# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Zebulun, Eliab the son of Helon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names feature the 'El' suffix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of the children of Joseph, of Ephraim, Elishama the son of Ammihud, of Manasseh, Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elishama was Joshua's grandfather (<em><a href='B:130 7:26'>1Ch 7:26</a></em>). "God who hears" reflects Moses' message that God had indeed heard the crying of the Israelites in Egypt. This was likely a name change after acceptance of Moses' teaching.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gamaliel" is 'God is my reward', named in hope that the promised reward of the Kingdom would indeed be given. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Benjamin, Abidan the son of Gideoni- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:11,15) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Dan, Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ammishaddai" means 'People of the Almighty', using the term <em>shaddai</em> which is often associated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He may well have been one of the faithful few who kept perceiving the vital separation of God’s people from Egypt, whereas the majority in their hearts returned to Egypt and wished to assimilate with them in order to escape persecution and have what they imagined was a good life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Asher, Pagiel the son of Ochran- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pagiel ('accident of God') was son of Ochran, 'muddler'. As discussed on :15, people had multiple names and were known by the 'name' they carved for themselves in life, and the attitudes they had. God makes no accidents; so maybe in depression and bitterness this man felt like this, and was known for it. Hardly a great example to the tribe he was supposed to be leading. And indeed Asher all but disappears from Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Gad, Eliasaph the son of Deuel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuel of <em><a href='B:40 1:14'>Num 1:14</a></em> is better Reuel as in <em><a href='B:40 2:14'>Num 2:14</a></em>. The Hebrew letters for 'D' and 'R' are easily confused; so here we have an example of slight copying errors in the original texts. But these in no way negate the overall Divine inspiration of the texts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Naphtali, Ahira the son of Enan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names.&nbsp;The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:11,15) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were called of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The term "thousands" is not to be taken literally. It effectively refers to a group of families within a tribe; perhaps "clan" would be an appropriate translation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron took these men who are mentioned by name- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although some of their names reflected spiritual inappropriacy, as noted especially on :13,15, God wanted to use them. And to build out of them and their children and families a fighting force which would inherit the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month; and they declared their ancestry by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, one by one- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that every single Israelite was part of a family. In such a large community there inevitably would have been some who had no family. In commenting upon the Exodus, <em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em> observes that God set the lonely in families. This may have happened at this point. Those who had no family were arranged into one, so that God’s people moved through the wilderness in family units. In this we see how God is a family God; the family is His desired way of human organization, and we should seek to preserve it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As Yahweh commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The numbering was done by Moses' representatives but is spoken of as his work. This principle of representation is throughout the Bible. It comes to full term in the way the Lord Jesus functions as God and is spoken of in language appropriate to that function- without being God Himself personally, as the Trinity wrongly states. Just as those who numbered the tribes were not Moses personally.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Reuben, Israel’s firstborn, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, one by one, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The number of the names” implies there was a written list. Moses had been educated in Egypt and therefore would’ve been able to write (<em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>). We should use what worldly wisdom we have in the service of God’s people.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Simeon, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, those who were numbered of it, according to the number of the names, one by one, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“One by one” reflects the value and meaning attached to the human person by God. Practically this would have meant their names were written down. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty-nine thousand three hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Simeon's 59,300 fell to 22,200 by the end of the wilderness wanderings, according to the second census in Numbers 26. This suggests a huge apostasy amongst the Simeonites, resulting in such a dramatic fall. Not all the failures and punishments of Israel are recorded in the record. The plague of Numbers 25 killed 24,000 people for committing fornication with the Moabites (<em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>); but the ringleader of that had been Zimri, a Simeonite prince (<em><a href='B:40 25:14'>Num 25:14</a></em>). It’s likely therefore that he led his tribe into the orgy with the Moabites, which resulted in so many of them being killed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Gad, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All who were able to go out to war" is not reflective of the Hebrew text. Translators added "able to" because they balked in disbelief at the idea that every citizen was to be a soldier. What about the handicapped, the mentally weak...? The idea was that all who were numbered and named were soldiers- in God’s eyes. He wasn't interested in their secular, physical ability, because He was going to fight for Israel and give them the victories. He was interested in the names, in the people as individuals- for they were all soldiers from His perspective. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Gad, were forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A "fifty" may not be a literal number, but a technical term for a group; see on :23. We recall groups of soldiers called a "fifty" being sent to capture Elijah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Judah, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The number of the names" is the phrase used in <em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em> of the very early church. The idea was that the fledgling Christian church was now the new Israel of God, who were to go out and do spiritual warfare in conquering the world for Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Judah, were sixty-four thousand six hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here is a comparison of the numbers given in the first census of Numbers 1, and those given at the end of the wilderness journeys in Numbers 26 :</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1. Judah 74,600 rose to 76,500&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>2. Dan 62,700 rose to 64,400&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>3. Simeon 59,300 fell to 22,200&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>4. Zebulun 57,400 rose to 60,500&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>5. Issachar 54,400 rose to 64,300 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6. Naphtali 53,400 fell to 45,400 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>7. Reuben 46,500 fell to 43,730&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>8. Gad 45,650 fell to 40,500 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>9. Asher 41,500 rose to 53,400 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>10. Ephraim 40,500 fell to 32,500 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>11. Benjamin 35,400 rose to 45,600</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>12. Manasseh 32,200 rose to 52,700 </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Total 603,550 in the first census, but 601,730 by the end of the 38 years wanderings in Numbers 26. But see on :30.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we are to understand blessing under the old covenant as related to numbers of children, then there may be the hint that Judah were the most faithful. We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Issachar, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of "generations" suggests that some kind of genealogy was developed and recorded at this time. This would have been important because the intention was that each family were to inherit a specific lot of land; they were to therefore place great value upon genealogies in the future. &nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Zebulun, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The emphasis of this census was upon those who could go to war, whereas the later census at the end of the wanderings includes the Levites because it was not so focused upon forming a military organization. It could be that the comparison with the numbers in Numbers 26 is somewhat fallacious, because Numbers 1 is a census of those of military age whereas that of Numbers 26 appears to be of the entire tribes. In which case the numbers would have decreased sharply for all the tribes due to their failure to be Abraham's ever multiplying seed, and due to the judgments they all experienced in the wilderness. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty-seven thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zebulun increased by a minimal amount over the course of the wilderness journey (see on :27). As discussed on :29, this is rather like the person who receives the talent of God’s truth and keeps it but doesn't develop it much. We get this same impression of Zebulun in <em><a href='B:140 30:18'>2Ch 30:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Joseph, of the children of Ephraim, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ephraim is placed before Manasseh although he was not the firstborn. This reflects Joseph's wish to continue the Divine theme of blessing the firstborn less than the other son, which is so typical of how He despises secular advantage. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Manasseh, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>20 years old was the ager at which someone could be dedicated to the Lord's service (<em><a href='B:30 27:3'>Lev 27:3</a></em>). The idea may be that simply by reason of being in Israel, these men were therefore automatically counted as able for active service- regardless of their state of health and strength. And the Lord counts His people likewise. There are to be no passengers amongst God’s people. We are called to active service.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Benjamin, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "generations", see on :28; for "number of the names", see on :26; for "able to go out to war", see on :3,24; for "from twenty years old", see on :34. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Dan, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "generations", see on :28; for "number of the names", see on :26; for "able to go out to war", see on :3,24; for "from twenty years old", see on :34. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Asher, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "generations", see on :28; for "number of the names", see on :26; for "able to go out to war", see on :3,24; for "from twenty years old", see on :34. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Naphtali, their generations, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "generations", see on :28; for "number of the names", see on :26; for "able to go out to war", see on :3,24; for "from twenty years old", see on :34. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty-three thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Naphtali's 53,400 fell to 45,400 by the end of the wilderness journeys, a decrease by a ratio of 0:85; very similar to how Gad's 45,650 fell to 40,500, a decrease by a ratio of 0:88. See on :41.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered, whom Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: they were each one for his fathers’ house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that we are to understand from this, as do the Rabbis, that Moses personally numbered each person. They all passed before him and were individually known by him, looking forward to the personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus of all God’s people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So all those who were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers’ families, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war in Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "families", see on :28; for "able to go out to war", see on :3,24; for "from twenty years old", see on :34. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even all those who were numbered were six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Over a period of 430 years (<em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em>; or perhaps 215 years, see on <em><a href='B:20 12:40'>Exo 12:40</a></em>), the Israelites grew from 70 people (<em><a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:22'>Deu 10:22</a></em>) to a great number. This was a primary fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, that his descendants would greatly multiply (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em>). We who are in the same covenant relationship with God will experience some element of blessing and fulfillment of the covenant promises in this life too. The large numbers may also have been due to the Egyptians joining the people of Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> says that "Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and all who were numbered of you". This excluded the Levites, as they were not numbered. 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. 1:47). There would have been a bond between those younger people and the Levites. 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>For Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were not numbered in the first census, but they were at the end of the wilderness journey. The number of 23,000 given in <em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em> makes them one of the smallest tribes. If we are to understand blessing under the old covenant as related to numbers of children, then there may be the hint that Judah were the most faithful and Levi and Simeon the least, in line with Jacob's curse of those two sons for what they did at Shechem. But it was from this spiritually weak group of Levites that God wished to raise up a priesthood to spiritually guide His people. This is typical of His counter instinctive way of working with people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, neither shall you take a census of them among the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have an example here of how we must read the Bible in context and never forget the primary context of the words we read. For a census was taken of the Levites in Numbers 26 at the end of the wilderness journey. So this verse here means that they were not to take a census of the Levites at that time only. Or it could be that God revised His intentions about the Levites and later did command a census; for His purpose is to some extent open ended and He is not ashamed to change in accordance with human responses to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but appoint the Levites over the Tabernacle of the Testimony, and over all its furnishings, and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle, and all its furnishings; and they shall serve it, and shall encamp around it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). The spirit of the Levites should be ours. As they encamped around the tabernacle, having it as the center of their lives, so the things of God’s ecclesia, His church, should be central to our lives and have far more importance to us than our careers and associations in this world. We note that repeatedly the tabernacle is defined in terms of the testimony, the tables bearing the ten commandments: "the ark of the testimony" (<em><a href='B:20 25:22'>Exo 25:22</a></em>), the "tablets of the testimony" (<em><a href='B:20 31:18'>Exo 31:18</a></em>), the "veil of the testimony" (<em><a href='B:30 24:3'>Lev 24:3</a></em>). We would likely have defined it in terms of the shekinah glory there; but for God, His word of command to His people is of the essence, and is at the core of His holiness and intimacy with man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the tabernacle is to move, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall set it up. The stranger who comes near shall be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Who advances to touch it", as if touching it in a conscious and defiant way. Hence the command for some Levites to be as sentries guarding the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:40 3:32'>Num 3:32</a></em>). Although 'coming near' is a Hebraism for coming near to Yahweh in worship and service. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, according to their divisions- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet Israel carried the star of their god Remphan with them through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>) as they carried the tabernacle of Moloch and the idols of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>). The star of Remphan would have been similar to the standards of their tribes. Their loyalties were divided from the start. Their standards reflected the cherubim of Divine manifestation, and yet whilst externally they pitched their tents in conformity to that (see on :54), this was mere religious appearance. In their hearts they were following the standards of their false gods, and their hearts were in Egypt. In our wilderness journey we have to ask ourselves how relevant this is to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of the Testimony, that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be responsible for the Tabernacle of the Testimony-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Wrath would come upon all Israel if the Levites weren’t encamped around the tabernacle. In this we see the power of human behaviour- we can really affect others. The wellbeing of others is dependent upon our efforts. If we don’t do our part for them, we cannot assume that God will raise up someone else. There really can be Divine wrath on others because of our lack of attention to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX implies the Levites were to guard the tabernacle with literal weapons, hence the command in :51 to kill any Gentile who attempted to come and touch it: "But let the Levites encamp round about the tabernacle of witness fronting it, and so there shall be no sin among the children of Israel; and the Levites themselves shall keep the guard of the tabernacle of witness". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus the children of Israel did. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so they did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But as discussed on :52, this was mere surface level conformity. Their hearts were in Egypt and with their gods. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Encamping around standards and by their tribes was different to how they had filed out of Egypt as one long stream of humanity (<em><a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a></em>). After our exodus from the world through our Red Sea baptism, we find our place within the larger family of God. Their sense of which tribe they belonged to had probably been eroded in the 430 years they spent in Egypt; now even the isolated and lonely were given family groups to belong to (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>; see on <em><a href='B:40 1:18'>Num 1:18</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel shall encamp every man by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers’ families: at a distance from the Tent of Meeting shall they encamp around it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The standards of the tribes were a pole with a symbol upon it. Israel marched through the wilderness towards the promised land, as we walk through the wilderness of life towards the Kingdom, carrying and walking behind poles- foreshadowing the cross or stake of Christ, which we are asked to daily pick up and walk behind. <em><a href='B:290 11:10-12'>Isa 11:10-12</a></em> speaks of the cross of Christ as a standard lifted up, to which the believing Gentiles come and camp around- as if they take their place in the Israel of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who encamp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, according to their divisions, and the prince of the children of Judah shall be Nahshon the son of Amminadab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Three tribes camped on each of the four sides, around the tabernacle. This place of meeting with God was to be central to the community. It is the things of Christ and our relationship with God which should be at the core of the Christian community; we’re not held together by geography, personal friendship or shared denominational history. We are to be Christ centered. The language of the numbering of Israel according to how many fighting men there were in each tribe, and the ideas of encamping and breaking up, all suggest that Israel were God’s army on earth. According to Jewish tradition, Judah carried a lion emblem on their standard, Reuben a man, Joseph an ox, and Dan an eagle. In this case, the cherubim vision of Ezekiel 1 would allude to Israel, as if to say that above them there hovered an Angelic army organized the same way, and the armies of God’s people on earth were a reflection of them. The tent of meeting in the midst of the troops of Israel would’ve been understood in military terms as the tent or pavilion of a general in the centre of an army. But there was nobody within that pavilion- just the presence of God over the sprinkled blood. We aren’t just sitting around waiting for Christ’s return; we are God’s army in this world, with a very present although invisible Heavenly commander in our midst. But His invisibility led Israel many times to ask ‘Is the Lord among us?’, and we face the same doubt in our weak moments. But this is the essence of faith. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of them, were seventy-four thousand six hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Reuben was numbered first as the firstborn (<em><a href='B:40 1:20'>Num 1:20</a></em>), Judah had first place in the positioning. For Reuben had been demoted by Jacob and replaced by Judah. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Issachar, and the prince of the children of Issachar shall be Nethanel the son of Zuar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the inheritances for the location of the tribal cantons were drawn by lot, it is clear the hand of God was in it. For the inheritances were appropriate to the people given them. Issachar's lot for possession of the land was next to Judah and Zebulun (<em><a href='B:60 19:17'>Jos 19:17</a></em>), with whom Issachar had lived and journeyed side by side during the wilderness years (<em><a href='B:40 2:5'>Num 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:15'>Num 10:15</a></em>). This opens up the question as to whether we should also draw lots in this age. For God worked through them clearly enough in Joshua's time.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of it, were fifty-four thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The children of Leah camped together, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. The meaning of their names is prophetic: Praise (the Son), he will reward with an inheritance.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tribe of Zebulun, and the prince of the children of Zebulun shall be Eliab the son of Helon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names feature the 'El' suffix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of it, were fifty-seven thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zebulun increased by a minimal amount over the course of the wilderness journey (see on <em><a href='B:40 1:27'>Num 1:27</a></em>). As discussed on <em><a href='B:40 1:29'>Num 1:29</a></em>, this is rather like the person who receives the talent of God’s truth and keeps it but doesn't develop it much. We get this same impression of Zebulun in <em><a href='B:140 30:18'>2Ch 30:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who were numbered of the camp of Judah were one hundred eighty-six thousand four hundred, according to their divisions. They shall set out first- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Divisions" is a military term. All Israel were to be part of God’s army, even though they would not necessarily have to fight. Their health or strength didn’t factor in this- He counted all of them as His troops.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their divisions. The prince of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are evident similarities between Ezekiel's cherubim, the encampment in the wilderness and the four living creatures of Revelation 4. They are both described as "full of eyes" (<em><a href='B:330 1:18'>Eze 1:18</a></em> = <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:6'>Rev 4:6</a></em>), with four very similar faces (lion, calf, man, eagle in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:7'>Rev 4:7</a></em> = lion, ox, man, eagle in <em><a href='B:330 1:10'>Eze 1:10</a></em>); and both have wings (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:8'>Rev 4:8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:330 1:8'>Eze 1:8</a></em>). Yet the living creatures of Revelation speak of being redeemed by the blood of Christ and made king-priests in God’s Kingdom (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:8-10'>Rev 5:8-10</a></em>)- as if they are the redeemed people of God. The four faces are likely to be connected with the four standards of the tribes of Israel (Lion = Judah, Man = Reuben, Ox = Ephraim, Eagle = Dan). Each of those tribes had two other tribes assigned to them in the encampment procedures of Numbers 2. There is extra-Biblical tradition that the cherubim in Solomon's temple had the same four faces which Ezekiel saw on the cherubim- lion, ox, man and eagle. Those to whom Ezekiel related his vision would have immediately understood the point- that the earthly sanctuary was a reflection of the Heavenly, and that above that was a huge Angelic system operating, which also represented God’s people- them. But that huge system was to remove to Babylon, and then the final visions of Ezekiel show that glory returning. Ezekiel, as the representative "son of man" as he's so often styled, was caught up within that system and transported at ease between Babylon and Jerusalem- and those who wanted to opt in with God and His Angels could likewise be taken to Babylon and returned. Those who chose to remain in Babylon were therefore resisting being part of an awesome system of God manifestation and Angelic operation. We have that same choice in things great and small today. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Kohathites camped on the south side of the tabernacle, which is where Reuben, Simeon and Gad camped (<em><a href='B:40 2:10'>Num 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:29'>Num 3:29</a></em>). The proximity of the Kohathites and Reubenites would explain why some of the family of Kohath joined with some of the Reubenites during Korah's rebellion (<em><a href='B:40 16:1'>Num 16:1</a></em>). Quite simply, we are influenced by those we mix with.</p>&nbsp;


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon. The prince of the children of Simeon shall be Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God’s peace" son of "The Almighty is my rock" could reflect a faithful family, especially considering that Israel were idolaters in Egypt, and carried the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>) and also the tabernacle of Moloch as well as that of Yahweh, the star of Remphan as well as the standards of their tribes (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of them, were fifty-nine thousand three hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Simeon's 59,300 fell to 22,200 by the end of the wilderness wanderings, according to the second census in Numbers 26. This suggests a huge apostasy amongst the Simeonites, resulting in such a dramatic fall. Not all the failures and punishments of Israel are recorded in the record. The plague of Numbers 25 killed 24,000 people for committing fornication with the Moabites (<em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>); but the ringleader of that had been Zimri, a Simeonite prince (<em><a href='B:40 25:14'>Num 25:14</a></em>). It’s likely therefore that he led his tribe into the orgy with the Moabites, which resulted in so many of them being killed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tribe of Gad, and the prince of the children of Gad shall be Eliasaph the son of Reuel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuel of <em><a href='B:40 1:14'>Num 1:14</a></em> is better Reuel as in <em><a href='B:40 2:14'>Num 2:14</a></em>. The Hebrew letters for 'D' and 'R' are easily confused; so here we have an example of slight copying errors in the original texts. But these in no way negate the overall Divine inspiration of the texts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of them, were forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A "fifty" may not be a literal number, but a technical term for a group; see on :11. We recall groups of soldiers called a "fifty" being sent to capture Elijah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who were numbered of the camp of Reuben were one hundred fifty-one thousand four hundred fifty, according to their armies. They shall set out second-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Set out" is literally 'to pull up the tent pins'. This could mean that they were to keep the tents up until the whole preceding division had moved out.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the Tent of Meeting shall set out, with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps. As they encamp, so shall they march out, every man in his place, by their standards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our attitude and position at rest or leisure is to be our attitude when on the move for Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their divisions, and the prince of the children of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 89:12'>Psa 89:12</a></em> shows how God reckons the points of the compass with reference to Jerusalem: "The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice". Likewise "the sea" is often used to show that the west is intended, the Mediterranean being to the west of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:40 2:18'>Num 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:5-6'>Jos 16:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 42:19'>Eze 42:19</a></em>). "The east" is put for Persia, Media and the lands east of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:330 25:4'>Eze 25:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a></em>); "the south" for Egypt, south of Canaan (<em><a href='B:300 13:19'>Jer 13:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 11:5'>Dan 11:5</a></em>), or for the Negev, the hill country south of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:10 12:9'>Gen 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:1'>Gen 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:46-47'>Eze 20:46-47</a></em>); "the north" is put for Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 1:13-15'>Jer 1:13-15</a></em> etc.). God is believer centric in His view of things on planet earth.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Next to him shall be the tribe of Manasseh, and the prince of the children of Manasseh shall be Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gamaliel" is 'God is my reward', named in hope that the promised reward of the Kingdom would indeed be given. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tribe of Benjamin, and the prince of the children of Benjamin shall be Abidan the son of Gideoni- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:22,29) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who were numbered of the camp of Ephraim were one hundred eight thousand one hundred, according to their divisions. They shall set out third-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All who were numbered" could suggest, as the Rabbis like to think, that they were each personally numbered by Moses. This personal connection between Moses and each Israelite therefore looked ahead to the personal relationship between the Lord Jesus and each of His people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan according to their divisions, and the prince of the children of Dan shall be Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ammishaddai" means 'People of the Almighty', using the term <em>shaddai</em> which is often associated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He may well have been one of the faithful few who kept perceiving the vital separation of God’s people from Egypt, whereas the majority in their hearts returned to Egypt and wished to assimilate with them in order to escape persecution and have what they imagined was a good life.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Asher, and the prince of the children of Asher shall be Pagiel the son of Ochran- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pagiel ('accident of God') was son of Ochran, 'muddler'. As discussed on :29, people had multiple names and were known by the 'name' they carved for themselves in life, and the attitudes they had. God makes no accidents; so maybe in depression and bitterness this man felt like this, and was known for it. Hardly a great example to the tribe he was supposed to be leading. And indeed Asher all but disappears from Israel. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tribe of Naphtali, and the prince of the children of Naphtali shall be Ahira the son of Enan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names.&nbsp;The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:22,29) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His division, and those who were numbered of them, were fifty-three thousand four hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Naphtali's 53,400 fell to 45,400 by the end of the wilderness journeys, a decrease by a ratio of 0:85; very similar to how Gad's 45,650 fell to 40,500, a decrease by a ratio of 0:88. See on :28.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who were numbered of the camp of Dan were one hundred fifty-seven thousand six hundred. They shall set out last by their standards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet Israel carried the star of their god Remphan with them through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>) as they carried the tabernacle of Moloch and the idols of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>). The star of Remphan would have been similar to the standards of their tribes. Their loyalties were divided from the start. Their standards reflected the cherubim of Divine manifestation, and yet whilst externally they pitched their tents in conformity to that (see on Num. 1:54; :34), this was mere religious appearance. In their hearts they were following the standards of their false gods, and their hearts were in Egypt. In our wilderness journey we have to ask ourselves how relevant this is to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers’ families. All who were numbered of the camps according to their armies were six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The size of Israel’s encampment would’ve been huge- maybe twenty square kilometers, like a moveable city, with streets and lanes. The continual commands to move on, to follow the leading of the Angel in the pillar of fire and cloud, would’ve likely been received without enthusiasm because the breaking of camp would’ve been a long and tedious process. Yet as with us, God works things so that His people are always on the move. God looked down upon their orderly encampment and thought His people were beautiful (<em><a href='B:40 24:5-6'>Num 24:5-6</a></em>). Perhaps Paul alludes to their order when he says that the body of Christ should likewise be characterized by orderliness when they are beheld by others (<em><a href='B:580 2:5'>Col 2:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A census was taken of the Levites in Numbers 26 at the end of the wilderness journey. So this verse here means that they were not to take a census of the Levites at that time only. Or it could be that God revised His intentions about the Levites and later did command a census; for His purpose is to some extent open ended and He is not ashamed to change in accordance with human responses to Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> says that "Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and all who were numbered of you". This excluded the Levites, as they were not numbered. 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. 1:47). There would have been a bond between those younger people and the Levites. 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>Thus the children of Israel did. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so they encamped by their standards, and so they marched out, everyone by their families, according to their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet Israel carried the star of their god Remphan with them through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>) as they carried the tabernacle of Moloch and the idols of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>). The star of Remphan would have been similar to the standards of their tribes. Their loyalties were divided from the start. So as discussed on :31, this was mere surface level conformity. Their hearts were in Egypt and with their gods. