe that indeed the Angel was going before them (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and in the wilderness, where you have seen how Yahweh your God carried you as a man carries his son in all the way that you went, until you came to this place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is again a reflection of repentance by Moses. For in <em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em>, we note the alternative reading of the LXX, quoted in <em><a href='B:510 13:18'>Act 13:18</a></em>: "as a nursing father He (God) carried them in the wilderness". It was God who carried the people, but Moses had been trying to do it in his own strength, without sharing it fully with God; and so he had wrongly complained that God was unreasonably asking <em>him </em>to carry them, and in frustration and depression wanted God to kill him. We note how God is there likened to a woman, a nursing mother, of a very difficult infant child; although as God He is presented as a "father". In those days it was common for a wealthy woman to employ another woman to be a 'nursing mother' for her infant child. But God likens Himself to such a woman, or to a poor woman who couldn't afford to hire such a woman.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yet in this thing you didn’t believe Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. "In spite of this word" of grace, of a second chance; they refused to believe the word of God, preferring the word of a majority of "experts" with supposed first hand information. We see many similarities in the battle of faith today. Again Moses is quoting the words of his own condemnation, for not believing Yahweh his God (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>). Disbelief in God was the reason Israel too were barred from entering Canaan (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>). When Moses reminded them of this, he was alluding to how he was in essence no better than them, having also been rejected from entering Canaan for disbelief (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>). So we wonder in what tone of voice he reminded them of this. For he appealed to them as a fellow sinner, in this sense no better than them. And this was the potential power of his appeal.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Who went before you in the way, to seek you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night to show you by what way you should go, and in the cloud by day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tragedy was and is that God has gone ahead of us to prepare a place in His Kingdom, in our case, that 'going ahead' three days journey referring to the Lord's death and resurrection. But they chose not to believe, and to instead believe the word of 'experts', the 10 spies, and to return to Egypt.  See on <em><a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a></em>. Moses accepted Jethro's advice on the basis that he will "surely wear away" (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em>); even though his natural strength never abated (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>), and God surely would not have asked him to do the impossible. Jethro at this time seems to have seen Yahweh as only one of many gods; he was a pagan priest. He prophesied that if Moses followed his advice, "all this people shall go to their place in peace"- which they didn’t. <em><a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a></em> suggests Moses saw Jethro's knowledge of the desert as better than the Angelic " eyes" of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:3'>Pro 15:3</a></em>) who were going ahead of the camp to find a resting place (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). It seems Moses recognized his error on the last day of his life, when he admits Yahweh, not Jethro's wisdom, had led them (<em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>). Likewise Paul in his final communication comments on the way that Mark with whom he had once quarrelled was profitable to him (<em><a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a></em>).</p><p>We note that Yahweh both "went before" them and yet also "carried" them as a father (:31). He is both with us and yet also in the future with us, taking care of our future.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh heard the voice of your words and was angry and swore saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on <em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>, Moses is pointing up the similarities between himself and Israel. Yahweh was angry with him and barred him from entry to the land (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>), just as He had been angry with Israel and barred them likewise (<em><a href='B:50 1:34'>Deu 1:34</a></em>). He however became their representative, having sinned in essence as they had, but having found forgiveness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Surely not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land, which I swore to give to your fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in the Biblical record, Abraham is held up as a very real example, in whose steps all God’s people are to tread. For example, as Abraham was bidden leave Ur and go and "see" the "land" of promise which God would "give" him (<em><a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a></em>), so the spies were told to go and "see" the "land" which God had "given" them (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:8-9'>Num 32:8-9</a></em> - the same three words as in the promises to Abraham)- yet they lacked the faith of Abraham to believe that really, they could possess that land. They did "see" the land, yet they were punished by being told that they would not now "see the land" (<em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>). They saw it, but they didn’t "see" it with the eyes of Abraham. And so it can be with our vision of God’s Kingdom. Remember that Moses was the author of both Genesis and Numbers- such connections aren't incidental. Moses wished the people to see themselves as going forward in the spirit of Abraham- and hence he wrote up the Genesis record for Israel's benefit an inspiration. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it and to him I will give the land that he has trodden on, and to his children, because he has wholly followed Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua and Caleb were earlier characterized by the comment that they “wholly followed the Lord” when they went to spy out Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:11-12'>Num 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:8-9'>Jos 14:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a></em>), and urged Israel to go up and inherit it. This refers to the way that the Angel had gone ahead of them, and they faithfully followed where the Angel had gone, and believed that Israel could follow that Angel wherever it led. When Israel finally did go into the land, they were told that Joshua would ‘go before’ them, and they were to follow him and thereby inherit the land (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>). From this we see that circumstances repeat in our lives.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<em><a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a></em>). But "Kenizzite" (also <em><a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a></em>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<em><a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:720 1:13'>Jud 1:13</a></em> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. ‘Caleb’ means ‘dog’ in Hebrew, and God alludes to this in describing Caleb as His faithful follower (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The intimacy between a man and his dog can be seen between God and His man. The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although not recorded in <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>, it appears Caleb was specifically promised Hebron at that time. Caleb had explored that area as a spy (<em><a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a></em>) and taken a special liking to it. We see therefore his spiritual ambition; 'this shall one day be mine'. And we can do the same, as we in this life spy out our future inheritance.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes saying, You also shall not go in there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See&nbsp;on&nbsp;:34.<em>&nbsp;</em>Moses truly was made spiritually strong out of weakness. His faith fluctuated, until at last he came to a spiritual height at the end of his life. He was willing to give his physical and eternal life for Israel's salvation (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>). In a sense, his desire was heard. Because of the sin of a moment, caused by the provocation of the people he loved, God decreed that he could not enter the land of promise. <em>For their sakes</em> he was barred from the land; this is the&nbsp; emphasis of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:230 106:32-33'>Psa 106:32-33</a></em> says that Moses was provoked to sin because Israel angered God, and that <em>therefore</em> "it went ill with Moses for their sakes". Truly, God works through sinful man to achieve His glory. Thus Moses says that he must die “Because <em>ye</em> (plural) trespassed against me” (<em><a href='B:50 32:51'>Deu 32:51</a></em>). This all helps explain why Christ had to die, apart from the fact that he was mortal. He died the death of a sinner for our salvation, he felt all the emotions of the rejected, the full weight of God’s curse; for "cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). We have seen that Moses is a superb and accurate type of the Lord Jesus. Therefore Moses in his time of dying must grant us insight into the death of our Lord, the prophet like him (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a></em> says that the rebels in the wilderness “shall not enter into the land”, with reference to how when Moses called the people “rebels” and beat the rock, he was disallowed entry into the land. Because he called them rebels, i.e. unworthy of entry to the Kingdom, he also was treated as a rebel. If we condemn others, we likewise will be condemned. On another level, he was simply barred for disobedience; and on yet another, his prayer to the effect that he didn’t want to be in the land if his people weren’t going to be there was being answered; and on yet another and higher level, his offer to be blotted out of the book of inheritance for Israel’s sake was also being heard. Thus God works within the same incident in so many ways!</p><p>We can also conclude that Moses even at the end of his life failed to appreciate the real significance of his sin. He still chafed at the perceived injustice. He repeatedly claims that he was barred from the land because of Israel's sin- it was their fault (Dt. 1:37; 3:26; 4:21). Just as so many come to their graveplanks imperfect and still not accepting the full import of their failures, still blaming others, and repeating the internal narrative that "I'm just a victim and it wasn't fair". Right up to a man's graveplanks. But even that will not ultimately exclude Moses from final salvation. But we do observe how such internal narratives are indeed powerful and hard to shift. We reflect that Moses lived a long life for his time, 120 years, with the added blessing of no decline of his natural faculties. He surely ought to have been grateful for that. But he doesn't appear to have been, because he was so fixated on what he saw as the injustice of his not being allowed to physically enter the land- the land which in any case he would eternally inherit. We might also ponder whether he ought not to have appreciated more that his not entering the land was in fact what he had offered to God, in order that Israel might enter. For he had asked that his name be removed from the book, and Ez. 13:9  speaks of the book of all those who enter the land: "neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel". So to be blotted out from that writing or book was to not enter the land. So his request was answered, using his own failure and judgment for it. But he doesn't seem to want to see ahead to that. In all this we see a man coming to his end still spiritually imperfect and with residual failings, to the point that God was "angry" with Moses for trying to keep changing the judgment on him (Dt. 3:26)- just as there will be in each of us, and also in the personalities of those we live with in Christ.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua the son of Nun who stands before you, he shall go in there; encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This<em>&nbsp;</em>states clearly that “Joshua… he shall cause Israel to inherit (s.w. possess)” the land. Yet by the end of Joshua’s life, Israel were not inheriting the land in totality. He didn’t live up to his potential. Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em>); but he said he had (<em><a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a></em>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <em><a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a></em> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but both Joshua and Israel would not. Or we can understand that Joshua through his military victories indeed 'caused' Israel to inherit the Kingdom, but they failed to make good on his work. Exactly as in the case of his namesake, the Lord Jesus.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover your little ones, whom you said should be a prey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is a classic example of "But think of the children!" being used as an excuse for personal lack of faith and commitment. In fact it was their little ones whom they were hurting, and condemning them to wasting much of their lives wandering in the desert as a result of their parents' sins and unbelief.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And your children, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there and to them will I give it, and they shall possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What were the motives of Adam and Eve for sinning, for accepting the serpent's suggestion? Considering this can help open a window onto the question of the <em>origin</em> of Adam's sin. They were attracted by the idea of "knowing good and evil". But this phrase is elsewhere used in the Bible about how an adult 'knows good and evil', but a child can't (<em><a href='B:50 1:39'>Deu 1:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 7:16'>Isa 7:16</a></em>). Adam and Eve were immature; like children, they wished to 'grow up', they resented the restraints which their immaturity required them to be under; they wanted, just as children want, to be the all-knowing adults / mature people whom they had seen the Elohim as. As children long to escape from what they see as meaningless and onerous restrictions, whilst having no idea what this would really mean in practice and how un-free it would really be- so Adam and Eve were attracted by the idea of having the knowledge of good and evil just for the bite of the forbidden fruit. I find this a perfectly understandable explanation of the <em>motive</em> for Adam and Eve's sin. It seems a quite imaginable exercise of the freedom of choice and behaviour which God had given them. There is no hint that 'Satan made them do it', or that they were 'possessed' by some sinful spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But as for you, turn, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looks ahead to the terrible sending away of the rejected from the judgment seat at the last day. "Turn" is s.w. "turn away". They had turned away from God in their time of opportunity, and often wished to return to Egypt. And so it was appropriate for them to be told to return / turn away from the Kingdom. Condemnation is really self chosen, and will be a living out of the decisions already taken by the condemned. Truly "we make the answer now"; the essence of judgment is now. <em></em>The rejected will be "condemned with the world", simply sent back into the world they so loved, as Israel were sent back on the route to the Red Sea. And this will be what the weeping and gnashing of teeth will be all about, anger with themselves. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then you answered and said to me, We have sinned against Yahweh; we will go up and fight, according to all that Yahweh our God commanded us. Every man of you put on his weapons of war and presumed to go up into the hill country-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They recognized they had "sinned", but it was jus a passing flush of conscience, just as Saul and Pharaoh used the same phrase but without meaning in the words. Their sin was that of disbelief; and so it was inappropriate for them to now talking of going up with weapons to "fight" for entry to the land in their own strength. We must enquire whether our own 'repentance' is likewise just a passing feeling of bad conscience. For if they had perceived in what they had sinned, i.e. in the matter of faith, then they would have realized that all talk of weapons and fighting was inappropriate. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to me, Tell them, ‘Don’t go up, neither fight, for I am not among you, lest you be struck before your enemies’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had pleaded so strongly for Yahweh to "go among" them. He realized that those prayers had been answered at the time, but not ultimately. The Angel in the pillar of cloud had already turned away into the wilderness, and was not going to go up before them into Canaan. We must compare this "I am not among you" with the other scriptures which speak of Him "carrying" them as a baby (:31) and continually caring for them. So "not among you" must mean that His 'presence amongst' His people carries with it the idea of working with them in their endeavours, positively confirming them in their path. But even when He cannot do this, He has not abandonned us and still carries us, kicking and struggling, as best He can given our freewill choices and His respect for that freewill. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So I spoke to you and you didn’t listen, but you rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and were presumptuous and went up into the hill country-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These Israelites who had crossed the Red Sea (cp. our baptism) and were now rejected from God’s Kingdom, because they themselves had said they didn’t want to inherit it, now wanted more than anything else to be there. This is a major Biblical theme- that the rejected will desperately ask to be allowed in to God’s kingdom; the foolish virgins will knock on the closed door begging for it to be opened (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>), ), just as the rejected, wandering Cain lived eastward of Eden, and the barred entrance to the garden was on the east. Our ultimate destiny is to stand before the Lord wanting to enter His Kingdom with every fiber in our being. But this must be our attitude now, for then it will be too late to change anything.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Amorites who lived in that hill country came out against you and chased you, as bees do, and beat you down in Seir, even to Hormah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was as if the Israelites had knocked the bee hive, and provoked the bees to attack them; hence the Amorites chased Israel "as bees do" (<em><a href='B:50 1:44'>Deu 1:44</a></em>). The hornet had been sent ahead of Israel to as it were chase out the Amorites; but now it was as if this was reversed, and they chased the Israelites. For in their hearts they were no better than the Amorites. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You returned and wept before Yahweh; but Yahweh didn’t listen to your voice, nor gave ear to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a></em> s.w.). <em><a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a></em> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a></em>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn’t hearken to God’s voice (<em><a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a></em>) and God didn’t hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<em><a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a></em>). If God’s word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>). They "returned", i.e. repented- but only in the sense of re-thinking and wanting a changed outcome. There is no confession of sin, nor recognition that their sin consisted of unbelief. As Paul argues in 2 Cor., there is "Godly repentance" and on the other hand, the sorrow / repentance of the world which all the same leads to death. We must therefore enquire whether our repentance is sincere, or just mere regret. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those rejected by God at His judgment still desperately want to enter His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>). In that day of final judgment, all present will desperately want only one thing- to enter the Kingdom. Nothing else will matter. We should have that spirit with us now.</p><p>The laboured emphasis in Dt. 1:45 that Yahweh did not listen nor give ear must be compared with Moses' insistence in Dt. 4:7: "Who is such a great nation, to whom there is a god so near as Yahweh our God in all our calling to him?". The contrast is intentional. The tragedy is being taught- that He was so eager to hear, but their refusal to trust Him meant that He did not hear them when they begged to be allowed to enter the Kingdom / promised land. He indeed is amazingly eager to hear and respond to those who truly want to be in His Kingdom. But He doesn't hear the vain words of those who in their hearts turned back to Egypt. Beyond dispute, therefore, God's love and responsiveness is conditional. Salvation is not on half hearted demand. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you stayed in Kadesh many days, according to the days that you remained-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ecclesia in the wilderness were ‘types of us’. They were rejected from entry into the Kingdom; and when that finally sunk in, they “returned (s.w. convert, turn back) and wept before the Lord; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice” (<em><a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a></em>). The rejected will “return (s.w. convert) at evening: they make a noise like a dog (whining for acceptance), and go round about the city (cp. the foolish virgins knocking on the closed door)” (<em><a href='B:230 59:6'>Psa 59:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 59:14'>Psa 59:14</a></em>). Nobody will be indifferent at the final judgment. All will desperately seek to enter the Kingdom; and we must realize that now. Like Israel at this point, they will not want to return to Egypt (the world), but will be unable to enter the Kingdom. It will be an unbearable limbo, of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The descriptions of condemnation in figurative language all refer to this awful psychological anguish. Knowing the terror of the Lord, we are to persuade men now, to in faith go ahead and inherit the Kingdom. </p><p>Kadesh Barnea (cp. :2) is literally 'the wilderness of wandering '. The same word for wandering is used of Cain being a fugitive unable to die (Gen. 4:12), Israel wandering in the desert (Num. 32:13), the rejected outside of Zion wandering around like dogs looking for food (Ps. 59:15), Israel wander amongst the nations (Am. 9:9), the rejected wander like staggering drunks (Is. 29:9). But the pointless existence of the rejected will reflect the kind of pointless life they lived now. It is used of how Judah wandered aimlessly like blind men, from idol to idol, this passion to that (Jer. 14:10; Lam. 4:14).</p>


text:
<em>Then we turned and took our journey into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea as Yahweh spoke to me, and we circled Mount Seir many days- </em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The territory of Edom / mount Seir was within the territory promised to Abraham. But they were told to circle around the southern part of it. And for a long time, to teach them that they were not being allowed to enter the land promised to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to me saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The directions for travel were apparently given directly to Moses at this point, rather than through simply following the cloud. This may be a tacit reflection of the peoples' disobedience, or because at this critical time they had to understand very clearly that they were to move away from the border of the promised land and retrace their steps back to Egypt- which they had earlier wished to do. They were being made to realize what their desire to return to Egypt really felt like. Their condemnation was in fact only what they themselves had asked for. And that will be equally true in the judgment of the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You have circled this mountain long enough; turn to the north- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may be a reference to mount Seir, or "mountain" is being used to refer to a kingdom, in this case that of Edom (:1). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the people saying, ‘You are to pass through the border of your brothers the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir, and they will be afraid of you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em> was but a conditional promise. For in <em><a href='B:40 20:18'>Num 20:18</a></em> we learn that "Edom said to him, You shall not pass through", and they came out against them. I suggest that instead of believing these words, and the promise that the hearts of all would fear them (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>), the Israelites feared Esau- just as faithless Jacob had done. And so things were transferred the other war around. Esau was not afraid of Israel, as potentially they could have feared. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take good heed to yourselves therefore-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul's "Take heed therefore unto yourselves" (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>) is quoted from many places in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>). Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing", <em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) there would be serious apostasy. This is the spirit of his very last words, in <em><a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a></em>. it is exactly the spirit of Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>: "After my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>don’t meddle with them, for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession- </em>And yet it was within the territory promised to Abraham<em>'</em>s seed, who were now interpreted as the Israelites. We have here another recalculation of God’s purpose and intended scope of salvation with His people. The whole territory was eventually reduced to Canaan, and even that was limited- for Israel lacked the spiritual ambition to accept the full extent of God’s potential Kingdom promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall purchase food of them for money that you may eat, and you shall also buy water of them for money that you may drink’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:6'>Deu 2:6</a></em> sounds like definite prophecy: “Command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau... and they shall be afraid of you...ye shall buy meat of them for money.... ye shall also buy water of them for money”. And yet when Israel came to these people and tried to pass through, and offered them money for bread and water, they were rejected by them (<em><a href='B:40 20:16-21'>Num 20:16-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 11:17'>Jdg 11:17</a></em>). The condition- that Edom had the freedom to reject them, and Israel had the faith to believe- isn’t mentioned, but it nonetheless stood. Prophecy is an imperative to action- it isn’t just a fascinating study of how predictions have been matched with reality. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand; He has known your walking through this great wilderness; these forty years Yahweh your God has been with you and you have lacked nothing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because God ‘knew’ Israel’s journey through the wilderness, therefore they “lacked nothing”. The Hebrew language reflects certain realities about the nature of God’s ways. The common Hebrew word for 'to see', especially when used about God’s 'seeing', means also 'to provide' (<em><a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:8'>Gen 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 16:17'>1Sa 16:17</a></em>; ). What this means in practice is that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He sees and knows all things.</p><p>We must remember that the 40 years wandering were punishment for sin, it was the experience of condemnation, and serves as the basis for later Biblical pictures of the rejected. Unable to enter the Kingdom they so wanted to enter, wandering until they died. But Moses in Deuteronomy perceives that even for those condemned people, Yahweh provided and they "lacked nothing" by His grace. Dt. 8 says He ensured their clothes didn't wear out and their feet didn't swell. He ensured the condemned had comfortable footwear. How staggeringly gracious is that. We see something of God's essence here- that He cares even for the condemned. Such a far cry from the classical picture of "hell". A soldier, a man, a boxer, an army... is known by how they treat their wounded, especially their enemy. This is the measure of the man. And we see here how it is the measure of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So we passed by from our brothers the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, from the way of the Arabah from Elath and from Ezion Geber. We turned and passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The brotherhood between Jacob and Esau is stressed (:4). Perhaps this was to remind rejected Israel that they were no better than faithless Esau. And yet God later shows His awareness that Esau was indeed Jacob's brother, and condemns them for joining in the desecration of Jerusalem. We see here the way that the ties that bind in family life are respected by God over the generations.