# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why have you made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in to this evil place? It is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their idea was that the desert was no place to plant seed. The idea may have been that they had camped for some time where they had planted seeds. But now they were in a desolate area. God’s later comment upon this is "Have I been a wilderness to Israel?" (<em><a href='B:300 2:31'>Jer 2:31</a></em>). They totally ignored God’s hand and leadership in all this, taking out their anger with God upon His representatives- as happens to this day.&nbsp; </p><p>The answer was obviously 'Because you sinned'. But they totally discounted this, as many do today. They were bitter at the consequence of sin. Living in a fallen world becomes so depressing and bitter until we accept the huge significance of human sin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and fell on their faces, and the glory of Yahweh appeared to them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When faced with unreasonable criticism and aggression, even from those amongst the people of God, our response should be not to argue back immediately, but take the situation to God. Moses' humility is surely revealed here; for he doesn't make the obvious responses to them which he could have made. Instead he falls on his face in appeal to God not to slay them. This points up the way that his sin in hitting the rock was indeed a very momentary and uncharacteristic failure. Although one take away from this sad narrative is that such failures are still sin and liable to judgment. "He just snapped..." is not in fact an excuse for sin, regardless of the provocation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The invitation to take the rod naturally suggested that Moses was to use it as previously commanded. But this was a test as to whether Moses would serve God on the basis of careful obedience to His word; or upon the assumption that he would just repeat his previous obedience in a relatively mindless way. And he failed it. This incident therefore has powerful relevance to those who regularly attend church meetings and tend to go through the same spiritual patterns in their lives, repeating what they did previously. The command for Moses to take the rod which budded meant that he entered into the most holy, when this was only for Aaron to do once / year at the day of Atonement. So Moses was being encouraged to pay careful attention to God’s specific words and act only upon them. The rod was the symbol that Moses and Aaron were indeed chosen by God.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the rod and assemble the congregation. you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note carefully the process of failure here. Moses and Aaron were told to <em>both</em> speak to the rock, and this would result in Moses personally bringing forth water: “Gather thou (singular) the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye (plural- both of them) unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou (Moses personally) shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink” (<em><a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a></em>). But Moses seems to have dismissed Aaron’s intended involvement and assumed that he alone could bring the water out with his rod. Yet Aaron was also condemned for this incident- presumably because he didn’t speak to the rock but just let Moses smite the rock with his silence meaning consent. </p><p>Moses was asked to throw down wood into the waters (Ex. 15:25). His staff, also made of wood, had to be lifted up in order to open the Red Sea. He was being taught careful obedience to commandment about wood, and yet he failed to learn- for the sin which excluded him from entering Canaan was that of not obeying commandment about his rod / the wood. He was told to take the rod in his hand but not use it. This may explain the apparent harshness of God's condemnation of him over this incident.</p><p>"Speak to the rock" can as well be translated "speak upon the rock", or near the rock. The same construction is in the following: "Before the rock" (:10), "upon the rock" (Jud. 6:20; 7:25; 2 Sam. 21:10), "against the rock" (Ps. 137:9). It could be that Moses was called to address the complaining Israel, perhaps "before the rock", with an assurance of grace. He does address them before the rock (:10 s.w. "to the rock"). But not with words of grace. And water would have flowed out as he did so. Instead he gave his own speech of condemnation of Israel, and hit the rock. 
</p><p>
We note Moses was asked to do five things:  “take the staff,” “assemble the congregation,” “speak to the rock,” “bring forth water” and “let the congregation drink”. In response, Moses (a) took the staff (b) assembled the people (c) spoke to the people (d) lifted up his hand (e) hit the rock twice. Instead of speaking to the rock he spoke to the people. It could be argued that he was being asked to provide them with water, by grace. Despite their nasty accusations and complaints. But instead of showing that intended grace, he addresses the people as "rebels"; and he raised his hand in defiance, defiance of God's grace. In this way he failed to sanctify God in that he refused to reflect His grace to the people; and he disbelieved God in that he disbelieved that God could show such grace to the people. </p><p>
Moses was asked to throw down wood into the waters (Ex. 15:25). His staff, also made of wood, had to be lifted up in order to open the Red Sea. He was being taught careful obedience to commandment about wood, and yet he failed to learn- for the sin which excluded him from entering Canaan was that of not obeying commandment about his rod / the wood. He was told to take the rod in his hand but not use it. This may explain the apparent harshness of God's condemnation of him over this incident.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the rod from before Yahweh as He commanded him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rod being "before Yahweh" refers back to how Aaron's rod that budded was placed before Yahweh (Num 17:22). So it was that rod which was used, and abused. The symbol of God's choice of Aaron was abused by Moses as if it had power of itself. We note that "his [Moses'] rod" in Num. 20:11 is lacking in the LXX and Vulgate, rendering simply "the rod". They used this symbolic piece of wood as if it had power in itself, just as some consider the physical wood of the Lord's cross to have some magic power. And they were condemned for doing so. They were asked to hold the rod because it was the symbol of warning to a rebellious people. </p><p> The first time Moses struck the rock, he was standing in the presence of the Angel- "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock" (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>), but it would seem that the second time Moses took the rod "from before the LORD (the Angel)" (<em><a href='B:40 20:9'>Num 20:9</a></em>) and went alone to the rock; this lack of Angelic presence perhaps accounts for his rashness at this time.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul in <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em> alludes to a Jewish tradition that the rock followed Israel through the wilderness, always giving water. Some traditions suggest Miriam carried it; the supposed “Rock of Moses” is a piece of rock which could have been carried. Paul emphasizes that the point of his allusion is that the water which they drank of represented “Christ”, the strength which comes from Him as the smitten rock; he alludes to the tradition just as he quotes pagan poets and makes a point out of their words (<em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>). The Bible often features this kind of thing; and God isn’t so paranoiac and apologetic that He as it were has to footnote such things with a comment that “of course, this isn’t true”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the rock following them likely means that the water from the smitten rock followed them. Israel's complaint that they had no water was therefore really complaining that they didn’t have any more water than that. Moses' failure to believe that from another rock could flow water (which is one possible reading of :10) was therefore indeed a terrible lack of faith (:12). For there was every evidence, provided 24/7, that God could provide water from a rock. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock and he said to them, Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring water out of this rock for you?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that, and compare it with the tone of voice he used when at the end of his life reminding them of how they had been rebellious. 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 Moses 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. He saw the whole congregation as no better than the rebels who had perished previously, 15000 of them, in the rebellion of Numbers 16 which Israel were now in essence repeating.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essence of the sin was lack of faith (:12), not simply striking the rock; for only Moses struck it, but Aaron was equally punished. The emphasis is perhaps upon "this rock" rather than "we". As if they didn’t believe that from that rock could possibly flow water, although God had worked in that way before. Perhaps this is why he struck it once, and no water came, as if in demonstration of his point. And he struck it again- and God answered a fool according to his folly, and God made water come out of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read this as Moses not sanctifying God (:12) by speaking as if he could bring the water out of the rock alone, in his own strength. The people had just fired a series of questions at him, asking why <em>he</em> had brought them out of Egypt and led them through the desert. The obvious answer to their questions was that it was not Moses who had done these things, but God working through Moses. They failed to see God manifest in Moses, and looked at him merely as acting in his own strength. And it could be that in this moment, he came to see himself as they saw him. He sinned terribly because he allowed others' perceptions of him to become his own self perception. And we can take that lesson to ourselves in every generation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice: and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses lifted his hand and then struck the rock. The action of lifting the hand could be in defiance. He was 'high handed'. This was the sin of high handed presumption (s.w.), but still he was saved from it ultimately. Despite his disobedience, the grace of it all was that water came out- and abundantly! Moses unfaithfulness and lack of grace contrasts with Yahweh's grace and faithfulness in the face of disobedience. Although we note that unlike at Rephidim 38 years earlier this was a one off. In Num. 21 we find the people again complaining about lack of water.</p><p>Moses had previously struck the rock and water came out (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>), but this time he was asked to speak to it- yet instead, he struck it. He was perhaps acting on autopilot, assuming things would repeat as they did before; he had used the rod in other miracles involving water, both in Egypt and in the desert (Num. 7:20; 14:16). Just as we can. And God counted this as a major sin. We think of how David's battle plans in 2 Sam. 5:19-23 were subtly altered to test his obedience. He was told to "go up" against the Philistines by frontal assault and he successfully did so. But in the second battle he was told not to "go up" but to wait until he heard the sound of the Angels above him, and to attack from behind. See on :10. Smiting the rock, which represented Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>), could be understood as effectively crucifying Him, twice over (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). Perhaps he became over familiar with God, assuming he could do as he wished without careful respect for God’s word. He failed to believe in the power of the spoken word (:12), effectively he rebelled against the commandment (<em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>); he assumed that detailed obedience wasn’t necessary to God’s commandment; and he gave the impression that he rather than God was giving the water (“shall <em>we</em> bring you water...?”, :10). One angry sentence can reveal so much about our attitudes. Moses had earlier asked that he be excluded from entering the land so that Israel might enter (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> - see note there). In a strange way, that prayer was heard. Although Moses sinned, repeatedly we read that he didn’t himself 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>). They are blamed for provoking him to speak poorly (<em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>). God works through our sins in a strange way; and what we ask for in prayer, we have a way of receiving, in essence. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses 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. For <em>their sakes</em> 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 by grace works through sinful man to achieve His glory. 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>). This all helps explain why the Lord Jesus 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 hangs on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). 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>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact Aaron was also equally punished indicates that the essence of the sin was not striking the rock. For only Moses struck the rock. It was lack of faith (:12). God sees through to the essence of sin.&nbsp; </p><p>Aaron inwardly assented to the language and conduct with which he was outwardly associated and was judged for it. And that is a challenge to good men who do nothing but go along with what they may say they disagree with. We note that "Speak [you both speak] to the rock" is in the plural; both of them were to speak to the rock. "Take the rod... assemble the people" are addressed to a singular individual, but to speak to the rock was a command to both Moses and Aaron. Aaron said nothing, and Moses instead spoke to the people not to the rock. We see here the weight of sins of omission.</p><p>
Why did Moses strike the rock twice? Presumably if water had come out of the rock the first time, he wouldn't have needed to strike a second time. Presumably nothing, or very little, came out after the first strike. This surely was God trying to restrain him. But he drove right over the red light and insisted in more disobedience by hitting it again. And God heard that disobedience and gave water from the rock. Perhaps this is how Yahweh sanctified Himself in this incident, through glorifying His grace.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn’t believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 in <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>, 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 tine of voice he reminded them of thIsa. 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><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Moses didn’t believe in God as he should have done, God still did the miracle. He is prepared to accept even imperfect faith. For Moses' faith slips for a moment; his spirit is provoked by Israel, so that he speaks unadvisedly with his lips and is therefore barred from entering the land (although maybe such an apparently temporary slip was the reflection of deeper problems?). Yet it does seem uncharacteristic, a tragic slip down the graph of ever rising spirituality. There must have almost been tears in Heaven. Being easily provoked was one of Moses' characteristics; consider how he <em>turned himself</em> and stormed out from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:6'>Exo 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>); how his anger waxed hot when he returned from the mount, how he went out from Pharaoh in great anger, how he first of all feared the wrath of Pharaoh and then stopped fearing it; how Moses was "very wroth" at Israel's suggestion that he was appropriating the sacrifices for himself; how he was "angry" with Eleazer (<em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:16-17'>Lev 10:16-17</a></em>). This temperament explains his swings of faith. Was the Lord Jesus likewise afflicted?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses doubtless had faith of a sort to hit the rock, having gathered all Israel there, and expect water to come out. Indeed, the water did come out, the miracle happened… but God’s ultimate comment was that in that event, Moses actually did not have faith. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals a submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because ye believed me not... ye shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books.&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>.</p><p>We may feel the judgment was extreme, for a few rash words uttered under huge provocation (Ps. 106:32,33). But studded throughout the Bible are examples of where apparently heavy judgments are given for what we might consider minor infringements: Eating the fruit when told it was OK to do so by the serpent, the disobedient prophet who was told by another prophet he could eat and drink when God had told him not to, Moses and Aaron barred from entering the land because Moses hit the rock as he did previously, rather than speaking to it [and Aaron "only" just said nothing], Ananias and Sapphira for exaggerating their generosity. The rest of the Biblical narrative is full of God tolerating a huge amount of sin. But these incidents are scattered throughout the Bible to remind us of the seriousness of sin. We commit these kinds of sins, of omission, of silence when we should speak, of being misled... multiple times / day. </p><p>  
 God led the condemned generation "to see what was in their hearts"- why do that, if they were merely being led to their deaths? Is there not a hint that God was looking at any possible heart change that might enable Him to forgive and eternally save them, even if they had to die in the wilderness? For Moses too couldn't see nor enter the promised land, and yet will be saved. He sinned at Kadesh (Num. 20:1), exactly where Israel did (Num. 13:25). Both Moses and Israel are charged with the sins of "disbelief" (Num. 14:11; 20:12) and "rebellion" (Num. 14:9; 20:24) and are banned from entering the land. But Moses had hope of resurrection to eternal inheritance. They were to see in Moses a possible pattern for themselves. The ten unfaithful spies were smitten with death; but the condemned generation were kept alive. Whilst there is life there's hope, and surely man is always capable of repentance whilst still alive. And I suggest God was nudging even that condemned generation towards that. He had sworn they would die in the wilderness, but still they could be resurrected to eternal inheritance of the land if they repented.  </p><p> 
What is the element of disbelief, of lacking faith? The sin was not so much in technical disobedience to commands [to strike the rock rather than speaking to it]. If this were all God were concerned with, then He would've punished only Moses and not Aaron. For only Moses actually hit the rock rather than speaking to it. Although we could argue that passive 'going along' with sin, as Aaron did, is highly culpable. We think of the holocaust, and above all the decision to crucify the Lord. Ultimately, sin is unbelief, not trusting in God's grace to save. The sin in Eden was essentially disbelief rather than merely an act of disobedience. Perhaps his calling them "rebels" suggested his disbelief in God's gracious plan to save them through resurrection at the last day, even though they must die in the desert. And so Moses was appropriately punished. He too was to die in the desert, to be resurrected by the grace which he was unwilling to believe in for the condemned generation. Dt. 1:37 has Moses recalling how he was not to enter the land because of his failure towards the end of the 40 years, but he inserts that memory in the midst of recounting how Israel had been banned from entering the land at the start of the 40 years. Both incidents occurred at Kadesh. The point is that Moses was experiencing their condemnation although he would be saved out of it. Although the Lord didn't personally sin, He also experienced the condemnation of being the sinner who hung upon a tree, and felt forsaken by God as do those separated from God.
</p><p> 
It is this disbelief in God's grace which failed to sanctify God. Israel didn't enter the land because they disbelieved (Num. 14:3), and so now Moses and Aaron will not because they disbelieved that the people could still be ultimately saved. The entire Israelite congregation at this time were still seen as without sin by God, according to what we will soon read in Balaam's speeches. To deny Him this grace, to consider Him an angry God who lashes out at sinners without any grace nor intention of ultimate salvation... This is to make Him common and to fail to honour His sanctity, the holiness of His grace. The word which they rebelled against in :24 was therefore not just the command to speak to the rock, but the whole word or plan of salvation of the lost generation. 2 Chron. 20:21 praises God for the beauty of His holiness and His hesed, His grace to save His people. Ps. 138:2 urges us to praise God in His holiness for His mercy / hesed / grace. So to disbelieve that grace is to as it were un holy God, to not sanctify Him. What makes Yahweh uniquely separate / holy from other gods is His amazing grace. The mistake is often made of thinking that allowing His grace to other sinners is to somehow infringe or desecrate His holiness. But by perceiving His grace we are actually appreciating and glorifying His holiness. His Name is holy as we are often reminded, but His Name as declared to Moses was all about salvation by grace. </p><p> 
We note that three times, Moses claims at the end of his life that his ban from entering Canaan was the fault of the people (Dt. 1:37-40; 3:23-29; 4:21-24). And yet the record three times states it was his fault (Num. 20:1–13, 27:12–14; Dt. 32:48–52). We conclude that even at the end of his life, Moses was imperfect- he wouldn't accept full guilt for his behaviour. And yet without doubt he will be saved. We are not to expect perfection by the end of our lives, neither from ourselves nor from others. For we are all saved by grace. Another take on this apparent contradiction is that some do cause others to stumble, but the stumbler is still culpable as well as them. Reflect too that the Divinely given reason as to why Moses would not enter the land was given to Moses and Aaaron privately. The people at no point knew. All they knew was from the public speech of Moses in Deuteronomy, where he pinned the blame on them. We see here a fleck of pride in Moses, in not telling the people what had actually been said by God to him. Yet he was the meekest man, in God's view. Despite flecks of pride, God viewed him so positively. By grace and through love. </p><p> 
The ban on entering the land was really a way of fulfilling Moses' earlier request, that his name be removed from the book [cp. entry to the land, Ez. 13:9 "they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel"] so that Israel might enter. Yahweh worked through Moses' own weakness to make that actually happen. Through Moses' representative death, the whole congregation (:1) who had rebelled were allowed to enter the land. </p><p> 
As the narrative now approaches the end of the 40 years, it's as if the scale of Israel's failure increases. They have failed as a congregation, the Levites have failed in the events of Num. 16,17; and now Moses and Aaron fail. All this highlights Israel's entry to the land was a salvation by grace. An it encourages us that we too will enter that land by that same grace. </p><p> 
Yahweh was not sanctified by Moses in that on this occasion, unlike in previous incidents, he didn't intercede for their salvation but calls them "rebels". He gave Yahweh's grace no chance to be revealed, so the Name was not sanctified. For the Yahweh Name has salvation by grace at its core. And this disbelief in the extent of God's grace led to his ban from entering the land. And yet Num. 12:3 has stated God's opinion, that there was not a man on earth who was as faithful, full of faith, and also humble... as Moses. This incident shows an uncharacteristic pride and lack of faith. But still God's judgment of him stands, for Hebrews quotes it in the New Testament as still standing, Moses was faithful in all God's house, and Hebrews 11 highlights his faith. God clearly overlooks lapses although in this case judged Moses for them. </p><p> 
A simpler reading would be that getting water out of rocks with magic sticks, divining rods, was common claim amongst the nomads. Moses was perhaps making out that he could do this by magic, rather than giving all glory for it to a Yahweh miracle. Even in that case, his rash behaviour was a denial of God's grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Yahweh, and He was sanctified in them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Somehow God is never beaten; man can do nothing against the Truth, only for it (<em><a href='B:540 13:8'>2Co 13:8</a></em>). He wasn’t beaten when Moses failed to sanctify Him (:12); He sanctified Himself through His judgment of that failure: “Ye believed me not, <em>to sanctify me</em> in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and <em>he was sanctified</em> in them” (<em><a href='B:40 20:12-13'>Num 20:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp;And 'sanctified' is from the same root as 'Kadesh' where they were encamped. Perhaps it was later named that to memorialize how God all the same was sanctified. Somehow God’s word never returns unto Him void, somehow the lost sheep is always found. These are not just expressions of the essential hopefulness of the Father and Son (although this in itself is something to be truly inspired by); these are statements which reflect the way in which within God’s scheme of working, everything works out to His glory.</p><p>God was sanctified or declared His holiness.  Kadesh means holiness. How was God sanctified in what happened? How was His holiness displayed and how did Moses not sanctify Him, limiting the manifestation of that holiness? By considering the people "rebels" (LXX 'disobedient'), Moses was assuming they could not now receive the grace of Divine salvation ultimately. I discussed on :12 the connection between holiness and grace. How then did God still declare His holiness? Perhaps in that although Moses was to die without entering the land, by grace he would still be saved even though he failed to reflect that grace shown to him. Perhaps grace to the ungracious is the supreme holiness of Yahweh. Perhaps His holiness was shown [He was sanctified] through the grace of still giving them water anyway, despite Moses' disobedience. The water was still given even though Moses didn't do as commanded for it to appear. This was grace and thus God was sanctified / declared Himself holy despite Moses not being willing to sanctify Him. For holiness isn't a bright light or awesome visual representation. It is something moral, and all God's morality comes to a climax in grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying: Thus says your brother Israel: ‘You know all the travail that has happened to us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Esau is Edom". God always had a strange and strong respect for Esau as also in some kind of potential covenant relationship with Him (<em><a href='B:50 2:2-4'>Deu 2:2-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:7'>Deu 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 1:9'>Amo 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 1:11'>Amo 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:10'>Oba 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:12'>Oba 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a></em>). Israel had initially approached Canaan from the south, but now they were being sent far to the east and north to enter across the Jordan opposite Jericho. It could possibly be that God’s intention was that Esau would not only allow Israel easier passage there, but even join them and also inherit the land which was promised to them- if they wished to accept the covenant. But they refused, satisfied with what they already had in the desert.</p><p>Esau is Edom and so this meeting with Esau clearly recalls Jacob's meeting with Esau and salvation by grace. But it seems that grace from Esau was now as it were denied. For the condemned generation had made it plain they didn't want to enter the land but preferred to return to Egypt. And they were counted as having done so in their hearts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These incidents are now at the end of the wanderings. "With us" would have referred to those under 20 on leaving Egypt, and to Moses and Aaron personally. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and when we cried to Yahweh, He heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost extremity of your border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This message was on behalf of all Israel (:14). But they had just been bitterly complaining that it was Moses personally who had brought them out of Egypt (:5), and not God. So their words here are somewhat insincere, as in their hearts they had returned to Egypt. We see how forms of words can be used as statements of faith, when our hearts are far from believing them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells. We will go along the king’s highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed your border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their confidence that they didn’t need any water was because the water from the rock was following them (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>). This points up Moses' lack of faith in :10,11 that the rock in question could give water. We see how even in the best of us like Moses, faith can go up and down very quickly. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers as implied if we read the 600 thousands of <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em> literally. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Numbers 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of Numbers 1 gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Numbers 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Numbers 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words were said with hearts melting with fear of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>). <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em> was but a conditional promise: "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". 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><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then will I give its price. Let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet- </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- 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>He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with many people, and with a strong hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>They travelled from Kadesh: and the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came to Mount Hor-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Even the whole congregation" may suggest that by this point, all the rebels and those over the age of 20 on leaving Egypt had now died (<em><a href='B:50 4:4'>Deu 4:4</a></em>). Or perhaps the idea is that there was not a single person lost as a result of the confrontation with Edom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the border of the land of Edom, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hor" and "mount" are the same word in Hebrew. <em><a href='B:50 10:6'>Deu 10:6</a></em> defines the point as "Moserah". "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. And perhaps it was only in his time of dying that Aaron was fully corrected. The form of our death can be used by God to bring us to the spiritual point He wishes us to reach. 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>Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Disbelief in God’s word (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>) was rebellion against it. The point is made that they were wrong to address Israel as "rebels" (:10) for they were no better. Perhaps it is only in our time of dying that we fully realize our sinfulness, and that we are no better than other sinners; see on :23. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to 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>and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron shall be taken, and shall die there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was a sad moment, but surely these men had faith in the implication of the promises to Abraham, that they would be resurrected to eternal inheritance of the land which Moses and Aaron couldn't enter. The Hebrew phrase for stripping off garments is that earlier used of Aaron in <em><a href='B:30 16:23'>Lev 16:23</a></em>. He was to do this during the ritual of the Day of Atonement, as if in some sense he was the priest who was dying in order to make atonement.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did as Yahweh commanded; and they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as Aaron had sinned in the sight of all the congregation, so he was to die in their sight. The harsh condemnation of Moses and Aaron was evidence for all time that sins of stress, however momentary, are felt by God and judged by Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain; and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The strict obedience of Moses is stressed; cp. :26 and :28. Moses' great level of obedience looked forward to that of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All the house of Israel" is noted because we have been reading over the last few chapters of consistent and deep opposition to Aaron's priesthood. But the man's basic integrity made even his critics and pretenders bow their heads in respect when he died. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the South- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may not be in chronological order; it could be that in these chapters we have a series of conflicts with the surrounding tribes at the start of the journey. It could also be that this defeat by Arad was part of a series of defeats of those who insisted on trying to enter the land after they had been told they must wander in the wilderness for a generation. It would be as if they tried to go by the 'way of the spies' again, but how at Arad their way was finally blocked. In this case, the victory against the Canaanites of :3 would refer to a later victory against them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. 'the way of the spies'. History was being intentionally repeated, in the hope that the Israelites would learn the lesson, reflecting that they were taking the same road the spies had taken, and challenging themselves to have more faith than they did. And history likewise repeats in our lives for the same reason.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 (:2); and we have multiple such experiences in life.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "utterly destroy" means to devote. Whatever comes into our hands during our wilderness journey should be devoted to the Lord. But it was in any case a command to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:2'>Deu 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:17'>Deu 20:17</a></em>). We shouldn’t consider that which is our duty to do as some kind of special dedication to God which deserves His reward. But so eager is God for relationship with His people that He all the same agreed (:3).</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:70 1:2'>Jdg 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;&nbsp; </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a></em><em> Yahweh listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. The name of the place was called Hormah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hormah means 'devoted', LXX 'Anathema'.&nbsp; Paul spoke of those who leave the faith as 'Anathema' (<em><a href='B:530 16:22'>1Co 16:22</a></em>), but the idea was likely that we should consider even those we separate from as 'devoted' to the Lord. We do not condemn, but pass them to the Lord, in the hope that they will finally be devoted to Him. There's a powerful logic in all this- we are to be devoted to the Lord in any case, either by condemnation or by willing devotion of ourselves to Him in this life, that we might be eternally devoted to Him. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof- and all finally returns to Him in any case. This idea sheds light on the reference in <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em> to delivering a wrongdoer to "Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved". The idea of delivering over in Hebrew thought was understood as delivering over to God. The 'satan' may therefore refer to a Divine Angel or some other Divine agent who would attempt to work to bring back the straying sheep, that it might be saved at the end. All separation, therefore, should be in a spirit of desiring the individual's salvation, and not as an expression of our own personal anger or dislike. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em><em> 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-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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. The sequence in this chapter so far was: Disobedience- Cursing - Obedience - Blessing- Cursing. And sometimes (as in the blessing of Isaac materially after his lying about his wife) the sequence can be: Disobedience- Blessing- Blessing. There is no clear connection between obedience and immediate blessing or cursing. God sees a far wider and longer picture and perspective than we do. </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 (:5). 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.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"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><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is in the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a></em> something which defies translation. We read there that God was so hurt by Israel's sufferings that in sympathy with them, "His <em>nephesh</em> ("soul") was shortened" or expended. The phrase is used in <em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em> and <em><a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a></em> about death or the diminishment of life. God’s pain was such that this was how He felt, because He so internalized the sufferings of His people. And how much more in the death of His Son? </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em><em> The people spoke against God, and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 20:3'>Num 20:3</a></em>. Israel “chode with Moses... they strove with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:40 20:3'>Num 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 20:13'>Num 20:13</a></em>) uses the same Hebrew word for both “chode” and “strove”. To strive with Moses was to strive with the Lord- i.e. with the guardian Angel that was so closely associated with Moses? <em><a href='B:40 20:4'>Num 20:4</a></em> continues rather strangely with the Israelites addressing Moses in the plural: “The people chode with Moses, saying... Why have ye (you plural) brought up...”. Could it be that even they recognized his partnership with God? Likewise <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>: “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye (plural) brought us up out of Egypt to die?”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To die in the wilderness</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the punishment and consequence of their own sins; but we easily blame others, and even God, for the consequence of our own sins.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For there is no bread, and there is no water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An exaggeration, because they go on to say that they hated the "light bread", the manna, which they were given. We can likewise assume we have nothing when in fact we do have God’s basic provision. Likewise "no water" was surely untrue- the water from the rock followed them (<em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). But they forgot God’s daily material blessings and felt they had nothing at all. For good reason should we regularly give thanks for our food and not forget that we are daily loaded with His material blessings. See on 21:16 <em>I will give them water. </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It would seem from <em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em> that Israel went hungry- because they refused to eat the manna. How God works through sin is revealed in the way that although God always provided food for Israel in the wilderness, He ‘suffered them to hunger’ for 40 years, in order to try to teach them that man lives not by bread alone, but by God’s word (<em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em>). The Jews in the wilderness despised the food God gave them as worthless; they went hungry not literally, but in the sense that they despised the manna of God’s provision. And He allowed them to have that hunger, in order that He might (try to) teach them about the value of His word. He didn’t simply punish them for their ingratitude. He sought to work through it in order to teach them something. Even the process of rejection results in the victims coming to ‘know the Lord’. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And our soul loathes this light bread-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew translated "light" is usually used in the sense of 'cursing', which in Semitic thought means to make light of a person or thing. They felt the bread was inadequate for their needs, and it was a sign of their cursing by God. So easily do men come to the same attitude towards the manna we are given in the wilderness- the word of the Lord Jesus. They accept it is given, but consider it inadequate for their needs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh sent fiery snakes among the people, and they bit the people; and many people of Israel died-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we find the Bible written from the perspective of how people felt at the time (hence the language of demons in the New Testament). The fire was in the feeling of fire within the person bitten and injected with venom, which would have felt like fire. It wasn't that the snakes literally breathed fire.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This incident is interpreted in <em><a href='B:500 3:14-16'>Joh 3:14-16</a></em> as a symbol of Christ lifted up on the pole at His death; looking toward the snake is seen as faith in Him; and healing from the snake bite as eternal life. This is another reason for thinking that the ‘cross’ of Christ wasn’t as traditionally understood; the Greek word <em>stauros</em> translated “cross” means a tree trunk or pole. The snake was a symbol of sin- but it was as it were dead in Christ. As He hung there, He was so deeply identified with our sins (despite never sinning personally) that a snake can legitimately be used as a symbol for Him there. We are in the position of the Israelites feeling the poisonous venom rising within them, knowing they had limited time left in this life, recognizing they had indeed sinned and deserved death and yet didn’t wish to die. In an encampment of over three million people living in single storey dwellings, i.e. tents, it would have taken some people several kilometers walk to get to the bronze snake. To walk when you have been bitten by a snake is dangerous; you shouldn’t let your heart work any more than necessary so that the venom isn’t spread. So they were commanded to do that which is counter-instinctive, what is totally against worldly wisdom and sense. Our faith in Christ is similar. But it could be that the people were told about the existence of the bronze snake, and had to look toward it in faith from where they were, believing it was there, although not seeing it. This would be similar to our faith in Christ’s death. We didn’t see it, there is no physical representation of it within our sight, but we look to it from far away in time, space and understanding, and believe it was there- and believe that really, 2000 years ago, on a day in April, on a Friday afternoon, on a hill outside Jerusalem, it really did happen. We can imagine the relief of the people as they felt the temperature subside, the fever go; and their gratitude afterwards, their eager vowing to give their saved lives to God and not rebel again. These should be our emotions as we reflect on our salvation in Christ.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Various parts of the Bible become better understandable once we enquire about perspective. The “fiery serpents” of <em><a href='B:40 21:6'>Num 21:6</a></em> are not described from the perspective of observers or us as the audience- they didn’t literally spit fire. They are described from the perspective of the bitten person, for whom their bite would have felt like fire. The parables especially repay helpful reflection when we read them asking ourselves ‘From whose perspective is this?’. But the perspective can change in almost mid-sentence. The Lord comments on the parable of the lost sheep that there is joy in Heaven over the one who repents rather than over the “ninety nine just persons who need no repentance” (<em><a href='B:490 15:7'>Luk 15:7</a></em>). They were&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;justified, and they also needed to repent. But the Lord speaks from their perspective; they&nbsp;<em>thought</em>&nbsp;they were justified and without need of repentance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people came to Moses and said, We have sinned, because we have spoken against Yahweh, and against you. Pray to Yahweh, that He take away the serpents from us. Moses prayed for the people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people again complain, and God punishes them with serpents; Moses' prayer for them is accepted. These prayers for others' salvation must have required intense faith and acceptability to be heard. "We have sinned... pray for us... taken away..." (the plague) is all language reminiscent of Pharaoh's dialogue with Moses. They are presented in the record as no better than Pharaoh; they had been brought out of Egypt but the spirit of Egypt remained with them. You can take a man out of Egypt but you can't always take the Egypt out of the man.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Previously in such situations, God had just accepted Moses’ prayer. But now He asked the people to additionally make some personal effort to demonstrate their faith. Quickly dashing off a request for Christ’s mediation in the case of sin may sometimes be met by God seeking to convict us more deeply of our sin and asking us to make some more concrete effort. But yet again we see how the power of a third party's mediation can bring about forgiveness, as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>. This is endless encouragement to intercede for others. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Make a fiery snake, and set it on an ensign pole; and it shall happen, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks to it, shall live-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>With the sun reflecting upon it, the bronze image would've looked like the snakes. The Lord clearly states that the serpent lifted up represented Him on the cross. But just as the crucifix has been misused and turned into a talisman, so was this brass snake in Israel's later history (<em><a href='B:120 18:4'>2Ki 18:4</a></em>). Israel were to believe that the snake was dead- if they looked upon it in faith. Likewise the power of sin, which seems so powerful to us, is actually dead- in the crucified, human Jesus. But they had to drag themselves into sight of it, rather than trusting in family and friends or the various cures against snake bites which primitive cultures are full of. The power of the cross is foolishness to unbelievers. The serpent was a symbol of healing and good luck in the surrounding cultures, as can be seen even today in the symbol displayed by some dispensing chemists; but for God’s people, starting in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>, the snake was to be understood as a symbol of sin and evil. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>). It was the serpent which gave salvation to sin-stricken Israel, not Moses; and the serpent represented Christ in this case. Moses "lifted up" the serpent in the same way as the Jews "lifted up" Christ in crucifying him (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>). Moses drew attention to serpent and it's power to save, in the same way as his Law drew attention to how sin would be condemned in Christ as the means of our salvation. The connection between Moses "lifting up" Christ&nbsp; and Israel doing likewise is another indicator of how Moses was representative of Israel (cp. Christ).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to look upon a snake was counter intuitive for people of that age. As in many primitive societies today, there was the belief that after a snakebite, looking upon a snake would cause death. They were told that having been bitten by a snake, they were to look upon a snake to be healed. And this is the same counter instinctive message of the cross. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses made a snake of brass, and set it on the ensign pole; and it happened, that if a snake had bitten any man, when he looked toward the snake of brass, he lived-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Another reason for thinking the 'cross' was a stake of wood rather than a crucifix. The lifting up of Christ on the pole resulted in all men being drawn unto him (<em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>); but this is taking language from Isaiah's prophecies of how the Lord Jesus at His return would be raised up like an ensign (s.w. pole, <em><a href='B:40 21:9'>Num 21:9</a></em>), and all people would be gathered to Him for judgment (<em><a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:22'>Isa 49:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em>). There is evidently a connection between the Lord's lifting up on the pole / cross and gathering all men to Him, and the way in which all men will be gathered to Him at His return. His cross was a foretaste of the judgment. Our feelings before His cross <em>now </em>will be those we experience before Him at the final judgment. <em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em> uses the Greek word <em>semeion</em> for the standard / pole on which the serpent was lifted up, representing as it did the cross of Christ. But <em>semeion</em> is the word which John seven times uses to describe the sign-miracles worked by the Lord in His ministry. Interestingly, the Jewish Midrash on <em><a href='B:40 21:9'>Num 21:9</a></em> likewise associates the pole with something miraculous: “Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it up by a miracle. He cast it into the air and it stayed there" (Soncino translation). Surely John’s point is the same as Paul’s in <em><a href='B:530 1:22-25'>1Co 1:22-25</a></em>: the Jews want signs / miracles, but Christ crucified is the power of God, the greatest sign. And maybe this is why John alone of the Gospel writers doesn’t record any miracle within the narrative of the crucifixion. The simple, actual death of Jesus was and is the greatest and most convicting sign. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many allusions to the serpent on the pole in John's Gospel. Take <em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day". This is similar language to that concerning the lifted up snake, where everyone who “looked upon the serpent of brass… lived" (<em><a href='B:40 21:9'>Num 21:9</a></em>). God’s will is that we should look upon the cross, with the faith that comes from a true understanding, and accept that great salvation. This is why the cross must be central to our whole living and thinking and conception of our faith and doctrine.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled, and encamped in Oboth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. 'water skins'. One wonders whether they had to take the water from the rock with them in skins; and we note the later provision of water at 21:16, as if the water in their water skins had now run out. Perhaps they were being shown that in essence they were no better than Hagar (<em><a href='B:10 21:15'>Gen 21:15</a></em>), whose line of descent they were by grace separate from and superior to in spiritual covenant terms. Or perhaps just as they despised the manna and wanted additional food, so they despised the water from the rock which followed them, and wanted flavoured spring water which they took with them in skins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Oboth, and encamped at Iyeabarim, in the wilderness which is before Moab, toward the sunrise- </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>From there they travelled, and encamped in the valley of Zered- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, 'by the brook Zered'. 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 (<em><a href='B:50 2:14'>Deu 2:14</a></em>). 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 the need to buy water soon afterwards, <em><a href='B:50 2:28'>Deu 2:28</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From there they travelled, and encamped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness, that comes out of the border of the Amorites (for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Arnon river at this point is very difficult to cross. <em><a href='B:40 21:14'>Num 21:14</a></em> AV connects crossing the Arnon with crossing the Red Sea, so perhaps there was a similar miracle here; preparing the people to have faith that God would also bring them across the Jordan into Canaan. We continually have encouragements and situations in our journey which are preparations for the next stage. The fact Sihon had recently crossed into Canaan and conquered the area around Jericho was likewise encouragement for Israel that they could do the same.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore it is said in the book of the Wars of Yahweh, Vaheb in Suphah, the valleys of the Arnon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "What He did in the Red Sea and at the brooks of Arnon". The suggestion could be that here was another miraculous water crossing, just as there was at the Red Sea. 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.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The book of the wars of Yahweh may be a book written especially by Moses for Joshua's encouragement, a kind of spiritual diary kept by the two men (<em><a href='B:20 17:14-16'>Exo 17:14-16</a></em>) and continued later by Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the slope of the valleys that incline toward the dwelling of Ar, leans on the border of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the capital of Moab at the time (<em><a href='B:290 15:1'>Isa 15:1</a></em>). The victory here made the Moabites fear (<em><a href='B:40 22:3'>Num 22:3</a></em>) and this lead to them seeking the help of Balaam to curse Israel. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From there they travelled to Beer; that is the well of which Yahweh said to Moses, Gather the people together, and I will give them water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would suggest that they did not have provision of water continually, or that the water and manna ended when they reached Zered; see on :12; <em><a href='B:50 2:14'>Deu 2:14</a></em>. And yet <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em> seems to say that water from the rock followed them. Perhaps it was that they did have water but wanted more, or fresher, cooler water- see on :5. Or maybe they had to ask for water, or the flow of water from the rock which "followed them" did at times dry up?</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then sang Israel this song: Spring up, O well; sing to it:-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Marvin Vincent (<em>Vincent's Word Studies</em>) comments: "Paul appears to recall a rabbinic tradition that there was a well formed out of the spring in Horeb, which gathered itself up into a rock like a swarm of bees, and followed the people for forty years; sometimes rolling itself, sometimes carried by Miriam, and always addressed by the elders, when they encamped, with the words, “Spring up, O well!” (<em><a href='B:40 21:17'>Num 21:17</a></em>)". Whether this is true or not, Paul is alluding to this idea in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em> - hence the rather awkward idiom to non-Jewish readers. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the well, which the princes dug, which the nobles of the people dug- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Digging was not usually for princes, so perhaps the idea is that the princes did the work which usually only manual workers did. We recall how the man in the parable was ashamed to dig, as it was the lowest work (<em><a href='B:490 16:3'>Luk 16:3</a></em>). Perhaps this song was sung or chanted during the digging work. It has a rhythmic quality to it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With the sceptre- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, "by the direction of the lawgiver", Moses.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And with their poles. From the wilderness they travelled to Mattanah-</em>Moses had used his staff to strike the rocks previously in order to get water. The association between staves and the provision of water continues, but the idea is that the elders were being trained up to take over from Moses; and he lead them in this process. Thus God provided water for Israel in various ways, and the variation in His methods was in order to try to instruct them. His ways likewise vary in the way He leads and provides for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's worth noting that a group of men would not in practice dig a well with poles or scepters. These are not digging instruments. The idea may just be that these men, princes who were not manual labourers, used what they had, and all the same it was blessed by God and water was found- encouragement for white collar workers who feel that they are hopelessly inadequate at practical service for their Lord. Or it could be that we are intended to make the fairly obvious connection between those poles / scepters and the divining rods used to locate water and sink wells. Many desert peoples had paganic ideas about how to locate water, and it could be in this case that God worked through the paganic ideas- just as He did with Jacob through the myths relating to animal conception before rods.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>From the 'valley / streams of God'&nbsp; to Bamoth, 'the high places' .&nbsp; Probably Bamoth-Baal (<em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a></em>), which is mentioned on the Moabite stone. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the field of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looks down on the desert-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, "the Pisgah". This "seems to have been the name applied to the broken edge of the Moabite plateau where it falls steeply to the Dead Sea and the Jordan valley; and ‘the top, or head, of the Pisgah’ (<em><a href='B:40 23:14'>Num 23:14</a></em>, <em><a href='B:50 3:27'>Deu 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 34:1'>Deu 34:1</a></em>) is a collective term for the projections or promontories slightly lower than the main plateau. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This situation repeats that in Numbers 20 with Edom. But the outcome was different- they did fight with the Amorites, whereas they didn’t with Edom. On our wilderness journey we likewise find situations repeating, to reinforce lessons and give us a chance to practice what we have learned. But the outcome of the situations is often different each time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let me pass through your land. We will not turn aside into field, or into vineyard; we will not drink of the water of the wells; we will go by the king’s highway, until we have passed your border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their confidence that they didn’t need any water was because the water from the rock was following them (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>). This points up Moses' lack of faith in <em><a href='B:40 20:10-11'>Num 20:10-11</a></em> that the rock in question could give water. We see how even in the best of us like Moses, faith can go up and down very quickly. But the water may have finished at Zered (see on :12); but it seems the sequence of events recorded here is not strictly chronological. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers as implied if we read the 600 thousands of <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em> literally. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Numbers 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of Numbers 1 gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Numbers 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Numbers 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz; and he fought against Israel-</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>Israel struck him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, even to the children of Ammon; for the border of the children of Ammon was strong- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had first asked to pass through Sihon's territory in peace. But <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em> commanded: "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". The implication could be that Moses was disobedient to this and tried to avoid confrontation with him (<em><a href='B:50 2:27'>Deu 2:27</a></em>). But we can’t ultimately avoid the confrontations which God at times puts in our path (<em><a href='B:50 2:32'>Deu 2:32</a></em>). 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. "Was strong" is LXX "at Jazer".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel took all these cities; and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its towns- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would have been Israel's first experience of major battle, victory and possession of conquered cities. It was 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<em>. </em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even to the Arnon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again this was encouragement to Israel, even on a subliminal level, that conquest of others' territory was possible. And they had Yahweh behind them. Constantly we are encouraged that inheritance of the Kingdom is really possible. The events of this time were to become a point of contention with the Ammonites in <em><a href='B:70 11:13-19'>Jdg 11:13-19</a></em>. Jephthah's response reflected a fluent knowledge of these verses now before us. This man who had to make a living as a highwayman and robber, the son of a whore who had been rejected by his father’s sons, had turned to the scriptures because of his experiences. We cannot judge people. We simply don't know who deep down is searching for God, nor what thief or lowlife is secretly reading the Bible on their phone </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore those who speak in proverbs say, Come to Heshbon. Let the city of Sihon be built and established- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggest that all the verbs in the following song should be read in the past tense. It is a taunt song by the Israelites, as if "Why do you not come and rebuild your fallen capital, for you shewed prowess enough in the past when you conquered Moab!".&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for a fire has gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon. It has devoured Ar of Moab, The lords of the high places of the Arnon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This taunt song, about what Sihon had done to Moab, is pretty much quoted in <em><a href='B:300 48:45'>Jer 48:45</a></em>. But it is there quoted as a prophecy about what would happen to Moab again at the last day, when the Lord Jesus as the "star out of Jacob" will destroy the latter day equivalent of Moab, and any Jews who have taken refuge with her. It is mixed together with the prophecy of <em><a href='B:40 24:17'>Num 24:17</a></em>. We have an example here of how God’s word is reused, reapplied and reinterpreted by Him over time. This is why many quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are apparently cited in a context which is out of step with their original context. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Woe to you, Moab! You are undone, people of Chemosh! He has given his sons as fugitives, and his daughters into captivity, to Sihon king of the Amorites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This taunt song mocks Chemosh, god of the Moabites; but that same god was called Molech by the Ammonites. Yet Israel carried the tabernacle of Moloch / Chemosh with them on their wilderness journeys (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>), and it seems continued worshipping this god even once settled in Canaan. So we can take a powerful contemporary lesson: we may sing (even with great zest) words in hymns and worship songs, which in our personal lives we deny. And live exactly the opposite to. For this is what Israel were doing at this point. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We have shot at them. Heshbon has perished even to Dibon. We have laid waste even to Nophah, which reaches to Medeba- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And their seed shall perish from Esebon to Daebon; and their women have yet farther kindled a fire against Moab". The idea was that 'even' women won victories against Moab. Or "we have wasted even unto Nophah- with fire unto Medeba". Again this was encouragement to Israel, even on a subliminal level, that conquest of others' territory was possible. And they had Yahweh behind them. Constantly we too are encouraged that inheritance of the Kingdom is really possible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Israel lived in the land of the Amorites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this happened quite soon before the conquest of Canaan. 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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent to spy out Jazer; and they took its towns, and drove out the Amorites who were there- </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>They turned and went up by the way of Bashan; and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on <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;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 Moses, Don’t fear him; for I have delivered him into your hand, and all his people, and his land; and 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'>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>; Genesis 18; Genesis 15 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.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 16:5'>Psa 16:5</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;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they struck him, and his sons and all his people, until there was none left him remaining; and they possessed his land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet Israel presumably moved on from this land. We too have some foretaste of the possession of the Kingdom in this life, but the full literal fulfilment of it all is yet future. These victories were surely to develop the faith of the Israelites and to show them that military conquest of the promised land was far from impossible for them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Zippor" is the male form of Zipporah, the wife of Moses, who was also from Midian. It seems Balak was a Midianite who was asked to become king of Moab, who had been left weakened by their conflicts with the Amorites. Balak knew Balaam, and we can deduce that Balaam may have picked up his knowledge of Yahweh from Moses whilst Moses lived in Midian married to Zipporah. Who may even have been Balak's sister. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moab was very afraid of the people, because they were many; and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fear of the tribes surrounding Israel is stressed in the record, yet Israel were so fearful of <em>them</em>. The obstacles to our inheriting the Kingdom aren’t as insurmountable as they appear.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moab said to the elders of Midian, Now this multitude will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had specifically told Moses not to fight with Moab (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>), and I have suggested on :2 that there was some contact between Balak and Moses. When Israel passed along the highways, they had been careful not stray from the route and had not drunk from the wells of those whom they passed through. Moab need have had no fear that Israel would lick up all around. It was only those who came out against Israel in battle who had been defeated, and Balak would have been wiser to learn from thIsa. But God gave them according to their fears by saying He would make Israel like a powerful ox (<em><a href='B:40 23:22'>Num 23:22</a></em>).&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Was king of Moab" supports the idea that Balak was a Midianite who was ruling Moab "at that time".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people who came out from Egypt. Behold, they cover the surface of the earth, and they are staying opposite me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "to Phathura, which is on a river of the land of the sons of his people". Balak was a Midianite elder who was now appointed king of Moab; see on :2. He sends for Balaam whom he knew from Midian. Moses had also lived in Midian, for 40 years, and his estranged wife was there. So he figures Balaam was the best positioned to curse the people of Moses. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please come now therefore and curse this people for me; for they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall prevail, that we may strike them, and that I may drive them out of the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The path of Israel was clear- they were not seeking to antagonize anyone, were careful to not stray from the highway, promised not to eat food or drink well water without paying for it; and had only fought with those who attacked them. Balak would have been far better not to let fear so dominate him, but rather to believe that it was Canaan who needed to fear Israel- and not himself. As so often happens, it was fear which led to unwise decisions which were to his damnation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is so similar in wording to the promise of Yahweh's blessing upon Israel and cursing of those who curse them. It sets up a great standoff- between the word of Yahweh and the word of Balaam. Yahweh says He will curse whoever curses Israel. And Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel- and risk being cursed by Yahweh. That Balaam so earnestly wants to risk doing this reflects the depth of his love of wealth (<em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards for the divination in their hand; and they came to Balaam, and spoke to him the words of Balak-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple lesson is that God’s blessing is one of those things which money can’t buy. The zoom of the Divine cameraman is close up- we see these men leaving with bags of precious stones, gold etc. in their hands. Although LXX "their divining instruments were in their hands". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as Yahweh shall speak to me. The princes of Moab stayed with Balaam-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He should surely have immediately sent them away. He knew that whoever cursed Abraham’s seed would be cursed, and had had experience of this (:6; <em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em>). The longer we keep the possibility of sinning before us, the more likely it is that we shall fall into it. As we read the Biblical narratives, we are invited by the nature of the text to ask questions such as "What should he have said / done at this point?". And this is a clear example.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God came to Balaam and said, Who are these men with you?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God knew. It was a rhetorical question, designed to make Balaam reflect that here in his home he had the enemies of God’s people. To invite someone to stay was an act of fellowship- with those who wanted him to curse Israel. Knowing that whoever cursed Israel would be cursed by Yahweh. God likewise at times makes us stop and think, sometimes making us put into words out loud the situation we are really in.</p><p>This is the same question in the same context given to Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:14. He failed to see the similarity and learn the lesson. Both men were flattered that a king had sent messengers to him. They valued standing before men more than standing before God. Likewise he failed to see the similarities between himself and Jacob, on the same journey, meeting an Angel etc.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has said to me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God" is clearly God’s representative in an Angel or prophet. The one who functions as God can be spoken of as God, but this doesn't mean they are God Himself; and of course this applies especially to the Lord Jesus. Failure to understand this has lead to so much misunderstanding of Him, and the false doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Behold, the people that has come out of Egypt, it covers the surface of the earth. Now, come curse me them; perhaps I shall be able to fight against them, and shall drive them out’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dt. 5 says that Balaam's request for a curse wasn't answered by God because He so loved Israel; and his curse was turned by God into a blessing. But here in Num. 22, Balaam simply states what Balak has told him. He asks for nothing. But we don't need to specifically verbalize requests in order for God to perceive the request. God’s answer in :12 reflects how He perceived this apparent statement as in fact a request for permission to go with the men and curse Israel. God reads our attitudes as prayers, and sees the requests implicit in our words. “I, even I only am left" was Elijah's cry to God as he realized the depth of Israel's apostasy (<em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>). But this was interpreted by God as a prayer for God to condemn Israel (<em><a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a></em>). God read what was in Elijah's heart, and counted this as his prayer. Elijah prayed to God against Israel when he told Him that he alone was left faithful- i.e. he was asking God to destroy the nation now. Our essential feelings are read by the Father as prayers.