# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This complaint of Moses had supposedly been answered by Jethro's suggestion to appoint elders "to share the load with you" (<em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em>); and I suggested that Exodus 18 is out of chronological sequence, and should be inserted between <em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em> (see note there). But in reality, Jethro's secular advice hadn't worked.&nbsp;Moses accepts Jethro's advice on the basis that he will "surely wear away"; even though his natural strength never abated (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>), and God surely would not have asked him to do the impossible. So Jethro is presented as wrong on this point, and perhaps Moses need not have taken his advice. Jethro at this time seems to have seen Yahweh as only one of many gods; he was a pagan priest. He prophesied that if Moses followed his advice, "all this people shall go to their place in peace"(<em><a href='B:20 18:23'>Exo 18:23</a></em>)- which they didn’t.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Depression is not a sin. Moses was depressed and suicidal in <em><a href='B:40 11:14'>Num 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em> but there is no word of rebuke from God. He saw why Moses was like that- because of an over-extension of himself in doing his Father's work. Depression may bring about an inability to feel, which makes the prayers of David seem so far removed from us. Yet again, depression isn't a sin. It's how we are at some times. It shouldn't be allowed to hinder us from praying. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If You treat me this way, please kill me right now, if I have indeed found grace in Your sight; and don’t let me see my wretchedness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"If You..." definitely uses the female rather than male form of "You", as the rabbinic commentaries note often. It seems Moses is saying that God has given birth to Israel, so He as their mother should carry them and not palm off the work onto Moses. To use the female form for God in this context is therefore highly sarcastic if not blasphemous. </p><p>Here we surely have Moses in depression; but God doesn’t seem to rebuke him (although He does rebuke him for other failures at other times). He recognizes our humanity with incredible sensitivity; and depression isn’t sin. Despite Moses' anger with God- GNB "so that I won't have to endure your cruelty any longer". God likewise overlooked similar statements by Job. We also need to cut folk some slack when they come out with such statements under duress.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, that they may stand there with you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew officers of Ex. 5:15 refused to beat their brethren and so were beaten. In Num. 11:16, a point soon after the time of the exodus in Ex. 5:15, there is the assumption that there was already a group of 70 elders or officers over Israel. Presumably these 70 were the 70 Hebrew officers who were placed over the Israeli team slaves. So their taking beating for their brethren became the qualification for eldership in the new Israel who emerged from the Red Sea. This is the real qualification for leadership...</p><p>Possession of the Spirit did not mean that someone was necessarily acceptable in God’s sight, e.g. Saul possessed it for a time (<em><a href='B:90 10:10'>1Sa 10:10</a></em>) as did the judges of Israel (<em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em>) although they were not righteous; they did not believe the report of Joshua and Caleb and therefore were condemned to die like the other Israelites, despite their having the Spirit - <em><a href='B:230 82:1-7'>Psa 82:1-7</a></em> says as much. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The system proposed by Jethro didn’t really work, because Moses again felt the burden was too great for him (see on <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>), and so these 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>). But this too didn’t really work; because in <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em> we seem to read of the priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses and Aaron. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit which is on you, and will put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you not bear it yourself alone-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>, Paul writes of how the Spirit “helps our infirmities”. The Greek word for “helps” occurs in the LXX of <em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em>, where Moses is the one helped. Paul is suggesting that each believer can rise up to the pattern of Moses; he was no longer to be seen by Jewish believers as some distant, untouchable, stellar example of devotion. He was a pattern that through the Spirit could be realistically attained; although the point is being cleverly made that he too had weakness that needed Divine help. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When we read that God will not place too great a burden upon us, but will provide a way of escape so that we are able to bear the burden (<em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>), the allusion is clearly to <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em> LXX, where Moses is provided with helpers so that he will be able to bear the burden of the people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Say to the people, ‘Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow, and you will eat flesh; for you have wept in the ears of Yahweh, saying, Who will give us flesh to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt. Therefore Yahweh will give you flesh, and you will eat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command to sanctify themselves may be somehow sarcastic. Because the flesh they were being given to eat was effectively their condemnation. They were given flesh to eat as they desired, and it was to be their destruction. This is typical of how God condemns people- He gives them what they themselves desire, so that they condemn themselves. For His focus is upon saving and not condemning. The Lord Jesus may allude here in saying that He was offering <em>His </em>flesh to eat, and through absorbing Him, there would be no hunger nor desire to please the flesh. </p><p>"It was well with us"- in a land where they been abused, raped and murdered. Here we see how human memory is so biased. We create narratives about the past, our own past and that of others, even a very recent past as in this example, which may be absolutely untrue. Yet we are utterly convinced of them. Moses has just stated that God intends to do "good", s.w. "well", to Israel (Num. 10:29,32). But they were perhaps sarcastically rebuffing the promise of the "good land" of Canaan, instead wanting to see Egypt as the "good" land. Throughout Deuteronomy, Moses urges them to see the land as "good" and God's intentions for them as "good"; whereas their Egyptian past was not "good" or "well". They were doing what many do today- despising their redemption. We noted on :4 that the attitude of the "mixed multitude" spread to the Israelites. Perhaps it has been "well" for them in Egypt, and perhaps indeed they had eaten fish for free. But that wasn't the case for the Hebrews. But the Hebrews had adopted the narrative of the freeborn Egyptians as their own, because it was convenient for them and their own agenda of returning to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be an idiom, for each figure is double that of the previous number. God would as it were add on continually, until they were overcome with this meat. But if we add up 30 (a month) +20 +10 +5 +2 we come to 67, the number of feast days in the sacred calendar of Israel, including the Sabbaths. "You will not eat one day" would then refer to the Day of Atonement, when they fasted. They ought to have eaten meat or special food sparingly and in order to celebrate on special occasions. But God gave them all that meat on consecutive days and it was finally nauseous to them (:20). If we constantly over indulge, then there is no sense of special celebration. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it is loathsome to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that the very smell of meat would make them nauseous. The implication of :33 is that immediately the people ate the flesh of the quails, they were smitten. This would mean that the intended period of one month eating quail was either figurative; or God cut short that particular plan and instead operated according to a different one, which was to slay them immediately. This would explain also why the people didn’t apparently stay long at this place, but instead moved on quickly instead of being there for at least a month as required by a literal reading of :20.&nbsp; </p><p>Another idea may be that the plague caused by the quail meat resulted in chronic vomiting, so strong that vomit was ejected through the nose. "Loathsome" is translated "nauseating" in some versions e.g. NEB, GNB. This is how strongly they would come to hate that which they once lusted after. Hating the object of lust is absolutely psychologically credible, and we see it in the behaviour of Amnon, Potiphar's wife, Judas  despitefully throwing down his silver pieces etc. It will be seen in the rejected of the last days, hating the objects of their materialism, casting their idols to the bats, which they now see had precluded them from salvation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because that you have rejected Yahweh Who is among you, and have wept before Him, saying, Why did we come out of Egypt?’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB presents their words as more than a question: "This will happen because you have rejected the LORD who is here among you and have complained to him that you should never have left Egypt". Yahweh who was among refers to the Angel of the presence, whom Moses had begged to go "among them". Indeed God had originally said that the Angel of the Presence should not go amongst them exactly because of their provocative behaviour; and it was Moses who had begged for Yahweh's presence "among them". We see therefore that God was almost as it were persuaded against His own will and better knowledge, rather like the Father in the parable of the prodigal.&nbsp; </p><p>Their rejection of the manna was effectively their rejection of Yahweh. The essence of their problem was the essence of so many such cries today- that God's provision for us in this wilderness journey isn't enough and is not to our taste. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and you have said, ‘I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month’- </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. <em><a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a></em> seems to say they marched five abreast. 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. &nbsp;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>Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to be sufficient for them? Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to be sufficient for them?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses almost mocks God: "Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them, to suffice them?". And the Angel angrily replied: "Is the Lord's hand grown short? thou shalt see whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not". If he had faith, Moses surely would have realised that if God could provide manna, he could provide any food. Moses seems to have suffered from fits of depression and also high spirituality. But he was perhaps thereby made the humblest man on earth through his struggles with depression. There are similarities with the anger of the disciples with the Lord Jesus when He suggested feeding the crowd. This anger is because faith had been challenged; and we can find ourselves reacting likewise.</p><p>Moses may have been saying that even if they were given all possible meat, they would still not be "sufficed", their lust was such that it wouldn't be satisfied. Because their real agenda wasn't what was on the menu, but to return to Egypt. And a later Psalm confirms this, by noting that despite being fed with so much flesh, "they were not estranged from their lust".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Has Yahweh’s hand grown short? Now you will see whether My word will happen to you or not- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that God’s ability to act is somehow limited. The same phrase was used to the exiles (<em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:1'>Isa 59:1</a></em>) who likewise disbelieved that God could bring about the salvation of Israel and bring them in to the promised land and Kingdom. Any disbelief that we will actually be brought into God’s Kingdom is really a belief that God’s hand is limited. Our lack of faith is not just a failure within our own minds; it is saying and implying something about God personally. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went out, and told the people the words of Yahweh; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them around the Tent-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses went out of the tabernacle, where this discussion had been happening. Presumably he went out when the cloud ascended; for the Angel in the cloud descends again in :25. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh came down in the cloud, and spoke to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:25'>Num 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 22:10'>2Sa 22:10</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:300 39:16'>Jer 39:16</a></em>, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to "go, tell Ebed-melech..." a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn't have literally left prison to do so- but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord's word has as it were experienced the Lord 'going' to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could 'go' to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (<em><a href='B:670 3:18-21'>1Pe 3:18-21</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And took of the Spirit that was on him, and put it on the seventy elders: and it happened that when the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did so no more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was presumably done in some visible way. They prophesied briefly as an external witness to the fact that they now had the Spirit. Such brief supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit are recorded several times in the New Testament, where again they are evidences of the receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially an internal gift. Just as here, the Spirit given to the elders was to empower them in their minds to be able to lead the people and assist Moses in practically guide the people to Canaan.</p><p>We read no more of these 70 elders, although Judaism has laid great store on them. It appears to have been a one time event, because there is no mechanism for the 70 to pass on the Spirit to successors. They prophesied at this point and "did so no more" (:25; AV "and did not cease" is quite wrong here). I wonder if they were given to Moses in the same spirit as the quail were- Israel like Moses were given what they lusted after, but that wasn't actually the answer. The gift of quail was in fact together with Divine judgment. Trust in God and acceptance of His provision was the answer. We note the parallel- some of the 72 prophesied "in the camp" and others outside the camp, just as the quail fell both in the camp (Ps. 78:27) and outside it (Num. 11:31), if we compare the Numbers and Psalms comments. Both 'gifts' come from the ruach , the wind [for the quails], and the wind / Spirit [s.w.] for the 70 elders. The record of the gift of quail and of the 70 elders is absolutely interwoven. Just as Israel were given their lust in abundance, with heaps of quails, so Moses was given his desire- 70 "helpers" who I suggest didn't help at all to carry Israel through the desert. Moses in maturity in Dt. 1 reflects that he indeed could not bear / carry the people- but God did. Not the 70 elders. And in any case, the system of Levites and priests was God's answer to administrative issues, not these 70 elders. The point is, that sometimes we are given what we crave, so that we might learn that it is not the answer. As Israel were "not estranged from their lust" by gorging on the flesh. Giving in to lust isn't the path. We see in these things part of a major Biblical theme- that God in fact gives man what he wants, what is his heart's desire. The prodigal received what he asked for, Adam and Eve had their eyes opened. But often it is to man's curse. If our core heart desire is for the Kingdom, that likewise will be answered. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But two men remained in the camp. The name of one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the Spirit rested on them; and they were of those who were written, but had not gone out to the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps this incident happen to confirm Moses' desire expressed in :29 that all Israel would have the gift of the Spirit. He wanted to see the whole camp and not just the tabernacle area filled with the Spirit in people; and the fact two of them prophesied in the camp rather than in the holy space around the tabernacle was therefore indicative of what was potentially possible for all the people. "Eldad", 'loved by God', was perhaps to represent all the people. The concern of the young man in :27 was that in addition to the 70, now another two were prophesying. If God had given the Spirit to 70, then surely these other two were fake; they were "in the camp" and not where the Spirit had apparently been given to the other 70. But their prophesying was legitimate and they were counted amongst the prophets even though they received the Spirit differently. Their names alone are recorded. It's as if Israel were being taught that relationship with Him and receipt of His Spirit directly, and not just part of Moses' spirit, was possible. And possible outside the apparently 'religious' set up. They represented the possibility for all Israel, as Moses says in :29. We note the same confusion of 70 and 72 in the NT texts of the numbers of apostles sent out by the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A young man ran, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua appears to have been only one of a group of Moses' "young men", who moved around the camp running his errands (<em><a href='B:20 24:5'>Exo 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:27-28'>Num 11:27-28</a></em>); as a similar group did for Nehemiah and Paul years later. The young men of the New Testament were also characterized by their love of the word (<em><a href='B:690 2:14'>1Jn 2:14</a></em>). Moses would have had a special fondness for this generation who were to enter the land. A large part of the Law was concerned with Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land; these would only have been relevant to that younger generation. It is fitting that both Moses and Caleb (and Joshua?) maintained their youthful vigour right up to their death (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:11'>Jos 14:11</a></em>). But it was particularly young men who were stricken down at this time because of their unbridled lust (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em>). These young men contrast with those of :33. The lesson for youth is that you have to watch your friends, even amongst the people of God. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his chosen men, answered, My lord Moses, forbid them!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua urged Moses to “forbid” or (Heb.) ‘imprison’ Eldad and Medad for prophesying (<em><a href='B:40 11:28'>Num 11:28</a></em>). He fell into the mistake so many have done; shut up or silence a genuine man of God, for fear that the institution, the existing administration, would be undermined. We see something similar in <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>. Perhaps they were prophesying of Moses’ death? Whatever, Moses’ refusal to shut them up seems to indicate an openness to God’s Spirit and way of working, even if it threatened to undermine his authority. He shows such a genuine spirit when he replies that he wished that all God’s people were the spiritual leaders.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to him, Are you jealous for my sake?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "Are you concerned about my interests?". Joshua wanted Moses to be the sole channel of the Spirit and to have no rival; but Moses in his great humility wanted the Spirit to be shared as widely as possible. These other two men had received the Spirit directly from God, whereas the 70 had received part of Moses' spirit. Joshua was concerned that Moses was being bypassed as a mediator, but Moses in typical humility realizes that he is not indispensable, but others can have direct connection with God apart from through him and without him as their spiritual mentor. A lesson that many authoritarian Christians need to learn. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I wish that all Yahweh’s people were prophets, that Yahweh would put His Spirit on them!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This incident has similarities with the disciples asking Jesus to forbid the disciples of John the Baptist from using the Spirit (<em><a href='B:480 9:40'>Mar 9:40</a></em>). Because other believers aren’t with us or in our group, we aren’t to forbid them. This isn’t to say that unity amongst God’s people isn’t important; but where there is fracture amongst them, this doesn’t mean that God only works with one of the groups.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went into the camp, he and the elders of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They would obviously have done this anyway at some point. So it is recorded intentionally, and as discussed on :26 it could be that the idea is that Moses and the now Spirit filled elders walked around the camp demonstrating their Spirit given authority. And perhaps as an advertisement for the fact that actually anyone could be filled with the Spirit if they wished.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A wind from Yahweh went out and brought quails from the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 78:26'>Psa 78:26</a></em> adds: "He caused the east wind to blow in the sky, by His power He guided the south wind". The idea may be that the quails were blown in by a south easterly wind. He had likewise caused the east wind to operate in bringing locusts upon Egypt and in causing the miracle at the Red Sea. The Hebrew idea of "spirit" and "wind" is connected, and God makes His Angels winds (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>). Clearly He was using Angels to bring about these miracles with winds; and the food is called the bread of Angels in <em><a href='B:230 78:23'>Psa 78:23</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let them fall by the camp, about a day’s journey on this side, and a day’s journey on the other side, around the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The quail was among the ancient Egyptians the emblem of safety and security". In which case we marvel at God’s grace; assuring His rebellious people of their security at the very point of their rebellion against Him. <em><a href='B:230 78:28'>Psa 78:28</a></em> stresses that God thoughtfully made the birds settle immediately around their tents, interpreting "By the camp" as "in the midst of the camp"- as if delivering food to their door, showing such grace at the very time of their murmuring against Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have noted how Angel-winds had brought the plagues and driven back and forth the waters of the Red Sea. They were being taught how the essence of God’s previous work for them (at their deliverance from the world and Red Sea baptism) was continuing for them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And about two cubits above the surface of the earth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that they were two cubits apart from each other, which apparently is how flocks of quail are when they land on the ground. GNB: "flying three feet above the ground", as if they flew literally into the outstretched hands of the people. They didn't have to even bend down to pick them up.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the next day, and gathered the quails. He who gathered least gathered ten homers, and they spread them all abroad for themselves around the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "They spread them out to dry all around the camp". We get the impression of a mad abandon in amassing as much meat as possible. It was perhaps because of this unbridled lust that God decided to immediately judge them rather than after 30 days; see on :33. His intention had been that seeing so much meat would 'estrange' them from their lust (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em>); but it didn’t. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>While the flesh was yet between their teeth, before it was chewed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication of :33 is that immediately the people ate the flesh of the quails, they were smitten. This would mean that the intended period of one month eating quail was either figurative; or God cut short that particular plan and instead operated according to a different one, which was to slay them immediately. This would explain also why the people didn’t apparently stay long at this place, but instead moved on quickly instead of being there for at least a month as required by a literal reading of :20.&nbsp; </p><p>Some have suggested the translation "before it ran out" instead of "before it was chewed". This enables us to stick with the idea that they ate for a month but before the quail supply was exhausted, they were struck down.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against the people, and Yahweh struck the people with a very great plague-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 78:31'>Psa 78:31</a></em> adds the detail that those who were killed were the “fattest”- those who weren’t really hungry, but simply wanted a better life in the wilderness with the delicacies of Egypt, rather than the basic provision of daily food which God had faithfully promised His people. This attitude can easily happen amongst us- discontent because we seek both eternity in the future, and the life of Egypt right now too. Jesus clearly teaches that we must carry the cross in this life before we can enter the eternal joys of His future Kingdom. It was particularly young men who were stricken down at this time because of their unbridled lust (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em>). These young men contrast with those of :27. The lesson for youth is that you have to watch your friends, even amongst the people of God. </p><p>We note the goodness and severity of God. His grace [in judging them immediately rather than after 30 days as planned] was displayed at the same time as His wrath. But in the end, as we see in Hosea, His grace triumphs over His necessary wrath. Notice how His wrath is expressed at the very same time as His grace. Human wrath is typically expressed just as wrath; any amelioration of it, any apology, any rectification of the outburst of anger typically comes at a later point. But with God, His wrath and saving grace are fused perfectly together within the very texture of His being and personality. Exactly as expressed in the meaning of the Yahweh Name given in Ex. 34. We have another example of this in Num. 12:10.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of that place was called Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who lusted- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 Cor. 10:6 is clear that this speaks to us, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted. It is a theme of the Bible that in essence, God gives men their own desires, just as the prodigal son was given what he wrongfully demanded. Here, Israel lusted (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 78:29'>Psa 78:29</a></em>) and God gave them what they lusted after. Those who lusted for meat were given it; yet “they were not estranged from their lust” (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em> AV).&nbsp;Sin never satisfies.&nbsp;Giving in to temptation will not lead to the craving being permanently resolved. This is to point up the huge importance of our innermost desires, our heart, our dominant passions- being upon the things of God and His Kingdom. David could say that all his desire was for the things of God (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 38:9'>Psa 38:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:8'>Isa 26:8</a></em>). More than anything else we should desire to please Him and be in His Kingdom. And all who thus love the Lord's appearing will be eternally with Him (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From Kibroth Hattaavah the people travelled to Hazeroth, and they stayed at Hazeroth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :33 that they did not in fact stay as long in the area as originally planned, but God moved them on quicker. The resumed journey from Hazeroth is picked up in Num. 12:16, so this 'staying at Hazeroth' will now be explained in Num. 12 as relating to the time needed to disciple Miriam. The delays in their wilderness journey were all related to their own sins, as in our own. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman-</em></p><p>The resumed journey from Hazeroth is picked up in Num. 12:16, so this 'staying at Hazeroth' will now be explained in Num. 12 as relating to the time needed to disciple Miriam. The delays in their wilderness journey were all related to their own sins, as in our own.</p><p>The tensions between Aaron and Moses were already apparent. Aaron had been appointed the spokesman of Moses, but Moses himself soon speaks for himself and Aaron is redundant. Then at the incident of the golden calf, Aaron gives in to the masses and isn't faithful to Moses nor Yahweh, making very lame excuses to Moses. Then in Lev. 10 we read of how Moses snaps at Aaron after Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu are killed for offering strange fire; Moses complains that Aaron's other sons Eleazar and Ithamar hadn't eaten the sin offering and had left it to burn to ashes; and he puts the blame for that on Aaron, who replies that it wasn't an appropriate thing to do given the context. In the immediate context, Moses has complained in Num. 11 that he has nobody to help him. Aaron as High Priest and Miriam as leader of the women were surely intended as his helpers, but Moses complains he has asbolutely nobody to help him. This was in fact an implied criticism of Aaron and Miriam. Again we see the psychological credibility of the Biblical record. Tensions between siblings simmer... and then explode, with an issue like "You married a woman unworthy of you and your position" becoming the excuse to unseat the senior sibling from their position of authority. Aaron was the firstborn, but God had chosen Moses as His number one man... and that was always going to be hard for Aaron to cope with. We see him pressed on one hand by normal sociological pressures, and on the other, by the need to accept God's choice and not be jealous of another man's relationship with God, and to get on with our own calling to serve Him. And Aaron at this point gives in. </p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses "took" (not married) another woman, an Ethiopian- probably a&nbsp; slave woman, or possibly a cheap woman. Moses' brother and sister were ashamed that their brother was involved with a woman like thIsa. Whoever she was, Moses was under the one man: one woman standard of the garden of Eden. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:29'>Num 10:29</a></em>, Moses asks Jethro ("Hobab") to remain with the people as a guide through the desert. I have suggested that the events of Exodus 18 should be inserted after <em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em> and before <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em>. In this case the argument between Moses, Aaron and Miriam about Zipporah in <em><a href='B:40 12:1'>Num 12:1</a></em> would have occurred after Zipporah had been accepted again by Moses as his wife. But "Cushite" is a strange term for Zipporah. Perhaps this Cushite was one of the "mixed multitude" who left Egypt, and was taken after his divorce with Zipporah. For the Israelite leader to marry a black woman would have been rather like an apartheid era white South African premier marrying a black servant woman. It demonstrated Moses' humility, and also his attraction to the idea of non-Israelites entering the community of God’s people. This would have made Moses a case of divorce and remarriage. It was certainly no barrier to his public service. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But it seems to me that they were using his marriage as an opportunity to bring him down, as they had their own agenda regarding the leadership of the nation. If you feel you have been slandered by gossip in the church, remember that almost every servant of God has been through this at the hands of those they counted as their brethren: Joseph, Moses, Job, David, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Paul, and above all the Lord Himself. Miriam and Aaron implied Moses (their own brother!) was immoral (<em><a href='B:40 12:1'>Num 12:1</a></em>). The comment that Moses was the humblest man on earth is made in the very context of his enduring unjust criticism in a spiritual way (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). The way Paul commanded Timothy not to even <em>consider</em> a complaint against an elder unless another two or three had been eye-witnesses (<em><a href='B:610 5:19'>1Ti 5:19</a></em>) is proof enough that he expected elders to be slandered from within the ecclesia. The more you read between the lines of Paul's letters, the more evident it is that his very own brethren almost unbelievably slandered him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said, Has Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses? Hasn’t He spoken also with us? And Yahweh heard it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is a theme of the record of the wilderness journeys that God heard the thoughts and secret complaints of His people. His total knowledge and sensitive awareness of every word and thought of our wilderness journey should have an abiding impression on how we think and talk. Likewise we wonder whether they "said" these things in so many words. The implications of their self talk were seen by Yahweh as their actual words, just as ours are. The idea is that indeed God had spoken through Aaron and Miriam as prophets but just at specific times (Ex. 4:15; 15:20). But with Moses He was in open, face to face relationship. He strongly objects to anyone somehow devaluing His intimate relationship with others. But that is just what happens when those in close relationship with Him are judged by others as in fact not having that relationship.  </p><p>
It's possible that they were twisting Moses' recent words: "Would that all the Lord’s people were
prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them” (Num. 11:29). As if to say: 'OK, so you're saying that having a prophetic relationship with Yahweh isn't that unique nor important, so therefore, you have no right to be the leader just because you are Yahweh's prophet". This again is psychologically credible in that it is typical of what happens in power struggles- words are twisted and used as a pretext for one's own agenda. </p><p>
"They said... and Yahweh heard it" is similar to what we several times read of how the private or even internal mutterings of the Israelites were spoken in Yahweh's ears (Num. 11:1). Perhaps all this that follows is a rebuke of their private thoughts or mutterings of siblings to each other in their tent. It is not stated to whom they spoke. 