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now this is the history of the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that Yahweh spoke with Moses in Mount Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No genealogy of Moses is given here; "the generations of" seems to mean 'the history of'. Or perhaps Moses as the author, with typical humility, didn’t record the account of his own family. He didn’t want to set up any dynasty of leadership, for his humility was such that he recognized that he had been raised up as a leader, and such Divine callings are to individuals and not to dynasties. The phrase is effectively a Hebraism for 'an account of the life' of someone, e.g. Noah (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>). Yet the Hebrew for "generations" means just that. We expect to now encounter a list of children, grandchildren etc. Instead we read a summary of Aaron and Moses' actions, or in <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em> we read of the character of Noah. His children, his offspring, his memorial in this earth, was not his children, but rather his character. This is comfort for the childless. Our characters are our generation. This is what shall remain beyond the grave; for our spirit, the personality we develop, abides with God after our death and shall live eternally as 'us' at the Lord's return to earth. So often, individual character development becomes subsumed beneath the pressures of childrearing. But our ultimate "generation" is us, our personality and character.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests who were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest’s office- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord died that He might "consecrate" or "sanctify" us to God. This is the word used by the LXX to describe the consecration of the priests to service of the body of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 28:41'>Exo 28:41</a></em>). If we reject the call to priesthood today, we reject the point of the Lord's saving suffering for us.&nbsp; The Septuagint word used for ‘anointing’ here occurs in the New Testament in <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em>, where we read that we have each been anointed. The idea of anointing was to signal the initiation of someone. I'd therefore be inclined to see <em><a href='B:690 2:20'>1Jn 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em> as alluding to baptism; when we become in Christ, in the anointed, then as <em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em> says, we too are anointed in a sense. We're given a specific mission and purpose. "The anointing that you received" would therefore refer to our commissioning at baptism. It seems to imply a one time act of being anointed / commissioned / inaugurated for service. Baptism isn't therefore merely an initiation into a community; it's a specific commissioning for active service, in ways which are unique to us. We do well to bring this point out to those we prepare for baptism. The words for 'anointing' are unique to 1 John but they occur in the LXX to describe the anointing / initiation of the priests, and of the tabernacle / dwelling place of God (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 29:7'>Exo 29:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:14'>Exo 35:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:28'>Exo 35:28</a></em>). John sees us as the dwelling place / tabernacle of the Father, and specifically as the priests.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nadab and Abihu died before Yahweh, when they offered strange fire before Yahweh in the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Strange or "gentile" fire was fire other than that fire which was perpetually burning on the altar. 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>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest’s office in the presence of Aaron their father-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That is, no children who ministered as priests. Ultimately, from the perspective of the Kingdom, if our children don’t serve God it will be as if we have no children. Hence the need in this life to train them up to be God’s servants. <em><a href='B:130 24:2'>1Ch 24:2</a></em> alludes here: "But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office". Despite having gone up Sinai and witnessing the theophany of <em><a href='B:20 24:9'>Exo 24:9</a></em>, their desire to 'play God' for personal power had been stronger than their awe at God’s presence and majesty. Visible acts of God are often desired by His servants, but they do not of themselves inculcate spirituality. The language here clearly alludes to <em><a href='B:40 3:4'>Num 3:4</a></em>: "Nadab and Abihu died before Yahweh... and they had no children". But "Before Yahweh" is replaced with "before their father". Aaron was the manifestation of Yahweh and is thus spoken of as Him, just as the Lord Jesus can be spoken of likewise. The other references to their death repeatedly speak of it as being 'before Yahweh'. Why does Chronicles alone imply that Aaron was present with them when they made the offering? Perhaps it is to highlight the weakness of Aaron and indeed of the whole priesthood; for these genealogies were likely prepared whilst Judah were in captivity and the priesthood no longer functioned because of their sins. "And had no children" may not be intended literally. The genealogy is speaking of the Levites who did Divine service, and the idea is that their children did not serve God. And so we see His perspective on family life over the generations of history- if our children don't enter into His service, it's as if we had no children.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The appointment of Aaron's sons as priests meant that Moses’ sons were Levites and not priests, and were given to serve Aaron’s sons. Yet Moses time and again is revealed as the undoubted leader of the people, and more spiritually mature and committed than Aaron. Verse 38 could imply that Moses even camped separately to his children. There were no special privileges for the children of the leader, and Moses’ humility would have been exercised by seeing his sons serve Aaron’s sons. If all we want to see is God’s work go forward, we will likewise not become resentful of such things as they work out in church life today.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew term "bring near" is that translated "offer". The idea is that the Levites were to be living sacrifices to Yahweh. This idea is applied to all in Christ in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>. The New Testament presents all in Christ as the equivalent of the Levites, a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). None of us can therefore pass off spiritual responsibility to someone else; for we are all priests. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall keep his requirements, and the requirements of the whole congregation before the Tent of Meeting, to do the service of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of <em><a href='B:40 3:7'>Num 3:7</a></em> may be that <em>they,</em> the Levites, shall keep the commandments which the congregation were required to keep. In this sense the Levites carried the sin of the people (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>); according to <em><a href='B:40 1:53'>Num 1:53</a></em>, the Levites must be obedient "that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the children of Israel". God typically operates on a basis of representative atonement; the Lord Jesus died as our representative rather than our substitute. Moses' offer to be a substitute for Israel, offering His eternal salvation for theirs, was not accepted. But such was the weakness of Israel, and His desire to save His people, that God at some times and in some ways does effectively accept a substitutionary salvation, where the obedience of X saves disobedient Y. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall keep all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, and the obligations of the children of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see that the Levites were to keep "the obligations" of the other Israelites; see on :7. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons. They are wholly given to him on the behalf of the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>. "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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their ministry. The stranger who comes near shall be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "keep their ministry" from the Septuagint version is quoted by Paul about our service of the ecclesia / church today (<em><a href='B:520 12:7'>Rom 12:7</a></em>). Whatever day job or career we have in this world, our real work is our ministry to God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em> alludes to the Levites in saying that all in Him are "those whom You have given me; for they are Yours". The disciples were given to the Lord out of the Jewish world, as the Levites were. As the Levites were God’s (<em><a href='B:40 3:12-13'>Num 3:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:45'>Num 3:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:14'>Num 8:14</a></em>), so are the believers. The Levites represent us (<em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>); the relationship between Moses and the Levites represents that between the Lord and us. Moses' thankfulness that they remained faithful during the golden calf crisis, that sense of being able to rely on them, will be reflected in the Lord's feelings toward the faithful.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn who open the womb among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be mine-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priests weren't part-timers. They gave their lives to God in recognition of the fact that God had saved the lives of the firstborn at the Passover and Red Sea deliverance (<em><a href='B:40 3:12'>Num 3:12</a></em>). Our deliverance from the world at baptism was our Red Sea. We have been saved. Those firstborns represent us, the ecclesia of firstborns (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> Gk.). We are now being led towards that glorious Kingdom, when by rights we ought to be lying dead in that dark Egyptian night. The wonder of it all demands that like the Levites, we give our lives <em>back </em>to God, in service towards His children. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I made holy to me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and animal. They shall be mine. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those who had been spared from death by the blood of the lamb on Passover night weren’t just free to do as they wished with their saved lives, but were to be devoted to God. We are those who have likewise been spared from eternal death by Christ’s blood, and we are therefore not to see ourselves as having merely escaped eternal death but must go further to perceive ourselves as thereby dedicated to God’s service. Hence the Christian community is called “the church of the firstborn” (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>)- we are all as it were the firstborn who were saved by grace on Passover night, because we are in Christ, the firstborn (<em><a href='B:580 1:18'>Col 1:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is significant; the purpose with Levi was not revealed whilst Moses was in the mountain, but after he had returned and some Levites had resisted the apostasy of the golden calf. We marvel at the way the Divinely inspired record consistently consistent. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Count the children of Levi by their fathers’ families, by their families. You shall count every male from a month old and upward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be read as a command to Moses to personally number all the people of his own tribe, Levi. This looks ahead to the similar personal relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses numbered them according to the word of Yahweh, as he was commanded- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses is constantly emphasized. It looked ahead to the total obedience of the Lord Jesus to the Father's word.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These were the sons of Levi by their names: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn (he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn). This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families: Libni and Shimei- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that both Moses and Aaron had sons called Gershon (<em><a href='B:20 2:22'>Exo 2:22</a></em>). Such repetition of names within families and in the same generation was quite common, and is one thing which makes the study of the genealogies difficult in places. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Kohath by their families: Amram, and Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the lack of emphasis upon the children of Moses and Miriam, the great wilderness leaders of Israel. There was to be no cult of personality nor nepotism, no riding on the name of a forefather in order to be a leader of God’s people. Spiritual leadership in the Bible was intended to be based upon spiritual qualification.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Merari by their families: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively.&nbsp; This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Gershon was the family of the Libnites, and the family of the Shimeites: these are the families of the Gershonites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For :21-39 see on <em><a href='B:40 1:1'>Num 1:1</a></em>. We have a choice between understanding the Hebrew <em>elep</em> as meaning a literal number, or a "thousand" in the sense of a family group. In this case, the number following the word "thousand" would refer to the number of males amongst that number of families. This makes a more realistic number of Levites (see on :39,43). Although it means that as discussed on :22, the total number of Israelites who left Egypt was not as huge as often imagined.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Thus the numbers would work out like this:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gershon 7,500, or 7 families with 500 males, making 71 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kohath 8,600 or 8 families with 600 males, making 75 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Merari 6,200 or 6 families with 200 males, making 33 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would make a total of 22,300 if we take "thousand" literally; or a total of 21 families (7+8+6) and 1300 males, making a total of 48 males per family group. See on <em><a href='B:40 4:36'>Num 4:36</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, even those who were numbered of them were seven thousand five hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could mean 'seven families, with 500 men'. The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Numbers 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of Numbers 1 gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Numbers 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Numbers 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. This would then make better sense of <em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em> GNB: "I will drive them out little by little, until there are enough of you to take possession of the land". This indeed sounds as if Israel were the smallest of the nations, and not a huge nation comprising several million people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The families of the Gershonites shall encamp behind the tabernacle westward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word for "west" in Hebrew is the same for "sea", often used with reference to the Mediterranean. We see how the whole structure of God’s language was based around Israel. He was and is believer centric, His focus in this world is upon His people- into whom there is an open invitation to enter. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The prince of the fathers’ house of the Gershonites shall be Eliasaph the son of Lael- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names feature the 'El' suffix or prefix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The duty of the sons of Gershon in the Tent of Meeting shall be the tabernacle, and the tent, its covering, and the screen for the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was no small task. It has been estimated that there were 14 tons 266 lbs. (about 14000 kg. or 14 tonnes) of metal used in the tabernacle, besides the huge weight of the skins, hangings, cords, boards, and posts. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the hangings of the court, and the screen for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and around the altar, and its cords for all of its service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :25. The Gershonites took care of the cords of the Tabernacle; the Merarites did so for the cords of the court (:37). <em><a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a></em> speaks of "hangings for the court of fine twined linen one hundred cubits long for one side". The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. It perhaps appropriately designated the boundary between the believer and the world, represented by the linen fence which marked the enclosure of the tabernacle. 100 cubits is 58 yards or 53 meters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Kohath was the family of the Amramites, and the family of the Izharites, and the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites: these are the families of the Kohathites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that there was only one of these names which has 'God' in it. I discuss on :43 how Levi was perhaps the spiritually weakest of the tribes at this point- and yet were the ones chosen by God to be His special servants.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, there were eight thousand six hundred, keeping the requirements of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some original manuscripts read 8,300. This could solve the apparent discrepancies in the numbers later on. The difference between the Hebrew letters for 8,300 and 8,600 is miniscule. Although the word of God itself is inspired and infallible, this isn’t to say that there aren’t minor errors of copyists as the manuscripts were passed on over the generations.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The families of the sons of Kohath shall encamp on the south side of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Kohathites camped on the south side of the tabernacle, which is where Reuben, Simeon and Gad camped (<em><a href='B:40 2:10'>Num 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:29'>Num 3:29</a></em>). The proximity of the Kohathites and Reubenites would explain why some of the family of Kohath joined with some of the Reubenites during Korah's rebellion (<em><a href='B:40 16:1'>Num 16:1</a></em>). Quite simply, we are influenced by those we mix with.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The prince of the fathers’ house of the families of the Kohathites shall be Elizaphan the son of Uzziel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elizaphan means 'God of treasures', perhaps with reference to the Divine treasures of :31 they looked after. This is an example of where names were given to people in reflection of their life experience, rather than being their birth names. 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their duty shall be the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the vessels of the sanctuary with which they minister, and the screen, and all its service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note in this list the progression outward from the ark in the most holy, to the table of shewbread, lampstand and incense altar in the holy place, to the altar of burnt offering in the court. Man first had to bow his head to enter the court, referring to humility. Then there was accepting the principle of sacrifice at the altar, followed by baptism in the laver- and then entry to the holy place, where there was the incense altar (prayer-&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), the table of shewbread (the breaking of bread) and candlestick (church life), shining light towards the entrance to the most holy place where God dwelt between the cherubim. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall be prince of the princes of the Levites, with the oversight of those who keep the requirements of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eleazar was to replace Aaron as priest, and in this sense looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. "The requirements" is better translated "watch" in the military sense of sentry duty. The Levites were to literally guard the tabernacle, against any "Who advances to touch it" (<em><a href='B:40 1:51'>Num 1:51</a></em> LXX), as if touching it in a conscious and defiant way. Hence the command for some Levites to be as sentries guarding the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:40 3:32'>Num 3:32</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Merari was the family of the Mahlites, and the family of the Mushites. These are the families of Merari- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Mahli" and "Mushi" mean 'sickly' and 'sensitive' respectively. This confirms the suggestion I have often made, that names were given in response to later character and life experience. Sometimes in these genealogies we read the birth names, at others, the names they were given later in life. And therefore the same person can have more than one name. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were six thousand two hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Those who were numbered of them" could imply that not all were numbered. We are given the number of those who allowed themselves to be numbered. This might explain why the tribe of Levi is apparently so numerically small- not all the various families wished to be numbered for priestly service. Which would be another indication that the tribe chosen for special service was very spiritually weak. But that is God’s style.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The prince of the fathers’ house of the families of Merari was Zuriel the son of Abihail. They shall encamp on the north side of the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note how many of the names feature the 'El' or 'Il' suffix or prefix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The appointed duty of the sons of Merari shall be the tabernacle’s boards, its bars, its pillars, its sockets, all its instruments, all its service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nearly all the features of the tabernacle suggest parts of the body. The girl in Solomon's song portrays her lover as having "legs as pillars (s.w. "pillars" here) set upon sockets (s.w. "sockets" here, meaning "bases") of gold" (<em><a href='B:260 5:15'>Son 5:15</a></em>). The pillars therefore correspond to legs, and the bases / "sockets" to feet. It was as if the tabernacle was surrounded by men's legs and feet, holding hands with each other. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the pillars of the court around it, their sockets, their pins, and their cords- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gershonites took care of the cords of the Tabernacle; the Merarites did so for the cords of the court (:37). The "pins" were the tent pegs, made of brass and heavy (<em><a href='B:20 27:19'>Exo 27:19</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who encamp before the tabernacle eastward, in front of the Tent of Meeting toward the sunrise, shall be Moses and Aaron and his sons, keeping the requirements of the sanctuary for the duty of the children of Israel. The stranger who comes near shall be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :6. Moses speaks of himself in the third person. Thus we see his selfless and humble approach to the business of relaying God’s inspired word. He makes no mention of his own sons, only of Aaron's sons. Humanly speaking, it must have been hard for him to see his own sons ignored, when by all accounts Moses was spiritually stronger than Aaron. This was all part of the Divine process which made Moses the humblest man on earth at the time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of Yahweh, by their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty-two thousand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David’s time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The number of the names" is the phrase used in <em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em> of the very early church. The idea was that the fledgling Christian church was now the new Israel of God, who were to go out and do spiritual warfare in conquering the world for Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take the Levites for Me (I am Yahweh) instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel; and the livestock of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number of cattle was not counted, unlike the numbers of firstborn compared to the number of Levites; rather 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. 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>Moses numbered, as Yahweh commanded him, all the firstborn among the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be read as a command to Moses to personally number all the firstborn. This looks ahead to the similar personal relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the firstborn males according to the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those who were numbered of them, were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are various possibilities here. Because the combined number of the male Levites was only 22,000 (:39), although the actual total of the figures in <em><a href='B:40 3:22'>Num 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:28'>Num 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:34'>Num 3:34</a></em> is 22,300. There were apparently not enough Levites to cover all the Israelite firstborn. I go along with the standard Rabbinic suggestion that the difference between the figure of 22,000 in :39 and the sum of 22,300 in :22,28,34 is because there were 300 Levites who were firstborn. This, however, requires us to understand "thousand" as referring to a family, followed by the number of males. Thus "twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three" would mean 22 families and 273 males. I have argued on :22 that the number of Israelites who left Egypt was probably far smaller than usually imagined, because the term for "thousand" usually means 'family' or 'group'. If there were only 300 Levite firstborn amongst 22,300 Levites, this means only one in 74 were firstborns. That is unrealistic- unless in fact most of their firstborn were slain at Passover for disobedience. If however we understand the figure as 21 families and 1300 makes, we get a figure of 1 firstborn to every 4:3, which is far more realistic. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. this would mean that given a total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>), there should have been around 400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did all Israel eat the Passover?&nbsp;Were many in fact slain. My suggestion- and this is well in the category of things you will never know for sure and can only ponder- is that many Hebrew firstborns died on Passover night. Israel were warned that if they did not properly keep the Passover, “the Destroyer” Angel would kill their firstborn (<em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>). “The Destroyer” is mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>: “Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer” (<em>olothreutes; </em>this is a proper noun in the Greek). Who was the Destroyer? If Scripture interprets Scripture, it was the ‘Destroyer’ Angel of Passover night. In similar vein <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> speaks of “He (the Angel) that destroyed (Gk. <em>olothreuo</em>) the firstborn”.&nbsp;Israel were side-tracked from what should have been the central object of their attention: the blood of the lamb. They were disobedient from the day God knew them, i.e. Passover night (<em><a href='B:50 9:24'>Deu 9:24</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Levi was by far the smallest tribe- the numbers of the males over 20 in the other tribes (as recorded in Numbers 1) is far larger than the number of males of the tribe of Levi. God uses as His special workers those who are weakest in human terms. It could be argued that Levi grew less in number than the other tribes because of some spiritual weakness- for at this time, Divine blessing was reckoned in terms of number of offspring. So perhaps spiritually as well as numerically they were the weakest, yet were chosen by God for His special work. God seems to love to work in this way.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However as noted elsewhere, "thousand" is not to be read as a literal number but as referring to a family grouping. If there were 22,273 male firstborns, then we can assume that the number of families in which the first-born child was a female would be about the same, making a total of&nbsp; 44,546 families. If there were literally 600,000 fighting men (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:21'>Num 11:21</a></em>) then the total population would have been in the millions, requiring an average of about 50 children to a family. It is far better to understand "thousand" as a term for a group and not a number.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites encamped around the tabernacle can be compared to the number of Angels encamped around Israel in their cherubim chariots as being 'in the twenty thousands', AV&nbsp; "twenty thousand, even thousands of Angels" (<em><a href='B:230 68:17-18'>Psa 68:17-18</a></em>). Both the priests and the Angels are called <em>elohim</em>. The idea of Angels encamped around the tabernacle led to the connection of the cherubim faces with the encamped tribes of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inadequacy of the Levites to totally redeem all the firstborn is now addressed. And it looked ahead to how the priesthood could redeem but not totally redeem Israel. Just as Moses could see into the promised land, but not enter it. It all reflects the ultimate inadequacy of the Mosaic system, requiring the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock; and the Levites shall be Mine. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were God’s (<em><a href='B:40 3:12-13'>Num 3:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:45'>Num 3:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:14'>Num 8:14</a></em>), and the Lord alludes to this: "I pray not for the (Jewish) world, but for them (the disciples, cp. the Levites) which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (<em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>). The Levites represent us (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>); the relationship between Moses and the Levites represents that between Christ and us. Moses' thankfulness that they remained faithful during the golden calf crisis, that sense of being able to rely on them, will be reflected in the Lord's feelings toward the faithful.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, who exceed the number of the Levites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>273 is the numerical value of "Abram", and this group represent all the redeemed- those who could not be redeemed by the Levitical system, but are redeemed in Christ. And they are Abraham's seed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>you shall take five shekels for each one; after the shekel of the sanctuary you shall take them (the shekel is twenty gerahs)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>273 firstborns needed redemption at five shekels / head, requiring a total payment of 1365 shekels or 5,460 pieces of silver. Five shekels was 20 pieces of silver, the price of a slave, paid for Joseph. These who could not be redeemed by the Levites represent all of us, saved by the work of the Lord Jesus and not the Levitical priesthood. We wonder at the similarity with the 276 people in the boat saved by Paul, who was accompanied by Luke and Aristarchus (<em><a href='B:510 27:37'>Act 27:37</a></em>). This meant that there were 273 unbelievers redeemed in that ship, and that whole incident was representative of Christ's salvation of His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall give the money, with which their remainder is redeemed, to Aaron and to his sons-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obvious thought was that the blood of the Passover lamb had effectively redeemed them. But for that to be ultimately effective, there was to be a sense of giving to God in response to that. Whether through the substitution of the Levites or giving the redemption money, there had to be response to the work of that blood. Just as there must be response from us to the blood of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the redemption money from those who exceeded the number of those who were redeemed by the Levites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see that the "redemption" by the Levitical system was incomplete. It was a case of "almost but not quite", and as with many aspects of the Mosaic system, it pointed forward to the ultimate inadequacy of that system in relation to ultimate redemption. The redemption of the Lord Jesus was required. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from the firstborn of the children of Israel he took the money, one thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were various other definitions of a shekel, but as ever, it is by God’s standards and not secular standards that we must take our reference point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and to his sons, according to the word of Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses is constantly emphasized. It looked ahead to the total obedience of the Lord Jesus to the Father's word.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kohath wasn’t the firstborn nor the senior born amongst the three sons listed here, but the Kohathites are numbered first and had the greatest responsibility. Again we see how God prefers to work not with the humanly best, strongest or most senior.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 4:2'>Num 4:2</a></em><em> Take a census of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, by their families, by their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"From among" is literally 'from the midst', and Kohath was the middle son out of Gershom, Kohath and Merari. He is perhaps listed first here because his family carried the ark.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all who enter into the service, to do the work in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David numbered the Levites from 30 years old (<em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>), in accordance with the law which said Levites were to serve between the ages of 30 and 50 (<em><a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:23'>Num 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:35'>Num 4:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:39'>Num 4:39</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a></em> we are told that David numbered the Levites from 20 years old. We note in <em><a href='B:40 8:23'>Num 8:23</a></em> that there appeared some flexibility within the Mosaic law; the Levites could be numbered from 25 years old. This is one of many examples of how the Mosaic law was not set in stone. It was principle and spirit rather than letter of the law, and within it there are examples of where one law overrode another, or one principle overrode letter of the law. The law was not designed as a simple test of obedience, for it was far more detailed than that. It was designed to inculcate a spirit of living which looked forward to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And so David felt free to number the Levites from 20 years old, even though we also read that he numbered 'the Levites from 30 years old', suggesting that this was a technical term rather than a literal description. This would go toward explaining why 38,000 Levites were numbered by David, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the service of the sons of Kohath in the Tent of Meeting, in the most holy things- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Enter into the service” in Hebrew has a military connotation. Whatever our occupation in this world, we are to see ourselves as soldiers fighting for the only truly good and worthy cause on earth. There should therefore be in our lives an element of discipline, regimentation and focus on specific objectives. The New Testament is full of military metaphors (e.g. <em><a href='B:620 2:4'>2Ti 2:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the camp moves forward, Aaron shall go in, and his sons, and they shall take down the veil of the screen, and cover the ark of the Testimony with it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The taking down of the tabernacle is turned by Paul and Peter into a metaphor for our death (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:14'>2Pe 1:14</a></em>). The implication is that all the valuable things within the tabernacle through which God was manifest can on one level be interpreted as our lives. In this metaphor alone we see the immense value and meaning of human life if it is lived in God’s service.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and shall put a covering of sealskin on it, and shall spread over it a cloth all of blue, and shall put in its poles- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual mention of rings and poles is because all the tabernacle had to be portable, as Israel were constantly on the move. This is proof enough that much of the "law of Moses" was only relevant to the wilderness generation. God’s desire to be continually on the move, dwelling in a tent, was still evident at the time when Israel settled in the land. For He told David that He didn’t want a temple because He was dynamic, always moving on. But the way of religion is to have a permanent, stable closed system, rather than the dynamic way of the Spirit and true spirituality. "Rings" in Hebrew is literally 'that which sinks in', and refers to a signet ring. If a literal ring was solely in view, a different word would have been used. It was as if this mobile, ever moving onwards style of the tabernacle was the signature or hallmark of God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the table of show bread they shall spread a blue cloth, and put on it the dishes, the spoons, the bowls, and the cups with which to pour out; and the continual bread shall be on it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The bread and wine which we take are antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the priests eating the bread is continued in the breaking of bread. For we are all priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall spread on them a scarlet cloth, and cover the same with a covering of sealskin, and shall put in its poles-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sealskins were presumably taken by the Israelites from the shores of the Red Sea? Whatever we pick up along the wilderness journey of life we are to give to God’s service.