</p><p>Balaam alters Balak's words to try to make the request not include  cursing. But he shows a pathetic failure to accept that God sees and knows all. Balaam changes Balak's "a people" to "the people" when he tells God what Balak had said. This is a tacit recognition that he understood Israel to be the sole people of Yahweh .</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said to Balaam, You shall not go with them. You shall not curse the people; for they are blessed-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>When Balaam was determined to curse Israel, the spirit of God made him speak out a blessing on them instead (<em><a href='B:40 24:1-13'>Num 24:1-13</a></em> cf. <em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em>). He could not ‘escape from’ God’s word (<em><a href='B:40 22:12'>Num 22:12</a></em> Heb.). Jude says that he intended to write a letter about a totally different theme to the one he ended up writing about, because “I was constrained to write…” (<em><a href='B:720 1:3'>Jud 1:3</a></em> RV)- by the Holy Spirit inspiring him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam rose up in the morning, and said to the princes of Balak, Go to your land; for Yahweh refuses to permit me to go with you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There’s a hint of resentment against God here; and Balaam should’ve told them direct that he was not going to curse God’s people. It’s rather like us excusing ourselves from doing something sinful by telling people that our “stupid religion” doesn’t allow it- rather than personally identifying ourselves with the reason why we will not do it.</p><p>"To go with you" may have been said by Balaam with the emphasis on "you". Because Balak's response is to send more powerful princes with greater offers of reward. Perhaps Balaam spun the prohibition to go with them into "I cannot go with you" lesser princes. We have an insight here into how many seek to wriggle around God's word, to support what they would like to be true. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The princes of Moab rose up, and they went to Balak, and said, Balaam refuses to come with us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repetition of "rose up" in :13,14 may be to hint that in fact Balaam and the princes were of one heart together, despite Balaam's negative response. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here the desperate power of man's religious need; by absolutely all means, Balak wanted to have a 'man of God' blessing him and cursing his enemies.&nbsp; Deuteronomy says Balaam was called from Mesopotamia- a 400 mile journey each way. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus says Balak the son of Zippor, ‘Please let nothing hinder you from coming to me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hinder" is the word used in <em><a href='B:40 24:11'>Num 24:11</a></em> for how "Yahweh has kept you back (s.w.) from honour". Repeatedly, God is the one who hinders or keeps back (<em><a href='B:10 30:2'>Gen 30:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:34'>1Sa 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:20'>Neh 9:20</a></em> etc.). Balak seems to be effectively saying 'Don't let Yahweh hinder you'. Balak recognizes that it was Yahweh and not Balaam who had hindered, and his words are really a lament that Yahweh had kept back Balaam. He knew that Balaam was eager for it. "Don't let your God / religion stop you..." is the call of temptation which the world makes to God’s people of every generation. And heeding it is to go in the way of Balaam.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for I will promote you to very great honour, and whatever you say to me I will do. Please come therefore, and curse this people for me’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Balaam was aware that he could only <em>do</em> according to what God <em>said</em> (<em><a href='B:40 23:26'>Num 23:26</a></em>). Balak says that whatever Balaam <em>says</em>, he will <em>do </em>(<em><a href='B:40 22:17'>Num 22:17</a></em>). He is therefore inviting Balaam to play God, to give words of command to be obeyed, to receive the greatest honour / glory, and to be the ultimate source of blessing and cursing for Israel and the nations. This temptation to play God was at the root of the situation in the garden of Eden, and it continues to be at the root of all temptation.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam answered the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can’t go beyond the word of Yahweh my God, to do less or more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The term Yahweh occurs 13 times in the Balaam story; even Balak uses it in asking Balaam to get Yahweh to curse His people. "Yahweh my God" indicates that Balaam was a prophet of Yahweh and considered Yahweh his God. His behaviour therefore is all the more reprehensible. But in the very similar statement Balaam makes in <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em> he omits reference to Yahweh as "my God". Balaam knew that when Divine words of prophecy came to him, he had to speak them out, and could not add to or diminish from them (<em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em>) nor add any good or bad to them according to what was in his own mind (<em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>). This is all a helpful insight into what it meant for a prophet to be Divinely inspired. The words they uttered were from God and were not their own opinions at all. For Balaam would dearly loved to have cursed Israel and not to have uttered the words of blessing which he did. </p><p>Literally,  I cannot transgress the word. Perhaps he felt that he had no concept nor possibility of personal sin because he was speaking God's word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore, please wait also here this night, that I may know what Yahweh will speak to me more-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly Balaam wanted to go with them, because he loved the idea of getting the promised wealth (<em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>). If he had sent them away immediately, the spiritual crisis would’ve passed. And that is what he should have done. Any idea of cursing God’s people, when God had made it clear to Abraham that he would curse whoever cursed them, should have been unthinkable to Balaam. But instead, God confirmed Balaam in the sinful way he wished to go- for He now permitted Balaam to go with them, but to only speak His word (:20). By going with them- and it was a very long journey- Balaam was going deeper into temptation. This is an example of how whilst the process of temptation is internal (<em><a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a></em>), God can lead sinful people further into situations of temptation if this is what they wish in their hearts. Hence we should pray that God will not lead <em>us</em> into temptation (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). Hence God was angry with Balaam because he went (:22), even though God told him to go (:20)- God led him further into temptation, but was angered that Balaam went that way. It's rather like the Father giving the prodigal son the things he asked for.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balak sent a messenger to ask Balaam to come to him. Balaam asked God whether he should go. The answer was that he should not go. Then the messenger came again; and this time, God told Balaam to go with them, but only to speak God’s word. It was as if God was pushing Balaam down the road to spiritual ruin. The end result of Balaam meeting Balak was that he advised Balak to make Israel sin with his women, which would mean that God would curse Israel. And for this Balaam was condemned. If Balaam had not gone with the messengers in the first place, he would not have fallen into this sin. But God told him to go with them (<em><a href='B:40 22:20'>Num 22:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam was told to go with the elders of Moab, but only speak God’s word. He was told to go (:20) but God was angry that he did (:22). The intention was that he fall down and repent, and refuse to go with them. But he went with them, ostensibly in obedience to God’s word of command which was leading him to self destruction. The rebels in <em><a href='B:40 16:6'>Num 16:6</a></em> were in a similar position. They were told to take censers and offer incense, which was exactly how Nadab and Abihu were slain (<em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em>). So this was the kind of leading into temptation which we are to pray shall not happen to us (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). Their path to repentance was being offered to them, but the consequences of refusing it were now higher. The intended response was 'No. We give in. To offer incense like that and come near to the incense altar in the holy place is not for us. We would rightly be slain for doing so. So, we give in and retreat from our position'. But human pride was in the way. And they took up the offer, leading to their justifiable destruction. For by knowingly doing what they knew would lead to destruction, they were committing the sin of presumption which forms a context to that account (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em>). The command to "put fire in them" was because they had "gone too far" (<em><a href='B:40 16:7'>Num 16:7</a></em>). So that they were being led down the path to destruction, unless they dropped everything and repented. God likewise works with people today. </p><p>The detail that he rose and saddled his donkey is the cameraman of Divine inspiration zooming in close. We see him going forth on a path that he had been warned not to. The text is clearly quoting Gen. 22:3 where Abraham arises, saddles his ass, and goes on a journey of obedience. Also with two servants, as Balaam did (:21,22). Again, an Angel and a sword are to feature in it. Although Balaam was also from Mesopotomaia as was Abraham, he is set up as the very inverse of Abraham's seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Yahweh placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for adversary is “satan”. Good people, Angels, even God Himself, can be ‘satans’ or adversaries. ‘Satan’ carries no bad connotation of itself as a word; it has been loaded with this meaning by the wrong idea that there is a personal ‘satan’ out in the cosmos who is in radical opposition to God. This isn’t a Biblical idea. The wicked Balaam was opposed by an Angel of God, who stood in the walled path as an adversary, or <em>Satan</em> to him, so that his donkey couldn't pass by (<em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em>). This shows that a good being can act as a Satan to a person. Interestingly, the Septuagint translates this with the word <em>endiaballein</em>, 'to set something across one's path'; a <em>diabolos</em> is a person who performs this act. The same idea repeats in the New Testament, where Peter is described by Jesus as a stumbling block across His path to the cross, and thus Peter is a 'Satan' (<em><a href='B:470 16:23'>Mat 16:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and the donkey turned aside out of the way, and went into the field. Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the way-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The two times Balaam faces the Angel, albeit unknowingly, refer to the two times that Balak’s messengers had come to him. Balaam didn’t see God in it all; and he was angry with the donkey for perceiving God in a situation where he himself couldn’t perceive God. The triple meetings of the Angel with Balaam may reflect how God deals with those who go against His word. The first encounter blocks their path, but gives them an option to pass around the blockage, in Balaam's case, through the field. There is no pain, just some inconvenience and frustration. Then if the path continues, there is a blockage of the way which causes personal pain- Balaam's foot crushed against the wall. And if the person still continues, then there is the meeting with God in condemnation, where there is no way to turn. And Balaam was saved from that by grace alone.</p><p>Balaam was finally slain with a sword, Num. 31:8; Josh. 13:22. But God's patience in warning him ahead of time was amazing. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the angel of Yahweh stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em> describes how an Angel of God stood in a narrow, walled path before Balaam, so that his donkey fell down beneath him. That Angel is described as a "satan", an adversary, to Balaam. Job comments how the sufferings which the 'Satan' brought upon him were God 'walling up my way that I cannot pass' (<em><a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a></em>). The connection is clear- and surely indicates that Job's satan was a satan-Angel, acting as an adversary to Job just as such an Angel did to Balaam. See on <em><a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a></em>. Job and Balaam have certain similarities- both were prophets (in Job's case see <em><a href='B:220 4:4'>Job 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a></em> cp. 15:8; <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a></em>); both had genuine difficulty in understanding God’s ways, but they to varying degrees consciously rebelled against what they did understand; both thus became angry with God (in the Angel), and were reproved by God through being brought to consider the Angel-controlled natural creation.&nbsp; What happened at this point was what later happened to Judah (<em><a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a></em>), and like Balaam they insisted on pressing on when God had closed in their path. For the significance of the path through the vineyards, see on :26. &nbsp;</p><p>In these three encounters, the Angel as it were retreats ["went forward" in :26 really means 'he proceeded to...' rather than being a statement of moving physically forward]. And so in a sense does God, in desperate attempts to bring us to our senses, seeking not to hurt us, but often having to put us in a position where we can't go forward further.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, and she thrust herself to the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; and he struck her again-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It would seem that the natural creation may see the Angels when they are invisible to us- thus Balaam's donkey saw the Angel standing in the way and was too frightened by the realness of it to go further (<em><a href='B:40 22:25'>Num 22:25</a></em>). This was to teach Balaam that he ought to have seen the Angelic presence at work without having his eyes specially opened to see the Angel, in the same way as the ass didn’t need it's eyes opened to see the Angel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Crushed" is the word used throughout the Pentateuch for the 'oppression' of Israel in Egypt, and most of the other occurrences speak of Israel's oppression by the Gentiles. Balaam was representative of Israel, going against what God wanted, and being oppressed / crushed in order that they might stop in their tracks and repent. But they generally refused.</p><p>Num. 23:3 [Hebrew] describes Balaam as lame or limping. Presumably from this incident. He was following the path of Jacob returning to Canaan from the east, who likewise met an Angel and became lame. But Balaam failed to learn from this precedent and refused to humble himself and resign his hope for material blessings as Jacob had done. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh went further, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The New Testament describes Balaam as rushing headlong on this journey, running greedily for the money (<em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>), in “madness” (<em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em>). This is the effect which the hope of wealth can have upon people. Finally God brings people to confrontation with Him, when there is no possibility of avoiding the issues. The very same phrase for not turning aside to the right nor left has just been used about Israel's path towards Canaan, also passing through vineyards as Balaam did in :24 (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>). Clearly Balaam is being set up as representative of Israel, who also had an Angel involved with them on their journey. The intention of their being closed in on their path was that they would not turn to the right nor left before God, and that figure is used to describe apostasy.</p><p>If he could not go forward nor turn to either side, the only way out was back. But Balaam urged the donkey forward. He was intended to turn back, but his words to the Angel showed only half hearted commitment to this option. He refused to repent and so he was told to go forward. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, and she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This suggests association with Moses in anger wrongly striking the rock, leading to his condemnation. A donkey laying down is the very phrase used in <em><a href='B:20 23:5'>Exo 23:5</a></em> of a donkey collapsing under a burden too heavy for it, imposed by a cruel master. The donkey collapsed under the weight of Balaam's refusal to stop and turn back. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?- </em></p><p>The Angel repeats these words in :32, asking why Balaam smote the donkey three times. This was to show that the donkey was speaking from God. Why had he beaten the donkey? Because he was spiritually blind. So he should not claim to have any special spiritual revelation from God. This was a call for humility. But instead he madly continues, hoping he can somehow get a word from Yahweh to curse Israel. The fury of Balaam with the donkey, because he three times sees what he doesn't, is the fury of Balak with Balaam when he obstinately [apparently] blesses Israel rather than curses them, because his eyes have been opened. But additionally, Balaam's anger was kindled with the donkey (:27) just as God's anger had been with Balaam(:22). Again Balaam is being identifed with the donkey. Both Balaam and the donkey are inspired with God's word [the Angel repeats these words in :32, asking why Balaam smote the donkey three times]. Again Balaam is being asked to identify with the donkey; he refuses to at this point, but he has to see the similarity in the end. "Balak said to Balaam, What have you done to me?" (Num. 23:11), reflecting the words of the donkey to Balaam "What have I done to you?" (Num. 22:28). Again Balaam is being led to see himself as the donkey he had so despised. The Hebrew word for "struck" is that used in Num. 22:6 "that we may strike them". Balaam is being shown that any attempt to strike Israel was as foolish as his striking of his donkey. But he refuses to 'get it' because he is obsessed by the scent of wealth if he can in fact curse Israel so that Moab strikes them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:680 2:16'>2Pe 2:16</a></em> comments: "But he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spoke with a man's voice and hindered the madness of the prophet". Peter was unafraid to rebuke the high flying intellectuals who were wrecking the first century ecclesia. He likens his rebuke of them to the "dumb ass speaking with man's voice" which rebuked Balaam. This was what he chose to identify himself with; that inspired donkey. There was no great trained intellect in Peter; yet his zeal for God’s word puts us to shame. As the time of the end progresses, it seems that more and more of Christ's church (in the Western world) are educated people. In this I see a tremendous danger. A man who could probably not read, who probably wrote his inspired letters by dictation because he couldn't write himself, had a zeal for understanding which puts us to shame. Paul correctly made the point (and who more aware that his intellectuality could run away with him than Paul) that God has chosen the weak things to confound the mighty; He has chosen the simple of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1, 2). I get some kind of intuitive feeling that Paul had Peter at the back of his mind as he wrote this letter to working class Corinth (<em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>). The deep mutual respect between theologian Paul and fisherman Peter is a real working model for our ecclesias. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The dumb ass was speaking God’s word. But that word was spoken in order to save Balaam from destruction at the hand of the Angel who stood in front of him. We see here God’s justice and grace working together. God made the Angel go out to kill Balaam; and made the ass speak to Balaam and collapse beneath him so that this didn’t happen. It's rather like the Angel of death going out to destroy all the firstborn on Passover night, including that of the Israelites; but turning away from the houses over which the Passover Angel hovered. Thus one Angel delivered people from another Angel. There is no contradiction here; rather an insight into the careful balance within all God’s operations with men. He doesn't simply operate on auto-pilot.</p><p>The donkey resisted three times, but so far Balaam has resisted God only twice. But we will go on to read that Balaam three times gives oracles which he hoped would be against Israel- if we read Numbers 24 as just one oracle [Balak laments that Balaam has blessed Israel three times]. The hope was that Balaam would look back and perceive that he had three times resisted God, just as he had done when riding his donkey against the Angel with drawn sword. The legendary stubborness of the donkey, which Balaam despised, was to be understood as the stubborn obedience to God's will which He asks of His people. All that Balaam despised in the donkey was actually how he should have been behaving spiritually.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to the donkey, Because you have mocked me, I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would have killed you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moments later, Balaam sees the Angel with a sword in his hand, thinking of killing him, but refraining by grace. God was trying to teach Balaam that He is indeed gracious, far more than Balaam was. But Balaam was so madly obsessed with trying to obtain more material wealth, even though he had servants and donkeys and a house fit to entertain princes, that he paid no attention to things like God’s grace and hand in his life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkey said to Balaam, Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever in the habit of doing so to you? He said, No- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The donkey had not literally carried Balaam all his life, as donkeys don't have such long life spans. Balaam was clearly intended to see a similarity between his God and his donkey, who had faithfully been there for him all his life long, and had never been unreasonable to him. The humility of God was not ashamed to compare Himself to the humble beast of burden, ridden, used and abused by His people. "Was I ever in the habit of doing so to you?" is LXX "did I ever do thus to thee, utterly disregarding thee?". Balaam was so blinded by his desire for wealth that he disregarded his donkey, his God, his people and even the Angel clearly opposing him. This is the power of human desire for wealth.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Yahweh opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His eyes were opened to the Angel blocking his way, and when he realized how he had closed his spiritual vision to the Angel trying to stop him going to Balak, he fell down on his face. But when he is later given a vision of Balak’s judgment, the vision which Balaam didn’t want to see, he describes himself as “the man whose eye was closed” and yet had to see the vision with his eyes open (<em><a href='B:40 24:3-4'>Num 24:3-4</a></em> RV). He didn’t learn the lesson. He closed his eyes so as not to see the vision, and yet God forced him to open his eyes and see it. And again, he fell down upon his face (<em><a href='B:40 24:4'>Num 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em> RV), as he had when the Angel blocked his path earlier. He wouldn’t learn his lesson, he wouldn’t perceive how circumstances were being repeated in God’s desperate effort to get him to repent.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh said to him, Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come forth as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam "ran" for reward, so wanting to do Balak's will in order to receive the promised "hire" (<em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>); and the Angel and donkey tried to arrest him in his headlong rush. He paid no attention, just as the efforts of Jude and Peter to arrest the madness of these men were not being heeded. The language of a righteous Angel coming forth as a satan / adversary is similar to the scene in Job. The questions were to elicit the answer 'I kept hitting the donkey because I was paying no attention to God’s hand in my life, I was obsessed with running in the wrong way'. But there was apparently no answer from Balaam, and so after the silence, the Angel continues- explaining that indeed "your way is perverse before Me". Balaam's way was before Yahweh. God saw every part and aspect of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Because your way is perverse" could be translated "Although..." (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 48:14'>Gen 48:14</a></em>). In this case the sense is that the Angel was standing as an adversary to Balaam in order to save him from destruction and eternal judgment; and the Angel did this kindness, even though Balaam's way was perverse and obnoxious to the Angel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the donkey saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. Unless she had turned aside from me, surely now I would have killed you, and saved her alive-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jewish commentators insist that this should be translated as in LXX "And if she had not turned out of the way, surely now, I should have slain thee, and should have saved her alive". The implication is that the Angel killed the donkey for having turned out of the way when first confronted by the Angel. This turning out of the way was seen as wrong; the donkey should have fallen down in awe and reverence. Turning out of the way is a common figure for apostasy. The Angel is by all means trying to show Balaam that his life had been saved by grace. He ought to have died; but his donkey did, because like him, it had turned out of the way the first time instead of falling down in fear and respect. Perhaps when it fell down, it never arose; for the Angel slew it. Being deprived of his means of transport was surely also a sign to Balaam that he was intended to return. The death of his faithful, loyal donkey in order to save him, the just for the unjust, looked ahead to the spirit of the death of the Lord Jesus. It is intended to elicit in us repentance. But so many are untouched with it, as was Balaam, because of the madness of their headlong obsession with themselves and wealth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to the angel of Yahweh, I have sinned; for I didn’t know that you stood in the way against me. Now therefore, if it displeases you, I will go back again-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Still Balaam doesn’t get it. Surely he knew his journey was displeasing to God. Sometimes people are pulled up by God in their path- and still they refuse to understand. They are blinded by the headlong desire for material things, rather than seeing God’s perspective. Balaam's claim that "I didn’t know..." of God’s opposition to his journey to curse Israel was untrue (<em><a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a></em>); so he is made to say in prophecy that he did know God’s will (<em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em>). "I have sinned" recalls the same words on the lips of Pharaoh and Saul, again insincerely. Confession of sin can so easily be mere words. Balaam immediately goes on with a qualification of why he had sinned- and claims that he did so in ignorance. Confession of sin is to have no qualifications added to it. </p><p>This appears untrue because in Num. 24:16 he is inspired to state that he did know God's will. We can know but choose not to know. He claims he has sinned but in ignorance, when this was not true. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of Yahweh said to Balaam, Go with the men; but only the word that I shall speak to you, that you shall speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again God leads him further into temptation, seeing he didn’t himself decide to return home. God was pushing him onwards down the destructive road he so eagerly chose to go, headlong. That way was perverse to God and "contrary to Me" (:32), but He pushed him along it as that was the path he chose. The dynamic in both the downward and upward spiral is the Spirit of God, an evil spirit from the Lord or the Holy Spirit, the spirit of holiness. We could translate "But only whatever I shall speak, that you will speak", as if God is not commanding him anything but rather warning him that he is going to be overtaken by His Spirit to utter blessings and not curses upon Israel- which is exactly what happened.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him to the City of Moab, which is on the border of the Arnon, which is in the utmost part of the border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That Balak came out to meet Balaam again reflects his desperate desire to have this religious man on his side. We see here the power of the human need for religion. Rather like a terrible criminal somehow needs the religious man at his side as he finally comes to his deathbed in prison.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak said to Balaam, Didn’t I earnestly send to you to call you? Why didn’t you come to me? Am I not able indeed to promote you to honour?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balak sees himself as the ultimate source of blessing and promotion. But like Balaam, he was playing God by saying thIsa. He assumed Balaam's delay in coming was because he doubted whether Balak had the resources to reward him. He refused to accept that Balaam was circumscribed by Yahweh. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Behold, I have come to you. Have I now any power at all to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that shall I speak- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :35, this can be read not as a statement of obedient loyalty to God, but rather informing Balak that God’s Spirit would come upon him and make him speak what He wished; and that, unfortunately, he had no power over that process. As often in reading the Bible, we do well to reflect in what tone of voice Balaam said these things to Balak, and what additional, unrecorded things he said. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kiriath Huzoth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and they came to the cities of streets". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak sacrificed cattle and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes who were with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea was that eating sacrifices together was a statement of religious unity and fellowship. Balaam on one hand could speak of Yahweh as "my God" (:18) and yet on the other, eagerly accept fellowship with idolatry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the morning, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal; and he saw from there the utmost part of the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And brought him up to the pillar of Baal".&nbsp;The significance of "he saw from there..." was that Balak expected to use the "evil eye" upon Israel. But as he began to do this, God’s Spirit took him over and made him bless them. It would be an example of where the Bible deconstructs belief in things like the evil eye and other connections with a supposed supernatural source of evil. Even if these things were true, then God’s Spirit power was far greater than them. This would then be the significance of the descriptions of Balaam as "the man whose eye was closed". We note "eye" in the singular, not the plural. The idea may be that Balaam had tried to use superstitions about the 'evil eye' against Israel and had lifted up his eyes against Israel in this way (see on <em><a href='B:40 24:2'>Num 24:2</a></em>). But his (evil) eye had been closed by God and he was now taken over by God’s Spirit in order to bless Israel. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bulls and seven rams- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number seven may have been a reference to the seven planets which were then known. This was a mixture of Yahweh worship and paganism, performed at the site of a Baal sanctuary (<em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bull and a ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the eager obedience of Balak to Balaam, recorded several times. There is an earnest desire to perform religious ritual, give money or whatever the modern equivalents are- and we see the power of religiosity so strongly in Balak.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go. Perhaps Yahweh will come to meet me; and whatever He shows me I will tell you. He went to a bare height- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were on the heights or high places of Baal (<em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em>), and Balaam tells Balak that he must remain by the altars, whilst Balaam goes off for a walk on his own to meet Yahweh. Surely he was intending to pretend he had met Yahweh and then return to Balak by the altars and then to utter some words of cursing, supposedly from Yahweh.</p><p>"He went to a bare height" is only one of many possible translations of a difficult Hebrew expression. Some Rabbis offer "He limped". Presumably from the incident of the donkey crushing his leg against the wall. He was following the path of Jacob returning to Canaan from the east, who likewise met an Angel and became lame. But Balaam failed to learn from this precedent and refused to humble himself and resign his hope for material blessings as Jacob had done.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God met Balaam, and he said to Him, I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bull and a ram on every altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggest on 1 Samuel 28 that the witch of Endor was intending to give Saul some general message supposedly from Samuel, but of her own device. But then she screams in genuine fright when Samuel himself is actually resurrected. And so it was here. Balaam walks off further up the mountain, intending to return pretending he had met God and received a message from Him. But he does actually meet God, just as he had run into "God" in the Angel on his way to Balak. Rather flustered, Balaam claims he has just offered sacrifice to Yahweh, even though he was there standing at the high places of Baal (<em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em>) intending to curse Israel. And it is stressed that Balak had offered some of the sacrifices (:2,6).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on 3,4, Balaam indeed returns to Balak having had a meeting with Yahweh and having received a message. </p><p>To have spiritual gifts doesn't mean that a person is spiritual or Godly. Men and women will claim to have prophesied and done great works in the Lord's Name- but in fact they never knew Him (Mt. 7:22,23). Caiaphas and Balaam uttered prophecies but that doesn't mean they were spiritual people. Balaam did actually curse Israel, but what came out of his mouth was blessing of them (Dt. 23:5; Josh. 24:10; Neh. 13:2). This is so emphasized. We see here the real nature of Divine inspiration. Balaam was forced to speak a message, including statements about himself, that he of himself didn't want to.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He returned to him, and behold, he was standing by his burnt offering, he, and all the princes of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cameraman is zoomed close in. We see Balak standing obediently by the altar where he had offered his offering, with the princes of Moab having now appeared. And they await with eagerness Balaam's return. As he walks toward them, they are all set up to hear the expected words of curse upon Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, From Aram has Balak brought me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East. Come, curse Jacob for me, come, defy Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :3,4,6, Balak had gone away from the group further up the mountain, planning on returning claiming he had met Yahweh and then uttering curses upon Israel. But instead, he does actually meet Yahweh, and a word from Him is put in his mouth which he inevitably had to speak to the eager group of leaders... who were awaiting the pronouncement of a curse upon Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (<em><a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>). The names “Jacob” and “Israel” are often used together (e.g. <em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>) to show how God saw the Jacob as Israel, without forgetting he was still Jacob.  That is especially true with Balaam; he is inspired to use the names in parallel on many occasions (Num. 23:7,10,21,23 [twice]; 24:5,17,18,19). The idea is that God sees Jacob as Israel, just as He so loved and counted righteous the historical Jacob. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? How shall I defy whom Yahweh has not defied?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Defy" is LXX "devote", the idea being that Israel was to be devoted to destruction, just as Yahweh Himself had several times stated He wished to do. The same Hebrew word is used of God’s anger with His people in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a></em>). Perhaps Balak and Balaam had used this in the complex self justification of how they could try to curse Israel, when God had said that whoever cursed Israel would be cursed. But now God says that He has not defied / devoted His people to destruction. But He had done. The contradiction is intentional; for what comes out of Balaam's prophecies is the theme of imputed righteousness. God passionately loved Israel, and counted them as spotless, especially in defending them to the world. Just as the Lord Jesus was very positive about His disciples to the world, although very critical of them when they were with Him.  The Abrahamic blessing is in a sense irrevocable. It is in this sense that God's salvation was declared to be "for ever", despite the apostacy of the exiles at the time of Is. 51:6-8. Recall Isaac's comment about Jacob "yes, he shall be blessed" (Gen. 27:33). Nothing at all, not the will of Isaac nor Esau, could change it. And we have received that blessing. Thus :19 says that God will never change His intention to bless Israel. This is the idea in Mic. 6:8 where the incident is cited as evidence of God’s absolute grace to Israel.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For from the top of the rocks I see him, from the hills I see him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The significance of "I see him" is that his intention to 'see' Israel with the supposed 'evil eye' was being turned right around. See on <em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em> He was instead 'seeing' blessing for them, from "the top of the rocks", the promontory to which he had climbed up in :3. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, it is a people that dwells alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We could translate <em><a href='B:40 22:35'>Num 22:35</a></em> "But only whatever I shall speak, that you will speak", as if God is not commanding him anything but rather warning him that he is going to be overtaken by His Spirit to utter blessings and not curses upon Israel- which is exactly what happened. But Balaam was to seek to work against this statement that Israel "shall not be reckoned among the nations" by encouraging Israel to unite with Moab in the adultery of Beth Peor, so that they would be united with the nations and so God’s words would become untrue- and curse rather than blessing would come. For Balaam perceived that these words speak of God’s intentions from His side; Israel themselves still had to choose not to be reckoned amongst the nations.</p><p>These words are so true of all God's true Israel, no matter how surrounded they are by family and society. "The people shall dwell alone". It is our lead characteristic. Balaam tried to undo this by getting the men of Israel to join with Moab in sex and idolatry. Yet still God saw them as separate. The people dwelling alone could possibly mean that Israel alone would inherit the eternal Kingdom, when God has made an end of all nations apart from them (Jer. 30:11; 46:28; Dt. 32:12). This is why Balaam says in :10 that he wants to die the death of Israel, counted righteous and assured of future salvation. </p><p>