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the man Moses was very humble, above all the men who were on the surface of the earth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "meek" means one brought down; he was made meek. The word can also mean 'depressed'. His struggles with depression were used by God to bring him to this acme of humility. Thus the man Moses was <em>made</em> very meek, until he was the meekest man alive on earth (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em> Heb.). Moses appears to have been very angry at times, but this may be understandable in terms of his depression, and this great commendation, that he was the humblest person, must be allowed its full weight in our interpretation of his character. True greatness is in humility, as the New Testament often teaches. Moses was the leader because he was the most humble.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>“A stuttering shepherd, shy of leadership and haunted by his crime of passion” in slaying the Egyptian… these things developed this in him. Remember that Moses himself wrote thIsa. It's an autobiographical comment, reflecting of course the Spirit of Him who knows every heart, and could make such a statement. And yet he writes it in recording how God had rebuked Aaron and Miriam for criticizing him, and how He had told them that He spoke with Moses alone face to face. We can imagine Moses blushing, with hung head. And then he makes the comment, that he was made the most humble man… Appreciating the honour of seeing so much of God, when he himself was a sinner, was part of that humbling process. All Israel will ultimately go through this when they face up to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ: " Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (<em><a href='B:290 2:10-11'>Isa 2:10-11</a></em>). This certainly reads like an allusion to Moses' cowering in the rock, humbling himself in the dust, before the glory of Yahweh. Our glimpses of the wonder of the Father's character should have the same effect upon us, just beholding the glory of God, i.e. the manifestation of His perfect character is Christ, should change us into the same image (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> - another invitation to see ourselves as Moses). What a compliment! The most humble man that was then alive; and humility is of great value to God, according to the Proverbs and <em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>. That the leader of possibly 3 million people for forty years could be the meekest man is a sure wonder. Perhaps this comment is made at this point because Moses weakness in the previous chapter had perhaps further developed his humility. He truly cries unto God to heal Miriam of the punishment she was given for criticizing him.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s comment on Moses was: “the man Moses was very great” (<em><a href='B:20 11:3'>Exo 11:3</a></em>). Yet it is also written here that “the man Moses was very meek” (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). Putting the two passages together we have the clear lesson that he who humbles himself is made great. Miriam and Aaron try to humiliate Moses because of the Ethiopian woman he had palled up with in earlier days. But his response was humility itself; so much so that the record comments: "The man Moses was very meek (some suggest the Hebrew implies 'made very meek', as a process), above all the men which were upon the face of the earth".&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke suddenly to Moses, to Aaron, and to Miriam, You three come out to the Tent of Meeting! The three of them came out-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God's sudden response appears to be because Moses was "humble" (:3). He made no response. But God did. This is a powerful encouragement to self control. It shows for all time that we do not have to always justify ourselves nor answer criticism. Even though at other times it may be necessary. Moses' silence was perhaps because he recognized that his marriage "out" to a non Hebrew was not totally justifiable. Neither was his divorce and remarriage... seeing Zipporah had not committed adultery against him. God sees these situations, when a man indeed may be in the wrong but has a heart for Him. And He is so eager to get involved and justify that man. These ancient records are so relevant to life today. Imagine a group of believers on a committee discussing an issue, and a conservative cuts down a liberal with the comment "You're divorced and remarried". The brother blushes and goes silent. We want to hug the brother and slap his critic, just as God did.</p><p>The glory of the “similitude of the Lord” that Moses saw and reflected (<em><a href='B:40 12:4'>Num 12:4</a></em>) is likened to “the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God” (<em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em>). Like Moses, Jewish people have that glory, but they have it veiled; they potentially have it, but it is hidden, because their minds are veiled. This could possibly suggest that Paul saw more potential in the Jewish mind for Christ than other races; thus he speaks in Romans 11 of how the natural branch which has been cut off (Israel) will be more effectively grafted back into the olive tree than the wild Gentile branches. This of course has similarities with the Lord’s teaching about Himself as the vine, whose unfruitful branches had been cut off (<em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>). Israel “much more” than the Gentiles can be grafted back in, whereas Gentile converts do this “against nature” (<em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>).</p><p>Yahweh asked the three of them to come to Him, but then revealed Himself to just Miriam and Aaron. Perhaps He invited Moses too so that Moses could intercede for them so that they not be slain. We see how He so wants to show mercy, He wants to hear an advocate on our behalf. And we have that in the Lord, supremely.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"<em>A</em> pillar" rather than "<em>the</em> pillar" could suggest that this was an especially intense manifestation of God through an Angel. God is extremely sensitive to the slander of His people, and has an especial interest in preserving the truly humble. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Hear now My words. If there is a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make Myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream-</em></p><p>Heb. "please listen" shows God's humility and passion to save Miriam and Aaron.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em> states that God spoke to the prophets in various manners. We can understand by this that inspiration took various forms. Here God tells Moses and Aaron that (at that time) He reveals Himself to prophets by dreams and visions, but with His prophet Moses, He uses another method- He spoke with Moses “mouth to mouth”. Whilst all prophets spoke God’s word, they each had different processes of inspiration at work. God had indeed spoken to Miriam and Aaron, but in a one off sense. They are being told here that they are wrong to assume that they are regularly being given revelations from God. The fact they received God’s word in the past at specific times didn’t mean they were justified in their claims to leadership. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My servant Moses is not so. He is so faithful in all My house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul quotes this in <em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>, but making the point that Moses' technical obedience to all the commands about building the tabernacle, the house or dwelling place of Yahweh, was nothing compared to the work of the Lord Jesus. For He was not only legally obedient, He developed a character far beyond that. And on the basis of that utter perfection was able to build an eternal dwelling place of God in a group of redeemed persons.&nbsp;God appeared to prophets in visions regarding specific things at specific times (:6). But He spoke with Moses regularly, face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. That source of regular, ongoing revelation was infinitely higher than the occasional revelations to Aaron and Miriam in visions in the past. </p><p>The idea is "Faithful in all My household". The context is Miriam and Aaron complaining that Moses had divorced Zipporah for reasons other than adultery, and had remarried- and outside the covenant people. Their implication was that Moses had not been faithful in his own household affairs, so how could he be the leader in God's household. God's response is to comment that Moses has been faithful in all God's household. He thereby overlooks the possibly legitimate hints that Moses' own family management hadn't been that great- but then, it would seem that God accepted that the marriage breakup was perhaps due to factors beyond Moses' control. Not least Zipporah's faithfulness to her pagan father, who did not want to unite with the people of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that with him I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God spoke to Moses "mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of Yahweh shall he behold" (<em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em>) is the basis of <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>: "Now (in the period of the Spirit gifts) we see through a glass darkly; but then (in the dispensation of the completed word) face to face: now I know in part (from the ministry of the gifts); but then shall I know, even as also I am known". The point of this connection is simply this: The close relationship between God and Moses is now available to us through the word. But do we feel God speaking to us face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>)? For this is how close God and Moses came through the word. Yet it is possible. An <em>urgent</em> devotion to the word is needed by us as a community. This is what we really need exhortation about.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul speaks as if he has in one sense matured into "love", no longer a child but a man; yet he writes as if he is still in the partial, immature phase, seeing in a mirror darkly, waiting for the day when he would see "face to face". Likewise "Now I know in part, but then shall I know..." (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). It's the 'now but not yet' situation which we often encounter in Scripture. In a sense we have attained to the mature state of love; in reality, we are still far from it. Paul is alluding to <em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em> LXX, where God says that He spoke with Moses face to face and not in dark similitudes. Paul felt that he wasn't yet as Moses, encountering God 'face to face' in the life of mature love. He was still seeing through a glass darkly. But some time later, Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he was now beholding the glory of the Lord's face (as it is in Christ) just as Moses did, "with unveiled face", and bit by bit, that glory was shining from him (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). And hopefully we feel the same- that bit by bit, we are getting there. So let's take Paul's urging seriously: to grasp the utter supremacy of the life of love, to "follow after love", to press relentlessly towards that state of final maturity which <em>is</em> love (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The extent of inspiration is revealed by the way that God says He spoke with Moses "mouth to mouth"- not 'mouth to ear', as if Moses just sat and listened; but mouth to mouth in the sense that God placed His words inside the mouth of Moses (<em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em>). Thus what Moses spoke forth wasn't merely the memory of what his ears had heard from God’s mouth; rather it was God’s own words put somehow within him. "Mouth to mouth" rather than "mouth to ear" reflects the mutuality of relationship between them. Moses not only listened but spoke back and even changed God's intentions. "Why then...?" suggests that it is so wrong to disregard the fact another man has a deeply intimate personal relationship with the Lord. But the lines drawn by denominational Christianity do this all the time.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against them; and He departed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The departure of Yahweh is parallel with the departure of the cloud (:10), again showing that there was an Angel within the cloud which ascended and descended. The implication of :10 could be that the conversation enveloped them all in the cloud, and when the cloud departed, Miriam stood there stricken white as snow.</p><p>The same words are used in Ex. 4:14 of God's anger burning against Moses. He too had once been stricken leprous and had been healed. So his mediation for others was based on his own experience of grace, just as ours should be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cloud departed from over the Tent; and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold, she was leprous- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Leprosy was a symbol of sin. Moses had himself had the experience of being struck leprous "as white as snow" and then quickly healed from it (<em><a href='B:20 4:6'>Exo 4:6</a></em>). He was thus shown that human sin and weakness were not going to stop God’s purpose going forward. Moses would have been able to see her leprosy with the eye of faith, remembering his own experience; and Miriam likewise would have been encouraged by Moses' experience to believe that the affliction could quickly be healed. If she perceived the similarities between herself and her brother. And we likewise can take encouragement from others' experiences, insofar as we are thoughtful about life. And if we are familiar with the Biblical records and biographies of the lives of God’s previous servants. </p><p>"Snow white" leprosy was a sign the leprosy was over (Lev. 13). So she was stricken with the appearance of having been judged for sin, but the judgment was over at the point of it being inflicted. It's as if God foresaw the intercession of Moses and Aaron for her, and Aaron's statement of repentance, and factored this in at the time of the judgment. Perhaps we can understand our own judgment for sin in a similar way. We see something similar in the way she is punished by being shut out of the camp for seven days, when the law required 14 days for those who had been leprous (Lev. 13:13-17). The law was ameliorated, to again show that in wrath God remembers mercy- at one and the same time. Just as we saw in Num. 11:33, where the intended 30 days judgment of lustful Israel was reduced, so that they were plagued as soon as the quail meat was between their teeth. God's judgment and His mercy are seen at one and the same time, unlike in human judgment and wrath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron said to Moses, Oh, my lord, please don’t count this sin against us, in which we have done foolishly, and in which we have sinned-</em></p><p>Aaron's language here clearly places Moses as his superior, and he as the far inferior. This is a far cry from the original attempt he made to place himself on at least an equal level with Moses, and to bring Moses down from his exalted status. Effectively, these words are repentance for his previous position. Perhaps this is why Aaron is not punished whereas Miriam is [what other explanation is there for that?]. He makes no specific apology nor statement of repentance, but he does speak of "this sin" and the implication of his words is that he regrets what he said. But clearly his motivation is also fear that he may also be struck with the terrible disease his sister had. We note the contrast in how Aaron cries out to Moses to help, whereas Moses cries out to God. LXX implies Aaron was not fully repentant: "Do not lay sin upon us, for we were ignorant wherein we sinned". God would not have been so angry if this were a genuine sin of ignorance. But despite their fearing the results of sin more than repenting from the heart, Moses still intercedes and is heard. If this is how eager God is to perceive repentance, despite impure motivation, we should likewise, rather than demanding specific apologies. We note too that Aaron's penitence here is greater than it was over the golden calf incident. Acceptance of guilt is indeed a sign of spiritual growth. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron doesn't instinctively pray for his own self-preservation- that the leprosy didn’t also break out upon him. Instead he prays for his sister's healing. "Don't count this sin..." is "lay not the sin upon us.... which we sinned". To carry sin therefore is not the same as the sin. To carry sin is to bear the result and consequence of sin. This was what Jesus bore on the cross. Therefore the consequence of every sin is crucifixion, death by torture. And Jesus took this for us. He knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated <em>as if</em> He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Often the Spirit points out that the sinner is only harming himself by his actions- and yet he earnestly pursues his course, in the name of self-interest and self-benefit (<em><a href='B:40 16:38'>Num 16:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 19:8'>Pro 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 20:2'>Pro 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:20'>Hab 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). Sin is therefore associated by God with utter and derisible foolishness (e.g. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>); but this isn't how man in his unwisdom perceives it at all. Indeed, to him self-denial is inexplicable folly and blindness to the essentials of human existence. "This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah (pause to meditate)" (<em><a href='B:230 49:13'>Psa 49:13</a></em>). The <em>folly</em> of sin is only <em>fully </em>evident to God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother’s womb-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The description of Miriam in <em><a href='B:40 12:12'>Num 12:12</a></em> LXX is quoting from <em><a href='B:220 3:16'>Job 3:16</a></em> LXX; as if both Job and Miriam represented apostate Israel.&nbsp;This description of Miriam indicates that the "leprosy" was not Hansen's disease, leprosy as we now know it. For leprosy doesn't begin with such dramatic manifestations. See on :14.&nbsp; </p><p>We note the sad state of Miriam's skin, white as snow. Perhaps this was some Divine justice for her dislike of Moses' Cushite, Gentile wife because she was a woman of black skin. Miriam's white skin was now shown to be shameful and repulsive to everyone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses cried to Yahweh, saying, Heal her, God, I beg You!- </em></p><p>AV "Heal her now" was not totally answered, as God wanted her to be quarantined for seven days first. Moses was surely motivated by his own experience in Ex. 4:6 of being struck “leprous like snow" because he had also resisted God's prophetic purpose. Awareness of our own failures motivates us to pray for others in theirs. We note Moses refers to Miriam as "her" rather than mentioning her name. He knows that God intimately knows the situation he stands in.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Faith is inculcated by an appreciation of the height of the exaltation of the Lord Jesus. He now has all power in Heaven and in earth, and this in itself should inspire us with faith in prayer and hope in His coming salvation. On the basis of passages like <em><a href='B:20 4:7'>Exo 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 12:10-15'>Num 12:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:7-8'>2Ki 5:7-8</a></em>, "leprosy was regarded as a "stroke" only to be removed by the Divine hand which had imposed it". The leper of <em><a href='B:480 1:40'>Mar 1:40</a></em> lived with this understanding, and yet he saw in Jesus nothing less than God manifest. Inspired by the height of the position which he gave Jesus in his heart, he could ask him in faith for a cure: "If you will, <em>you can</em> (as only God was understood to be able to) make me clean". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, shouldn’t she be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside of the camp seven days, and after that she shall be brought in again- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that she had done something which would justify her father spitting in her face, i.e. disowning her or spitting in her face and making her sleep outside his house for a period. Dt. 25:9 explains spitting in the face as a sign of deep disdain. This is an unusually passionate example of God's specific anger with His daughter Miriam. The image of a father spitting in his daughter's face is extreme. She must jave really behaved awfully. This is how much He hates racism, judging a man on his apparent marital failures, and seeking to politically machinate for power amongst God's people by bringing another man down. God absolutely hates and despises those who do such things in His family. Yet those who do them often consider themselves somehow more mature than those they abuse. I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that the plague of leprosy was not Hansen's disease as we now know it. See on :12. The Hebrew for "leprosy" is literally 'a stroke', and here we have an example of a person being struck down and then isolated for a period of repentance. Leprosy as we know it would not have been cured so quickly. Leprosy had no cure in the ancient world. And yet the legislation in Leviticus 13, 14 sounds as if after a relatively short time, the affliction could be lifted- and then a sin offering had to be made. The decisions and diagnosis of the affliction was to be made by the priests, not physicians. I conclude therefore that we should pay more attention to the Hebrew word here translated "leprosy". It is the same word as used for the "stroke" of Divine judgment. This makes more sense throughout the legislation. God could smite sinners with this affliction, mistranslated as "leprosy". If the sinner repented sufficiently, it would be lifted. But the priest would judge that, and therefore sin offerings were required to complete the cleansing process. It is no sin to get sick with leprosy; but if we understand this affliction as a Divine stroke, then it all makes so much more sense.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Miriam was shut up outside of the camp seven days, and the people didn’t travel until Miriam was brought in again-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The overall progress of God’s people is hindered by the unresolved sin of their leadership. This isn't the same as the false notion of 'guilt by association'. There is also the idea present here that true spiritual progress of God’s people towards His Kingdom will not be achieved by abandoning smitten sinners in the desert. They must be "brought in again". We think of how during Paul's final shipwreck, salvation was made conditional upon all abiding in the ship. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was in response to Israel's desire to send men to spy out the land (<em><a href='B:50 1:22'>Deu 1:22</a></em>). Had they believed God’s promises, they wouldn't have needed this human reassurance. But because that was what they wanted, like the Father giving the prodigal son what he wanted, God gave it to them. Even though it was to lead to their collapse of faith and rejection. In essence, we often get what we want. The critical thing is therefore to desire the right things. Because Divine concessions to human weakness often only lead us into more acute temptation. But He makes the concessions because that is what we ask for. And we get what we want, in essence. If we wish to be in the Kingdom above all, then we shall be. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Send men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I give to the children of Israel. Of every tribe of their fathers, you shall send a man, every one a prince among them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Which I give..." was God’s desperate attempt to remind them that whatever the spies reported about the nature of the land, God would give it to His people. "Spy out" is the word used of how the ark and Angel in the cloud were ever going before Israel to "search out a resting place" (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>), and that resting place ultimately referred to the inheritance of Canaan. It was God Himself who had spied out the land for them (<em><a href='B:330 20:6'>Eze 20:6</a></em> s.w.). But they insisted upon empirical, human spying out. This insistence upon empirical evidence is not the stuff of faith, and led to their spiritual failure in this context. "Of every tribe" excluded Levi, because they were not going to inherit any land possession.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of Yahweh: all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a></em> comments about this incident, that Yahweh "shone forth from Mount Paran, He came with ten thousands of holy ones". They failed to walk in step with the Spirit. There were ten thousands of Angels going with them in glory in order to give them the Kingdom, but they were faithless and turned back. It is stressed that Yahweh commanded this- but as discussed on :1, it was in confirmation of their own weakness of faith in wanting spies to go and check out God’s word of promise- instead of believing it without empirical evidence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These were their names. Of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>None of these names occur elsewhere, except those of Caleb and Joshua. They were to be chosen by the initiative of Israel (:2). And because unbelief was never far from the hearts of the people, we suspect they chose men who were not known for their faith nor leadership; but who rather were likely to speak to the unarticulated fears of the people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of the unfaithful spies are very negative, e.g. Shaphat ben Hori is understood by Jewish midrash as meaning 'Judge of a hole in the ground'. And I will generally give the meaning of the names of the unfaithful spies as found in the midrash. I have often commented that the names we read of in the Old Testament are often reflective of later developed character and historical actions in the lives of the person. They are not therefore their birth names, and often a person would have more than one name. The fact these names of the unfaithful spies aren't found elsewhere would confirm my suggestion that these were the names they came to be known by after their terrible faithlessness. And likewise Hoshea was renamed to Joshua (:16) after his faithfulness. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<em><a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a></em>). But "Kenizzite" (<em><a href='B:60 14:6'>Jos 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a></em>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<em><a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<em><a href='B:60 14:8'>Jos 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Igal", 'putter forth of evil speech'. See on :5. They slandered the land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hoshea, 'saver', was changed to 'Joshua', 'Yah's salvation' (:16). His faith was that Yahweh would save. Despite all the obstacles to attaining the Kingdom, he believed that Yahweh would save from them all. And this is the essence of faith in Jesus, the Greek form of 'Joshua'.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the son of Raphu- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Remover of good deeds', son of 'weak hands'. See on :5. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Harsh words'; for he slandered the land. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Joseph, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Thrower of words, son of grief'. Several of these names have reference to words, because these men became known for their slander of the land. See on :5. As so often, the word of man triumphed over the word of God in the minds and fears of men.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalli- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Soured strength' (cp. <em><a href='B:40 13:31'>Num 13:31</a></em>). See on :5. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Contradictor', for his lack of faith contradicted the Divine promise of the Kingdom; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Hider of the truth'. The ultimate truth was and is that God’s people can inherit the Kingdom; see on :5. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'The majesty of God (Geuel) now pining away (Machi)'. See on :5.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land. Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun ‘Joshua’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :5, the idea may be that these are the names they became known by, just as Hoshea was now to be renamed Joshua. See on :8. In <em><a href='B:50 1:23'>Deu 1:23</a></em>, Moses seems to admit he had been unwise in this: "The thing pleased me well and I took twelve men of you, one man for every tribe". In In this time of final spiritual maturity, Moses was keenly aware of his own spiritual failings (as Paul and Jacob were in their last days). This is one of the great themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. He begins his Deuteronomy address by pointing out how grievously they had failed thirty eight years previously, when they refused to enter the good land. He reminds them how that although God had gone before them in Angelic power (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>), they had asked for their spies to go before them. And Moses admits that this fatal desire for human strength to lead them to the Kingdom "pleased me well". It seems to me that here Moses is recognizing his own failure. Perhaps he is even alluding to his weakness in wanting Jethro to go before them "instead of eyes", in place of the Angel-eyes of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 10:31-36'>Num 10:31-36</a></em>). Moses at the end was aware of his failures. And yet he also shows his thorough appreciation of the weakness of his people. Moses admits at the end that Israel’s faithless idea to send out spies “pleased me well”- when it shouldn’t have done (<em><a href='B:50 1:23'>Deu 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:32-33'>Deu 1:32-33</a></em>). He realized more and more his own failure as he got older.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said to them, Go up this way by the South, and go up into the hill country- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If their intention was genuine military reconnaissance, they would have focused upon the areas immediately in front of them. And this is where Moses sent them, to the hill country of Judah which was immediately where they would enter Canaan. But by going instead throughout the entire land, they were showing they wanted to check out God’s word of promise about the land- they wanted empirical evidence rather than showing faith. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and see the land, what it is, and the people who dwell therein, whether they are strong or weak, whether they are few or many;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These requests seem to be Moses' weakness or at least, concession to Israel's weakness. God told them to simply search the land, presumably in order to be able to divide it up for conquest and inheritance. Moses instead asks the spies to assess whether the land is good or not, how strong the opposition will be, etc. And this weakness was the undoing of Israel. Indeed <em><a href='B:50 1:22'>Deu 1:22</a></em> says that Israel asked God to send out the spies before them- even though God had promised that the Angel in the pillar of cloud would go ahead of them. God grants such concessions to human weakness, but making use of them often leads us into greater openness to temptation and likelihood of failure. Or Moses may have asked them to go and check that indeed the land was full of "many" people, as God had said; and that they were now weakened. But asking people to check God’s word against empirical evidence tends towards unbelief, as we see here. This has relevance to the various invitations made to check the claims of God and His word against "science" and empirical evidence.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in the Biblical record, Abraham is held up as a very real example, in whose steps all God’s people are to tread. For example, as Abraham was bidden leave Ur and go and "see" the "land" of promise which God would "give" him (<em><a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a></em>), so the spies were told to go and "see" the "land" which God had "given" them (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:8-9'>Num 32:8-9</a></em> - the same three words as in the promises to Abraham)- yet they lacked the faith of Abraham to believe that really, they could possess that land. They did "see" the land, yet they were punished by being told that they would not now "see the land" (<em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>). They saw it, but they didn’t "see" it with the eyes of Abraham. And so it can be with our vision of God’s Kingdom. Remember that Moses was the author of both Genesis and Numbers- such connections aren't incidental. Moses wished the people to see themselves as going forward in the spirit of Abraham- and hence he wrote up the Genesis record for Israel's benefit an inspiration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and what the land is that they dwell in, whether it is good or bad; and what cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in fenced cities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They disbelieved God’s simple statement that He was bringing them to a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em> s.w.). They felt they had to check out the truth of His word for themselves; and concluded the land was "evil"; see on :32. God’s clear statements and promises must be allowed to trump our own perceptions and&nbsp; empirical conclusions. This is what faith is all about.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. Be courageous, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this appeal to "be courageous" was not an appeal for the courage of faith; see on :19. It was a merely human, secular appeal. The courage asked of Joshua later was to believe it was God’s good pleasure to give His people the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>). The note about time means this would have been in early August.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they went up, and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, to the entrance of Hamath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :17, they were asked to explore just the area immediately ahead of the Israelite advance. Instead they explored all of Canaan. This is a parade example of when a concession is made to human weakness (see on :1), we tend to misuse and abuse it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They went up by the South, and came to Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were there-&nbsp; </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although not recorded in <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>, it appears Caleb was specifically promised Hebron at that time. Caleb had explored that area as a spy (<em><a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a></em>) and taken a special liking to it. We see therefore his spiritual ambition; 'this shall one day be mine'. And we can do the same, as we in this life spy out our future inheritance.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that it was "built up" seven times greater than Zoan, which the Hebrews may well have laboured as slaves to build up. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came to the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from there a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a staff between two. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be as GNB "as far as Eshcol". Perhaps the two who carried this were the faithful Joshua and Caleb. The valley of Eshcol is near Hebron, which was visited by Caleb (see on :22). So it seems quite safe to assume that he brought back this cluster of grapes from the area he had fallen in love with and had been promised. "Staff" is s.w. "bar" used of how the tabernacle fittings were carried (<em><a href='B:40 4:10'>Num 4:10</a></em>). They saw in this a kind of tabernacle. If they also carried pomegranates and figs, we can assume they had no room to carry much else, including weapons. They went in faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That place was called the valley of Eshcol because of the cluster which the children of Israel cut down from there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The faith and vision of Joshua and Caleb (see on :24) is graciously counted to all Israel. The Biblical record constantly reflects the grace of its ultimate author. The valley of Eshcol may well have been named after Abraham's supporter (<em><a href='B:10 14:24'>Gen 14:24</a></em>), but the meaning of the name now became reflective of the cluster of grapes found there. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have made the point that they were originally told just to explore a limited area in southern Canaan (:17). But by going instead throughout the entire land, they were showing they wanted to check out God’s word of promise about the land- they wanted empirical evidence rather than showing faith. And because of this more extensive searching of all Canaan, it took them 40 days. And they suffered for this, because on the basis of a day for a year, they had to wander 40 years in the desert.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They went and came to Moses and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh, and brought back word to them, and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To 'bring back a word' is used of communicating God’s word (<em><a href='B:40 22:8'>Num 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:5'>Num 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:16'>Num 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:32'>Jos 22:32</a></em>). The word of God was clear- they could enter the land and take it. But here we have the word of man being allowed to triumph over the word of God in the hearts of men, as happens so often. To return a word also means to answer a question- s.w. "what answer shall I return" (<em><a href='B:100 24:13'>2Sa 24:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 12:6'>1Ki 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 2:20'>Neh 2:20</a></em>). There was a question as to whether they could inherit the Kingdom- and that question should never have been, if they had believed God’s word.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They told him, and said, We came to the land where you sent us and surely it flows with milk and honey and this is its fruit- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that it was possible for to enjoy this in the Kingdom of God. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after. And His Kingdom is somehow unattainable.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>However the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. Moreover, we saw the children of Anak there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rahab informed the later spies that the cities were fortified from fear of Israel, and the Canaanites were weak and fearful before Israel at this time (<em><a href='B:60 2:10-11'>Jos 2:10-11</a></em>). Those obstacles to our inheritance of the Kingdom which seem to us huge and too strong for us may actually be very weak and far easier to overcome than we imagine. The spies were sent to find out whether the people in the land were many or few. But they were being asked to confirm the truth of God’s statement that although the people were indeed many, God would give Israel victory against them (<em><a href='B:50 9:1-2'>Deu 9:1-2</a></em>). But they focused upon the obstacle rather than the solution- which is the way of the flesh in every context. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Amalek dwells in the land of the South; and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :28, they focused upon the obstacle rather than the solution- which is the way of the flesh in every context. And they almost relish in giving all the details of those obstacles. There was not a word of faith from the ten spies. &nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Bible often records the immediacy of response in faithful people. Procrastination and endlessly weighing up the difficulties often leads to failure to act as we should.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the men who went up with him said, We aren’t able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb and Joshua perceived that Israel were “well able” to overcome the tribes and inherit the land, seeing that the Angel-hornet had gone ahead and prepared the way; and yet due to Israel’s disabling of this possibility at the time, it was in some ways so that God Himself was “not able” to give them the inheritance, because <em>they </em>judged that <em>they </em>were “not able” to take it (<em><a href='B:40 13:30-31'>Num 13:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:16'>Num 14:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied out to the children of Israel, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for "spied out" in <em><a href='B:50 1:24'>Deu 1:24</a></em> also means 'to slander' (s.w. <em><a href='B:100 19:27'>2Sa 19:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 15:3'>Psa 15:3</a></em>). Their slander of the land was in that they misrepresented the strength of the people there, who were in fact fearful of the Israelites. They brought up an evil report of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), characterizing it as not "good" but "evil", as if inhabited by insuperable forces of cosmic evil. They disbelieved God’s simple statement that He was bringing them a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>). Moses therefore repeatedly calls the land a "good land", denying their wrong idea that the land was inhabited by 'evil spirits' (<em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>). We see here how belief in 'evil spirits' or 'demons' militated against their faith in God and His eagerness to give His good Kingdom to His people. That continues to be His "good pleasure" (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>) toward us, but like Israel, we are tempted to disbelieve this and allow our own perceptions and empirical conclusions to lead us away from simple faith in thIsa. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If their intention was genuine military reconnaissance, they would have focused upon the areas immediately in front of them. But by going throughout the entire land, they were showing they wanted to check out God’s word of promise about the land- they wanted empirical evidence rather than showing faith.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that eats up its inhabitants; and all the people who we saw in it are men of great stature- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was effectively calling God’s descriptions of the promised land untrue. If we don’t believe we can inherit the Kingdom prepared for us (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>), then we are effectively calling God a liar. <em><a href='B:230 106:24'>Psa 106:24</a></em> says that they didn’t believe God’s word of promise that they would possess the land (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em>). These promises were clear and unambiguous; but the immediate and the visible seemed more true to them than the promises of God’s word. Perhaps they had forgotten those promises, not recited them to themselves, not bothered to attend Moses’ sessions of instruction, of which the Pentateuch is likely a transcript. Unless God’s words of promise are regularly in our consciousness, we will likewise fail to believe it when we come up against the human obstacles in our paths.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If they had accepted the power of God, then <em>whatever</em> ‘adversary’ was in the land, in whatever form, was ultimately of no real power (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:36'>Num 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>). And yet it was not God’s way to specifically tell the people that there was no such dragon lurking in the land of Canaan – instead He worked with them according to their fears, by making the earth literally open and swallow up the apostate amongst them (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>) – emphasizing that by doing this, <em>He</em> was doing “a new thing”, something that had never been done before – for there was no dragon lurking in any land able to swallow up people. And throughout the prophets it is emphasized that <em>God</em> and not any dragon swallowed up people – “The Lord (and not any dragon) was as an enemy; <em>He</em> has swallowed up Israel” (<em><a href='B:310 2:5'>Lam 2:5</a></em> and frequently in the prophets). The people of Israel who left Egypt actually failed to inherit Canaan because they believed that it was a land who swallowed up the inhabitants of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), relating this to the presence of giants in the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). As Joshua and Caleb pleaded with them, they needed to believe that whatever myths there were going around, God was greater than whatever mythical beast was there. And because they would not believe that, they failed to enter the land, which in type symbolized those who fail to attain that great salvation which God has prepared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They made the common mistake of assuming that our view of ourselves is how others also see us. The Israelites were seen as grasshoppers by their enemies- and so this is how they came to perceive themselves (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 23:7'>Pro 23:7</a></em> RV observes: “As he reckons within himself, so is he”. We are defined by our own self-perception. We must come in the end to perceive ourselves from God’s perspective and not according to how men perceive us. We must see ourselves from outside ourselves, and thereby “guide your own heart in the way” (<em><a href='B:240 23:19'>Pro 23:19</a></em>). According to how they felt that the world perceived them to be, so they felt themselves to be. As it happened, they were wrong; the Canaanite nations were terrified of them, according to Rahab’s inside account. If Israel had perceived themselves as those made strong by the Lord, more than conquerors, so indeed they would have been. Self-perception was and is vital for God’s Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people were frightened by the "giants" they met in the land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>), likely connecting them with superhuman beings. These <em>nephilim</em> (LXX <em>gigantes</em>) had their origin explained by Moses in Genesis 6 (see on <em><a href='B:10 6:4'>Gen 6:4</a></em>)- the righteous seed intermarried with the wicked, and their offspring were these <em>nephilim</em>, mighty men of the world. Note in passing how <em><a href='B:330 32:27'>Eze 32:27</a></em> LXX uses this same word <em>gigantes</em> to describe pagan warriors who died- no hint that they were superhuman or Angels. According to Jewish traditions (as reflected in 1 Enoch and the <em>Book of Jubilees</em>), the supposedly sinful Angels ("the Watchers") morally corrupted human beings in the lead up to the flood by teaching them to do evil, astrology, weapon making and the use of cosmetics (1 Enoch 7-8, 69; 10; 21:7-10; 64-65; 69; Jub. 5:16-11; 8:3). Yet the Genesis record simply states that the descendants of Cain started to do all those things, their wickedness increased, and so they were punished through the flood (<em><a href='B:10 4:20-22'>Gen 4:20-22</a></em>). Constantly in the Jewish Apocryphal writings there is a shifting of blame from humanity to Angelic beings. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This incident looks ahead to the bitter weeping of those rejected at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>), at the borders of the Kingdom. But their weeping was self inflicted and unnecessary if they had had faith. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron; and the whole congregation said to them, Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would that we had died in this wilderness!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>).</p><p>The idea is that she had done something which would justify her father spitting in her face, i.e. disowning her or spitting in her face and making her sleep outside his house for a period. Dt. 25:9 explains spitting in the face as a sign of deep disdain. This is an unusually passionate example of God's specific anger with His daughter Miriam. The image of a father spitting in his daughter's face is extreme. She must jave really behaved awfully. This is how much He hates racism, judging a man on his apparent marital failures, and seeking to politically machinate for power amongst God's people by bringing another man down. God absolutely hates and despises those who do such things in His family. Yet those who do them often consider themselves somehow more mature than those they abuse.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why does Yahweh bring us to this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will be a prey: wouldn’t it be better for us to return into Egypt?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They recognized the Lord had brought them out of Egypt. Their lack of faith was not the same as atheism, rather was it a lack of faith in the possibilities of the God they believed in. There should be no question amongst us, not in our deepest heart, about returning to the world / Egypt, the life we knew before our baptism (cp. the Red Sea crossing, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). If we do allow this question, then it will lead to actually doing this in practice (:4).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em> adds: "And you murmured in your tents and said, Because Yahweh hated us He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us". We marvel at how the passionate love of God for Israel at this time, falling in love with them and not beholding iniquity in Jacob, could be perceived now as hatred for Israel. It is a psychological classic, revealing the fickleness of the human mind when it is not firmly based in faith in God’s stated words.</p><p>We notice their concern for their children and wives, implying this was the males who were speaking. But they want to return to Egypt, where their children had been killed at birth. And where they as males had been made to make bricks without straw and were beaten. Such is the nature of selective memory once a narrative is espoused. The psychological credibility of the record is very impressive. The plagues on Egypt and the Red Sea crossing were recent memories, and the provision of manna and Angelic guidance was ongoing. Miracle doesn't elicit faith. The power of believed narratives is overpowering; as we see in migrants risking all for the sake of a narrative about a certain country. Our dream destination is to be God's Kingdom, and that narrative is the only true one. All else will fade before it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Human beings so want human leadership. God through Moses was their captain, but they wanted a leader who would lead them where <em>they</em> wanted. The large number of human religions and religious leaders is proof enough of this desire for human leadership. Israel actually made a captain and set about to return to Egypt (<em><a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a></em>). But this is omitted in the historical record; it simply says that this is what they <em>thought</em> of doing (<em><a href='B:40 14:4'>Num 14:4</a></em>). The depth of their apostasy is graciously unrecorded. or perhaps this is another example of the thought being counted as the action.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note Aaron had a part in thIsa. We are to intercede for others on the basis of our experience of the Lord's intercession for us. Job prays for his friends, he mediates for them, after gratefully realizing that his own search for mediation with God in order to obtain forgiveness had somehow been answered, by grace (<em><a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a></em>). After the same pattern, Aaron ought to have died for his flouting of the first commandment in making the golden calf; but Moses’ intercession alone saved him. And afterwards, deeply conscious of his experience, Aaron made successful intercession for the salvation of others (<em><a href='B:40 14:5'>Num 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:22'>Num 16:22</a></em>). The way he holds the censer with fire from the altar of incense, representing his prayers, and “stood between the dead and the living (as a mediator)” (<em><a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a></em>) is a fine picture of the height to which he rose.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were of those who spied out the land, tore their clothes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuteronomy 1 records how Moses also pleaded with Israel at this time. Their grief was that of God, who millions of times sees people come to the brink of His Kingdom and turn away from it. And it should be a tragedy we too share.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, The land which we passed through to spy it out is an extremely good land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They reminded the people of God’s simple statement that He was bringing them to a "good land" (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em> s.w.). But the land was "extremely good", better even than God had implied, over and above all they could ask or think. God’s description of the land had been true. And so His promise that they could attain it was therefore likewise going to be true. That "good land" was to be given them not for the sake of their righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>), but simply so- by God’s sovereign grace. But faith in grace has never come easy to men. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Since Yahweh delights in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it to us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The issue came down to faith in grace, and His desire to give us the Kingdom. So it is to this day. God not only forgives, but He <em>delights</em> in doing so (<em><a href='B:290 62:4'>Isa 62:4</a></em>; <em>M</em>:32,34). Th<em>ic_7:18</em>); the way He is spoken of as ‘delighting’ in spiritually weak Israel is part and parcel of Him lavishing grace as He does (<em><a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a></em>). It must be so awful to have such a wonderful spirit of lavishing grace and love, consciously giving out life and patient forgiveness to so many; and yet not be appreciated for it, to have puny humans shaking their fist at God because they die a brief moment of time sooner than they think they should, to have tiny people arrogantly questioning His love. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "delights" is only elsewhere used in the Pentateuch of a man delighting in a woman to marry her (<em><a href='B:10 34:19'>Gen 34:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:14'>Deu 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:7-8'>Deu 25:7-8</a></em>). And the prophets portray God as having fallen in love with Israel in the wilderness and entering into a marriage covenant with her at Sinai. Joshua and Caleb perceived this love of God. But Israel didn’t. That such love should go unperceived, and that God at this point should be accused of hating Israel (<em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>), was tragic indeed. And His love so often goes unperceived and unrequited. This is the tragedy of God’s relationship with His people. At least we have perceived it, and seek to respond.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord spoke of us all as a little flock, fearing it is <em>not</em> the Father's pleasure / will to give us the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 12:32'>Luk 12:32</a></em>). In doing so, He was as ever drawing on the language of the OT. Joshua-Jesus encouraged Israel that Yahweh delighted / willed that they should enter the land (<em><a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a></em>); but instead, they were too caught up with doubts... doubt about salvation, about what they could eat and drink day by day, and the giants in the land. This is the very context in which the Lord was speaking- fearing "the nations of the world", doubting where food and clothes would come from, just as Israel did (<em><a href='B:490 12:22-29'>Luk 12:22-29</a></em>). Yet the pleasure / will of Yahweh is that we should share His Kingdom, and that pleasure / will prospered through the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>).&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A land which flows with milk and honey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that they could experience this in the Kingdom of God. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only don’t rebel against Yahweh, neither fear the people of the land; for they are bread for us. Their defence is removed from over them, and Yahweh is with us. Don’t fear them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To fear and be faithless is to actively rebel against Yahweh. The word for "rebel" is nearly always used about rebelling against a king. They didn’t want Him as their king, and so at this very time they made themselves another captain to return to Egypt (see on :4). To pull away from God’s program to lead us to inherit His Kingdom is to reject Him as King, and to thereby rebel. To be in the shadow (s.w. "defence") of someone was to be a subsidiary nation under the protectorate of a great empire (s.w. <em><a href='B:330 31:6'>Eze 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 31:12'>Eze 31:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 31:17'>Eze 31:17</a></em>). The nations of Canaan had been under the protectorate of Egypt and the Philistines, but that had now been withdrawn. And they were terrified of the Israelites, as Rahab testified. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all the congregation threatened to stone them with stones. The glory of Yahweh appeared in the Tent of Meeting to all the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We now understand why the account of Numbers 13, 14 follows on from that of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12. For this was exactly how He had acted at the time of that rebellion. Stoning with stones was usually for religious heresy. So we can imagine that the idolatrous people now turned to the gods they had carried with them out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>) and accused Joshua and Caleb of some kind of religious apostasy. But the basis of their anger was that they subconsciously knew that Joshua and Caleb were telling the truth, although it was not a truth they wished to hear. </p><p>In the surrounding cultures, stoning was a punishment for those who bore false witness. This is how the Israelites judged those who preached the good news of the Kingdom. They considered it a false Gospel. The language used of their rejection of that Gospel is quite severe. To disbelieve God is to "rebel" against Him (:9). The ruling principle of their lives was to be that they would inherit the Kingdom. To disbelieve our salvation is to "despise" God (:11). To reject the Gospel is to consider the preachers of it "false witnesses". Paul uses the same term when he tells the Corinthians he would be a "false witness" if the Lord had in fact not risen. Their desire to kill the messenger because they didn't accept the message is psychologically credible. The real desire was for a different leadership, who would lead them back to Egypt rather than out of it.</p><p>  
The book of Numbers features the record of incidents whilst the people were "in the wilderness", and also the giving of extra laws. But those extra laws are to be related to the incidents recorded. Num. 15 will go on to talk about presumptuous sins. We can conclude that that legislation was given in the context of Israel's presumption in rejecting the Kingdom and calling God a liar. And the implication is that we can all in principle commit that same sin. It is unforgivable insofar as the sin itself means we refuse to believe in God's grace and salvation, and reject it as fake. Whilst that's our position, salvation is impossible- by our own choice. The issue of whether we believe we will be saved therefore assumes critical place in the psychology and worldview of all God's people, at all times.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, How long will this people despise Me?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"How long...?" could suggest 'Seeing they will never be otherwise, I will destroy them'. This could be a way of God asking Moses not to pray for more time, to as it were leave God alone to destroy Israel. He is saying that this situation cannot continue any longer. Just as He asked Moses in <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>. But Moses knew God well enough to still intercede, and change the intention of God to disinherit the people at this time. See on :23. The idea of "provoke" is to scorn, to blaspheme, and this is what we do to God if we doubt we shall inherit the Kingdom. The language used about Israel's lack of faith is extreme. They "despised" the land (:32) even though it seems they didn’t doubt it was a good land, they just doubted whether they could. They gathered together against God (:35). The language all shows that the most fatal error is to not believe we will be saved- this is far and more fundamentally worse than any sin of hot blood. See on <em><a href='B:500 12:37'>Joh 12:37</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have worked among them?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s not that the people were atheists. They speak about the existence of Yahweh quite freely (:3). But to not believe that He will give us the Kingdom, the promised land, is to effectively be in denial of Him. We too can be effective atheists when we doubt our salvation by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read "How long...?" as a desperate hope for the time to more quickly come when the people would believe. The pain of God leads Him to hope, even desperate hope; and again that hope is expressed and felt in terms which are relative to our kind of time. Hence His many questions relating to 'How long?': "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe me?" (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>); "How long will it be till they are pure?" (<em><a href='B:350 8:5'>Hos 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:27'>Jer 13:27</a></em>). These aren't merely rhetorical questions. There's an element of literality about God’s question- He doesn't know how long it will be, He can only imagine and hope- for Israel has free will, and will not turn to Him just when He says so. For He is in covenant relationship with them, He loves them, and as we've emphasized, that must involve each party allowing the other to function independently and to have their own time and free choice for returning. These questions, and other similar statements from God, are almost God’s probing of possible paths into the future- the future which He could, of course, choose to know, but it seems He chooses not to fully know. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One wonders whether the questions God asks at times are in fact only merely rhetorical; perhaps some of them are genuine reflections of how He has restrained His foreknowledge in order to become vulnerably in love with His people. For example: “How long will these people treat me with contempt?” (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>). I’m aware that by saying these things, I’m pushing a view of God that is quite different to that held by many believers. My comment is that the view of God widely held in Christianity has its roots in Plato’s philosophy that God is totally without emotion and unable to be touched by our situation on earth in a passionate manner. The very first clause of the 39 Articles of the Church of England reads: “God is without body, parts, and passions”. The Westminster Confession of Faith says the same- God is “without passions”. Frankly I find it incredible that this kind of thing can be said, when the Bible is so utterly full of examples of God’s passionate response to human grief upon earth. It seems clear enough to me that those churches founded upon such suppositions are simply flatly in contradiction to clear Bible teaching, and reflect their roots in pagan philosophy rather than God’s word. Rather than in any sense bringing God ‘down’, it seems to me that by assigning to Him the characteristics and possibilities which His own word so often speaks of, we are in fact elevating His awesomeness and wonder. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will strike them with the pestilence- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pestilence" which was the plague upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 9:3'>Exo 9:3</a></em>) was to come upon a hard hearted Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:6'>Jer 21:6</a></em>). The plagues upon Egypt form the basis for the vials and seals of Revelation, which speak of judgment to come upon the land of Israel. It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And disinherit them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the same word translated "inherit" or "possess" in <em><a href='B:40 13:30'>Num 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>. The word also means 'to destroy'. We are God’s inheritance- we are to be totally devoted to Him. If we don't want to be, then He will inherit / destroy us anyway. This is the logic of total devotion- we are devoted to Him, and must willingly go along with this or else He will destroy us. The idea is alluded to in <em><a href='B:40 14:22'>Num 14:22</a></em> - because God’s glory must fill the earth, therefore the sinners would be destroyed. And again in <em><a href='B:40 14:33'>Num 14:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:35'>Num 14:35</a></em> we read of the sinners being "consumed", a Hebrew word meaning to be perfected or even cleansed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same three words used of how God would make Abraham's seed a great and mighty nation (<em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>). God was alluding to that intention, but saying that He could cease fulfilling it the way He had been working on, and do it another way- through Moses. They would then have become as He intended- a nation of Levites. God’s purposes are therefore open ended to some extent.&nbsp;</p><p>And this wasn't the first time God had thought to do this, and Moses had persuaded Him otherwise (Ex. 32:10). The intimacy of Moses' intercession with God Almighty... is amazing. No wonder Judaism rightly respects Moses. The verbs "I will strike them... I will disinherit them" are cohortatives, and effectively can be translated "Let Me strike... let Me disinherit them". But Moses as it were doesn't give permission. Man is allowed to foil God Almighty. All that stood between Yahweh and the destruction of His people were words, the words of a fallible weak man, Moses, who comes to his climax in :19 with the simple request in one word: "Pardon". And God heard. And even this is but a dim shadow of the Lord's for us. Truly we have a great High Priest. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Yahweh, Then the Egyptians will hear it; for You brought up this people in Your might- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To have done this would’ve resulted in God changing His stated purpose with Israel. He is prepared to alter His intentions, according to human behaviour. And He shows Himself here open to dialogue, to persuasion, from His faithful children like Moses who reason according to a desire to see <em>God’s</em> glory rather than their own glory. It may be that it becomes clear that God intends to do something- perhaps to end a life, to relocate us geographically, to close one road and open another. Our prayers shouldn’t be simply asking Him to do or not do something. Rather should we reason with Him, giving our reasons as to why we wish Him to act in the way we are asking. This is for our benefit and reveals our motives to ourselves; and also deepens our faith that we are really asking according to God’s will as revealed in His word.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seems to have shared the primitive idea that a god rose or fell according to the fortunes of his worshippers, when he asks God to not cut off Israel in case the nations mock Yahweh. Yahweh could have responded that this was far too primitive and limited a view. But no, He apparently listens to Moses and goes along with his request!</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From among them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"From their midst". It is stressed that Israel were taken out from the "midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:51'>1Ki 8:51</a></em>). The plagues and wonders were done in "the midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 3:20'>Exo 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:3'>Deu 11:3</a></em>). The midst of Egypt appears to be defined in <em><a href='B:230 135:9'>Psa 135:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em> as being Pharaoh and his servants. The narrative therefore stresses so much his response to the plagues. God’s especial focus had been upon his conversion, and yet he refused. Israel were taken out right from under his nose, from the very heart of Egypt. <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em> reveals what is not recorded in the historical record; that because the Israelites were so devoted to Egyptian idolatry still, His thought had been to destroy them "in the midst of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). But God’s pole of grace overcame the pole of necessary judgment. He tolerated them and saved them, with enthusiasm, by the grace which comes from love- love taken to its ultimate, saving term. The whole narrative speaks as if the Hebrews were all at one place at one time and left "the midst of Egypt" together. Although unrecorded in the historical narrative, this would have meant that they gathered together "in the midst of Egypt" with Moses, who was not in Goshen but in the locality and presence of Pharaoh.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, Yahweh, are in the middle of this people; for You, Yahweh, are seen face to face, and Your cloud stands over them and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was only Moses who saw Yahweh face to face. But his personal relationship with God had been shared not only with Israel, but somehow the Gentile world of Canaan had got to hear about it. If we have a close relationship with God, we will not need to boast of this to others, it will become apparent, and the knowledge of it will somehow spread widely.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had 'gone before' Israel through the Angel which was to lead them through the desert (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:23'>Exo 23:23</a></em>). But as with all religious but not spiritual people, they wanted a visible leader. And so when Moses apparently disappeared in the mountain, they demanded that gods be made to "go before us". It was only by grace that God responded that despite their apostasy, He would still "go before you" through the Angel (<em><a href='B:20 32:34'>Exo 32:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>). Even the Gentile world had more faith than Israel in this; they believed that Yahweh "went before" His people in an Angel (<em><a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a></em>). But Israel themselves at the time of the golden calf didn’t believe that. Moses in his final speech therefore urges the people to believe that indeed the Angel was going before them (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here God’s sensitivity to how the Gentiles perceive Him, and this has big implications for how we act before them. For we are God’s representatives, and how we represent Him before the world is so significant to Him. For effectively we are Him in this world, and it is our living example far more than our doctrinal explanations which will convert others to Him. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now if You killed this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of You will speak, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God could have given legitimate answers to each of Moses' objections; for there were indeed times when He did not turn from the fierceness of His wrath (<em><a href='B:20 32:12'>Exo 32:12</a></em>)- such as <em><a href='B:300 4:8'>Jer 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a></em>. He intended to fulfil the promises to Abraham, but through Moses. But such is His sensitivity and pure pity that He accepted Moses' pleas.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Because Yahweh was not able to bring this people into the land which He swore to them, therefore He has slain them in the wilderness’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb and Joshua perceived that Israel were “well able” to overcome the tribes and inherit the land, seeing that the Angel-hornet had gone ahead and prepared the way; and yet due to Israel’s disabling of this possibility at the time, it was in some ways so that God Himself was “not able” to give them the inheritance, because <em>they </em>judged that <em>they </em>were “not able” to take it (<em><a href='B:40 13:30-31'>Num 13:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:16'>Num 14:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way Moses pleaded with God to change His mind and not destroy Israel for the sake of what the surrounding nations would say is indeed inspirational to us all. It surely inspired David to pray likewise- for “wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?” (<em><a href='B:230 115:2'>Psa 115:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now please let the power of the Lord be great, according as You have spoken, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The power of God was understood by Moses as coming to its ultimate term in His grace and pity to hardened sinners. The awesome physical power we see in the natural creation is encouragement that His saving grace is of an even greater order. The same power which had done the miracles in Egypt was to be manifest in His forgiveness and salvation of His people from their sins (s.w. :13). This is why the book of Job concludes with manifestations of God’s literal power- in order to persuade Job and the friends of His power to save sinners.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Yahweh is slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness, forgiving iniquity and disobedience; and that will by no means justify the guilty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses asked to know God deeper in Exodus 33, 34, and was subsequently given an inspiring theophany in which the Name of Yahweh was declared. This wasn't just a piece of exquisite intellectual stimulation for Moses. He quoted that very theophany, the things he had there learned of the essentially merciful character of God, in his matchless prayer of <em><a href='B:40 14:17-19'>Num 14:17-19</a></em>, where he pleads with God not to destroy Israel and not to glorify him as God had offered. All we learn of the Father, the richness of the vision we see in Christ, all this cannot remain within us, as jottings in our Bible margins, as notes of addresses, as dimly recollected ideas in brain cells. If we have really seen, there must, inevitably and naturally, be a giving out of the vision. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and on the fourth generation’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is cited by Moses as a reflection of "the greatness of Your grace" (:19). Sadly, the words are often wrested by those who don't want to see God’s grace. The grace in it is that the sins of a man are not necessarily visited upon him and his family- until the third generation. They have three generations to repent of what he did. And if the second and third generations don't repent, then the fourth generation reap the judgment for the sin of the ancestor, if they too don't repent. This is exactly relevant here. For Yahweh does agree to Moses' request and forgives on these terms (:20), but with the understanding that indeed He will visit the iniquity that had been done later on, if there was no real repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Please pardon the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your grace, and according as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"According to the greatness of Your grace" is matched in :20 by "according to your word". The implication could be that it was Moses' vision of the extent of God’s grace which enabled, prescribed and defined the realization of His grace in practice. David perceived this when he asked in <em><a href='B:230 33:22'>Psa 33:22</a></em> "Let Your grace be on us, Yahweh, according as we have hope in You". Likewise if Abraham had continued bargaining with God about Sodom and asked for it to be saved if only one righteous were to be found there, then we can assume God would have heard him. But he failed to hope for grace as far as he might have done, and so it didn’t happen. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, I have pardoned according to your word-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :18,19. Others can be forgiven because of our intercession (see too <em><a href='B:480 2:5-6'>Mar 2:5-6</a></em>). This has huge implications; for in this case we should be praying constantly for others, if the prayers of a third party can have such power in another’s life. Thanks to Solomon’s prayer, and <em>if</em> he had been obedient, all Israel would have been blessed and experienced Yahweh dwelling amongst them (<em><a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a></em>). Moses prayed for God to forgive Israel; and He responded: “I have pardoned, according to <em>your</em> word” (<em><a href='B:40 14:20'>Num 14:20</a></em>) rather than according to their repentance and prayer. Indeed it would seem from <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> that Israel were delivered from the Egyptians due to <em>Moses’ </em>faith in the Christ whom the sprinkled Passover blood pointed forward to. </p><p>This "pardon" didn't remove the consequence of not entering the land (:23). They were forgiven- and not merely saved from immediate destruction, nor simply experiencing the delay of their destruction by some years. Seeing they died some years later than originally decreed, in what then was the significance of their "pardon"? Surely forgiveness involves some restoration of previous relationship, and not merely deferral of judgment? What cash value does this "pardon" have it meant merely the delay of condemnation by a few years? Although they are seen in the New Testament as representative of the rejected at the last day, we could think that they were forgiven even that, saved from condemnation personally, thanks to Moses' intercession. In which case we marvel that His intercession saved even from condemnation, and did not merely achieve a deferral of their judgment by up to 38 years. Perhaps we are to conclude that although that generation were to die in the wilderness, they would die pardoned and could therefore look forward to future eternal inheritance of the Kingdom. But they despised even that. They wanted it right away, and tried to enter it immediately. And for that they really were condemned. We marvel at how men could be condemned, saved from it by amazing intercession- and still prefer condemnation. We are to accept that will rightly die in the desert, have some sand kicked over us and the rest move on, following the Angel to the same end. But we have that priceless pardon, and the sure hope of resurrection and eternal inheritance of the land. And that is wonderful by me. But they were so immediate that they wanted the Kingdom right now, or no deal. And so they got nothing. In his autobiography in Deuteronomy, Moses makes no mention of his successful intercession at this point. Because it was a redemption refused, a salvation spurned, a great intercession wasted.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but in very deed, as I live- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To doubt God’s word in practice is to belie His very Name and being. This is why God assures us of the certainty of both His salvation and also His judgment of sin by saying that "As I live, says Yahweh…" (<em><a href='B:330 20:31'>Eze 20:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:33'>Eze 20:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:18'>Isa 49:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:21'>Num 14:21</a></em>). As surely as He who is, really is, so surely His words of promise and judgment will be fulfilled. His Name therefore confirms the reality of His words. LXX "But as I live and my name is living". The Name of Yahweh is not therefore simply a title or lexical item, a mere word. God’s personality and characteristics are expressed in His Name, and all His constant action in the world and in human hearts is in order to articulate that Name. Thus it becomes a living Name. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle when it was erected (<em><a href='B:20 40:34'>Exo 40:34</a></em>), as it would later fill the temple (<em><a href='B:140 7:1'>2Ch 7:1</a></em>). But it was God’s intention that His glory should fill all the earth; the same words are used in <em><a href='B:40 14:21'>Num 14:21</a></em>. The apparently intense manifestation of Himself in a specific place was only a foretaste of what He wished to bring about in "all the earth". And yet Judaism misread this as meaning that His glory was there alone in a specific holy place. They failed to perceive that it was merely a localized foretaste of His intention to make this a universal experience, and the tearing down of the veil at the Lord's death was evidence enough of the progression of this plan. When exiled from the sanctuary, David in his Psalms often perceives that God’s glory fills and shall fill all the earth (<em><a href='B:230 72:19'>Psa 72:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:14'>Hab 2:14</a></em>).&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The surrounding verses are all using <em>eretz</em> ("earth") specifically about the land promised to Abraham, not the whole planet (:2,3,6,7,9,14,16,23,24,30,31). God’s foremost intention was to fill His land with His glory, and through this, secondarily, the whole planet. </p><p>If God had let that generation enter the land, then the earth / land would not have been full of His glory. For they had seen His glory (:22) but not reflected it back as intended. But their pardon meant they would in the Kingdom. But they refused even that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>because all those men who have seen My glory and My signs which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted Me these ten times, and have not listened to My voice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ten times" may not be a literal number, as in <em><a href='B:10 31:7'>Gen 31:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a></em>. Or we could calculate the ten times as twice at the Red sea, twice concerning the manna, twice concerning the quail, twice concerning lack of water, once with the golden calf and once in this refusal to enter the land.