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall take a blue cloth, and cover the lampstand of the light, and its lamps, and its snuffers, and its snuff dishes, and all its oil vessels, with which they minister to it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 25:38'>Exo 25:38</a></em> says that "Its snuffers and its snuff dishes shall be of pure gold". Gold wasn’t the strongest or most practical material for these instruments. But it represents faith (<em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>). We aren’t the best instruments for God to use in His house, but He prefers to use the soft and those who aren’t humanly qualified for His work- because He works by faith in us, and by our faith in Him rather than our human strength</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall put it and all its vessels within a covering of sealskin, and shall put it on the frame- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They would have gathered these sealskins from the shores of the Red Sea and taken them with them. The lesson is that what we pick up along life's way we are to dedicate to the Lord's service. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the golden altar they shall spread a blue cloth, and cover it with a covering of sealskin, and shall put in its poles- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pole" is s.w. "strength". There is again a juxtaposition of ideas- the weak acacia wood (<em><a href='B:20 27:6'>Exo 27:6</a></em>), which is no more than a thorn bush, was to be turned into God’s strength through being overlaid with precious metal. "Acacia" is literally "thorns". It is translated "thorns" in <em><a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a></em>. It refers to the common thorn bushes found in the scrubland they were passing through in the desert. Thorns were part of the curse in Eden. But from this weak material which was very difficult to work with, brittle, fragile and very weak, God covered this weak, difficult wood with gold and constructed a system with it where His glory might dwell. It all speaks of how He uses us. And we connect this with how God speaks of His people are wood from a vine tree, which is not used by anyone else for making anything; but He uses it for His work (<em><a href='B:330 15:1-6'>Eze 15:1-6</a></em>). We shouldn't be surprised at the brittle nature of the folk with whom God works, their difficulty in binding together and resistance to being worked with- this is as it were all God has to work with. It was a surprising choice of material to be used in God’s dwelling place. But His choice of <em>us</em> with all our weakness and dysfunction, the common, weak stuff of the wilderness, is no less surprising. The choice of acacia wood for constructing the tabernacle is one of several points in the whole enterprise where it seems a less than ideal material was chosen, from a construction point of view. This aspect emphasizes that God prefers to work with the soft, weak and easily broken in order to do His work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall take all the vessels of ministry, with which they minister in the sanctuary, and put them in a blue cloth, and cover them with a covering of sealskin, and shall put them on the frame- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Frame" is better "pole". These things were all to be carried by poles on the shoulders. When David brought the ark to Zion, he paid no attention to this repeated emphasIsa. The man who claimed to study God’s word and law all the day... missed an obvious emphasis, and considered that his 'keeping the spirit of the law' enabled him to disobey God’s basic principles. And there is clear warning for us in all ages.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall take away the ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth on it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Purple cloth was a sign of royalty, and these cloths were likely given to the Israelites by the leaders of Egypt when they left Egypt. And so there is a juxtaposition of ideas between the glory of secular royalty, and the usage of it to cover the ashes of Yahweh's altar. The world's greatest honours are as nothing to God and are here used for the lowest work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall put on it all its vessels, with which they minister for it, the fire pans, the flesh hooks, the shovels, and the basins; all the vessels of the altar; and they shall spread on it a covering of sealskin, and put in its poles- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jewish tradition has it that the fire which came down from Heaven in <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> remained burning; and this fire was preserved burning all night and day. Hence the need for "fire pans" (<em><a href='B:20 27:3'>Exo 27:3</a></em>) to keep the fire burning whilst the altar was being cleaned or the remains of sacrifices removed from it. But the fact these fire pans were packed away and transported raises some difficulties for this idea. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary, and all the furniture of the sanctuary, as the camp moves forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to carry it: but they shall not touch the sanctuary, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:100 6:8'>2Sa 6:8</a></em>, God slew Uzzah because he touched the ark when David brought it back to Jerusalem on a cart. Yet the Law clearly stated that the ark was to be carried only by the Levites, and was to be carried on poles rather than on a cart. Throughout Psalms 119, David declares how he loves God’s law and studies and recites it by day and night. That surely included this passage in Numbers 4. But we have a tendency to read God’s word, to know it well, speaking of it to others- and yet somehow assume that it doesn’t apply to us personally, and we can take shortcuts as convenient to us. If righteous David did this, how much more should we be aware of our temptation to fail in the same way.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were very specific laws about the transportation of the ark, which David disobeyed in <em><a href='B:100 6:2-5'>2Sa 6:2-5</a></em>. It was to be carried on poles on the shoulders of not just Levites but specifically the sons of Kohath (<em><a href='B:40 4:15'>Num 4:15</a></em>); and Abinadab's family were not the right people to carry it. David claims in Psalms 119 to have studied God’s law all the day whilst on the run from Saul, reciting it to himself. Perhaps he forgot these details in Numbers 4. But I suggest because he came to see that God wanted the spirit and not letter of the law to be followed, he came to totally place himself above Divine law. We face the same temptation. And it was this which led David into his sin with Bathsheba. Shaving off bits and pieces of God’s laws and principles, on the basis that we are above His law, leads to the final catastrophe of David’s sin with Bathsheba. Instead of following God’s laws about the transportation of the ark, it seems David instead followed the pattern of the Philistines, who also transported the captured ark on a cart (s.w. <em><a href='B:90 6:10-11'>1Sa 6:10-11</a></em>). And considered that having built a new cart, never used before, he was in his own way showing respect to it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The duty of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall be the oil for the light, the sweet incense, the continual grain offering, and the anointing oil, the requirements of all the tabernacle, and of all that is in it, the sanctuary, and its furnishings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no suggestion that this was to be the duty of every High Priest. Eleazar is mentioned as he was to replace Aaron. So much of the Mosaic law was only for the generation who were to march through the wilderness to the promised land, where God had in view another worship system. All claims that any law of God is eternally binding must be considered in this context. It is simply not the case.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The family of Kohath were to bear the ark, and so they had greater responsibility and greater risk of destruction for inappropriate behaviour. If we love God, we will not shy away from intimacy with Him. But it is also true that knowledge brings responsibility to act the more appropriately.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t cut off the clan of the families of the Kohathites from among the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>By Moses’ inattention, a whole group of people could have died. Our sensitivity, or lack of it, to others’ likely failings can lead to their losing their part amongst the family of the redeemed. We can’t reason that human failure is simply their fault; we also bear some responsibility if we don’t do what we can to mitigate against it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but thus do to them, that they may live, and not die, when they approach to the most holy things: Aaron and his sons shall go in, and appoint them each one to his service and to his burden-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Not touching holy things connects with the command not to touch the forbidden fruit of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:3'>Gen 3:3</a></em>). Time and again, Adam’s sin is presented (by way of such allusions) as the sin of everyman; elements of it are to be found in all human sin, and therefore we can never blame Adam as the source of our present discomfort under the curse; for we would have done the same. In this sense, all humanity sinned as it were in Adam (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> Gk.). It’s no bad exercise to analyze our own sins in the light of Adam’s failure and see wherein are the essential similarities.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but they shall not go in to see the sanctuary even for a moment, lest they die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This law was applied even to Gentiles who looked into the ark (<em><a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a></em>). God still feels sin as a committed offence against Him personally, even when it’s performed by those not responsible to His law. It must be hard being God, seeing and feeling so much offence against Him every moment. In this we see not only His sensitivity to sin, but His grace in allowing the whole of human society to exist in its disobedient, sinful state, minute by minute. And thereby we can appreciate more fully the way that He delays judging this world and ending sin, all because He is so earnest that we and others might come to repentance and salvation (<em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The census of Israel required that a half shekel of redemption money be offered to Him. We wonder whether this census of the Levites required the same; for we have just read in <em><a href='B:40 3:49-51'>Num 3:49-51</a></em> of how they had been given the redemption money for the 273 firstborns they had failed to substitute for. They were being tested as to whether they would give it back to God. Just as we are by any receipt of wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take a census of the sons of Gershon also, by their fathers’ families, by their families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gershon was the firstborn but he was not given any particular honour for that, and Kohath had the honour of bearing the ark and is mentioned first in this list. This is typical of how God often doesn't choose the firstborn, those with secular advantage, but delights to work otherwise. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>you shall count them from thirty years old and upward until fifty years old; all who enter in to wait on the service, to do the work in the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact the Lord Jesus began His service at age 30 therefore presents Him as the ideal priest; although He was not of Levi but from Judah, His ministry was effectively a priestly service.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the service of the families of the Gershonites, in serving and in bearing burdens- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Bearing burdens is the language of the lowest servant, although Gershon was the firstborn; see on :22. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>they shall carry the curtains of the tabernacle, and the Tent of Meeting, its covering, and the covering of sealskin that is above it, and the screen for the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These are the coverings of <em><a href='B:20 26:14'>Exo 26:14</a></em>: "You shall make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering of sea cow hides above". They were dyed red to represent how the blood of Christ is the covering for God’s people. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the hangings of the court, and the screen for the door of the gate of the court, which is by the tabernacle and around the altar, and their cords, and all the instruments of their service, and whatever shall be done with them. In this will be their service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These are the "hangings" of <em><a href='B:20 27:9'>Exo 27:9</a></em>: "You shall make the court of the tabernacle: for the south side southward there shall be hangings for the court of fine twined linen one hundred cubits long for one side". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "fine twined linen" was given to them on leaving Egypt, as it was characteristic of Egypt ("fine twined linen from Egypt" <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>). It was apparently only in Egypt at that time that such fine linen was "made from yarn of which each thread was composed of many delicate strands". We see that the best wealth we take from Egypt / the world is to be devoted to the Lord's work. It perhaps appropriately designated the boundary between the believer and the world, represented by the linen fence which marked the enclosure of the tabernacle. 100 cubits is 58 yards or 53 meters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the commandment of Aaron and his sons shall be all the service of the sons of the Gershonites, in all their burden, and in all their service; and you shall appoint their duty to them in all their responsibilities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), we too have specific service intended for us. <em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em> alludes to this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God beforehand prepared that we should walk in them". Man is never better than when working at what is clearly his calling and empowered by God in doing so. We need to pray that God will reveal to us what are those specific works which He has prepared for us to do- and make them the thrust of our lives. For it's unlikely that His intention and hope was that we should get qualified, climb the career ladder, improve our homes, go up the ladder of cars, holiday homes and expensive gadgets... and die in a comfortable nursing home leaving what was left over to our kids or someone else as a kind of short cut towards that same sad life we thought we did so well in. Entry into Christ, therefore, is a beginning and not an end. Nor is it merely an assent to the correctness of a set of theological truths. Rather is it an opening of ourselves to His workmanship upon us, and working for Him. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the service of the families of the sons of the Gershonites in the Tent of Meeting: and their duty shall be under the hand of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were under the command of the priests. Eleazar was to succeed Aaron as High Priest, and so he was placed over the Kohathites as they carried the ark; Ithamar, his younger brother, commanded the Gershonites and Merarites (<em><a href='B:40 4:33'>Num 4:33</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for the sons of Merari, you shall number them by their families, by their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is likely that a sense of genealogy had been somewhat lost during the time spent in Egypt. There was huge emphasis on genealogies at Sinai, because God is a family God and wanted the people to be arranged by families. God set even the solitary in families at this time (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>)- those without any family were assigned to one. This looks ahead to God’s desire that His people should not be solitary individuals but organized ideally in spiritual family groups, what we would call churches. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>you shall count them from thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who enters on the service, to do the work of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The service" translates a word usually used for a military group. The idea was that they were to do God’s work as soldiers grouped for battle, disciplined and with respect for authority and specific ends in view. As the new priesthood, we should have a similar disciplined approach. Not just drifting into church life and remaining in it as spectators at a show, as mere religion, but specifically aware that we are called to personal engagement, participation and action. See on :31.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the duty of their burden, according to all their service in the Tent of Meeting: the tabernacle’s boards, its bars, its pillars, its sockets-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :30, "duty" is likewise a military term, something similar to 'sentry duty'. These are the boards of <em><a href='B:20 26:16'>Exo 26:16</a></em>: "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and one and a half cubits the breadth of each board". As discussed on :11, acacia bushes don't grow so long nor straight. These boards would have been very difficult to construct, and would have involved much joining together of pieces of wood which were difficult to work with. It was an appropriate symbol for the kind of human material which goes to make up God’s dwelling place. For God dwells in the community of His people, and not within wood and stone. The materials of the tabernacle therefore represent us His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the pillars of the court around it, and their sockets, and their pins, and their cords, with all their instruments, and with all their service: and by name you shall appoint the instruments of the duty of their burden-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "Each man will be responsible for carrying specific items". Again we have the sense that each Levite had specific responsibilities, looking ahead to how we in the new priesthood have specific callings unique to each of us. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the service of the families of the sons of Merari, according to all their service, in the Tent of Meeting, under the hand of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The service... their service" continues the theme of each group and individual having a specific service or ministry intended for them. See on :27,32. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron and the princes of the congregation numbered the sons of the Kohathites by their families, and by their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is repeatedly specific priority and emphasis given to the Kohathites, although Kohath was not the firstborn. They were chosen to carry the ark, and we see God’s repeated theme of not choosing the firstborn or those with secular advantage for His most significant work. And that is His abiding style to this day. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who entered into the service, for work in the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The grammar of the original doesn't have to mean that every make between 30 and 50 was in "the service". Rather those numbered were between those ages, who had entered into the service. This suggests an element of freewill agreement to serve- without which they were not numbered within Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of them by their families were two thousand seven hundred and fifty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Kohathites had 2,750 men able to serve, 5,850 unable or unwilling to serve, making a total of 8,600</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gershonites had 2,630 men able to serve, 4,870 unable or unwilling to serve, making a total of 7,500</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Merarites had 3,200 men able to serve, 3,000 unable or unwilling to serve, making a total of 6,200. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can conclude from this that there was a higher level of relative commitment amongst those of Merari. The Kohathites, given the highest honour of carrying the ark, were in fact the least committed. And yet God often gives a high calling to those apparently least spiritually qualified, to inspire them. We think of the entire choice of the tribe of Levi as the priestly tribe, the calling of Saul son of Kish and many others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the families of the Kohathites, all who served in the Tent of Meeting, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according to the commandment of Yahweh by Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 3:15'>Num 3:15</a></em> could be read as a command to Moses to personally number all the people of his own tribe, Levi. And he did so. His obedience is constantly stressed. This looks ahead to the similar personal relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of the sons of Gershon, by their families, and by their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn (he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn). This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who entered into the service, for work in the Tent of Meeting- </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>even those who were numbered of them, by their families, by their fathers’ families, were two thousand six hundred and thirty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have a choice between understanding the Hebrew <em>elep</em> as meaning a literal number, or a "thousand" in the sense of a family group. In this case, the number following the word "thousand" would refer to the number of males amongst that number of families. This makes a more realistic number of Levites (see on <em><a href='B:40 3:39'>Num 3:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>). Although it means that as discussed on <em><a href='B:40 3:22'>Num 3:22</a></em>, the total number of Israelites who left Egypt was not as huge as often imagined.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Thus the numbers would work out like this:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gershon 7,500, or 7 families with 500 males, making 71 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kohath 8,600 or 8 families with 600 males, making 75 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Merari 6,200 or 6 families with 200 males, making 33 males / family group.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would make a total of 22,300 if we take "thousand" literally; or a total of 21 families (7+8+6) and 1300 males, making a total of 48 males per family group. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the families of the sons of Gershon, all who served in the Tent of Meeting, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according to the commandment of Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :40 and <em><a href='B:40 3:22'>Num 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:39'>Num 3:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>, this numbering of families rather than individuals could suggest that the "thousands" we read of refer to families rather than literal numbers. This makes more sense, as otherwise thousands of men would each be involved in carrying something- although the structure may just about have given each of them something to carry, and they may have taken turns in carrying the poles when on the march. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of the families of the sons of Merari, by their families, by their fathers’ families-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Merarites had 3,200 men able to serve, 3,000 unable or unwilling to serve, making a total of 6,200. We can conclude from this that there was a higher level of relative commitment amongst those of Merari. See on :36.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who entered into the service, to do work in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelite males were to be counted as able to fight from 20 years old (<em><a href='B:40 1:3'>Num 1:3</a></em>). The higher age limit of 30 for priestly service therefore suggests that a greater maturity was required for their work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even those who were numbered of them by their families, were three thousand two hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Merarites had 3200 workers out of a total of 6200. Although they were the smallest of the three families, they had the most number of workers (Gershon had 2630 out of 7500; Kohath 2750 out of 8600). This may have been for various reasons, but it’s also a fact that the smaller the group, the higher percentage are willing to work. God doesn’t need great numbers to do His work. See on :36.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Out of 22,000 Levites, a total of 8580 were apparently between 20 and 50 years old and able or willing to serve. This is a reasonable proportion if we accept these numbers as literal. But the numbers are so rounded that one suspects that as often, the term "thousand" is used not as a number but as a reference to a group; and likewise a "hundred" and a "fifty". See on <em><a href='B:40 3:21'>Num 3:21</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the families of the sons of Merari, whom Moses and Aaron numbered according to the commandment of Yahweh by Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"These are those" could suggest that a written list was produced of all the names, although it is not included in the inspired record at this point. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All those who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and the princes of Israel numbered, by their families, and by their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Moses was personally commanded to number the Levites, seeing they were his own tribe, he may have used the princes of the other tribes of Israel to participate or be present, to provide a level of integrity to his counting. This wasn't commanded, but it was typical of his humility that he did thIsa. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who entered in to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David’s time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even those who were numbered of them, were eight thousand five hundred and eighty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :40 and <em><a href='B:40 3:22'>Num 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:39'>Num 3:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>, this numbering of families rather than individuals could suggest that the "thousands" we read of refer to a level of clan rather than literal numbers, and likewise "hundred".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the commandment of Yahweh they were numbered by Moses, everyone according to his service, and according to his burden. Thus were they numbered by him, as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each man having his own burden to bear is an idea picked up in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:550 6:5'>Gal 6:5</a></em>). We are each asked to carry the cross of Christ, and yet that cross is articulated in unique ways for each of us. Just as each Levite had some specific part of the tabernacle to carry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Numbers 5 contains three related pieces of legislation: 1) Removing lepers from the camp 2) Making reconciliation to your brother 3) The trial of jealousy. Chapter 4 is about the numbering of the Levites, and chapter 6 goes on to a new topic- the Nazarite vow. We are therefore to understand the three pieces of legislation in Numbers 5 as related to each other. The common theme they all have is that interpersonal issues must be addressed- the lepers who had been concealed in the camp were to be removed, brethren reconciled with, and unfaithfulness or jealousy issues faced up to and permanently resolved. Time never really heals but rather does it allow issues to fester until major spiritual and inter-personal breakdown occurs. That's one simple and very relevant lesson to take from this chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, and everyone who has an issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact the people responded by removing such persons from the camp (:3) suggests that those who concealed their skin diseases or the fact they had touched dead relatives had somehow been allowed to remain within the camp. The theme of the chapter is that such private issues must be faced and openly resolved.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those suffering with the "discharge" are parallel with 'lepers' in <em><a href='B:40 5:2'>Num 5:2</a></em> as needing to be put out of the camp. I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that "lepers" doesn't refer to those with Hansen's disease, but to those struck down by Divine judgment. Those with a "discharge", literally a 'flowing', were in the same category. In neither case is involuntary disease or human bodily situation a reason for moral uncleanness. Just as human nature of itself doesn't separate between God and man; for all we posit about human nature, we say about the undefiled Lord Jesus who fully had that same human nature.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Both male and female you shall put outside of the camp that they not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell- </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>The children of Israel did so, and put them out outside of the camp; as Yahweh spoke to Moses, so did the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s obedience was mainly when it came to disciplining others, giving materially and making things. But the Pentateuch emphasizes their disobedience when it came to personal morality, internal spirituality and worshipping God alone rather than any idols. We must analyze our own acts of obedience and see if they follow a similar pattern. To be externally religious isn’t difficult, indeed we can rather enjoy being like that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1 for the connection between the three pieces of legislation in this chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that people commit, so as to trespass against Yahweh, and that soul is guilty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The trespass was "against Yahweh"- but the sins in view were against other members of God' people; :7 makes it clear that it was individuals who had been trespassed against. Sin against each other is sin against God; how we treat each other is how we treat God. This sets the scene for the trial of jealousy section which follows. We would expect to read in :7 that reconciliation must be achieved with the offended person <em>and</em> an offering made to God. But assuming :7 refers to an offering to be made only if there was no living person to reconcile with, that is not stated here- because the impression we are left with is that sin against another is sin against God, and reconcilliation with man is in that sense reconcilliation with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then he shall confess his sin which he has done, and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add to it the fifth part of it, and give it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Both confession and restitution were required. These two elements are still required if we are to truly resolve broken relationships. Praise is related to the realization that sin has been forgiven. Hezekiah's praise on realizing God’s mercy to him was expressed in a desire to walk in quiet fellowship with God for the rest of his life. There is no suggestion that praise was some kind of ecstatic exuberance of emotion. The normal Hebrew word translated "praise" is also translated "confess" in the context of confessing sin (<em><a href='B:30 5:5'>Lev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:40'>Lev 26:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). Contrition of heart because of appreciating our own failures is therefore one way of praising Yahweh's Name. So often does the word "praise" occur in the context of praising the <em>Name</em> of Yahweh, or the praising of "the God of Israel", i.e. Yahweh. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of restitution for guilt could mean that once the sin had been dealt with, so had the guilt. There need be no abiding sense of guilt if we believe in forgiveness. David’s later Psalms have little indication of any such sense of abiding guilt concerning his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made to Yahweh shall be the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, by which atonement shall be made for him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"When a man or woman commits any sin... he shall confess... the man" (:6-8) is proof that the Bible often uses the masculine singular to mean ‘any person’, of either gender. As discussed on :7, it is important to note that atonement is intended to deal with guilt. Indeed, Divine forgiveness is really the only way to ultimately deal with guilt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every heave offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present to the priest, shall be his-</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>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every man’s holy things shall be his: whatever any man gives the priest, it shall be his’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The emphasis here upon how the priest represented God is to pave the way for the manifestation of God in the priest which we will read of in the next section about the trial of jealousy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were various possibilities for how a man should respond in this situation. He could have his wife stoned; divorce her; put her through this ‘trial of jealousy’; or simply forgive her. We too have a range of options open to us when wrong is done to us or when we suspect it has been. The very existence of these options encourages us to think through our responses, and surely inspires us to choose the way of grace over the way of personal revenge or justification.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1 for the connection between the three pieces of legislation in this chapter. See on :1 for the connection between the three pieces of legislation in this chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "And commit a trespass against him". The whole trial of jealousy tends to assume guilt, hence the water is described immediately as "bitter water" (:18), even though the water only <em>became</em> bitter if she was guilty (:24). There were various teachings in the Law of Moses about sexual immorality- the woman could have been killed (<em><a href='B:30 20:10'>Lev 20:10</a></em>), but the varying options were to encourage thoughtful response. It would be facile to think that there can only be one disciplinary response to sexual failure in the church today. We have options, and the process of choice is to exercise our grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and is kept close, and she is defiled, and there is no witness against her, and she isn’t taken in the act-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, and she is defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, and she isn’t defiled;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jealousy is not sinful of itself- God portrays Himself as a God jealous over us. It is a function of deep love. The Law of Moses upheld the position of women far more than contemporary legal codes. The man who falsely accused his wife would've been deeply shamed- see on :31. The innocent woman had the promise (or was it a command?) of :28 that she would conceive seed- the greatest honour for any Hebrew woman. As to why the woman had no power to accuse the man- that remains a difficult question, but I would suggest that in a society where polygamy was accepted and even seen as desirable by women (as it is in many parts of Africa today), the fact her husband slept with another woman was not necessarily seen as it is in Western society today. I have personally heard middle aged African women boasting of how many young women their husband gets to sleep with. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This provision for the trial of jealousy appears to have been a concession to human weakness, in this case, male weakness. For the New Testament outlaws envy (the Hebrew word translated “jealousy” here has this sense): <em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>; <em>Php_1:15</em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:3'>Tit 3:3</a></em>. It could be that <em><a href='B:660 4:5'>Jas 4:5</a></em> alludes to the spirit of male jealousy which this legislation sought to make a concession to (:14). The simple lesson for us can be that God does indeed make concessions to our human weakness; but we are to use them sparingly, and realize that their very existence is actually intended to inspire us <em>not</em> to make use of them but to serve God on the highest level we can.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal. He shall pour no oil on it, nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Oil and frankincense made the offering smell attractive and gave the flame a pleasant colour. But these were not to be added- because this was a jealousy offering. The hint was that this was not pleasing to God. He allowed, and still allows, men to act in their hot blooded jealousy regarding others' actual or perceived sins against them. But He is warning that this is not pleasing to Him; just as we can operate a policy of forgiving others only if they repent, but this is a lower level compared to forgiving without repentance, and operating such a policy puts us in an impossible position. The man who made use of Numbers 5 likewise put himself in a lose-lose position. We note here that there appears no historical example of the legislation ever being used in practice, perhaps exactly because of thIsa.