The very phrase about dwelling alone is that used in Lev. 13:46 of how the leper shall dwell alone outside the camp. Israel's unique specialness was perhaps in that they as sinners had such unique love lavished upon them. And that is the theme of these oracles; that God so loves sinful, weak Israel that He will not allow any curse to harm them because He counts them as righteous. Israel was thus unique amongst the nations, as is the new Israel, because of her experience of Divine grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my last end be like his!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The multiplication of Abraham's seed was promised in the same breath as the warning that whoever cursed Israel would be cursed. Here, Balaam is being made to say that the Abrahamic promises were all still valid, the covenant was in force. And likewise the curses upon those who cursed Israel. This was surely a sign to Balaam to retreat, to go back, to give up. But his headlong rush to try to attain wealth, and also his pride, would not be arrested.  He was made to express his wish that he might die "righteous" or upright [Heb.], to die as a true Israelite- who were counted righteous by grace, to be part of that "dust cloud of Jacob", the innumerable seed like the dust of Gen. 13:16. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak said to Balaam, What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them altogether- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em> LXX speaks of Balaam's plural curses being turned into plural blessings, because God refused to listen to Balaam. We learn from this that Balaam wanted to curse Israel (for he so loved the money being offered for doing so), indeed be perhaps began to utter curses, but the Spirit of God overpowered him and made him utter blessings instead. We learn from this that the Spirit of God working upon a person is no guarantee of their personal acceptance with Him. And we marvel at how the love of money drove Balaam to attempt to do what he was clearly not intended to, i.e. to curse Israel. Maybe his unexpressed desires were read by God as a prayer, and to that prayer "Yahweh your God wouldn't listen" (<em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em>). Prayer is therefore not just in the form of spoken words; for then the more verbally articulate would be, as it were, better at prayer. God reads situations and unspoken desires as prayers. For this is what prayer "in the spirit" is all about.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>"Balak said to Balaam, What have you done to me?" (Num. 23:11), reflecting the words of the donkey to Balaam "What have I done to you?" (Num. 22:28). Again Balaam is being led to see himself as the donkey he had so despised.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which Yahweh puts in my mouth?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly Balaam didn’t want to say the words he did. The process of Divine inspiration means that men spoke God’s word even against their will; they were moved, carried along, by the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:680 1:19-21'>2Pe 1:19-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:15-16'>2Ti 3:15-16</a></em>). The Bible is therefore not the words of men but those of God, and the fact some of those who gave the original words did so <em>against their own will</em> – and Balaam would be a classic example- is proof that it is indeed the word of God and not of men.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak said to him, Please come with me to another place, where you may see them. You shall see but the utmost part of them, and shall not see them all; and curse me them from there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The place from where Balaam saw Israel was felt to be significant because they were intending for Balaam to use the supposed evil eye against Israel. But as he began to do this, God’s Spirit took him over and made him bless them. It would be an example of where the Bible deconstructs belief in things like the evil eye and other connections with a supposed supernatural source of evil. Even if these things were true, then God’s Spirit power was far greater than them. This would then be the significance of the descriptions of Balaam as "the man whose eye was closed". We note "eye" in the singular, not the plural. The idea may be that Balaam had tried to use superstitions about the 'evil eye' against Israel and had lifted up his eyes against Israel in this way (see on <em><a href='B:40 24:2'>Num 24:2</a></em>). But his (evil) eye had been closed by God and he was now taken over by God’s Spirit in order to bless Israel. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered up a bull and a ram on every altar-</em>Literally, "the Pisgah". This "seems to have been the name applied to the broken edge of the Moabite plateau where it falls steeply to the Dead Sea and the Jordan valley; and ‘the top, or head, of the Pisgah’ (<em><a href='B:40 23:14'>Num 23:14</a></em>, <em><a href='B:50 3:27'>Deu 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 34:1'>Deu 34:1</a></em>) is a collective term for the projections or promontories slightly lower than the main plateau. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to Balak, Stand here by your burnt offering, while I meet over there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He repeats what was tried previously, in the hope that Yahweh will not meet him as He had done before. Surely he was intending to pretend he had met Yahweh and then return to Balak by the altars and then to utter some words of cursing, supposedly from Yahweh. He omits reference to "God" ("while I meet over there"), perhaps thinking that this was what had led Yahweh to actually meet him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Return to Balak, and say this- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggest on 1 Samuel 28 that the witch of Endor was intending to give Saul some general message supposedly from Samuel, but of her own device. But then she screams in genuine fright when Samuel himself is actually resurrected. And so it was here. Balaam walks off further up the mountain, intending to return pretending he had met God and received a message from Him to curse Israel. But he does actually meet God, just as he had run into "God" in the Angel on his way to Balak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He came to him, and behold, he was standing by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. Balak said to him, What has Yahweh spoken?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balak specifically wants a message from Yahweh against Israel, rather than some general cursing of them- which any of his magicians could have arranged. This was why he was so insistent that Balaam, as a prophet of Yahweh, should come and utter this curse from Yahweh. This makes Balaam's behaviour the more culpable and awful. That he continued in it provides us with a warning as to the tremendous power of human hungering for wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear! Listen to Me, you son of Zippor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Zippor" is the male form of Zipporah, the wife of Moses, who was also from Midian. It seems Balak was a Midianite who was asked to become king of Moab, who had been left weakened by their conflicts with the Amorites. Balak knew Balaam, and we can deduce that Balaam may have picked up his knowledge of Yahweh from Moses whilst Moses lived in Midian married to Zipporah. Who may even have been Balak's sister. Yahweh may be appealing to Balak, warning him that he had responsibility to Him because he was not ignorant of His ways.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the son of man, that He should change His mind- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God does change His mind about some things due to His great sensitivity to His people; but He will not change His basic love for them (<em><a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a></em>). He will not arbitrarily decide now to curse His beloved people. Balak specifically wanted a word from Yahweh to the effect that Israel were now cursed; see on :17. But Yahweh tells him that He will not change from blessing to cursing His people just like that, because Balak has paid Balaam money to do so.  By baptism, the same blessings are made to us. They cannot be revoked by man; and whilst this doesn't mean 'once saved always saved', if we abide in the seed, the Lord Jesus, the assured blessing cannot be changed. Hence in :20 Balaam laments that the blessing simply cannot be revoked by him, try as he may.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“God is not a man” (<em><a href='B:40 23:19'>Num 23:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:9'>Hos 11:9</a></em>); yet the Lord Jesus Christ was clearly “the Son of man” or, as He is called in the New Testament, “the <em>man</em> Christ Jesus” (<em><a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a></em>). The Trinity is a very wrong understanding of the Father and Son. For clearly enough, the Lord Jesus is not therefore God. The Greek text calls Him “son of <em>anthropos</em>”, i.e. of mankind, rather than “son of <em>aner</em>” (husband, man). In Hebrew thought, “the Son of man” meant an ordinary, mortal man (<em><a href='B:290 51:12'>Isa 51:12</a></em>). “For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Jesus) came also the resurrection of the dead” (<em><a href='B:530 15:21'>1Co 15:21</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had promised to give His people the promised land, as He has promised to give us the Kingdom, and there is no way He will renege on that promise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have received a command to bless. He has blessed, and I can’t reverse it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam may mean that he had tried to "reverse it", knowing that God is indeed open to persuasion and willing to change, as the record of Moses demonstrates. But, Balaam laments that he had been unable to "reverse it". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has not seen iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him, the shout of a king is among them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This statement comes sandwiched between the apostasy of Num. 21 and that of Num. 25. But God was intent on bringing His people in to Canaan it seems regardless of their desire to return to Egypt. Imputed righteousness is they key to our salvation by grace. When Balaam tried to curse Israel, it was impossible because God saw them as righteous, even though they were not: "He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness (Jacob-ness) in Israel". God overlooked Jacob’s natural characteristics. It is no accident that God repeatedly described His people at this time with the title of 'Jacob' (<em><a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:23'>Num 23:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:17'>Num 24:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:19'>Num 24:19</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was indeed much iniquity in Jacob- notice how Jacob’s old name is used rather than the new name, Israel. They took with them the gods of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>), and the tabernacle of another god as well as that of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). But God did not ‘see’ that sin; this is an Old Testament presentiment of the ‘imputed righteousness’ of which Paul speaks in the New Testament. God doesn’t count sin, doesn’t ‘see’ it, in His people; for this really is what love is about, seeing someone in a positive light and not imputing their weakness to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). He fulfilled His promise at Sinai that if they were obedient, He would make them His people; and He did, counting them as obedient. Yet the events of the intervening forty years hardly sound like Israel being obedient; He "suffered their manners" forty years (<em><a href='B:230 95:10'>Psa 95:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:18'>Act 13:18</a></em>). Yet this is how they were counted (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>). He saw them as a young woman 'going after' Him in the wilderness years, attracted to Him (<em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>). Even when we do read of the sin of Israel at this time, God <em>grieved</em> over the carcasses of those He slew (<em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam's response to this truth which he was made to utter was to make Israel fall into sin. For he correctly figured that God’s imputation of righteousness cannot mean that He makes willfully wicked and sinful people somehow whitewashed so that they can continue in sin and unfaithfulness to Him. </p><p>The reason Yahweh did not see iniquity or deceit, Jacob, in Israel was that Yahweh his God is with him. This is Emmanuel, God with us, a prediction of the Lord Jesus. We could translate "He does not see the iniquity that is in Jacob ". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God brings them out of Egypt, he has as it were the strength of the wild ox- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel had felt so weak before the apparent strength of the Canaanites. They believed the faithless words of the ten spies. They failed to appreciate their potential strength. In <em><a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a></em> we learn that the Moabites feared that "Now this multitude will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field". God had specifically told Moses not to fight with Moab (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>), and I suggested on <em><a href='B:40 22:2'>Num 22:2</a></em> that there was some contact between Balak and Moses. When Israel passed along the highways, they had been careful not stray from the route and had not drunk from the wells of those whom they passed through. Moab need have had no fear that Israel would lick up all around. It was only those who came out against Israel in battle who had been defeated, and Balak would have been wiser to learn from thIsa. But God gave them according to their fears by saying He would make Israel like a powerful ox (<em><a href='B:40 23:22'>Num 23:22</a></em>).&nbsp; </p><p>Here and in Num. 24:8 we read that God is bringing Israel out of Egypt. And yet even the generation of under 20s at the time of the Exodus apparently didn't want to enter Canaan, but liked the idea of returning to Egypt. We see again here God's grace in almost forcing through His plan to save His people. </p><p>
Or we may translate "He [God] is for them like the horns of the wild ox", repeated in Num. 24:8. Balak's fears that Israel would act like an ox were groundless if he had accepted God's word for Israel to ignore Moab. But seeing Moab wanted conflict, then his fears would come true- and Yahweh would empower Israel to act as an angry ox.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob; neither is there any divination possible against Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All attempts to use divination were vain. There was no power in these practices; and even if people insisted that there were supernatural cosmic powers of evil, they were irrelevant to the people of God. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What has God done!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The salvation of Israel was indeed by grace, given their great spiritual weakness. It was the doing of God by grace and not the work of man, and indeed was to be praised as such. Or we could translate "It shall be told to Jacob and to Israel what God works", i.e. His plans would be revealed to His people by the prophets.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, the people rises up as a lioness, as a lion he lifts himself up. He shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :22, this all refers to their potential strength. They were in God’s eyes potentially as strong as a lion against all the others 'beasts of the land', the other tribes there. But Israel feared the Canaanites and submitted to them, just as they had believed the faithless words of the ten spies. They failed to appreciate their potential strength.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak said to Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balak clearly had the idea that Balaam was still somehow in control of what he was saying. He had never seen true Divine inspiration at work before. For a person was totally taken over by the Spirit in order to speak forth the inspired word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Balaam answered Balak, Didn’t I tell you, saying, ‘All that Yahweh speaks, that I must do?’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again there is a resentment in Balaam, repeating God’s word to others but not personally identifying with it, bemoaning the limitations of it.&nbsp; Balaam was aware that he could only <em>do</em> according to what God <em>said</em> (<em><a href='B:40 23:26'>Num 23:26</a></em>). Balak says that whatever Balaam <em>says</em>, he will <em>do </em>(<em><a href='B:40 22:17'>Num 22:17</a></em>). He is therefore inviting Balaam to play God, to give words of command to be obeyed, to receive the greatest honour / glory, and to be the ultimate source of blessing and cursing for Israel and the nations. This temptation to play God was at the root of the situation in the garden of Eden, and it continues to be at the root of all temptation.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak said to Balaam, Come now, I will take you to another place; perhaps it will please God that you may curse me them from there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam ought to have recognized that the geographical location of a prophet was not going to affect whether or not a curse was successful.&nbsp; But they were both clinging on to the hope that from some location, Balaam might be able to use the supposed power of the 'evil eye'; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak took Balaam to the top of Peor, that looks down on the desert-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX Phogor; which Eusebius says was a mountain opposite Jericho. They were literally on the borders of entry into Canaan. Peor was associated with Baal worship (<em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:5'>Num 25:5</a></em>). It was whilst here that Balaam formed his plan- to use the sexual rites associated with the Baal or Peor to seduce the Israelites to sin, and thereby bring curses upon themselves rather than blessings. We noted on :17 that Balak wants blessing from Yahweh; but he takes Balaam to sites of idol worship in order to get it. This mixture of true and false worship was the abiding characteristic of Israel, and it remains in essence are major temptation.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bulls and seven rams- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are given the impression that Balak (or his men) now did all this somewhat wearily. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered up a bull and a ram on every altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balak and Balaam have just heard God’s warning that no form of enchantment will work against Israel (:23). And that Yahweh is not going to change His mind about blessing them. Despite all that, they still go ahead with their attempt at Yahweh worship. What emerges from the record is the way that despite every evidence, men choose to disregard God’s clearest statements in His inspired word. Because they are obsessed by their own fears (in Balak's case, even irrational ones), and addictions to wealth and power, as in Balaam's case.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Balaam perceived that it pleased Yahweh to bless Israel, he didn’t go as at the other times to meet with enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blessing was in that God was imputing righteousness to Israel, covering their sins, and seeing them as saved- despite their weaknesses. The connection between blessing and forgiveness / salvation is widespread throughout Scripture: <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:12'>Psa 5:12</a></em> (blessing = grace) <em><a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 3:8'>Psa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 24:5'>Psa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 28:9'>Psa 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 133:3'>Psa 133:3</a></em> (= salvation); <em><a href='B:20 12:32'>Exo 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:29'>Exo 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:1'>Num 24:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 21:3'>2Sa 21:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 67:1'>Psa 67:1</a></em> (cp. context); <em><a href='B:490 6:28'>Luk 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:7-8'>Rom 4:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> (= forgiveness). The setting his face to the desert rather than looking at Israel appears another desperate attempt to make the "evil eye" myth work (see on :2,3). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam lifted up his eyes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be understood as meaning that he began to pray to God, seeking for a curse upon Israel. A feature of Biblical prayers is the way they start with some reference to God, often involving several clauses. This is to be connected with the idea of lifting the eyes to Heaven at the start of a prayer (<em><a href='B:230 121:1'>Psa 121:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 123:1'>Psa 123:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:27'>Eze 23:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 4:34'>Dan 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:23'>Luk 16:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:41'>Joh 11:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). There are enough of these references to make us wonder whether other references to lifting up the eyes to Heaven is an idiom for prayer. This seems likely in <em><a href='B:40 24:2'>Num 24:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 5:13'>Jos 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 19:17'>Jdg 19:17</a></em> and <em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em> among others. The simple implication of all this is that we should begin our prayers with a conscious imagination and personalization of the Father to whom we pray; "Our Father, <em>who is</em> in Heaven" says it all. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And he saw Israel dwelling according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came on him- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lifting up his eyes could be a reference to Balaam trying to use the belief in the 'evil eye' upon Israel. But as he began to do this, God’s Spirit took him over and made him bless them. It would be an example of where the Bible deconstructs belief in things like the evil eye and other connections with a supposed supernatural source of evil. Even if these things were true, then God’s Spirit power was far greater than them. See on :3.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor says, the man whose eye was closed says-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that Balaam had tried to use superstitions about the 'evil eye' against Israel and had lifted up his eyes against Israel in this way (see on :2). But his (evil) eye had been closed by God and he was now taken over by God’s Spirit in order to as it were have his eye opened to bless Israel. We note "eye" in the singular, not the plural. But he was being directed to remember how his eyes had been closed to the Angel standing in the way, opposing him. And then they had been opened. He was still being nudged towards repentance, despite committing the presumptuous sin of trying to curse God’s people, knowing that whoever cursed them would be cursed. These considerations explain the similarity and confusion within the Hebrew word for "closed" and "opened" used here.<em></em></p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he says, who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down, and having his eyes open- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His eyes were opened to the Angel blocking his way, and when he realized how he had closed his spiritual vision to the Angel trying to stop him going to Balak, he fell down on his face (<em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>). But when he is later given a vision of Balak’s judgment, the vision which Balaam didn’t want to see, he describes himself as “the man whose eye was closed” and yet had to see the vision with his eyes open (<em><a href='B:40 24:3'>Num 24:3</a></em>). He didn’t learn the lesson. He closed his eyes so as not to see the vision, and yet God forced him to open his eyes and see it. And again, he fell down upon his face (<em><a href='B:40 24:4'>Num 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em> RV), as he had when the Angel blocked his path earlier. He wouldn’t learn his lesson, he wouldn’t perceive how circumstances were being repeated in God’s desperate effort to get him to repent.<em></em></p><p>The idea was that Balaam shut his eyes and fell down so as not to see or receive the oracle of Divine blessing, but notwithstanding, his eyes were opened and he was made to speak out blessing rather than the curse that he so wanted to pronounce. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How beautiful are your tents, Jacob, and your tents, Israel!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in their tents they sinned, "they murmured in their tents, and didn’t listen to Yahweh’s voice" (Ps. 106:25). But they were counted righteous. The repeated parallel of Jacob and Israel was to reflect how God imputed righteousness to the historical Jacob, changing his name in recognition of it, and He was doing the same to Israel's people. God is described in the prophets as being in love with Israel at this time (<em><a href='B:330 16:8'>Eze 16:8</a></em>), just as He is with us on our wilderness journey towards His Kingdom. He didn’t ‘see’ their sin (see on <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (<em><a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>). The names “Jacob” and “Israel” are often used together (e.g. <em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>) to show how God saw the Jacob as Israel, without forgetting he was still Jacob. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As valleys they are spread forth, as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, as the tents which the Lord has pitched (s.w. :5). 'Planted' is an image frequently used about how God would plant His people permanently in Canaan, and the figure is sometimes used along with the idea of 'never to be removed' (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 44:2'>Psa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>). As Yahweh planted the garden of Eden, so He speaks here of how He had already planted His people- the first step towards a potential restoration of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>). But the reality was that at the time Balaam was speaking, the people of Israel were in tents, waiting to enter the land. But God saw them as if they were already there and established- just as He sees us even in our wilderness years as His Kingdom, even though it is not yet literally established. <em></em></p><p>The picture of Israel as luxuriant trees planted by abundant waters was of course very different to how they were at that point in the dry desert. But it was how God saw them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As cedar trees beside the waters-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated use of the idea of "as" was perhaps to reflect how God saw them- as if they were righteous. <em><a href='B:400 6:4-5'>Mic 6:4-5</a></em> records God’s response to Balak and Balaam is a parade example of His saving grace to Israel, which was intended to encourage the Israel of Micah's day. <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em> speaks of this time- God "found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at its first season; but they came to Baal Peor, and consecrated themselves to the shameful thing". God saw them as if they were so wonderful- but they turned to worship Baalpeor (<em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>). Our response to imputed righteousness must not be the same.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Unless we read "palms" for "cedar trees", we must note that cedars do not grow beside water; although cedars were considered to have been planted by Yahweh (<em><a href='B:230 104:16'>Psa 104:16</a></em>). This would then connect with the earlier thought about the aloes, that they were planted "contrary to nature" by God in Canaan.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> explains how God created "every plant of the field before it was in the earth / eretz / land (promised to Abraham)". Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.). <em></em> The "gardens" may be an intensive plural- the great garden, of Eden, which Yahweh had planted. We note that here there is reference to trees planted by a river, which is again the language of Eden, repeated in Revelation 21. The reference in :17 to the crushing of enemies by the star / Messsiah figure is an allusion to Gen. 3:15. God saw Israel as His undefiled garden of Eden, just as we are the Kingdom in embryo.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Water shall flow from his buckets, his seed shall be in many waters, his king shall be higher than Agag; his kingdom shall be exalted-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His King" is Israel's King. There is here an intimation that Israel's seed and king- Messiah would have personal conflict with 'Gog', a leader of a coalition of surrounding nations. Throughout the chapter, a total of nine neighbouring nations are mentioned, under the leadership of a tenth individual- Agag / Gog. Such victories never happened in Israel's history because they failed to live up to the potential power they were given in this prophecy, but the essence will come true in Messiah's latter day victories against another group of nine Arab nations headed up by a Gog / Agag figure, as outlined in Ezekiel 38. See on :24. "Agag" was a generic name for the kings of Amalek, rather like 'Abimelech', 'Caesar' or 'Pharaoh'. <em></em></p><p>The seed in many waters may refer to how seeds such as rice multiply and thrive when underwater, under ample irrigation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God brings him out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of the wild ox- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel had felt so weak before the apparent strength of the Canaanites. They believed the faithless words of the ten spies. They failed to appreciate their potential strength. In <em><a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a></em> we learn that the Moabites feared that "Now this multitude will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field". God had specifically told Moses not to fight with Moab (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>), and I suggested on <em><a href='B:40 22:2'>Num 22:2</a></em> that there was some contact between Balak and Moses. When Israel passed along the highways, they had been careful not stray from the route and had not drunk from the wells of those whom they passed through. Moab need have had no fear that Israel would lick up all around. It was only those who came out against Israel in battle who had been defeated, and Balak would have been wiser to learn from thIsa. But God gave them according to their fears by saying He would make Israel like a powerful ox (also <em><a href='B:40 23:22'>Num 23:22</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He shall eat up the nations his adversaries, shall break their bones in pieces and pierce them with his arrows-</p><p>Here and in Num. 23:22 we read that God is bringing Israel out of Egypt. And yet even the generation of under 20s at the time of the Exodus apparently didn't want to enter Canaan, but liked the idea of returning to Egypt. We see again here God's grace in almost forcing through His plan to save His people.
</p><p>
Or we may translate "He [God] is for them like the horns of the wild ox", repeated in Num. 23:22. Balak's fears that Israel would act like an ox were groundless if he had accepted God's word for Israel to ignore Moab. But seeing Moab wanted conflict, then his fears would come true- and Yahweh would empower Israel to act as an angry ox.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The shame was that God saw Israel as triumphing over their enemies- but instead, they were beguiled by them, slept with their women and worshipped their idols. They were to "pierce them through with (their) arrows" - and Phinehas therefore pierced through the Midianite woman with a javelin (<em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>), just as Levi was to pierce through his enemies (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He couched, he lay down as a lion, as a lioness; who shall rouse him up?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The past tenses suggest God saw Israel as already having entered and possessed Canaan; He likens them to a lion which couched down before it sprung in to Canaan and destroyed the tribes. But the sad record of Joshua and Judges is that Israel feared their enemies and were oppressed by them. The great potential didn’t come true. It was so sad for God, and is the understandable basis for His anger in chapter 25 when Israel did the very opposite and joined themselves in sexual and moral submission to the Baal of Peor. These prophecies would come to have their ultimate fulfilment in the Lord Jesus as the lion of Judah; for Israel didn’t have the boldness of a lion when they entered Canaan. <em></em></p><p>"Who shall rouse him up?" begs the answer: 'A fool'. And that was what Balak was seeking to do.