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised Me see it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in the Biblical record, Abraham is held up as a very real example, in whose steps all God’s people are to tread. For example, as Abraham was bidden leave Ur and go and "see" the "land" of promise which God would "give" him (<em><a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a></em>), so the spies were told to go and "see" the "land" which God had "given" them (<em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:8-9'>Num 32:8-9</a></em> - the same three words as in the promises to Abraham)- yet they lacked the faith of Abraham to believe that really, they could possess that land. They did "see" the land, yet they were punished by being told that they would not now "see the land" (<em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>). They saw it, but they didn’t "see" it with the eyes of Abraham. And so it can be with our vision of God’s Kingdom. Remember that Moses was the author of both Genesis and Numbers- such connections aren't incidental. Moses wished the people to see themselves as going forward in the spirit of Abraham- and hence he wrote up the Genesis record for Israel's benefit an inspiration. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Despised" as in <em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em> is s.w. provoke or blaspheme. It is specifically associated with turning to other gods (<em><a href='B:50 31:20'>Deu 31:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:4'>Isa 1:4</a></em>). And that appears to be the context. The Israelites decided not to enter the land and instead to follow the gods of Egypt back to Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But My servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed Me faithfully, him will I bring into the land into which he went; and his seed shall possess it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<em><a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a></em>). But "Kenizzite" (also <em><a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a></em>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<em><a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. ‘Caleb’ means ‘dog’ in Hebrew, and God alludes to this in describing Caleb as His faithful follower. The intimacy between a man and his dog can be seen between God and His man. The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must consider at this point Caleb's words of <em><a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a></em> "Now therefore give me this hill country, of which Yahweh spoke in that day; for you heard in that day how the Anakim were there, and great and fortified cities". Although not recorded in <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>, it appears Caleb was specifically promised Hebron at that time. Caleb had explored that area as a spy (<em><a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a></em>) and taken a special liking to it. We see therefore his spiritual ambition; 'this shall one day be mine'. And we can do the same, as we in this life spy out our future inheritance.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua allowed the leaders of Israel to lead him into wrong decisions about the initial attack on Ai, and also into being deceived by the Gibeonites. And yet as a younger man, he had boldly stood up to the peer pressure of the princes of Israel in faithfully declaring that Israel could and should go up into Canaan; when the other princes must have put huge pressure upon him to agree with them. He is described as maintaining “another spirit” to theirs (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The resolution of youth seems to have been somewhat lost as he grew older.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joshua and Caleb were characterized by the comment that they “wholly followed the Lord” when they went to spy out Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:11-12'>Num 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:8-9'>Jos 14:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a></em>), and urged Israel to go up and inherit it. This refers to the way that the Angel had gone ahead of them, and they faithfully followed where the Angel had gone, and believed that Israel could follow that Angel wherever it led. When Israel finally did go into the land, they were told that Joshua would ‘go before’ them, and they were to follow him and thereby inherit the land (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>). From this we see that circumstances repeat in our lives. As Joshua had been told to be strong good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<em><a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a></em>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<em><a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a></em> cp. 23:6). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb had a spirit "with him". This helps us understand the sense in which the word or <em>logos</em> of Jesus was "with God" without implying personal pre-existence. We must not read the New Testament through Greek / Western eyes, but rather try to understand it against its original Jewish / Hebrew background of thought. It's a failure to do this which has given rise to trinitarianism and its associated misconceptions. Thus when we read of Jesus being "with" God, the Greek / Western mind can assume this means sitting literally together with Him. But time and again in the Hebrew Bible, the idea of being "with" someone means (according to the Brown, Driver and Briggs <em>Hebrew Lexicon</em>, p. 768) to "be in one's consciousness, whether of knowledge, memory or purpose". Thus Job speaks of how what God plans to do to him is "with God", i.e. in His purpose (<em><a href='B:220 23:14'>Job 23:14</a></em>); David is spoken of as having the idea about building a temple "with" him (<em><a href='B:110 8:17'>1Ki 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:7'>2Ch 6:7</a></em>)- and there are multiple other examples (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 11:11'>1Ki 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 28:12'>1Ch 28:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 10:13'>Job 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 15:9'>Job 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:11'>Psa 50:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:23'>Psa 73:23</a></em>). It is this refusal to read the Bible within its own Hebraic context which has led to so much misunderstanding, and adopting of doctrines and positions which simply don't stand up to closer Biblical scrutiny.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwell in the valley. Tomorrow, turn and go into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were getting what they wanted. They wanted to turn away from their enemies, and so God turned them away. This is the significance of the statement that the Canaanite lived in the valley, and they were told to turn away from them. We get what we really want. This looks ahead to the terrible sending away of the rejected from the judgment seat at the last day. "Turn" is s.w. "turn away". They had turned away from God in their time of opportunity, and often wished to return to Egypt. And so it was appropriate for them to be told to return / turn away from the Kingdom. Condemnation is really self chosen, and will be a living out of the decisions already taken by the condemned. Truly "we make the answer now"; the essence of judgment is now. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was as if God needed someone to talk with, to share His feelings of frustration...</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, that murmur against Me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against Me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "how long...?", see on :11. The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn’t want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God’s saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God’s people who have started the journey with Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An example of the Lord’s perhaps unconscious usage of His Father’s words is to be found in His exasperated comment: “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?” (<em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em>). Of course the Lord would have spoken those words and expressed those ideas in Aramaic- but the similarity is striking with His Father’s Hebrew words of <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…?”. As a son comes out with phrases and word usages which ‘Could be his father speaking!’, so the Lord Jesus did the same thing. What I am saying is that the Lord was not merely quoting or alluding to the Father’s Old Testament words, in the way that, say, Paul or Peter did. As the Father’s Son, He was speaking in the same way as His Father, no doubt saturated with the written record of the Father’s words, but all the same, there were those similarities of wording and underlying thinking which are only seen between fathers and sons. And His words of <em><a href='B:470 17:17'>Mat 17:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em> seem to me to be an example of thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Tell them, ‘As I live, says Yahweh, surely as you have spoken in My ears, so will I do to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the people thought they were only quietly murmuring (:27). God hears our inaudible grumblings and faithless doubts, just as He did Sarah's. We have here an example of where those who are condemned have in fact desired that and chosen that outcome. God is more concerned with saving people than condemning them, and any condemnation is essentially self inflicted rather than inflicted by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and all who were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of carcasses falling suggests they were already carcasses. They were the living dead. Robert Roberts rightly described the generation that was under twenty years old on leaving Egypt as the most faithful of all Israel's generations. The faithful element with whom God so 'fell in love' was not just comprised of the 'under 20s'. Joshua and Caleb also featured amongst them, as did the Levites (who the curse of destruction in the wilderness did not apply to: <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. 1:49). Numerically, the largest of these three groups who constituted the 'faithful element' was the under 20s. It is fitting, therefore, that this faithful remnant are personified as a young person. Thus God reflected to Hosea: "When Israel was a child (s.w. "young man" ), then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>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- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But your little ones, that you said should be for a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which you have rejected-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>In the end, God gives us our dominant desire. Israel in the wilderness “despised the land of desire, they believed not his word” of promise, that they would enter it (<em><a href='B:230 106:24'>Psa 106:24</a></em> AVmg.). They didn’t really desire the land, so they didn’t receive it. Israel both despised the land, and they despised their God (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> RV). They rejected the land and so were rejected from it; just as all the condemned are actually receiving that which they themselves really want. Our attitude as to whether or not we want to be in the Kingdom is essentially our attitude to God. This has far reaching implications. <em><a href='B:230 107:30'>Psa 107:30</a></em> likewise speaks of how the faithful are brought to the haven of their desire (RVmg.). All those who truly love the Lord’s appearing- with all that implies in practical life and belief- will be accepted (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>). And yet Israel didn’t have the dominant desire to be in the Kingdom, as Joshua and Caleb had. Why didn’t they? It is vital that we understand the reasons for their failure – such an understanding will be a safeguard to help prevent us from making the same mistake (<em><a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole people of Israel would have been left in the wilderness and now allowed to enter the land, if Gad and Reuben refused to cross the Jordan river (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). But this would have broken the Divine promise of <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> that all those under 20 would enter the land. Even that promise, therefore, had unstated conditions attached to it. And yet God had yet another option- if they refused to go over Jordan, then they would forfeit their land and receive a different inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 32:30'>Num 32:30</a></em>). The complexities of these conditions are of course beyond us, because we are seeing only a part of the working of God’s infinite mind. The point is, there are conditions attached to God’s promises which aren’t always made apparent to us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must consider the tone of voice in which God said this, and His feelings as He did. For God grieved over the carcasses of those wretched men whom He slew in the wilderness for their thankless rebellions against Him their saviour (<em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em>). The apostle makes the point: "With <em>whom</em> was He grieved?". Answer: with the wicked whom He slew! A human God or a proud God would never grieve over His victory over His enemies.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your children shall be wanderers in the wilderness forty years, and shall bear your prostitution, until your dead bodies be consumed in the wilderness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their desire was to make them a captain and return to Egypt, and Neh. 9 says they did make a captain, to replace Moses. So their judgment was to wander, shepherdless, in the desert. Their concern about their children being killed by the Canaanites was only an excuse- their children ended up bearing their sins, i.e. bearing the consequence of them. The figure of 'carrying iniquity' means 'carrying the consequence of sin'; which is what the Lord did on the cross. Others suffer the consequence of our sin; and the consequence of sin can be carried by Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To disbelieve we will enter the promised land of God’s Kingdom is effectively prostitution against God. The Bible often describes unfaithfulness in terms which are startling to us, but this is to show how serious is unbelief. LXX "And they shall bear your fornication", which usually refers to idolatry. This implies idolatry as the underlying reason why they refused to enter Canaan and wanted to return to Egypt, the land of their gods. For they had taken the gods of Egypt with them (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:40 14:43'>Num 14:43</a></em> LXX "because ye have disobeyed the Lord and turned aside"; and turning aside is usually turning aside from God unto idols. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year, you will bear your iniquities, even forty years-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus on the cross was a sin bearer (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>); and the idea of sin bearing was almost an idiom for being personally guilty and sinful (<em><a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:43'>Exo 28:43</a></em>). The Lord was our sin bearer and yet personally guiltless. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you will know the altering of My purpose’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That God can change His mind is an indication of the extreme sensitivity He has to human behaviour. The only thing in which He is unchanging is His patience with sinners (<em><a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a></em>). He had promised to bring Israel in to the promised land. But He destroyed that generation- "and ye shall know my breach of promise" (AV), or, "the altering of my purpose" (RVmg.). God’s purpose <em>can</em> change. Because God can change His mind. He says so Himself. Such is His desire to save. The only element in which he does not change is in not consuming the sons of Jacob, by grace alone. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I Yahweh have spoken, surely this will I do to all this evil congregation, who are gathered together against Me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 3:11'>Heb 3:11</a></em> says that "I swore in My anger: They shall not enter into My rest". God has emotion. The generation that were promised the rest, permanence and stability of the promised land were not given it, because in their hearts they wandered. And this, as noted on <em><a href='B:650 3:10'>Heb 3:10</a></em>, was reflected in their wandering in the wilderness. This implies that God changed His mind about letting Israel enter the land; for He had promised that generation "rest" in that He promised them the land (<em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>). Or as <em><a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a></em> (A.V. mg. ) says: "Ye shall bear your iniquity, even forty years, and ye shall know the altering of My purpose". These were the words of the Angel to Moses. The apparent change of plans could be seen as more appropriate if it concerned the Angel which led them; and yet the Angel all the same was manifesting God. This oath they would not "enter into My rest" was solely because they did not believe (<em><a href='B:650 3:18'>Heb 3:18</a></em>) in their hearts (<em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>. The immorality, idolatry etc. were relatively incidental to the essential issue- that they did not believe He would give them rest in the promised land. And therefore He did not give it to them. The context of all this is Paul's appeal for confident hope in our future salvation (<em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>). It is unbelief and a constant demand for 'proof' which was their problem which cost them salvation.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men, whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation to murmur against Him, by bringing up an evil report against the land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Had they 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>The Hebrew seems to mean that the unfaithful spies now again bring up an evil report upon the land. This verse appears unnecessary until we get the sequence of events:</p><p>
The people wanted to return to Egypt and not enter Canaan</p><p>
God condemned them to instant death and destruction as a nation</p><p>
Moses intercedes and God pardons them</p><p>
The "pardon" meant that although they would die in the desert, they would rise again to eternally inherit the land</p><p>
The ten spies then made another attempt to persuade the people of how bad the land was and were condemned</p><p>
The people weren't interested in future eternal inheritance, and wanted to enter the land immediately</p><p>
They were therefore punished with absolute condemnation; Moses' amazing intercession and achievement was refused by them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even those men who brought up an evil report about the land, died by the plague before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their "evil report about the land" is twice stressed (:36). They had agreed that the land was indeed a good land. The evil report was in their false claims about the apparently invincible inhabitants, and the implication that the people therefore should return to Egypt. To 'bring up an evil report' is to slander, and the word is always elsewhere used about the slander of persons. It is a strange term to use about a land. But effectively "the land" is being put for God’s promise about entering the land. It was God whom they were slandering. And so do we if we refuse to believe we shall enter His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh remained alive out of those men who went to spy out the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that the twelve men were standing "before Yahweh" (:37) and ten of them were struck down dead, and only Joshua and Caleb were left standing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses told these words to all the children of Israel, and the people mourned greatly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This incident looks ahead to the bitter weeping of those rejected at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>), at the borders of the Kingdom. But their weeping was self inflicted and unnecessary if they had had faith. The weeping may have been like </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They rose up early in the morning, and went up to the top of the mountain, saying, Behold, we are here, and will go up to the place which Yahweh has promised; for we have sinned- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These Israelites who had crossed the Red Sea (cp. our baptism) and were now rejected from God’s Kingdom, because they themselves had said they didn’t want to inherit it, now wanted more than anything else to be there. This is a major Biblical theme- that the rejected will desperately ask to be allowed in to God’s kingdom; the foolish virgins will knock on the closed door begging for it to be opened (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em>). Our ultimate destiny is to stand before the Lord wanting to enter His Kingdom with every fiber in our being. But this must be our attitude now, for then it will be too late to change anything.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how one moment they were talking of returning to Egypt, and then in a moment they change and want to desperately enter Canaan. This instability was what reflected their lack of any deep faith or conviction, neither towards Yahweh nor their Egyptian gods. Hence the misery of the uncommitted, wandering to their deaths.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Why now do you disobey the commandment of Yahweh, since disobedience shall not prosper?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those rejected by God at His judgment still desperately want to enter His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>). In that day of final judgment, all present will desperately want only one thing- to enter the Kingdom. Nothing else will matter. We should have that spirit with us now. This was the sin of presumption (<em><a href='B:50 1:43'>Deu 1:43</a></em>) which <em><a href='B:40 15:30'>Num 15:30</a></em> will now go on to condemn.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t go up, for Yahweh isn’t among you; that you not be struck down before your enemies-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Go not up, for the Lord is not among you... but they presumed to go up... nevertheless, the ark of the covenant of the Lord (which the Angel had made with them) departed not" (:42-44)- as if to imply that the Lord (the Angel) was in the ark, and therefore did not go up with them because the ark did not. See on <em><a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a></em>.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There the Amalekite and the Canaanite are before you, and you shall fall by the sword, because you are turned back from following Yahweh; therefore Yahweh will not be with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The comment of :33 LXX "And they shall bear your fornication" implies that the refusal to enter the land was connected with idolatry. For "fornication" in a national sense usually refers to idolatry. This implies idolatry as the underlying reason why they refused to enter Canaan and wanted to return to Egypt, the land of their gods. For they had taken the gods of Egypt with them (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:40 14:43'>Num 14:43</a></em> LXX "because ye have disobeyed the Lord and turned aside"; and turning aside is usually turning aside from God unto idols. Yahweh would not be with them because they had chosen not to have Yahweh with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But they presumed to go up to the top of the mountain; nevertheless the ark of the covenant of Yahweh and Moses didn’t depart out of the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David’s bringing up / going up / ascending of the ark (<em><a href='B:100 6:2'>2Sa 6:2</a></em>) recalls how the ark did not go up into Canaan in <em><a href='B:40 14:44'>Num 14:44</a></em> (s.w.); for the land was not to be given to Israel. But when the time came, the ark was brought up into Canaan (<em><a href='B:60 4:16'>Jos 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:18'>Jos 4:18</a></em> s.w.). And so now, the land was being given to them again. David felt as if he was as Joshua reconquering Canaan in fulfilment of the promises. This may explain why Paul in <em><a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a></em> parallels the 40 years wandering of Israel with the 40 year reign of Saul; and he may speak of Saul reigning 40 years because of this, even if it was not literally true. It creates big chronological problems if we read that 40 year reign of Saul literally.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may be intentionally positioned here after the tragic record of how Israel didn’t want to enter the land and returned in their hearts to Egypt. The regulations here stress that they would enter the land (:2), and when there, would offer freewill offerings (:3). It was to encourage the younger generation, and also to show the faithful few that God’s saving purpose would come true. And there would be in Israel people who loved God so much that they made freewill offerings; whereas the people had just been claiming that Yahweh hated them, and they wanted to follow their Egyptian idols back to Egypt. See on :31.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you have come into the land of your habitations, which I give to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1. "Habitations" may imply that each family would have their own specific area which they were to possess and inhabit. Just as we each have specific intended futures and roles within the Kingdom of God, both now and eternally. But it is s.w. "sojournings". Even life in Canaan was to be a sojourning, a passing through, because the Kingdom was in view still as the permanent dwelling for God's people. This leads right on from the comment in Num. 14 that the generation over 20 would not enter the land. It could be that now Moses is specifically addressing and encouraging the younger generation. But these laws go on in :24,25 to speak of how forgiveness was possible for the entire body of Israel if sin was committed in ignorance. We wonder whether this was a hint that even then Israel could be forgiven if they recognized they had sinned, and God would have been prepared to accept they had done so "in ignorance" of the real implications. We recall that God graciously excused the murder of His own son as a sin "done in ignorance" (Acts 3:17 "Through ignorance you did it as did also your rulers"). The same word is translated "deceived" in Job 12:16: "The deceived and the deceiver are His". If they recognized that they had been deceived by the 10 spies, could they then have been forgiven? Perhaps recognition of sin means that the sin was previously done in ignorance. The otherwise strange laws inserted into the law of Moses about the "red heifer" offering for all Israel may likewise have been intended as a nudge towards all this. A way was being made for all Israel to be forgiven- and these laws had not previously been given. 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. "Presumption"(:30) is literally 'with upraised hand'. And this was how Moses had sinned at Kadesh, lifting his hand and then striking the rock. But even that was forgivable in terms of salvation. 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. Moses committed the sin of high handed presumption, literally lifting his hand before striking the rock (see on Nun. 20:11); David likewise committed the sin of presumption by despising God's word in sinning with Bathsheba. But both were still forgiven, although they had to take the consequences in this life. So the sin of presumption can be forgiven, by ceasing to be presumptuous. Just as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can be forgiven once it stops. </p><p>
The commands of :3-6 are an expansion upon the laws given in Leviticus. Once in the land, they were to additionally offer grain, oil and wine with their sacrifices. This reinforces what we have read in Num. 14- that the land was "good" and was flowing with blessing of grain, oil and wine. They were therefore reminded that once in the land under the covenant, they would have abundance of these things and would add them to the offerings, further to what had been commanded in Leviticus. They were being focused upon the abundance of the future Kingdom. </p><p>
"I am giving you... into which I am bringing you" (:17) encouraged them that their wanderings were not aimless, but were part of being brought to the Kingdom. We can take comfort in the counterpart to this in our own wilderness wanderings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and will make an offering by fire to Yahweh, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, to accomplish a vow, or as a freewill offering, or in your set feasts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1. 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><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To make a pleasant aroma to Yahweh, of the herd, or of the flock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Of the herd" continues the common Mosaic theme, that the animal was not to be raised specially for sacrifice but was to be taken out of the herd, it was one "of" them. This looks ahead to the human nature of the Lord Jesus as one of us, taken "of" the herd of humanity. And all sacrifice is to be from out of our normal lives, making time in lunch breaks to read the Bible and pray, things like that, rather than occasional consciously prepared 'gifts' to God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then he who offers his offering shall offer to Yahweh a grain offering of a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with the fourth part of a hin of oil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This section seems to be reminding Israel of the need not to forget to offer a grain offering at the same time as a major sacrifice; as if to underline that God is magnified in the little things of life, and these shouldn’t be left outside the sphere of His influence just because we consider we have made a major sacrifice to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and wine for the drink offering, the fourth part of a hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering, or for the sacrifice, for each lamb-</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 offering?'. And the answer to that at the breaking of bread is 'Here in our midst'.<em></em></p><p>Meal [bread], wine and oil are associated with what people ate at their own tables: Jud. 9:9, 13 (oil and wine), 1 Sam. 1:24; 10:3 (meal and wine), Hos. 9:4 (wine), Mic. 6:7 (oil). The idea was that in sacrifice, one was at the Lord's table and eating with Him. This is our experience not only at the memorial meeting, but in all experience of sacrifice to Him. We fellowship with Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a grain offering two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour mixed with the third part of a hin of 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 about oil and wine being offered with the daily sacrifices would have been practically impossible to keep during the forty years wandering. 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. These commands were for when Israel were in the land, as the amounts of oil and wine required would've been hard to find in the desert. Indeed it is an open question as to whether the laws of sacrifice were kept whilst in the desert. 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>and for the drink offering you shall offer the third part of a hin of wine, for a pleasant aroma 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you prepare a bull for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice, to accomplish a vow, or for peace offerings to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sacrifices were to be accompanied by oil, bread (flour) and wine. They were to give to God the same food which they would eat at their own table; oil and wine (<em><a href='B:70 9:9'>Jdg 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 9:13'>Jdg 9:13</a></em>); meal / bread and wine (<em><a href='B:90 1:24'>1Sa 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 10:3'>1Sa 10:3</a></em>; wine (<em><a href='B:350 9:4'>Hos 9:4</a></em>) and oil (<em><a href='B:400 6:7'>Mic 6:7</a></em>). They were to see themselves as eating at His table, sharing a meal with their invisible God. The same idea is behind the Lord's table which we share at the breaking of bread meeting. And this theme was developed at this point, because Israel had just been condemned to 40 years wandering. But God was urgent in His desire to remain in fellowship with them. Permanently depriving a sinner of the Lord's table was not His way at all, indeed the very opposite. See on :12. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then shall he offer with the bull a grain offering of three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour mixed with half a hin of oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the most obvious similarities between the peace offering 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall offer for the drink offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </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 was now being 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>Thus shall it be done for each bull, or for each ram, or for each of the male lambs, or of the young goats-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :12. The repetition of "each" stresses that each animal was to be accompanied by the required side offerings. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the number that you shall prepare, so you shall do to each one according to their number-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was important that each animal sacrifice was individually accompanied by the side plates, as it were, of bread, wine and oil. As explained on :8, each animal was to be seen as a meal enjoyed with God, with the altar as the table at which it was 'eaten'. The way Solomon and others offered vast numbers of animal sacrifices at one go was therefore completely missing the point of personal relationship with God- and reducing it to mere religion. For God wanted individuals to dine with Him, and not rivers of blood flowing from huge numbers of sacrifices, as the prophets make clear.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who are native-born shall do these things in this way, in offering an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference to "native-born" was again an encouragement to an Israel just rejected from the land that one day, they would be there. And they would have children who were born in that land. Constantly God likewise encourages us, directly and indirectly, that we shall indeed one day inherit the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you, or whoever may be among you throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh; as you do, so he shall do-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law of Moses constantly envisaged that Gentiles would live amongst Israel at all points in their history, "throughout your generations". The intention was that Israel in their land would be the light of the Gentile world around them, and Gentiles would come to that light, and also come to worship Yahweh. Israel's apostasy on one hand and arrogant xenophobia on the other meant that this was never realized. The intention has been deferred and reinterpreted in the later prophecies which speak of Gentiles coming to Zion's light. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who lives as a foreigner, a statute forever throughout your generations: as you are, so shall the foreigner be before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :14, the intention was always that Gentiles would come to Israel and live there, and thereby come to Yahweh. They too could be "before Yahweh". This was sadly ignored and misinterpreted by Israel, to the point that notices were erected in the temple effectively warning Gentiles not to come "before Yahweh" on pain of death. There was a riot in Jerusalem just at the thought that Paul might just possibly have brought Gentiles into the temple area "before Yahweh".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One law and one ordinance shall be for you, and for the stranger who lives as a foreigner with you’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is stressed so many times. See on :29. The law of Moses was the contract of the covenant between God and Israel. But the Gentiles were invited to come under that law, indeed it was required of them. This was therefore an open invitation and even requirement that Gentiles enter covenant relationship with Yahweh. God’s definition of "Israel" as His people was from the start geared towards inclusiveness of all races- and thereby against all forms of racially based patriotism and xenophobia.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law of Moses, like the whole of God’s word, is studded with incidental reminders that truly we shall enter the promised land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you come into the land to which I bring you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had just condemned Israel to 40 years wandering in the desert outside of His land (Numbers 14). But right at the start of it, He emphasizes that He is still earnestly operating His program to "bring" them into that land, seeing they of themselves hadn't wished to enter it. And so even when it seems a man way be walking away from the Kingdom, even by his own choice, Yahweh is ever seeking to "bring" him somehow, eventually, back to it. Those who "leave" are still the subjects of His efforts to "bring" them there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall offer up a wave offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note the continual encouragement, after the events of Numbers 14, that they would enter the land / Kingdom one day. There is no recorded evidence that Israel ever obeyed what they were commanded here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the first of your dough you shall offer up a cake for a wave offering: as the wave offering of the threshing floor, so you shall heave it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God’s, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God’s and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the first of your dough you shall give to Yahweh a wave offering throughout your generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted because of his lack of faith in the principles of blood offering, and because of his hatred of his brother. For it was not impossible for God to accept non-blood sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 15:17-21'>Num 15:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:1-4'>Deu 26:1-4</a></em>). Cain, the epitome of 'the devil' (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), was characterized by the attitude that he was not his brother's keeper (<em><a href='B:10 4:9'>Gen 4:9</a></em>). But the Lord Jesus perhaps offered a commentary on the incident when he said that our offering can only be accepted if we are first reconciled to our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Cain's insistent lack of responsibility for his brother was the real sin, and therefore his sacrifice wasn't accepted by God. He wanted to serve God his own way, disregard his brother, justify his disagreement with him... to be a private person. But this was the basis of his rejection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you shall err, and not observe all these commandments which Yahweh has spoken to Moses,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At times Moses lost the sense of his own personality, so strong was his inspiration by God: “All these commandments, which the Lord has spoken unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:40 15:22-23'>Num 15:22-23</a></em>); these words were actually said by Moses (:17). Jeremiah spoke “from the mouth of the Lord” and yet the Lord spoke “by the mouth of Jeremiah” (<em><a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 36:22'>2Ch 36:22</a></em>) - this is how close was the relationship between God and the men He spoke through. Their mouth was His mouth, and they were subsumed beneath that awesome reality. Thus John the Baptist described himself as merely "a voice" when he was asked who he was. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even all that Yahweh has commanded you by Moses, from the day that Yahweh gave commandment, and onward throughout your generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is clearly the recognition here that the law given at Sinai was not as it were set in stone. In an "onward" sense there was to be progressive revelation; and we have an example of this in :34. This flexibility means that we are more open to the idea that finally the entire Law was abrogated in the Lord Jesus; and there were evident variations allowed to it when Israel were in exile. The law was the contract forming the basis of Yahweh's covenant relationship with His people; and yet that contract was clearly flexible. If it could be added to by God, parts could also be ammended. We see this quite early on, for the 'second law' in Deuteronomy, given at the end of the wilderness wanderings, has some amendments to the earlier law given.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then it shall be, if it be done unknowingly, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt offering, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh, with the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sins of ignorance still required atonement. The passage of time doesn’t work a quasi-atonement for our sins; confession of sin and earnest searching of our lives, both past and present, is one of the disciplines which characterize the spiritually healthy believer. It’s likely we will come to the day of judgment with sins of ignorance still counted to us, and yet we believe God will forgive them- hence we ask to be forgiven for such sins which aren’t perceived by us (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em>). This means we will be forgiven without repentance. If we look forward to such forgiveness, we should show it to our brethren today, forgiving without demanding their repentance, hoping that they will later on in their journey perceive things more maturely.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire to Yahweh, and their sin offering before Yahweh, for their error- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>James may have sins of ignorance in mind when he says that obeying all the law but breaking just one commandment will lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:660 2:10'>Jas 2:10</a></em>). His argument becomes all the more powerful if he is alluding here, for the point is then made that this holds true even if that one commandment is broken in ignorance. Clearly the only way to justification with God is through faith in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p>"All the congregation of the children of Israel" is the very phrase repeatedly used in Num. 13:26; 14:2,5,10,27 of how "all the congregation of the children of Israel" had disbelieved the two spies and preferred to spurn God's Kingdom; and how God's wrath was with "all the congregation of the children of Israel". They were all guilty of the presumptuous sin, but didn't all die. Because they were forgiven. "They shall be forgiven" is literally 'They shall be pardoned'. This is exactly what Moses had achieved in his intercession for the people for their sin of rejecting the promised land. They had been pardoned. The sin had been treated as one of relative "ignorance" or 'deception' [s.w.], in that they had believed the false report of the ten spies. Their presumptuous sin had been to go up into Canaan anyway, unwilling to accept death in the wilderness and future resurrection. Some of them died in that endeavour, but the rest of that generation lived on and died in the desert. But during that time, they had the chance to repent. Whilst there's life there's always hope for repentance, surely. For can a living man be precluded from repentance?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And all the congregation of the children of Israel shall be forgiven, and the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them; for in respect of all the people it was done unknowingly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus is very generously presented as a sin of ignorance by the Lord's saying that “they know not what they do”, confirmed by Peter's appeal to repent although “Through ignorance you did it” (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>). Repentance was therefore encouraged on the basis of having had sin made known to them. And the offering for that sin had already been made, in the Lord's death. Their sin of (apparent) ignorance was therefore in fact the forgiveness for their sin- if they actualized it by recognition and repentance.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If one person sins unknowingly, then he shall offer a female goat of a year old for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ruler was to offer a male (Leviticus 4), but the common person was to offer a female. It may simply be because female animals cost less, and the ruler was to realize that he had greater responsibility in his failure and needed to show this in the kind of sacrifice he made.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for the soul who errs when he sins unknowingly, to make atonement for him before Yahweh; and he shall be forgiven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the legislation about the cities of refuge likewise reflected God’s special concern about unintentional sin. He recognizes that there are different kinds of sin. And in this we see His sensitivity, for the other legal codes at the time saw everything in black and white terms of obedience or disobedience to legal statutes. The word for "unknowingly" or "unintentionally" is s.w. 'deceived' (<em><a href='B:220 12:16'>Job 12:16</a></em>). It could be that God also recognizes that some are deceived into sin, and therefore treats those who lead into sin more severely than those who are led into sin. Likewise the New Testament condemns false teachers, but seems to be more acceptive of the falsely taught, the misguided.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall have one law for him who does anything unknowingly, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication therefore was that any Gentile living in Israel was under the Mosaic law. And that law was the contract forming the basis of the covenant. They were therefore to enter covenant with Yahweh if they lived in Israel. The law continually envisages Gentiles living in Israel, as if they were going to be attracted by Israel and come and live in the land having entered covenant with Yahweh. God’s definition of "Israel" as His people was from the start geared towards inclusiveness of all races- and thereby against all forms of racially based patriotism and xenophobia. See on :16.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’But the soul who does anything in presumption, whether he is native-born or a foreigner, the same blasphemes Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David murdered, committed adultery and even the deadly sin of presumption (<em><a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a></em>). Yet these were overlooked by God <em>as if</em> they were 'surface' sins; the real man David was accepted by God and held up as a wondrous example to all the faithful. Such is His softness towards us, and more essentially, His earnest desire to save men who may not 'make it' on the basis of straight obedience. The context here in the previous chapter is of Israel having been presumptuous in trying to enter Canaan when told they now could not do so (<em><a href='B:50 1:43'>Deu 1:43</a></em>).  If God is eager to see presumptuous sins as sins of ignorance, so that He might still save al least some... we also should take as generous a view as possible of others' sins. </p><p>"Presumption" is literally 'with upraised hand'. The idea is of willful defiance; thus Israel left Egypt with a high hand and therefore the Egyptians pursued them (Ex. 14:8; Num. 33:3). And this was how Moses had sinned at Kadesh, lifting his hand and then striking the rock. But even that was forgivable in terms of salvation. In the next chapter, Num, 16, we will read of Korah and his followers standing proudly before their tents, as if this too was sin with upraised, defiant hand. The book of Numbers features the record of incidents whilst the people were "in the wilderness", and also the giving of extra laws. But those extra laws are to be related to the narrative incidents recorded. Num. 15 follows on from Num. 14, and therefore talks about presumptuous sins. This means to "despise" God's word of promise (:31), and Num. 14 records Israel 'despising' both God and the promised land. Whilst they continued in that, there was no atonement possible. We can conclude that that legislation was given in the context of Israel's presumption in rejecting the Kingdom and calling God a liar. And the implication is that we can all in principle commit that same sin. It is unforgivable insofar as the sin itself means we refuse to believe in God's grace and salvation, and reject it as fake. Whilst that's our position, salvation is impossible- by our own choice. The issue of whether we believe we will be saved therefore assumes critical place in the psychology and worldview of all God's people, at all times. The context continues in Num. 16, where the rebellion of Korah is again a sin of presumption that was met with immediate destruction- just as the ten spies were destroyed. Again we are left with the impression that presumptuous sin leads to immediate destruction. For those left alive, especially the condemned generation in the desert, there was still some potential for repentance, pardon and future salvation through resurrection.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because he has despised the word of Yahweh, and has broken His commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be on him’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). As noted on :30, David committed this sin but was spared. The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God’s people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God’s eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Despised the word" is the term used about David’s sin with Bathsheba (<em><a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a></em>). But God’s grace is such that even in this case, when David deserved to die for knowingly doing wrong, still a way was found for David to live. We are all in essence in the same situation, for our sins are often knowingly done.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :1, the immediate context of these commandments is the presumptuous sin of Israel, in turning away from the Kingdom, and then presuming to try to enter it when they had been barred from it. Despising the word of the Lord is alluding to how the faithless spies and their followers did just this in <em><a href='B:40 14:36-37'>Num 14:36-37</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inheritance of the land is elsewhere described as a keeping of a Sabbath rest. The Sabbath was a looking forward to resting from the labour of Egypt in the salvation of the promised land: "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm, therefore Yahweh your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day" (Dt. 5:15). Quite often, inheritance of the land is described as "rest": "You haven’t yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which Yahweh your God gives you... dwell in the land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, and He gives you rest" (Dt. 12:9,10). Paul in Hebrews develops this point, based upon the statements in Ps. 95:8-11 that God had sworn that the condemned generation would not enter the "rest" of the promised land. This man who broke the Sabbath rest intentionally therefore becomes similar to those who willfully refused to enter the land, which has just been recorded in Num. 14. He gathered sticks just as the Hebrews gathered straw in Egypt; rather than rest from that labour. And that is the context for these laws.</p><p>As discussed on :1, the context here is Israel's rejection because they had wilfully disobeyed Yahweh and blasphemed Him (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>). This man was similar, and perhaps that is why his case is recorded here. He is an example of the presumptuous sin just spoken of in :30. The mention that Israel were in the wilderness when this happened may appear to be stating the obvious. But many of the laws, including those so far in this chapter, had been prefaced with the comment that they were to be observed when Israel were in Canaan. Perhaps there was a wilful misunderstanding of the Sabbath law as only applicable in Canaan. I say wilful misunderstanding, because the man was judged as guilty of the sin of presumption (:30,31). So often, caviling over legalistic interpretation of the law is because we are seeking to simply ignore God’s law and go our own way; see on :33. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The only other occurrence of the Hebrew phrase "gathering sticks" is in the description of the widow woman of <em><a href='B:110 17:10'>1Ki 17:10</a></em>. We wonder whether she was doing so on the Sabbath; and yet Elijah was taught that he had to depend upon this for him to have food to remain alive. Just as unclean ravens brought him his food. We are likewise taught the same at times. </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>Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Firewood would have been scarce in the wilderness, so this man perhaps found some and wanted to gather it on the Sabbath before anyone else could. The motive for reporting him would therefore have been jealousy and anger, rather than pure concern that the Sabbath had been broken. So often those who report others breaking God’s laws have their own agendas. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They put him in custody, because it had not been declared what should be done to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A similar incident was dealt with the same way in <em><a href='B:30 24:12'>Lev 24:12</a></em>. As discussed on :23, there was an element of progressive revelation in God’s law, and not every situation was legislated for. Probably they realized he deserved the death penalty, but the question may have been how he should be put to death.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em> stresses that the Lord Jesus died in the same place, outside the camp of God’s people. Although Jesus never sinned, in His time of dying He so closely identified with condemned sinners that even in our moments of sin He can still identify with us (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). The people who gathered manna on the Sabbath were not dealt with like this, although it was an equally clear breaking of specific laws. We can only conclude that people may sin in the same external way, but God knows the heart and in this case, the man was guilty of the sin of presumption (:30,31) rather than a lesser level of disobedience. But only God can judge these things. All we see is the external actions and sin. We cannot therefore "judge" because we fail to see the heart behind the wrong action. And clearly God does judge identical actions differently, as we see by comparing this man with those who gathered manna.</p><p>The capital punishment for gathering on the Sabbath begs for comparison with the way some tried to gather manna on the Sabbath but were not so harshly punished. Surely the point is, in the context of Num. 15, that he had sinned presumptuously whereas the manna gatherers were merely opportunistic. And possibly hungry. Whereas this man apparently knew that the sabbath was the sign of the covenant (Ex. 31:12) but rejected that covenant. Perhaps this is why the judgment was to be stoned outside of the camp, reflecting his conscious rejection of his place in the camp of God's people.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The provision for Naziriteship encouraged the average Israelite to enter into the spirit of the High Priest by imposing some of the regulations governing his behaviour upon them. <em>All</em> Israel were bidden make fringes of blue, in conscious imitation of the High Priest to whose spirit they all were intended to attain (<em><a href='B:40 15:38'>Num 15:38</a></em>). But we are bidden now "come boldly unto the throne of grace (cp. the mercy seat in the Most Holy)... boldness to enter into the holiest" (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:19'>Heb 10:19</a></em>): to do what only the High Priest could do under the Old Covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them that they should make themselves fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of each border a cord of blue-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>People touched the hem of Jesus’ garment, the fringes mentioned here, in search of healing (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>). By doing so, they were recognizing that their healing was possible because of His righteous obedience to the Father’s commandments. His power to heal has a basis- not merely that He is powerful of Himself, but because of His moral obedience. </p><p>Fringes of blue were the sign of royalty. We recall David cutting off the hem of Saul's garment, and Saul's conclusion that this meant that David would replace him as king and his kingship had been cut off by David. The point was that all Israel were kings, they were a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Reminding ourselves of God's Kingship over us in daily life is what qualifies us as His Kings. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If there is an external being who makes us sin, surely he would have been mentioned extensively in the Old Testament? But there is a very profound and significant silence about thIsa. The record of the Judges period, or Israel in the wilderness, show that at those times Israel were sinning a great deal. But God did not warn them about some powerful supernatural being or force which could enter them and make them sin. Instead, He encouraged them to apply themselves to His word, so that they would not fall away to the ways of their own flesh (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 27:9-10'>Deu 27:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 15:39'>Num 15:39</a></em> is especially clear about our innate sinful tendencies: "Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly" (Heschel's translation). In some Orthodox Jewish liturgies, this verse is to be repeated twice each day. And so it should be by us all. For this is the heart of the matter, the essence of the believer's struggle against sin within. </p><p>AV "That ye seek not after your own heart" uses the same word for "search" as recently used about the spies searching out the land, but with the heart of disbelief. Again we see how the commands here are directly related to the preceding historical narrative. The reason they failed the test of faith was because of lack of daily, moment by moment attention to God's ways and words. For this was what the fringe was intended to teach.</p><p>
Ecc. 11:9 alludes to Num 15:39: "Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment". The way of the world is to just do whatever our heart tells us, to follow our heart. But the Biblical view of the heart radically clashes with this. We are to control our heart, not do what is intuitive, and allow the heart to be regenerated. But the context of Num. 15 is that we have in that chapter a set of laws relevant to Israel's belief of the ten spies and their rejection of entering the promised land. The spies had judged after the sight of their eyes and followed their heart rather than God's leading. They had "seen" giants and they seemed in their own eyes as grasshoppers compared to them (Num. 13:32,33; 14:33). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy to your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jewish commentator Rashi claims that the numerical value of "fringes" by gematria is 613, the number of Mosaic commandments. So there is an appropriacy in the fringe being intended to help Israel remember all those 613 commandments.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reminder was pertinent at the time, for they had just been told to return towards the Red Sea and the border with Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 14:25'>Num 14:25</a></em>). They were being reminded that even in what appear to be steps backward, God is still at work to bring us out of Egypt and into His Kingdom. There is perhaps the hint here to the condemned generation that Yahweh still sought to be their God. They would die in the desert, but like Moses, they could be pardoned and resurrected to eternal inheritance of the land, and have Yahweh as their God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Korah is presented as the ringleader of the rebellion (<em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>). But his sons apparently survived, dissociating themselves from their father, becoming the "sons of Korah" who were musicians in the sanctuary. As we see throughout the Biblical records, good men have bad sons and vice versa. Spirituality is in the end totally individual and personal. The Kohathites pitched on the same side of the tabernacle as the Reubenites. So we see the simple takeaway lesson- watch whom you mix with, even amongst the people of God. For people tend to lead each other into sin.<em></em></p><p>Initially God's intention was that the firstborn of all Israel would be priests (Ex. 13:2; 19:6). But after the golden calf, they were replaced by the Levites (Num. 3:12). The priestly work was split up among Levi’s four sons: Aaron, Kohath, Merari, and Gershon (Num. 3:17,38; 1 Chron. 23:12,13). But the most senior role was given to Aaron, passing over Kohath (Ex. 28:1; Num. 17:1-10). And Kohath's family had to be supervised by Eleazer, a son of Aaron (Num. 3:32). This is typical of how God doesn't always honour the firstborn, as we see from the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob family stories. In this case, the discontented fed off each others' discontent; for the Levites were led by Elizaphan, the son of Kohath's fourth son (Num. 3:30). Aaron was the son of Amram, Kohath's firstborn. Korah was the son of Kohath's second son Izhar. Korah was the firstborn son of Izhar, so he was a firstborn; but his father was not a firstborn. He was younger brother to Amram, Moses' father. Making Korah a cousin to Moses. He clearly was discontented that he as a firstborn didn't have more seniority. He obviously felt that he ought to lead the Levites. The Reubenites were the deposed firstborns just as the Kohathites thought they were. Again we see how the Biblical record is so psychologically credible; for we see discontented people feed off each other all the time.</p><p>
Dathan and Abram were from Reuben, the deposed firstborn. So we see men with a chip on their shoulder, wanting power. The record is so psychologically credible. They failed to learn the lessons from the Jacob story, nor that of Ex. 13:2, where all firstborn had to be sanctified by an offering because they were not sanctified merely by means of being firstborn. God in fact was at pains to show that firstborn status meant nothing to Him of itself.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they rose up before Moses with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation, men called to lead the assembly, men of renown- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Korah wa<em>s </em>a firstborn, and Reuben was a deposed firstborn. Possibly there was some discontent about the firstborn of Israel being exchanged for the Levites. The rejected Israelites had wanted a captain to lead them back to Egypt. We are told that they in their hearts returned there. So it is likely that this putsch was in order to take Moses and Aaron out of leadership positions, so that the people could be led back to Egypt. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, You take too much on yourself, since all the congregation are holy, each one of them, and Yahweh is among them. Why then lift yourselves up above the assembly of Yahweh?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The complaint may have been that Moses was exalting his own immediate family to the priesthood, and Korah and the Levites were subservient to them. Perhaps Korah led the rebellion against Moses because he objected to how Elzaphan son of Uziel had been appointed over the Kohathites (<em><a href='B:40 3:30'>Num 3:30</a></em>). Kohath had four sons, Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uziel (<em><a href='B:20 6:18'>Exo 6:18</a></em>). Amram's sons, Moses and Aaron, had already received high honour in ruling over all Israel. So Korah, as the firstborn son of the next born son Izhar, thought that he ought to have been over the Kohathites. But instead, the son of Uziel, Kohath's youngest son, had been made prince of the Kohathite clan. This is typical of how God appoints those who are least qualified and strong in secular terms. But Korah disliked thIsa. He felt he was next in line to be the leader of the Kohathites. </p><p>Aaron had made this same complaint against Moses in Num. 12 and now he experiences the same. As God was gracious to him then, thanks to Moses' intercession, so Aaron is going to reflect that grace to others. He was falsely accused as he had falsely accused Moses. This kind of thing often happens, for our spiritual growth and our ability to enter into the mind of others and pity them- not simply as some kind of "measure for measure" justice.</p><p>
The comment that "all the congregation are holy" alludes to the preceding statement in Num. 15:40, that all Israel were to wear tassels to remind them that they were holy to their God. Here we see again how the incidents and laws of Numbers are all interconnected and are not random events. </p><p>The congregation had "gathered themselves together against" Aaron at the time of the golden calf (Ex. 32:1), and he gave in to them. He appears to have progressed here, because he doesn't give in to them but rather intercedes for them. Circumstances repeat in our lives, so that we learn to respond better.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses heard it, he fell on his face-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here his humility. A challenge to power and status is usually met by anger and a show of force. But Moses falls on his face in humility and in pleading with them not to sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he spoke to Korah and to all his company, saying, In the morning Yahweh will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to Him. Even him whom He shall choose He will cause to come near to Him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX implies that God had already made the choice of Moses: "And he spoke to Core and all his assembly, saying, God has visited and known those that are his and who are holy, and has brought them to himself; and whom he has chosen for himself, he has brought to himself". This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em> "the Lord knows them that are His". Paul is therefore arguing that all God’s people are now as Moses was personally. He often does this- for Moses was seen in Judaism as an unapproachable icon, whereas Paul wants every Christian convert to see Moses as a pattern to be realistically followed.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul in <em><a href='B:620 2:24-25'>2Ti 2:24-25</a></em> makes a series of allusions to Moses, which climax in an invitation to pray like Moses for the salvation of others: </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The servant of the Lord (A very common title of Moses) must not strive (As Israel did with him (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>)) but be gentle unto all (The spirit of Moses) apt to teach (As was Moses (<em><a href='B:20 18:20'>Exo 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:5'>Deu 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:14'>Deu 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:1'>Deu 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:22'>Deu 31:22</a></em>)), patient (As was Moses), in meekness (Moses was the meekest man (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>)) instructing those that oppose themselves (at the time of Aaron and Miriam’s self-opposing rebellion) if God peradventure will give them repentance (i.e. forgiveness) (“Peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin” (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>))"- and he prayed 40 days and nights for it. And note too: <em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:5'>Num 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:26'>Num 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:20'>2Ti 2:20</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:7'>Num 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 2:21'>Num 2:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:37'>Num 16:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:22'>2Ti 2:22</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 12:2'>Num 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:3'>Num 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:26'>2Ti 2:26</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 16:33'>Num 16:33</a></em>. This is quite something. The height of Moses’ devotion for His people, the passion of his praying, shadowing as it did the matchless intercession and self-giving of the Lord, really is our example. It isn’t just a height to be admired. It means that we will not half-heartedly ask our God to ‘be with’ brother x and sister y and the brethren in country z, as we lie half asleep in bed. This is a call to sustained, on our knees prayer and devotion to the salvation of others. For the Judaists, an appeal to be like Moses, to emulate him in teaching, was blasphemous; for they considered Moses at such a level that he could never be imitated. Yet Paul urges timid Timothy and all teachers to realistically be Moses to our audience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Do this: take censers, Korah, and all his company- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Surely they were supposed to see the similarity with what had happened in Lev. 10:1: "The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his own firepan, and they
placed coals in them and they placed incense upon them, and they brought before Yahweh a foreign fire, which He did not command them”. Here and in Lev. 10, the rebellious incense offerers were destroyed by fire from Yahweh. Censers were for offering 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 this account (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em>). Balaam was put in a similar position- he was told to go with the elders of Moab, but only speak God’s word. 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. See on :29. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and put fire in them, and put incense on them before Yahweh tomorrow; and it shall be that the man whom Yahweh chooses, he shall be holy. You have gone too far, you sons of Levi!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :6, they were being invited to either repent, or go forward to self destruction. The Hebrew seems to imply that Yahweh had already chosen a holy one, and it was not them. The command to "put fire in them" was because they had "gone too far". 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>It has been suggested that the words "Enough you sons of Levi!" cannot be addressed to Korah’s company, since they are laymen who are objecting to the claims of the Levites. They must be addressed by Korah’s company to Moses and Aaron, and may have fallen out of their right place at the end of Num. 16:3.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Korah, Hear now, you sons of Levi!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,7, they were on a fast track to self destruction. And so Moses desperately appeals to them: "Hear now...", i.e. 'Be obedient to God’s word'. For that is the sense of the word for "hear". And it was urgent- "now", because they had been commanded to offer incense when doing so would lead to their destruction. They needed to urgently repent.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is it a small thing to you, that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of Yahweh, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They didn’t consider servanthood within the family of God to be a very great honour; they wanted leadership and personal honour from those they would be over. This is the great paradox, the acme of humility, that serving is actually an honour. But there are so few who really grasp thIsa. Leadership, like respect, is something which can never be demanded nor sought after if we are truly God’s people. Notice that to serve others in God’s family is to come “near to (God) Himself”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come near before Yahweh" is usually translated "offer (sacrifice) before Yahweh", and is translated that way multiple times. Although rarely (<em><a href='B:20 16:9'>Exo 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:5'>Lev 9:5</a></em>) it is used of the congregation coming near before Yahweh. But the congregation didn’t generally want to come before Yahweh, and so He chose just the Levites to come before Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 8:10'>Num 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> s.w.). 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. We see here how open God is to change, 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>They didn't appreciate the wonder of the fact that the Levites had been taken by God as the firstborns instead of the firstborn of Israel. And this was in order to save Israel from destruction. Israel's salvation is presented as dependent upon them: "I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come near to the sanctuary" (Num. 8:19). Likewise "the Levites are the ones who will serve in the service of the tent of meeting; they are the ones who will bear their guilt” (Lev. 18:22,23). We too can fail to appreciate the hugely significant role we play in saving others. We should need nothing else.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and that He has brought you near, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? Do you seek the priesthood also?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Coming near to Yahweh was something which should have been done on will and initiative of the people. But just as God brought Israel out of Egypt when they wanted to remain there, so He caused the Levites to come near to Him. This is an example of how His Spirit works upon human lives, to bring people unto Him when otherwise they would not have made the required distance of movement towards Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore you and all your company are gathered together against Yahweh; and Aaron, who is he that you murmur against him?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>. 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 thrust Moses away 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 cast away Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; and they said, We won’t come up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They perceived that by offering incense they were indeed on a path to self destruction, as Nadab and Abihu had been. See on :6,7. So they wanted to pull back from that, and yet wanted to save face. And so they twist the turn of their argument. But repentance in this case simply had to involve loss of face. And there was no way it could be compromised as they wished.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but you must also make yourself a prince over us?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God’s rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this 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 you believed me not... you 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; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey, and denied that they could experience this in God’s Kingdom in Canaan. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after. We marvel at how quickly they adopted the narrative that Egypt was good and Canaan was bad. A complete change to the narrative they had held just a few years previously.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Will you put out the eyes of these men? We won’t come up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "And now you are trying to deceive us", understanding this as an idiom for covering the eyes of another in deception. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was very angry, and said to Yahweh, Don’t respect their offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet he was the humblest man on planet earth at the time (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). Anger isn’t advisable for us, as it can easily lead us into sin; but of itself, anger isn’t necessarily incompatible with humility. Yet later Moses' faith slipped for a moment; because his spirit was provoked by Israel, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips and was 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 turned himself 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'><em>I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul alludes to these words: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel" (<em><a href='B:510 20:33'>Act 20:33</a></em>); and Paul maybe had these words in mind again in <em><a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a></em>: "We have hurt no man... we have defrauded no man". Always we are to be looking out for similarities between our experiences and those of Biblical characters. For it is in this way the we through patience and comfort of the scriptures have hope; and the Bible becomes a living word speaking to us directly. LXX "I have not taken away the desire of any one of them" could mean they were implying he had messed with their wives (<em><a href='B:330 24:16'>Eze 24:16</a></em>). Sexual slander is always a cheap shot taken at any religious leader, and Moses was surely liable to it, seeing the people hated him so much and were always murmuring at him.&nbsp;</p><p>The insistence Moses had not taken a donkey from them was effectively saying that he had not exercised the power of a ruler. Saul as king of Israel did just this (1 Sam. 12:3).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Korah, You and all your company go before Yahweh, you, and they, and Aaron, tomorrow-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :6,7 this was effectively a command which would lead them to their deaths. For there were many commands about the incense and who could offer it, warning that any who offered otherwise or who weren't priests, or came near to offer incense when they weren't qualified, were to die. 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and let each man take his censer, and put incense on them, and each man bring before Yahweh his censer, two hundred and fifty censers; you also and Aaron, each his censer- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each prince offered 21 animals in total at the dedication of the altar in Numbers 7, and there were 12 princes, making a total of 252 animals. When the princes rebelled, the 250 rebellious princes were asked to bring their censers before Yahweh, along with the censers of Moses and Aaron (<em><a href='B:40 16:17'>Num 16:17</a></em>), making a total of 252 censers. That this number is again associated with the princes of Israel cannot surely be chance. There is the simple message that the hand of God was present throughout the whole narrative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They each took his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense thereon, and stood at the door of the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,7,16 they refused to back down and were now committing the sin of presumption, challenging God to strike them down. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Korah assembled all the congregation against them to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of Yahweh appeared to all the congregation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The congregation" therefore refers to all Israel and it was therefore all of Israel who were to be slain (:21). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses and Aaron know Yahweh well enough to as it were disobey the command to separate themselves from the condemned sinners. They do not do so immediately, but instead beg Him not to destroy all the congregation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Separate yourselves from among this congregation that I may consume them in a moment!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Twice in quick succession God wishes to do this and is talked out of it, as it were, by Moses' intercession (:21,45). We get the impression of a fast moving, intense relationship between God and Moses. "This congregation" apparently referred to all Israel (:19); because in :22-26 we see the intercession of Moses and Aaron, and their obtaining of deliverance for "this congregation" so long as they literally separated themselves from the rebels. God wished to destroy the entire congregation, as He wished to at the time of the golden calf and also at the time of their refusal to enter Canaan in Num. 14. But again, the intercession of Moses leads to a radical change of heart in God Almighty. Such is the power of prayer and intercession for others. The power of Moses' intercession contrasts with the far greater power of that of the Lord, whose intercession was not with words alone but backed up by His blood, His sacrifice.</p><p>
If Yahweh had destroyed Israel, then it would have left just Moses and Aaron. Clearly He still has in mind what He did in Ex. 32:10 where He told Moses “I will become furious with them and consume them, and I will make you into a great nation". We observe how God is willing to move down one track, but is persuadable to move down another even if that is not His ideal. </p><p>