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bringing iniquity to memory</em>- Time and again, these Hebrew words are used in appeals to God <em>not</em> to bring our sin to remembrance (<em><a href='B:230 79:8'>Psa 79:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:9'>Isa 64:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a></em>). And Paul surely alludes to the same idea in teaching that the way of love does not keep a record of wrong, it doesn't bring others' sin to remembrance (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>). By offering this sacrifice, the man was asking that God would remember her sin against her. And he had to bring the offering for her. No spiritually minded man would want God to remember sin against anyone. The whole structure of the legislation is geared against the man doing these things.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of being brought near and set before Yahweh is precisely that of the priests being anointed and consecrated (<em><a href='B:40 3:6'>Num 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:15'>Eze 44:15</a></em>). The idea may be to suggest her acceptability before God in His service if she were innocent. Being before Yahweh may mean that she as a woman was allowed to come right up to the door of the tabernacle- something a chauvinist ancient society would have struggled with. Again, everything in this legislation is really geared against the man treating the woman like thIsa.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The earthen vessel and dust are references to the creation of man and woman from the dust. Perhaps this was to serve as a gentle reminder to all involved that we are all but dust. Dust and water are all that a human being is- the woman was to have the curses for her sin removed not on the basis of the shedding of blood, for she had committed a sin requiring death- but the punishment for that sin could be obliterated on the basis of her humanity. We are being taught here to cut others some slack, even when they have sinned, and certainly when we merely suspect them of sin, on the basis that they (along with us) are merely dust and water, human.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A woman's hair was seen as her glory, and a covered head was associated with shame. It could be argued that the woman was being treated as innocent until proven guilty, and even invited to openly display her glory. The uncovering of the woman's head was a form of shaming (as in <em><a href='B:530 11:5-6'>1Co 11:5-6</a></em>). She had to be shamed whether or not she was guilty; and this led the man to a lose-lose scenario. If she was innocent, then he had needlessly shamed him, she would likely not love him in future, and he had to bear the sin of doing that (:31). If she were guilty, then he had to support a barren wife for the rest of her life, seeing the curses about killing or divorcing her were to be blotted out. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The allusion here in <em><a href='B:530 11:5-6'>1Co 11:5-6</a></em> is only one of several such allusions to Numbers 5 in 1 Corinthians 11. The idea there of drinking unto condemnation or blessing / justification simply has to be understood in the Numbers 5 context. And it is no accident that the language of a woman having an uncovered head also occurs. What's the connection and the bigger picture? I suggest that what was happening in Corinth was that members who had sinned were being publically shamed before the congregation by e.g. the sinful sisters being made to sit in the meeting with uncovered heads. In Middle Eastern societies today, forcing a woman to uncover her head is a source of shame. Paul is saying that paradoxically, such misbehaviour in the Corinth ecclesia was actually 'shaming' those demanding it; "I speak this to your shame" (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). The allusions to Numbers 5 would therefore be saying: 'You are publically shaming some sisters by making them remove their veils / head coverings in your meetings; and by the way in which you eat the Lord's supper, you are also purposefully shaming some (:22). Instead, <em>you</em> should be the ones in shame for your behaviour. By doing so, even if indeed those sisters have sinned, you are acting like the husband who uses the Numbers 5 legislation. Instead, whenever you drink the cup, examine <em>yourselves</em> and not others, and remember that you are the one who is being tested by the Lord's cup- either to your condemnation or justification'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, If no man has lain with you, and if you haven’t gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Many primitive societies have some such ritual. In Islam in such a case, the suspected woman must vow that if she is guilty, then she will die and lose her children, preferably going to Mecca to make the vow. In some African societies, a woman must jump into water etc. The existence of the law of jealousy was therefore a concession to human weakness and psychological need.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The man is described as having lain with the woman, rather than the woman laying with the man. Even though a woman is spoken of as taking sexual initiative in 'laying down with' a partner in <em><a href='B:30 20:16'>Lev 20:16</a></em>. So again we get the impression that the legislation somehow pities the woman, describing her as having gone astray and implying her sexual partner had taken the initiative. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God prefers not to condemn people, but to allow them to condemn themselves in their own words. For sin is its own condemnation. His passion rather is to save.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Yahweh allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This phrase is notoriously difficult to interpret. The swelling of the belly could mean that even though she had avoided getting pregnant by her adultery, her body would swell in an imitation pregnancy- but she would not have a child. The NEB seems to get it right in rendering it 'have a miscarriage'. This would appear to be the meaning of the idiom. If the woman was visibly pregnant and her husband wondered how the child could be his, then he would naturally feel jealous. The immorality in view had been hidden from him (:13), so the only reason he would have to doubt her was when she was noticeably pregnant. Most women who are say 4 months pregnant (i.e. visible) carry their pregnancy to term, so the loss of the child would've been seen as the direct curse of God. Women in those days were surely stronger than today, therefore the termination of a pregnancy after four months from natural causes would've been most unusual and seen as God’s hand. This of course provides yet another of many windows onto the vexed question of abortion. It was not that the dusty water itself made her lose the child- the loss of the child was from God’s hand. And yet it was her husband who was responsible for the decision, because there were a variety of ways prescribed in the Law for dealing with sexual failure. He didn’t have to put her through the trial of jealousy- indeed, Hosea did not when Gomer bore Lo-Ammi ('not my people'). He forgave her, rather than using the Numbers 5 legislation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away. The woman shall say, Amen, Amen-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Thigh", "bowels" and "body" appear to refer to her reproductive organs; barrenness was to be the judgment for her sin. Perhaps we can infer from this that she had slept with another partner in order to get pregnant, as perhaps her husband was apparently infertile or impotent. So her motive may not have been simply sexual lust. Therefore the judgment was bareness- appropriate to the nature of her sin, seeing she had slept with the other partner specifically in order to get pregnant. The jealous husband would have to be married for the rest of his life to this barren woman, which was seen as a terrible situation to be in; it would be better, therefore, not to make her barren, and not to go down the path of this trial of jealousy. But rather to simply forgive her.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses were that if a woman committed adultery, she could be killed or divorced. But if the jealous husband made use of this legislation, then those curses were removed. If she was guilty, he could not kill or divorce her. She would be barren, but he would have to support her for the rest of her life. And their relationship would not be up to much because of the public humiliation. And if she was innocent, then he had alienated her by shaming her, and (:31 implies) he would have to bear his iniquity for the rest of his life. So to apply the Numbers 5 legislation was a lose-lose scenario. The idea was that the only sensible way out was to curb the hot blood of jealousy, and forgive, whether the sin was real or imagined. This is a powerful lesson to us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The water <em>became</em> bitter only if the woman was guilty (:24). The curses of condemnation were written by the priest (an interesting incidental reference to the literacy of at least some in early Israel)- but removed by the bitter water. The implication could be that condemnation is removed by condemnation; we must face our sins and be condemned for them in this life if we are to be saved from condemnation. If we would condemn ourselves in this life, we shall not be condemned at the last day. The serpent on the pole was a symbol of sin, and yet it was this which leads to our salvation from condemnation. The whole trial of jealousy is often alluded to by God in His jealousy over unfaithful Israel; He promises to "blot out" their sin after they have experienced condemnation (<em><a href='B:290 43:25'>Isa 43:25</a></em>). The <em>curses</em> written in the <em>book</em> were to be given to Israel because God was <em>jealous</em> (<em><a href='B:50 29:20'>Deu 29:20</a></em>); this is another allusion to these laws, showing that God is the ultimately jealous husband of Israel. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The water at that stage was only water, it "<em>became</em> bitter" to her if she was guilty. There is surely some connection with our drinking the Lord's cup. To drink a cup of wine from the Lord is elsewhere used as a metaphor of condemnation. This is the great paradox of the breaking of bread meeting- by accepting the cup of condemnation, it becomes the cup of blessing to us. The Corinthians were told that they would “provoke the Lord to jealousy" by breaking bread and yet also worshipping idols (<em><a href='B:530 10:22'>1Co 10:22</a></em>). This is surely an allusion to the “trial of jealousy". A curse was recited and then the believer drunk a cup; if they were unfaithful, they drunk to their condemnation. Paul’s allusion suggests that each day we break bread and drink the cup, we as the bride of Christ are going through the trial of jealousy. Brutal honesty and self-examination, and not merely of our lives in the last few days, is therefore crucial before drinking the cup. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the grain offering before Yahweh, and bring it to the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "wave", see on :9. "Out of..." can as well be translated "above". The idea seems to be that the priest placed his hands upon her hands as they swung the offering before Yahweh. It all sounds like a kind of peace offering. Perhaps the idea was that the woman was to be at peace with God whatever happened- either through being declared innocent, or through repentance. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen. If she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away; and the woman will be a curse among her people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is all the language of infertility. See on :22. If the woman became widely known as a curse, this was really bringing the name of her husband into dishonour. Again, it seems all is geared against the man subjecting his wife to this process- if he didn’t forgive her, he stood to lose so much himself.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the woman isn’t defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A prophecy or a command? If a command, then this would require her husband to resume relationship with her after his outbreak of baseless jealousy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goes astray, and is defiled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Corinthians were told that they would “provoke the Lord to jealousy" by breaking bread and yet also worshipping idols (<em><a href='B:530 10:22'>1Co 10:22</a></em>). This is surely an allusion to the “trial of jealousy". A curse was recited and then the believer drunk a cup; if they were unfaithful, they drunk to their condemnation. Paul’s allusion suggests that each day we break bread and drink the cup, we as the bride of Christ are going through the trial of jealousy. Brutal honesty and self-examination, and not merely of our lives in the last few days, is therefore crucial before drinking the cup.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or when the spirit of jealousy comes on a man, and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before Yahweh, and the priest shall execute on her all this law-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word translated "zeal" in the context of God’s zeal for us (<em><a href='B:290 9:7'>Isa 9:7</a></em>) really means the jealousy which flares up in a man for a woman (the same word is in <em><a href='B:40 5:14-15'>Num 5:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 6:34'>Pro 6:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a></em> etc.). That jealousy burning like fire (<em><a href='B:230 79:5'>Psa 79:5</a></em>) is His passion for us His people. He is a jealous God in His zeal for us; and therefore any other relationships with the things of this world cannot be contemplated by us. That zeal of God will be poured out upon us at the second coming, resulting in a consummation with Him as the wife of His covenant (<em><a href='B:290 42:13-14'>Isa 42:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:1'>Isa 64:1</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man shall be free from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What was the man's iniquity? The implication is that if the woman was innocent, then the husband was guilty of sin. But what sin? I can only conclude: 'The sin of slandering someone on the basis of jealousy'. The hint is that until she were proven guilty, then he was guilty of this sin of slander. Only her being proven guilty released him from that guilt. So often, slander is on the basis of jealousy. The legislation ends at this point; there is no demand for a sacrifice from him. If he was genuinely repentant, he could of course offer a freewill offering and seek to obey the spirit of the earlier legislation in this chapter about personal offence against another (:6-8). The silence of the record about this perhaps implies that if a person does create slander against another on the basis of jealousy, then they have to go away and live with that, and there is no specifically prescribed, enforced ritual of atonement for it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Any Israelite could vow him or herself to special service to God; we too shouldn’t see our service to God in terms of doing the minimum. Realizing the wonder of His grace and the certainty of our eternal life in His Kingdom, we should be moved to special devotions. In this vow, the ordinary Israelite willingly submitted to some of the regulations specific to the priests on duty. The growing of long hair could be seen as an imitation of the High Priest’s mitre. They were not to see the priesthood as something reserved just for specialists, those born into it; nor were they to see the High Priest as so distant from themselves that he could never be imitated, in spirit at least. We likewise can take to ourselves some aspects of the personal work of the Lord Jesus; for all that is true of Him becomes true of us who are baptized into Him. As He was the light of the world, so are we to be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them: ‘When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to Yahweh,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 6:23'>Deu 6:23</a></em>. The vow of Naziriteship was voluntary, and yet <em><a href='B:370 2:11'>Amo 2:11</a></em> says that God raised up young men to be Nazirites. Here we see the profound interplay between human freewill and Divine intervention, setting up possibilities for our freewill response which are effectively a calling to specific acts of freewill obedience. And the most well known Nazirites, Samuel (<em><a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a></em>) and Samson (Judges 13) were chosen to be Nazirites before their birth.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A woman could also be a Nazirite. For a woman to shave her head was otherwise understood as an act of shame (cp. <em><a href='B:40 5:18'>Num 5:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:6'>1Co 11:6</a></em>). But making this freewill commitment involved them doing something which in the eyes of society was shameful and foolish. The essence of that is seen to this day- to give your savings to another is seen as foolish, to fellowship with the despised and rejected is seen as shameful. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of fermented drink, neither shall he drink any juice of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the requirement for priests on duty (<em><a href='B:30 10:9'>Lev 10:9</a></em>). Through Naziriteship, the ordinary Israelite, including women, could act as the priests. And further, the long hair recalled the High Priestly mitre- the invitation was to act in the spirit of the High Priest, just as we are asked to replicate the essence of the saving, mediatorial work of Jesus in our lives and service. The word for the "crown" of the High Priest is from the same root, <em>nzr</em>, as the word 'Nazirite'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Nazarite was separated <em>from</em> wine, because he was separated <em>unto</em> the Lord (<em><a href='B:40 6:2-3'>Num 6:2-3</a></em>). The meaning of ‘holiness’ is both to be separated <em>from</em> and separated <em>unto</em>. Separation isn’t only something negative; it’s more essentially something positive. We are separated <em>from</em> this world because we are separated <em>unto</em> the things of God’s Kingdom; the separation <em>from </em>is a natural, unpretended outcome of our involvement in the things of God’s Kingdom. It’s not part of a cross which the believer must reluctantly, sacrificially bare.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine, from the seeds even to the skins-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :3. The grapes had no alcohol content. The same is true of the seeds or skins. But here is the classic fence around the law, forbidding something which is not wrong of itself in order to prevent developing even the mental association with the sinful / forbidden, or the suggestion of it. And here we see a bridge across the centuries to our age- in seeking to avoid temptation or disobedience, we are to carefully avoid those things which may suggest the temptation to us. What we watch or read therefore becomes no innocent choice for any of us. The same fence around the law is seen in the command to Samson's mother not to drink wine because her son was to be a Nazirite and bound by the same law. The behaviour of the mother in pregnancy was therefore seen as a possible influence upon the behaviour of the as yet unborn child (<em><a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To view these regulations are irritating fences around a law is however somewhat negative, true enough as it Isa. Making vows was part of most of the surrounding religions, many of which involved extreme asceticism, with those making the vows seeking to outdo each other with the extremity of their self-denial. It has never been God’s intention that serving Him should mutate into religious extremism and fanatic asceticism. The regulations upon the Nazirite could therefore be seen as a wise limitation upon the human tendency towards religious extremism. In comparing with other religious vows of the time, they nearly all involved abstinence from sex and time spent daily in religious devotions and rituals. It's significant that the Nazirite vow contrasts sharply with this- for there is a notable absence of any such regulations or demands. God intended that the spirit of special devotion to Him should be lived out within the course of normal, daily human life- rather than some special hived-off existence with a focus upon ritual and externalities.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come on his head, until the days are fulfilled, in which he separates himself to Yahweh. He shall be holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word for 'Nazirite' can mean 'crowned' and the long hair on the crown of his head was to be seen as a connection with the mitre / crown of the High Priest. This ability to rise up to the spirit of the High Priest himself looks ahead to our ambition to be as the Lord Jesus in this world- devoted to bringing about the salvation of others. The height of the calling is far beyond mere religion, whereby we are mere spectators at a show. We are to have the spirit of Christ, to be as Him to this world. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "cherishing the long hair of the head". Samson ultimately cherished or valued his relationship with Delilah above the hair of his Nazirite vow. The Hebrew can imply 'growing wild'. Hair styling was important for ancient people; the idea was that what looks unattractive to man is often what is attractive to God, and the sign we are dedicated to Him. And that is an abiding principle. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days that he separates himself to Yahweh he shall not go near a dead body-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Nazirite was not only to not touch a corpse, but not to go near one, because they were acting like priests (<em><a href='B:30 21:10-22'>Lev 21:10-22</a></em>); likewise they were not only to not drink wine, but to not drink grape juice nor eat seeds or skins of grapes, from which wine is made. This is the classic ‘hedge around the law’- forbidding something not because it is unlawful of itself but because the associations may lead to breaking an actual law. We in Christ are freed from all legalism and casuistry; and yet in our daily struggle against temptation, it’s no bad idea to remove far from us those things, subliminal associations, images etc. which may stimulate temptation and the power of sin. However we note that Samson touched dead bodies and yet his Nazirite vow was apparently not thereby broken. Constantly we see that the spirit of the law overrode the letter of it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Nazirites is again under the same legislation as the High Priest (<em><a href='B:30 21:11'>Lev 21:11</a></em>), to whom he was aspiring. We too are asked to aspire to the Lord Jesus; the veil was torn down so that we might enter in to the most holy, just as the High Priest did. And we do so as he did, for the sake of seeking the salvation of others. The usual form of mourning involved embracing the corpse of the deceased. Hence this would make the person unclean. The Lord seems to allude to this in <em><a href='B:470 10:37'>Mat 10:37</a></em>. Devotion to Him must come before family relationships. It's as if He saw the spirit of the Nazirite vow as characterizing all who would believe in Him. We are all to go forward and serve God on our own initiative. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God doesn’t advertise His concessions to human weakness (and neither should we). He leads men to attempt life on the highest level. And so <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> speaks as if a man <em>couldn’t</em> make himself unclean and end his vow, whereas in fact there was legislation which allowed him to take this lower level. But the Father doesn’t want us to be minimalists, serving Him at the lowest level; quite to the contrary.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because his separation to God is on his head- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A woman could also be a Nazirite. So she was to wear her hair in such a way that indicated she was allowing her hair to grow long. This was a sign she was consecrated to the Lord; and Paul seems to reapply this to Christians in <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>, assuming that all God’s people were effectively Nazirites. The Christian woman in Corinth was to have long hair as a sign she was under devotion to her husband, who represented the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the days of his separation he is holy to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul was called to be a preacher of the Gospel, and yet he speaks of his work as a preacher as if it were a Nazarite vow- which was a totally voluntary commitment. Consider not only the reference to him shaving his head because of his vow (<em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:24'>Act 21:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 6:9-18'>Num 6:9-18</a></em>), but also the many descriptions of his preaching work in terms of Naziriteship: Separated unto the Gospel’s work (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>); “I am not yet consecrated / perfected” (<em>Php_3:12</em>)- he’d not yet finished his ‘course’, i.e. his preaching commission. He speaks of it here as if it were a Nazarite vow not yet ended. Note the reference to Paul’s ‘consecration’ in <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>. His undertaking not to drink wine lest he offend others (<em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>) is framed in the very words of <em><a href='B:40 6:3'>Num 6:3</a></em> LXX about the Nazarite. Likewise his being ‘joined unto the Lord’ (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>) is the language of <em><a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a></em> about the Nazarite being separated unto the Lord. The reference to having power / authority on the head (<em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>) is definitely some reference back to the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> about the Nazarite. What are we to make of all this? The point is perhaps that commitment to active missionary work is indeed a voluntary matter, as was the Nazarite vow. And that even although Paul was called to this, yet he responded to it by voluntarily binding himself to ‘get the job done’. And the same is in essence true for us today in our various callings in the Lord’s service.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles the head of his separation, then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing. On the seventh day he shall shave it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And if any one should die suddenly by him, immediately the head of his vow shall be defiled; and he shall shave his head in whatever day he shall be purified: on the seventh day he shall be shaved". The idea seems to be that he sinned in connection with the death of the person, "the things wherein he sinned respecting the dead body" (:11 LXX). I suggest the idea is that he touched a dead body in ignorance. The 'sin' was like the sin of ignorance- he had promised a certain period of service, and he couldn't fulfil it. The idea is that sins of ignorance are still sins; and this is an abiding principle, which inspires us to ever seek to know the Lord's mind and will the more. Although in this case we note that he didn’t have to offer an animal for a sin offering but just birds (:10). We wonder however whether Samson's contact with dead bodies negated his Naziriteship; for he told Delilah that he had always been a Nazirite. It seems Samson thought that he was within the spirit of the law in this matter although he broke the letter of it. That was true, as it was with David acting as a priest... but unrestrained, that principle led both Samson and David into actual sin.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even within the bird offerings there was a gradation. Turtledoves were larger than pigeons and more valuable, but they are only in Israel at certain times of the year; whereas pigeons are in Israel all year round, were easier to catch and were therefore cheaper. The various possible levels within God’s law reflect our opportunities to serve on different levels, just as the good soil of the sower parable brings forth different amounts. Some will make more of God’s truth than others. The very existence of these levels, rather than a simple binary demand of obedience / disobedience, pass / fail, of itself inspires us to serve God as extensively as we can. For who can be a minimalist in response to His love. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall offer one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead, and shall make his head holy that same day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It hardly sounds sinful for a person who has made a special dedication to God to be made unclean by a person unexpectedly falling dead next to him or her. But in this legislation God is seeking to teach us how sensitive He is to uncleanness. This principle can carry over into our lives today; if we love to view, read and talk about unclean things, even if we don’t do them, then we are not respecting the distance which God seeks to set between the clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law of the Nazirite: when the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall be brought to the door of the Tent of Meeting,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws concerning breaking the Nazirite vow are detailed, and the sacrifices required were expensive with no legislation allowing a cheaper offering if the Nazirite was poor. The lesson can simply be that the fact we make what appears to be an 'extra' commitment to God’s service doesn't thereby free us from being obedient to His principles in other areas. Our commitments are all the same to be governed by His principles. The costly sacrifice required at the end of the Nazarite vow was perhaps to teach that the person wishing to take the vow must take this into account to begin with when considering making the vow- hence the teaching that a vow should not be made rashly (<em><a href='B:240 20:25'>Pro 20:25</a></em>). The sin offering (:14) suggests the principle of <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> was being taught here- "When you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants". There was to be no spiritual pride in commitment made apparently over and above God’s minimal requirements. The language of "have done all those things which are commanded" recalls the language of the priests and Moses doing all things which were commanded them under the old covenant (<em><a href='B:20 29:35'>Exo 29:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:36'>Lev 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:18'>Deu 1:18</a></em>). <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em> would therefore be hinting that even complete obedience to God’s law was not of itself enough to make a man profitable unto God, which was something Job likewise concluded (<em><a href='B:220 22:2'>Job 22:2</a></em>). And the legislation about concluding the Nazarite vow was teaching the same. Over Israel's extra-Biblical history, the Nazirite vow became abused into part of a bargain with God. Josephus records: "It is customary for those suffering from illness or other affliction to make a vow to abstain from wine and to shave their head during the thirty days preceding that on which they must offer their sacrifices" (<em>Wars</em> 2:15:1). And our mentality can be the same- we do freewill work or commitment to the Lord but with the unspoken understanding that if we do this, then He is somehow bound to help us in our need. But the spirit of the vow is of voluntary devotion to the Lord from a pure motive of gratitude. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall offer his offering to Yahweh, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings- </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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and their grain offering, and their drink offerings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These points are laboured, lest the Nazirite think that because he had made a freewill devotion to God, he was somehow free to make the offerings at the end of the period in a slapdash way. This is quite a theme of the Mosaic law, and is an abiding principle- that freewill 'extra' devotions to the Lord don't free us from observing His standards and requirements. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall present them before Yahweh, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The need for a sin offering at the end of his period of dedication was maybe to remind him that his extra special devotion didn’t take away his sin and need for grace; for relationship with God depends upon this rather than upon our works and special efforts. Again, we can take that principle to ourselves in our age. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh, with the basket of unleavened bread. The priest shall offer also its grain offering, and its drink offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Judaism allowed people to enable others to be Nazirites by bearing the expenses of these sacrifices. It could be argued that this was a departure from the letter of the law here. But Paul went along with it (<em><a href='B:510 21:23-26'>Act 21:23-26</a></em>) because it was in the spirit of the law.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Nazirite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings- </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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take the boiled shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them on the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaved the head of his separation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that the priest's hands were to be over the hands of the offerer when these things were waved or swung before Yahweh; see on :20. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before Yahweh. This is holy for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh that is offered. After that the Nazirite may drink wine- </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>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the law of the Nazirite who vows, and of his offering to Yahweh for his separation, besides that which he is able to put his hand on. According to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his separation’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication might be that a person was to do as undertaken in the Nazirite vow. Likewise we read of detailed consequences if a person vowed to Yahweh and then changed their mind. Commitment to Him was not to be entered into lightly, and never for the sake of mere appearance before men. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Within the Pentateuch, the idea of blessing creation paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too <em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:22-24'>Num 6:22-24</a></em>). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the things created by the gods then blessing <em>them</em>. The Sumerians recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue gave praise”. But the true God, the God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but then blesses <em>them</em>! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods” (S.G.F. Brandon), to relieve them in their everyday work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great freedom, and blessing him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is how you shall bless the children of Israel’. You shall tell them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Prayer is no simply specific words of request to God. When the priests in Hezekiah's time blessed the people, "their prayer came up to (God), even unto heaven" (<em><a href='B:140 30:27'>2Ch 30:27</a></em>). But the blessing of the people was not a prayer to God, but words spoken by the priests to the people: "(May) The Lord bless you, and keep you: the Lord make his face shine upon you..." (<em><a href='B:40 6:24-25'>Num 6:24-25</a></em>). Yet God saw these words of the priests as a prayer. It's rather like us saying 'God bless you' to a brother as we leave his house; God may read this as a prayer, and do something about it. But this isn't how <em>we</em> conceive of prayer. Consider too how the faithful speaking spiritually <em>to each other</em> was treated by God as a prayer to Him (<em><a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following blessing could be understood as a specific blessing upon the Nazirite, and yet it appears a standard blessing of all the people. This was because it was God’s intention that all the people should be as Nazirites to Him. And the allusions to the Nazirite vow in the New Testament likewise suggest all Christians are to live in the spirit of the Nazirite vow. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Yahweh bless you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Blessing is so often associated with forgiveness of sins, and 'keeping' often refers to being kept in the way to life. We see here the possibility of forgiveness for the sake of the prayer and blessing of a third party, in this case the priests who were blessing the people. There's another example in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>. It could be that the reference to blessing is a desire for the promised blessings to Abraham to come true, and they involved keeping Israel in the way to the Kingdom, and giving them grace. This is how those promises are often interpreted in the New Testament. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And keep you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); <em><a href='B:50 10:13'>Deu 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:32'>Deu 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:1'>Deu 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:18'>Deu 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:5'>Deu 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em> ("beware");&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 17:19'>Deu 17:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:9'>Deu 23:9</a></em> ("keep yourself"); <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:16-18'>Deu 26:16-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:1'>Deu 27:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:9'>Deu 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:13'>Deu 28:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:10'>Deu 30:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:12'>Deu 31:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:46'>Deu 32:46</a></em>). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh make His face to shine on you, and be gracious to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s face shining suggests fellowship and acceptance with Him. The receipt of God’s grace can therefore b<em>e </em>possible on account of the work and wish of a third party; see on :24. This has huge implications for our pastoral work and prayer life in connection with others. </p><p>Moses couldn't see the direct glory / face of God, he was covered by God's hand and only saw God's back. Perhaps this in turn is reflected by how God hid His glory from Israel through the veil on Moses' face. But thereby they were encouraged to aspire to the place of Moses on the mountain, hidden from God's full glory but nonetheless seeing some of it. It cannot be that the High Priestly blessing lacks reference to Moses' shining face: “May Yahweh make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you” (Num. 6:25). The shining of His face spoke of the experience of grace, just as the revelation of God's Name and physical glory to Moses had spoken of His grace to Israel, forgiving the impenitent, those who had committed adultery on their wedding night to Yahweh. And He thereby gave them peace, the peace from knowing His grace and forgiveness. Ps. 80:4 connects the shining of God's face with restoration and salvation- which is the exact context here, where the covenant has been restored by grace and Israel saved from destruction as God's people: “O God, restore us! And make your face shine that we might be saved!”. But the vision of that face, that grace, was veiled to them. The High Priestly blessing was therefore a wish that they would see beyond the veil to Yahweh's actual glory, and not be scared by grace. This wish and intention comes to full term in our beholding with unveiled face the glory of the Lord Jesus, far greater than the glory Moses saw. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh lift up His face toward you, and give you peace’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Peace is so often peace with God through forgiveness, as a result of which Yahweh's face can as it were be felt. But this was due to the blessing of third parties, the priests. See on :24,25. Moses had been shown that Yahweh's face could not be seen. But here and in :25 there is the promise of beholding His face. Perhaps there is therefore implicit in this language the promise of being blessed and directed on their daily journeys to the end that finally, in the Kingdom, they would literally behold His face. This is the end destination of our every step through the wilderness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So they shall put My name on the children of Israel; and I will bless them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :24-26, the priests were wishing for Israel to be blessed with forgiveness and thereby fellowship with God, and His final salvation- seeing His face. But this would only be due to righteousness being imputed to them. All the great things of His Name, His characteristics, were to be counted to them, through His Name being placed upon them. We experience the same through baptism into the Name and abide in it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The vulnerability and sensitivity of God is reflected in the way that He is concerned that His covenant people, His wife, who bears His Name, might profane His Name (<em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:11'>Deu 5:11</a></em>). His repeated concern that His Name be taken in vain doesn't simply refer to the casual use of the word "God" as an expression of exasperation. God is concerned about His people taking His Name upon themselves (<em><a href='B:40 6:27'>Num 6:27</a></em>) in vain- i.e., marrying Him, entering covenant relationship with Him, taking on His Name- but not being serious about that relationship, taking it on as a vain thing, like a woman who casually marries a man who loves her at the very core of his being, when for her, it's just a casual thing and she lives a profligate and adulterous life as his wife. When God revealed His Name to His people, opening up the very essence of His character to them, He was making Himself vulnerable. We reveal ourselves intimately to another because we wish for them to make a response to us, to love us for what we revealed to them. God revealed Himself to Israel, He sought for intimacy in the covenant relationship, and therefore was and is all the more hurt when His people turn away from Him, after having revealed to them all the wonders of His word (<em><a href='B:350 8:12'>Hos 8:12</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Day" can mean the general time; because the tabernacle was first set up on the first day of the first month of the second year after the exodus (<em><a href='B:20 40:2'>Exo 40:2</a></em>). In this case, these events would follow on from the end of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em>. We note from <em><a href='B:40 1:1'>Num 1:1</a></em> that the events in Numbers apparently occurred after this point; but Hebrew writing is rarely chronological in a linear sense. But the Rabbis like to think that it was erected several times, and even claim that the tabernacle at this point assembled itself. <em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em> could perhaps allude to that belief.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That Moses had finished setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed it and made it holy, with all its furniture, and the altar with all its vessels, and had anointed and sanctified them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Raising up or setting up the tabernacle is an idea used by the Lord Jesus with reference to His resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>). Just as the setting up of the tabernacle elicited freewill offerings, recorded in great detail in this chapter, so we should likewise respond with freewill offerings because of His resurrection. This continues the theme of Numbers 6 which is also of freewill devotion. The imagery of setting up a tabernacle could suggest that Israel were now the bride of God beneath the marriage canopy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that the princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers’ families, offered. These were the princes of the tribes. These are they who were over those who were numbered- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Continuing the voluntary spirit of the Nazirite vow explained in chapter 6, we read that the heads of the tribes now offered a voluntary offering. They weren’t commanded to bring these things; they chose to bring them. The constant repetition of chapter 7 can seem boring, but the point is that God remembered their freewill offerings, in every detail; and recorded and preserved them for millennia. He likewise remembers all our sacrifices for His sake (<em><a href='B:230 20:3'>Psa 20:3</a></em>). These princes of the tribes were the same officers over Israel who were beaten by the Egyptians for failing to produce the required number of bricks. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they brought their offering before Yahweh, six covered wagons, and twelve oxen - a wagon for every two of the princes, and for each one an ox - and they presented them before the tabernacle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The six rather than twelve wagons could be a reflection of the difficulty in making wheels and wagons given their limited resources in the desert. "Before Yahweh" is parallel with "before the tabernacle"; to come 'before Yahweh', as we learn in Job 1, doesn't refer to Heaven itself. His representatives and place of manifestation are 'Him', although not He Himself in person. Hence the Lord Jesus functioned as God’s representative and presence, the true tabernacle which God pitched and not man (<em><a href='B:650 8:2'>Heb 8:2</a></em>), without being God Himself in a Trinitarian sense.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Accept these..." (:5) could be a signal from God that the wagons could be used for transporting parts of the tabernacle, rather than always carrying everything on poles on shoulders. For most parts of the tabernacle were designed to be carried on poles (not just the ark). But that concession to human weakness, as so often, was abused by David and Uzzah when the ark was brought to Zion. And that is the problem of making eager use of concessions to human weakness. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Accept these from them that they may be used in doing the service of the Tent of Meeting; and you shall give them to the Levites, to every man according to his service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This suggests the wagons were used to carry the heavier items, because they were according to the ministry needs of the Levites. And yet the ark was not to be carried on a wagon but on poles carried on the shoulders. Perhaps David willfully misinterpreted this as allowing him to transport the ark upon a wagon. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the wagons and the oxen, and gave them to the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same words for wagon and oxen are used of how David allowed the ark to be carried on a wagon pulled by oxen (<em><a href='B:100 6:3'>2Sa 6:3</a></em>), and was judged harshly for thIsa. See on :9. The Philistines also used wagon and oxen to transport the ark (<em><a href='B:90 6:8-14'>1Sa 6:8-14</a></em>) but there is no recorded judgment upon them for doing so, although this was not God’s requirement. The ark was to be carried, not placed on a wagon (:9). We see here the principle that knowledge brings responsibility to Divine judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He gave two wagons and four oxen to the sons of Gershon, according to their service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had fewer wagons because they 'only' had to carry the curtains and hangings (<em><a href='B:40 4:25'>Num 4:25</a></em>). God foresees the needs we will have in doing our intended service for Him, and provides- but He provides what is needed and not a luxurious life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he gave four wagons and eight oxen to the sons of Merari, according to their service, under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had more wagons because they had to carry heavier items (<em><a href='B:40 4:31-32'>Num 4:31-32</a></em>). See on :7.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But to the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the sanctuary belonged to them: they carried it on their shoulders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Significantly, David carried the ark on a wagon rather than have it carried on shoulders as commanded. One wonders whether his slip in this matter was because the Kohathites had resented seeing how their brothers got to transport their parts of the tabernacle in wagons, whereas they had to carry their parts on their shoulders; and therefore they began to use wagons, because their brother did. We can also too easily do what our brothers do, and for us it can become sin, because we each have an individual calling. What may be permissible for them may not be for us. The fact they do it doesn’t mean we can, because our context and calling is different from theirs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The princes gave offerings for the dedication of the altar in the day that it was anointed, even the princes gave their offerings before the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :10. They originally all wanted to offer on the altar on that same first day. The altar had been anointed and sanctified by God (:1); they desired to dedicate it by responding to that. It's not that it was not sanctified without their offerings. It was ready for use. God doesn't require sacrifice in that sense; all was prepared. But our response to that it is to sacrifice.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, They shall offer their offering, each prince on his day, for the dedication of the altar-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication could be that they all wanted to offer their offering on the altar on the same day; but God didn’t want there to be a group psychology in devotion to Him, and so He made them each offer quite separately from each other, on separate days. We must ask how much group psychology there is in our Christian lives. Did we get baptized because a whole group did? Did we pledge financial support to an appeal because others were doing so? Do we attend church because that is what our social group do?<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He was brother-in-law of Aaron (<em><a href='B:20 6:23'>Exo 6:23</a></em>), and yet also married to Rahab in order to be the ancestor of David and the Lord Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:470 1:4'>Mat 1:4</a></em>). He was one of the points at which the lines of Judah and Levi converged in the Lord's genealogy, appropriate for Him as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and his offering was: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "plate" was more likely a bowl, full of flour. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word for "spoon" also means a censer, which is why it had incense in it. But gold was not a good material for a censer. Yet they wanted to serve God to as high a quality as possible. This would be another instance of where the materials of the tabernacle, such as acacia wood and gold censers, were not the most functional by secular standards. But this isn't how God operates. He uses the dysfunctional, the hard to work with, in order to do His work in this world. Just look at you and me if you need any more evidence of that. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as the Nazirite had to make a sin offering at the end of his period of devotion (<em><a href='B:40 6:16'>Num 6:16</a></em>). The need for a sin offering at the end of the special freewill devotion was maybe to remind them that their extra special devotion didn’t take away the reality of sin and need for grace; for relationship with God depends upon this rather than upon our works and special efforts. Again, we can take that principle to ourselves in our age. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nahshon the son of Amminadab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The usual order of offering was sin offering, then burnt offering (speaking of subsequent dedication to God for His grace in forgiving the offerer) and then the peace offering to celebrate peace with God. But here the order is different. The burnt offering was representative of the freewill gift being made to God; but then there was to be the sin offering, reminding them of the reality of human sin regardless of our freewill devotion to God; and then the peace offering celebrating peace with God on that basIsa. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the second day Nethanel the son of Zuar, prince of Issachar, gave his offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'God has given' suggests that he was named in faith that the pr<em>o</em>mised land would indeed be given to Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He offered for his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plate / dish and bowl were full of flour. This was offered on their initiative. But they were perhaps out of step with how in the tabernacle, the beakers, cups and vessels on Yahweh's table remained empty (<em><a href='B:20 25:29'>Exo 25:29</a></em>); the wine was poured out onto the sacrifices and vaporized; the priests ate the shewbread. There was no pretence that Yahweh was a hungry god who needed to be fed by His worshippers. To the pagan mind, this would've meant that if He didn’t eat, He wasn't actually around nor powerful. Again, the difference and similarities were intentional, in order to point up the need for faith in the power and existence of Yahweh. Yahweh had a "table". The Mesopotamian gods likewise had a table (<em>passuru</em>) upon which food was placed as a meal for the god (as in <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em>), on the assumption that their god was hungry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that they brought to the altar all the various categories of things which would be offered to God in the tabernacle. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The princes all offered identical offerings, perhaps because God wanted them to understand that they all had a sense of equal gratitude to Him.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If as suggested on :23 each prince resourced these offerings themselves, then the identical offerings were commanded by God- lest there should arise any competition between the princes, with one prince offering more than another. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nethanel the son of Zuar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be reasoned from "this was the offering of..." that the princes made these offerings not on behalf of the tribes, but from their own wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the third day Eliab the son of Helon, prince of the children of Zebulun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names feature the 'El' suffix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was a hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the bowl may have been that it could later be used for receiving the blood of the sacrifices. But Yahweh had stipulated precisely all that was needed for His tabernacle. This was at this initiative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If the various gifts were all representative of the kinds of gifts which would be offered upon the altar they were now dedicating (:11), we wonder why they brought incense- because that was only to be offered upon the altar of incense, not that of burnt offering. Perhaps they were suggesting that incense would also be offered with the sacrifices made on the altar of burnt offering, an example of going beyond the letter of the law to a higher level. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Had all the animals been offered on the same day as the princes initially desired (:10,11), then these animals would not have all been eaten by the serving Levites as there would have been too many. Pointless huge generosity is not particularly what God is looking for; He wanted the Levites to eat well over this 12 day period in symbol of His acceptance of His people and fellowship with their offerings. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Eliab the son of Helon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each prince offered 21 animals in total, 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. See on :62.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fourth day Elizur the son of Shedeur, prince of the children of Reuben- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Elizur", 'God is my rock', is a name indicating faith that God would indeed be a rock to Israel. And probably these were names which were taken by choice rather than birth names. But Israel turned back from entering Canaan; their leaders had the names of faith but in reality their faith was weak. And we must ask ourselves whether that is the case with us, having a name that we spiritually live when we are dead. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were various definitions of a shekel; our valuation and weighting of things is to be by His standards and not those of the secular world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Incense represented prayer (<em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), which is to accompany all our freewill offerings and initiatives in God’s service.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to <em><a href='B:40 28:14'>Num 28:14</a></em> these would have been accompanied by "Half a hin of wine for a bull, and the third part of a hin for the ram, and the fourth part of a hin for a lamb".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The extreme repetition in the record is perhaps reflective of God’s sensitivity to freewill offerings; and perhaps this is why the account concludes with the otherwise apparently disjointed account of His speaking from the mercy seat with His own voice (:89) in response to all thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Elizur the son of Shedeur-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The order in which the tribes offered is according to their encampment around the tabernacle, passing east, south, west and finally north: Judah, Issachar, Zebulun (East), Reuben, Simeon, Gad (south), Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin (west), Dan, </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Asher and Naphtali (north). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifth day Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai, prince of the children of Simeon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God’s peace" son of "The Almighty is my rock" could reflect a faithful family, especially considering that Israel were idolaters in Egypt, and carried the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>) and also the tabernacle of Moloch as well as that of Yahweh, the star of Remphan as well as the standards of their tribes (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>130 shekels weighed only 3:2 lbs. (1:5 kg.), so it was a relatively small plate / dish.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ten shekels weighed only 2 lbs. or 100 grams. So this refers to the weight of the incense not the spoon. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lamb was to be male because the male was of higher value on the secular market- not because God Himself valued females less. Likewise the bull was to be "young", not because God values older things or people less, but quite simply the young bull was worth more in secular terms than an older bull.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "one kid of the goats". "Of the goats" 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we take the order of the tribes as listed in this chapter (which follows the order of encampment), the meaning of their names makes a sentence, which H.P. Mansfield suggests as follows: "Praise Him! for the reward of dwelling with Him, in seeing the Son, of hearing him in company of firstborns (double fruit), who forgetting the flesh join the Son of the right hand. At the judgment he will confer blessings upon those who have wrestled successfully".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the sixth day, Eliasaph the son of Deuel, prince of the children of Gad-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuel is better Reuel as in <em><a href='B:40 2:14'>Num 2:14</a></em>. The Hebrew letters for 'D' and 'R' are easily confused; so here we have an example of slight copying errors in the original texts. But these in no way negate the overall Divine inspiration of the texts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>70 shekels weighed only 1:7 lbs. (0:8kg.), so it was a relatively small bowl.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The incense, representing prayer (<em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>), would have been burnt on the incense altar. The smell would have come through to the most holy place, where Yahweh dwelt between the cherubim. This symbolized how prayer enters into heaven itself, into the very presence of God. Passing through the veil suggests the role of the Lord Jesus in our prayers (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that "In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure" (<em><a href='B:650 10:6'>Heb 10:6</a></em>). Perhaps God came to change His attitude about the sacrifices as time went on and Israel refused to learn from them. Or perhaps He felt like this all along, but only instituted them as a concession to the weakness of Israel's religious conscience. They were used to religion, having lived so long in Egypt; and He wished to give them something which met their religious conscience and desire to sacrifice, even if it was far from what He Himself personally wished for. Such is His sensitivity and deep concession to human weakness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The male element in sacrifice was not because God considered the female as lesser. The fact was, male animals were worth more than female, and so God goes along with that and they offer the more expensive to Him. Just as we are to offer what is seen as best within our own worldview and social situation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Eliasaph the son of Deuel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apart from what is noted on :46, the male nature of the sacrifices could be because they pointed forward to the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day Elishama the son of Ammihud, prince of the children of Ephraim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This day, or at least one of these days, would have been the Sabbath. But God is no literalist nor legalist, and there is no note to the effect that this work was not done on the Sabbath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :37,38,43, these items were not that heavy nor large. The princes of the tribes were making moderate offerings, because God didn’t want huge amounts of things, but rather sincere heartfelt freewill from a person, regardless of their wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual burning of incense, night and day, was a reminder that prayer (cp. incense, <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:3-4'>Rev 8:3-4</a></em>) was a way of life, not only specific statements. David’s references to making constant prayer (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 88:1'>Psa 88:1</a></em>) may allude to the constant rising up of the incense. We cannot be literally praying all the time, but our basic spirit of life can rise up as a prayer to God constantly. Our lives are, in a sense, our prayer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>How are we to square God’s apparent pleasure in sacrifices with <em><a href='B:650 10:6'>Heb 10:6</a></em> "In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure"? God did require them and was pleased they were given, but He had no desire for them in response to David’s sin. David is everyman, worthy of death because of our wretched failure, with no animal sacrifice or ritual to save us. God did want sacrifices, but not for the sins David had committed concerning Uriah and Bathsheba. <em><a href='B:650 10:8'>Heb 10:8</a></em> explains further: "First he said: Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor did You have pleasure in them (all of which are offered according to the law)". Paul perceives that firstly, there was the statement that God did not desire animal sacrifices of themselves in order to remove sin; and secondly, the Lord Jesus came to do God’s will, in a way which animals simply could not do. This division into first and second is pressed into a similarity with the first and second covenants, as noted on <em><a href='B:650 9:1'>Heb 9:1</a></em>. God’s desire was that sacrifice should be offered under the Old Covenant, but this could not take away sin of itself. What He desired far more ('not A but B' can mean 'not so much A as B') was the sacrifice of the One who did His will perfectly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :51.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Elishama the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elishama was Joshua's grandfather (<em><a href='B:130 7:26'>1Ch 7:26</a></em>). "God who hears" reflects Moses' message that God had indeed heard the crying of the Israelites in Egypt. This was likely a name change after acceptance of Moses' teaching.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur, prince of the children of Manasseh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gamaliel" is 'God is my reward', named in hope that the promised reward of the Kingdom would indeed be given. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spoon of "incense" which is described as following this (:56) may have been required in the spirit of <em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>: "When anyone offers an offering of a grain offering to Yahweh, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it". Frankincense was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (see on :67). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands for making this incense were very strict: "Yahweh said to Moses, Take to yourself sweet spices, gum resin, and onycha, and galbanum; sweet spices with pure frankincense: there shall be an equal weight of each; and you shall make incense of it, a perfume after the art of the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy: and you shall beat some of it very small, and put some of it before the testimony in the Tent of Meeting, where I will meet with you. It shall be to you most holy. The incense which you shall make, according to its composition you shall not make for yourselves: it shall be to you holy for Yahweh. Whoever shall make any like that, to smell of it, he shall be cut off from his people" (<em><a href='B:20 30:34-38'>Exo 30:34-38</a></em>). We wonder whether the princes really followed this in their enthusiasm to offer an impressive offering. But God still accepted their offering.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :49, the items were not that heavy nor large; nor were the collective numbers of sacrifices that huge, and nothing compared to the huge slaughter of animals made by Solomon when he dedicated the temple. The princes of the tribes were making moderate offerings, because God didn’t want huge amounts of things, but rather sincere heartfelt freewill from a person, regardless of their wealth. Solomon failed to realize this, and can be read as wanting to purposefully far exceed what was offered here when the tabernacle was first dedicated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "sin offering" is the same word translated "punishment". Atonement theories involving punishment, substitution etc. often go wrong and fail to adequately reflect the extent of God’s grace. But it must never be overlooked that sin does require response; and the punishment for the sin was indeed placed upon the goat as a kind of substitute for the sinner in Old Testament times. But the far more effective sacrifice was that of the Lord Jesus, who died for sinners as a representative rather than a substitute.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Rabbis suggest Gamaliel may mean 'God liberated me from prison'. Manasseh was a grandson of Joseph, so perhaps his experiences are in view, as well as the liberation of Israel from Egypt. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the ninth day Abidan the son of Gideoni, prince of the children of Benjamin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:78) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such high value tableware may well have been given to the princes when they left Egypt. Whatever wealth they were then given was given them by God, and they were to give it back to God through the service of the tabernacle. And it's the same with whatever we may pick up from Egypt / the world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If indeed "spoon" effectively means a censer, then we have another connection between the princes, censers and incense- which all came to a head in their rebellion of Numbers 16. See on :29.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "burnt offering" means literally 'a going up'. The word is used nearly 1000 times for people 'going up' in various ways. There were surely other words which could have been used to convey the idea of a burnt offering. But this one is used because it was ever God’s intention to lead His people towards the understanding that the offerings represented them. Like us today, they were to be as living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1-2'>Rom 12:1-2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The attitude of the Lord Jesus was that "Sacrifice and offering You did not want, but a body did You prepare for me. In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then said I: Behold, I come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do Your will, O God. First he said: Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor did You have pleasure in them (all of which are offered according to the law)" (<em><a href='B:650 10:5-8'>Heb 10:5-8</a></em>). This is strong language considering God did in fact require such offerings, and in practice He did offer forgiveness in response to them. Perhaps God came to change His attitude about the sacrifices as time went on and Israel refused to learn from them. Or perhaps He felt like this all along, but only instituted them as a concession to the weakness of Israel's religious conscience. They were used to religion, having lived so long in Egypt; and He wished to give them something which met their religious conscience and desire to sacrifice, even if it was far from what He Himself personally wished for. Such is His sensitivity and deep concession to human weakness.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Abidan the son of Gideoni- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although peace offerings were completely voluntary, the legislation stressed they were not to think that therefore they could not respect God’s holiness and give Him that which was second best (<em><a href='B:30 3:6'>Lev 3:6</a></em> etc.) or offer it where they liked. Many of the sacrifices we make to God are likewise not compulsory, but the spirit of giving God the best which permeates the Law of Moses should remain with us. We may be able to deduce that peace offerings could be offered in other places, and there appear to be examples of that in later scripture; but if a lamb was offered, it must be "before Yahweh", seeing that the lamb particularly looked ahead to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus "before Yahweh".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the tenth day Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai, prince of the children of Dan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ammishaddai" means 'People of the Almighty', using the term <em>shaddai</em> which is often associated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He may well have been one of the faithful few who kept perceiving the vital separation of God’s people from Egypt, whereas the majority in their hearts returned to Egypt and wished to assimilate with them in order to escape persecution and have what they imagined was a good life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 2:3'>Lev 2:3</a></em> notes: "That which is left of the grain offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. It is a most holy thing of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire". The language of "most holy" is juxtaposed against the fact that this was referring to a simple grain offering, a 'little something' offered by literally anyone within Israel (see on <em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). But such tiny offerings were "most holy" to God; we think of the Lord's attitude to the widow offering her two small coins. See on :55.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The higher value of gold perhaps means that the spoons or censers with incense in them were of more value to God than the utensils for sacrifice which were donated; for they were made of silver. Because prayer is to Him of more value than sacrifice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The burnt offerings were to be of "a male without blemish" (<em><a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a></em>). 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>). The thoughtful Israelite would have perceived that all the animas offered were not totally without blemish- for none was, upon minute examination. The requirement for a male sacrifice was not because God considered the female gender inferior; rather was it because He was asking that they offer their most valuable animal to Him, and not their least valuable. And male animals were more valuable than female. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sin offering required that the offerer placed his hand upon the head of the goat. But 'to lay the hand upon' is a phrase which means more than merely touching the head, but implies leaning upon or pushing upon. It is rendered "lean his hand (upon a wall)" (<em><a href='B:370 5:19'>Amo 5:19</a></em>). It was an act of very conscious identity. The same phrase is used of how God’s hand upholds those who spiritually fall (<em><a href='B:230 37:24'>Psa 37:24</a></em>). So we see the mutuality of relationship between God and man. We strongly place our hand upon the offering of the Lord Jesus, and God places His hand upon us. Paul may have this idea in view when he speaks of how he grabs hold of Jesus and is grabbed hold of by Jesus (<em>Php_3:12</em>); just as the Lord seized hold of Peter drowning in the lake, as Peter grabbed hold of Him. That incident surely was a mini parable of our redemption. &nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The peace offering was the "food (also translated "bread") of the offering made... unto the Lord" (<em><a href='B:30 3:11'>Lev 3:11</a></em>). The peace offering was therefore God’s food, or bread. Yet the offerer was invited to eat the bread of God. This implied that when the offerer sat down to eat the food, as it were, God was sitting with him, also eating of it. This was symbolized in human terms by the fact that the priest, as God’s representative, ate part of the peace offering, while the offerer ate the other part. Presumably they sat down together to do thIsa. The closeness of God which this implies is almost beyond our comprehension. We are invited to see the exquisite beauty of true fellowship with God. The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eleventh day Pagiel the son of Ochran, prince of the children of Asher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pagiel ('accident of God') was son of Ochran, 'muddler'. As discussed on :78, people had multiple names and were known by the 'name' they carved for themselves in life, and the attitudes they had. God makes no accidents; so maybe in depression and bitterness this man felt like this, and was known for it. Hardly a great example to the tribe he was supposed to be leading. And indeed Asher all but disappears from Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God’s Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The burnt offering was to be "without blemish" (Leviticus 1; Leviticus 3). "Without blemish" was how Noah was (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>), and how God wished Abraham and all his seed to be (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). We all fail to be perfect; blemishes remain. So perhaps the idea was that the animal represented how the offerer wished to be; but it was only an animal, not a man. And therefore the thought would have arisen that it must surely look forward to some perfect, unblemished human who was the representative of all men. And that was the need which was met in the death of the Lord Jesus. <em><a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a></em> continues about the burnt offering- the offerer personally "shall offer it at the door of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before Yahweh". The offerer personally was to bring it. It was not to be brought by someone else, for sacrifice was to involve personal engagement and not be performed as mere tokenistic ritual through a third party. And that is an abiding principle. The offerer firstly had to enter through the gate into the court, before approaching the altar. The height of the gate meant that most would had to bow their heads. Humility was the first requirement, and this is what made sacrifice acceptable.