</p><p>
This is a quotation from Gen. 49:9 about the lion of Judah, the Lord Jesus. The reference to a scepter in :17 likewise alludes to the scepter not departing from Judah (Gen. 49:10). The idea seems to be that the blessing of Abraham, cited in the next sentence, was operative on account of the future seed, the Lord Jesus. And so we have in essence the idea we encounter in Romans and Galatians, that those in Christ, the seed, are the seed of Abraham- and are blessed, regardless of all other curses that may come upon us for our disobedience. What is critical is abiding in the covenant. Human sinfulness will not break that covenant relationship of itself.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Everyone who blesses you is blessed, everyone who curses you is cursed-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a sober reminder to Balaam, out of his own mouth, that whoever cursed Israel as he was trying to do- would be cursed. <em></em> We too are in the Abrahamic covenant by baptism. The blessing upon us cannot be taken away, even by our sin, as long as we abide in the covenant. This is what faith / trust is about. Belief we are loved, faith is not simply vague hope that requests we pray for will possibly be given in the short or medium term of human life. More essentially, faith is belief and trust that we will be saved. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak’s anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, I called you to curse my enemies, and, behold, you have altogether blessed them these three times- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam ought to have perceived that each time he tried to curse Israel and ended up blessing them, it was like him trying those three times to ride his donkey down the lane with God standing in the way to block him. The same phrase “these three times” occurs three times in that record (<em><a href='B:40 22:28'>Num 22:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:32-33'>Num 22:32-33</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore now flee you to your place! I thought to promote you to great honour; but, behold, Yahweh has kept you back from honour- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Kept you back" is the word used in <em><a href='B:40 22:16'>Num 22:16</a></em> for how Balak urged Balaam initially: "Please let nothing hinder you (s.w.) from coming to me". Repeatedly, God is the one who hinders or keeps back (<em><a href='B:10 30:2'>Gen 30:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:34'>1Sa 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:20'>Neh 9:20</a></em> etc.). Balak seems to be effectively saying 'Don't let Yahweh hinder you'. Balak recognizes that it was Yahweh and not Balaam who had hindered, and his words are really a lament that Yahweh had kept back Balaam. He knew that Balaam was eager for it. "Don't let your God / religion stop you..." is the call of temptation which the world makes to God’s people of every generation. And heeding it is to go in the way of Balaam.&nbsp; <em>&nbsp; </em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Didn’t I also tell your messengers whom you sent to me, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Messengers" is the Hebrew <em>malak</em>, the same word translated "Angels". The Angels as in supernatural beings cannot sin. They are of Divine nature. Any passengers which appear to talk of Angels sinning are using <em>malak </em>in the sense it is used here, of human beings who were messengers or servants.<em></em> The idea is that Balaam should have turned back from them as He turned back from Yahweh's Angel whom he encountered.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can’t go beyond the word of Yahweh, to do either good or bad of my own mind. I will say what Yahweh says?’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly Balaam really wanted the promised reward from Balak. He wanted God to curse Israel; <em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:60 24:10'>Jos 24:10</a></em> state that God did not hear Balaam's prayers about thIsa. But there is no record that he prayed to God to curse Israel. But clearly his unspoken desires were read by God as a prayer, just as Elijah's feelings about Israel were read as his making intercession to God against Israel. Likewise our ability to verbalize is not the same as ability in prayer. Our deepest, unspoken feelings are seen by God as prayer. <em><a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a></em> goes so far as to say that God turned Balaam's curse into a blessing- implying Balaam's thoughts were read by God as asking Him to curse Israel. See on 25:11.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Peter alludes here in his defence: "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (<em><a href='B:510 4:20'>Act 4:20</a></em>). He told the Sanhedrin that to make true Christians agree not to preach was simply an inappropriate suggestion, because "we cannot but&nbsp; speak" out- it was something which went part and parcel with the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. Peter was not just an illiterate fisherman; so many of his words and phrasing indicate a thorough familiarity with the Greek Old Testament. Here, he seems to have <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em> at the back of his mind; Balaam says that although Balak is forbidding him to speak, he cannot but speak what God has inspired him with, even&nbsp; if it is intensely unpopular with those around him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the very similar statement Balaam makes in <em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em> he speaks of Yahweh as "my God". Now he omits reference to Yahweh as "my God". Balaam knew that when Divine words of prophecy came to him, he had to speak them out, and could not add to or diminish from them (<em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em>) nor add any good or bad to them according to what was in his own mind (<em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>). This is all a helpful insight into what it meant for a prophet to be Divinely inspired. The words they uttered were from God and were not their own opinions at all. For Balaam would dearly loved to have cursed Israel and not to have uttered the words of blessing which he did. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, behold, I go to my people. Come, I will inform you what this people shall do to your people in the latter days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam understood the 'last days' to be when the Davidic dynasty would arise (<em><a href='B:40 24:14'>Num 24:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:1'>Mic 4:1</a></em>)- and so I take this as another indication that in some sense, Solomon could have been the Messiah of the 'last days'.&nbsp; But he like many such figures, failed to live up to the potential possible. This is the tragic story of so many lives. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor says, the man whose eye was closed says- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may imply he was a 'seer' who didn’t want to see. He was seeing and stating that which was not at all what he wanted to. See on :1-4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he says, who hears the words of God, knows the knowledge of the Most High, and who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down, and having his eyes open- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam's claim that "I didn’t know..." of God’s opposition to his journey to curse Israel was untrue (<em><a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a></em>); so he is made to say in prophecy that he did know God’s will (<em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em>). See on :1-4. Falling down with open eyes is to direct Balaam back to how he had fallen down before the Angel with his eyes now open to the Angel. We marvel at how God was continually trying to nudge him even at this stage towards repentance. We can know but choose not to know. He claimed he had sinned but in ignorance, when this was not true. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I see him, but not now; I see him, but not near- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is 'I see him (Israel), but not (as he is) now; I see him, but not (camped as he is now) near (to me)’<em>.</em> This is quite the argument against Messiah's literal pre-existence. As Adam Clarke put it, "I shall see him, but he is not now. I shall behold him, but not nigh - I shall have a full view of him, but the time is yet distant. That is, The person of whom I am now prophesying does not at present exist".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A star will come out of Jacob, a sceptre will rise out of Israel, and shall strike through the corners of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This star and sceptre would seem to refer to Israel’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus. There are many Biblical connections between Messiah and a star, reflected in the Bar-Kochba revolt, a false Messiah claiming to be the Messianic star. It seems He will yet win a resounding victory against Israel’s Arab enemies, represented here by Moab, and be higher than Agag (:7), or Gog. <em><a href='B:330 38:1-7'>Eze 38:1-7</a></em> speaks of Christ’s latter day conflict with Gog. It seems there will be a final conflict around the time of Christ’s return, in which He will finally save Israel from all their surrounding enemies. The wise men said that they had seen the star of the King of Israel and were following it- they were clearly alluding to this prophecy, and the Star was therefore ultimately the Lord Jesus.  "Corners" can also be rendered "forehead", so we have an allusion to Gen. 3:15. Moab are being presented as the seed of the serpent, to be crushed before the seed of the woman, Israel's Messiah. But the immediate idea is that the victory of the seed of the woman is counted to all Israel weak as they were spiritually. And this points forward to the Lord's victory being counted to us as Abraham's weak seed.
</p><p>
Moab had begun by wanting to curse Israel. Their desire was counted as if they had cursed Israel, even though Balaam never actually got to utter any curses. And so true to the Abrahamic covenant, he who cursed Israel was now being cursed. And the whole sad history would've been avoidable had men just humbly accepted God's word to Moses, not to interfere with Moab. Moab had nothing to fear, but their fears led them to try to curse Israel and that led to their being cursed. We note that Balaam curses Edom too, whom Israel likewise had been told not to fight with. Perhaps they too had some input into the desire to curse Israel at this time, again from needless fear.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The future king was to be totally out of Israel, an Israelite indeed. This is an eloquent prophecy of the Lord's human nature and lack of any personal pre-existence. Likewise :19, He was to "arise out of Jacob". See on <em><a href='B:40 21:28'>Num 21:28</a></em>. David was the future king who would smite Moab (<em><a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a></em>), so we look forward to David’s great Messianic son doing this- the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Edom shall be a possession. Seir, his enemies, also shall be a possession, while Israel does valiantly-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite occasional victories against these powers, Israel never possessed them and they revolted against Israel repeatedly (under Solomon, <em><a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a></em>; Joram, <em><a href='B:120 8:20'>2Ki 8:20</a></em>; Ahaz, <em><a href='B:140 28:17'>2Ch 28:17</a></em> and during the Babylonian invasion, <em><a href='B:330 35:15'>Eze 35:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:10'>Oba 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:13'>Oba 1:13</a></em>). Yet total dominion over them was potentially possible for Israel. These things will only come fully true in the last days. Edom in the last days will be possessed by their enemies, i.e. Christ and his true Israel, referring back to the promise that Abraham's seed would physically and spiritually possess the gates of his enemies (<em><a href='B:40 24:18'>Num 24:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :17, there is an incipient fulfilment of these things in David, to whom Edom became servants (<em><a href='B:100 8:14'>2Sa 8:14</a></em>). So we are bidden to look forward to David’s great Messianic son doing this- the Lord Jesus. <em><a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a></em> seems to specifically apply this to the Lord's latter day victory over Israel's neighbours, as the shorter term possibilities were not realized to the extent they could have been: "And saviours shall come upon Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of Jacob shall come one who shall have dominion, and shall destroy the remnant from the city- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the city in view immediately was "Ar" which means "the city". Had Moab not hired Balaam, then God’s original intention that Moab not be touched would have come true (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>). We see here the open nature of God’s purpose, ever able to change according to human response and behaviour. But the idea was that a Messianic figure would appear at that time. I have suggested on Joshua 1 that Joshua was that figure, and his name is the Hebrew equivalent of "Jesus". But he didn’t live up to his potentials. And so he became but a type of the future Lord Jesus Christ. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read this as "And dominion will be exercised out of Jacob, and the remnant (of Israel’s enemies) will be destroyed out of the city". In this case, "out of Jacob" is parallel with "out of the city", and in a latter day context this would apply to Zion and the emergence from there of the Lord Jesus against Israel's enemies. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked at Amalek and took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations, but his latter end shall come to destruction- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "latter end" may refer to a specific fulfilment in the last days or some latter day equivalent of Amalek. There were various fulfillments at the time of Saul (who also took Agag prisoner, <em><a href='B:90 15:7-8'>1Sa 15:7-8</a></em>), David (<em><a href='B:90 27:8'>1Sa 27:8</a></em>) and Hezekiah (<em><a href='B:130 4:41-43'>1Ch 4:41-43</a></em>). But all those kings of Judah failed to fully live up to the Messianic potential they had. So they became types of the final latter day fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.  Amalek was "first of the nations" in that they were the first to attack Israel (Ex. 17:8-16). We are seeing in these prophecies how all who cursed Israel were going to be cursed. The Abrahamic covenant still stood despite Israel's moral weakness at the time; and that is the comfort for we who are also sinners but who are in the same covenant by baptism into the Lord Jesus.  <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked at the Kenite, and took up his parable and said, Your dwelling place is strong, your nest is set in the rock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a word play upon the very similar words for "nest" and "Kayin" or "Kain", whence "Kenite". Moses' first wife Zipporah was the daughter of a Kenite (<em><a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a></em>). Balak was the son of Zippor, the male form of Zipporah. Balaam was known to them. I have earlier suggested that they knew of Yahweh from the 40 years Moses lived with them, and now after his divorce with Zipporah, they had turned against Israel. And because of their knowledge of Yahweh and wilful attempt to curse His people, they had more responsibility and were to be judged severely. The word for "Kayin" or "Kain" can mean a smith, "the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron" (<em><a href='B:10 4:22'>Gen 4:22</a></em>). And so they are presented as the descendants of unrighteous Cain. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nevertheless Kain shall be wasted, until Asshur carries you away captive- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Assyrians and Babylonians took the ten tribes and Judah into captivity, and we assume the Kenites were taken with them- for there were Kenites amongst the Jewish exiles who returned from Babylon (<em><a href='B:130 2:55'>1Ch 2:55</a></em>). This kind of internal corroboration within the records is to me the most powerful evidence of the Divine inspiration of the Bible.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God does this?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. "On account of God appointing him", referring to Asshur. "Who shall live...?" was a rhetorical question which begged the answer 'Those who repent'. And as noted on :22, some Kenites apparently did. At this point in time, these people were trying to curse Israel, fully aware that he who curses Israel shall be cursed. We marvel at God’s patient desire for their repentance.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But ships shall come from the coast of Kittim; they shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber. He also shall come to destruction- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam's prophecy about Israel's final destiny speaks of how finally both Assyria and Eber will be judged for their abuse of Israel in the last days. "Eber" is 'the other side', a similar meaning as the words 'Syria' and 'Aram' in Hebrew, and effectively referring to Syria; or to those 'on the other side' of the Euphrates, namely Iran. They are mentioned together because they will be operating together- and now we see that they actually are coming together (<em><a href='B:40 24:24'>Num 24:24</a></em>). Whilst we must remember that Syria and Assyria were historically different, the current talk of a ‘Greater Syria’ and ‘The Islamic state of Iraq and Greater Syria’ is nothing less than Biblical ‘Assyria’ born again. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kittim or Kitti was a town in Cyprus. Because it became a naval base, it came to be put for powers further to the west whose ships used it. Thus it was a term used for Greece (<em>1Ma_1:1</em>; <em>1Ma_8:5</em> and cp. <em><a href='B:10 10:4'>Gen 10:4</a></em> where Kittim is a son of Javan / Greece) and also for Rome (<em><a href='B:340 11:30'>Dan 11:30</a></em>); hence the Vulgate here reads "Italia" for "Kittim". Kittim became a general term for maritime powers to the west of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 2:10'>Jer 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:6'>Eze 27:6</a></em>). Something similar happened to the term "Tarshish", which originally referred to the maritime port of Tyre, just as "Kittim" was originally Kitti in Cyprus. But "Tarshish" then came to apply to various maritime powers to the west of Israel, and doesn't have just one specific application to any single power.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>The ships from Kittim may simply speak of Western powers afflicting Eastern powers (Assur and Eber). Then the Western powers too will finally be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam rose up and went and returned to his place, and Balak also went his way-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam figured that if Israel sinned against their God, then the prophecies of blessing and victory would not come true. He understood prophecy as conditional. He advised Balak to tempt Israel to commit fornication with the pagan gods so that the prophecies would not come true (<em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:14'>Rev 2:14</a></em>). Balaam is seen as the prototypical false teacher <em>within Israel</em> in <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>. It could be that he entered the camp of Israel and told them the prophecies he had been inspired to make- and this would explain the (human) source of this material which Moses incorporated in Numbers- and having gotten their confidence, then encouraged them to commit fornication with Moab. This rings true, in that then Balaam was exactly prototypical of the false prophets <em>within the first century Israel of God</em> who were also teaching the new Israel to commit fornication and worship idols, having credibility because they had also uttered true prophecies. The latter day equivalent to this may be specific temptations for God’s people in the very last days, on the borders of the Kingdom, which will involve sexual and idolatry issues.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel stayed in Shittim; and the people began to play the prostitute with the daughters of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We learn from <em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em> and <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:14'>Rev 2:14</a></em> that at this time, Balaam advised Balak to entice Israel with Moabite prostitutes, so that the people would be cursed by their God for immorality. The events of chapter 25 were therefore on Balaam’s advice. This desperate strategy reflects how headlong was Balaam’s desire to receive the wealth promised him, and how he sacrificed the welfare of God’s people upon that altar. In essence we can do the same today. We note that Israel are called prostitutes because they slept with the Moabite prostitutes. They had committed prostitution against Yahweh. For the covenant at Sinai was their marital covenant.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>We enquire why the reason for the sin isn't revealed at this point; for only later do we learn that this prostitution was on Balaam's advice. Possibly this is because God wants to show how sin is sin regardless of the reason. This was Adam and Eve's problem- when confronted over their sin, excuses and reasons for sin trumped the simple confession of sin which God looks for. And so it is almost always in human sin and failure. The reasons for sin assume huge proportion and dwarf the simple fact of sin. Perhaps that's why the reasons for the sin aren't mentioned at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel bowed down to the gods of Moab (<em><a href='B:40 25:1'>Num 25:1</a></em>). But Israel were potentially <em>above</em> the Midianites (24:7,18); the Midianites vexed <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a></em>) when Israel had been prophesied as vexing <em>them</em> (hence they were told to now <em>vex</em> the Midianites in :17). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:28'>Psa 106:28</a></em> adds: "They joined themselves also to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead". To join oneself is the language of marriage. To eat sacrifice was a sign of fellowship with the god at whose table you were eating. And by doing these things they were effectively breaking their covenant relationship with Yahweh. But despite that, He still worked to save them and to preserve them nationally as His people. His grace is the more amazing, because He disregarded even their breaking of covenant with Him- because He was and is so passionate to save.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see the connections between eating in spiritual fellowship with idols, and prostitution. These connections continued, and were the root reason why the church at Corinth came to have sexual immorality and inappropriate feasting and alcoholic drinking happening at the breaking of bread service. They turned the Christian fellowship meal into an idol feast.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel joined himself to Baal Peor, and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Baal Peor refers to the Baal who was worshipped at the town of Peor, near where they were now encamping (<em><a href='B:50 3:29'>Deu 3:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:46'>Deu 4:46</a></em>). Each town and geographical area had its own gods, rather like today there is a geography to religion, different parts of the world or even areas within a country tend to have their local religions. The true God and His Truth is the same worldwide, which allows a unique international bond between those who know Him and are in His Son.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Israel <em>joined</em> himself unto Baalpeor" (<em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>) in a sexual context, and by doing so they were being unfaithful to Yahweh as their husband; see on :1. <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em> comments on this as meaning that Israel "Separated themselves unto" Baalpeor. We cannot be 'joined to' something unless we are 'separated from' something else, and in this case, they were thereby separating themselves from Yahweh. If we are truly joined to Christ and each other, we <em>must</em> be separated from idolatry. It is impossible to experience this 'joining' with believers who are not 'separated'- one cannot be 'joined' in intercourse to more than one person. We <em>cannot</em> serve two masters without <em>hating</em> God.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul's selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. Thus Paul warns Corinth not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (<em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>), or else he would come to them and not spare. He is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em> concerning how Israel joined themselves to Baal-peor, resulting in Moses commanding the murder of all those guilty- just as Paul later did to Corinth.</p><p>The earlier cases of Israel's apostacy all featured the account of their sin, the anger of Yahweh arising- and then Moses makes intercession to save them. But he doesn't do so now. It seems that after his own rejection from entering the land he became bitter with Israel, accusing them of being the reason he wasn't entering. And so his desire to intercede for them waned. And thus we see him come to his end somewhat lower than the spiritual peaks that he had reached at previous points of intercession. And this seems quite a theme- that God's people often die at spiritual points below the finest moments they achieved during their lives. Gideon, Noah, Samson, David, Elijah all come to mind. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up to Yahweh before the sun, that the fierce anger of Yahweh may turn away from Israel- </em></p><p>It seems that because Phinehas turned away God's wrath (:11), this command was not actually obeyed.  Deuteronomy says that all who worshipped Baal Peor were destroyed, so these who were saved from that destruction although deserving it, had righteousness imputed to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<em><a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a></em>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a></em>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). That all the tribal chiefs were to be executed shows the need for a purge of the leadership, and how widespread was idolatry. LXX "and make them examples of judgment for the Lord".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a></em> speaks of God’s wrath turning away because those who had married Gentile women divorced them. God’s wrath is also turned away by the death of the sinner- the heads of the sinners in <em><a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a></em> were to be ‘hung up’ before the Lord so that His wrath would turn away. A similar example is to be found in <em><a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a></em>. Jeremiah often comments that God’s wrath is turned away by the execution of judgment upon the sinner (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 30:24'>Jer 30:24</a></em>). In this sense His anger and wrath are poured out or ‘accomplished’, i.e. they are no more because they have been poured out (<em><a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a></em>). The Lord's death on the cross as a representative of sinners therefore achieved the same. We are saved from wrath through Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the judges of Israel, Everyone kill his men who have joined themselves to Baal Peor-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command perhaps didn’t need to be carried out, because Phinehas took the initiative in killing the chief offenders (:7,8) and this act so impressed God that the plague was ended (:11). Here we have an example of how God sets up one plan or purpose, but is prepared to amend or change it according to human initiative suggesting another one, as Moses did several times. We see here therefore how open God is to dialogue, to living relationship with His people. Or it could be that we have in :5 an explanation of how :4 came about; the princes of Israel were slain by the judges of Israel. </p><p>The whole situation is so similar to that with the golden calf. Yahweh's anger burns (:2) as it did then (Ex. 32:10 "let My anger burn against them"). On both occasions there was a plague (Ex. 32:35 = Num. 25:9). “Let each man slay his men who attached themselves to Baal Peor” (Num. 25:5)is the call to Levi of Ex. 32:27: "Let each man slay his brother, and each man his neighbor, and each man him who is close to him”. As the Levites were rewarded with their ministry, so is Phinehas. The reward is in fact to continue serving God's people.  Yahweh's anger waxes hot but is appeased, this time by Phinehas rather than Moses. Moses then sought to "make an atonement for your sin" (Ex. 32:30), as Phinehas did: “And he atoned for the children of Israel” (Num. 25:13). Moses presents here as passive whereas with the golden calf, he was proactive. We sense his enthusiasm had waned for yet another intercession for the people. He died somewhat weaker in passion than in his earlier days- but will still be ultimately saved. Indeed a case could be made that Moses was being disobedient here. He had been commanded to execute the chiefs of the people and hang up their heads; instead he tells the leadership of Israel to murder their people who had joined themselves to Baal. Moses' anger seems against the people; and he repeatedly blames his ban on entering Canaan upon "the people". He invites a far greater slaughter than Yahweh had initially envisaged. Although as noted, the initiative of Phinehas meant that these executions didn't happen. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brothers a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing that multiple Israelites slept with Moabites, there must have been particular significance in this man and woman. The whole incident is called "the matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian" (:18). The weeping at the tabernacle door was presumably in repentance "before Yahweh", the Angel of the presence within it. Moses was present there, and then the Israelite man and Moabitess leader appear and enter "into the chamber" (:8). I suggest the implication is that they entered the holy place or even the most holy, and there they were slain. They intended to perform a sexual ritual to Peor in the tabernacle of Yahweh. Hence the urgent need Phinehas felt to immediately stop this. But the awful nature of the sin was that Israel were repenting, but Zimri was urging them against repentance and seeking to demonstrate that sin was not sin and should be indulged in. It is causing others to sin which is so abhorrent to God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note from <em><a href='B:20 6:25'>Exo 6:25</a></em> that "Eleazar Aaron’s son took one of the daughters of Putiel as his wife; and she bore him Phinehas". Putiel isn't mentioned elsewhere, but it appears to be a common Egyptian name. So the mother of Phinehas was an Egyptian, whom his father ought not to have married. Although we could argue the other way- that for an Egyptian to marry one of the slave Hebrews could be a reflection of this woman's acceptance of Yahweh as her God, even though most of His people were very far from Him. Perhaps this explains how incensed he was to see Israel returning to idolatry.</p><p>Again we wonder why Phinehas and not Moses did this. Moses of course had himself married a Midianite woman and lived many years in Midian. But all the same we are left with the impression that his zeal had somewhat abated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he went after the man of Israel into the pavilion and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her body. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems from <em><a href='B:130 9:19-20'>1Ch 9:19-20</a></em> that it was at the door of the tabernacle / tent of the congregation that Phinehas stopped the apostasy of Israel. LXX "into the chamber". I have suggested on :6 that they entered the holy place or even the most holy, and there they were slain. They intended to perform a sexual ritual to Peor in the tabernacle of Yahweh. The vagueness of the word used for "pavilion" or "chamber" is perhaps to avoid the apparent blasphemy of having to admit that such acts had been performed in the holy place. We note that in this case, Phinehas would have charged in to sacred space with no regard for his ritual cleanliness, especially if he entered the most holy. But as ever, the spirit of the law triumphed over the letter. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems from <em><a href='B:40 25:6-8'>Num 25:6-8</a></em> that the Midianite woman and the Israelite were having sex within "the tent", the tabernacle. Phinehas was remembered for this by his descendants directing the guards at the door of the tent (<em><a href='B:130 9:19-20'>1Ch 9:19-20</a></em>).&nbsp;The actions of the couple were therefore intended to turn the holy place into a place where Yahweh was supposedly worshipped through sex with prostitutes, exactly the way of pagan religions, and which was a problem in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  The woman was a cult prostitute, and the man of Israel was not only having sex with her from a carnal perspective, but was demonstrating the union of Israel with the Moabite Baal Peor. Ps. 106:28 adds the detail that the sacrifices eaten by the people at Baal-Peor were made ‘to the dead’ which suggests this was an attempt to terminate the plague through a pact with Baal Peor. The fact they were both from high ranking families in Israel and Midian would suggest this was an attempt to weld the two nations together, because intermarriage of princely families was how that was done at the time.  </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spear connecting Jew and Gentile in death could be seen as pointing forward to the cross of Christ. The Moabite woman and the Israelite man were representative of the Moabite women and the Israelite men who sinned; they were slain as representatives, as it were on a stake. And just as the Lord died as representative of all sinners, male and female, tempted and tempter alike.  "Cozbi" means "deceiver" and easily represents the great deceiver, the false accuser, the Biblical devil which was slain by the Lord in His death. Just as the original idea of hanging up the heads of the slain rebels was also an echo of the idea of crucifixion and "cursed is every one who is hung on a tree". What Phinehas did saved Israel and led to imputed righteousness forIsrael and the turning away of God's wrath from His people. Surely Paul has this incident in mind when he writes that "we are saved from wrath through Him".  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some editions of the LXX, followed by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em>, gives 23,000. <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><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the key to understanding the difference is the phrase "in one day". <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em> says that 24,000 died as a result of a plague sent to punish them- but it is not recorded how quickly they died from the plague. We can assume that a "plague" took some time period to kill them. But <em><a href='B:40 25:4-5'>Num 25:4-5</a></em> records that immediately, that day, the judges of Israel were commanded to kill by the sword those who had committed the fornication, and Phinehas arose in response. Those deaths by the sword were different to those from the plague- perhaps 23,000 died that day from these executions, and then 24,000 died from the plague subsequently. Another option is to note that there were 23,000 Levites (<em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>). If each Levite killed a man (which <em><a href='B:40 25:5'>Num 25:5</a></em> "Let every one kill his man" might imply, cp. <em><a href='B:20 32:27'>Exo 32:27</a></em>), this would mean 23,000 died in that one day, and if 1,000 died subsequently from the plague, we then have the 24,000 of <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>. Or it may be that <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em> is actually continuing to refer to the golden calf incident mentioned in :7; for <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> LXX says that 23,000 died at that time. The Masoretic text says 3,000. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> specifically states that this slaughter happened in one day.<em></em></p><p>The 24,000 slain here contrasts with 3000 slain at the time of the golden calf. Was this really because the sin here was so much greater? Or because the intercession of Moses was quicker and more powerful than that of Phinehas here?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Had Phinehas not killed the man who was teaching that marriage out of the Faith was quite acceptable, God would have punished <em>all the people of Israel</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em>). God is a jealous God, and Phinehas&nbsp; is commended for his jealousy for God in terms of separating from that false teacher. We naturally turn away from the seriousness of these things. Within our humanity, we would rather God were not like thIsa. But there is a harder side of God, a side which we come to know, to respect, understand and appreciate as we grow spiritually. We see here the power of intercession, and how the actions of one person can save others (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>). This came to full term in the work of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest has turned My wrath away from the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He was perhaps inspired by how Moses had turned away Yahweh's wrath from Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>). Others likewise tried to turn away God’s wrath from Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a></em>). The fact is, His emotions concerning a person or nation can change in accordance with the reasoning with Him of a third party. This is the whole basis of the Lord's intercession for us with the Father. With Phinehas, it was his actions more than his words; whereas with Moses, Jeremiah and Daniel, it was more a matter of words. The actions of the Lord on the cross, along with His ongoing words of intercession, achieve the same end for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I didn’t consume the children of Israel in My jealousy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Phinehas "executed judgment and the plague was stayed" (<em><a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a></em>). The Hebrew for "executed judgment" is the same word more usually translated to pray or entreat. His actions were understood by God as a prayer, just as our actions and situations can be understood as a prayer- see on <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>. God’s feelings are to be ours; Phinehas "was jealous with My jealousy". His colossal love for His people means that He is also therefore jealous over their devotions to any other god.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah’s description of himself in his prayer as being very jealous / zealous for God (<em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a></em>) is an allusion of his to Phinehas, whose zeal in destroying the apostate in Israel saved the nation (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>). But Elijah is praying against Israel, for their total destruction, and making only a surface level allusion back to Phinehas. And likewise, much of the unbrotherly behaviour that has divided our own community has been justified by half-baked allusions to Biblical examples of ‘defending the faith’. </p><p>We can deduce the tension between human initiative and Divine commandment. God's original plan was for the sinners to have their heads displayed crucified on stakes to turn away His wrath, but Phinehas took the initiative and was blessed. He wasn't asked to do what he did. And he is held up as an example, indeed as a type of the Lord Jesus who likewise offered Himself on His own will more than as simple obedience to commandment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priests "corrupted the covenant of Levi" (<em><a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a></em>), in that they married out of the Faith (<em><a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a></em>), thus violating the Spirit of the Levitical covenant- which was given in recognition of zealous action against relationships with Gentile women (<em><a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a></em>). A number of prophets condemn the priests for sexual malpractices.