"In a moment" is literally 'in the twinkle of an eye'. God was a fraction of a second away from destroying all the people; the intercession of Moses was immediate, and was immediately effective. We see how intense was that mediation, and how immediate was God's response to Moses. And Moses' mediation is a dim shadow of the Lord's for us. At the time of the golden calf it had been the same: "I will come up in the midst of you in a moment" (Ex. 33:5 s.w.). The sons of Korah remembered this when they used the word in Ps. 73:19: "How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment they are utterly consumed". They perceived that this sudden destruction did come upon their family, although Israel as a whole, including themselves, were saved from it by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They fell on their faces, and said, God, the God of the spirits of all flesh- </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><p>Moses is seeking to touch a Divine nerve by reminding Him of how all He intended destroying were in fact energized by His Spirit. So often David appeals to Yahweh as our creator and maker as the basis for Him to show grace and pity to man in his weakness. To this day He has a desire to the work of His hands in pity. We note that Moses had saved Aaron's life at the time of the golden calf, and now Aaron in turn intercedes for others. Our own experience of having been interceded for leads us to intercede for others.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shall one man sin, and will You be angry with all the congregation?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s clear from the record in this chapter that the architect of the rebellion was Korah, the “one man” whom Moses referred to (see too :40,49; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em> "the gainsaying of Korah"). But he influenced others to sin, and they were still guilty for their sin. Although God doesn’t count people as guilty merely by association, He expects us not to identify ourselves with sinful behaviour- hence verses 23-25 are God’s response to Moses’ concern that God might be indiscriminately applying the unfair principle of ‘guilt by association’. Moses is pleading with God in the spirit of Abraham, who likewise pleaded for a change in the outworking of God’s purpose and stated intentions- on the same basis, that the innocent should not perish with the righteous. But Moses here seems over generous in considering that Korah was the "one man" who had sinned; those who had followed him into the sin of presumption still had to be punished. The result of the amazing intercession was that only the rebels were punished, even though God judged the entire congregation as guilty for going along with them. 'Going along' with the sins of leaders is therefore here seen as a capital offence. The problem with religion and mere denominationalism is that the sins of leaders are ho-hummed and legitimized by the congregation. We note again that this amazing atonement was achieved without the shedding of blood, without which there was technically no remission of sins. Likewise Yahweh had noted in Num. 14 that he saved Israel from destruction and pardoned according to the mere word of Moses- without shedding of blood. For there was no time for an animal to be offered. It makes us reflect how much more powerful is the Lord's intercession for us, based upon His blood. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As at the time of the golden calf, God had likewise insisted that He would destroy the congregation of Israel and make a great nation from Moses. Situations at times repeat in our lives, and here Moses again is called to intense, immediate intercession in order to avert thIsa. And Aaron joins in this time; it was God’s intention that he should rise up to the intensity of Moses, and indeed Aaron saved Israel again when the plague broke out which would otherwise have destroyed the congregation. This is the power God is willing to give to the prayers of third parties for others' salvation. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap. And here again, God 'repents' of His intention to destroy the entire congregation, and instead tells them to get away from the tabernacle of Korah and thereby be saved from the threatened destruction (:24).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the congregation, saying, ‘Get away from around the tent of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram!’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The usage of the word "tent" here is misleading. The word <em>mishkan</em> is used, the usual term for the tabernacle, and a different word for ordinary dwelling tents is used in :26,27. It seems that Korah had his own religious system which he had established near to the tabernacle of Yahweh. The singular "tent / tabernacle" cannot refer to the ordinary tent of the three men, for they would not all have normally lived in the same tent. <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em> informs us that Israel carried the tabernacle of other gods with them through the wilderness, as well as Yahweh's tabernacle. So we see the extent of the apostasy. The desire to replace the leadership of Moses and Aaron was of the same spirit as the desire to appoint another "captain" who would lead them and their pagan tabernacle back to Egypt where they had taken it from. It could be that whilst this showdown was happening at the tabernacle of Yahweh, the "congregation" were worshipping idols at the apostate tabernacle of Korah. I will suggest on <em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:7'>Num 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em> that in fact the priests bowed to pressure and allowed some of the rebellious Levites and even other Israelites to enter the sanctuary at this time, and this required the red heifer ritual to be cleansed from. Perhaps they took part of the furnishings of the true tabernacle and erected them in their own tabernacle.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses rose up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Moses went to Dathan and Abiram, not Korah. Clearly this was one last desperate appeal to them; for as noted on :22, Moses had the impression that Dathan and Abiram had been drawn into the sin of "one man", Korah. But it seems they still didn’t heed even the desperate appeals of Moses. Korah himself went to the tabernacle and was offering fake incense there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He spoke to the congregation, saying, Depart, I beg you, from the tents of these wicked men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the normal word for "tents", as in tents which are lived in; hence the plural. And it is a different word to the word for "tabernacle", in the singular, used in :24. That word refers to some paganic, idolatrous<em> mishkan</em>, a fake tabernacle. "I beg you" shows Moses' earnest desire for the salvation of those who despised him, grumbled about him constantly, and at times sought to slay him and certainly depose him from leadership.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Touch" is better 'to lay the hand on'. The idea was that the others were not to grab hold of any of the idols in the tents of these men, associated with their paganic tabernacle discussed on :24. The idea is not of 'guilt by association' through touch, but rather of actual participation in idolatry. Especially since idols were often made from precious stones and metals, and would have been valuable. If they did, then they would "be consumed in (the coming judgment for) all their sins". We each stand in the position of that surrounding congregation; for <em><a href='B:540 6:17'>2Co 6:17</a></em> alludes to this historical moment in bidding each believer to "touch not" idolatry and the things of the temple / tabernacle of idols. The later psalms of the sons of Korah, who were saved, often reflect upon the fallacy of materialism in the face of sheol, the word used here for the "pit" where their relatives were destroyed and into which they entered but were saved (:30). The materialism of Korah is also hinted at here in that people are warned not to touch the possessions of Korah, which presumably were significant. We note :32 also speaks of "their goods" being destroyed. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they went away from the tent of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little ones- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The genealogy of the sons of Korah, the gatekeepers of the temple, is recorded in <em><a href='B:130 9:17-19'>1Ch 9:17-19</a></em>. It can be shown from the genealogies that they were brought up by their second cousin, Phinehas. They obeyed the command to leave the tents of their father Korah when he was consumed in the earthquake. <em><a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a></em> mentions Dathan and Abiram's children standing outside their tents at this time, but there is the pointed omission of Korah's children; they had left the tents. We can therefore build up a picture of Phinehas as a zealot for the purity of God’s Truth (Numbers 25), yet mixed with compassion, as shown by the way he took those children of Korah under his wing, and brought them up soundly in the Truth, with the result that wrote at least 11 of the Psalms and protected the purity of temple worship. It should be noted that Samuel was a Korahite (<em><a href='B:130 6:33-38'>1Ch 6:33-38</a></em>). </p><p>Their standing in their tent doors could be seen as an example of the presumptuous sin of the preceding chapter, literally 'to uplift the hand'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Hereby you shall know that Yahweh has sent me to do all these works; for they are not from my own mind-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em> LXX: “Moses said, Hereby ye shall <em>know</em> that the Lord hath <em>sent me</em> to <em>do all these works</em>; for I have not done them <em>of myself</em>”. The ideas of <em>know, sent me, do these works, not of myself</em> are so frequent in John's Gospel and are alluding here: <em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:25'>Joh 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:37'>Joh 10:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:24'>Joh 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>. “The works… The Son can do nothing <em>of himself</em>” recalls Moses' words: “All these works… I have not done them of my own mind” (<em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em> AV). The Lord was claiming to be as Moses, and a prophet greater than Moses; but not God. This verse is the basis of&nbsp; “I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me” (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>).</p><p>"They are not from my own mind" may mean that Moses is saying that He was propelled to leadership by God and not at all according to his own wish. Paul likewise writes of how his ministry was given to him against his own will. Any ministry is a gift from God, as the Lord's parables teach. There can be no room for any spirit of careerism in Christian ministry. The need is the call, and we are to follow it, having surrendered to the Lord's leading and not seeking any leadership position "from my own mind" as Moses here puts it. We are to aspire to serve, not to be masters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then Yahweh hasn’t sent me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This describes "the common death of all men" as being "visited after the visitation of all men"; visiting is very much Angelic language, and thus indicates that an Angel consciously causes a man to die (by taking his breath away). This happened with Moses.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,7, the idea was that these men had been challenged by God through Moses to offer incense with their censors, which was priestly work, to which these men claimed to be fitted. If they did, then they would be slain, according to the law. Their only alternative was to either go ahead and do so to their destruction; or fall on their faces and repent. And so Moses is alluding to this when he says that if they were slain by direct Divine action, then his whole position about them would be justified. If they weren't, then they were indeed qualified to be priests, even though Moses' law said they weren't. and Moses would have been a false prophet of God’s words. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><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>Clearly they didn't believe in Moses. But earlier they had been given signs "that they may believe you for ever" (Ex. 19:9). We see here the conditional nature of how God works with man. Reason to believe is given, but man must still exercise his choice. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if Yahweh make a new thing, and the ground open its mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain to them, and they go down alive into Sheol- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Make a new thing" is literally 'create a new creation'. Even in the destruction of the wicked, there is something of a new creation. So that others may emerge into His creation. Sin and condemnation thereby become positive, within the Divine ecology.</p><p>"The Angels that sinned" in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em> allude to these men. “Angel” can mean “minister”, “messenger” (as John’s disciples were messengers or ministers to him, <em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> describes the rebels as “ministers” of the congregation. The Septuagint uses the word <em>aggelos</em> for “ministers”, which is the same Greek word translated “Angel” in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>. They left their first, or original, “principality” (<em><a href='B:720 1:6'>Jud 1:6</a></em>, A.V. margin); the rebels were princes, but wanted to be priests as well (<em><a href='B:40 16:2'>Num 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:10'>Num 16:10</a></em>). Because of this, the ground opened and swallowed them (<em><a href='B:40 16:31-33'>Num 16:31-33</a></em>), as a dramatic example to everyone of the fate of those who rebel against the Word of God. It was especially dramatic in that it is emphasized that this was the first time that such a thing had happened (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>). Thus they are now dead, “in everlasting chains under darkness”, in the heart of the earth, to be resurrected and judged at “the judgment of the great day”. <em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em> implies that “likewise”, i.e. like the angels that sinned, the Judaizers “speak evil of dignities”, e.g. Jesus and Paul. The rebels spoke evil of Moses and Aaron (<em><a href='B:40 16:11-14'>Num 16:11-14</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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>Then you shall understand that these men have despised Yahweh-</em>"Despised" as in <em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em> is s.w. provoke or blaspheme. It is specifically associated with turning to other gods (<em><a href='B:50 31:20'>Deu 31:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:4'>Isa 1:4</a></em>). And that appears to be the context. The Israelites decided not to enter the land and instead to follow the gods of Egypt back to Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>). The language of 'despising' is that of the presumptuous sin spoken of in the previous chapter; it was the sin of Israel who wanted to enter Canaan without God's blessing. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground split apart that was under them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Mot, the god of death, was thought to have jaws encompassing the earth and swallowing up people at their death into the underworld. But Job rejected that myth – he saw God as the swallower, and death as a return to the dust, albeit in hope of bodily resurrection at the last day (<em><a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a></em>). Perhaps Job is also alluding to the myths about Mot when he speaks of how “Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering” (<em><a href='B:220 26:6'>Job 26:6</a></em> R.S.V.); and in that context speaks as if God is the real attacker, not, therefore, Mot or any other such being. Note too how <em><a href='B:40 16:31-35'>Num 16:31-35</a></em> describes <em>God</em> as swallowing up Korah, Dathan and Abiram into death in the earth – as if to deconstruct the idea that Mot did things like thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who appertained to Korah, and all their goods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Korah’s sons didn’t die (<em><a href='B:40 26:11'>Num 26:11</a></em>); they separated themselves from their father and his supporters in time.  My suggestion is that they along with the others "went down alive into sheol" but were rescued out of it, possibly "in the morning" as one of their Psalms speaks of deliverance from sheol "in the morning". The double note that people "went down alive into sheol" may be intended to help us see this possibility. They were saved from condemnation, from sheol, by grace. No wonder they spent their lives writing Psalms praising God's grace in saving them from sheol. 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 "perish". 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 pardoned, 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><p>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>). The men who "appertained to Korah" were therefore his religious followers rather than his immediate sons and family. "Their goods" may well have involved idol worship paraphernalia; see on :26.</p><p>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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed on them, and they perished from among the assembly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Chains of darkness” is rendered “pits of darkness” in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em> R.V., which is a New Testament commentary upon thIsa. The Greek word <em>serius</em> (pits) indicates an underground granary or prison, which corresponds with Dathan and Abiram’s destruction when they “went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished” (<em><a href='B:40 16:33'>Num 16:33</a></em>). I suggested on :32 that "all that appertained to them" referred to their religious followers and idol worship paraphernalia; see on :26.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All Israel that were around them fled at their cry; for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These people who “were around them” were saved by grace, considering the warning of :24-26, that whoever stood near those men would also perish. All the time in the Old Testament we are seeing examples of people breaking God’s law and yet being saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Fire came forth from Yahweh, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense- </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. See on :6,7,29.<em></em></p><p>It could be argued that the destruction of the incense offerers vindicated Aaron as the high priest, and the destruction of Korah into the earth justified Moses as the political leader. But we recall how Aaron sinned at the time of the golden calf, and was only saved by Moses' intercession. The Levites went out to slay their brethren who were guilty of the apostacy, killing 3000. But Aaron was spared- because of Moses' intercession. That God would now go to such lengths to justify Aaron shows how he was truly forgiven and accepted again as the high priest.</p><p>
We note the similarity with Elijah standing alone before 450 apostate priests: “A fire of Yahweh fell and consumed [the offering]” (1 Kings 18:38) just as here "Fire came forth from Yahweh, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to Eleazar (:37) was presumably because Aaron as High Priest ought not to defile himself with dead bodies.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, and scatter the fire yonder, for they are holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were "holy" in the sense that they were dedicated or set apart for a specific purpose, i.e. plating upon the altar (:38). They were not to be taken by the people and used for secular purposes. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even the censers of these sinners against their own lives- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Often the Spirit points out that the sinner is only harming himself by his actions- and yet he earnestly pursues his course, in the name of self-interest and self-benefit (<em><a href='B:40 16:38'>Num 16:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 19:8'>Pro 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 20:2'>Pro 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:420 2:20'>Hab 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). Sin is therefore associated by God with utter and derisable foolishness (e.g. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:9'>2Ti 3:9</a></em>); but this isn't how man in his unwisdom perceives it at all. Indeed, to him self-denial is inexplicable folly and blindness to the essentials of human existence. "This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah (pause to meditate)" (<em><a href='B:230 49:13'>Psa 49:13</a></em>). The <em>folly</em> of sin is only <em>fully </em>evident to God. Note that Ps. 49 is a psalm of the "sons of Korah".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them be made beaten plates for a covering of the altar; for they offered them before Yahweh, therefore they are holy; and they shall be a sign to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That they were destroyed and were not left alive is shown by a comment on this incident in Psalms 73. Here Asaph describes how “my steps had well nigh slipped” (v. 2) because the wicked seemed to be prospering so much. Then, “I went into the sanctuary (tabernacle) of God; then understood I their end” (v. 17). This was because the brass censers of the 250 rebels were melted down after their death and beaten into plates with which the altar was covered – another example of the angels that sinned being publicly “set forth as an example” (<em><a href='B:720 1:7'>Jud 1:7</a></em>). Asaph would have seen these and reflected on the fate of the wicked men. Thus he reflects upon the rebels, the angels that sinned, “surely thou didst set them in slippery places: Thou castedst them down (by the earth swallowing them) into destruction” (v. 18) – therefore they are not alive, but in the same way as Sodom was destroyed with eternal fire, i.e. totally, so, too, were these “angels” (<em><a href='B:720 1:6-7'>Jud 1:6-7</a></em>). 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. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burnt had offered, and they beat them out for a covering of the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was a Divine principle that the altar should be made of earth and not of any human craftsmanship (<em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>). If the plates were fixed onto the sides of the altar, then every thoughtful Israelite would have wondered whether this was a contradiction of the spirit of the commandments about altars. And the answer would be that this was an exception in order to remind everyone of the sin of Korah and his followers. Or we can understand "covering" as referring not to plates on the sides of the altar, but a kind of canopy over the altar, perhaps to shield the sacrifices from wind and rain. So we see again how God's word and law is a progressive revelation; constantly there are exceptions made by Him to His own law, and this is to pave the way to understand His glorious grace in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>to be a memorial to the children of Israel, to the end that no stranger, who isn’t of the seed of Aaron, comes near to burn incense before Yahweh; that he not be as Korah, and as his company - as Yahweh spoke to him by Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Uzziah expressly ignored this warning and offered incense (<em><a href='B:140 26:19'>2Ch 26:19</a></em>). The lesson of the copper plates was lost on him; he saw them as mere history and refused to learn the intended lessons as he offered his incense. Uzziah is typical of so many. There is a deep sense in human beings that history is bunk, or at best of merely passing historico-cultural interest, which the hurrying man of modern life has little serious time for. This is where Biblical history is so different; and it's why God’s word in the Bible is in a sense all history, a living word speaking to us. But it is history to live by, moment by moment.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But on the next day all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, You have killed Yahweh’s people!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn’t want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Korah's plan had been to lead the people back to Egypt, and they were angry that Moses had 'stopped' the people doing what they wanted to. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God’s saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God’s people who have started the journey with Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when the congregation was assembled against Moses and against Aaron, that they looked toward the Tent of Meeting; and behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of Yahweh appeared- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX has: "And it came to pass when the congregation combined against Moses and Aaron, that they ran impetuously to the tabernacle of witness; and the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron came to the front of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel stood there or just inside the veil of the tent. It was to this Angel that they returned after interceding; see on :50. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God again wants to destroy Israel and make of Moses' family a new people. Again, for the third time, Moses knows God well enough, he has enough faith, enough humility and enough true love for Israel... to again ask God- successfully- to relent from thIsa. That God wanted to do this three times shows His great love for Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Twice in quick succession God wishes to do this and is talked out of it, as it were, by Moses' intercession (:21,45). The same words were used at the time of the golden calf (<em><a href='B:20 33:5'>Exo 33:5</a></em>), and Moses had learned from that that God was open to intercession and changing His expressed intentions. We get the impression of a fast moving, intense relationship between God and Moses.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They fell on their faces- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was specifically told to go away from the congregation, and yet he ran towards them in order to make atonement for them (<em><a href='B:40 16:45'>Num 16:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:47'>Num 16:47</a></em>). Moses was so close to God that he could apparently 'disobey' Him because Moses knew there was a chance of changing God’s intentions. He was so close to God- and in this case, God did indeed change His intentions. He had only just changed them over another matter, in relenting from destroying all Israel due to Korah's rebellion- because Moses prayed for the people (<em><a href='B:40 16:21-22'>Num 16:21-22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Aaron, Take your censer, and put fire from off the altar in it, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make atonement for them; for wrath has gone out from Yahweh! The plague has begun-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). Unquenched fire 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. Wrath, the command to destroy, had gone forth from Yahweh- but in the gap between the statement of destruction and the execution of it, God is open to persuasion to change. This points up the power and possibilities in intense mediation before Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and behold, the plague has begun among the people: and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :45. The NT not only encourages us to all be priests; but we can even aspire to the High Priesthood, in a certain sense. The veil was torn down so that we might all enter in to the most holy, doing the work of the High Priest for others. <em><a href='B:660 5:16'>Jas 5:16</a></em> speaks of the need to pray for one another, that we may be healed. This is an undoubted allusion back to mighty Moses praying for smitten Miriam, and to Aaron staying the plague by his offering of incense / prayer (<em><a href='B:40 16:47'>Num 16:47</a></em>). Surely James is saying that every one of us can rise up to the spirit of the High Priest in this way. The provision for Naziriteship encouraged the average Israelite to enter into the spirit of the High Priest by imposing some of the regulations governing his behaviour upon them. We again note that atonement was made here by incense and not blood, without which there was to be no remission of sin. Likewise Yahweh pardoned merely according to Moses' word in Num. 14. How much more powerful is the intercession of our Lord, based upon His own blood.</p><p>
"Atonement for the people" is the very phrase used in the preceding chapter, when there was the possibility for "atonement for all the congregation" if they had sinned in ignorance (Num. 15:27). As discussed on Numbers 15, we have here another example of a sin of presumption being treated as a sin of ignorance. And I suggest this is how we have to understand the Lord's plea for forgiveness of His crucifiers "for they know not what they do"; and Peter's appeal for repentance because he considers that "in ignorance" Israel had crucified their Messiah. This likewise can be our pattern; by seeing sins against us as sins of ignorance, we are not downgrading sin, but rather are seeking to forgive and cleanse those who sin against us as far as possible. For it is true that just as Israel on one hand knew what they were doing in crucifying the Lord, on another they had no perception of the magnitude of the crime. Those who sin against us may likewise have no real understanding of all the dimensions of the damage they do to us. And because of recognizing that, seeing their sin as one more of relative ignorance, our path towards forgiving them is eased. 
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stayed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron ought to have died for his flouting of the first commandment in making the golden calf; but Moses’ intercession alone saved him. And afterwards, deeply conscious of his experience, Aaron made successful intercession for the salvation of others (<em><a href='B:40 14:5'>Num 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:22'>Num 16:22</a></em>). The way he holds the censer with fire from the altar of incense, representing his prayers, and “stood between the dead and the living (as a mediator)” (<em><a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a></em>) is a fine picture of the height to which he rose. We too are to intercede for others on the basis of our experience of the Lord's intercession for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, besides those who died about the matter of Korah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We get the impression that these people died very quickly (:46,47). The plague must have been spreading fast and would indeed have consumed all Israel had not Aaron interceded. I have discussed elsewhere how the terms "thousand" and "hundred" may refer to groups of people, especially families, rather than being numerical values.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron returned to Moses to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and the plague was stayed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see Moses acting on his own initiative to persuade God to change His intended plan. Moses and Aaron could only have brought about this change of mind in God by intense, fervent prayer and desire- and it was for people who had just tacitly supported a revolution against them. No matter how much we are slandered and manipulated against by our brethren, they are still God’s people and we should respect them and intercede for them as that.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We enquire why we read that "the plague was stayed" when Aaron and Moses were together again at the door of the tabernacle. For it was "stayed" by Aaron earlier. Perhaps the reference of "the plague" here is to the Angel of death who was in the tabernacle, who stood at the door of it in :43, and who now was finally restrained by Moses and Aaron. Such is the power God allows to the prayers and intercession of men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s efforts here were so that the leadership of Moses and Aaron would be accepted, so that others wouldn't be slain for pretending to the priesthood (:9). We marvel at His grace. The people had returned to Egypt in their hearts, and were looking to overthrow the leadership so they could appoint a captain who would lead them back there. It was only God’s desire to finally save His resistant people that meant He went to this effort to preserve the spiritual leadership of Aaron. Truly God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather ever seeks to save. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and take of them rods, one for each father’s house, of all their princes according to their fathers’ families, twelve rods. Write every man’s name on his rod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names written were presumably the names of the heads of the tribes (:3). "Rods" can also mean "tribes", so a rod was an appropriate symbol for a tribe (<em><a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a></em>). This incident is really a commentary on the rebellion of chapter 16. Just as Korah and the rebels had come "before Yahweh" to offer their incense, so the rods were placed before Yahweh. Aaron's rod was chosen, and was returned to permanent status "before Yahweh", just as Aaron and the Levites were confirmed as the priestly tribe. The process with the budding rod took took two days (Num. 17:33), just as the trial of Korah did (Num. 16:16). </p><p>
We marvel that despite the dramatic judgements of Num. 16, people still doubted God's choice of Levi. Aaron had sinned badly at the time of the golden calf and in trying to grab power from Moses. In any human organization, Aaron would not have been used as a leader or High Priest. But Moses' intercession was so powerful and Divine forgiveness and restoration so total, that God now treats Aaron as High Priest and strongly justifies him as such. And yet the rod of Aaron pointed forward to the Lord Jesus, as if to teach that although indeed God had chosen Aaron, the ultimate High Priest was not him but the Lord Jesus Messiah. It is surely the choosing of Aaron in this chapter that is alluded to in Heb. 5:4: "One does
not take the honor upon himself, but he that is called by God, just as Aaron was". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall write Aaron’s name on the rod of Levi; for there shall be one rod for each head of their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The exercise was in order to declare the spiritual leader of the people, and so Aaron's name was placed on Levi's rod; for Aaron was, as it were, the candidate God was putting forward.</p><p>The rods likely had the names of the princes of the tribes written on them, just as Levi's rod had the name of Aaron on it. Aaron is here chosen as the head of his ancestor Levi's families. But Aaron was descended from Levi's second born Kohath, not his firstborn (Gershom). So clearly God is again showing that He prefers working through the second born, not through the firstborn, whom secular culture and wisdom would have made leader. We think of the Jacob-Esau drama.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall lay them up in the Tent of Meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God met with Israel over the ark in the most holy place (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:4'>Num 17:4</a></em>). But they were never allowed there. And so He also "met" (s.w.) with Israel at the door of the tabernacle, and spoke with them there (<em><a href='B:20 29:42-43'>Exo 29:42-43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:36'>Exo 30:36</a></em>). But the word for "meet" is used in <em><a href='B:370 3:3'>Amo 3:3</a></em>, where God laments that Israel had not "met" with Him and therefore they could not walk further together. The idea of the "meeting" was that God’s word might be revealed, so that the people could walk with Him in His ways. It was an awesome invitation, to be able to meet with the God who only otherwise met with His people in the glory of the most holy place, over the ark. He as it were came out of that most holy place and met with them at the door of the tabernacle. But they weren't interested. Just as so many today.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall happen, that the rod of the man whom I shall choose shall bud; and I will make to cease from Me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>. 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.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn’t want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God’s saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God’s people who have started the journey with Him. Their murmuring against Moses was a murmuring against God; our attitude to our brethren is our attitude to God. See on :12,13.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and all their princes gave him rods, for each prince one, according to their fathers’ families, even twelve rods; and the rod of Aaron was among their rods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, 'was a part of their rods'. Perhaps to achieve fairness, one long rod was cut up into twelve smaller sections. This meant that presumably the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were counted as one tribe, as there were to be 12 rods. However, the fact the tribes were each invited to give a rod suggests that the rods were the existing symbols of eldership possessed by the princes of the tribes. Aaron's rod has featured previously (<em><a href='B:20 7:8-10'>Exo 7:8-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:19-21'>Exo 7:19-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:5-6'>Exo 8:5-6</a></em>). And it could be argued that in the Exodus record, Moses' rod is functionally the same as that of Aaron. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses laid up the rods before Yahweh in the tent of the testimony- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the rods were cut off and dry, unable to produce fruit. The fact Aaron's rod budded and bore fruit was therefore evidence of God’s grace through the Spirit, giving life and fruit to that which was otherwise unable to bear fruit. The idea was that Aaron and his descendants were not intrinsically better than the other tribes; for this was the impression which the other tribes had. He was simply the chosen channel for the Spirit in the particular work of priesthood. And it is the same with any used by God in public ministry. The rod had previously been a serpent but had been transformed from that. That's the message of how completely God can cleanse and then use and then justify a sinful man like Aaron. A pattern for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the next day that Moses went into the tent of the testimony, and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and put forth buds, and produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of budding, blossoming and bearing fruit is used in <em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em> about <em>all</em> Israel. God's gracious restoration of Aaron is a pattern for all. That's why the language of Aaron's budding rod is used of all the righteous: "They are planted in Yahweh’s house [as the rod was left in the ark], they will blossom [s.w.] in our God’s courts" (Ps. 92:13); "the righteous shall blossom as a branch / rod" (Prov. 11:28). The initial hearers of Isaiah’s words would have thought back to how Aaron’s rod budded, blossomed and bore fruit as a sign that God had chosen that family and not all Israel. However, <em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em> makes it clear that God’s ideal intention was that all Israel would be a nation of priests (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). This came to fulfilment in essence with the end of the Levitical priesthood and the establishment of all those in Christ as a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>The “almond is the first tree of spring in the Near East” and “the last to shed its leaves”. It was the watching tree ["almond" and "watching" are related words], and is used like that in Jeremiah 1:11. The almond tree therefore suggested speed of judgment. This is a commentary upon the speed of judgment in Num. 16 upon those who resisted the choice of the Levites. We think too of how Uzziah was struck down immediately for offering incense when not a Levite (2 Chron. 26:18). The large blossoms were the pattern for the bowls of the lamps on the candlestick (Ex. 25:33,34). It was perhaps seen as symbolic of the tree of life. The priesthood could be a tree of life to Israel, but only insofar as it pointed forward to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate priest. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The almond is the first tree in Palestine to bud, so it means literally the watching tree, as if it were alive and eager to come to life.&nbsp; The High Priests were to pronounce the blessing that Yahweh would bless and watch over His people (Num. 6:24). They were the channel for that blessing. The idea is that the fruit on the almond was a kind of firstfruit, with promise of further fruit amongst other trees. It had always been God’s intention that all Israel should be a nation of priests. The fruit was a sign of what the work of the priests should achieve for all Israel; the essence was not the rod but the fruit. God wanted Israel as a whole to be fruitful; He wanted them all to blossom, bud and fill the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). The priesthood were to be but a foretaste and firstfruit of a far greater blossoming of all Israel. And yet this remained God’s intention only. The whole idea was reapplied and reinterpreted for fulfilment in the Lord Jesus and all in Him. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The candlestick is described in similar terms, having bowls like almonds, flowers (s.w. "buds") and blossoms (<em><a href='B:20 25:31-34'>Exo 25:31-34</a></em>). The idea was that the priesthood should be like the candlestick, giving light in the darkness of the tabernacle where there was no natural light, and illuminating the way towards the most holy place and fellowship with Yahweh Himself. The people were bidden see Aaron's budded, blossoming rod as a kind of candlestick. For that was how the priesthood was to be through the teaching of God’s word to Israel and bringing them towards fellowship with God. Hence the imagery of the candlestick is later applied to all believers (the church is the candlestick, <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), for it is God’s intention now that all believers are priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses brought out all the rods from before Yahweh to all the children of Israel: and they looked, and took every man his rod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s interpretation of the almond rod in <em><a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a></em> was that "I watch over My word to perform it". The word translated 'hasten' or "watch over" is very similar to the word for 'almond'. Almonds are associated with God’s eyes; the bowls of the lampstands were almonds (<em><a href='B:20 25:33-34'>Exo 25:33-34</a></em>). <em><a href='B:450 4:2'>Zec 4:2</a></em> talks about these almond bowls on the candlestick, and <em><a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a></em> interprets them as the "eyes of Yahweh which run to and fro through the whole earth". <em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em> talks about the Angels in the same way; "the eyes of Yahweh run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him". Similarly in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em> the lamps in the bowls of almond are equated with the "seven spirits (or Angels) of God". <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em> equates the seven eyes with the seven spirits. Thus the almond rod which Jeremiah saw represented God’s eyes or Angels who would watch over the word of God which Jeremiah was to speak to perform it. Jeremiah was a priest, and this was to have been true for all the priests. Their most important role was to teach God’s word. They are called<em> elohim </em>just as are the priests. All Israel could have been priests, that was God’s original intention; but they failed, and so He had chosen a specific family to do this work. But it was ever His intention to make all Israel blossom and bud (see on :8). , </p><p>The triumph of Aaron's rods over the other rods is what had happened in Ex. 7:12, when Aaron's rod had swallowed up the other rods of Egypt's leaders. The situation is so similar that we are obviously led to understand that God saw an apostate Israel as no better than Egypt- to where anyway they wished to return, and had returned in their hearts. God's apostate people are often likened to the world, and in the last day will be judged with the world whom they have failed to separate from, even perhaps being sent back into the world to share their judgments.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the children of rebellion; that you may make an end of their murmurings against me, that they not die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "It is to be kept as a warning to the rebel Israelites that they will die unless their complaining stops". LXX "a sign for the children of the disobedient; and let their murmuring cease from me". It seems that this is directed at the family members of those slain in Korah's rebellion and the plague which followed. Despite the dramatic deaths of around 15,000 people (<em><a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:49'>Num 16:49</a></em>), it seems that their relatives were still murmuring and were likely to also be slain. Aaron had successfully interceded for the plague to be stopped and for all Israel not to be destroyed as God had intended. And yet despite such grace and all that empirical, visible evidence, they still wanted to overthrow Moses and have a captain to take them back to Egypt. For they had returned there in their hearts. It was only God’s desire to ultimately save His people which meant that He persevered with His plan, and therefore went to the trouble of giving further evidence that Moses and Aaron were His chosen leaders.&nbsp; And He did this "that they not die". He didn’t want to slay anyone.&nbsp; </p><p> We note that the "they" whom God didn't want to die were at this point largely the condemned generation. They were condemned to die in the desert, but God had pardonned them according to Moses' word. He therefore planned to save them ultimately, as He did Moses who likewise was denied entry to the land. But they were set against that plan, and God is trying still to make it work. </p><p>