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to me, Don’t bother Moab, neither contend with them in battle, for I will not give you of his land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the children of Lot for a possession- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moab was within the territory promised to Abraham<em>'</em>s seed, who were now interpreted as the Israelites. We have here another recalculation of God’s purpose and intended scope of salvation with His people. I suggest that this statement is a 'new' decision of God. The whole territory was eventually reduced to Canaan, and even that was limited- for Israel lacked the spiritual ambition to accept the full extent of God’s potential Kingdom promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(The Emim lived there before, a people great and many and tall as the Anakim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelites were aware of the existence of unusually large people – the Zamzumin, Zumin, Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Anakim (<em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:10-11'>Deu 2:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:20-21'>Deu 2:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>). The bed of Og, King of Bashan, a Rephaim, was nine cubits long, over four meters (14 feet) – <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>. In Canaanite mythology these giants came from intermarriage between human beings and the gods; but Moses in <em><a href='B:10 6:1-22'>Gen 6:1-22</a></em> is surely addressing this myth and correcting it. He’s saying (by implication) that this didn’t happen, but rather the Godly seed and the wicked intermarried; and yes, at that time, there were giants in the earth, but they were judged and destroyed by the flood, and the implication surely was that the Israel who first heard Moses’ inspired history could take comfort that the giants they faced in Canaan would likewise be overcome by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>these also are accounted Rephaim, as the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :12, the point is that unbelieving Moab drove out these tribes, and so how much more should Israel be able to, with God on their side and the weight of the promises to Abraham behind them. But as so often happens, the unbelieving secular world have more faith, hope and brave commitment to their principles than do God’s people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Horites also lived in Seir before, but the children of Esau succeeded them, and they destroyed them from before them and lived in their place, as Israel did to the land of his possession, which Yahweh gave to them.)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This history had been arranged by God to encourage His people; if those in the unbelieving world could do this, then how much more could they with God behind them. God arranges our lives so that we sometimes encounter others who without faith in God have achieved great things in their lives- in order to inspire us that if they can do it, how much more can we. See on <em><a href='B:50 2:21'>Deu 2:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now rise up and cross over the brook Zered. We went over the brook Zered- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a tiny brook that could be walked over easily without hardly getting the feet wet. The idea is that they had been unable to cross this tiny river which was seen as the boundary of the promised land- for 38 years (:14). The tiny brook is given such significance to demonstrate to them how easy entrance into the land really was. It seems this was when the manna and water from the rock ceased (hence :28).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The days in which we came from Kadesh Barnea until we had come over the brook Zered were thirty-eight years, until all the generation of the men of war were consumed from the midst of the camp, as Yahweh swore to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em> had predicted 400 years of bondage in Egypt, a period which was increased to 430 (<em><a href='B:20 12:40-41'>Exo 12:40-41</a></em>). The "fourth generation" were to return to the land of Canaan, when the iniquity of the Amorites was "full" (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). That is exemplified in the genealogy given at <em><a href='B:20 6:16-20'>Exo 6:16-20</a></em>: (1) Levi, (2) Kohath, (3) Amram, (4) Moses. But the extra 38 years stretch this, and is an example of where time periods can be expanded or decreased. The 70 years captivity in Babylon was thus reinterpreted to 70 x 7 in <em><a href='B:340 9:1-27'>Dan 9:1-27</a></em>. It is all multi factorial, and we cannot discern all the variables; only God can. Perhaps in this case, the sin of the Amorites took a bit longer to fill up (witness the repentant attitude of Rahab, an Amorite); and the sin of Israel took longer to punish.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover the hand of Yahweh was against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "from among the host" (i.e. army), seeing the reference was to men of military age being destroyed (:16 "the men of war"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So it happened. When all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "when all the men of war dying out of the midst of the people had fallen". We get the impression of these men dying in the midst of the people, falling as warriors fall in battle, but dying when no man pursued them. <em><a href='B:230 91:5-7'>Psa 91:5-7</a></em> describes Joshua surviving this kind of destruction of that generation: "You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day; nor of the plagues that stalks in darkness, nor of the destruction that wastes at noonday. A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to me saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some texts read "to us", hence GNB "the LORD said to us". What was spoken to Moses was spoken to the people. He was fully their representative, looking ahead to the nature of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You are today to pass over Ar, the border of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be implied in <em><a href='B:40 21:13-15'>Num 21:13-15</a></em> that some significant action occurred here, perhaps even a miraculous parting of the waters similar to that at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:40 21:14'>Num 21:14</a></em>). The essence of the Red Sea deliverance continues throughout our wilderness journey, just as the cloud of water which enveloped them at the Red Sea actually continued over them throughout the journey. This was the spot where Balak and Balaam were to later meet (<em><a href='B:40 22:36'>Num 22:36</a></em>), at the border of Moab. The internal agreement of geographical details within the Bible is significant, seeing that the writers lacked maps and geographical information. The chances of a contradiction are huge- but these records are Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and when you come near to the children of Ammon, don’t bother them or contend with them, for I will not give you of the land of the children of Ammon for a possession, because I have given it to the children of Lot for a possession-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As also commanded about other areas in :5 and :9. I suggested on those verses that these areas were within the land promised to Abraham, but God was now recalculating the land intended for Israel, in accordance with their own lack of vision. Or perhaps the idea was that Israel weren’t to take anything less than the real promised land; they weren’t to seek to develop their own kingdom wherever seemed easier and more convenient to them, they weren't to be satisfied with anything less than the Kingdom intended for them. Likewise we are surrounded by temptation to have our own pseudo-Kingdom of God in this life; but we are to keep focused on the one and only true Kingdom of God which is yet to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That also is accounted a land of Rephaim. Rephaim lived there before, but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again the point is made that the Ammonites had cast out giants, and Israel should do likewise in their intended territory. They were given these encounters with those who had done so in order to encourage them that it was possible. We too are given such meetings with people and situations in our lives; people who have already done what we are intended to do.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a people great and many and tall, as the Anakim; but Yahweh destroyed them before them and they succeeded them and lived in their place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If giants weren’t a barrier to the children of Lot taking land for a possession, neither should they be for Israel; but they greatly feared them (<em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). If worldly people can achieve as they do, quitting alcoholism, achieving amazing goals... how much more can we with God on our side.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>as He did for the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir, when He destroyed the Horites from before them and they succeeded them and lived in their place to this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Esau had chosen the way of idolatry, God still worked with him and his seed in order to destroy the tribes of giants in his intended inheritance. It seems God at times works with those who are not truly His people; and this is all encouragement for us to go ahead in His strength, as His true people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the Avvim, who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, who came out of Caphtor, destroyed them and lived in their place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The point is that giants as far as Gaza had been destroyed by Edom. But Jacob's sons were to struggle to subdue Gaza; it was a continual source of Philistine opposition to them until the days of David. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rise up, take your journey and pass over the valley of the Arnon. Behold, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite king of Heshbon and his land; begin to possess it and contend with him in battle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication could be that Moses was disobedient to this and tried to avoid confrontation with him (:27). But we can’t ultimately avoid the confrontations which God at times puts in our path (:32). Moses seems to express his own weakness in his final speeches to Israel in Deuteronomy. He recalls how even towards the end of the wilderness journey, God told him to contend with Sihon in battle (<em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>); and yet Moses admits: "I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the highway, I will turn neither unto the right hand nor to the left. Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only let me pass through on my feet" (<em><a href='B:50 2:26-28'>Deu 2:26-28</a></em>). And yet God by grace to Moses hardened Sihon's heart so that there was a battle in which, again by grace, he gave Israel victory.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This day will I begin to put the dread of you and the fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole sky, who will hear the report of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), and were given fear and dread of humans, so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:2'>Jud 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :24. The Divine intention was that the victory over Sihon would put fear into the hearts of all the other tribes (:25). But it was God’s ideal intention that Sihon would have accepted the message of peace- perhaps implying peace with God, as "peace" often means in the Bible. We see here the complexity of God’s workings with men. Little surprise, therefore, that at times we fail to perceive what God is doing in our lives. Things appear to be left hanging, or events lack apparent meaning, or things could have various possible outcomes, some of which are quite contradictory when compared against each other. This offering of peace before fighting was to be typical of Israel's approach (<em><a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let me pass through your land; I will go along by the highway; I will turn neither to the right hand nor to the left-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The king's highway; they promised not to eat food from the fields nor drink water from the wells (<em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>). Such a large body of people would have required a huge amount of food and water each day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on my feet- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication would be that the water from the rock "which followed them" and the manna had ceased- as soon as they entered the land by crossing the brook Zered (:13). To drink water for money was a sign of being subservient to the seller of the water (<em><a href='B:310 5:4'>Lam 5:4</a></em>). Water was to be freely provided to travellers; Israel were being taught humility by offering to pay for it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>as the children of Esau who dwell in Seir, and the Moabites who dwell in Ar, did to me, until I shall pass over the Jordan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>says that the Edomites and Moabites sold Israel food and water as they passed through. But <em><a href='B:50 23:3-4'>Deu 23:3-4</a></em> says that the Moabites didn’t do this and were cursed because of it. Perhaps a few Moabites did do so, but Moab generally didn’t. Or perhaps the sense of <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> is that Moab and Edom did let Israel pass through without harassing them, hence GNB "All we want to do is to pass through your country... The descendants of Esau, who live in Edom, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, allowed us to pass through their territory". But Edom didn’t let Israel pass through (<em><a href='B:40 20:18'>Num 20:18</a></em>). So the point of <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> may be that Sihon was warned that Edom and Moab had been asked to do this but had not done so, and Sihon was to take warning from this, to learn from the mistakes of others. However, we should note that <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> speaks of "the children of Esau who dwell in Seir". These Edomites perhaps did let Israel pass through, whereas the Edomites in the Kadesh area didn’t. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Into the land which Yahweh our God gives us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This phrase or idea occurs many times in Deuteronomy. Moses was urging the people to believe the most basic reality- that God would really give them the promised Kingdom. And we too are likewise continually encouraged by God’s word. In this particular example, Moses quite openly tells a Gentile people about their destination, in the same way as we should be unashamed to speak of our hope of the Kingdom to unbelievers.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for Yahweh your God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as at this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words used of the hardening of Gentile heart occur in a positive context- for God also hardens or strengthens the hearts of the righteous (<em><a href='B:230 27:14'>Psa 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em> speaks of how the righteous shouldn’t have a weak or (Heb.) ‘fluid’ heart, but rather a hardened one. Clearly enough, God solidifies human attitudes, one way or the other, through the work of His Spirit upon our spirit. This is a sobering thought- for He is prepared to confirm a person in their weak thinking. But on the other hand, even the weakest basic intention towards righteousness is solidified by Him too. "Obstinate" in <em><a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a></em> is the word used when appealing for Israel and Joshua to be "of good courage" (<em><a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a></em>). The strength of heart in <em><a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a></em> was given by God’s activity upon the heart of Sihon, confirming him in the way he wanted to go, 'hardening his spirit' in that way. And so the exhortation to have a courageous of strengthened heart was an appeal to let God’s Spirit work upon their spirit, to allow themselves to be strengthened in their mind, that they might inherit the Kingdom. And that appeal comes to us too. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to me, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before you; begin to possess, that you may inherit his land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The victory against Sihon was a beginning, in that it was a guarantee of further success (:25,26). "Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jahaz" is the word for 'threshing floor', and suggests the victory was therefore a foretaste of judgment upon the tribes opposing Israel. But they could have avoided that condemnation- for peace was offered to them first (:26). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh our God delivered him up before us and we struck him and his sons and all his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would have been Israel's first battle experience. And God gave them a total victory, in order to encourage them that the opposition in Canaan would likewise crumble before them. We continually sense His hand working to educate us in the path of faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We took all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones. We left none remaining- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even on our wilderness journey, before we have possessed the Kingdom, we do have some foretastes of that Kingdom; in the same way as Israel began to possess the promised land in some limited sense whilst still in the desert. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a harder side of God, the side we'd rather not see. God almost seems to underline the hardness of it in the way He records His word; thus He emphasizes that the "little ones" of the Canaanite cities were to be killed by the sword (<em><a href='B:50 2:34'>Deu 2:34</a></em>), the male babies of the Midianites were to be killed by God’s command (<em><a href='B:40 31:17'>Num 31:17</a></em>; which was exactly what Herod ordered). The unfulfilled believer will accept the gracious side of God (which is undoubtedly the aspect more emphasized in the Bible), but refuse to really accept this other side, while passively admitting that this harder aspect of God is revealed in His word. But it's all or nothing. We either accept the self-revelation of God in the Bible, or we reject it- that's how <em>He</em> sees it. Our temptation is to think that God sees things as we see them, to think that God is merely an ideal human being. But the day of judgment will reveal otherwise (<em><a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a></em>). He is God, not man. It is not for us to set the terms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only the livestock we took for a prey to ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we had taken- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here the widely differing possible outcomes for Sihon and his people. They were offered peace with God and fellowship with His people (:26); and the opportunity to materially benefit by selling Israel a huge amount of food and water for money. They refused, and so they ended up losing their lives, families, cattle- everything. In the end, these are the choices facing those who encounter the gospel of peace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the valley, to Gilead, there was not a city too high for us; Yahweh our God delivered up all before us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Too high" recalls how earlier the people had turned away from Canaan because they thought that walled cities were impossible to conquer. These victories were to lead them towards faith that even the legendary walls of Jericho would fall before them. God likewise gently educates us in the path of faith; victory over a relatively small wall leads us to believe in victory against far taller walls which we will later encounter in life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only to the land of the children of Ammon you didn’t come near, all the side of the river Jabbok, and the cities of the hill country, and wherever Yahweh our God forbad us-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul speaks of how he had been given areas in which it was potentially possible for him to preach in, and he didn’t enter into those areas which had either already been preached in, or which were another brother’s responsibility (<em><a href='B:540 10:16'>2Co 10:16</a></em>). This seems to suggest that God does indeed look down from Heaven and as it were divide up the world amongst those who could preach in it. This is why Paul perceived that he had been ‘forbidden’ from preaching in some areas (e.g. Macedonia) and yet a door was opened to him in Achaia. This language is allusive to the way in which the Lord forbad Israel to conquer certain areas on their way to the promised land (<em><a href='B:50 2:37'>Deu 2:37</a></em>). The point is, between us, our preaching is a war of conquest for Jesus, pulling down strong holds and fortresses as Paul put it; or, as Jesus expressed it, taking the Kingdom by force, as storm troopers. </p>


text:
<em>Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan, and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei- </em><p style='margin-left:1em'>God gives us potential victories, but we still have to fight the human battle. Og lived in Ashtaroth (<em><a href='B:50 1:4'>Deu 1:4</a></em>). Ashtaroth was the name of one of the deities which the surrounding tribes worshipped; Edrei means "strength". The message is that the apparent strength of the idols and those who trusted in them had been overcome. And having won victories which were foretastes of those Israel would win in Canaan, Moses now urges the people to go forward in faith. In Yahweh's strength, they could overcome the idol worshipping tribes, despite their apparent strength. But Israel still kept those idols with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to me, Don’t fear him, for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand; you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:20 34:27'>Exo 34:27</a></em>. Moses seems to have appreciated fully his representative role when he addressed Israel: "The Lord said unto <em>me</em>... I will deliver (Og) into thy (singular) hand... so the Lord our God delivered into <em>our</em> hands Og" (<em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>). David recognized this unity between Moses and Israel; David describes both Israel and Moses as God’s chosen (<em><a href='B:230 106:5'>Psa 106:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>). All these things looked forward to our victory on account of being "in" Christ; through baptism, and then through a life lived in Him and in identity with Him.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Yahweh our God delivered into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan and all his people, and we struck him until none remained- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:2'>Jud 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn’t realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We took all his cities at that time. There was not a city which we didn’t take from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted in <em><a href='B:40 21:33'>Num 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:10'>Deu 3:10</a></em>, some of the places they had known in their wilderness journeys (cp. our life now after baptism, which is like crossing the Red Sea, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>) were revisited and taken by Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 12:4'>Jos 12:4</a></em>), and incorporated into God’s Kingdom. Perhaps situations and places we know in this life will then become eternally ours when we possess them in God’s Kingdom.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these were fortified cities with high walls, gates, and bars, besides the unwalled towns very many- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No wall was "too high" for them (<em><a href='B:50 2:36'>Deu 2:36</a></em>). This recalls how earlier the people had turned away from Canaan because they thought that walled cities were impossible to conquer. These victories were to lead them towards faith that even the legendary walls of Jericho would fall before them. God likewise gently educates us in the path of faith; victory over a relatively small wall leads us to believe in victory against far taller walls which we will later encounter in life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Utterly destroyed" is the word <em>herem</em>, used of 'devotion' to Yahweh; see on :8. Their complete destruction therefore was as if these cities were whole burnt offerings, offered to Yahweh. And yet it would see from <em><a href='B:50 2:26'>Deu 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a></em> that they all had the opportunity to accept peace with God. They refused to devote themselves to Him- and so they devoted to Him in their death. In this we see the logic of absolute devotion to Yahweh. The death of unbelieving rebels is not as it were a victory for sin; but it is all the same the glorification of God, His victory over flesh. But if we consciously choose to devote ourselves to Him, then we shall be as living sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I explained on :6 that the "utter destruction" of these cities is described in terms which present them as sacrifices. But the people were allowed to eat their animals. This recalls the&nbsp; priests eating parts of the sacrifices, and confirms the desire of God for all Israel to see themselves as a nation of priests (<em><a href='B:20 19:5-6'>Exo 19:5-6</a></em>); just as we are all a priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), not leaving spiritual work to others, but ourselves taking responsibility for it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We took the land at that time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is significant that there were mountains called Hermon in the extreme north and south of the land. It is a form of the word<em> herem</em>, the term used in :6 for the 'devotion' of the conquered land to Yahweh. Perhaps that was the idea. But we note that already, God has recalculated Israel's inheritance, bounded now by these mountains; whereas His initial intention was to give them the far wider area promised to Abraham. He likewise adjusts His hopes and expectations of His individual people, never giving up on any of us, but always seeking to lead us to at leas some inheritance in His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(The Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is an example of how some parts of the Bible which we have were written for its primary readership, and the language used reflects this (<em><a href='B:50 3:9'>Deu 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>). Thus the early church possessed the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, which have now been withdrawn; yet the New Testament records commands concerning them which were relevant only to the New Testament church. We can learn general principles from these accounts, but their existence is no proof that we can possess the gifts today. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We took all the cities of the plain, all Gilead, and all Bashan, to Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These areas were as far north as the west of the sea of Galilee; a very large area is in view.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was its length and four cubits its breadth, after the cubit of a man.)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the <em>Rephaim</em> had children like other human beings (<em><a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<em><a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a></em>). The "giants" of <em><a href='B:10 6:2-4'>Gen 6:2-4</a></em> were therefore humans and not celestial beings. The record at this point seems to have been edited, under Divine inspiration, at some later point. For the bedstead or sarcophagus of Og was now in Ammonite hands, presumably having taken it from Israel. And that was a challenge to Israel at the time- they ought to be able to take Ammon, seeing that with God’s help they had destroyed Og.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelites were aware of the existence of unusually large people – the Zamzumin, Zumin, Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Anakim (<em><a href='B:50 1:28'>Deu 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:10-11'>Deu 2:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:20-21'>Deu 2:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>). The bed of Og, King of Bashan, a Rephaim, was nine cubits long, over four meters (14 feet) – <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>. In Canaanite mythology these giants came from intermarriage between human beings and the gods; but Moses in <em><a href='B:10 6:1-22'>Gen 6:1-22</a></em> is surely addressing this myth and correcting it. He’s saying (by implication) that this didn’t happen, but rather the Godly seed and the wicked intermarried; and yes, at that time, there were giants in the earth, but they were judged and destroyed by the flood, and the implication surely was that the Israel who first heard Moses’ inspired history could take comfort that the giants they faced in Canaan would likewise be overcome by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This land we took in possession at that time: from Aroer which is by the valley of the Arnon, and half the hill country of Gilead and its cities I gave to the Reubenites and to the Gadites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the rest of Gilead and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to the half-tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, all of Bashan. (The same is called the land of Rephaim)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These are the 60 cities of "Argob" (<em><a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a></em>), which is "called the land of giants / Rephaim" (<em><a href='B:50 3:13'>Deu 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>). The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jair the son of Manasseh took all the region of Argob to the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called them, even Bashan, after his own name, Havvoth Jair, to this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The boundaries of Gad appear to in practice encroach upon that given to Manasseh (<em><a href='B:130 5:11'>1Ch 5:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:60 13:8'>Jos 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:7'>Jos 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:11'>Jos 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:25'>Jos 13:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:10-13'>Deu 3:10-13</a></em>). But the tribe of Manasseh had extended their borders northward (<em><a href='B:130 5:23'>1Ch 5:23</a></em>). The territory was given to Israel as their intended inheritance in the Kingdom of God; but God was open to some flexibility about this. We think of Caleb and Othniel asking for territory as an inheritance. And so it is with our dialogue with God’s and His eternal intentions for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I gave Gilead to Machir- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 32:39'>Num 32:39</a></em> describes how the tribes of Gilead were displaced by Machir; but <em><a href='B:50 3:15'>Deu 3:15</a></em> says that God through Moses "gave Gilead to Machir". The land they took was not therefore taken so much by their human effort, swords and bows, even though they played a role- but by the gracious gift of God. And it's the same with our inheritance of the Kingdom. We note that it was God’s intention that Israel lived permanently in the promised land. Yet their specific inheritances were related to their behaviour during the time when they took the kingdom; thus Machir received the territory which he had ethnically cleansed. And so our eternal inheritances, the nature of our eternity, will be a direct reflection of our work in this life. It's not that works can save us. Salvation itself is the gift of grace, represented by how Gilead was given to Machir by God. But it is so that the nature of our eternity will is being forged by our experiences and spiritual intentions now. We are right now shaping the nature of our eternal future. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the Reubenites and to the Gadites I gave from Gilead to the valley of the Arnon, the middle of the valley and its border, to the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em> describes this as having been "given rest". After the pattern of the Reubenites, we have been given the promised rest of the Kingdom here and now (<em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>); but we will, like them, only take possession of that inheritance after we have ensured that our brethren have received their possession (<em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>). <em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em> present a paradox: the Reubenites were given their "rest", but they would only get their "rest" once their brethren had. Those Reubenites really were symbols of us: for this passage is surely behind the reasoning of <em><a href='B:650 4:1-16'>Heb 4:1-16</a></em>, where <em>we</em> are told that <em>we</em> have entered into rest, but that we must labour if we want to enter into it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the Arabah also, and the Jordan and its border, from Chinnereth to the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, under the slopes of Pisgah eastward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These descriptions imply a birds eye awareness of the geography of the land which no man then living would have had. Clearly Moses was given Divinely inspired understanding in order to define the various allotments of the tribes at this time. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I commanded you at that time, saying Yahweh your God has given you this land to possess it; you shall pass over armed before your brothers, the children of Israel, all the men of valour- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses has just said that <em>he </em>gave Israel their land possessions (:12,13,15,16). So often we encounter this kind of thing; Moses loves to emphasize that God is working through him, that he is identified with God and merely His agent doing His work. Likewise the language of God can be applied to all His servants and supremely to His Son. This doesn’t mean that they were God in person, neither was Jesus; but it also doesn’t mean that we as individuals are meaningless because God is manifest through us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard (<em><a href='B:60 1:14'>Jos 1:14</a></em>). Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God’s protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn’t work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But your wives and your little ones and your livestock (I know that you have much livestock)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here God’s awareness of every human situation. The livestock had come from the spoil of the towns they had destroyed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shall live in your cities which I have given you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had&nbsp; to leave their women and children without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God’s protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn’t work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>until Yahweh gives rest to your brothers as to you, and they also possess the land which Yahweh your God gives them beyond the Jordan; then you shall return every man to his possession which I have given you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:60 22:2-4'>Jos 22:2-4</a></em>. He had promised Reuben and Manasseh that they could return to their possessions only when the others had possessed the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em>). This condition never happened- yet they were allowed to return. And our very salvation from death and the consequences of sin is in a sense another example of this kind of grace. Indeed, the conditions of <em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <em><a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although context is indeed important, it isn't <em>always </em>so. The New Testament writers so often quote the Old Testament <em>without</em> (apparently) attention to the context of the words they are quoting. And this is indeed the approach of the Rabbis, who tend to expound each Bible verse as a separate entity. But all the same, in seeking to understand a verse, attention should be paid to the context. Because a word or phrase means something in one context doesn't mean it <em>always</em> means this in <em>any </em>context. Thus "leaven" can be a symbol of both the Gospel and also sin. And the eagle is a symbol of several quite different enemies of Israel, as well as of God Himself. Another simple example is in <em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em>; the land "beyond Jordan" refers to land on the West of the river; but in <em><a href='B:60 9:10'>Jos 9:10</a></em> the same phrase refers to land on the East. That same phrase "beyond Jordan" means something different in different contexts. We can't always assume, therefore, that the same phrase <em>must</em> refer to the same thing wherever it occurs. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I commanded Joshua at that time saying, Your eyes have seen all that Yahweh your God has done to these two kings; so shall Yahweh do to all the kingdoms where you go- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are given some foretastes of the Kingdom of God even in this life; just as their victories in the wilderness were foretastes of the greater victories they would have against the inhabitants of Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not fear them, for Yahweh your God, He it is who fights for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Fear was therefore disbelief in God’s fighting for them. And so much wrong human behaviour arises from fear- fear of possible consequences, ever dwelling upon 'what if?' scenarios. But this is not the stuff of faith, but rather of secular life. Fear is always the antithesis of faith. God is often called an "awesome God" (<em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> etc.). The Hebrew word for "awesome" is that for 'fear' (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:1-33'>Gen 18:1-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:1-21'>Gen 15:1-21</a></em> etc.). The idea is that God’s people are to be in such fear / awe of Him that they fear / are in awe of nothing else. Hence <em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> says that Israel should "not be scared of" their enemies, because their God is "awesome", He is the one to be feared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I begged Yahweh at that time saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Begged" is s.w. "gracious" in <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>, where Moses was told that Yahweh had sovereign power to "be gracious to whom I will be gracious". He cast himself upon that grace, in asking for God to change His decision about barring Moses from entry to the land (:25). Moses knew God well enough to know that He was capable of changing His stated purposes. Indeed, Moses had persuaded God to do so with regard to Israel's destruction. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lord Yahweh, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or in earth that can do according to Your works and according to Your mighty acts?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The might of Yahweh's hand was shown through His grace in as it were forcing Israel out of Egypt, when they actually wanted to remain there and He wished to destroy them (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). They were idolatrous and had told Moses to leave them alone and let them serve the Egyptians. Yahweh's strength therefore refers to the power of His grace in continuing His program with them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was to stretch forth his hand to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part and return, not his rod; because he was manifesting the hand of Yahweh which was to deliver Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 7:5'>Exo 7:5</a></em>). The repeated references to the stretched our arm or hand of Yahweh to save His people invite us to recall this incident, and to perceive that Yahweh's hand had been manifest through the hand of Moses (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:2'>Deu 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). That stretched out, saving arm and hand of Yahweh was and is stretched out still, to save His people (<em><a href='B:110 8:42'>1Ki 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em> "as at this day") and bring about a new creation in human lives (<em><a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a></em>). For the deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God’s people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). What happened there was but the beginning of the work of God’s outstretched arm (<em><a href='B:50 3:24'>Deu 3:24</a></em>). Yet the stretched out arm / hand of God is also a figure for His judgment (<em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:4'>Isa 10:4</a></em>). His hand is at work in our lives- either to our condemnation or our salvation. And it is for us therefore to humble ourselves beneath that mighty hand (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please let me go over and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that good mountain, and Lebanon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses asked at least twice (maybe three times?) for him to be allowed to enter the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 90:1-17'>Psa 90:1-17</a></em>); but the answer was basically the same as to Paul when he asked for his thorn in the flesh to be removed: "My grace is sufficient for you". The fact Moses had been forgiven and was at one with his God was so great that his physical entering the land was irrelevant. And for Paul likewise, temporal blessings in this life are nothing compared to the grace of forgiveness which we have received (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses knew God well enough to know that He is capable of changing His stated intentions; for Moses had persuaded God not to destroy Israel as He once planned in His wrath. God is open to dialogue, He isn’t the impervious ‘Allah’ of Islam who must be merely submitted to; and this gives our prayer life real energy and zest, knowing that we’re not simply firing requests at God in the hope we might get at least some response; we can dialogue with God, wrestling in prayer over specific, concrete situations and requests.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for "spied out" in <em><a href='B:50 1:24'>Deu 1:24</a></em> also means 'to slander' (s.w. <em><a href='B:100 19:27'>2Sa 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 15:3'>Psa 15:3</a></em>). Their slander of the land was in that they misrepresented the strength of the people there, who were in fact fearful of the Israelites. They brought up an evil report of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), characterizing it as not "good" but "evil", as if inhabited by insuperable forces of cosmic evil. They disbelieved God’s simple statement that He was bringing them a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>). Moses therefore repeatedly calls the land a "good land", denying their wrong idea that the land was inhabited by 'evil spirits' (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>). We see here how belief in 'evil spirits' or 'demons' militated against their faith in God and His eagerness to give His good Kingdom to His people. That continues to be His "good pleasure" (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>) toward us, but like Israel, we are tempted to disbelieve this and allow our own perceptions and empirical conclusions to lead us away from simple faith in this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes and didn’t listen to me; and Yahweh said to me, Let it suffice you; speak no more to Me of this matter-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses says “for your sakes” several times. Although he spoke Deuteronomy in his spiritual maturity at the end of his life, it could be argued that like all of us, he died with some spiritual point of weakness; and in his case it would have been his failure to own up fully to his sin of striking the rock, still blaming it on others even at the end of his life. But Moses will be saved; without any complacency, we all the same shouldn’t think that we won’t be saved because we have weaknesses we failed to overcome, and likewise we shouldn’t assume others won’t be saved because they can’t recognize what to us is an obvious failure in their behaviour or personality.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people. Thus Jeremiah speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if <em>he</em> has married out of the faith (<em><a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a></em>; the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <em><a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a></em>). Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the very end of his life, Moses reeled off this great speech of Deuteronomy, knowing full well that he was to die without entering the land. In <em><a href='B:50 9:18'>Deu 9:18</a></em> he says that his prayer of <em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> was heard- in that he was not going to enter the land, but they would. Hence his urging of them to go ahead and enter the land- to experience what his self-sacrifice had enabled. In this we see the economy of God, and how He works even through sin. On account of Moses’ temporary rashness of speech, he was excluded- and yet by this, his prayer was heard. He was temporarily blotted out of the book, so that they might enter. Moses’ fleeting requests to enter the land must be read as a flagging from the height of devotion he reached, rather like the Lord’s request to escape the cross in Gethsemane. But ultimately he did what he intended- he gave his place in the Kingdom / land so that they might enter (although of course he will be in the future Kingdom). This is why Moses stresses on the last day of his life that he wouldn’t enter the land for Israel’s sake (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>). He saw that his sin had been worked through, and the essential reason for him not entering was because of the offer he had made. It “went ill with him for their sakes” (<em><a href='B:230 106:32'>Psa 106:32</a></em>). </p><p>We can also conclude that Moses even at the end of his life failed to appreciate the real significance of his sin. He still chafed at the perceived injustice. He repeatedly claims that he was barred from the land because of Israel's sin- it was their fault (Dt. 1:37; 3:26; 4:21). Just as so many come to their graveplanks imperfect and still not accepting the full import of their failures, still blaming others, and repeating the internal narrative that "I'm just a victim and it wasn't fair". Right up to a man's graveplanks. But even that will not ultimately exclude Moses from final salvation. But we do observe how such internal narratives are indeed powerful and hard to shift. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and see with your eyes, for you shall not go over this Jordan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to encourage him that he was indeed as Abraham, who had been bidden do the same. He like Abraham was seeing the land which he would possess eternally in the Kingdom, but not in this life. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses truly was made spiritually strong out of weakness. His faith fluctuated, until at last he came to a spiritual height at the end of his life. We have seen something of the intensity and passion of his love for Israel, to the point where he was willing to give his physical and eternal life for Israel's salvation. In a sense, his desire was heard. Because of the sin of a moment, caused by the provocation of the people he loved, God decreed that he could not enter the land of promise. For their sakes he was barred from the land; this is the emphasis of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:230 106:32-33'>Psa 106:32-33</a></em> says that Moses was provoked to sin because Israel angered God, and that therefore "it went ill with Moses for their sakes". Truly, God works through sinful man to achieve His glory. <em><a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a></em> says that the rebels in the wilderness “shall not enter into the land”, with reference to how when Moses called the people “rebels” and beat the rock, he was disallowed entry into the land. Because he called them rebels, i.e. unworthy of entry to the Kingdom, he also was treated as a rebel. If we condemn others, we likewise will be condemned. On another level, he was simply barred for disobedience; and on yet another, his prayer to the effect that he didn’t want to be in the land if his people weren’t going to be there was being answered; and on yet another and higher level, his offer to be blotted out of the book of inheritance for Israel’s sake was also being heard. Thus God works within the same incident in so many ways! Thus Moses says that he must die “Because ye (plural) trespassed against me” (<em><a href='B:50 32:51'>Deu 32:51</a></em> AV). This all helps explain why Christ had to die, apart from the fact that he was mortal. He died the death of a sinner for our salvation, he felt all the emotions of the rejected, the full weight of God’s curse; for "cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). Moses was a superb and accurate type of the Lord Jesus. Therefore Moses in his time of dying must grant us insight into the death of our Lord, the prophet like him (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). As Christ declared God’s Name just before his death (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), so did Moses (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But commission Joshua and encourage him and strengthen him, for he shall go over before this people and he shall cause them to inherit the land which you shall see- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Obstinate" in <em><a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a></em> is the word used when appealing for Israel and Joshua to be "of good courage" (<em><a href='B:50 3:28'>Deu 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a></em>). The strength of heart in <em><a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a></em> was given by God’s activity upon the heart of Sihon, confirming him in the way he wanted to go, 'hardening his spirit' in that way. And so the exhortation to have a courageous or strengthened heart was an appeal to let God’s Spirit work upon their spirit, to allow themselves to be strengthened in their mind, that they might inherit the Kingdom. And that appeal comes to us too. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So we stayed in the valley over against Beth Peor-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way Israel remained in the valley and didn’t enter the land is parallel with how Moses was not to pass over Jordan (:27). He was sharing in their condemnation. I suggest God forgave his sin, but he didn’t enter the land because he had wished to share their judgment as their representative, so that they might enter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Israel, listen to the statutes and to the ordinances which I teach you. Do them so that you may live and go in and possess the land which Yahweh, the God of your fathers gives you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He pleaded with them to "take heed to thyself" (AV- 'you' singular) that they kept God’s word and taught it to their children, so that they would enter the land (<em><a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>). These words are alluded to by Paul in <em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>, where he says that attention to the doctrine of the new covenant will likewise save us and those who hear us. Paul's last words to Timothy are in the spirit of the whole of Deuteronomy, Moses' farewell warning: love the word, be obedient to it, because this will lead you to inherit the promised land for ever.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not add to the word which I command you, neither must you take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pharaoh had insisted that nothing should be "diminished" from the quota of bricks he had set (<em><a href='B:20 5:11'>Exo 5:11</a></em>), and the same word is later used of how Israel were not to "diminish" ("take away") from obeying Yahweh's commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:2'>Deu 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em>). They were being reminded that they had changed masters when they crossed the Red Sea, just as Paul says happens when we are baptized (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a></em>). And the Red Sea crossing represented baptism into Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Like us, Israel were not radically free to do as they pleased. What happened was that they changed masters; hence the appeal to Pharaoh to let God’s people go, that they may serve Him rather than Pharaoh. We too will only find ultimate freedom through this servitude to God’s ways, and will finally emerge into the radical liberty of the children of God in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The last message of Jesus, like that of Moses, emphasizes we are not to add to nor subtract from God’s word (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:19'>Rev 22:19</a></em>). The commandments we have been given are designed by God to be a system of living which brings us to Him as He wishes. Jesus was perfect before God not just because He kept the commandments fully, but because the life elicited by that obedience produced a totally God-like person. If we omit some commandments and add others, then this will not be the end result. They are intended to synthesize together to produce a truly spiritual character and way of life. If we ignore some of them and add others then we will actually find obedience to the commandments <em>in toto </em>far more difficult. See on <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 4:2'>Deu 4:2</a></em> suggests that God had given them just the right commands "<em>that</em> you may keep" them. In other words, obedience to one command would lead to obedience to another, so that a whole way of life could be developed which was in accord with God’s laws. Successful keeping of the commandments of Christ is similar. Viewed one by one, they can seem just too much to cope with. David found that keeping God’s laws made it even easier to keep them; there was an upward spiral of conformity to God’s mind. Thus he asks God to give him any other commandments which God desired; rather than thinking 'I can't cope with all these, so no more, <em>please</em>!'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your eyes have seen what Yahweh did because of Baal Peor; for all the men who followed Baal Peor, Yahweh your God has destroyed them from the midst of you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 4:3'>Deu 4:3</a></em> implies that all who followed Baal Peor were destroyed, and only those who "were faithful" to Yahweh survived (<em><a href='B:50 4:4'>Deu 4:4</a></em>). But <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> suggests that virtually all Israel went after Baal Peor and would all have been destroyed, had not Phinehas and his men slain 24,000 of them. What Phinehas did therefore had real and absolute meaning for God- those who did follow Baal Peor were counted as if they hadn't done so. This was imputed righteousness, and looks forward to the even greater effect of the intercession of the Lord Jesus for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you who were faithful- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "you that did cleave to Yahweh". The idea of 'cleaving' to God is also a big theme of Moses in Deuteronomy (4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4,17; 28:21,60; 30:20); the only other time Moses uses the word in his writings is in <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>, concerning a man cleaving to his wife. Moses seems to have been suggesting to Israel that their covenant relationship with God meant they were <em>marrying God</em>. This was a real paradigm breaker. We may be used to such things. But against the theological background of the time, not to say the generally low level of spirituality among Israel, this was a shocking idea. It reflected the heights to which Moses had risen.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Yahweh your God are all alive this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses in his final speech in Deuteronomy uses the name "Yahweh" over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh <em>thy God</em>" or "Yahweh <em>our God</em>". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances as Yahweh my God commanded me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God’s laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God’s ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God’s grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God’s rightness / justice.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That you should do so in the midst of the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference may specifically be to the sanctuary envisioned as being built "in the midst of the land".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Keep therefore and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations who shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The preacher of the Gospel <em>is</em> the Gospel; the man is the message, just as the very same word / message was made flesh in the Lord. Israel of old were taught this. They were to keep and do the commandments of God, and <em>this</em> would be the witness of their wisdom and understanding to the nations around them- who would thereby be brought to Israel’s God (<em><a href='B:50 4:6-8'>Deu 4:6-8</a></em>). The imparting of wisdom and understanding therefore didn’t come so much through specific doctrinal exposition, as through living out those principles in daily life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For what great nation is there that has a god so near to them as Yahweh our God is whenever we call on Him?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"So near" is s.w. kinsman. God was as a kinsman to Israel. No other God was able to be this close and therefore this close to being human as Yahweh. A relative was seen in those days as one who would provide for you, redeem you, stand up for you, one you could always turn to. And God was Israel's kinsman <em>par excellence</em>. It is thrice emphasized that Israel were a "great nation" because of this closeness of their God (<em><a href='B:50 4:6-8'>Deu 4:6-8</a></em>). The Hebrew term "great nation" is at the foundation of the promises to Abraham which form the new covenant. Through the seed (the Lord Jesus) "I will make of you a great nation" (<em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>). God had earlier told Moses that He would destroy Israel and make of Moses a "great nation" (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>); but Moses had successfully pleaded with God not to do so and to continue His attempt to make Israel the intended "great nation". So all Moses' references here to Israel as a "great nation" are a reflection of his own desire that they would come to this status. But their greatness was in having God so close to them. Moses himself had known God very near to him, had spoken with God and heard God’s voice- he had experienced the 'greatness' of the relationship God intended with all His people. But Israel preferred not to hear God’s voice direct, they moved away from the possible intimacy, and preferred instead a human mediator and system of religion interposing between God and man. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus speaking of "The Angels of God in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 22:30'>Mat 22:30</a></em>) suggests that they spend a fair proportion of their time located there physically. God ‘comes near’ whenever we call upon Him (<em><a href='B:50 4:7'>Deu 4:7</a></em> RV). Perhaps this refers to an Angel literally being sent out from Heaven to come near to us in working out the answer to our prayer. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>.</p><p>The laboured emphasis in Dt. 1:45 that Yahweh did not listen nor give ear must be compared with Moses' insistence in Dt. 4:7: "Who is a great nation, to whom there is a god so near as Yahweh our God in all our calling to him?". The tragedy is being taught- that He was so eager to hear, but their refusal to trust Him meant that He did not hear them when they begged to be allowed to enter the Kingdom / promised land. He indeed is amazingly eager to hear and respond to those who truly want to be in His Kingdom. But He doesn't hear the vain words of those who in their hearts turned back to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), and David often perceives this in <em><a href='B:230 119:1-176'>Psa 119:1-176</a></em>. The effect of perfect obedience to it would elicit a character like that of the Lord Jesus, the only one to fully obey it- perfect in every way. This is one reason why His death fulfilled the law of Moses. It fulfilled the intentions of that law. And His righteousness and perfection of character is counted by grace to those of us who are in Him, despite our failures to keep Divine law. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only take heed to yourself-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take heed" runs like a refrain throughout Moses' speech. Despite such great love for Israel, Moses knew them so well that he fully appreciated that they were extremely prone to weakness. This is one of the major themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. He did not turn a blind eye to their sins; Deuteronomy is punctuated with reminders of how grievously they had sinned during their journey. Time and again he comments on how easily they will be tempted to disobey commandments. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes saw and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; therefore make them known to your children and your children’s children-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>), clearly echoing how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep” themselves in the way (<em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em> and many others; s.w. “take heed”, “observe” etc.), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is developed in <em><a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a></em>, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them, but they were to keep to the Angel. And they didn’t, and so that generation died and were not brought to the Kingdom as was potentially possible. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual relationship with the Lord, leading to Him strengthening us in the one way. This word translated “keep” is also translated “spies” in <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>; the spies were the keepers in the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is an evident allusion to the Angel-cherubim keeping the way to the tree of life. But did all Israel remain “in the way” whilst in the wilderness? Evidently not. Did the Angel fail? No. The Angel was given power and strength in order to potentially enable Israel to remain “in the way”, just as our Angels are given that same power. But Israel refused to work with the Angel; they didn’t make use of the Angel’s efforts to keep them in the way.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember the day that you stood before Yahweh your God in Horeb, when Yahweh said to me, Assemble me the people and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX uses the word <em>ekklesia</em> eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other recorded words (<em><a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:16'>Deu 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:1-3'>Deu 23:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). In his spiritual maturity in Deuteronomy, he was very aware of the "ecclesia". Responsibility for the whole family God had redeemed was a mark of his maturity. It is observable that both as a community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And that they may teach their children-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The very process of teaching or explaining something to others makes us fully conscious of the material we are teaching; and so preaching or teaching our children God’s principles enables us to be the more conscious of them and to ourselves remember them. The whole concept of evangelization is partly for our benefit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You came near and stood under the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of the sky, with darkness, cloud and thick darkness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mountain appeared to be burning with fire when Moses ascended it due to the pillar of fire standing there, appearing to reach to the "midst of Heaven", showing Heaven and earth were connected through this manifestation. The Angel led them through the wilderness, and elsewhere we read that the pillar of fire led them; the conclusion is therefore that the pillar of fire was where the Angel dwelt. Thus the Angel literally "went before" them&nbsp;as God promised it would, in the form of the pillar. Angels are elsewhere associated with pillars of fire, e.g. the one which came to Manoah, and not least in that God came down in a pillar of fire to speak to Moses. <em><a href='B:20 14:19'>Exo 14:19</a></em> conclusively shows the pillar of fire/cloud and the Angel to be identical: "the Angel of God which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud (the Shekinah glory) went from before their face, and stood behind them".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea was as in <em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX "when the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn’t happen- see on <em><a href='B:20 19:14'>Exo 19:14</a></em>. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on <em><a href='B:20 19:10'>Exo 19:10</a></em>. Instead of all of them ascending the mountain, only Moses was invited to ascend (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>). This was a departure from the initial intention. And when he got to the top, he was simply told to go down and ensure the people didn’t break through the cordon and come up the mountain as originally planned. Some of them had already touched the mountain; for the commentary of <em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em>&nbsp;is that "They could not endure (s.w. "uphold") that which was commanded- If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned". The argument in the context seems to be that Israel were disobedient even to the peripheral command not to touch the mountain. The whole narrative is the story of an intimacy with God which didn’t come about as potentially possible. And that is the sad story of so much of the Divine-human encounter.&nbsp;But Moses at the end of his life was full of grace and he doesn't remind them of all this. He focuses on just one point he wishes to make- that they saw no form, and so should make no images. Faced with people with a range of immaturities, we likewise must show grace and focus on just one or two issues specifically.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to you out of the midst of the fire-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses graciously doesn't mention that they shied away from Yahweh's appearance at that time and wanted him only to engage with Yahweh. Grace and speaking graciously about others' weaknesses is a sign of spiritual maturity, and we see it in Moses now at the end of his life.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The references to fire, smoke, furnace, earthquake and the descent of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 19:18'>Exo 19:18</a></em>) is very similar to the language of Divine judgment, especially of Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 19:28'>Gen 19:28</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:2'>Rev 9:2</a></em>). And we know from the prophets that Israel were considered by God as Sodom. We could read this as His wrath with Israel for breaking His simple commandments about not touching the mountain, and for not having sufficiently sanctified themselves (see on <em><a href='B:20 19:10'>Exo 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:14'>Exo 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:18'>Exo 19:18</a></em>). The argument of <em><a href='B:650 12:1-29'>Heb 12:1-29</a></em> appears to be that the scene here is one of condemnation of sinful man- and we have not been called to that, but to salvation by grace in the new covenant in Christ. But out of that condemnation, God earnestly wished to reach out to His people, with words of covenant salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You heard the voice of words, but you saw no form; you only heard a voice-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact they saw no similitude is sandwiched between two statements that they heard God’s word. The idea surely is that they were the image and likeness of God (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>) and God’s intention was to fashion them through His word into His moral image. Instead, they rejected this closeness to God by wanting to turn Him into a similitude, an idol, creating Him as a "likeness" of something familiar (:16-18). God’s likeness is to be found in us who are made in His physical image and transformed by His word into His moral image. He has no other likeness apart from in and through us. His closeness to us is amazing. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sinai burnt with a fire which came "from the heart of Heaven" (<em><a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a></em> RV). But the people saw nothing; all they heard was a voice. The word of God was thus visually associated with a fire coming from Heaven's heart- from the very core of God Himself. The focus was upon the voice of God’s words- hence "you saw no form; only a voice" (<em><a href='B:50 4:12'>Deu 4:12</a></em> Heb.). They 'saw' the voice in that they saw it associated with the fire that came from the heart of Heaven. This is the intensity of God speaking with us in His word. And Israel turned away from this intensity- for they asked that this experience not happen again, and that Moses instead be a mediator of God’s word to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This verse makes a clear connection between the ten commandments and the old covenant. The ten commandments include the Sabbath. That old covenant has now been replaced by the new covenant. The Lord's teachings repeat the essence of nine of the ten commandments- but not the Sabbath.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances that you might do them in the land you go over to possess- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was indeed "apt to teach". “The servant of the Lord (A very common title of Moses) must not strive (As Israel did with him (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>)) but be gentle unto all (The spirit of Moses) apt to teach (As was Moses (<em><a href='B:20 18:20'>Exo 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:5'>Deu 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:14'>Deu 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:1'>Deu 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:22'>Deu 31:22</a></em>)), patient (As was Moses), in meekness (Moses was the meekest man (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>)) instructing those that oppose themselves (at the time of Aaron and Miriam’s self-opposing rebellion) if God peradventure will give them repentance (i.e. forgiveness) (“Peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin” (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>))"- and he prayed 40 days and nights for it. And note too: <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:5'>Num 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:26'>Num 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:20'>2Ti 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:7'>Num 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 2:21'>Num 2:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:37'>Num 16:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:22'>2Ti 2:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:2'>Num 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:3'>Num 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:26'>2Ti 2:26</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:33'>Num 16:33</a></em>. This is quite something. The height of Moses’ devotion for His people, the passion of his praying, shadowing as it did the matchless intercession and self-giving of the Lord, really is our example. It isn’t just a height to be admired. It means that we will not half-heartedly ask our God to ‘be with’ brother x and sister y and the brethren in country z, as we lie half asleep in bed. This is a call to sustained, on our knees prayer and devotion to the salvation of others. For the Judaists, an appeal to be like Moses, to emulate him in teaching, was blasphemous; for they considered Moses at such a level that he could never be imitated. Yet Paul urges timid Timothy and all teachers to realistically be Moses to our audience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take therefore good heed to yourselves, for you saw no kind of form on the day that Yahweh spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing", <em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) there would be serious apostasy. This is the spirit of his very last words, in <em><a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a></em>. it is exactly the spirit of Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>: "After my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves". Paul's "Take heed therefore unto yourselves" (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>) is quoted from many places in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Form” or "likeness" is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any god, let alone Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:16-25'>Deu 4:16-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:18-19'>Isa 40:18-19</a></em>). The reason for this prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of our human personality and character.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Do not corrupt yourselves-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that it is man who is made in the form / image / likeness of God (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>). Our emphasis must be upon replicating God’s thinking in ourselves, making ourselves after His image and likeness. Rather than seeking to worship a physical image of Him in the form of an idol or animal. To do so is to corrupt both Him and the humanity which He intends to be in His image and likeness.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And make yourself an engraved image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s people are to accept Him as He is in His word, rather than try to create God in a form which seems attractive to us. As we read His word, it is not for us to say ‘I don’t think God would be like <em>that</em>, He will be like <em>this</em>, which is how I imagine He ought to be’. And it is not for us to work around those words of His which are inconvenient to us by forced, out of context interpretation, dismissing their inspiration or using other tricks of the human intellect. By doing so we are effectively making a graven image, fashioning God as we want Him to be rather than accepting Him as He is. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :16, it is humans who are made in God’s image and likeness. We are to seek to become after His spiritual, mental image and likeness. To worship physical idols or "nature" is a corruption of that intention, and in fact a devaluing of ourselves as humans and what it means to be human, made in God’s likeness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Egyptians were fond of making idols in the form of animals and the plagues had therefore been a judgment upon Egypt's gods. Yet Israel had taken those gods with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Do not lift up your eyes to the sky and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the sky, be drawn away and worship them and serve them, which Yahweh your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole sky-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This warns Israel not to worship the stars, because God has shared them with “all the peoples under the whole heaven” (RV)- but He Has shared Himself only with Israel, and brought them out from the world to be separated unto Him (:20). Because of this unique and awesome entrance into their lives by God, they ought to have naturally separated themselves from any other god. The positive separation <em>unto</em> naturally resulted in the negative separation <em>from</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Yahweh has taken you and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to Him a people of inheritance, right up to this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the eternity of the Kingdom, we will be God’s inheritance (<em><a href='B:50 4:20'>Deu 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:29'>Deu 9:29</a></em>), and He will be ours (<em><a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a></em>). This mutuality between God and His people is a common theme. "The ashes of the furnace" which created the plague of boils (<em><a href='B:20 9:8'>Exo 9:8</a></em>) may have been a reference to the furnaces used for the brick kilns, where the Hebrews were made to slave away making bricks. The result of this abuse was to come down upon the Egyptians as boils (<em><a href='B:20 9:9'>Exo 9:9</a></em>). Egypt is therefore likened to a furnace of oppression to Israel (<em><a href='B:50 4:20'>Deu 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 11:4'>Jer 11:4</a></em>). The Lord describes condemnation as being cast into a furnace (<em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>). He is not speaking literally, but rather using the figure of Egypt as a furnace- for the condemnation of the unworthy in God’s Israel is to be sent back into Egypt / the world (<em><a href='B:350 8:13'>Hos 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:3'>Hos 9:3</a></em>), and share their judgments. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Furthermore, Yahweh was angry with me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on <em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>, Moses is pointing up the similarities between himself and Israel. Yahweh was angry with him and barred him from entry to the land (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>), just as He had been angry with Israel and barred them likewise (<em><a href='B:50 1:34'>Deu 1:34</a></em>). He however became their representative, having sinned in essence as they had, but having found forgiveness. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For your sakes and swore that I should not go over the Jordan, and that I should not go in to that good land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>. The love of Moses for Israel is reflected in his final address to them in Deuteronomy, his knowledge of them, his sensitivity to their weakness, his constant desire for them to be spiritually strong and to enter the land; God’s respect of him at the end of his life, shown in his burial and in subsequent comments about him. Although Moses is at a spiritual peak in Deuteronomy, he does repeatedly comment- almost under his breath as it were- that he was not going to enter the land “for your sakes”, and that he was thereby bearing the anger of God against Israel (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em> etc.). Whilst in a sense this was true, God’s anger was against Moses personally regarding the sin of striking the rock. Given that “that rock was Christ”, his inappropriate striking of it was some kind of symbolic crucifixion of Christ. He was in the wrong- the record of the event makes that clear. And yet at the end of his life, Moses is blaming Israel for his sin and his exclusion from the land. Perhaps he was indicating his understanding of how his prayer to not enter the land for their sakes was being answered. On the other hand, one could argue that even on the last day of his life, Moses never came to terms with that sin, sought to justify himself in the eyes of Israel, to shift the blame… and yet even then, God’s grace was big enough to accept him. Quite how to score Moses on this point will always be debatable, but the exercise certainly provokes a lot of introspection about our own attitudes to public confession of sin, both in ourselves and in others, and its relationship to God’s ultimate acceptance of a person.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:50 9:18'>Deu 9:18</a></em> he says that his prayer of <em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> was heard- in that he was not going to enter the land, but they would. Hence his urging of them to go ahead and enter the land- to experience what his self-sacrifice had enabled. In this we see the economy of God, and how He works even through sin. Moses truly was made spiritually strong out of weakness. His faith fluctuated, until at last he came to a spiritual height at the end of his life. We have seen something of the intensity and passion of his love for Israel, to the point where he was willing to give his physical and eternal life for Israel's salvation. In a sense, his desire was heard. Because of the sin of a moment, caused by the provocation of the people he loved, God decreed that he could not enter the land of promise. For their sakes he was barred from the land; this is the emphasis of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:230 106:32-33'>Psa 106:32-33</a></em> says that Moses was provoked to sin because Israel angered God, and that therefore "it went ill with Moses for their sakes". Truly, God works through sinful man to achieve His glory. <em><a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a></em> says that the rebels in the wilderness “shall not enter into the land”, with reference to how when Moses called the people “rebels” and beat the rock, he was disallowed entry into the land. Because he called them rebels, i.e. unworthy of entry to the Kingdom, he also was treated as a rebel. If we condemn others, we likewise will be condemned. On another level, he was simply barred for disobedience; and on yet another, his prayer to the effect that he didn’t want to be in the land if his people weren’t going to be there was being answered; and on yet another and higher level, his offer to be blotted out of the book of inheritance for Israel’s sake was also being heard. Thus God works within the same incident in so many ways! Thus Moses says that he must die “Because ye (plural) trespassed against me” (<em><a href='B:50 32:51'>Deu 32:51</a></em> AV). This all helps explain why Christ had to die, apart from the fact that he was mortal. He died the death of a sinner for our salvation, he felt all the emotions of the rejected, the full weight of God’s curse; for "cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). Moses was a superb and accurate type of the Lord Jesus. Therefore Moses in his time of dying must grant us insight into the death of our Lord, the prophet like him (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). As Christ declared God’s Name just before his death (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), so did Moses (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX). </p><p>We can also conclude that Moses even at the end of his life failed to appreciate the real significance of his sin. He still chafed at the perceived injustice. He repeatedly claims that he was barred from the land because of Israel's sin- it was their fault (Dt. 1:37; 3:26; 4:21). Just as so many come to their graveplanks imperfect and still not accepting the full import of their failures, still blaming others, and repeating the internal narrative that "I'm just a victim and it wasn't fair". Right up to a man's graveplanks. But even that will not ultimately exclude Moses from final salvation. But we do observe how such internal narratives are indeed powerful and hard to shift. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but I must die in this land. I must not go over the Jordan; but you shall go over and possess- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn’t possess it fully. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That good land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for "spied out" in <em><a href='B:50 1:24'>Deu 1:24</a></em> also means 'to slander' (s.w. <em><a href='B:100 19:27'>2Sa 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 15:3'>Psa 15:3</a></em>). Their slander of the land was in that they misrepresented the strength of the people there, who were in fact fearful of the Israelites. They brought up an evil report of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), characterizing it as not "good" but "evil", as if inhabited by insuperable forces of cosmic evil. They disbelieved God’s simple statement that He was bringing them a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>). Moses therefore repeatedly calls the land a "good land", denying their wrong idea that the land was inhabited by 'evil spirits' (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>). We see here how belief in 'evil spirits' or 'demons' militated against their faith in God and His eagerness to give His good Kingdom to His people. That continues to be His "good pleasure" (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>) toward us, but like Israel, we are tempted to disbelieve this and allow our own perceptions and empirical conclusions to lead us away from simple faith in this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of Yahweh your God which He made with you, and make you an engraved image in the form of anything which Yahweh your God has forbidden you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" (AV- i.e. you singular), or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is quoted about us in <em><a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a></em> with a slight change of pronoun; “<em>Your</em> (Israel’s) God” becomes “<em>our</em> God”. The God of the Christian believers is the Old Testament Yahweh God of Israel; in this we see the significance of studying the accounts of how our God revealed Himself in the Old Testament.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you father children and children’s children and you have been long in the land and corrupt yourselves and make an engraved image in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, to provoke Him to anger-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God can be grieved (s.w. 'provoke to anger'). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land you go over the Jordan to possess; you shall not prolong your days on it, but shall utterly be destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Always in the OT, “I say unto you this day" was used as a Hebraism to bring home the utter solemnity of some great truth (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:39'>Deu 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:19'>Deu 8:19</a></em>). The Lord used this idiom in assuring the thief on the cross that he could solemnly assure him, that he would share His Kingdom with Him. It's worth noting that the comma is placed after 'today' in&nbsp; the Curetonian Syriac version of the New Testament; the Syriac versions would reflect better the original Aramaic in which the Lord likely spoke. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will scatter you among the nations and you shall be left few in number among the nations where Yahweh shall lead you away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were indeed disobedient and were scattered throughout the provinces of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. “There you will serve gods...” (:28) - but the prophets (especially Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) condemned them for this. There is a downward spiral in spirituality, whereby if people choose to go to false gods, the true God confirms them in their delusions.This is why followers of false religions are so totally convinced they are right, everything makes sense to them within the theological system they adopt- because God confirms them in the delusion they have chosen (<em><a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Left few in number" could suggest they were few in number at that time, but would remain like this instead of multiplying. This affects how we read the "thousands" with which they apparently left Egypt; see on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Condemnation is always essentially the choice made by the condemned themselves. The gods of the nations were nearly always understood as local gods, which had power in their homeland. Yet Israel worshipped those gods. By doing so, they effectively identified themselves with those lands. And so they were sent to live in those lands, and as it were properly worship those gods, on their home territories. In this sense the Lord Jesus could say that He judges / condemns no man; condemnation is self inflicted, and a reflection of the dominant desire of the condemned person. And likewise, all who truly love the Lord's appearing and the things of His Kingdom will be accepted into it (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But from there you shall seek Yahweh your God and you will find Him, when you search after Him with all your heart and with all your soul-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We're wrong to think that God passionlessly waits for us to repent or pray to Him, and then He will forgive or act for us. He loves us, simply so; and with all love's manipulation of circumstances and proactive taking of the initiative, He seeks to pour out His love upon us. Thus repentance itself is a gift which God gives and is not totally upon human initiative (<em><a href='B:50 4:29-31'>Deu 4:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The judgment will be the time when God 'requires' of us our behaviour. And yet the Hebrew word is used about our enquiring / searching to God in prayer now (<em><a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:15'>Exo 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:29'>Deu 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 22:5'>1Ki 22:5</a></em>), as well as His 'requiring' / searching of us at the last day (<em><a href='B:50 18:19'>Deu 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:23'>Jos 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 3:20'>Eze 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:8'>Eze 33:8</a></em>). There is a mutuality between a man and his God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in Deuteronomy, Moses speaks of the state of the <em>heart</em>. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This was perhaps his greatest wish as he faced death; that God’s people should develop a spiritual <em>mind</em> and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. He saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? There is so much in our modern world which is mind-corrupting. Perceiving the importance of spiritual mindedness is a sign of our spiritual maturity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you are oppressed and all these things have come on you, in the latter days you shall return to Yahweh your God and listen to His voice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is one of many indications that just before Christ returns, at least some Jews will repent and turn to the Father and His Son in truth. For His voice is supremely in the word made flesh, His Son. We should therefore always given special attention to witnessing the Gospel to Jewish people, because their repentance will be one factor which brings about Christ’s return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for Yahweh your God is a merciful God; He will not fail you neither destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Corrupted" in <em><a href='B:50 4:16'>Deu 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:25'>Deu 4:25</a></em> is s.w. "'destroyed" here. All judgment is finally self inflicted. Sin is its own judgment; hence the Hebrew word for "corruption" also means "destruction", for moral corruption is its own destruction. God Himself does judge, but always prefers men to judge themselves.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To forsake Yahweh was to break covenant with Him (<em><a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a></em>). Israel did forsake Yahweh (<em><a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a></em>), but still He remained faithful to them, as Hosea remained faithful to Gomer despite her infidelity to their marriage covenant. Instead of forsaking them as He threatened, He instead by grace sent them saviours, judges, looking forward to His grace in sending the Lord Jesus, Yah's salvation. Consider the following examples, of where God says He won't do something; and then does: <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em> cp. 34:9; <em><a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em> cp. 31:17. God is therefore open to change, because of His basic love and pity being such a major component of His basic personality.</p>