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:31'>Psa 106:31</a></em> slightly extends this reward: "That was credited to him for righteousness, for all generations to come". Psalms 106 is a list of examples of grace. The grace of this was in that righteousness was counted to Phinehas. For none are righteous in their own strength; as Paul explains in Romans, it is credited to us by grace through faith. But how was it eternally credited to him? For descendants aren't counted righteous just because of their ancestors. The implication would therefore be that this imputed righteousness meant that he would therefore not die eternally; but be resurrected to life eternal. And this again is nothing but pure grace. This however opens the issue of whether God will save a person for just one act of righteousness. Indeed it seems there are several examples of men who will be saved because of faithfulness in their youth or middle age, even if the last stretch of their race wasn't that great spiritually (Samson, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David...). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was God’s intention that all Israel should be His servants, a nation of priests. But He changed and ammended His approach, and chose just the Levites for thIsa. And then out of them He chose just the descendants of Phinehas to be the priests. We see here how open God is to change and recalculation, so that by all means He may have relationship with His people. Under the new covenant, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) as He initially intended even under the old covenant. And yet there is always the tendency to leave the priestly work to specialists rather than perceiving our personal call to do it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Sabbath is described as a perpetual, eternal ordinance between God and His people (<em><a href='B:20 31:16'>Exo 31:16</a></em>). Yet in the New Testament we read that the Old Covenant has been done away; and the Old Covenant clearly included the ten commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>), one of which was concerning the Sabbath. For this reason the New Testament is at pains to explain that Sabbath keeping is not now required of God’s people (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-3'>Rom 14:1-3</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word olahm, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines <em>olahm</em> as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint. </p><p>Phinehas already was a priest by reason of his family ancestry. So perhaps the idea is that despite of that, he is being given a personal ministry. Again we see personal relationship with God trumping the  inheritance of any kind of mere religion. The eternal nature of the covenant was conditional. The covenant with Levi had likewise been eternal (Ex. 29:9), but Mal. 2:8 says that this eternal covenant was "corrupted": "You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh". From God's side it was eternal. But man can break the covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These two are named, showing they were more than just random examples of the many who had sinned that day. Their intention was to perform a sex ritual to Peor in Yahweh's tabernacle; and they were both in leadership positions.</p><p>Phinehas was brave in killing the son of a senior leader, especially as he risked vengeance for blood from the family. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur: he was head of the people of a fathers’ house in Midian- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. Zur was one of the five leading princes of Midian who was later slain along with Balaam (<em><a href='B:40 31:8'>Num 31:8</a></em>). 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>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Initially, God didn’t want Israel to interfere with Moab but rather to leave them in peace (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>). But Moab had become obsessed with cursing Israel and leading them away from Yahweh so that He would curse Israel; and so God’s purpose and plans again changed, and He now commands Israel to fight them; for Moab and Midian were united at this time, and the "wiles" of the Midianites in :18 are clearly those used by the Moabites in :1. Balak was a Midianite but king of Moab at the time. God’s purpose is so deeply responsive to human behaviour, and takes it all into account.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Harass the Midianites, and strike them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Plague the Madianites as enemies, and smite them,&nbsp;for they are enemies to you". This clear definition of Midian as enemies was necessary; for Moses had been married to a Midianite and had lived there for 40 years. His Midianite father in law had once been well respected within Israel. This all would have been hard for Moses because he had lived for 40 years in Midian and the Midianites had accepted him as an asylum seekers from Egypt. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for they harassed you with their wiles, with which they have deceived you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Harassed" is "vexed". Israel bowed down to the gods of Moab (<em><a href='B:40 25:1'>Num 25:1</a></em>). But Israel were potentially <em>above</em> the Midianites (24:7,18); the Midianites vexed <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a></em>) when Israel had been prophesied as vexing <em>them</em> (hence they were told to now <em>vex</em> the Midianites in :17). "The matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian" shows the particular significance of this woman; see on :14,15.</p><p>We now have to apparently wait until Num. 31 to read of Israel actually going to war with Midian. But the intervening chapters cover events which happened perhaps only within days after the point in Num. 25:18 where Yahweh tells Israel to attack Midian. In Num. 26 they are to take a military census in preparation for the battle. Then chapter 27 records the issue of Zelophehad's daughters, who present as faithful to Yahweh and unlike their unbeliving father who died in the desert for his sin of not believing he could enter the land.  Remember Israel are now 40 years after leaving Egypt, and about to enter Canaan despite their last minute apostacy and lack of faith. Those daughters are presented as examples of the faithful remnant within Israel. Numbers 28 commands that various daily sacrifices be offered once Israel are in the land. Numbers 29 then calls for a day of atonement to be held, followed by the feast of booths five days after the atonement feast finished. This would be an apparently needless repetition of previously given legislation- unless we understand that it was a specific call to keep the feast of atonement at that time. This would have been in our September / October. A few months later, Israel entered the land around Passover time, with Moses dying about 30 days before that [seeing they mourned 30 days for him]. We note Num. 25:1 says that the people "abode" or settled for some time at this location, Shittim. This would also explain why Num. 29 doesn't describe the other feasts but only the day of Atonement and the related feast of booths [tabernacles].  The language of "a" rather than "the" holy gathering could suggest that a specific event is being commanded rather than simply repeating the legislation about the intended annual day of atonement ["In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy gathering", Num. 29:1]. This would also make sense of the word "this" in Num. 29:7: "On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy gathering". That sounds as if the audience were at that point in the seventh month. Numbers 30 then speaks about "father's houses" and yet the context of Num. 25 is that both Zimri and Cozbi were from "father's houses" and it seems Zimri had made a vow of loyalty to Baal Peor which is father had given silent consent to. And Num. 25:4 has in fact commanded the execution or beheading of all the chiefs of father's households. See on Num. 30:1.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened after the plague, that Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Atonement money had to be paid whenever a census was taken (<em><a href='B:20 30:12'>Exo 30:12</a></em>). Perhaps God wanted the people to appreciate more how they had been saved by His grace after the awful apostasy of Numbers 25. He wanted them to reflect upon the atonement they had received, and that was one function of ordering a census.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers’ families, all who are able to go forth to war in Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This numbering of the people just before they entered the promised land perhaps looks forward to the way that God will be aware of the exact number of those who will enter His Kingdom at the day of judgment when Christ returns. <em><a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a></em> appears to speak of a ‘writing up of the people’ in the last day. Perhaps too there is the idea that Moses as a shepherd had been given the sheep of God’s flock when they left Egypt, and now He is handing them back at the end of his life, and counting them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the census may have been not so much to know numbers, but to define the Israelites into clear family units; for it was God’s intention that each unit should have a specific inheritance in the land they were now going to enter. We likewise will each have a specific, unique nature of inheritance in the future Kingdom of God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take a census, from twenty years old and upward; as Yahweh commanded Moses and the children of Israel. These are those that came out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Came 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>Reuben, the firstborn of Israel; the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the family of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hanoch (s.w. Enoch) was named after the son of Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a></em>) and means "initiated", rather hinting at unspirituality and paganism.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the family of the Carmites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Carmi" means "vinedresser", but there had been no viticulture possible during the wilderness wanderings. He may have been named in faith that this is what he would do once in the promised land. Or perhaps this is an example of where names are given to people in later life, in accordance with their secular work experience- and these stick with their descendants. Names like Smith, Tanner etc. would be examples in English. Hence people in the Bible often have various names.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Reubenites; and those who were numbered of them were forty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here is a comparison of the numbers given in the first census of Numbers 1, and those given at the end of the wilderness journeys in Numbers 26 :</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1. Judah 74,600 rose to 76,500</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>2. Dan 62,700 rose to 64,400</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>3. Simeon 59,300 fell to 22,200</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>4. Zebulun 57,400 rose to 60,500</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>5. Issachar 54,400 rose to 64,300</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6. Naphtali 53,400 fell to 45,400</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>7. Reuben 46,500 fell to 43,730</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>8. Gad 45,650 fell to 40,500</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>9. Asher 41,500 rose to 53,400</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>10. Ephraim 40,500 fell to 32,500</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>11. Benjamin 35,400 rose to 45,600</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>12. Manasseh 32,200 rose to 52,700</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Total 603,550 in the first census, but 601,730 by the end of the 38 years wanderings in Numbers 26. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Pallu: Eliab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pallu", meaning severed / differentiated, is the word used to describe how Israel were separated from amongst the Egyptians at the Exodus (<em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:4'>Exo 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em>). Probably he picked up this name (see on :6) in reference to this; perhaps he had been severed from the Egyptians in some spectacular way.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, who were renowned in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers “strove against Moses... when they strove against Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em> cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they murmured against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). They <em>thrust</em> Moses <em>away</em> from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) - yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> concerning how God still has not <em>cast away</em> Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him. Moses manifested Yahweh and in this sense whatever was done to him was done to Yahweh. This doesn’t mean that Moses was Yahweh Himself in person. Likewise Jesus carried the Name of God (<em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>) but wasn’t God in person. We who are baptized into the Name are in the same situation- whatever is done to us is done to God, and our attitudes to those in His Name are our attitudes to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems likely that Korah was not present with his family when they were swallowed up into the earth. He and the 250 rebels were at the sanctuary offering their unacceptable incense, which is why other scriptures speak of Dathan and Abiram being swallowed up- but not Koran (Dt. 11:6; Ps. 106:16-18). Num. 26:10 RSV seems to make this clear: "The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, when the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men”. </p><p>A case could be made that the whole record of Israel’s rejection from entering the land of Canaan is framed to adduce a reason for this as the fact they chose to believe that the land was inhabited by an evil dragon who would consume them there. This was a slander of the good land, and the whole point was that if they had believed in 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><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At which time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Destruction by fire was an appropriate judgment for those who had offered strange fire. Judgment is related to the crime because men are self condemned more than being condemned by God. For saving, rather than destroying, i<em>s </em>God’s passion. <em><a href='B:230 106:18'>Psa 106:18</a></em> says that God kindled a fire to destroy them, but in reality, they &nbsp;kindled that fire themselves (<em><a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:6'>Hos 7:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em> uses the same term for fire from Yahweh devouring Nadab and Abihu as in <em><a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a></em> about the destruction of Korah's rebels. They were clearly aware of what had happened to those rebels, and were daring God to repeat it. It was truly the sin of presumption. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And they became a sign- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In that their censers became plates on the altar as warning against apostasy and rebellion. The example of sinners from previous generations ought to be a warning to us. Asaph in Psalms 73 explains how he struggled with the fact that sinners appear to have a blessed life and the righteous suffer; but when he entered the sanctuary, “then understood I their end” (<em><a href='B:230 73:17'>Psa 73:17</a></em>), probably a reference to him beholding the plates on the altar made from the censers of these sinners. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, the sons of Korah didn’t die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inspired titles of the Psalms sometimes mention that the Psalm was written by the sons of Korah. They therefore dedicated themselves to God’s service, not following the bad example of their father. We in Christ are a new creation, and not inevitable victims of our upbringing or bad parental example. There are times when our loyalty to the Lord will result in us having to experience some kind of separation from family members who choose not to go the Lord’s way; Jesus foretold this would happen frequently (<em><a href='B:470 10:34-37'>Mat 10:34-37</a></em>).</p><p>Their names were Assir, Elkanah and Abiasaph (Ex. 6:24)- 'Prisoner', 'God will obtain for me' and 'father of gatherers'. We could possibly see reflected here Korah's sense that his family were imprisoned by their inferior [as he saw it] position, but would obtain and gather more for themselves. And yet these sons of Korah separated from their bad background, they rose above the 'chip on a shoulder' mentality, and became the authors of many Psalms. Throughout the psalms of the sons of Korah, we can detect allusion to the events of Num. 16: "I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Ps. 84:10); “Therefore we will not fear, even though the earth be removed” (Ps. 46:2). Many of these Psalms were clearly rewritten under inspiration and applied to crises such as the Assyrian invasion of Judah and the Babylonian exile; because the "sons of Korah" become programmatic for us all. They all have a theme of telling the Gentiles of Yahweh's grace, and this was how the historical sons of Korah would've felt after their deliverance from death. </p><p>
The Psalms of the sons of Korah have 'deliverance from sheol' as a major theme, especially Ps. 49. Not only does this reference resurrection, but is a reflection of their own deliverance from the 'sheol' where their relatives died. They glory that God saved them from this- even though it was their own decision, they are glorifying the way in which even our own decisions for salvation are of Him and He is to be praised for them. And yet they perceive that the death of their families was in fact the death of all men. For all have sinned: "Like sheep dragged to Sheol, death shall graze on them; the upright shall rule them in the morning". And yet the sons of Korah realized that they were in essence no better than their rebellious ancestors who went to sheol; for they too would go to sheol, but be saved from it by the grace of resurrection: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol". The Korah Psalms often reflect that human wealth and ambition ends in sheol, along with man's wealth; therefore we can conclude that the desire for power and leadership was motivated by material ambition. </p><p>
Psalm 88 is another psalm of the sons of Korah, whose father and relatives perished in sheol. But they recognize that this was their rightful end to, and they can only be saved from it by grace: "‘My soul has come to Sheol... I am reckoned with those [Korah and his rebellious family] that descend to the Pit...like the pierced-through [the rebels in the family of Korah] who lie in the grave... You have laid me in the Pit below, in darkness, in the depths... separated from my companions [family members]". They felt their death was in essence that of their rebellious relatives. They were no better, but saved by grace. We see here their humility in recognizing that as the Lord put it in Lk. 14, the dramatic death of some doesn't mean that we ourselves are not also sinners who shall also die. Only grace can save us, and they came to that conclusion. </p><p>
Psalm 46 is a Korah Psalm, so we note the references to rebels falling alive into the depths with a roaring underworld beneath them (Ps. 46:2-7). The allusion is to what happened to the father, brothers, sisters and relatives of the "sons of Korah". But the Psalm goes on to talk of how "we" will not fear because ultimate salvation for "us" is certain. We have an insight into the mind of Korah's sons. </p><p>
There is a notable stress in Num. 16:32 and :33 on their households, and all the men who appertained to Korah". This surely includes the sons of Korah. But Num. 26:11 is clear that the sons didn't "periosh". Perhaps this means the sons of Korah were swallowed into sheol but were redeemed from it immediately so they didn't perish. Redemption from sheol by grace is a big theme of the psalms written by the sons of Korah. This fits the theme developed in the preceding Num. 13-15- that condemned men can be saved. Israel were condemned to destruction and replacement by Moses, but were saved out of that. Then they were condemned to die without entering Canaan, as was Moses. But they were pardonned, and I have argued that this meant that although they died in the desert they could have the hope of resurrection to eternal inheritance of the land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Simeon after their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites; of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites; of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But according to <em><a href='B:130 4:24-25'>1Ch 4:24-25</a></em>, it was not through these sons but rather through the line of Shaul, born from Simeon's relationship with a Gentile woman, that the line of Simeon continued. Again we see God’s style of working through human weakness, and the fact that Israel were not at all ethnically pure.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites; of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:10'>Gen 46:10</a></em> shows that Shaul was Simeon's son by a wrong, casual relationship with a Gentile. But ethnic purity was never made a condition of belonging to Israel. It was later Judaism which became obsessed with thIsa. Rather God’s people were to be open to the Gentiles. And so the family of Shaul are counted as members of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty-two thousand two hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All these figures may seem irrelevant, but analyzing them provides confirmation that the Bible we read is indeed God’s inspired word, because there is so much incidental confirmation of the truth of the record provided. The sum total of Israel at the end of their wilderness wanderings was 1,820 less than it had been at the beginning, nearly 40 years previously. But the tribe of Simeon had decreased by 37,100 (cp. <em><a href='B:40 1:23'>Num 1:23</a></em>). The plague of chapter 25 had killed 24,000 people for committing fornication with the Moabites (<em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>); but the ringleader of that had been Zimri, a Simeonite prince (<em><a href='B:40 25:14'>Num 25:14</a></em>). It’s likely therefore that he led his tribe into the orgy with the Moabites, which resulted in so many of them being killed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Gad after their families: of Zephon, the family of the Zephonites; of Haggi, the family of the Haggites; of Shuni, the family of the Shunites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We notice the complete absence of any prefix or suffix referring to God in many of these names. Israel were not spiritually strong when entered the Kingdom. And perhaps we can take courage from that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Ozni, the family of the Oznites; of Eri, the family of the Erites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seven sons of Gad differ in just one name from the list in <em><a href='B:10 46:16'>Gen 46:16</a></em>: "The sons of Gad: Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli". Ezbon ('quick to understand') has been replaced by Ozni ('quick ears'). The similar meanings of the names suggest these were just different forms of the same word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Arod, the family of the Arodites; of Areli, the family of the Arelites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Arodi" is "wild ass man", a similar idea to the description of Ishmael in <em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>, who chose to go away from covenant relationship with God. We simply do not get a great impression of the family; and that is the point. Israel were not morally better than the surrounding nations, many of whom were descended from Abraham too. They were saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Gad according to those who were numbered of them, forty thousand five hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Numbers 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of Numbers 1 gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Numbers 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Numbers 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. This would then make better sense of <em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em> GNB: "I will drive them out little by little, until there are enough of you to take possession of the land". This indeed sounds as if Israel were the smallest of the nations, and not a huge nation comprising several million people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the context of taking a census at this point in Israel's hi<em>s</em>tory, we enquire why the deaths of these men "in the land of Canaan" over 400 years ago is now mentioned. I suggest it was a warning- that even when they entered the land, they would still be subject to Divine law and would be judged for their sin. Presence in the land of Canaan was not to be seen as a kind of covering for their sin. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Judah after their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Perezites; of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 38:29'>Gen 38:29</a></em> gives the background: "It happened, as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out, and she said, Why have you made a breach for yourself? Therefore his name was called Perez". The theme of the second born being the chosen one continues. It was accepted that Perez was the one in the line of the Messianic seed and that this pregnancy was of God (<em><a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a></em>), even though he was not technically the firstborn. "Made a breach" is literally 'to spread abroad', and is the word used in the promises of how the Messianic seed was to break forth or spread abroad (<em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hamul" means 'The one who was spared', which rather suggests he too had sinned like Er and Onan (:19), but was spared by grace. Again, we hardly get a very positive spiritual impression of Jacob's family. They were saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Judah according to those who were numbered of them, seventy-six thousand five hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we are to understand blessing under the old covenant as related to numbers of children, then there may be the hint that Judah were the most faithful. We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Issachar after their families: of Tola, the family of the Tolaites; of Puvah, the family of the Punites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would call her child 'worm' ("Tola")? Clearly people were given names, or became known by names, other than their birth names- and these names stuck with them. There are many other examples of this, like Mahlon and Chilion. This explains why people could have far more than one name, and that must be remembered when comparing the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Jashub, the family of the Jashubites; of Shimron, the family of the Shimronites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jashub" means 'he will return'. A faithful parent may have named him this in faith that Israel would one day return from Egypt to Canaan. Even when any ultimate change of circumstances may seem unlikely for us, we are to remember the final perspective- the fulfilment of the promises of the Kingdom in our lives. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Issachar according to those who were numbered of them, sixty-four thousand three hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This tribe increased by about ten thousand during the wilderness journeys. Other tribes decreased. It was God’s intention that the seed of Abraham should multiply. And yet some tribes multiplied by different amounts, and others decreased. We see that the promises to Abraham will have different levels of fulfillment for those who are faithful; and no fulfillment for some who are technically the seed, but don't walk in the steps of faith of Abraham. And so it is today. Some will make more of God’s truth than others; some multiply their talents more than others, in terms of the Lord's parable. And so some stars will shine brighter than others in God’s Kingdom.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Zebulun after their families: of Sered, the family of the Seredites; of Elon, the family of the Elonites; of Jahleel, the family of the Jahleelites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elon's name means 'grove of oaks', clearly with reference to pagan practices. The reference is maybe to the judge of this name (<em><a href='B:70 12:12'>Jdg 12:12</a></em>). The fact he is not recorded as having renamed himself could suggest that he remained an idolater, although was used by God to deliver Israel. Being used by God doesn't mean we are therefore faithful to Him and assured of His acceptance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Zebulunites according to those who were numbered of them, sixty thousand five hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zebulun increased by a minimal amount over the course of the wilderness journey (see on :22). As discussed on :25, this is rather like the person who receives the talent of God’s truth and keeps it but doesn't develop it much. We get this same impression of Zebulun in <em><a href='B:140 30:18'>2Ch 30:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Joseph after their families: Manasseh and Ephraim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ephraim was the younger son, whom Jacob had made the firstborn, much to Joseph's disagreement. But here the two sons are listed according to their birth order. For all angst endured by the patriarchs about the question of who was the firstborn, the subsequent Biblical records make clear that this was of no real meaning. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites; and Machir became the father of Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Machir was Manasseh's son by a Gentile woman (<em><a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a></em>). <em><a href='B:130 2:21'>1Ch 2:21</a></em> adds: "Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he took as wife when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub".<em>&nbsp;</em>We again have the theme of marital and sexual weakness in the family of Israel. Machir was Manasseh’s oldest son by a Syrian, Gentile woman. It was the Divine intention that marriage should be within the tribes of Israel so as to keep the inheritance which God intended. But here we have Manasseh and Judah intermarrying.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Gilead: of Iezer, the family of the Iezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Iezer" is the Abiezer of <em><a href='B:60 17:2'>Jos 17:2</a></em> and the Gideon story. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Asriel, the family of the Asrielites; and Shechem, the family of the Shechemites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are quite different numbers of families recorded within each tribe, and the genealogies in Chronicles are in places more detailed, mentioning other children and families. This may be because at this point not all chose to pay the atonement money required for the census (:1) and so were not numbered amongst Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites; and Hepher, the family of the Hepherites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hepher" means 'shame', and was surely not his birth name; see on :23. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters; and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah- </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>These are the families of Manasseh; and those who were numbered of them were fifty-two thousand seven hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the huge growth of Manasseh during the wilderness journeys,&nbsp; 32,200 rose to 52,700; whilst Ephraim's 40,500 fell to 32,500. This would appear to contradict Joseph's desire to bless Ephraim more than Manasseh (<em><a href='B:10 48:14'>Gen 48:14</a></em>). It shows that the utterances of a patriarch were not determinate. For under the old covenant, numbers of children were related to obedience to the covenant. Prophecy was and is not determinate, but always conditional upon human response. Hence not all the blessings of the tribes uttered by Jacob came true; because the potential wasn't realized by the descendants. And so it is sadly true of so many people who turn away from the Kingdom promises.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Ephraim after their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthelahites; of Becher, the family of the Becherites; of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We notice the lack of any spiritual reference in the meaning of these names. "Becher", 'camel man', would be a strange name for someone who respected the law's pronouncement of the camel as an unclean animal. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A total of 57 families are mentioned in this list, excluding Levi. But only three families of Ephraim, and then one family from a grandson. It would seem they had chosen not to pay the atonement money required at the census (see on :1), and those who didn’t want to make this acceptance of atonement were not numbered amongst Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Ephraim according to those who were numbered of them, thirty-two thousand five hundred. These are the sons of Joseph after their families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the huge growth of Manasseh during the wilderness journeys,&nbsp; 32,200 rose to 52,700; whilst Ephraim's 40,500 fell to 32,500. This would appear to contradict Joseph's desire to bless Ephraim more than Manasseh (<em><a href='B:10 48:14'>Gen 48:14</a></em>). It shows that the utterances of a patriarch were not determinate. For under the old covenant, numbers of children were related to obedience to the covenant. Prophecy was and is not determinate, but always conditional upon human response. Hence not all the blessings of the tribes uttered by Jacob came true; because the potential wasn't realized by the descendants. And so it is sadly true of so many people who turn away from the Kingdom promises.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Benjamin after their families: of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple truth is that Benjamin, the "little one" (<em><a href='B:10 44:20'>Gen 44:20</a></em>), has more descendants listed to his name in the Chronicles genealogies than any of the brothers. <em><a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a></em> clearly alludes to this- "a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation". It is the theme of the patriarchal family; the firstborns are deposed, the elder serves the younger, the weak become strong, the little one becomes mighty.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Shephupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Shephupham" means 'serpent like' and was surely not his birth name; see on :23. This family got this name from a corrupt ancestor. But they paid their atonement money (see on :1) and were numbered amongst Israel. Bad background is no reason a person cannot be numbered amongst God’s people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: the family of the Ardites; of Naaman, the family of the Naamites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em> says that Benjamin had ten sons when the Jacob family moved into Egypt, but here seven of them are in fact his grandsons. Benjamin was hardly a child when the brothers came to buy corn. He was in his 20s, and according to the Hebrew text he had ten sons already, and presumably some daughters; perhaps suggesting that his father’s favouritism and obsession with him had not been helpful morally, and had resulted in him having multiple relationships from a young age. However, the LXX lists only three sons, and makes the rest of the list the sons of Bela. And yet Benjamin would not have been old enough to have been a grandfather. So it could be that he had married a woman who had children of her own who became Benjamin's, or that he somehow adopted these children. There would have been a very large extended family around Jacob, and maybe these children were simply under the care of Benjamin. However, the genealogy in <em><a href='B:40 26:40'>Num 26:40</a></em> appears to support the LXX text here, with Ard and Naaman given as grandsons of Benjamin and not sons. We must remember that genealogies, numbers and dates are not used in Semitic languages in the strictly literalistic way in which they are in European languages. <em><a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a></em> can therefore argue that Melchizedek blessed Levi because he blessed Abraham, and Levi was a descendant of Abraham, "yet in the loins of his father". And this establishes Melchizedek as greater than Levi, and in turn, the priests descended from him. That argument may appear very stretched and even technically inaccurate to European ears. But it had absolute validity in Hebrew thought. And so the grandchildren of Benjamin, yet unborn, could be listed as being in existence when Benjamin went into Egypt, and even be numbered amongst the group at that time. This is why the grandchildren of the maids are counted as if they are the direct children of the maids; see on <em><a href='B:10 46:9'>Gen 46:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:18'>Gen 46:18</a></em>. We likewise read that Jacob brought his twelve sons out of Mesopotamia, including Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 35:24'>Gen 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:26'>Gen 35:26</a></em>). But Benjamin was born later, in Canaan. But on this basis of being counted as "in the loins of" an ancestor, Benjamin could also be presented as having come out of Mesopotamia. If this kind of thing were better appreciated by Bible readers, it would be better understood that there was no personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus in actuality, although He is spoken of as existing prior to His birth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Benjamin after their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five thousand six hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Benjamin's 35,400 rose to 45,600 by the end of the wilderness journeyings. We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Dan after their families: of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites. These are the families of Dan after their families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Shuham is called "Hushim" in <em><a href='B:10 46:23'>Gen 46:23</a></em>, which means "hasty", not a particularly spiritual characteristic. As noted earlier, Hebrew names are not necessarily birth names, but the names by which people came to be known, reflective of their personalities or experiences. However he is here called "Shusham", "humble". So maybe his over hasty actions humbled his descendants in due course.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the families of the Shuhamites, according to those who were numbered of them, were sixty-four thousand four hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dan had only one son and yet by this time had become the second largest tribe in Israel. Benjamin had ten sons (<em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em>) but was one of the smallest tribes. Again we see how God doesn’t work through human strength or advantage; the passage of time reveals over the generations that human blessing soon fades away.