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Pagiel the son of Ochran- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The peace offering was "the food of the offering made by fire to Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 3:11'>Lev 3:11</a></em>). The metaphor invites us to see the altar as God’s table, at which He as it were ate the sacrifices. At the breaking of bread service, we come to the table of the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>); the offering we bring is ourselves. And yet God has placed on the altar, on the table before us, the sacrifice of His Son, and invites us to eat with Him there. Eating with someone was understood as a sign of religious fellowship. At the breaking of bread, we are therefore celebrating our living fellowship with God Himself.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the twelfth day Ahira the son of Enan, prince of the children of Naphtali- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names.&nbsp;The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:60) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>gave his offering: one silver plate, the weight of which was one hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) in the grain offerings (<em><a href='B:30 2:7'>Lev 2:7</a></em> etc.) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The higher value of gold perhaps means that the spoons or censers with incense in them were of more value to God than the utensils for sacrifice which were donated; for they were made of silver. Because prayer is to Him of more value than sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one young bull, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws about the offerer of a burnt offering in <em><a href='B:30 1:6'>Lev 1:6</a></em> were presumably followed: "He shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into pieces". Every part of our lives, including our most inward parts, are to be offered to God. The process of splitting the offering into its parts speaks of our self-examination, defining each part of our lives and offering them to God consciously.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two head of cattle, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Ahira the son of Enan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David rejoiced in God’s mercy to him, perhaps in the context of his sin with Bathsheba. He asks: "What shall I render unto the Lord for all his (spiritual) benefits toward me?". He decides that he will offer a peace offering: "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving (the peace offering; <em><a href='B:30 7:12'>Lev 7:12</a></em>)... I will take the cup of salvation... I will pay my vows... in the presence of all his people... in the courts of the Lord's house". As we sit "before the Lord" at the memorial meeting, beholding the cross of Christ and the blood of Calvary, we should be intensely aware of God’s great benefits towards us: our salvation assured, sin forgiven, peace with God. Our response should be to renew our vows joyfully, in the ecclesia, God’s house, in the presence of His people, as we eat the peace offering, the sacrifice of thanksgiving. As the peace offering was to be offered publicly, "before the tabernacle of the congregation" (<em><a href='B:30 3:13'>Lev 3:13</a></em>), so in the sight of each other we too renew our vows and express our peace with God. And if we are all at peace with God, we should therefore be at peace with each other. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This was the dedication of the altar, on the day when it was anointed, by the princes of Israel: twelve silver plates, twelve silver bowls, twelve golden spoons-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The higher value of gold perhaps means that the spoons or censers with incense in them were of more value to God than the utensils for sacrifice which were donated; for they were made of silver. Because prayer is to Him of more value than sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>each silver plate weighing one hundred and thirty shekels, and each bowl seventy; all the silver of the vessels two thousand four hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The extreme repetition in the record is perhaps reflective of God’s sensitivity to freewill offerings; and perhaps this is why the account concludes with the otherwise apparently disjointed account of His speaking from the mercy seat with His own voice (:89) in response to all thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the twelve golden spoons, full of incense, weighing ten shekels apiece, after the shekel of the sanctuary; all the gold of the spoons weighed one hundred and twenty shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were either very small spoons, or the weight refers to the amount of incense rather than the spoons themselves. Ten shekels of the sanctuary weighed only 2 lbs. or 100 grams.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the cattle for the burnt offering: twelve bulls, the rams twelve, the male lambs a year old twelve, and their grain offering; and the male goats for a sin offering twelve- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The apparent tension with the statements that God took no pleasure in animal sacrifice is discussed on :44,45,51.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and all the cattle for the sacrifice of peace offerings: twenty-four bulls, the rams sixty, the male goats sixty, the year old male lambs sixty. This was the dedication of the altar, after it was anointed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The apparent tension with the statements that God took no pleasure in animal sacrifice is discussed on :44,45,51. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Yahweh, he heard His voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the Testimony, from between the two cherubim: and He spoke to him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blood of Christ speaks a message, better than that of Abel. It is a voice that shakes heaven and earth (<em><a href='B:650 12:24'>Heb 12:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:26'>Heb 12:26</a></em>). This is after the pattern of how the commanding voice of Yahweh was heard above the blood sprinkled on “the atonement cover of the ark of the Testimony” (<em><a href='B:40 7:89'>Num 7:89</a></em> NIV). It shows forth, as a voice, God’s righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 3:25-26'>Rom 3:25-26</a></em> RV). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blood of atonement, pointing forward to the blood of Christ, was permanently on the mercy seat, i.e. the cover of the ark of the covenant, with the Angel-like cherubim peering down onto it. There in that most Holy of places, God spoke. The fact that the voice of God was associated with the blood which represented the blood of His Son is alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 12:24-26'>Heb 12:24-26</a></em>, which likens the blood of Christ to a voice more powerful than the sound which accompanied the shaking of Sinai. God’s word becomes powerful to us over the blood of Christ in that beholding Him there, we cannot walk away passively. We are spurred to action. Yet as we behold His blood in our mind’s eye, in our reconstruction of how it all maybe happened on Golgotha, we face an insistent question: What can I do, what must I do, in response to this? That question is answered in God’s word, and it is in this sense that His word becomes of especial power to us over the blood of Christ. In this sense He is that word made flesh, supremely in His time of dying. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This commandment to the tribe of Levi follows straight on from the description in Numbers 7 of the other tribes dedicating the altar. Now the tribe of Levi were to play their part. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Aaron, and tell him, ‘When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front of the lampstand’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand faced towards the most holy place. There was no natural light in the tabernacle. The lampstand is used as a symbol of the church in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>. We are "the light of the world" in that we provide light which points men towards entrance into the holiest. Hence the lamps were to give light "in front of the lampstand", pointing toward the holiest and the veil which was later brought down at the Lord's death. Now the tabernacle had been set up, this command to light the lamps was equivalent to "Let there be light" at creation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron did so. He lit its lamps to light the area in front of the lampstand, as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The candlestick" or menorah is only ever spoken of in the law of Moses in the singular, but in <em><a href='B:130 28:15'>1Ch 28:15</a></em> David decided there were to be multiple such candlesticks. By doing so, he ignored the symbolism of the one candlestick, the one people of God; such was his obsession with mere religion. The lampstand represents God’s people (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), and it had seven lamps; the six branches and the central stem, upon which there was also a lamp. Seven is the number of wholeness and completion. Perhaps the idea is that there is to be a complete manifestation of God through the witness of His people, burning the oil of the Spirit. Each component member witnesses to Him in a slightly different way, not only in this life but throughout the generations of God’s people. Likewise the body of Christ in the same way manifests Christ to the world. The <em>menorah</em> or "candlestick" is from a root meaning to yoke. In the Christian context, the yoke, the uniting power, is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). He is the unique power which binds together His otherwise disparate people into one candlestick. Thereby Christian unity becomes a witness to the world, at least that is the intention. All disunity between believers therefore causes the candlestick not to function, and the light of witness is thereby the less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This was the workmanship of the lampstand, beaten work of gold-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The candlestick represents the assembly of believers (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>). It was made of beaten work, representing how all those in the true church will be beaten into a shape through which they can be lights for God. "Hammered" or "beaten" suggests that through blow by blow on material heated in the furnace of affliction (<em><a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a></em>), God works out a place where His glory may be revealed. And that place is our lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From its base to its flowers, it was beaten work: according to the pattern which Yahweh had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand represents God’s people (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), but it is presented here as a tree with branches, buds and blossoms (<em><a href='B:20 25:33'>Exo 25:33</a></em>). In this sense the ecclesia, the community of believers, is to be as the tree of life to others by their words (<em><a href='B:240 3:18'>Pro 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 11:30'>Pro 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:4'>Pro 15:4</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "flowers" were almonds (<em><a href='B:20 25:33'>Exo 25:33</a></em>). 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. So it is appropriate for the candlestick, which represented God’s people. Jeremiah sees the branch of an almond tree and is comforted that "I watch over My word to perform it" (<em><a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a></em>). 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 the LORD 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 the LORD 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. And He does likewise with the witness of all those represented within the candlestick.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This gives more detail about the dedication of the Levites in <em><a href='B:40 3:5-13'>Num 3:5-13</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites and priests weren't part-timers. They gave their lives to God in recognition of the fact that God had saved the lives of the firstborn at the Passover and Red Sea deliverance (<em><a href='B:40 3:12'>Num 3:12</a></em>). Our deliverance from the world at baptism was our Red Sea. We have been saved. Those firstborns represent us, the ecclesia of firstborns (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> Gk.). We are now being led towards that glorious Kingdom, when by rights we ought to be lying dead in that dark Egyptian night. The wonder of it all demands that like the Levites, we give our lives <em>back </em>to God, in service towards His children. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do this to them, to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of cleansing on them, let them shave their whole bodies with a razor, and let them wash their clothes, and cleanse themselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Washing and becoming like new born children, with no body hair, looks forward to baptism. We’re not baptized just for the sake of it; we do this so that we may be made holy or separated unto the service of God. We are God’s, just as they were (:14). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The water of cleansing is literally "water of sin", i.e. ‘water that washes away sin’. We note that the Levites were only sprinkled, whereas the priests were completely washed (<em><a href='B:20 29:4'>Exo 29:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 8:6'>Lev 8:6</a></em>). The idea may be that the more public was the ministry, the deeper sense of personal sin was required.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then let them take a young bull, and its grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil; and another young bull you shall take for a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as the Nazirite had to make a sin offering at the end of his period of devotion (<em><a href='B:40 6:16'>Num 6:16</a></em>), and the princes who offered voluntary offerings had to add a sin offering to them (<em><a href='B:40 7:16'>Num 7:16</a></em>). The need for a sin offering at the end of special devotion was maybe to remind them that their extra special devotion didn’t take away the reality of sin and need for grace; for relationship with God depends upon this rather than upon our works and special efforts. Again, we can take that principle to ourselves in our age. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall present the Levites before the Tent of Meeting. You shall assemble the whole congregation of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Now that the tabernacle had been erected, the Levites were now to come out from the various other tribal encampments where they had been living (:6), and establish their tents around the newly erected tabernacle. But firstly they stood as a group before the tent. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall present the Levites before Yahweh. The children of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God intended Israel to be "a Kingdom of priests" (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). “All the people of Israel” were the builders of the spiritual house of God, i.e. His people (<em><a href='B:510 4:10-11'>Act 4:10-11</a></em>). All Israel were to lay their hands on the Levites to show that they were truly Israel’s representatives (<em><a href='B:40 8:10'>Num 8:10</a></em>). When Israel were rejected, they were told that they as a nation could no longer be God’s priest (<em><a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a></em>). By baptism, we become spiritual Israel; and this idea is relevant to us too. Peter picks up these words in Exodus and applies them to every one of us: "You also are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>). </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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Aaron shall offer the Levites before Yahweh for a wave offering, on the behalf of the children of Israel, that it may be theirs to do the service of Yahweh-</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>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, and you shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering to Yahweh, to make atonement for the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sin offering always preceded the burnt offering. Dedication to God, represented by the burnt offering, is on the basis of our recognizing first of all our sinfulness and need for His grace. This is why the sin offering always precedes the burnt offering in the Mosaic rituals. We too have been cleansed by the blood of Christ in order to serve Him and His Father (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set the Levites before Aaron, and before his sons, and offer them as a wave offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of all believers being a living sacrifice alludes here (<em><a href='B:520 12:1-2'>Rom 12:1-2</a></em>). For we are all called to be the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were God’s (<em><a href='B:40 3:12-13'>Num 3:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 3:45'>Num 3:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:14'>Num 8:14</a></em>), and the Lord alludes to this: "I pray not for the (Jewish) world, but for them (the disciples, cp. the Levites) which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (<em><a href='B:500 17:9'>Joh 17:9</a></em>). The Levites represent us (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>); the relationship between Moses and the Levites represents that between Christ and us. Moses' thankfulness that they remained faithful during the golden calf crisis, that sense of being able to rely on them, will be reflected in the Lord's feelings toward the faithful.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After that, the Levites shall go in to do the service of the Tent of Meeting: and you shall cleanse them, and offer them as a wave offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the Levites had been set apart for Divine service immediately after God’s meeting with Israel at Sinai, as outlined in Leviticus and Numbers, it seems that not until Aaron died at the end of the 40 years wandering did they actually in practice begin to serve as intended (<em><a href='B:50 10:8'>Deu 10:8</a></em>). It could be that the reason was that the Levites were ever slow to accept their responsibilities. And they generally failed in their calling over Israel's history, climaxing in the priests arranging the murder of God’s own Son.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For they are wholly given to Me from among the children of Israel; instead of all who open the womb, even the firstborn of all the children of Israel, I have taken them to Me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were separated unto God’s service; it wasn’t so much that they were separate <em>from</em> others in a negative sense; rather they were positively separated <em>unto</em> God’s service. We shouldn’t see holiness as negative- that we can no longer do certain things; but instead focus on what positively we have been separated <em>unto</em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine, both man and animal. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them for Myself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It had been God’s intention that the Levites were "His" from Passover night. But it was their actions at the time of the golden calf which as it were operationalized this, so that this intended "blessing" of being sanctified for God was realized in practice: "The sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. Moses said, Consecrate yourselves today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son, and against his brother; that He may bestow on you a blessing this day" (<em><a href='B:20 32:28-29'>Exo 32:28-29</a></em>). And this is how God works with us. A potential blessing and sanctification unto Himself is planned, but we have to consecrate ourselves in order to realize that potential. And so much potential is wasted and left unrealized. By so many people, and by us in so many aspects of our potential ministry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel- </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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>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- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spiritual and physical wellbeing of others can depend upon third parties, in this case the faithfulness of the Levites. Others can suffer because of our lack of diligence; it’s not that if we don’t do our part for them, then God will raise up others to do what we ought to have done. He <em>may</em> do this, as He was prepared to at the time of Esther, but He wishes us to see the eternal consequence of our actions upon others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses, and Aaron, and all the congregation of the children of Israel did so to the Levites. According to all that Yahweh commanded </em>Moses concerning the Levites, so the children of Israel did to them-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What Israel did to them is recorded in :10,11. They placed their hands upon the Levites as if they were their representative sacrifice. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Levites purified themselves from sin, and they washed their clothes; and Aaron offered them for a wave offering before Yahweh; and Aaron made atonement for them to cleanse them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reference to purification could refer to a ritual purification. But the word for "purified themselves" is used of actual rather than general sin (<em><a href='B:30 19:22'>Lev 19:22</a></em>). I have noted earlier that the small size of the tribe of Levi is one of a number of indications that they were not spiritually strong at this time. Seeing that idolatry was rife in Israel at this time (<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>), it could be that there is reference here to something more than a purification ritual- an actual separation from idolatry or other sin which required a personal atonement to be made for them.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After that, the Levites went in to do their service in the Tent of Meeting before Aaron, and before his sons, as Yahweh had commanded Moses concerning the Levites, so they did to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>"</em>After that" connects with the repentance and forgiveness of the Levites in :21. it demonstrates that acceptable service to God is only possible once personal sin and failure has been faced and dealt with.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David numbered the Levites from 30 years old (<em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>), in accordance with the law which said Levites were to serve between the ages of 30 and 50 (<em><a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:23'>Num 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:35'>Num 4:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 4:39'>Num 4:39</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a></em> we are told that David numbered the Levites from 20 years old. We note in <em><a href='B:40 8:23'>Num 8:23</a></em> that there appeared some flexibility within the Mosaic law; the Levites could be numbered from 25 years old. This is one of many examples of how the Mosaic law was not set in stone. It was principle and spirit rather than letter of the law, and within it there are examples of where one law overrode another, or one principle overrode letter of the law. The law was not designed as a simple test of obedience, for it was far more detailed than that. It was designed to inculcate a spirit of living which looked forward to the spirit of the Lord Jesus. And so David felt free to number the Levites from 20 years old, even though we also read that he numbered 'the Levites from 30 years old', suggesting that this was a technical term rather than a literal description. This would go toward explaining why 38,000 Levites were numbered by David, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is that which belongs to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall go in to serve in the service in the work of the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"This is that which belongs to the Levites" is a reference to the fact the Levites had no possessions of land within Israel. What belonged to them was the honour of serving God; whether or not we own property in this present age, our eternal possession is the honour of being God’s servants. To be a servant, in a world where perceived ‘freedom’ is so cherished, is to be our greatest possession.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting on the work, and shall serve no more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were counted as fit for service from 30 years old in <em><a href='B:40 4:3'>Num 4:3</a></em>, here from 25 to 50, and later from 20 years old with no maximum age (<em><a href='B:130 23:27'>1Ch 23:27</a></em>). We see here how the law of Moses was not a set of statutes which were set in stone for all time. There was constant flexibility of the letter of the law, in harmony with the spirit of the law. All suggestions that God’s statutes once given can never be changed are simply failing to actually read the law of Moses and spot the intentional conflicts between the letters of the law. God is not a legalist nor a literalist, and His law was open to interpretation and ammendment, as we see in the 'second law' given in Deuteronomy. This was because He wanted His people to thoughtfully reflect upon His statutes, and to see them not as chain or leash, but as a springboard to personal relationship with Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but shall minister with their brothers in the Tent of Meeting, to perform the duty, and shall do no service. You shall do thus to the Levites concerning their duties-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Service" is the word for military service; as "To wait upon the service" (:24) is literally "to war the warfare". The Levites were to see themselves as on constant, active service for Yahweh in the endless battle against sin and the flesh- which with their help was to move constantly towards the ultimate victory in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was therefore before the census which was taken, and is evidence that the book of Numbers (as much of the historical record) is not strictly chronological. Possibly it is arranged around geographical themes rather than chronological. &nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover let the children of Israel keep the Passover in its appointed season- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have been to clarify the earlier statements that they were to keep Passover in the land of promise (<em><a href='B:20 12:25'>Exo 12:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:5'>Exo 13:5</a></em>). In which case we note that God’s law was ever open to interpretation and clarification. But it could be that it was God’s intention that Israel left Egypt and immediately journeyed to Canaan and kept the next Passover there, within 12 months of Passover night in Egypt. But again, His purpose is open ended and flexible; He perceived that they weren't ready for this, and especially after the apostasy with the golden calf, they needed more time to prepare them. This same principle accounts for the flexible date of the Lord's second coming, and all attempts to construct sequences of latter day events are all doomed because of this failure to accept that God’s program is flexible and responsive to human response to it.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fourteenth day of this month, at evening, you shall keep it in its appointed time. According to all its statutes, and according to all its ordinances, you shall keep it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This raises the question as to where Israel got so many lambs from in the desert. Clearly in their situation they kept the spirit of it, and this was counted as keeping it according to all the legal requirements of it. Perhaps the commandments to "keep it" were given because of the logistical concerns as to whether they were able to keep it precisely as they had done on leaving Egypt. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to the children of Israel, that they should keep the Passover- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2,3 for reasons why they had to be encouraged to keep it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at evening, in the wilderness of Sinai. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea. Israel ate Passover (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>) (14th Abib), as the Lord died on the cross as the Passover lambs were slain; Israel left Egypt the next day (<em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>) (15th Abib) and journeyed three days (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>) (15th-17th Abib), and the Lord Jesus was three days in the tomb. Israel then came through the Red Sea (17th Abib), connecting with the Lord's being resurrected. As we come out of the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord- a new creation. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world- all this becomes ours. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There were certain men, who were unclean because of the dead body of a man, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps these men were Mishael and Elizaphan, who had recently (<em><a href='B:30 9:1'>Lev 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:4'>Lev 10:4</a></em>) been defiled by burying their cousins Nadab and Abihu. These men are similar to us. We wish to keep the Passover, which for us is the breaking of bread service (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>), but we feel the burden of our uncleanness. But this is no barrier to God; He found a way for them to keep it, so eager was He for fellowship with His people. In our times, God has likewise found a way- and that way is through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus which cleanses us and enables us to legitimately have fellowship with God. This desire of God to ‘find a way’ for His weak people to approach Him is found throughout the Law of Moses, e.g. in the possibility for a very poor person to offer a flour sacrifice rather than a blood one requiring an animal. This is a comfort to us, and should also be a pattern for us in how we deal with the weakness of others. </p>&nbsp;<p>There is a telling allusion to the provision of Numbers 9 in 2 Chron. 30:3, which states that the majority of people came to keep Passover in the second month “because they could not perform it at that time”. This is repeating the essence of Num. 9:6, “and they could not perform the Passover on that day” because they were unclean from touching a dead body. But Hezekiah extrapolates further, and prays that those who were actually unclean could still acceptably partake of the Passover. This is not to say that we can extrapolate the essence of things to allow anything. But clearly we are meant to see that even being unclean doesn't stop fellowship with God, and His desire to fellowship the unclean. His beloved Son likewise broke His bread with the unclean. </p><p>
This is not the only concession to weakness within the Mosaic law. The intention was that there would be a single sanctuary where sacrifices were to be brought and offered. But there is also provision for local sacrifice of animals (Dt. 12:20–28; compare Ex. 20:22–26; Lev. 17:1–7); and tithes could be sold for money and that money used to buy sacrifices nearer to the sanctuary (Dt. 14:22–26). The overall impression is of a God eager if not desperate for His people to engage with Him, even if His ideal principles and intentions are compromised. We think of the Lord's teaching that the one talent man should've lent his money out on interest, even though that was contrary to the teaching of the Mosaic law. And that God hasn't changed to this day. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those men said to him, We are unclean because of the dead body of a man. Why are we kept back, that we may not offer the offering of Yahweh in its appointed time among the children of Israel?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Kept back" in Hebrew has the idea of "diminished". The subtext of these men may be that they considered it unreasonable that God had diminished them by the death of their relatives (see on :6), and now as it were added insult to injury by forbidding them participation in the Passover because they had buried their relatives and were therefore unclean. They of course need not have touched the dead bodies of their relatives; they could have put Passover importance in first place. They chose not to. And yet God graciously allows them a way to still keep the Passover, despite recognizing their uncleanness. See on :9. Their attitude was perhaps not the best- they knew the unclean couldn't eat Passover, but they challenge this, having made themselves unclean. But still God finds a way.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses answered them, Wait, that I may hear what Yahweh will command concerning you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command had in a sense already been given- they were unclean, and so were not to partake. But Moses senses that God is beyond legalism and literalism, and is open to fellowship with all- including the difficult and the unclean. And He is aware that God’s law is open to reinterpretation and reapplication, and is not at all 'set in stone'.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joseph of Arimathea personally took the Lord's body down from the cross and buried it. His contact with the body meant that he couldn't keep the Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:9-10'>Num 9:9-10</a></em>). The people would have watched incredulous as one of the leaders of Israel openly showed his preference for the crucified Nazarene as opposed to keeping the Mosaic Law. The phobia for cleanliness at Passover time would have meant that everyone was extremely sensitive to what Joseph did. And these men could have done what he did and accepted that they therefore couldn't partake of the Passover. But they appear to have had another agenda and an objection to God’s ways.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Say to the children of Israel, ‘If any man of you or of your generations is unclean by reason of a dead body, or is on a journey far away, he shall still keep the Passover to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems from <em><a href='B:40 9:10'>Num 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em> and the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah's Passovers, that it was more important to keep the Passover even if not everything was being done exactly in order, even if there was a sense of unworthiness, than to not do it at all. This should be borne in mind when some feel 'unworthy' to take the emblems, or where there are genuine problems in obtaining wine. </p><p>Unintentional defilement and also consciously choosing not to keep the feast, by going on a journey at that time, are covered here. After all, the travellers could've just planned not to be on a journey at Passover time. God wanted to make a way for both conscious and unconscious failure. He by all means wants to find a way to as it were break bread with us. That stands in sharp contrast to the way so many churches use access to the bread and wine as a form of judgment and reserve it only for their most tried and trusted members.</p><p>
Rituals were typically associated with specific dates- and if the date was missed, the ritual was not valid. There was no point, to a religious mindset, of keeping the ritual on another date or in an ammended way. We see here how even within the structure of the Mosaic law, spirituality and the essence of things trumped religion and externalities. After all, Passover was to be the beginning of Israel's year. “This month is hereby for you the first of the months; it is the first, for you, of all the months of the year" (Ex. 12:1). Content triumphed over form, whereas in 'religion', form so often eclipses content. Otherwise, it would have been taught that anyone who missed Passover was to be cut off from his people. We think of how Hezekiah held a delayed Passover in 2 Chron. 30, and asked the Lord to pardon those who kept it "other than it is written", including those who kept it unclean. By contrast, Hittite law specifically forbad keeping any ritual on any other date, for example, if a man was "on a journey": "You who (are) the temple officials: If you do not perform the festivals at the time of the festivals; (if) you do the spring festival in fall, (or) the fall festival in spring, (or) if the right time for doing the festival (has) arrived, and he who is to do it comes to you... and he seizes your knees, (saying) “The harvests (are) before me,” or a marriage or a journey or some other matter. “Let me off. Let that matter finish for me, and when that matter is finished for me, I will do the festival thus”: Do not do according to the wishes of (that) man. He must not persuade you. Do not conduct business concerning the will of the gods" [“Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials, 9,” in The Context of Scripture, Volume One: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; trans. G. McMahon; Leiden: Brill, 2003) pp. 217–21].</p><p>