The chosen rod was specifically that of Aaron, it had his name written on it, just as the other rods had the names of the tribal leaders and not the tribes written on them. The selected rod showed "the man I choose" (:5, not "the tribe"). The rod that blossomed was the chosen High Priest. Aaron had been the salvation of sinful Israel through his powerful intercession in the previous chapter. His rod represented that indeed he and his priesthood were the channel God had chosen rather than the rest of Israel. But Aaron was himself sinful. His rod had once become a serpent earlier (Ex. 7:8-10). But now it blossomed eternally [the blossoms apparently didn't wither, speaking of "fruit that remains" eternally] with the buds of new resurrection life coming from the dead wood. This all looked forward to the Lord Jesus, "the man I choose" (:5, not "the tribe") who was the ultimate high priest who would save. His fruit, like ours, will eternally abide. Unlike all fruit of secular life. Despite having once been human [cp. the rod once being a serpent]. There were buds, blossom and fruit on the rod. We see in this the way the Lord had His own fruit but also promise of future fruit through us. Although there is also the idea of judgment: "Behold, the day, behold, it comes: your doom is gone forth; the rod has blossomed, pride has budded... The rod of My son condemns every tree" (Ez. 7:10; 21:10). Aaron's rod had specifically been used to bring some of the plagues of judgment upon Egypt. So the rod was both a token of judgment to rebellious people, as :10 states, and also the guarantee of their salvation, "that they not perish". This is what we see in the Lord Jesus- the token of both judgment and salvation. It's why the cup of wine from the Lord's hand is a double symbol, of both judgment and salvation. For there shall only be one of two possible exits from the day of judgment. The Lord is called "the rod" from the stem of Jesse (Is. 11:1). The dry tree branch would blossom / flourish (s.w., Ez. 17:24), words applied by the Lord to His own death and resurrection. The menorah lampstand likewise had buds and blosoms (Ex. 25:31-36) looking ahead to the Lord Jesus as the light / lampstand of the world (Jn. 8:12). The wood of blessing clearly also speaks of the stake of wood upon which the Lord was crucified. A rod was a symbol of kingship, whereas here it is the symbol of priesthood. We can discern therefore that a future High Priest is being spoken of, who would be a king-priest- the Lord Jesus. Almond blossom is white but some argue that the almonds in the desert had red blossom, possibly hinting at the Lord's blood being the basis of the true High Priesthood. </p><p>
Later in Num. 20:9 Moses is asked to take this rod from "before Yahweh" and speak to the rock, so that water would flow for them. 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. The same error occured with the bronze serpent. Moses was asked to hold the rod because it was the symbol of warning to a rebellious people; in both passages the people are called "rebels".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did so. As Yahweh commanded him, so he did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses is stressed throughout the records, and is used to present him as a type 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>). The point here may be that Moses as a non priest, a Levite and not the High Priest, had entered the most holy place before the "testimony" and the very presence of God, and then re-entered it a second time- and had not been slain. Because God is not a literalist nor legalist. It would not have been appropriate if Aaron had done this, as he was as it were one of the candidates. Constantly we see God overriding the letter of His own law in order to keep the Spirit of it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, we perish! We are undone! We are all undone!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their sense that they are condemned and liable to destruction comes right after the declaration of Aaron's family as the rightful priests. We wonder why they now feared so much. Presumably they had continued some plan to take over the tabernacle service and leadership; see on :5,13. Isaiah quotes these words when he feels he has come too close to God’s presence (<em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>). It would seem that despite the mass destruction of 15,000 such rebels in Numbers 16, many still wanted to rebel, and had come too close to the tabernacle; hence :13 LXX laments that whoever touched the tabernacle would die. Perhaps there was yet another (unrecorded) outbreak of judgment after Aaron's rod was revealed, and now the rest of Israel are recoiling from it, fearing that they will "all perish" (:13).  Their declaration of fear here and in :13 can be taken as a complete lack of faith in the work of Aaron and the intimated future Messiah to save them. They may allude to "It is to be kept as a warning to the rebel Israelites that they will die unless their complaining stops" (:10 GNB). Their comment is as if they were saying that they were going to continue complaining, and so they expected to die. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of Yahweh, dies! Will we all perish?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Who touches...". it would seem that they had touched the tabernacle or had attempted to "come near" to Yahweh as the priests alone were to "draw near" to Him. The subsequent warning in <em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em> of death for doing this would imply that this was said by the Levites. Likewise <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em> "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems they still refused to accept they could not do the work of the priests, and therefore Numbers 18 warns them yet again. Despite the fearful events of Numbers 16, with the destruction of 15,000 people who had tried to revolt against Moses and Aaron, it seems that some were still "murmuring" against them and seeking to take over the tabernacle. Hence their deep fear when Aaron's family were confirmed as priests; see on :12,13. Tragically it seems that no matter how much God speaks and demonstrates His will, people will still rebel against Him. Empirical evidence seems to have no value, compared to the power of a heart which has returned to Egypt and away from God. The answer to "Will we all perish?" is left hanging- because the real answer is 'You should have done, but Moses and Aaron whom you so despised interceded for you, and you did not perish by grace alone'. <em>&nbsp;</em></p><p>The people feared they would perish after Aaron's rod was chosen because the whole congregation had backed Korah's attempt to share the priesthood amongst the whole people. But the comfort was that it was in fact through the mediation of a Levite, Aaron, that they were saved from this [repeated in Num. 18:1]. Although as with the Lord's sacrifice, they didn't appreciate this. They feared judgment rather than seeing salvation by grace. There was no need for this fear of perishing- if he believed. </p><p>
Another take is that until this point, access to the tabernacle had been open. Hence Num. 18:22 "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". Leviticus only stipulated that the Levites must offer sacrifices. But now there appeared to be some increasing barriers between the people and the sanctuary. Possibly they had not taken the commands about the Levites' role seriously [the change to Levites from firstborns as priests had only happened recently, after the golden calf]. Therefore the people had in practice enjoyed free access to the tabernacle; and now they realized that this was going to cease and the Levites' role was to be enforced. Just as God's initial plan in Ex. 19 had been that the entire nation be priests. Initially all the firstborn were priests. But after the golden calf, only the Levites were to be priests. And now they perceive a further distancing of the people from the sanctuary. This all mirrors Adam's exit from the intimacy of Eden. </p><p>
"Will we all perish" is literally "shall we be consumed with dying?". Their allusion was to the recent statement that "In this wilderness they shall be consumed" (Num. 14:35). The reality of condemnation had not sunk in until now. Hence their lack of appreciation of how they had been saved from it ultimately by Moses' amazing intercession. Likewise it is only by appreciating that indeed we are condemned that we appreciate the Lord's work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Aaron, You and your sons and your fathers’ house with you shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's iniquity (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). This is the meaning of priesthood. But here to bear iniquity seems to specifically mean to have responsibility for sin (as in <em><a href='B:40 30:15'>Num 30:15</a></em>), if unqualified people were to enter the sanctuary or do the work of the priesthood. For that has been the theme of the last two chapters. It could be that Aaron and the priesthood had given in to the pressure of the rebellious Levites and allowed some of them to come near to the sanctuary, and they had to bear guilt for this sin (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>). Hence the commandment at this point that now they should never again allow Levites to come into the sanctuary (<em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:5'>Num 18:5</a></em>). This makes better sense of the "henceforth..." in <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em>: "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. I suggest that the priests had allowed the Levites and Israelites to come close to the sanctuary; they were not to ever do so again, and I suggest the unique cleansing sacrifice of the red heifer in Numbers 19 was in order to cleanse them from this sin. According to the repeated teaching in Numbers 18, the entire priesthood were worthy of death because of allowing the non priests into the sanctuary. But the red heifer ritual cleansed them from this sin unto death, and therefore becomes a powerful type of the Lord's stoning sacrifice for us as condemned sinners.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your brothers also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, bring near with you, that they may be joined to you, and minister to you; but you and your sons with you shall be before the tent of the testimony- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The last two chapters have recorded an attempted putsch by the Levites against the priests. Here the priests are being told to "bring near" and be "joined with" their Levite brethren, living up to the name of their tribe Levi, 'joined together'. It would have been a hard call to obey, given the behaviour of the Levites just recently, resulting in at least 15000 people being slain in the recent events recorded in Numbers 16, 17 </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall keep your commands, and the duty of all the Tent; only they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary and to the altar, that they not die, neither they, nor you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites would die for touching the vessels, and the priests for letting the Levites touch them. <em><a href='B:40 17:13'>Num 17:13</a></em> has just described the rebellious Levites still refusing to accept they couldn't be as the priests. They lamented: "Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of Yahweh, dies! Will we all perish?<em>". </em>LXX has "Who touches...". It would seem that they had touched the tabernacle or had attempted to "come near" to Yahweh as the priests alone were to "draw near" to Him. The subsequent warning in <em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em> of death for doing this would imply that this was said by the Levites. It seems they still refused to accept they could not do the work of the priests, and therefore Numbers 18 warns them yet again.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall be joined to you, and keep the responsibility of the Tent of Meeting, for all the service of the Tent, and a stranger shall not come near to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite the very clear distinction of duties between priests and Levites, they were to be "joined", a play on the meaning of "Levi". And this is the same basic teaching of Paul about the nature of the body of the Lord Jesus in the New Testament. The clear distinction of duties and roles within the body was not at all to take away from the "joining" of unity between all the members. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall perform the duty of the sanctuary, and the duty of the altar, that there be no more wrath on the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :1, if the priests allowed others to come into the sanctuary, then there was going to be wrath upon all Israel. The outcomes of others are to some extent delegated into the hands of third parties. This is the whole idea of God working through personal evangelism, and it is so that we all live life with a greater sense of responsibility. <em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em> may even allude here: "By him all the parts of the body fit and are knit (AV "joined") together, with every joint supplying something according to its unique purpose, thus making the body grow as it builds up itself in love". For we are the new priesthood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I, behold, I have taken your brothers the Levites from among the children of Israel. To you they are given as a gift, given to Yahweh, to do the service of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The men which You gave me out of the (Jewish) world... they have kept Your word" (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>) compares with the Levites being "given" to Aaron / the priesthood out of Israel (<em><a href='B:40 3:9'>Num 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:19'>Num 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:6'>Num 18:6</a></em>); at the time of the golden calf they "observed thy word, and kept thy covenant" (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>), as did the disciples. The relationship between Moses and the Levites was therefore that between Christ and the disciples- a sense of thankfulness that at least a minority were faithful. The Levites were given to God, through having been given to the priests. What we give to God’s people we give to God (see too on <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>). Constantly we are being taught to see God as manifest in His people, and to treat them appropriately.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood for everything of the altar, and for that within the veil; and you shall serve. I give you the priesthood as a gift, and the stranger who comes near shall be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Serving God is presented as an honour, a gift from God (see on <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em>). Although the Levites had no physical land inheritance amongst the people of Israel, this was compensated for by being given the gift of serving God. Of course, this would only have been perceived as a gift by the more spiritually minded. We are to see service to God even in repetitive things as a gift we have been given to do.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Aaron, I, behold, I have given you the responsibility for My wave offerings, even all the holy things of the children of Israel. To you have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to your sons, as a portion forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For all offerings, "the front leg, the two jaw-bones, and the rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestion is completed" was to be given to the priest (<em><a href='B:50 18:3'>Deu 18:3</a></em>). These were thought to be the best parts of an animal; and additionally a leg (<em><a href='B:30 7:32'>Lev 7:32</a></em>) and the breast (<em><a href='B:30 7:31'>Lev 7:31</a></em>) of the offering were also to be given to the priest if it was a peace offering (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This shall be yours of the most holy things from the fire: every offering of theirs, even every grain offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"<em>The </em>fire" refers to the fire of the altar which was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. Once the fire had consumed the fat, which burnt before the meat, then the meat was to be the priest's. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat of it like the most holy things. Every male shall eat of it. It shall be holy to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 7:6'>Lev 7:6</a></em> says it should be eaten "in the holy place". But here, AV and LXX have "In the most holy place". And the Hebrew supports thIsa. When eating these most holy things, the holy place became as it were the most holy. It was as if they were in the very presence of Yahweh. Likewise the breaking of bread meeting, which is the new covenant's equivalent of eating the holy things, gives us some special sense of God’s presence. I suggest that may be behind the otherwise enigmatic reference to the presence of the Angels in <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em> - a passage in the context of the breaking of bread meeting. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is yours, too: the wave offering of their gift, even all the wave offerings of the children of Israel. I have given them to you, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as a portion forever. Everyone who is clean in your house shall eat of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The theme of giving gifts continues; what was given as a gift to God, He gave as a gift to the priests. See on :6. The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose hold on the material things of this life. And as we are <em>all </em>priests, we are all preachers.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What is specifically in view here are the sacrifices of the people which were of a lower level of sanctity than those earlier described, which could only be eaten by the males in the holy place (:10). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the best of the oil and all the best of the vintage and of the grain, the first fruits of them which they give to Yahweh, to you have I given them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was not impossible for God to accept non-blood sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 15:17-21'>Num 15:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:1-4'>Deu 26:1-4</a></em>). Cain was rejected not because of this, but because he refused to accept the principle of the blood being God’s, and because he hated his brother. Cain, the epitome of 'the devil' (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), was characterized by the attitude that he was not his brother's keeper (<em><a href='B:10 4:9'>Gen 4:9</a></em>). But the Lord Jesus perhaps offered a commentary on the incident when he said that our offering can only be accepted if we are first reconciled to our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Cain's insistent lack of responsibility for his brother was the real sin, and therefore his sacrifice wasn't accepted by God. He wanted to serve God his own way, disregard his brother, justify his disagreement with him... to be a private person. But this was the basis of his rejection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The first-ripe fruits of all that is in their land which they bring to Yahweh shall be yours. Everyone who is clean in your house shall eat of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no mention in <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em> of the first fleece being given to the priests. But it is mentioned in <em><a href='B:50 18:4'>Deu 18:4</a></em>, and is an example of where Deuteronomy, 'the second law', is in places more demanding and in others more understanding.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everything devoted in Israel shall be yours- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This refers to general freewill devotion of things to God (e.g. <em><a href='B:30 27:21'>Lev 27:21</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everything that opens the womb, of all flesh which they offer to Yahweh, both of man and animal shall be yours; nevertheless you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man, and you shall redeem the firstborn of unclean animals- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 3:41'>Num 3:41</a></em> seems to have been given at a later point. There, the Levite's cattle were just accepted for those of the Israelites. <em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 18:17'>Num 18:17</a></em> taught that the firstborn of clean animals were to be sacrificed; although the firstborn of unclean donkeys were to be redeemed; a moderation of the command here that all unclean firstborn animals were to be redeemed. The teaching was that God’s redeemed were as unclean donkeys. But the sacrificing of the firstborn of all clean animals may well have been now considered by God as too difficult for the Israelites. Their devotion to Him was sadly not to that standard. And so He upheld His basic principle but reduced the demand, by accepting the Levite's cattle at this point in place of the firstborn of the clean animals of the Israelites. We see here God’s flexible attitude, because He so wanted to save His people and have relationship with them even on a lower level than ideal. And in Deuteronomy, the second law, we will see many examples of amelioration of the laws.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall redeem those who are to be redeemed of them from a month old, according to your estimation, for five shekels of money, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This required the Levites to have money of their own. But it seems the tithes weren't paid, and so they didn’t. And so as noted on :15, these laws were later ammended in accordance with the reality of Israel's effective spiritual situation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you shall not redeem the firstborn of a cow, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat. They are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To sprinkle blood upon something didn’t necessarily mean the object was forgiven. For an inanimate altar didn’t need forgiving. The blood of the covenant was sprinkled (s.w.) upon the people as a sign of their involvement with the covenant process of salvation, rather than as a statement of their forgiveness (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). Likewise with the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:140 35:11'>2Ch 35:11</a></em>). This was an act of identification rather than forgiveness of sin. The function of the altar was valid before God, or efficacious, because of its association with the blood of Christ; for the blood of the animals slain upon it couldn't bring salvation of itself, but only through God’s way of looking at that blood is looking ahead to that of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). And so the altar was associated with the blood which represented His blood.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </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. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the wave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel give to Yahweh, have I given you and your sons and your daughters with you as a portion forever. It is a covenant of salt forever before Yahweh to you and to your seed with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar was understood as the table of Yahweh, where He ate together with the offerer. To eat bread and salt was a sign of fellowship and acceptance in covenant, and the presence of salt in the sacrifices was therefore insisted upon (<em><a href='B:30 2:13'>Lev 2:13</a></em>). A "covenant of salt" was an eternal covenant (<em><a href='B:40 18:19'>Num 18:19</a></em>). The reminder therefore was that our relationship with God is eternal, not a passing phase in our lives, nor just a mere religious crutch to help us get through this life. For truly, God is man's friend and accepts us at His table. The salt represents gracious speech (<em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>) and peace with one another (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>); without these things, no matter how great our sacrifice, it cannot be accepted by God. Hence Jesus taught that we should not offer our sacrifices to God until we have done what we can to get at peace with our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Salt was a symbol of covenant relationship with God; yet in the NT this salt stands for love, peace and kind speaking the one to the other (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:6'>Col 4:6</a></em>). This is the result of true membership in covenant relationship; a true and abiding love for all others in covenant. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Aaron, You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had no material inheritance because "the sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel... are his inheritance... Yahweh God of Israel was their inheritance" (<em><a href='B:60 13:14'>Jos 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:33'>Jos 13:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:20'>Num 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:9'>Deu 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a></em>). Notice how "Yahweh" is put for what is sacrificed to Him. His very existence is an imperative to sacrifice to Him, despising all material advantage in doing so. Job comments that to make gold our hope and wealth our confidence is to deny “the God that is above” (<em><a href='B:220 31:24'>Job 31:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a></em>). To trust in material wealth is effectively to proclaim ourselves atheists. We are described as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), so all that was true for the Levites becomes true for us. We are not to seek material inheritance. God will provide for us in ways other than our possessing land and leaving an inheritance to our children. The wonder of serving Him is to more than compensate for thIsa. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had no land nor great material wealth to leave to their children; but they had this unique relationship with God to pass on. Jeremiah in depression, having lost all he had, concludes that God is his portion (<em><a href='B:310 3:24'>Lam 3:24</a></em>), clearly alluding to this verse. Even if materially we lose all we have- our relationship with God is our true portion and inheritance, which we will eternally receive in the Kingdom. The writers of the Psalms, some of whom like David weren’t Levites, could use the same Hebrew word to describe how God was their “portion” and inheritance (<em><a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:26'>Psa 73:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 142:5'>Psa 142:5</a></em>). This should be our self-perception, whether or not we leave any material inheritance to anyone or not. Not for us the obsession with building up ownership of property, under the excuse we want to leave something to our children. Our service of God and His people is our inheritance, which we shall eternally receive back at the resurrection and the time of the Kingdom of God on earth. The priests and Levites were provided with enough to eat, but no great wealth. So it should be for all full time servants in God’s house. By contrast, the priests of the surrounding tribes were generally more wealthy than the other people, and owned land, which was seen as especially holy (see <em><a href='B:10 47:22'>Gen 47:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, even the service of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But God’s giving to the Levites depended upon Israel's giving to them. Israel didn’t tithe, and so the Levites had no income and had to work in secular occupations. We think of the wandering Levites of the book of Judges, going around Israel looking for work. And so the Lord's promise that those who sacrifice to Him shall receive brothers, sisters and blessing in this life is dependent upon them finding this within the ecclesia. And because of human dysfunction, they may not always find it (<em><a href='B:480 10:30'>Mar 10:30</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. I suggested on :1 that the priests had allowed the Levites and Israelites to come close to the sanctuary; they were not to ever do so again, and I suggest the unique cleansing sacrifice of the red heifer in Numbers 19 was in order to cleanse them from this sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the Levites shall do the service of the Tent of Meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<em><a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a></em>). Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<em><a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a></em>). The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <em><a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a></em>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as a wave offering to Yahweh, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said to them, ‘Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contrast is between having a land inheritance, which was intended to produce food, and receiving the tithes of the harvest from the rest of Israel. Including Levi, there were 13 tribes in Israel. Ten percent of all the harvests from the other 12 tribes would have amounted to more than ten percent of the total agricultural production. Although the Levites had to in turn give a tithe of that to the priests. Additionally, they were to have portions from the sacrifices and also the freewill offerings. We could see this as God’s assumption that actually not strictly ten percent would be paid as tithe; or, as His desire to give the Levites more than average. Hence the constant emphasis that they were more than compensated for not having a land inheritance, remembering anyway that the land was ultimately Yahweh's and the other tribes only had it, as it were, on permanent leasehold. And there were to be super abundant harvests, if Israel were faithful to the covenant. The generosity to the Levites becomes even more marked when we recall that at this time they were the smallest of the tribes; there was to be a superabundance of provision per head of population within the tribe. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were to receive the tithe, but were not to assume that they were therefore not required to personally donate (:25). The need to give was required even of the recipients. And that is an abiding principle for all who receive support from others, in whatever form. For personal generosity out of what we have is to be a characteristic of all God’s people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you shall speak to the Levites, and tell them, ‘When you take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall offer up a wave offering of it for Yahweh, a tithe of the tithe-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites numbered 22,000 males over one month old (<em><a href='B:40 3:34'>Num 3:34</a></em>); they were to receive the tithe of 600,000 grown men from the other tribes (<em><a href='B:40 1:46'>Num 1:46</a></em>). This may appear to mean that the Levites were to be extremely well provided for. However it’s more likely that this is an example of where God foresaw the likely failure of His people to obey His Law fully, and built into that very Law some provision for thIsa. In this we see His sensitivity to our human failure. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your wave offering shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Septuagint uses the word translated “imputed” in the NT with regard to sacrifices (symbolic of Christ’s death on the cross) being “reckoned” to a person (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:27'>Num 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a></em>); and of Shimei asking David not to “reckon” his guilt to him, to judge him not according to the obvious facts of the case (<em><a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a></em>). The Old Testament is at pains to stress that Yahweh will <em>not</em> justify the guilty (<em><a href='B:20 23:7'>Exo 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:23'>Isa 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a></em>). This is where the unique significance of Jesus comes in. Because of <em>Him</em>, His death and our faith in it, our being in Him, God can justify the wicked in that they have died with Christ in baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>), they are no longer, they are only “in Christ”, for them “to live is Christ”. They are counted as in Him, and in this way sinners end up justified.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus you also shall offer a wave offering to Yahweh of all your tithes, which you receive of the children of Israel; and of it you shall give Yahweh’s wave offering to Aaron the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be that the Levites tithed to the priests, who tithed to the High Priest. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of all your gifts you shall offer every wave offering of Yahweh, of all its best, even the holy part of it out of it’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The best" is not defined. So much of the Mosaic legislation was an appeal to the conscience. What seems best and most desirable will differ between individuals, and over time. But we are to give what in our context is "the best" to Him. But "best" is s.w. "fat", and this may be a reference to the need never to take the fat for themselves but always to offer it to God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore you shall tell them, ‘When you heave its best from it, then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floor, and as the increase of the winepress-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tithes were to be paid to the Levites, not the priests. The priests survived by eating the sacrifices made by Israel. It’s therefore incorrect for modern church leaders to demand a tithe be paid to them because they are equivalent of the priests. In any case, we are to be a community of priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). The tithes were produce from the land, not money; although seeing money existed in some form, God could have commanded money to be given them. But the tithe was of agricultural produce, simply so that the Levites would have something to eat as they concentrated on God’s service- not in order to make them wealthy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat it in every place, you and your households; for it is your reward in return for your service in the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Reward for service" is the phrase used in <em><a href='B:330 29:18'>Eze 29:18</a></em> for how God considered that even Gentile Nebuchadnezzar was worthy of a reward / wage for his service for God against the king of Tyre. This sense of some immediate recompense for service rendered to God is a major theme. And yet in the Christian dispensation, the reward for service is not now but at the Lord's coming, indeed this is one reason why there will be a day of judgment (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:12'>Rev 22:12</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have heaved from it the best of it, and you shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that you not die’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were not to fear eating the tithe, and yet they were to ensure that the wrong people didn’t eat holy things. Although the Hebrew word for "holy things" can equally mean the holy place. Or the reference may specifically be to the tithe of the tithe, which would be profaned if they kept it for themselves and didn’t give it to the priests. The principle may be that we can only enjoy anything if we have first subjected it and our lives to the spirit of giving.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This sacrifice was to provide purification from death through its ashes, which were to be mixed with water (:9), perhaps the running water from the rock, which water followed them through the wilderness- for what other source of “running (Heb. ‘springing’) water” (:17) could they have had in the wilderness? It speaks very clearly of Christ’s death; for He was without blemish and never came under the yoke of sin; He too was killed outside the camp of Israel (:3 cp. <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:13'>Heb 9:13</a></em> specifically alludes to how the ashes of this heifer were typical of Christ’s sacrifice.</p><p>The material in Num. 19 is in a block of material which follows on from Num. 15. There we read of the presumptuous sin, and there have been examples of this in Israel's presumptuous entry into the land in Num. 14 and the various rebellions of Israel against God's grace. Pardon was obtained for these at times by Moses' word alone ["I have pardonned according to your word"], or by the incense offered by Aaron. All these were 'last minute' interventions by Moses and Aaron when God had already determined to destroy Israel. I have noted earlier that these atonements were not made on the basis of blood, without which there can be no remission of sin, according to God's own principle. They were the result of grace. I suggest that now God is asking Eleazar to make a time specific opportunity for forgiveness and cleansing to be obtained through this red heifer. Lest Israel assume that forgiveness for condemnation was too automatic and painlessly granted. All such Old Testament forgiveness was in any case only made possible for the sake of the Lord's future sacrifice. And so the red heifer ritual in particular looks ahead to that. We note that the legislation about the red heifer was the last command given to Israel before they died in the desert. It was the chance for that generation to be cleansed of their sin and join Moses in hope of ultimate salvation, even if they couldn't enter the land in this life.</p><p>