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Asher after their families: of Imnah, the family of the Imnites; of Ishvi, the family of the Ishvites; of Beriah, the family of the Berites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the names here are absolutely secular in their meaning and have no hint of spirituality. The consistent impression is that Israel were a secular, unspiritual people who were saved by grace. Even other nations tended to have the names of their gods mixed in with their personal names; but the list we have here has very little of that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the sons of Beriah: of Heber, the family of the Heberites; of Malchiel, the family of the Malchielites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names which reference God feature the 'El' suffix or prefix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the daughter of Asher was Serah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of women in such lists is unusual, and I suggest that the names are of those who became heads of family clans within the tribes. So the mention of Serah would mean that she became a head of family; although rare or unknown in the world around them, this was not totally unheard of in the Jacob family and we see in this the respect of women amongst the people of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Asher according to those who were numbered of them, fifty-three thousand and four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Naphtali after their families: of Jahzeel, the family of the Jahzeelites; of Guni, the family of the Gunites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jezer" (:49) means "image", "Guni" means "painted with colours", both suggestive of idolatry. If the people were fully committed to Yahweh, we would expect them to have removed all associations with idolatry from their names. For I have noted repeatedly that people often changed their names or became known by other names. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Jezer, the family of the Jezerites; of Shillem, the family of the Shillemites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:24'>Gen 46:24</a></em> lists Jezer (see on :48) and Shillem as also sons of Naphtali. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Naphtali according to their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Naphtali's 53,400 fell to 45,400 by the end of the wilderness journeys, a decrease by a ratio of 0:85; very similar to how Gad's 45,650 fell to 40,500, a decrease by a ratio of 0:88. See on :47.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the children of Israel, six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that "thousand" can refer to a group rather than a literal number. Perhaps in commentary upon the temptation to trust in numbers now that the number had been taken, Moses says that the number of Israel was "as numerous as the stars in heaven" (<em><a href='B:50 1:10'>Deu 1:10</a></em>). And yet they went into Canaan knowing they were not the most numerous of the tribes there (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). So Moses may have in view Angels as stars, the idea being that whatever number Israel were on earth, they had the hosts of Angels in Heaven fighting on their side, an Angel for each of them. For all trust in numbers is not the approach of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the census may have been not so much to know numbers, but to define the Israelites into clear family units; for it was God’s intention that each unit should have a specific inheritance in the land they were now going to enter. We likewise will each have a specific, unique nature of inheritance in the future Kingdom of God. But those who refused to pay the atonement money were not numbered (see on :1). The inheritance of the Kingdom requires our acceptance of the atonement and response to it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The number of the names" is the phrase used in <em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em> of the very early church. The idea was that the fledgling Christian church was now the new Israel of God, who were to go out and do spiritual warfare in conquering the world for Christ. The idea of inheriting our "lot" is often applied to our inheritance in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:13'>Dan 12:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance: to everyone according to those who were numbered of his family shall his inheritance be given-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We would expect the quality of the land to be factored in. But instead, land area was to be simply proportionate to the size of the family. God’s ideal intention was that Israel would be obedient and experience the blessings of the covenant outlined in Leviticus 26, which would include huge fecundity of the land- even on the top of the mountains there was to be corn. But they failed, and so these blessings didn’t come about; and perhaps the actual division of the land was therefore based on more secular and spiritually realistic assumptions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The living inherit from the dead, but this is phrased in the Hebrew to imply that the dead "fathers" were being given an inheritance by the living. This is flagging attention to something. The idea was perhaps that the promised inheritances were going to be eternally experienced by those dead "fathers", as they along with the patriarchs were to be resurrected to inherit the land.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :54, there was initially the ideal assumption that Israel's obedience would lead to huge agricultural blessing in the land, of a supernatural degree. Therefore the quality of the land, in a secular, agricultural sense, was not taken into account. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the Levites after their families: of Gershon, the family of the Gershonites; of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites; of Merari, the family of the Merarites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn (he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn). This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Levi: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites. Kohath became the father of Amram-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were not numbered in the first census, but they were at the end of the wilderness journey. The number of 23,000 given in :62 makes them one of the smallest tribes. If we are to understand blessing under the old covenant as related to numbers of children, then there may be the hint that Judah were the most faithful and Levi and Simeon the least, in line with Jacob's curse of those two sons for what they did at Shechem. But it was from this spiritually weak group of Levites that God wished to raise up a priesthood to spiritually guide His people. This is typical of His counter instinctive way of working with people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt: and she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Amram lived to the same age as Levi (<em><a href='B:20 6:16'>Exo 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>). Numbers and ages are used in Semitic literature often in a non literal sense, in order to make some point. Perhaps the idea here is that Amram was indeed a true son of Levi; despite Israel's general apostasy in Egypt, he married within his own tribe, as if seeking to keep the spirit of the later legislation to this effect. Moses' father Amram had married his father’s sister (<em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>), thus disobeying the principle of <em><a href='B:30 18:20'>Lev 18:20</a></em>. The founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To Aaron were born Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the lack of emphasis upon the children of Moses and Miriam, the great wilderness leaders of Israel. There was to be no cult of personality nor nepotism, no riding on the name of a forefather in order to be a leader of God’s people. Spiritual leadership in the Bible was intended to be based upon spiritual qualification. This also continues the major Biblical theme, that the firstborn is often not used by God and is replaced. This is His style, to exalt the underdogs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before Yahweh- </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. But they offered strange or Gentile fire, other than from that fire. 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of them were twenty-three thousand, every male from a month old and upward; for they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David’s time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued. See on :58.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron was now dead, so the record is careful to say that Moses and Eleazar numbered the people at the end of their wanderings, whilst Moses and Aaron numbered them at the start of their wanderings. Having studied every verse of the Bible over the course of many years, the lack of contradiction in the text is such an impressive sign of Divine inspiration. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But among these there was not a man of them who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest, when they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The point may be that the Levites were not numbered then, and we have just read that they <em>were</em> numbered at the <em>end </em>of the wilderness journey. This would explain why Eleazar and Phinehas were not slain. The Rabbis like to suggest that "a man" refers to males and females were not included in the condemnation, but I cannot find reason to be certain about that.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. There was not left a man of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em> adds: "Surely you shall not come into the land, concerning which I swore that I would make you dwell therein, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun". This promise was solemnly made, with uplifted hand as it were, to that generation who left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>). But they did not enter the land, as <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em> makes clear. This was because Israel broke their side of the covenant, and did not in fact want to enter the land; and continued serving the idols of Egypt, which they took with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). But that promise was guaranteed by the fact that "I will bring you into the land... I am Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>). The very essence of Yahweh, that 'I will' save, as surely as 'I will be who I will be', a saviour God, was fought against by Israel's idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant. And because 'Yahweh' involves His character, which includes His judgment of sin and not turning a blind eye to it (<em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>), human intransigence and faithlessness was allowed to as it were even counteract His most essential 'being' a saviour God for His beloved people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher the son of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah-</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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting, saying- </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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated occurrence of the phrase "in the wilderness" in <em><a href='B:40 15:32'>Num 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:3'>Num 27:3</a></em> leads the Rabbis to identify the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath as Zelophehad, who therefore "died in his own sin", an allusion to <em><a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a></em> which uses this term in prefacing the incident of gathering sticks. Although it is then noteworthy that he had apparently faithful daughters.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give to us a possession among the brothers of our 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>Moses brought their cause before Yahweh-</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. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </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 were 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>The daughters of Zelophehad speak right. You shall surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brothers; and you shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them-</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>You shall speak to the children of Israel saying, ‘If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :6. 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>If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers- </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 :6, 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>If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,8,9, this was not a case of male preference. It was so that the land allotment which God had given to each family remained in the name of that family. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be to the children of Israel a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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? See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I have given to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>, the Lord speaks of how a man must be born again in order to see and enter the Kingdom. He parallels seeing the Kingdom with entering it. Moses saw the land of the Kingdom of God, but couldn’t enter it. This is surely behind the Lord’s words here. Given the many allusions to Moses in John’s Gospel, I submit that the Lord was surely saying something about Moses’ seeing of the land before he died (<em><a href='B:40 27:12'>Num 27:12</a></em>). It’s as if He felt that Moses’ seeing the land meant that he would ultimately enter it. To be enabled to see the land, with ‘born again’ special eyesight, was therefore a guarantee that Moses would enter the Kingdom. And <em><a href='B:290 33:17'>Isa 33:17</a></em> speaks of beholding the King in his beauty and seeing “the land that is very far off” (an obvious allusion to Moses seeing the land) as a picture of ultimate salvation.</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>When you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother was gathered-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the promised land but being unable to enter it himself points to how the Law of Moses gave a view of salvation, but couldn’t bring people into it. He had specifically asked to be able to "see" and enter the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:25-27'>Deu 3:25-27</a></em>), and God’s response was to agree to let him "see" it, but He did not agree that Moses could enter it. So we have highlighted the difference between seeing and entering the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>because you rebelled against My word in the wilderness of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify Me at the waters before their eyes. (These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to Yahweh, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses did not get bitter at his rejection, nor disinterested in Israel's future because he would not be with them in the land. He asked God to provide a replacement for him. We see here Moses’ selflessness, his concern was always for the wellbeing of God’s people rather than his own status. He didn’t ask for one of his own family members to take over the leadership; for he realized that spiritual leadership must be based upon spiritual qualification, not family connection.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let Yahweh, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Biblically, a man or woman is identified with their spirit in the sense of their mind or way of life. <em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> speaks of the spirits of just men, with whom the believer ought to associate. This means that we ought to identify ourselves with the way of life, the spirit of life, of “just men” of the past. God is “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (<em><a href='B:40 16:22'>Num 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:16'>Num 27:16</a></em>) in the sense that He is the God of all humanity. So “spirits in prison” can refer to people who, in their spiritual lives, are imprisoned. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This effectively meant 'to lead them in battle' (<em><a href='B:60 14:11'>Jos 14:11</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That the congregation of Yahweh be not as sheep which have no shepherd- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Quoted by Jesus about the crowds of Israelites in the first century (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>). He clearly saw those confused and misguided people, with all their wrong beliefs and attitudes, as still the congregation of God. We also learn from what Moses says and the Lord’s approval of it that God’s people need shepherds. There is an undoubted teaching regarding the need for leadership / shepherding throughout the Bible. When God’s people are leaderless, they go astray.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses sought for a prophet / successor like unto him, who would lead out and bring in the sheep of Israel (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:21'>Num 27:21</a></em>). The descriptions of the good shepherd not losing any sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>) perhaps allude to the well known Jewish stories about Moses being such a good shepherd that he never lost a sheep. L. Ginzberg, <em>Legends Of The Jews</em> has a section on ‘Moses as faithful shepherd’ (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1910) Vol. 2 pp. 300-316).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was a shepherd for 40 years, and then for 40 years he put this into practice by leading Israel as God’s shepherd for 40 years in the same wilderness (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:11'>Isa 63:11</a></em>). As Moses was willing to sacrifice his eternal life for the salvation of the sheep of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:30-32'>Exo 32:30-32</a></em>), so Christ gave his life for us. John's Gospel normally shows the supremacy of Christ over Moses. In this connection of them both being shepherds willing to die for the flock, Moses is not framed as being inferior to Christ- in that in his desire to die for Israel, he truly reached the fullness of the spirit of Christ. "The good shepherd" was a Rabbinical title for Moses; Christ was saying "I am Moses, in his love for your salvation; not better than him, but exactly like him in this". In a sense, Moses' prayer was heard, in that he was excluded from the land for their sakes (<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>; <em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>); they entered after his death. This was to symbolize how the spirit of his love for Israel was typical of Christ's for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because Joshua had the Spirit, Moses was told to lay his hand on him. Yet <em><a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a></em> says that Moses laid his hand on him so that Joshua might receive the Spirit. Here we see the upward spiral of spirituality at work- those who are of the Spirit are made more spiritual and confirmed in their spirituality. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and commission him in their sight- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Commission" carries the idea of practically commanding him. A similar public transference of authority from Moses had happened in <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put of your honour on him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may obey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 27:20'>Num 27:20</a></em> LXX says that Moses put or gave of his glory upon Joshua- and this passage is alluded to by the Lord in <em><a href='B:500 17:22'>Joh 17:22</a></em>: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them”. Note that the Lord’s prayer of John 17 is full of allusion to Moses. So the disciples, indeed all those for whom the Lord prayed in His prayer, are to see themselves as Joshua. Further, in the same context, the Lord washed the disciples’ feet. This would’ve been understood by the disciples as an allusion to a well known Jewish legend that in <em><a href='B:40 27:15-23'>Num 27:15-23</a></em>, Moses acted as a servant to Joshua by preparing a basin of water and washing Joshua’s feet. And the LXX of Moses’ final charge to Joshua in <em><a href='B:50 31:7-8'>Deu 31:7-8</a></em> (“fear not, neither be dismayed”) is quoted by the Lord to His disciples in <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before Yahweh. At his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contrast with Moses was that God communicated directly with him face to face with the Angel, whereas He would communicate with Joshua through the High Priest. The Urim and Thummim were apparently stones in the breastplate which flashed out binary yes / no responses to questions. "Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the Urim and Thummim associated with the breastplate&nbsp; was God’s word or oracle to His people. After the time of David, we don't hear of them being used- perhaps because the ministry of the prophets became God’s chosen way of communicating His word to His people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did as Yahweh commanded him; and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the obedience of Moses is stressed because it would have been absolutely normal for a leader of his magnitude to assume that his sons, or at least the sons of his brother Aaron, should take over from him. But instead a man from another tribe is chosen. And Moses in characteristic humility and desire to see God’s work done and His glory achieved... has therefore no objection to this and submits to it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he laid his hands on him, and commissioned him, as Yahweh spoke by 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>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands about the continual burnt offering are repeated more frequently and in more detail in the Law of Moses than those about anything else or any other offering. It’s as if God perceived the likely tendency of His people to forget the regular sacrifices and focus instead on the occasional ones; and to disregard the commands about the grain offering, which was so small and yet so valuable to God. It is likewise continually stressed in the legislation that these continual sacrifices were “a pleasant aroma to Me” (:2). Spirituality is about daily discipline, not occasional acts of devotion; hourly prayer, daily Bible reading, constant spiritual mindedness, rather than occasional attendance at a church meeting. When God later asked Israel “Did you offer unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?” (<em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:42'>Act 7:42</a></em>), the answer implied is that no, they did not. Hence this repetition here at the end of the wilderness journey. The whole purpose of their being given Canaan was so that they would have an environment in which to keep God’s laws (<em><a href='B:230 105:45'>Psa 105:45</a></em>). Likewise with us- if we’re not interested in keeping God’s principles in this life, there will be little point in our being given the Kingdom, which is likewise an arena in which we can live perfectly according to His principles.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘My offering, My food for My offerings made by fire of a pleasant aroma to Me, you shall observe to offer to Me in their due season’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire which you shall offer to Yahweh: male lambs a year old without blemish, two day by day, for a continual burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer the one lamb in the morning and you shall offer the other lamb at evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual sacrifice of lambs was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God’s redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>with the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of Moses was not an iron law which had to be obeyed in every context. Clearly this law (first given at Sinai at the start of their journeys) about oil and wine being offered with the daily sacrifices would have been practically impossible to keep during the forty years wandering. And likewise during the time of initial conquest of Canaan. Every day, half a hin (1:8 liters, 3:8 pints, around half a gallon) of olive oil and the same of wine would have been required. And this was just for the daily offerings; there were many days when more sacrifices were offered. It was by grace that God would have overlooked thIsa. I suggest that it is to this which <em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em> refers, challenging Israel to remember that God had accepted them in the wilderness by grace alone, as they were unable to keep His ideal requirements: "Did you bring Me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness?”. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in Mount Sinai for a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God’s heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Its drink offering shall be the fourth part of a hin for the one lamb. You shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to Yahweh in the holy place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bread (:4) and wine were effectively offered with the lamb. The Lord's choice of symbols for the breaking of bread surely had this in mind. They are but the side offerings, as it were, compared to the lamb. To take bread and wine would beg the question: 'And where is the slain lamb?'. And the answer to that at the breaking of bread is 'Here in our midst'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The other lamb you shall offer at evening. As the grain offering of the morning, and as the drink offering of it, you shall offer it, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally <em>"</em>between the two evenings", as at Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>). See on :4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the Sabbath day two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here for the only time in the Law it is pointed out that the Sabbath sacrifices must include a grain offering, although this principle had been given in <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>. The theme of this chapter is that the small offerings mustn’t be forgotten nor minimized in importance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are great implications of the little word "besides". There was the warning not to let the offering of other sacrifices tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace. I was recently working with a group of fine brothers and sisters trying to plaster and paint a house against a deadline. We worked day and night quite literally- and afterwards confessed to each other that in those days, our prayer and Bible reading had taken a major slip. Of course at the time, we all told ourselves that we were about the Lord's work... which we were. But my point is that the "continual burnt offering" of devotional 'quiet time' with the Lord, prayer and Bible reading, really must not slip. I challenge us to start each day with some "quiet time", to make Him our arm every morning, to strive the harder for a more disciplined life- with the dynamic in it all being the transfixing experience of knowing Jesus as our finest friend, inspiring brother, matchless Saviour, Son of God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt offering to Yahweh: two young bulls, and one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing; see on :4. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God’s redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, for each bull; and two tenth parts of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The new moon festival was to effectively be a Sabbath of rest and worship (<em><a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 46:1'>Eze 46:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:5'>Amo 8:5</a></em>), a time for worship and teaching of the law (<em><a href='B:120 4:23'>2Ki 4:23</a></em>). Most of the surrounding nations worshipped the moon whenever there was a new moon (<em><a href='B:50 4:19'>Deu 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:26-27'>Job 31:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:2'>Jer 8:2</a></em>). God saw that this was going to be part of the religious need of people at that time, and He makes a kind of concession to that weakness and need. Israel were to keep a new moon festival- but dedicate it to Him. We marvel at His awareness of human needs within the cultures they live in.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a tenth part of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering to every lamb; for a burnt offering of a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God’s Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their drink offerings shall be half a hin of wine for a bull, and the third part of a hin for the ram, and the fourth part of a hin for a lamb: this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This had only previously been required in the specific case of <em><a href='B:20 29:40'>Exo 29:40</a></em> but in <em><a href='B:40 15:10'>Num 15:10</a></em> was then made applicable to every sacrifice. After the rejection of the people in Numbers 14, God wanted them to have this extra feature in relationship with Him. I see it that way, rather than Him as it were punishing them with more legislation. For that was not at all the purpose of any of His Mosaic laws. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One male goat for a sin offering to Yahweh; it shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact they were offering 'extra' offerings was not to take them away from realizing their sin and need for atonement. Such reminders are always necessary. The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, is Yahweh’s Passover- </em></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 recalling 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>) (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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These seven days were to recall the seven days of creation; for the exodus was a new creation of Israel, out of the water of the Red Sea. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first day shall be a holy gathering: you shall do no servile work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Work was obviously required in order to keep the Passover; the "work" in view is therefore secular work. The repeated emphasis upon this is to demonstrate that blessing and salvation was to be by grace and not works. They were to cease from their own works. And this repeated lesson taught to them is likewise taught to us in different ways. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer an offering made by fire, a burnt offering to Yahweh: two young bulls, and one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; they shall be to you without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil: you shall offer three tenth parts for a bull, and two tenth parts for the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "mixed", see on :13. One of the most obvious similarities between these offerings and the breaking of bread is that they both feature bread and wine, associated with a slain animal in the midst (<em><a href='B:40 15:9-10'>Num 15:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 6:17-19'>2Sa 6:17-19</a></em>). And further, both require the eating of the sacrifice by the offerer. The peace offering and Passover (also typical of the memorial meeting) featured the offerer eating the sacrifice "before the Lord". This phrase "before the Lord" is continually emphasized in the records of the peace offerings. I guess we would all admit that our sense of the presence of the Father and Son at our memorial meetings has much room for improvement. We really are "before the Lord" as we sit there. God came unto men when they offered acceptable peace offerings (<em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em>), as He is made known to us through the breaking of bread. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sacrifices on each of the seven days were two young bullocks, one ram and seven lambs for a burnt offering, with the accompanying meat offerings, and one goat for a sin offering (<em><a href='B:40 28:19-24'>Num 28:19-24</a></em>). This explains why the Jews at the time of the Lord's death were careful about not being defiled so that they might eat the Passover (<em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>). The reference is not to the Passover lamb, but to these sacrifices which began the seven day feast of unleavened bread which followed the Passover feast, which only last one day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A goat being chosen for the sin offering tempts us to think of the Lord's usage of sheep and goats as representing the righteous and the sinners. The Lord Jesus, the ultimate sin offering, was in one sense the spotless Passover lamb of God; in another sense, He was totally identified with the goats- sinful, rejected humanity. Likewise He was represented by the serpent lifted up on the pole.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In this way you shall offer daily, for seven days, the food of the offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh. It shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is so often stressed, both in this chapter and elsewhere, that these continual offerings mustn’t be forgotten about at the time of the greater festivals. See on :1. But these "continual" offerings were designed to provoke the question in the heart of all thoughtful believers: 'Does God really want all these animals?'. David at the time of his sin with Bathsheba was taught that God didn’t actually want them so much as He wanted a contrite heart which throws itself upon Him. He did not so much require the continual burnt offerings, but rather "Offer to God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, pay your vows to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:230 50:8'>Psa 50:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:15'>Psa 50:15</a></em>). Heartfelt praise was what God hungered for, not ritualistic sacrifice. To this day, He is thrilled by from the heart thanksgiving, and actions of gratitude for what He has done ("pay your vows"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day you shall have a holy gathering: you shall do no servile work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gathering" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God’s people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also in the day of the first fruits, when you offer a new grain offering to Yahweh in your feast of weeks, you shall have a holy gathering; you shall do no servile work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The celebration of harvest was typically a celebration of the fruits of human labour. But God’s people were to be careful to realize that any harvest blessings were ultimately of God and not of their labour. At the time when every hour of the day was used to bring in the harvest, the people were to have a break from their labours.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The usual pattern for the offerings was sin offering, burnt offering (dedication to God on the basis of being reconciled from sin) and then peace offerings, celebrating the resultant peace with God. But here the burnt offering comes first (:27), with the sin offering as a kind of afterthought (:29). The idea is that the harvest must be dedicated to God and accepted as His blessing and gift. But there was to be the awareness that they were all sinners and this gift had been by grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for each bull, two tenth parts for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Frankincense was to be added to the flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). This was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :27. The total number of animals offered therefore comes to 13 (10 in :27, one in :30, two in :31). This perhaps refers to the 13 tribes, including Levi. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, you shall offer them (they shall be to you without blemish), and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every animal is blemished in some way, but they were to offer that which in their eyes (“to <em>you</em>”) was without blemish. Whilst we are to offer our best, it’s only the best in our eyes, and is only accepted by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy gathering. You shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing of trumpets to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the first day of their civil year; the religious year began with Passover. <em><a href='B:160 8:2'>Neh 8:2</a></em> records that this feast was used in order to teach the law to the assembled people. It was a lead up to the affliction of souls on the tenth day of that month at the day of atonement. There is repeated emphasis upon not working whilst remembering God’s saving work. Throughout the Mosaic law, there was the clear teaching that it was God’s work and not that of man which was to be celebrated and was to be the basis of relationship with God. <em></em></p><p> Num. 25:18 commands Israel to attack the Midianites for what they did to them in seducing them to idolatry. But we have to apparently wait until Num. 31 to read of Israel actually going to war with Midian. But the intervening chapters cover events which happened perhaps only within days after the point in Num. 25:18 where Yahweh tells Israel to attack Midian. In Num. 26 they are to take a military census in preparation for the battle. Then chapter 27 records the issue of Zelophehad's daughters, who present as faithful to Yahweh and unlike their unbelieving father who died in the desert for his sin of not believing he could enter the land.  Remember Israel are now 40 years after leaving Egypt, and about to enter Canaan despite their last minute apostacy and lack of faith. Those daughters are presented as examples of the faithful remnant within Israel. Numbers 28 commands that various daily sacrifices be offered once Israel are in the land. Numbers 29 then calls for a day of atonement to be held, followed by the feast of booths five days after the atonement feast finished. This would be an apparently needless repetition of previously given legislation- unless we understand that it was a specific call to keep the feast of atonement at that time. This would have been in our September / October. A few months later, Israel entered the land around Passover time, with Moses dying about 30 days before that [seeing they mourned 30 days for him]. This would also explain why Num. 29 doesn't describe the other feasts but only the day of Atonement and the related feast of booths [tabernacles].  The language of "a" rather than "the" holy gathering could suggest that a specific event is being commanded rather than simply repeating the legislation about the intended annual day of atonement ["In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy gathering", Num. 29:1]. This would also make sense of the word "this" in Num. 29:7: "On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy gathering". That sounds as if the audience were at that point in the seventh month.   </p><p>
As discussed above, the material in Num. 26-30 is all relevant to the historical situation described in Num. 25. Moab took Balaam's advice and encouraged the men of Israel to sleep with Moabite prostitutes, and to make a religious covenant with Baal. This was at the end of the 40 year wandering, with Israel about to enter the Kingdom of God, the promised land. Num. 28 is not just a random repetition of the law about the day of Atonement. Rather was it a specific appeal for Israel to then keep it- hence the language in this chapter of keeping it "this month", and a calling of "a holy gathering" rather than "the holy gathering". It's why the other feasts aren't mentioned- only the Day of Atonement and the connected feast, of Tabernacles, which began a week later. And this explains some of the differences we will note between the commandments about the Yom Kippur rituals in Num. 28 and the more generic ones in Lev. 16. </p><p>
The Yom Kippur ritual has its context in the death of Aaron's sons for desecrating the tabernacle (Lev. 16:1). The cleansing of not only the sins of the people, but also the tabernacle, was therefore in the context of Israel's desecration of the tabernacle- and not because physical bits of furniture somehow became unclean of themselves without human fault. This introductory verse, leading on as it does to the Day of Atonement ritual, raises the question of whether it was intended as an annual feast or rather an emergency ritual to be used when presumptuous sins had been committed and the tabernacle defiled. The only time in the Bible we read of the feast being called is in Num. 29, when the tabernacle had indeed just been defiled by Cozbi and Zimri and then by Phinehas bursting in to the most holy place to slay them. Lev. 16:29 says that the fasting aspect was to indeed be observed on the 10th day of the 7th month, but this is after the commands about the scapegoat- which I suggest were for emergency use.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer a burnt offering for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: one young bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). </p><p>The laws of Lev. 16:32,33 required that the atonement was made by a consecrated High Priest: "The priest who is anointed and who is consecrated to be priest in his father’s place shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments.