"He shall still keep the Passover" implies the person was to keep it individually. Yet some aspects of the Passover legislation required a collective, communal setting in order to be obeyed. Not least the command to take a lamb large enough for the entire household, to search the family home for yeast etc. We can only conclude that such an individual keeping of Passover was not therefore going to involve strict obedience to all the legislation. The breaking of bread is the new covenant equivalent to Passover. We see here an insight into how God wants man to perceive the essence of things, and to personally engage with this personal remembrance of salvation. It's why it's quite legitimate to break bread alone, even to baptize oneself. Only the religious and unspiritual mindset will protest against such ideas. None of this takes away from the ideal requirement stressed in Num. 9:2, to keep the feast at the “appointed time... the appointed meeting... in the appointed place". God's ideal intentions must never be forgotten.</p><p>
We may note that impurity by a dead body could have been dealt with another way. "Those who touch the dead body of any human being shall be unclean seven days. They shall purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean" (Num. 19:11,12). But here in Numbers 9, this possibility is apparently not mentioned. The idea perhaps is that a recognition of impurity was required- and then the Passover could be kept a month later. Following another ritual in order to get clean... isn't actually required, at least it isn't mentioned. </p><p>
So we see God so eager to not let human weakness stop His engagement with man. And yet He does ask that the Passover be kept according to its ordinances. We must never allow any kind of reductionism, reducing to the essence, to lead us to think that His demands need not be taken seriously. The men were likely unclean because of a relative's death and burial. The Lord Jesus told the man who wanted to first attend his father's funeral: "Let the dead bury their dead". And demanded the man pick up the cross and follow Him. On one hand, God is very demanding. On the other, He asks for the essence and not the letter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the second month, on the fourteenth day at evening they shall keep it: they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover, as the prototype breaking of bread, featured bitter herbs to remind Israel of their bitter experience in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>). The breaking of bread should likewise focus our attention on the fact that return to the world is a return to bondage and bitterness, not freedom. Israel didn’t learn this lesson, they forgot the bitterness of Egypt, and longed to return to it. The idea was that the sweetness of the lamb's roasted meat was to assuage the bitterness of the herbs; and we see here prefigured the intended effect of the Lord's sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall leave none of it until the morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em> adds: "You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is the possibility of living before God on different levels. Hence nothing was to remain, but God foresaw that some would allow part of the sacrifice to remain. This was a concession to human weakness, and reflects God’s awareness of human liability to failure. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nor break a bone of it. According to all the law of the Passover they shall keep it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em> stresses that not a bone of the Lord Jesus was broken when He was crucified. We are the Lord's body, of His flesh and bones (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). Crucifixion was designed to torture the bones; and yet none was broken. We suffer in Him, but shall not be finally broken. As the Passover lambs were being killed, the Lord died; and it was critical that not a bone of the Passover lambs be broken (<em><a href='B:20 12:46'>Exo 12:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:12'>Num 9:12</a></em>). John seems so keen to point out that the Lord died as the Passover lamb, and Paul perceives this when stating that He is "our Passover" (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). For no bone of the Lord to be broken, the nails driven through His hands (the Greek can refer to the arms or wrists too) would not have been large, and would probably have been driven through the 'Destot gap', the set of nerves in between the large wrist bones. The pain would have been intense at that point. The rough hammering of the nails through that point would have paid no attention to detail; but those hammer blows were Divinely guided so that no bone broke. And this would have been even more amazingly guided for the nails driven through the feet not to break a bone. It was only by the Lord refusing to relieve the pain by pushing down on the sedile that He avoided breaking any bones.</p><p>The stress upon the Lord's unbroken bones and His garment not being rent contrasts with the language of crushing, breaking, bruising etc. found in Is. 53, and the breaking of the bread as the symbol of His body broken for us (1 Cor. 10:16), prefigured in the breaking of the bread to feed the multitudes. That breaking, therefore, refers to the breaking of the Lord's heart and mind. He thereby becomes the focus for all the broken hearted.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of Yahweh in its appointed time, that man shall bear his sin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are no examples of God slaying those who didn't keep the Passover. So this cutting off was in His mind. But we note how seriously He viewed not keeping Passover. Those who exclude others from the breaking of bread [the equivalent of Passover under the new covenant] must ponder the position in which they place those whom they cut off. They are hurting them, perhaps eternally. "Shall bear his sin" means to suffer the consequences of his sin (Num. 18:22,32; Lev. 19:17; 20:20; 22:9; 24:15; Ez. 23:49). But the consequence of that sin was in the mind of God, even if it was not shown at the time. Does this mean that those who don't break bread, as the new covenant equivalent of Passover, are rejected by Him? Not necessarily. But the essence of Passover is indeed critical to salvation, and that is, to consciously remember the price paid for our redemption. Otherwise we are trying to bear our sin ourselves, rather than accepting that the blood of the Lamb bears that sin. For clearly it is the Lord on the cross, to whom the Paschal lamb pointed forward, who is the sin bearer. </p><p>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>). Here, being cut off from the people meant 'bearing his sin'- at the last day, before God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a foreigner lives among you, and desires to keep the Passover to Yahweh according to the statute of the Passover, and according to its ordinance, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the foreigner, and for him who is born in the land’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover was open to Gentiles who wished to identify themselves with Israel, and to see in the Red Sea deliverance something of their own deliverance from this world. We should not be exclusive but rather inclusive when it comes to the breaking of bread service which was typified by the Passover. It has been argued that the breaking of bread is the equivalent of the Jewish Passover, and <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> says that only the circumcised could eat of it. Here are a few comments:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Whatever interpretation we wish to place upon <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em>, we have to reconcile it with the above evidence for the openness of the Lord Jesus with regard to His table fellowship, using it to bring people to Him, rather than as a test of fellowship or intellectual / moral purity of understanding or living.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Peter ate with the uncircumcised- and got into trouble with the Judaist brethren exactly because the Law had forbidden the uncircumcised from eating the first Passover (<em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>). The Jews had put a (very large!) hedge around this law by forbidding Jews from eating with Gentiles period. Yet Peter was taught that this was wrong- and he ate with Gentiles, it seems even before they were baptized. But the point is, he had been taught by the vision that all the old Mosaic category distinctions of clean / unclean, circumcised / uncircumcised, had now been ended. It seems this was as large a challenge to the church in the 1st century as it is in the 21st. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Although the Passover and memorial meeting are related, the relation is at times by way of contrast rather than only similarity; e.g. in the first Passover, the families were to provide a lamb; whereas in the antitype, the Lord Jesus is the lamb of Divine and not human provision. The Paschal lamb of God takes away the whole world's sin, rather than just providing blood for the temporal redemption of Israel's firstborn, etc.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Circumcision under the new covenant doesn't refer to anything outward, visibly verifiable. For now "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter" (<em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>)- seeing we can't judge the secret things of others' hearts, how can we tell who is circumcised in heart or not? The 'sealing' of God’s people today, the proof that they are the Lord's (<em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>), is not anything external, but the internal matter of being sealed with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>), or being sealed with a mark in the mind / forehead, as Revelation puts it (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:4'>Rev 9:4</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- The Gentiles in Israel, circumcised or not, could keep the feast of unleavened bread (<em><a href='B:20 12:17-20'>Exo 12:17-20</a></em>) which was related to the Passover.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- If <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> is read on a literalistic level, i.e. that only the circumcised could eat the Passover, this would surely mean that no female could eat it? Yet this was not the case.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- It's <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> which speaks in more general terms of whether or not a Gentile could partake of the Passover- and here it's made clear that yes he/she could, and no mention is made of being circumcised: "And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the Passover unto the Lord; according to the statute of the Passover, and according to the ordinance thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Commands that were intended for subsequent generations often include the kind of rubric we meet in <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:17'>Exo 12:17</a></em>: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord: throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever... therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever". But we don't meet that 'throughout your generations' with regard to the uncircumcised men not being allowed to eat it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Israel were told specifically that the Passover lamb must be roasted and not boiled (<em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> uses two distinct words for 'boiled' and 'roasted'.). But the word used in <em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> for "boiled" is that used in <em><a href='B:50 16:7'>Deu 16:7</a></em> of how the Passover could be boiled, although many Bible versions misleadingly translate the word there as "roast". The translators need not have feared such contradiction. For it is the contradiction of grace. Here we have another example of where the Passover regulations given in Exodus were specific only to that time at the exodus. Thus a foreigner was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice, but foreigners were welcome to eat of the Passover later.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- So my suggestion is that the command of <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> that no uncircumcised could eat of the Passover, and that the Gentiles amongst the people should be circumcised if they wanted to eat it, was specific to that first Passover. As Israel and the mixed multitude that went with them sat in Egypt under threat of losing their firstborn sons, they could find salvation by keeping the Passover and entering into covenant with God through circumcision. Both Jewish tradition and the implication of Moses not circumcising his sons is that the Jews in Egypt weren't circumcised; yet "all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised" (<em><a href='B:60 5:5'>Jos 5:5</a></em>). Implication would be that many were circumcised in order to keep the first Passover according to the command given them in Exodus 12. We could therefore take <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> as a specific command for those who kept the first Passover to be circumcised, rather than an ongoing principle. The Jewish sage Maimonides (A Guide For The Perplexed Vol. 3 ch. 46) explains: "The reason of the prohibition that the uncircumcised should not eat of it (Exod. xii. 48) is explained by our Sages as follows: The Israelites neglected circumcision during their long stay in Egypt". </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- This approach would explain why <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> doesn't demand that Gentiles be circumcised to keep future Passovers; why there's no comment that the exclusion of the uncircumcised should be kept "throughout your generations"; and why <em><a href='B:20 12:50'>Exo 12:50</a></em> speaks as if Israel fully obeyed the command about circumcision and Passover eating in a once-off sense when they kept that first Passover. And of course this is the reason for many branches of Judaism welcoming uncircumcised Gentiles to the Passover celebration- for they don't understand <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> to preclude it, but rather <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> encourages it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- This approach also helps answer a difficult question: Why was the lamb or kid kept for four days (<em><a href='B:20 12:2'>Exo 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>)? If the effects of circumcision take three days to wear off (<em><a href='B:10 34:25'>Gen 34:25</a></em>), it could be that the uncircumcised males were intended to circumcise themselves, chose the lamb, and then keep the Passover four days later. Some Jewish commentators claim that God fell in love with Israel whilst she was still in her blood (<em><a href='B:330 16:6'>Eze 16:6</a></em>) in that some Jews circumcised themselves at the time of the first Passover- hence one Rabbi speaks of the blood of circumcision and the blood of the first Passover running together.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the day that the tabernacle was raised up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, even the Tent of the Testimony, and at evening it was over the tabernacle as if it were the appearance of fire, until morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was "the cloud" which had covered Sinai (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 24:15-16'>Exo 24:15-16</a></em>). Both holy place and most holy were filled. 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>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus it was continually. The cloud covered it, and the appearance of fire by night- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :21. The “pillar of fire” was only “as it were the appearance of fire” (<em><a href='B:40 9:15'>Num 9:15</a></em>) but the record elsewhere speaks of it as “fire”, because that’s what it looked like to the Israelites. The Scriptures speak of how a pillar of fire was with Israel in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:230 105:39'>Psa 105:39</a></em>). But actually when it first appeared, it was described as “<em>the appearance </em>of fire” (<em><a href='B:40 9:15'>Num 9:15</a></em>). It wasn’t fire, it appeared as fire. And yet it’s spoken of later simply as “fire”. There’s no inspired footnote reminding us that, well, actually, it wasn’t really fire. Likewise “the mount (of Sinai) burnt with fire” (<em><a href='B:50 9:15'>Deu 9:15</a></em>). The mountain didn’t catch fire. But that’s how it looked to the Israelites from a distance; and so that’s how it’s described.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whenever the cloud was taken up from over the Tent, then after that the children of Israel took their journey; and in the place where the cloud remained, there the children of Israel encamped- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Took their journey" is Heb. 'to pull up', alluding to the pulling up of tent pegs. The process of moving onward would have been a major, regular upheaval. They would've preferred to stay where they were. And this is a feature of our wilderness journey after our Red Sea baptism; we are always being moved on further, in various ways. And this goes right against the conservativism which is such a major part of the human condition. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the commandment of Yahweh the children of Israel travelled, and at the commandment of Yahweh they encamped. As long as the cloud remained on the tabernacle they remained encamped- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pillar of cloud was vertical as it stood above the tent of meeting when they encamped, but was spread out as a plume over them as they travelled, shielding them from the desert heat. We could deduce from <em><a href='B:40 10:34-35'>Num 10:34-35</a></em> that the cloud rose up when Moses commanded it to. They journeyed according to Yahweh's commandments to Moses, and it was he who in turn uttered that commandment to Israel and to the cloud: "The cloud of Yahweh was over them by day, when they set forward from the camp. It happened, when the ark went forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:40 10:34-35'>Num 10:34-35</a></em>). It wasn't therefore the case that Moses had no idea as to when they were to travel, and that he only knew when the cloud lifted up and went forward. It was rather he who commanded the cloud to do that. Representing the Lord Jesus, he was in this sense in a position of control over the Angel within the cloud. The idea was that their journey was in response to God's spoken word of command. And we must ask how much our Bible reading influences actual decision making and choices and directions on our journey.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the cloud stayed on the tabernacle many days, then the children of Israel kept Yahweh’s command, and didn’t travel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To not do something, to sit still, perhaps in a place they would rather leave, is presented as active obedience to a commandment. And in a sense our faithfulness to the Lord Jesus and His return is in some way a waiting game. And we are to wait faithfully.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sometimes the cloud was a few days on the tabernacle; then according to the commandment of Yahweh they remained encamped, and according to the commandment of Yahweh they travelled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of such short stays at one place (here and in :21) was in praise of their obedience. For the work of setting up tents and the tabernacle was significant. To set them up and then immediately have to take them down involved huge effort. There weren't many times during the wilderness journey when this happened; "sometimes" is an example of the generosity of the Divine record towards His people. It was in fact very rare throughout the 38 years wandering. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sometimes the cloud was from evening until morning; and when the cloud was taken up in the morning, they travelled: by day and by night, when the cloud was taken up, they travelled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em> says that there was a pillar of cloud in the day time and a pillar of fire by night. But at the time of the Exodus, there was a pillar of cloud for the Egyptians and a pillar of fire to give light in the night for the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>). Could this mean that the meaning of time was collapsed at this time? It was night for the Israelites but daytime for the Egyptians? <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>, amidst many exodus / Red Sea allusions, speaks of how God makes the darkness light before His exiting people. The many Johanine references to the Lord Jesus being a light in the darkness for His followers would then be yet more elaborations of the idea that the Lord Jesus is the antitype of the Angel that led Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 9:21'>Num 9:21</a></em> says that the pillar of cloud was with the Israelites at <em>night</em>, and sometimes it was taken up in the night and they therefore had to move on. Does this mean that there were times when the meaning of time was collapsed during their journey, and the night was made as the day (perhaps <em><a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a></em> alludes to this experience)? When Yahweh came down on Sinai, He was enveloped in a <em>cloud</em> of <em>fire</em>- suggesting that there was no day and night for Him (<em><a href='B:20 24:15-17'>Exo 24:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whether it was two days, or a month, or a year that the cloud stayed on the tabernacle, remaining on it, the children of Israel remained encamped, and didn’t travel; but when it was taken up, they travelled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was no prior warning how long they were to remain in any one place; sometimes they stayed a year in one place, at other times they had to travel even by night. This was all at the commandment or word of the Lord. If the Red Sea deliverance represents our baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), the wilderness journey is like our journey through life towards the promised land of God’s Kingdom. We are led by an Angel, and the path we take is determined by God. Sometimes we are suddenly and unexpectedly asked to move forward; sometimes quickly, travelling by night, as it were; other periods of our lives can appear static and leading nowhere. But in all these situations we are still being led- if we remain obedient to the word of God. They didn’t know their itinerary ahead of time, each day and night they would’ve wondered whether they’d be called to move on or not. Their lives in this sense had no stability. If the Red Sea crossing represents our baptisms then this speaks of our lives afterwards being under God’s leadership and guidance, we in that sense cannot map out how we would wish our journey to be. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At the commandment of Yahweh they encamped, and at the commandment of Yahweh they took up their journey. They kept Yahweh’s command, at the commandment of Yahweh by Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A very large community of people would’ve been very hard to organize; setting up and breaking camp demanded a huge amount of time and effort. When they only remained a short time, even a day, in one place, the tendency would’ve been to complain ‘Must we really break camp and move on so quickly?’. We too are tempted to resent the unstable nature of our lives; for those whose lives are led by the Spirit, as the Angel was in a sense the Spirit of God (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>), life will never be static and boring; even if we geographically remain in one place all our lives, we are being actively led forward by God’s direction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The exercise of prayer is for our benefit. Israel were told to blow trumpets at their feasts, representing prayer, in order that God would hear their prayer and sacrifice, and remember them / take notice of them (<em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em>). The blowing of the trumpets didn’t of itself remind God about His people; it was an exercise for their benefit. And the God who knows before we ask evidently doesn't need our prayers as a means of information transfer.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Make two trumpets of silver. You shall make them of beaten work. You shall use them for the calling of the congregation, and for the journeying of the camps- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Calling of the congregation" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God’s people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship. The trumpets weren't necessarily identical- see on :3.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sons of Aaron were to blow the trumpets (:8). There were only two sons of Aaron left at this time, Eleazar and Ithamar. So that might explain why there were only two. In the time of Joshua and David there were seven trumpets used by the priests (<em><a href='B:60 6:4'>Jos 6:4</a></em>), and 120 trumpets in Solomon's time (<em><a href='B:130 15:24'>1Ch 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 5:12'>2Ch 5:12</a></em>). So again we see that the command to make two trumpets was not set in stone. It was a principle open to interpretation and development. For again we must note that the law was not a leash, a chain, but rather a springboard towards serving God on our own initiative and interpretation of His basic principles. Although not of course in contradiction to those principles. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they blow them, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that both of them were blown (cp. :4). This would have made a different sound to just one of them being blown, so we can conclude the trumpets were not identical in sound, and when blown together, produced a very distinctive sound. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If they blow just one, then the princes, the heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Thousands" is again not a literal numerical term but means "families". This fact means that the 600 "thousands" of men who left Egypt may not mean 600,000. If there were a congregation totalling a few million, two trumpets would not have been heard by them all. I have argued elsewhere that the size of the congregation was much smaller than that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you blow an alarm, the camps that lie on the east side shall go forward-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Lead therefore by Judah who was effectively the firstborn, and from whom the Lord Jesus was to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you blow an alarm the second time, the camps that lie on the south side shall go forward. They shall blow an alarm for their journeys- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX adds "And when you blow the third alarm, the camps on the west shall begin their march; and when ye blow the fourth alarm, the camps on the north shall begin their march".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But when the assembly is to be gathered together, you shall blow, but you shall not sound an alarm- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Blow" here implies short, staccato notes. This looks ahead to the blowing of the trumpet associated with the gathering together of all God’s people at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:52'>1Co 15:52</a></em>), and moving forward into the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets. This shall be to you for a principle forever throughout your generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2. If Israel were obedient, they were promised that they would live <em>in their land</em> in peace with no oppressors; they would only be oppressed if they were disobedient. So here we have another reflection of God’s sensitivity to the weakness of His people; the very structure of His law foresaw their likely weakness, and offered a way out. In this case, it was through the blowing of the trumpets. The perceptive Israelite would have seen that the same blowing of trumpets was what had been done to command Israel to move forward during their wilderness journey (:5). Even in the settled existence in Canaan, they were to still see themselves as on a wilderness journey- just as we should in our settled lives. And when we fail, we are to rally ourselves and move onwards, rather like a ‘Play on!’ command in some sports, when a player has tumbled and fallen. We have to move on, as quickly as possible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets. Then you will be remembered before Yahweh your God, and you will be saved from your enemies- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also in the day of your gladness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The trumpet call was an appeal to God. It wasn’t only to be made in times of crisis (:9), but in good times too. We shouldn’t treat God as someone we rush to only in times of crisis, but should share with Him our good times as well as the bad times. The day of gladness could specifically refer to the days when they offered the burnt and peace offerings. Because of its association with the celebration of the forgiveness of sins, the peace offering brought together a variety of emotions, blending joy, sober recognition and gratitude. We therefore find it being offered in both days of gladness and solemnity (<em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em>). But normally there is at least some mention of joy connected with the records of the peace offering (<em><a href='B:140 29:35-36'>2Ch 29:35-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:7'>Deu 27:7</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And in your set feasts, and in the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be to you for a memorial before your God. I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses speaks in <em><a href='B:20 18:16'>Exo 18:16</a></em> of how "I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and His laws". Those laws were not given at the time of Exodus 18, so the passage there is out of chronological order. For the people only arrived at Horeb ("the mountain of God", <em><a href='B:20 18:5'>Exo 18:5</a></em>) at the time of <em><a href='B:20 19:1-2'>Exo 19:1-2</a></em>. It was only when they left Horeb on the 20th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year that Moses established the system of judges as Jethro had advised (<em><a href='B:50 1:12-15'>Deu 1:12-15</a></em>). 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 suggest 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle of the testimony- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The tent of meeting is sometimes called the tent of the “testimony”, a reference to God’s word on the tables of stone which were within the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy Place. Out of all the tabernacle furniture, the symbol of God’s word was seen as central. God’s word- the Bible, in our times- is to be utterly central to our lives and collective sense of community.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel went forward according to their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud stayed in the wilderness of Paran-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The LORD came from Sinai and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of His saints (Angels): from His right hand (i.e. the Angels- they ministered the Law) went a fiery law for them" (<em><a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a></em>); whilst earlier we only read "And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran" (<em><a href='B:40 10:12'>Num 10:12</a></em>). The passage in Deuteronomy 33 almost seems a direct comment on this earlier description. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They first went forward according to the commandment of Yahweh by Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I will discuss on :34,35 how Yahweh commanded Moses whenever they had to move on or rest, and he as it were commanded the Angel in the cloud. The cloud therefore rose up and then rested over the tent of meeting at the command of Moses, who was repeating the commandment of Yahweh to him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>First, the standard of the camp of the children of Judah went forward according to their armies. Nahshon the son of Amminadab was over his army- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He was brother-in-law of Aaron (<em><a href='B:20 6:23'>Exo 6:23</a></em>), and yet also married to Rahab in order to be the ancestor of David and the Lord Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:470 1:4'>Mat 1:4</a></em>). He was one of the points at which the lines of Judah and Levi converged in the Lord's genealogy, appropriate for Him as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nethanel the son of Zuar was over the army of the tribe of the children of Issachar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'God has given' suggests that he was named in faith that the pr<em>o</em>mised land would indeed be given to Israel. Although the inheritances for the location of the tribal cantons were drawn by lot, it is clear the hand of God was in it. For the inheritances were appropriate to the people given them. Issachar's lot for possession of the land was next to Judah and Zebulun (<em><a href='B:60 19:17'>Jos 19:17</a></em>), with whom Issachar had lived and journeyed side by side during the wilderness years (<em><a href='B:40 2:5'>Num 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:15'>Num 10:15</a></em>). This opens up the question as to whether we should also draw lots in this age. For God worked through them clearly enough in Joshua's time.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eliab the son of Helon was over the army of the tribe of the children of Zebulun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names feature the 'El' suffix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tabernacle was taken down, and the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari, who bore the tabernacle, went forward-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The visual image of the tabernacle being taken down stuck in the Lord's mind, and He saw it as a picture of His death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 2:19'>Joh 2:19</a></em>). And the raising up of the tabernacle was to be true in the restoration of "the temple of His body" (<em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>). We think of Joseph of Arimathea bearing away the Lord's body from the cross. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The standard of the camp of Reuben went forward according to their armies. Elizur the son of Shedeur was over his army- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Elizur", 'God is my rock', is a name indicating faith that God would indeed be a rock to Israel. And probably these were names which were taken by choice rather than birth names. But Israel turned back from entering Canaan; their leaders had the names of faith but in reality their faith was weak. And we must ask ourselves whether that is the case with us, having a name that we spiritually live when we are dead. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai was over the army of the tribe of the children of Simeon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God’s peace" son of "The Almighty is my rock" could reflect a faithful family, especially considering that Israel were idolaters in Egypt, and carried the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>) and also the tabernacle of Moloch as well as that of Yahweh, the star of Remphan as well as the standards of their tribes (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eliasaph the son of Deuel was over the army of the tribe of the children of Gad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuel is better Reuel as in <em><a href='B:40 2:14'>Num 2:14</a></em>. The Hebrew letters for 'D' and 'R' are easily confused; so here we have an example of slight copying errors in the original texts. But these in no way negate the overall Divine inspiration of the texts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Kohathites set forward, bearing the sanctuary. The others set up the tabernacle before they arrived- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The sanctuary" is put for the especially holy items of furniture within it; for the actual structure of the sanctuary was carried by others (:17).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The standard of the camp of the children of Ephraim set forward according to their armies. Elishama the son of Ammihud was over his army-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elishama was Joshua's grandfather (<em><a href='B:130 7:26'>1Ch 7:26</a></em>). "God who hears" reflects Moses' message that God had indeed heard the crying of the Israelites in Egypt. This was likely a name change after acceptance of Moses' teaching.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur was over the army of the tribe of the children of Manasseh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gamaliel" is 'God is my reward', named in hope that the promised reward of the Kingdom would indeed be given. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Abidan the son of Gideoni was over the army of the tribe of the children of Benjamin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:24,27) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The standard of the camp of the children of Dan, which was the rear guard of all the camps, set forward according to their armies. Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai was over his army- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ammishaddai" means 'People of the Almighty', using the term <em>shaddai</em> which is often associated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He may well have been one of the faithful few who kept perceiving the vital separation of God’s people from Egypt, whereas the majority in their hearts returned to Egypt and wished to assimilate with them in order to escape persecution and have what they imagined was a good life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pagiel the son of Ochran was over the army of the tribe of the children of Asher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pagiel ('accident of God') was son of Ochran, 'muddler'. As discussed on :27, people had multiple names and were known by the 'name' they carved for themselves in life, and the attitudes they had. God makes no accidents; so maybe in depression and bitterness this man felt like this, and was known for it. Hardly a great example to the tribe he was supposed to be leading. And indeed Asher all but disappears from Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Ahira the son of Enan was over the army of the tribe of the children of Naphtali- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would have named her child Nabal (fool), or Ahira (brother of evil), or 'sickness' or 'wasting' (Mahlon and Chilion)? These names were either given to them by others and the use adopted by God, or simply God in the record assigned them such names.&nbsp;The names associated with the leadership of Benjamin and Naphtali (:24,27) stand out as not having any spiritual reference in them. Israel were very spiritually weak as they left Egypt and it is likely that the more spiritual names we read of in this list were the result of name changes. But the leaders of these two tribes didn’t do that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus were the travels of the children of Israel according to their armies, and they went forward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "These are the armies of the children of Israel; and they set forward with their forces". The military analogies are continual. It was God’s ideal intention that they should now march to Canaan and enter it as an army. The fact they turned away from this potential was tragic. So much Divine hope and carefully prepared potential was wasted, just as it is in so many lives. We marvel at His patience in continuing to try with so many people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, We are journeying to the place of which Yahweh said, ‘I will give it to you’. Come with us, and we will treat you well; for Yahweh has spoken good concerning Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Numbers 10, 11 seem to portray Moses in weakness. He pleads with his brother in law not to leave them, because&nbsp;without him they would not know where to camp in the wilderness; "thou mayest be to us instead of eyes". Yet the Angels are God’s eyes, they were seeking out resting places for Israel in the wilderness; the record reminds us of this straight afterwards (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em>). Jethro elsewhere suggested that Moses needed more help in leading the people because otherwise fading thou wilt fade away’ (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em> A.V.mg.); at the end of his days, the record seems to highlight the untruth of this by commenting that his natural strength was not faded (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>). So Jethro’s advice wasn’t always spiritual. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>10:31 suggests Moses saw Jethro's knowledge of the desert as better than the Angelic " eyes" of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:3'>Pro 15:3</a></em>) who were going ahead of the camp to find a resting place (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). It seems Moses recognized his error in this on the last day of his life, when he admits Yahweh, not Jethro's wisdom, had led them (<em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>). Likewise Paul in his final communication comments on the way that Mark with whom he had once quarelled was profitable to him (<em><a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to him, I will not go; but I will depart to my own land, and to my relatives- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There’s something very sad about this; Hobab could’ve identified himself with Israel and shared a place in the promised land with them, if he had travelled with them through the wilderness. But he preferred his own family rather than God’s family, and so he turned back. We too invite people to share our future hope, but they turn back, even if they journey with us for a while as Hobab did with Israel. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Don’t leave us, please, because you know how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and you can be to us instead of eyes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have been a moment of weakness in Moses, for the Angel went before Israel to find them camping places (:33), and the Angels are God’s eyes (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:6-8'>Rev 4:6-8</a></em>). Like Moses, we tend to seek for human guidance in our wilderness journey, rather than trusting in God’s Angelic Spirit guidance of us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In this time of final spiritual maturity, Moses was keenly aware of his own spiritual failings (as Paul and Jacob were in their last days). This is one of the great themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. He begins his Deuteronomy address by pointing out how grievously they had failed thirty eight years previously, when they refused to enter the good land. He reminds them how that although God had gone before them in Angelic power (<em><a href='B:50 1:30'>Deu 1:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>), they had asked for their spies to go before them. And Moses admits that this fatal desire for human strength to lead them to the Kingdom "pleased me well" (<em><a href='B:50 1:23'>Deu 1:23</a></em>). 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.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be, if you go with us, yes, it shall be, that whatever good Yahweh does to us, we will do the same to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em> may allude here: "Towards you goodness, if you continue in His goodness". The context is likewise- Gentiles being invited to share in the goodness planned for Israel. And refusing it, for the most part, as Hobab did. See on :30.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They set forward from the Mount of Yahweh three days’ journey. The ark of the covenant of Yahweh went before them three days’ journey, to seek out a camping place for them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Both the ark and the cloud with the Angel in it went before them. The Angel was clearly personally associated with the shekinah glory between the cherubim over the ark, and the departure of the glory from the temple in Ezekiel's time is described in terms of the Angel cherubim leaving. See on :29; <em><a href='B:230 132:8'>Psa 132:8</a></em>. The Angels have worked out every victory for us in prospect- we have to have the faith to go ahead and act, believing that they have acted, even when there is no visible evidence. Our works must therefore repeat those which our Angels have done previously- hence their great interest in us. The Angel brought Israel "forth out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them" (<em><a href='B:330 20:6'>Eze 20:6</a></em>); the Angel in the ark "went before them in the three days journey to search out a resting place for them" (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em>). Yet Israel still had to send out human spies, and carefully "describe the land in a book" (<em><a href='B:60 18:4-8'>Jos 18:4-8</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the Angel and the glory of Yahweh clearly looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. He didn’t exist at that time, and was greater than Angels; Hebrews 1 is clear that He was not an Angel. "I go to prepare a place for you" (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-2'>Joh 14:1-2</a></em>) clearly alludes to the scene here. The Lord went to the cross, and thence to Heaven, to prepare us the rest / camping place which Joshua couldn't ultimately give Israel in Canaan (<em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em>). "Camping place" is s.w. "rest", used of Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 12:9'>Deu 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:15'>Gen 49:15</a></em>). The ultimate resting place of God’s glory, in those days manifest in an Angel, will be in the Kingdom of God upon earth at the Lord's return (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em> "His rest shall be glorious"; <em><a href='B:290 32:18'>Isa 32:18</a></em>). But even in this life, the resting place of God is in hearts which have come under the dominion of the King, becoming thereby His Kingdom (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 66:1'>Isa 66:1</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In their faithlessness, Israel failed to learn the lesson from the ark and cloud going before them to search or spy out their resting place. They wanted human eyes to "spy out" the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:2'>Num 13:2</a></em>). "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><p>The cloud was both in front of them and over them (:34), because it was over the ark which moved in the midst of them; just as Yahweh is both in the present and in the future, as His Name suggests. "Camping place" is literally "rest", a term used for inheritance of the Kingdom and land. Deuteronomy often speaks of Israel entering their "rest". The entire journey through the desert, every step of the way, every point of the itinerary, was intended to lead Israel to enter their "rest". The fact they chose not to enter the rest was therefore a waste of all the work the Lord had done with them on the journey.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cloud of Yahweh was over them by day, when they set forward from the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pillar of cloud was vertical as it stood above the tent of meeting when they encamped, but was spread out as a plume over them as they travelled, shielding them from the desert heat. We could deduce from <em><a href='B:40 10:34-35'>Num 10:34-35</a></em> that the cloud rose up when Moses commanded it to. They journeyed according to Yahweh's commandments to Moses, and it was he who in turn uttered that commandment to Israel and to the cloud: "The cloud of Yahweh was over them by day, when they set forward from the camp. It happened, when the ark went forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:40 10:34-35'>Num 10:34-35</a></em>). It wasn't therefore the case that Moses had no idea as to when they were to travel, and that he only knew when the cloud lifted up and went forward. It was rather he who commanded the cloud to do that. Representing the Lord Jesus, he was in this sense in a position of control over the Angel within the cloud. This command over the Angel was part of the same theme that we see in how Moses negotiated with God over the salvation of Israel. See on :36.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when the ark went forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David thought that the bringing of the ark to Zion could have been its’&nbsp; final homecoming- although Solomon his son let everything down in reality. “Arise O Lord into Your rest” in <em><a href='B:230 24:8'>Psa 24:8</a></em> alludes to “Rise up, O Lord” in <em><a href='B:40 10:35'>Num 10:35</a></em>. The travelling of the ark was intended to have come to a permanent rest in the sanctuary. But David and Solomon failed to appreciate that God preferred to keep on the move, and not to be tied down by mere religion.</p><p>It's unclear if the final verses of this chapter refer just to the initial journey of Israel with the ark until they came to the borders of the land. It's tempting to see them as a general statement of what happened throughout the 38 years journey. In which case we marvel at God's grace- that the condemned were still led by the cloud, their feet didn't swell, they were still protected from the sun by day and the cold at night. How God treats the condemned is truly the measure of Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let your enemies be scattered! Let those who hate you flee before you!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fleeing of the Egyptians from Israel in the midst of the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) was to be repeated in all Israel's conflicts with their enemies; every time, the essence of the Red Sea deliverance (which was by grace alone, as Israel then were so weak spiritually) was to be repeated throughout the history of God’s people (<em><a href='B:40 10:35'>Num 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:7'>Deu 28:7</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We would rather there were a third way. But <em>as far as God is concerned</em>, there is none. None would say they hate God; not even the atheist. Yet God sees those who love the world as hating Him. Likewise the Bible speaks of the world as being sinful and actively hating God, whereas to human eyes the world is for the most part ignorant. Thus the Canaanite nations did not know much about the God of Israel, and yet they are described as actively hating Him (<em><a href='B:40 10:35'>Num 10:35</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:230 68:1'>Psa 68:1</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When it rested, he said, Return, Yahweh, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :34, this <em>c</em>ould be read as Moses commanding the spread out cloud which went before them to return to the camp and make them rest there. But they journeyed "at the commandment of Yahweh" to Moses, and his commanding the Angel in the cloud to stop and start was therefore reflective of the commandment he had received from God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people started complaining in the ears of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "the people" is almost always used about Israel in their weak sinfulness. This is a classic example. Which highlights God's grace in telling Pharaoh "Let My people go... he did / did not let the people go". Weak as they were, God was still intent on delivering them.</p><p>They doubtless grumbled amongst themselves. But what we say secretly, as we think, to ourselves and to each other is spoke right into the ears of God Himself. What they said is recorded in Ps. 78:19,20, although this is probably the record of how God interpreted their thoughts, rather than their actual words, which is what He does to us to, looking to the implication of our positions: "They spoke against God. They said, Can God prepare a table in the wilderness? Behold, He struck the rock, so that waters gushed out, and streams overflowed. Can He give bread also? Will He provide flesh for His people?". For sure they didn't think they were whispering this in God's ears. You speak in another's ear when you are privately whispering. They whispered to each other in their "murmuring in their tents", but God saw this as whispering in His ear. This is how closely God listens to every conversation and secret thought. This lack of ultimate privacy is a great comfort to the spiritual person. We have His ear, we have the intimacy of someone who knows another well enough to whisper a private thought into their ear.
Their complaint was that they had no meat. But this is related to their wilful memory that they had eaten flesh to the full by the flesh pots of Egypt. Their complaint wasn't so much that they wanted a more varied diet, but that they wanted the life and food of Egypt (:20), and were looking for any excuse to legitimize the fact that they had in their hearts returned to Egypt.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Yahweh heard it, His anger was kindled; and Yahweh’s fire burnt among them, and consumed some of those in the outskirts of the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication could be that it was those who camped furthest away from the tabernacle who complained. An encampment of very many people (:21) would’ve been large, and for them to walk to the tabernacle would’ve been quite a journey. If we are wholeheartedly devoted to God, we won’t want to be on the edge of God’s people, just peripherally associated with the things of God. The fire represented their own lust. They were consumed with their lusts, and their consumption by Divine fire mirrored that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people cried to Moses, and Moses prayed to Yahweh, and the fire abated-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people cried... Moses prayed- and the Divine plague ceased. This is exactly the sequence of activity during the plagues- Moses had learnt previously about such intercession for others suffering the result of sin, and now that lesson was being used in the personal growth plan God had for Moses. We too find that situations are arranged by providence to test what we learnt at some earlier point. In this case, however, the people of the Lord were acting the same as Pharaoh and the Egyptians. The thoughtful Israelite would've perceived this, and realized that Israel's salvation was grace indeed, seeing that they were behaving in the same way as the Egypt which they had been saved out of.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "the fire was quenched". Fire which is <em>not </em>quenched represents total destruction in condemnation (<em><a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 9:43'>Mar 9:43</a></em>). The idea therefore is that thanks to Moses' intercession, these people were saved from what would otherwise have been eternal condemnation. Those whose faith is commended for quenching fire (<em><a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a></em>) are those who quenched what would otherwise have been permanent condemnation of others. We therefore conclude that to some extent, some can be saved from a condemnation they would otherwise experience- by the intercession of others (<em><a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a></em>). It was because of the faith of the friends that the paralyzed man was forgiven his sins (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). In some cases, we can play the critical factor in saving a person from eternal condemnation as Moses did here. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of that place was called Taberah, because Yahweh’s fire burnt among them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :2, the burning of Yahweh's fire represented condemnation. And third parties can save others from this- in some cases, by Yahweh's grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The mixed multitude that was among them lusted exceedingly; and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who will give us flesh to eat?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This group are spoken of as if they were separate from "Israel". The Israelites camped according to their tribes, and therefore this group perhaps camped and travelled separately. But their attitude rubbed off upon the main Israelite group. For this incident is spoken of as the lust of <em>Israel</em> (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em>). The lusts (Heb. 'coveting') of others became the lusts of Israel. And we see a clear bridge over the centuries to our own day, where the fads and passions of our fellows so easily come to be ours. The essence of their complaint was seen as effectively saying "Why did we leave Egypt?" (:20). Their complaint about a boring diet was essentially a desire to return to Egypt. And in any case, they are recorded as having huge herds when they left Egypt (Ex. 12:38; 17:3) and also when they entered the land (Num. 32:1). At Sinai they were warned not to let their herds come near the mountain (Ex. 19:13; 34:3). They had meat to eat. But they were saying they expected it from God. They were making an excuse to return to Egypt.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 11:5'>Num 11:5</a></em><em> We remember the fish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Remember" is nearly always used of remembering Yahweh and His work in Egypt, and of His remembrance of Israel. But memory is selective, and they preferred to "remember the fish", one of the few good experiences out of a host of awful experiences in Egypt. They were commanded instead to "remember" their affliction in Egypt (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:18'>Deu 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:15'>Deu 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:3'>Deu 16:3</a></em>). But out of that mass of memories, they chose to "remember" the fish and they forgot their God. Perceptions are selective, and those who turn away from God do so because they focus upon one small aspect of experience or memory, and ignore the vast majority of the data. God’s commandments to "remember" their affliction rather than "the fish" indicates that we are not powerless in the formation of memory and understanding. We can play a conscious role in the formation of our own memory and understanding- if we have a heart for God and His ways rather than for Egypt.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which we ate in Egypt for nothing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was only free because they were given it to eat in their slave camps whilst doing brutal labour. This is as bizarre as a concentration survivor remembering the 'free' food they were given whilst incarcerated. Truly, human beings tend to focus on one aspect and forget the rest. They weren't even given straw to make bricks, so it was only a highly selective memory that focused on some occasion when they got free fish in Egypt. The only other reference to fish in Egypt is when the river stunk with dead fish at the time of the plague of Ex. 7:17. Maybe the Hebrews ate them. But this is how wrong and faithless narratives are constructed in the human mind- focusing upon a single incident and extrapolating it to be a general rule of how things were or how a person was. Again, the Bible's psychological credibility and reality is remarkable.</p><p>
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. Again we see the psychological credibility of the text. For we see all around us individuals absorbing the narrative of others, and making it their own. Rather than facting their own actual historical narrative in the context of their relationship with their loving God.
</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their argument was that they missed the diversity of diet in Egypt. The singular "manna" stands in contrast to the diversity they liked to imagine they had experienced in Egypt. The argument for diversity is so often from the flesh- e.g. rather than monogamous marriage, the flesh argues for diversity of sexual experience. Rather than God's word being our ultimate standard of truth, the flesh wants a wide variety of 'truths'.</p><p>See on <em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>. They forgot their misery in the slave camps of Egypt, and imagined life had been much better there than it was. In our weakness, there are times on our wilderness journey towards the Kingdom when we look back to this world and think it was all far better than it was. The Passover was to be eaten with bitter herbs to remind them of the bitterness of Egypt / the world. But because they weren't living in the spirit of the Passover, they liked to imagine that Egypt had in fact not been bitter but instead spicy and sweet.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The illogicality of going back to the world is brought out by the illogicality of Israel's rejection of Moses. Israel rejected Moses because it was easier to stay where they were. Such is the strength of conservatism in human nature; such is our innate weakness of will and resolve. They rejected the idea of leaving Egypt because they thought it was better than it was, they failed to face up to how much they were suffering (<em><a href='B:40 11:5'>Num 11:5</a></em>). And our apathy in responding to Christ's redemptive plan for us is rooted in the same problem; we fail to appreciate the seriousness of sin, the extent to which we are in slavery to sin- even though the evidence for this is all around us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but now we have lost our appetite- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is typical whining. They had lost their appetite, and yet they considered the food of Egypt to be so desirable. They were insatiable, as spoilt children. AV "our soul is dried away" could imply the manna was dry. But this was just their pouting complaint, for it tasted creamy, like fresh oil (:8).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There is nothing at all except this manna to look at- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the same way as Israel became ungrateful for the manna and became bored with it, so we can become bored with God’s word in Christ which it represents (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em> and context). It all can become the same old scene- unless we remember the daily miracle God is performing in giving us His word and guiding us as Israel were daily guided by the fire and cloud, with His presence clearly amongst them. These things were soon taken for granted by them. We at times long for a more visible declaration of God’s presence in our lives; but Israel had this daily, and yet it didn’t result in their faith remaining. For faith isn’t related to what we can see with our eyes (<em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em>).&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like the appearance of bdellium- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This description of the manna is an answer to their complaint that the manna was dry and not appealing visually (:6). It was moist, tasting like cream with fresh oil, and had a wonderful appearance. The idea may be that it was like a crystal, hard on the outside; but in fact soft inside (:8). The manna represents both the Lord Jesus and God’s word; apparently hard on the outside to the eyes of the cynic, but in fact fresh oil within (:8). "Manna", literally "What is it?", suggests they never really grasped what it was. It was the revelation of Yahweh's grace to them, in that despite their deep apostasy and unbelief, He was daily feeding and saving them. And so the Lord Jesus likens Himself to the manna in John 6, seeing that He was likewise not comprehended by Israel. The colour would have been as GNB "whitish yellow". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people went around, gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in mortars, and boiled it in pots, and made cakes of it. Its taste was like the taste of fresh oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The freshness of the taste was to demonstrate that it had been created specifically for them every morning. This is in commentary upon their complaint in :6 AV "our soul is dried away", which could imply the manna was dry. But this was just their pouting complaint, for it tasted creamy, like fresh oil. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna fell on it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word for "fell" is that used of God Himself coming down (Num. 11:17,25; 12:5). They were rejecting God's coming down to them through His daily provision. To reject the manna was to reject God. "Fell on" is the idea used by the Lord Jesus when He speaks of how as the manna came down from Heaven, so did He. But just as the manna "fell (down)", so did the dew. And dew doesn't float down from Heaven, it is formed upon earth. So it was with the manna, and so also with the Lord Jesus. He was "from" Heaven in that He was sent from God, but He didn’t personally pre-exist, and His 'coming down from Heaven' like the manna doesn't at all imply that He personally floated down from Heaven, nor that He existed physically before His birth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of Yahweh was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The&nbsp;idea&nbsp;is&nbsp;as&nbsp;in&nbsp;GNB "Moses heard all the people complaining as they stood around in groups at the entrances of their tents. He was distressed because the LORD had become angry with them"<em>.&nbsp;</em>The time of Numbers 10, 11 was a spiritually low period for Moses. Consider <em><a href='B:40 10:30'>Num 10:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:11-13'>Num 11:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:22-23'>Num 11:22-23</a></em>. Yet in these very chapters there seems almost an emphasis on the fact that God was manifest in Moses: “Moses heard the people weep”; but they wept in the ears of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 11:10'>Num 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:18'>Num 11:18</a></em>); “it displeased the Lord; and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased” (11:1,10) shows the connection between them; God has asked Moses to carry Israel “as a nursing father... unto the land” (11:12), although Yahweh was their father who would carry them to the land (<em><a href='B:50 32:6'>Deu 32:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>). That Yahweh is manifest in His servants <em>even in their times of weakness</em> is both comforting and sobering. It is because of this principle that an apostate Israel caused Yahweh’s Name <em>which they carried</em> to be mocked in the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:330 20:39'>Eze 20:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:20'>Eze 36:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 39:7'>Eze 39:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a></em>). Yahweh did not take that Name away from them the moment they sinned. Having been baptized into the Name, our behaviour in the world, whether they appreciate it or not, is therefore a constant exhibition of the Name.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em><em> Moses said to Yahweh, Why have You dealt with Your servant so badly? Why haven’t I found grace in Your sight- for You lay the burden of all this people on me?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses argues that because God had laid the burden of His people on his shoulders, this was such a curse as to disprove God’s claim to have lavished grace upon Moses (<em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>). But the language of God’s people being laid upon a man's shoulders as a burden is in fact the language of the cross. Moses was therefore rejecting the cross. He bitterly complains that the people are God’s, not his, and therefore it is unreasonable for God to expect Moses to carry them and feed them (:11-13). He didn’t want to manifest God, nor do the work of Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 40:11'>Isa 40:11</a></em>), even though he was intended to be the prophet like unto Messiah (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses earlier had had the same doubt, as to whether he had really found grace in God’s sight; and God had magnificently assured Moses that indeed he had (<em><a href='B:20 33:13-17'>Exo 33:13-17</a></em>). Yet Moses still struggled to accept this; the complex difficulties of his life coupled with what appears to have been some form of depression led him to again doubt it. We too struggle with accepting our salvation by pure grace; one moment we may grasp it, but life’s difficulties trigger again the old doubt. Only perhaps at the day of judgment, as he see ourselves as it were from outside of ourselves, standing in the promised land of God’s Kingdom, shall we finally realize that all is ultimately OK, His grace to me is for real.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Earlier, Moses had complained about this burden, and the answer had been to follow Jethro's advice in appointing a huge number of elders and judges. The same word for "burden" is used in <em><a href='B:50 1:12'>Deu 1:12</a></em>: "How can I myself alone bear your encumbrance and your burden and your strife?". He had felt in <em><a href='B:50 1:9'>Deu 1:9</a></em> that "I am not able to bear you myself alone. And so Jethro had advised Moses to appoint elders so that "they shall bear the burden with you" (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jethro had observed how stressed Moses was with the burdens of the people, and we get the sense that they were at constant strife amongst themselves. Moses' sense of inability to bear the effects of the sins of the people could be read as a desire for the Messianic figure who would bear those sins and their effects; which was to come to full term in the sin carrying of the Lord Jesus on the cross. For the "burden" was of sin (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>). These feelings of Moses were not of themselves to be read as frustration or weakness; for the same words are used of how God Himself was weary of bearing the "encumbrance" of His people (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 1:14'>Isa 1:14</a></em>). Moses was sharing God’s feelings. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Moses didn’t respond to this burden as he might have done; for now in frustration he asks God to slay him, as he just couldn't bear the "burden" of the people (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>). God responded at that point by giving 70 Spirit endowed elders to assist Moses (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>), and we can assume this was because the sharing of the "burden" with a system of many elders (as suggested by Jethro and as described in <em><a href='B:50 1:13-16'>Deu 1:13-16</a></em>) hadn't worked. Because those men were themselves weak and unspiritual. </p><p>Moses had asked the same question in Ex. 5:22. He struggled with God not doing what He promised straight away. He wanted it right away, and failed to see that any delay which allowed evil to continue could be legitimate. This question lurked within Moses, and it seems at times he only wanted to be part of God's plan if it was going to work out when and how he expected and assumed. This is why Israel rejected a suffering Messiah, and why so many stumble at God today. Because they lack the humility to trust in God and accept their own assumptions of how things should be may be very wrong and short termist.  </p><p>
We note the continued complaint about "all this people". Moses uses the term in :11,12,13 and :14. He is again repeating the words of Jethro in Ex. 18:23, who urged Moses to appoint many judges so that "all this people" could have peace. But Jethro's advice was wrong and didn't work. Jethro had told Moses that he couldn't do it and would wear away... and now Moses feels like this. He allowed Jethro's perception of him to become reality, just as so many people do. In his maturity in Dt. 1:12 [see comments there], Moses accepts he had made the mistake of absorbing Jethro's view that he could not carry the people alone, and had become suicidal about it [as recorded here in Num. 11]. But later in Dt. 1 he glories in the way that God had "carried" the people. He ought to have trusted in him, rather than the impractical advice of his father in law. We note he likewise wanted Jethro to lead Israel through the desert and to be to them "instead of eyes"; when the Angel eyes of Yahweh were to guide them through the desert. He was clearly wrong influenced by this mere man, just as many are, and come to see themselves as others see them.</p>
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em><em> Have I conceived all this people? Have I brought them forth, that You should tell me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a nursing infant’, to the land which You swore to their fathers?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This very much sounds as if Moses sees himself as a childminder who is being unreasonably asked to bear with a difficult child. And he is handing back the child to the parent, as if to say "You get on with it, I'm done". Clearly he has the sense that Yahweh has been unreasonable in His expectations of Moses; and yet the next chapter will tell us Moses was earth's humblest man, or made humble, through such struggles with depression. His distancing from the people contrasts with how when God decides to disown His people, it is Moses who offers his own salvation for the people in order to change God's desire to destroy them. We see here the amazing mutuality between God and Moses. They each get to a point where they want to disown Israel and give up, and at that point they encourage each other to endure.</p><p>Moses is depressed by Israel complaining at how boring the manna was. He doubts God’s earlier promises to him: "Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight (God said he had, in <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>)... have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto them, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers (not "our"- notice the uncharacteristic separation between Moses and Israel). Whence should I give flesh unto all this people... if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in the sight (as God had earlier promised him that he had)" (<em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em>). God was the father and conceiver of Israel, the one who would carry them to the land (<em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:11-12'>Deu 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>); it is as if Moses is saying: They're your children, you look after them, don't dump them on me. Although compare this with his earlier love for them, willing to sacrifice himself for them. God then says that He will provide more food for Israel. But 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 waxed 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.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the alternative reading of the LXX, quoted in <em><a href='B:510 13:18'>Act 13:18</a></em>: "as a nursing father He (God) carried them in the wilderness". It was God who carried the people, but Moses had been trying to do it in his own strength, without sharing it fully with God. We note how God is likened to a woman, a nursing mother, of a very difficult infant child; although as God He is presented as a "father". In those days it was common for a wealthy woman to employ another woman to be a 'nursing mother' for her infant child. But God likens Himself to such a woman, or to a poor woman who couldn't afford to hire such a woman.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From where can I get meat to give to all this people? For they weep to me, saying, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The disciples had the same question- from where to find food to feed a great multitude in the desert (<em><a href='B:480 8:4'>Mar 8:4</a></em>). If their minds had been more spiritually attune, they would have perceived that they were in essence in the same situation as Moses- and God would likewise provide. The more we are familiar with Scripture, the more we will realize that our life situations and the crises we face have in fact been faced and overcome, in essence, in previous Biblical situations. </p>