The red heifer was a "sin offering" (:9). But for what kind of sin? So far in Mosaic law, there had already been sacrifices prescribed for sins of human frailty, and for sins of ignorance. The only other kind of sin defined was that of presumption, from which some in Israel had received forgiveness by grace. I suggest the red heifer ritual was to explain that in these cases, the forgiveness was still related to the shedding of blood- but of a future sacrifice, of Messiah. However it has been apparent that even God's forgiveness of presumptuous sin, by grace, didn't achieve transformation of those thus benefitted. The red heifer sacrifice therefore had a function of purification, looking ahead to how the Lord's sacrifice according to Hebrews not only forgave, but empowered purification of the spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded: Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without spot, in which is no 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>). So 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'>The red heifer appears to have been the source of the water of cleansing which was required by many situations envisaged under the Mosaic law. But it is unclear whether multiple red heifers were to be slain to provide enough ashes to create such water, or whether this was a one off sacrifice and cleansing ritual to be done only in the wilderness. It is a deconstruction of the Egyptian sacrifice of a spotless red bull to Typhon, the god of evil, broadly equivalent to the (mis)conception of 'satan' held by many. It was deconstructed by this ritual, in that the red bull was to be offered to Yahweh, not a satan being; and would bring forgiveness and cleansing rather than safety from a 'satan' being. For human uncleanness rather than the supposed machinations of a 'satan' figure is where our focus should be. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And which was never yoked- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The red heifer as the source of cleansing through water (cp. baptism) looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. The naturalness which Jesus had with people reflects His respect for the freedom which God has given His people to chose for themselves. He was Himself supremely free, due to His pure conscience before the Father. He was typified by the red heifer “upon which never came yoke” (<em><a href='B:40 19:2'>Num 19:2</a></em>). We were set free from sin by Christ through “freedom” (<em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em> RV). But we were set free by Him as a person. His freedom, His freedom from sin and the freedom that must have characterized His person, is what liberates us too. And it is the experience of that freedom, the freedom from sin that comes through forgiveness (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em>), which can be ‘used’ to love others (<em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her forth outside of the camp, and one shall kill her before his face- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Red Heifer was to be slain before the face of the priest, "as he watches" (<em><a href='B:40 19:3-5'>Num 19:3-5</a></em> NIV), pointing forward to the Lord's slaughter in the personal presence of the Father. The Lord Jesus suffered and died, shedding the blood of atonement, "outside the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>). We are bidden go forth to the Lord Jesus "outside the camp", just as those who "sought Yahweh" did when there was no tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em>). The people watching Moses as he walked out to it, without the camp, therefore looks ahead to a faithless Israel lining the via Dolorossa and watching the Lord walk out to His place of crucifixion. And we are to get behind Him and follow Him there, stepping out from the mass of Israel. As the Lord Jesus suffered "outside the camp", so various parts of the Mosaic sacrifices were to be burnt there (<em><a href='B:30 4:12'>Lev 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:21'>Lev 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:17'>Lev 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:11'>Lev 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:27'>Lev 16:27</a></em>); and yet it was the blood of those sacrifices which achieved atonement (<em><a href='B:650 13:11'>Heb 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>). "Outside the camp" was the place of excluded, condemned sinners (<em><a href='B:30 13:46'>Lev 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:14'>Lev 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:3-4'>Num 5:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:35-36'>Num 15:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:13'>Num 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:19'>Num 31:19</a></em>), and it was here that the Lord Jesus died, in identification with us.&nbsp; </p><p>NEB however takes "before its face" to mean "to the east of it", referring to the camp. The location of Golgotha is anyone's guess, but a case can be made that it was east of the temple in a public place on the east-west road along which the Romans often crucified people as a public warning. We note that Aaron camped to the east of the tabernacle (Num. 3:38). Eleazar then sprinkling the blood toward the front of the tent of meeting (:4) would then be more natural, if the heifer was slain to the east of it, facing toward it.</p><p>
The specific mention of Eleazar leads us to think that this entire ritual was time limited, just for that generation. Possibly it was a ritual specifically to cleanse Israel from the sin of the golden calf [since Aaron was guilty of that sin, his son Eleazar had to perform the ritual], or more likely from the many dead bodies resulting from the 14,700 slain at the time of the rebellion in Num. 16. Possibly Aaron wasn't to do it because of the principle that he was not to depart from the sanctuary (Lev. 21:12), and this sacrifice was to be made outside the entire camp. We note that the animal was not to be sacrificed upon an altar- it was done outside the camp. It was a sacrifice quite unlike the previously explained sacrifices. The fat was not to be eaten, the offering priest was defiled by the ritual, the ashes have the power to cleanse going forward rather than the sacrifice needing to be repeated etc. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle her blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that this process of cleansing from the results of death was to be permanent; but the whole style of the command for Eleazar to kill the red heifer in :2,3 sounds as if only one red heifer was killed for all time. See on :11. I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> that all of Leviticus may be referring just to the ceremony of the sanctification of the priests when the tabernacle was first built, and this section in Numbers 19 may be the same. There is no command as to continuing to kill a red heifer, nor by whom or how often it should be done. The record may be framed to present the result of the red heifer’s sacrifice as if it were eternal, clearly typifying Christ’s sacrifice. Another option is that this entire ritual is to be understood in the context of the death of so many Israelites in the rebellion described in chapter 16. Chapters 17 and 18 provide the answer to the peoples’ concerns arising out of that incident, and chapter 19 may also be in that context- describing how to avoid defilement by all the dead bodies which died in the plague. The specific mention of Eleazar, rather than a more generic reference to the High Priest or his son, could suggest that this red heifer ritual was a one off cleansing for the time. See on :11. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One shall burn the heifer in his sight: her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No part of the animal was to be kept and eaten by the priests or Levites. I will suggest on :11 that the entire ritual was a one off situation, providing cleansing for those who were now going to bury the 15000 people slain as a result of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16; and this would have included many Levites, who had aspired wrongly to the priesthood. So it would have been inappropriate if they had eaten of the sacrifice themselves. <em></em></p><p>The ritual was intended to recall that of the Day of Atonement, when the sacrifices "shall be carried forth outside the camp; and they shall burn their skins, their flesh, and their dung with fire. He who burns them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp" (Lev. 16:27,28). Again the person associated with the offering is made unclean. The idea is that the red heifer ritual was to produce an atonement, it was a "sin offering" (:9), but I have suggested that it was a one-time ritual and we never hear of it being practiced in any ongoing sense in Biblical history. The atonement I suggest was for the presumptuous sins that had been forgiven without the shedding of blood. For every other kind of sin already had a sacrifice stipulated for it in Leviticus. It is the ritual of atonement for the unforgiveable and the condemned, and points ahead to the Lord's work on the cross.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All associated with the crucifixion of Christ. The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. His mind was evidently full of the word, He would have seen the symbolism of everything far more than we can, from the thorns in His mock crown, to the hyssop being associated with Him at the very end (the hyssop was the fulfilment of types in <em><a href='B:20 12:8'>Exo 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:49-52'>Lev 14:49-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:18'>Num 19:18</a></em>). </p><p>Cedar, hyssop and scarlet are all associated with the cleansing of leprosy, which I suggest was not Hansen's disease but a specific "stroke" of judgment. Miriam had been saved from this by Moses' intercession, she was as a walking corpse "like one who is dead" (Num. 12:12) as were the condemned Israelites in the desert whose corpses fell when they died; and the people had likewise been smitted but saved from it. Now they were being taught that these pardons still had to have their basis in the shedding of blood, even if the sacrifice was now offered some time later. And that is exactly how the Lord's later supreme sacrifice functioned, and for whose sake forgiveness was given in Mosaic times.</p><p>
We note the dominance of the colour red. The red heifer, scarlet, the red cedar wood- and possibly hyssop too was a dark red colour. All this was to point up the huge significance of the blood in the cleansing- looking ahead to the blood of the Lord Jesus. A red heifer would have been rare and hard to find, again pointing forward to the Lord.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The defilement of the priest by the sacrifice is unique amongst all the offerings commanded. On one hand, it looks ahead to how the Lord Jesus died on the cross, and "cursed is every one who hangs on a tree" (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). He was not made personally sinful by the process of His death, but He was thereby definitely associated with all that is unclean. We think of <em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>&nbsp;AV: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him". But in the immediate context, I suggest that these rituals were for the cleansing of the priesthood as well as the living supporters and relatives of those slain in the rebellion of the Levites in Numbers 16. It could be that Aaron and the priesthood had given in to the pressure of the rebellious Levites and allowed some of them to come near to the sanctuary, and they had to bear guilt for this sin (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>). Hence the commandment at this point that now they should never again allow Levites to come into the sanctuary (<em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:5'>Num 18:5</a></em>). This makes better sense of the "henceforth..." in <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em>: "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. I suggest that the priests had allowed the Levites and Israelites to come close to the sanctuary; they were not to ever do so again, and I suggest the unique cleansing sacrifice of the red heifer in Numbers 19 was in order to cleanse them from this sin. According to the passages in Numbers 18, the entire priesthood were worthy of death because of allowing the non priests into the sanctuary. But the red heifer ritual cleansed them from this sin unto death, and therefore becomes a powerful type of the Lord's stoning sacrifice for us as condemned sinners.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>One great mystery of the red heifer ritual is that it made unclean those who performed it. Rabbinic interpretation likes to stress the paradoxes within the red heifer ritual and leave them as intentional paradoxes. That approach may have some mileage, in that atonement is ultimately a mystery. However the simpler reading may be that the red heifer incident specifically points forward to the Lord Jesus, and those who were involved in His death [especially the priesthood] were themselves made unclean by it. But the simple picture is that the red heifer ritual purified the defiled, and defiled the pure. And this is really what happens when human beings encoutner the Lord's sacrifice. Some will insist they don't need it because they are already pure, considering they are healthy and don't need a doctor, as the Lord put it. And they, the pure in their own eyes, are thereby defiled. And yet it cleanses those who accept they are defiled.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who burns her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ashes of the red heifer purified the impure / unclean, but defiled the clean. This is an intentional paradox, and is meant to highlight how the Lord's work can only benefit those who recognize their uncleanness. He is a doctor, and cannot heal those who consider they need no doctor.&nbsp;As explained on :7, the immediate context seems to be that the priesthood had been defiled by allowing the Levites to pressurize them to allow them to come close to the sanctuary; and this explains why there is so much uncleanness upon the Levites and priests associated with this sacrifice. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside of the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity. It is a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well enquire what particular sin had been committed. Cleansing from impurity which arose from touching dead bodies didn’t require a sin offering. I have suggested on :7 that the sin in view could be the way the priesthood had bowed to pressure from the Levites and allowed them to enter the sanctuary. But more likely the sin is the presumptuous sins of the recent rebellions which had been forgiven at the time by grace and without the shedding of blood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. It shall be to the children of Israel, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them, for a statute forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have discussed on :8 why there is so much uncleanness upon the Levites and priests associated with this sacrifice. But the reference to "a statue forever" could admittedly tend against my suggestion that this was a one time sacrifice to deal with the uncleanness and sin associated with the events of Numbers 16, 17. But "a statute for ever" is the term used about the regular annual keeping of the Passover and other annual feasts (<em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:17'>Exo 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:43'>Exo 12:43</a></em>) so the idea may be that the gross sin of the priests in allowing the Levites and others into the sanctuary was to be remembered each year in the red heifer ritual. Or "a statute forever" could as well mean that this is a law about a sacrifice with eternal effect and consequence.  </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was already ritual provided to deal with being unclean from touching a corpse. The red heifer ritual is therefore relating to some specific one time defilement by corpses. The context is the death of so many rebels in Num. 16. "Tent" in :14 again suggests this was not a ritual for all time, but specific to them at that point living in tents. The whole camp was thereby unclean. Their relatives wanted to bury them, but they all had to therefore engage with the red heifer ritual. Or perhaps this is mentioned because this was an example of how the water of cleansing, made from the ashes of the red heifer, could be used. But if it were to be used every time there was a death, then it would've required many ashes from red heifers. We wonder therefore if these commands are specifically for the Levites at the sanctuary. Otherwise, there would need to be red heifer sacrifices and ashes made throughout Israel. I discussed on :4 how the impression could be taken that this was to be one sacrifice for all time (another element of how it typified the Lord's death), and that therefore it would only have been applicable to the wilderness situation. Perhaps what was specifically in view was the cleansing required for the 15000 people who had just been slain in the events of Numbers 16, 17, and who were now going to be buried. There would have been mass defilement of people during the burial and mourning process, and these people were sinners. Therefore there was this special cleansing ritual foreseen.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The same shall purify himself with water on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean; but if he doesn’t purify himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have hints of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the third day, leading to our complete cleansing on the seventh day- God’s Kingdom established on earth. See on :16.</p><p>The word chata "purify" occurs often here (:12,13,19,20). But this is the usual word translated 'sin' [or equivalent] about 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. Here the verb occurs in the piel and not the qal form. The sense is literally 'to un-sin'. No sacrifice in the Mosaic legislation so far could de-sin or un-sin a person. Such a word is hardly found in any other language, although German entsündigen may have something of the idea or English 'exonerate'. We have here a profound insight into the deep cleansing work of the Lord's sacrifice, a deep cleansing of the conscience beyond forgiveness. Truly here is a case where the closer one looks at God's word, the deeper is the beauty. We struggle with this experience because human forgiveness is not like this. It is at best a 'play on', an emotional position adopted by the forgiver, but the grant of human forgiveness cannot touch the conscience of the forgiven nor cleanse them before God. Only God's Son can say as He did to the woman in John 8, "I do not condemn you", and then speak of how that truth makes us free, we shall be "free indeed". Although the wonder of these things only has any moment if we are convicted of our sin first. Only then will our cleansing and freedom result in a flame of passionate devotion for Him who freed us. </p><p>
And the wonder of it all is that the Lord's sacrifice is far more powerful than that of the red heifer: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:13,14). The use of chata here may be intended to suggest that this red heifer ritual pointed ahead to a sacrifice which would un-sin to the point of cleansing the conscience. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever touches a dead person, the body of a man who has died, and doesn’t purify himself, defiles the tent of Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel. Because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet on him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could mean that the dead bodies were of those who had defiled the tabernacle, referring to those of Korah's rebellion. </p><p>The sacrifice of the red heifer, like that of Christ, became meaningful and effective for the individual when mixed with water, which could suggest our need to appropriate the sacrifice of Christ to ourselves through baptism. This appears a very strict judgment for touching a corpse and then not having the red heifer ash water sprinkled. What if the red heifer hadn't been slain by the priest, what if the water wasn't available immediately, especially if the person was far from the sanctuary? But I have suggested on :7,11 that this is all in the specific context of the events of Numbers 16, 17; it was a one off requirement that those who were unclean because of those events should make use of the cleansing offered through the red heifer, or die in their sins. Likewise see on :20. There are many Biblical examples of men touching dead bodies, but there is never any future reference to the red heifer ritual. I suggest therefore that the dead bodies in view are specifically those of the slain rebels, and the red heifer legislation was uniquely relevant to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God’s people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God’s eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law when a man dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent, and everyone who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Once settled in the land, people would generally live in houses and not tents. We enquire why this particular reference to tents. I suggested on :4,7,11 that the specific reference of this whole ritual is to those made unclean and condemned to death because of the events of Numbers 16. Therefore the reference to tents is specifically to the tents of the rebels and their supporters (<em><a href='B:40 16:26'>Num 16:26</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every open vessel, which has no covering bound on it, is unclean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This hyper strictness is explained on :8.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seven day period is that of :12. The dead bodies and bones in view are specifically of the recently slain rebels. See on :4,7,11.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The enigmatic <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em> alludes here: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly ("innermost being", NIV) shall flow rivers of living (Gk. spring) water". What "scripture" did the Lord have in mind? Perhaps the references to spring water being used to cleanse men from leprosy and death (<em><a href='B:30 14:5'>Lev 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:16'>Num 19:16</a></em>). Out of the innermost being of the true believer, the spring(ing) water of the Gospel will <em>&nbsp;naturally</em> spring up and go out to heal men, both now and more fully in the Kingdom, aided then by the Spirit gifts. The believer, <em>every</em>&nbsp; believer, <em>whoever</em>&nbsp; believes, will preach the word to others <em>from his innermost being</em>, both now and in the Kingdom - without the need for preaching committees or special efforts (not that in themselves I'm decrying them). The tendency is to delegate our responsibilities to these committees. There is no essential difference between faith and works. If we believe, we will do the works of witness, quite spontaneously. And note how the water that sprung out of the Lord’s smitten side is to be compared with the bride that came out of the smitten side of Adam. We, the bride, are the water; thanks to the inspiration of the cross, we go forth in witness, the water of life to this hard land in which we walk.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the sin offering; and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord taught that He was the rock, and we like Israel drink of what came out of Him. The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called " the running water" (<em><a href='B:30 14:5-6'>Lev 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:50-52'>Lev 14:50-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:17'>Num 19:17</a></em>). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> cp. 21:19; <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: " ...they talk to the hurt of him (Christ) whom thou hast smitten" (<em><a href='B:230 69:26'>Psa 69:26</a></em>); "we esteemed him (as He hung on the cross) smitten of God" (<em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>). The living waters were representative of the Holy Spirit which is given to us- not the miraculous gifts, but the power of God within the human spirit, to bring us to have His Spirit and mind which was in Christ. It is this which now is the cleansing agent, making our sacrifices acceptable, cleansing our motives in a way in which we cannot do, at least not by any conscious intellectual process.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, and on all the vessels, and on the persons who were there, and on him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the association of hyssop with the Lord's death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:29'>Joh 19:29</a></em>). That hyssop had been dipped in red wine, representing blood, and the Lord surely saw the relevance to Himself. "I am that hyssop", He would have thought. On the cross, He was the door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), and He experienced hyssop with red wine (representing blood) brushed against Him. Just as the doors at Passover had blood brushed onto them using a hyssop plant, and this was the basis of Israel's salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The "clean person" and "they" of :17 could be anyone. The red heifer cleansing differs from any other Mosaic ritual in that it didn't need to be administered by priests. This speaks of how the Lord's work for us, and the sovereign forgiveness of God, is ministered directly and without any priesthood as an interface. This is some kind of a foil to the recent declaration of Aaron and the Levites as God's method of priesthood (Num. 16,17). Ultimate forgiveness and total pardon was not actually achieved through them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day, and on the seventh day he shall purify him; and he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The importance of self examination at the breaking of bread is indirectly hinted at in <em><a href='B:500 13:10'>Joh 13:10</a></em>: “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet". This is surely a reference to how <em><a href='B:40 19:19'>Num 19:19</a></em> prescribed that a Levite was required to take a plunge bath in order to be clean. The Lord is therefore saying that <em>all</em> His people, when they partake of His feast, are to present themselves as cleansed Levites. He understood His people as <em>all</em> being part of a priesthood. Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the Lord spoke those words just before the breaking of bread, in response to how Peter did not want to participate in the Lord’s meal if it meant the Lord washing him. Surely the Lord was saying that baptism is a one time event- he has been thus bathed does not need to wash again, or be re-baptized. But, he does need to periodically wash his feet, which I would take to be a reference to the breaking of bread which Peter seemed to want to avoid. Thus whilst forgiveness is not mystically mediated through the bread and wine, there is all the same a very distinct connection between the memorial meeting and forgiveness, just as there is between baptism and forgiveness. To not break bread is to walk away from that forgiveness in the blood of Jesus, just as to refuse baptism is to do the same. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of Yahweh. The water for impurity has not been sprinkled on him: he is unclean-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This appears a very strict judgment for touching a corpse and then not having the red heifer ash water sprinkled. What if the red heifer hadn't been slain by the priest, what if the water wasn't available immediately, especially if the person was far from the sanctuary? But I have suggested on :7,11 that this is all in the specific context of the events of Numbers 16, 17; it was a one off requirement that those who were unclean because of those events should make use of the cleansing offered through the red heifer, or die in their sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be a perpetual statute to them. He who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes, and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The “water of separation" granted cleansing, in prophecy of the effect of the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:40 19:21'>Num 19:21</a></em>). But the Hebrew for “separation" is also translated ‘uncleanness’ (<em><a href='B:30 20:21'>Lev 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 9:11'>Ezr 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:1'>Zec 13:1</a></em>). Touching this water for any other reason made a man unclean. Only if used in the right context did it make him clean (<em><a href='B:40 19:21'>Num 19:21</a></em>). This is why it is described with a word which has these two meanings. Thus the RSV gives “water of impurity", the LXX ‘water of purifying’. And so it is with our contact with the work of the Lord, symbolized in the emblems. We are made unclean by it, we drink damnation to ourselves, if we don’t discern it. Only if we properly discern it are we cleansed by it. The idea of the breaking of bread becoming a place of condemnation for the unworthy is to be found in <em><a href='B:230 69:22'>Psa 69:22</a></em>, where those who crucify Messiah afresh are warned that their table will become a snare to them, and their own sense of peace will trap them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have discussed on :8 why there is so much uncleanness upon the Levites and priests associated with this sacrifice. But the reference to "a statue forever" could admittedly tend against my suggestion that this was a one time sacrifice to deal with the uncleanness and sin associated with the events of Numbers 16, 17. But "a statute for ever" is the term used about the regular annual keeping of the Passover and other annual feasts (<em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:17'>Exo 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:43'>Exo 12:43</a></em>) so the idea may be that the gross sin of the priests in allowing the Levites and others into the sanctuary was to be remembered each year in the red heifer ritual. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the soul that touches it shall be unclean until evening-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have discussed on :8 why there is so much uncleanness upon the Levites and priests associated with this sacrifice. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died there, and was buried there- </em></p><p>"The whole congregation" or "all the congregation" is a phrase used always in the context of Israel's complaints or rebellions. The implication therefore is that those who still survived of the condemned generation (see on :3) and those of the younger generation- all failed now at the very border of the Kingdom of God. We can also infer that the complaints were not from a disgruntled minority, but were the spirit of the entire community. "The first month" when these things happened at Kadesh would appear to be in year 40 of the "journey", comparing with the itinerary in Num. 33:36-38.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite all the visible wrath of God against those who rebelled in Numbers 16 with 15000 dying, the condemnation of the priesthood to death and then their being saved by the unique, saving provision of the red heifer (see on <em><a href='B:40 19:4'>Num 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:7'>Num 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>)... the people still rebelled. This is all a classic case of where visible, empirical evidence doesn't of itself elicit true faith in God. And those who base their faith upon 'scientific evidence' on one hand or Pentecostal claims of miracles... need to be warned by thIsa. We wonder whether the death of Miriam was related to her abiding sense of rebellion against her brothers Moses and Aaron. Perhaps the root of her name, Mara (bitter) became sadly true for her in her older age.&nbsp; </p><p>"The waters of strife in Kadesh" were the borders of the land, as defined in Ez. 47:19; 48:28. On the borders of the Kingdom, they rebelled and Moses sinned and disbelieved. The rest of Numbers will be taken up with accounts of their failures right at the end. We marvel at this failure at the very end of the journey [for the record of the death of Aaron in the 40th year runs straight on from this narrative as if it was now the 40th year since leaving Egypt]. But it is of the same nature as the great apostacy foretold by the New Testament on the eve of the second coming, leading the Lord to muse as to whether He would find faith on the earth at His return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was no water for the congregation. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God’s rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this 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 you believed me not... you 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; </p><p>"Assembling together against Moses" is the same phrase used in the record of Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:3,19,42) and the golden calf (Ex. 32:1). Likewise they "quarreled with" Moses (:3) is the same word used of how they did this in the previous rebellion about water in Ex. 17:2,7. “Why have you brought the Lord’s congregation into this wilderness for us... to die?” (:4) repeats the words of the rebellions by the previous generation: at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:11), at Kadesh (Num. 14:2) and in Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:13). No lessons had been learnt from all the salvations by grace at those times. “Why did you make us leave Egypt?” (:5) recalls the pining for all things Egyptian which characterized the previous generation, at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:11), when they complained and were given Manna (Ex. 16:3), in Num. 11:5 at Kibroth-hattaavah, when the spies returned and they refused to enter Canaan (Num. 14:2), and at Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:13). In :4 they complain there are no figs, pomegranates nor vines in the desert. These were the very things brought back from Canaan as encouragement to persevere with Yahweh's path to enter it (Num. 13:23). This was an expression of serious doubt as to whether they would in fact enter the Kingdom. It was a very serious sin. We wonder why in the incident that follows, God appears to be very harsh in the level of judgment given to Moses. But we wonder whether in fact behind that there was not a desire to place their rightful judgment- of telling them "Well OK don't enter Canaan"- upon Moses. He bore their sin as ever. </p><p>
This generation were just as rebellious as the previous one; that's the point of these connections. All the grace shown previously, the salvation from condemnation by desperate intercession, just had left no lasting mark on the people. Numbers seems to record what happened at the very start of the journey, the first year or so, and then from Num. 20 what happened in the last year or so. If the "whole assembly" (:1) here were mostly or exclusively those under 20 on leaving Egypt, we marvel that those about to enter the Kingdom actually didn't want to. What we will read for the rest of Numbers is a terrible spurning of grace and salvation. We see a studied repetition of the failures of the first generation as they approached the borders of the land. This new generation were no better, but were saved by grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people strove with Moses and spoke, saying, We wish that we had died when our brothers died before Yahweh!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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?”. "Our brothers" shows that the people were at one with the rebels who had died in the events of Numbers 16, and hence Moses addresses them all as "rebels" (:10). He was on one hand full of spiritual perception, but lack of faith and unwise words on the other. This kind of terrible mixture of flesh and Spirit is sadly to be found in all God’s children, even the very best of them like Moses.</p><p>The mention of brothers rather than fathers might suggest this complaint came from the last remnant of the condemned generation. The judgments at Kibroth-hattaavah (Num. 11:34) and Kadesh (Num. 14:37) had been upon not their brothers but their fathers. They were bitter and complaining to the end, for at this point they are nearing the end of the 40 years wandering. Just like many elderly folk today who refuse to get it. But the stress on how the "whole congregation" were involved (:1) suggests more that the younger ones were referring to the previous generation as their "brothers" to show solidarity with them. Rather than being grateful that they were going to enter the land whereas that generation didn't. They who were about to enter the land lament that they hadn't died with earlier rebels. They had been told that the wanderings would be for 40 years, but now the time was coming to an end, they still rebelled and just didn't want the Kingdom. There is no sense of tip top joyful expectancy. The blindness of man to the soon possibility of God's Kingdom is likewise amazing. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why have you brought the assembly of Yahweh into this wilderness that we should die there, we and our animals?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obvious answer was that not Moses but God had brought them into the wilderness, they had went the way they were led by the Angel going before them in the pillar of cloud and fire. But they didn’t want to accept that as any evidence. Again, as discussed on :1, visible, empirical evidence didn’t persuade anyone of anything much. In their hearts they had returned to Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>), and so they would see everything through the lens of their desire to return there. And so it is with those who love the world and simply do not want the things of the Kingdom. The manna was being given, but they disregarded it, and assumed they would die without the luxury foods of :5. We have a powerful insight into the mentality of so many. They are not satisfied with food and clothing, and for them, life is "death" without all the "extras". </p><p>The test as to "What shall we drink?" was a repeat of that in Ex. 15 and Ex. 17. The same basic test, although in regard to "What shall we eat?", was repeated in Ex. 16. The Lord alludes to this when warning us not to ask what we shall eat or drink but to live life trusting in God's provision. And this is how life goes- tests repeat, in essence, and we are intended to learn from how God provides and acts in earlier tests in our lives. And also from how He has provided historically, in the Biblical record. It's the same with how God had carefully instructed Moses how to use his rod, and therefore his failure with his rod was seen as so culpable. </p><p>The test as to "What shall we drink?" was a repeat of that in Ex. 15 and Ex. 17. The same basic test, although in regard to "What shall we eat?", was repeated in Ex. 16. The Lord alludes to this when warning us not to ask what we shall eat or drink but to live life trusting in God's provision. And this is how life goes- tests repeat, in essence, and we are intended to learn from how God provides and acts in earlier tests in our lives. And also from how He has provided historically, in the Biblical record. It's the same with how God had carefully instructed Moses how to use his rod, and therefore his failure with his rod was seen as so culpable. </p><p>
These are the words of the rebellion in Ex. 17:3. Many had been saved by grace from the results of that rebellion. But even now in their old age (see on :3), all the grace meant nothing, and they learnt nothing from history. Thus is man without trust in Divine grace. </p>