Then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly". There is no mention of Eleazar nor Phinehas being consecrated after the death of Aaron. We wonder whether this is why there is no repetition of those commands at this time. God wanted the people to do their best to keep their own day of Atonement; which is why we read that "you" are to make the offerings including the atonement sacrifice. This is the same "you" who are told in :1 to "do no servile work". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for the bull, two tenth parts for the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God’s Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ.<em></em></p><p>It is fair to enquire whether the wheat / flour and oil were not in fact offered separately, but rather the idea is that a cake was to be baked. Because that is the idea of oil and flour being together. In this case we have the common idea of bread accompanying a meal. The sacrifice was a meal between the invisible God and His people. And thus they all looked forward in essence to the breaking of bread meeting, where the bread and wine [the side dishes to a meal] are present, and so is the meat / lamb / sacrifice- in the invisible but present Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Frankincense was to be added to the flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). This was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to prepare them for the upcoming day of atonement. We note from <em><a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a></em> that the fast of the seventh month, which clearly refers to this fasting at the day of atonement, was to be a time of joy and cheerful feasting once Israel were assured of their forgiveness. And this was fulfilled to a limited extent when the exiles (apparently on the day of atonement) mourned in conviction of their sins, and then with their eyes streaming with tears, were told to go and rejoice with a feast (<em><a href='B:160 8:10'>Neh 8:10</a></em>). It was this spirit which was to be found in the subsequent feast of tabernacles, which was to commemorate and rejoice in sin forgiven. But there is reason to think that the exiles on that occasion were told to in fact celebrate on that very day of atonement; another indication that God never intended His law to be eternally fixed and literally unchanging. Although it is worth considering whether in fact the law was actually requiring fasting; rather was the emphasis upon affliction of souls after conviction of personal sin. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>besides the burnt offering of the new moon, and the grain offering of it, and the continual burnt offering and the grain offering of it, and their drink offerings, according to their ordinance, for a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God’s heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow. <em></em></p><p>Lev. 16:31 calls the day of Atonement a "sabbath of solemn rest", a kind of super-sabbath. Although the other feasts also required "rest", this was to be a day of "solemn rest". This was to highlight the need for absolute focus upon the significance of having sin totally forgiven on the basis of grace and not works. This feast also featured the requirement that every Gentile in the land also observe it "the native-born, or the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you" (Lev. 16:29). This would be relevant to an Israel who at this time kept the virgin females of Moab for themselves (Num. 31:18). They too were to accept the need for atonement. </p><p>
The day of Atonement likewise cleansed the Most Holy place and the tabernacle. This was relevant to the fact that Zimri and Cozbi had defiled the tabernacle by their sex act there, and Phinehas had charged in there to murder them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy gathering; and you shall afflict your souls. You shall do no kind of work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the day of atonement. "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>). 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. And we are either beat up by the flesh, by Egypt; or we beat ourselves up for our sins. </p><p>
All Israel's "transgressions" were forgiven by the day of Atonement, or we could instead say that the fact they had been forgiven them by grace already was celebrated then. The word "transgressions" in the Day of Atonement ritual in Lev. 16:21 etc. translates pehshah, a rather uncommon word in the Mosaic law. We read in Ex. 23:21 that Israel should not rebel against their guardian Angel because He would not pardon their pehshah (Ex. 23:21), even though God was capable of forgiving pehshah (Ex. 34:7 "keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving... transgression"). That capability was due to His extreme grace, and this was celebrated by the forgiveness of transgression achieved and memorialized on the day of atonement. The word is often used by David about his sin with Bathsheba, which was the presumptuous sin for which there was no forgiveness under the Mosaic rituals. But such transgression was dealt with by the Day of Atonement just as it was by the grace shown to David (Ps. 25:7; 32:1,5; 39:8; 51:1,3). David defines "the sin of presumption" as "the great transgression" (Ps. 19:13), and yet from such "transgression" the blood of the day of Atonement could cleanse. The same word is used in Is. 53:5,8 of how the Lord's death was "for our transgressions... for the transgressions of My people was He stricken". Thus when the modified day of Atonement was kept in Num. 29 before Israel entered Canaan and after their shameless transgression with Midian, they were being reminded that all their transgressions / rebellions had been forgiven on account of the Atonement blood- which was looking forward to that of the Lord who died for the transgressions of His people.   
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering to Yahweh for a pleasant aroma: one young bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old (they shall be to you without blemish)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it ("to you without blemish"); and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). </p><p>The slight differences with the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles ritual in Lev. 16 are because here in  Num. 28 we have a one time special day of Atonement. Here they are told to offer a bullock, a ram and seven lambs as a burnt offering, whereas in Lev. 16:5 only one ram was to be offered as the burnt offering. Likewise :11 seems to speak of an additional sin offering when compared with Lev. 16. It's as if the weight of their sin is now being emphasized. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for the bull, two tenth parts for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 16:13'>Eze 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:19'>Eze 16:19</a></em> speak of how God fed Israel with fine flour and oil. These things are only mentioned together (43 times!) with reference to the sacrifices which Israel were to offer to God. But God says that He had given these things to Israel, and even fed them with them. The idea therefore was that they were giving back to God what He had first given them. And this must be remembered in all our sacrificing. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the lack of mention of the drink offering, of wine, which usually accompanied all sacrifices. Unless it is mentioned in :11. I suggest this omission may have been to signpost attention towards the huge significance of the blood of the day of atonement sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering; besides the sin offering of atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This additional sin offering on the day of Atonement isn’t mentioned in the previous legislation about the day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. Because Israel had failed to keep the sacrifices during the wilderness journey as they should have done (so <em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em> implies), God now at the end of the wilderness journey added more sacrifices to be kept. Perhaps the Israelite was to see in this male goat a symbol of himself, worthy only of rejection- the goat being a symbol of the rejected in <em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>; and the “sin offering of atonement” as representative of the whole community’s unforgiven sins. This is the great paradox- that those who consider themselves rejected will be accepted, and those who think of themselves as accepted in their own strength will be rejected. The Lord's right hand is our left hand, and vice versa, if we imagine ourselves standing before Him. Those who put themselves to <em>their</em> right hand , i.e. justify themselves, are putting themselves at His left hand; and vice versa (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>).</p><p>We note that the term azazel, scapegoat, is not mentioned here in Num. 29. Nor is there any repetition of the material in Lev. 16 about the significant rituals connected with it. We wonder whether in this version of the day of atonement, there was no scapegoat released. Possibly because they were to understand that Moses had fulfilled that role in not being allowed to enter the land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifteenth day of the seventh month you shall have a holy gathering. You shall do no servile work, and you shall keep a feast to Yahweh seven days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gathering" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God’s people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship. <em></em></p><p>The feast of Tabernacles or booths now described only mentions the offerings to be made. Yet elsewhere it is described as a feast of joy, rejoicing in the ingathered harvest and dwelling in tents looking back to the wilderness years, reminding them that even in a settled prosperous life, they were still pilgrims. Dt. 16:14 Heb. says that they were to be made glad, and this was the result of the Yom Kippur experience. We enquire why the sense of joy, and the command to dwell in tents, is not here recorded. It could be that this was a specific command for the feast of Tabernacles to now be kept after the day of Atonement- to Israel at that point in the desert. They had no harvest to gather, and they were still living in tents anyway. But the idea was that after the sober facing up to sin of the Day of Atonement, the people were now to rejoice in God's grace. </p><p>
But in the immediate context of Israel at the point of Num. 29, they were to remember that their joy still involved sacrifice, their joy in God's grace couldn't be real without some sense of sacrifice- and a sin offering was still required, to ever remind them of the price paid for human redemption. In fact there were more offerings made in the feast of Booths than in any other feast. They had to give something in response to His grace, not 'appear empty handed', and this should be our sense too. In all this we see taught our response to the Lord's achievement of atonement for us. </p><p>
Elsewhere we read the command to rejoice, or [Heb.] to be made to rejoice. This meant that they were not to fast nor hold funerals during this feast. The achievement of the day of Atonement was to be understood in terms of not only forgiveness, but the ultimate conquest of death. They were also to present the fruits of the harvest before God and to make booths to live in. The feast of Tabernacles is called the feast of ingathering in Exodus- it celebrated the gathering in of the harvest. This is all alluded to in the visions of Rev. 7:9-17; 14:1-5: "A great crowd, which no one could number, out of every nation, comprised of all tribes, peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes and with palms in their hands". The palm fronds suggest the feast of tabernacles; and we see the connection with the 70 bullocks offered during the feast, representing the 70 Gentile nations of Gen. 10. The feast spoke of the climax of God's harvest of people- and His joy in us. Revelation often uses Feast of Tabernacles language, especially playing on the word skene, which the LXX uses for the booths of the feast of booths / Tabernacles. Thus Rev. 21:3,4: "The home [skene] of God is among mortals. He will dwell [skenoo] with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away". All this alludes to the joy which was to characterize the feast.  </p><p>
"Servile work" specifically means 'work as a slave'; the term is used multiple times in describing Israel's servitude in Egypt, and for the "service" of the tabernacle and of Yahweh generally. They changed masters but their servitude remained. So slaves were given a holiday at this feast. The people together were to remember that they had all been freed from Egypt by grace, and freed from the servitude to sin by the Day of Atonement which preceded this feast. We live in a world where people rich and poor are alike in slavery to the flesh. We are freed from this "servile" life and are to rejoice in it. The Truth has made us free- the truth of sin forgiven and dealt with, and calm assurance of eternal salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: thirteen young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old; they shall be without blemish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In total, the feast of Tabernacles required 70 oxen to be sacrificed. Far more animals were sacrificed in this feast than for any other. Yet this was the feast of joy- teaching that true happiness is related to sacrifice to God, rather than keeping for ourselves.</p><p> It has been observed: "The number of the burnt-sacrifices, each kind by itself or all of them together, is always divisible by the sacred number seven. We have for the week 70 bullocks, 14 rams, and 98 (14 x 7) lambs, or altogether 182 animals (26 x 7). To these must be added 336 (48 x 7) tenths of ephahs of flour for the cereal-offering. The sacred number seven appeared at the Feast of Unleavened Bread only in the number of its days, and at Pentecost in the timing of its observance (7 x 7 days after Passover). But by contrast the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days, took place in the seventh month, and as we have seen had the number seven impressed in a remarkable manner on its characteristic sacrifices". It is also the seventh feast: Shabbat, Passover, Firstfruits, the Feasts of Weeks (Pentecost), the Feast of Trumpets, Yom Kippur and then Tabernacles. This could be because the feast looked forward to the time of completion or perfection of all things in the Kingdom, when the full harvest of the Gospel has been brought in. The rituals in Ezekiel's temple seem to require seven bullocks to be offered every day, as if the time of completion has come. The 70 bullocks clearly suggest the 70 nations listed in Gen. 10.  </p><p>
"Without blemish" doesn't mean perfect or spotless- no animal nor human body is literally without blemish. The Hebrew word is also translated 'sincere'. Israel are asked to be "perfect [s.w.] with your God". Moral perfection isn't in view- rather the idea is of wholeness or completeness. It could even be argued that "whole burnt offerings" are what are in view- perhaps this is how we are to understand the animals being without blemish (Mk. 12:33; Heb. 10:6). The idea is that every part of our lives is to be offered to God, and not just the religious external appearance, or some dimensions of our lives but not others. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for every bull of the thirteen bulls, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>13 bullocks were to be sacrificed on the first day, and the number of bullocks decreased by one every day until seven bullocks on the last day. Additionally there were to be two rams and fourteen lambs. The sin offering on each day was one kid of the goats. On the eighth day the burnt offering consisted of one bullock, one ram, seven lambs, and the sin offering of one kid of the goats. Over the eight days, this made a total of seventy-one bullocks, fifteen rams, one hundred and five lambs and eight kids plus meat and drink offerings. This was to celebrate the joy of forgiveness received at the day of Atonement. The communal nature of it was in order to provide an opportunity for the generosity to others which was intended to arise from personal experience of God’s gift of salvation and forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The handful of flour was to be given for every individual lamb, and not as some blanket amount to cover all 14 lambs. God wanted them to realize that their joy and celebration was to always have embedded within it an awareness of their forgiveness and Passover deliverance. And to this day, this is to be the basis for our joy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>We note that the commands about the feast of Tabernacles in Lev. 23 omit this reference to a sin offering. Again we conclude that the situation in Num. 29 was unique to that occasion. The people had seriously sinned and they were to be reminded of this. Even in their joy in atonement. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the second day you shall offer twelve young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God’s redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual offering of bread (flour) and wine with each animal looked ahead to the breaking of bread meeting. The sacrificed animal is present in the form of the now living Lord Jesus. </p><p>All up, 98 lambs were to be sacrificed, possibly alluding to the 98 curses for breaking the covenant listed in Dt. 28. Those curses were removed by the lambs who looked ahead to the Lord's work on the cross. This was relevant to Israel at this point as they had broken the covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each day of their rejoicing in God’s grace toward them, Israel were to offer a sin offering as a reminder of the fact they were sinners, and all God’s blessings toward them were given to a sinful people. We must never let slip our recognition of our sinfulness before God, and unworthiness in ourselves of His blessings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the third day eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The decreasing number of bullocks may have been in order to highlight the final offering, of the significant number of seven bullocks. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the sacrifices were to be made upon the basis that the offerer was giving back to God what God had given him. That included the grain ("meal") and drink offerings. Thus the same words are found in <em><a href='B:360 2:14'>Joe 2:14</a></em>: "Who knows? He may turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, even a meal offering and a drink offering to Yahweh, your God".&nbsp; The sense may therefore be: "The one who experiences this, will experience a God who turns and relents, and goes even further- He will restore you grain and wine. But you are to use that blessing of grace by offering it to Yahweh, your God". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A goat being chosen for the sin offering tempts us to think of the Lord's usage of sheep and goats as representing the righteous and the sinners. The Lord Jesus, the ultimate sin offering, was in one sense the spotless Passover lamb of God; in another sense, He was totally identified with the goats- sinful, rejected humanity. Likewise He was represented by the serpent lifted up on the pole.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fourth day ten bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The decreasing number of bullocks was perhaps related to the symbolism of the bullock for strong, powerful labour. This was to decrease, until the final sacrifice of seven bullocks was understood as the power of the work of the future Messiah, the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </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. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Female animals were also accepted for sacrifice. The male animals however were worth more than female ones on the secular market, and so the insistence upon male offerings was not because God favours males over females; but simply because He was asking for the most valuable to be given to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifth day nine bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps just as the glory of the Mosaic system was always fading on Moses' face, the lesson is that the entire Mosaic system was decreasing rather than increasing- for it was to come to an end in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Grain and wine offerings were used in pagan worship (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 57:6'>Isa 57:6</a></em>), just as feasts were kept to celebrate the new moon. The nature of the law of Moses was designed by God to accept the people's religious need to make such offerings and celebrate such regular events- but it was turned towards the worship of Yahweh rather than idols and gods. We marvel at God’s sensitivity to the psychological needs of His people, according to the time and culture in which they live.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feast of trumpets featured both conviction of sin and also joy in God’s salvation and forgiveness; the same strange mixture of emotions we see in the record of its observance in <em><a href='B:160 8:1-10'>Neh 8:1-10</a></em>, and which we experience in our own lives. And this was all to prepare for the same mixture of emotions at the day of Atonement which followed straight on.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the sixth day eight bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Part of the grain / flour / cake was typically burnt upon the altar and the wine poured out upon it (<em><a href='B:10 35:14'>Gen 35:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:9'>Exo 30:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 16:15'>2Ki 16:15</a></em>); and part of it was eaten by the priests, representing God’s acceptance of it, and how He was dining with the offerers at His table, represented by the altar.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offerings of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This laboured, repeated reminder is required in essence today- we are never to think that our daily, morning and evening personal devotions to God are overridden by some special project or obviated by the fact we are e.g. going to church or a church function that day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day seven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A total of 70 bulls were offered at the feast of ingathering. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> presents us with the picture of men and women redeemed from <em>every</em> kindred (tribe / clan), tongue (<em>glossa- </em>language), people (a group of people not necessarily of the same ethnicity) and nation (<em>ethnos</em>- ethnic group, lit. ‘those of the same customs’). This means that, e.g., not only redeemed ‘Yugoslavs’ will stand before the throne in the end; but Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians... every ethnic group, with every custom, will have representatives who will have believed the Truth and been saved. This idea is confirmed by considering how 70 bullocks had to be sacrificed at the feast of ingathering (Numbers 29), prophetic as it was of the final ingathering of the redeemed. But 70 is the number of all Gentile nations found in Genesis 10. And it is written: “When he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>). A total of 70 went down with Jacob into Egypt; and thus 70 seems an appropriate number to connect with the entire Gentile world. My point is, representatives of <em>all</em> of them will be finally ingathered. It could be that this conversion of all men occurs during the final tribulation (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:6'>Rev 14:6</a></em>); but it seems to me that the context demands that people from every nation etc. are already redeemed in Christ and await His return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that each animal was to be individually accompanied by the flour and wine. Each animal was to be seen as an individual meal offered to God and shared with Him. There was to be no blanket offering of flour and wine in one go, lest this wonderful reality be somehow obscured.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All these "continual" offerings were designed to provoke the question in the heart of all thoughtful believers: 'Does God really want all these animals?'. David at the time of his sin with Bathsheba was taught that God didn’t actually want them so much as He wanted a contrite heart which throws itself upon Him. He did not so much require the continual burnt offerings, but rather "Offer to God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, pay your vows to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:230 50:8'>Psa 50:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:15'>Psa 50:15</a></em>). Heartfelt praise was what God hungered for, not ritualistic sacrifice. To this day, He is thrilled by from the heart thanksgiving, and actions of gratitude for what He has done ("pay your vows"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly: you shall do no servile work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Work was obviously required in order to keep the Passover; the "work" in view is therefore secular work. But the Hebrew phrase "regular work" is that repeatedly used for "the work of the service" of the tabernacle, performed by the Levites (<em><a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:24'>Exo 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:1'>Exo 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:5'>Exo 36:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:13'>1Ch 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:19'>1Ch 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a></em> etc.). Perhaps this command in Leviticus was specifically addressed to the Levites, and the idea was that at the times of the festivals, the Levites were to focus upon keeping them in their own families and not be unduly taken up with the work of the sanctuary beyond what was required by the Mosaic law. The principle is that we must not be so taken up with religious duty that we neglect our own personal worship, especially in our own families.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: one bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the whole purpose of the decreasing number of bullocks over the previous days was to teach that there was only one bull ultimately required by God- pointing forward to the future perfect sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bull, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the numbers of bullocks decreased, so did the number of the grain and drink offerings. A human religious system would likely have increased the numbers of sacrifices each day, leading up to a crescendo of mass offerings. But Israel were taught by the decreasing number of sacrifices that God didn’t actually require sacrifices, but rather one specific sacrifice- which was to be the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are connections between the various sections of Revelation and the Jewish feasts. Here's a summary:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 5 Passover Revelation 5 :x6,9 = <em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 7 Tabernacles <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:15-16'>Rev 7:15-16</a></em> RV = <em><a href='B:20 23:16'>Exo 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 14:16-20'>Zec 14:16-20</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 8, 9 Day Of Atonement <em><a href='B:30 16:31'>Lev 16:31</a></em>; more detailed links in Harry Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach pp. 104,105.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 11 Dedication & Purim The Torah readings for these feasts were Numbers 7 and Zechariah 2-4 about the dedication of the temple; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:11:10'>Rev 11:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:190 9:19'>Est 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a></em>. The period from Tabernacles to Purim is exactly 5 months- as mentioned in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 12 Pentecost & Passover The Jews traditionally ask: "On this Sabbath, shall I reap?"</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 14 Tabernacles </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 15 + 16 Atonement & Passover Leviticus 16; Psalms 118 the Hallel Psalm</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 19 Passover Psalms 113, 114 Passover Psalms</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 21, 22 Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Laying out the material chronologically, we have:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 5: Passover</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6 months</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 7: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapters 8 & 9: Atonement and Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Dedication 5 months (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Purim</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 12: Passover and Pentecost</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 14: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 15: Atonement</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 16 & 19: Passover </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 21 & 22: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The conclusion would therefore be that we have in the book of Revelation a literal account of the three and a half years tribulation, with the Jewish feasts being the key marker points. And it would appear there will be an especial period of five months tribulation as described between Revelation chapters 9 and 11. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer these to Yahweh in your set feasts, besides your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your grain offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God envisaged that at the time the whole community were engaged in extra special devotion to Him, the individual might still wish to make a private sacrifice. We can’t ride into God’s Kingdom on the back of others, e.g. our family members or our church. Our collective devotions shouldn’t lead us to think that God doesn’t seek our private freewill dedication to Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God’s grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses told the children of Israel according to all that 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>Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The address to the tribal elders was perhaps because these issues of dedicating things were largely about dedicating property. The difficult area was when a person who was not the head of a family tried to dedicate property to the Lord. God had given each family a specific inheritance and wanted that to remain within the family name. So in practice, it was the elders of the tribes who were going to deal with these issues. </p><p>I have shown throughout Numbers that we have historical incidents followed by laws which were given in relation to those incidents. Num. 25:18 commands Israel to attack the Midianites for what they did to them in seducing them to idolatry. But we have to apparently wait until Num. 31 to read of Israel actually going to war with Midian. But the intervening chapters cover events which happened perhaps only within days after the point in Num. 25:18 where Yahweh tells Israel to attack Midian. In Num. 26 they are to take a military census in preparation for the battle. Then chapter 27 records the issue of Zelophehad's daughters, who present as faithful to Yahweh and unlike their unbeliving father who died in the desert for his sin of not believing he could enter the land.  Remember Israel are now 40 years after leaving Egypt, and about to enter Canaan despite their last minute apostacy and lack of faith. Those daughters are presented as examples of the faithful remnant within Israel. Numbers 28 commands that various daily sacrifices be offered once Israel are in the land. Numbers 29 then calls for a day of atonement to be held, followed by the feast of booths five days after the atonement feast finished. This would be an apparently needless repetition of previously given legislation- unless we understand that it was a specific call to keep the feast of atonement at that time. </p><p>
Now in Numbers 30 we have some laws given specifically to "the heads of the tribes" explaining how young women's vows were to be treated, and the responsibility of their fathers for them if they were still in their father's household. This is relevant to the situation in Numbers 25- where Phinehas had saved Israel by spearing to death Zimri, the apostate son of one of "the heads of the tribes" as he had sex with Cosbi, the daughter of one of the "heads of the tribes" of Midian. Num. 25:14 speaks of "Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites". Num. 30 has several references to the father's house. The idea seems to be that the father's house was responsible for vows made by those within it. Although it is women who are specifically mentioned, it seems the same principle would be true for male minors still in their father's house. The principle was that if the father "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". Silence from the head of the household meant consent. And this is all in the context of Numbers 25 speaking of the sins of the young people within their "father's house". This legislation may have been to protect Phinehas from blood vengeance from Zimri's family. It would therefore appear likely that he and Zimri had made some kind of vow loyalty to Baal Peor, and Zimri's family had from day to day ignored that. And so they were responsible for it. </p>


