# commentaries

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom Yahweh had struck among them. On their gods also Yahweh executed judgments-</em> </p><p>Each of the plagues targeted a specific Egyptian god, and it seems that on Passover night something dramatic happened to all the gods- maybe the idols to them fell over or were destroyed. Yet Israel still took the gods of Egypt with them through the Red Sea and worshipped them on the wilderness journey (<a href='B:330 20:7'>Ez. 20:7</a>; <a href='B:510 7:43'>Acts 7:4</a>3). The pull of idolatry is against all reason, and yet there is such a strong tendency within us not to devote ourselves to only one God.</p><p>&quot;Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh&quot; (<a href='B:20 12:12'>Ex. 12:12</a>; <a href='B:20 15:11'>15:11</a>; <a href='B:40 33:4'>Num. 33:4</a>). The &quot;gods&quot; are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh's total superiority over them to the point that they didn't exist. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen. 15:14</a>); their idols (&quot;gods&quot;) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise &quot;demons&quot; is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. <a href='B:480 2:32-34'>Mk. 2:32,34</a>). The judgment upon Egypt's gods is brought out by an otherwise obscure reference in <a href='B:20 7:19'>Ex. 7:19</a> to how &quot;there shall be blood in all the land of Egypt on wood and in stone&quot;. &quot;Wood and stone&quot; is a term usually used in the Bible for idols; and &quot;the Egyptian priests used </p><p>The plagues specifically targeted Egyptian gods: Nile water turned to blood = HAPI – the god of the spirit of the Nile; Frogs = HEKOT – the goddess of magic who had a frog's head; &quot;The dust of the land&quot; turned to lice or gnats (<a href='B:20 8:16'>Ex. 8:16</a>) = SEB – god of the dust of the earth; &quot;Swarms of beetles&quot; (<a href='B:20 8:21'>Ex. 8:21</a> Hebrew) = RA and the forerunner of BEELZEBUB were likened to beetles; much pagan Egyptian jewelry features beetles; Murrain of cattle = APIS – the sacred bull god; Boils (<a href='B:20 9:8-9'>Ex. 9:8–9</a>) = NEIT – the queen of the heavens; Thunder and hail = SHU – god of the atmosphere; Darkness = RA – the sun god; Locusts = SERAIJA – protector of Egypt from locusts.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran, Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab- </em></p><p>Critics have made much of the apparent contradiction between the geographical details in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> and the location details in <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>. But I suggest that the names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> are not intended to be pinned down to specific locations. There are six of them, and it was unlikely that any reader would be able to pinpoint a location in the uncharted desert from these vague places. Rather, we are given a word picture of what the desert was like. The place names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> mean (in order)&nbsp; "Ornamental", maybe referring to the appearance of sand sculptures made by the wind; "quagmire", "whiteness", "tower" and "golden". </p>


text:
<p><em>It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh Barnea-</em></p><p>It took Israel 38 years to complete this journey, but it was only 11 days if they walked directly. Their exit from Egypt through the Red Sea represents our baptism into Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), and the wilderness journey is the prototype of our walk to God’s Kingdom. We tend to walk around in circles as Israel did, rather than perceiving our end destination clearly and keeping our focus upon it.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb saying-</em></p><p>The phrase "Yahweh our God" is used 46 times in Deuteronomy but hardly ever earlier in the law. Moses is exalting in the fact Yahweh was really their God, He was abiding by His promise to Abraham to be the God of Abraham's seed- despite their weakness. </p><p><em>You have lived long enough in this mountain- </em></p><p>They arrived at Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 19:1-2'>Exo 19:1-2</a></em>); and left it on the 20th day of the second month of the second year, so they were there nearly a year. </p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>May Yahweh the God of your fathers make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as He has promised you!- </em></p><p>The allusion is to the blessing promised to Abraham's seed; but that is interpreted in the New Testament as the blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em> etc.). And Moses is speaking here in the context of their spiritual weakness (:9,12). The fact the people had been numbered (see the book of Numbers) showed that the promises of the seed becoming innumerable as the stars had not in fact been fully fulfilled. Moses wished for the fuller fulfilment to come; and we might detect in that wish a desire for the coming of the Messianic seed through whom alone that could happen.</p>


text:
<p><em>How can I myself alone bear your encumbrance and your burden and your strife?-</em></p><p>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>But Moses didn't respond to this burden as he might have done; for in frustration he asks God to slay him, as he just couldn't bear the "burden" of the people (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>). God responded at that point by giving 70 Spirit endowed elders to assist Moses (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>), and we can assume this was because the sharing of the "burden" with a system of many elders (as suggested by Jethro and as described in <em><a href='B:50 1:13-16'>Deu 1:13-16</a></em>) hadn't worked. Because those men were themselves weak and unspiritual. </p><p>"Strife" specifically refers to legal arguments, which were common amongst the Israelites (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:2-3'>Exo 23:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:8'>Deu 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:1'>Deu 25:1</a></em>). Paul's command not to take our brother to court is an appeal for us to not be like natural Israel in this matter.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties and captains of tens and officers, according to your tribes- </em></p><p>This system didn't really work, because Moses again felt the burden was too great for him, and the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>). But this too didn't really work; because in <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em> we seem to read of the priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses and Aaron. </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>We travelled from Horeb and went through all that great and terrible wilderness which you saw, by the way to the hill country of the Amorites, as Yahweh our God commanded us, and we came to Kadesh Barnea-</em></p><p>This journey was indeed through a terrible wilderness, full of aggressive snakes. It speaks of how terrible indeed is our journey after the experience of baptism / crossing the Red Sea. It was by God's grace alone they were preserved. </p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>You came near to me every one of you and said, Let us send men before us that they may search the land for us and bring us word again of the way by which we must go up and the cities to which we shall come-</em></p><p>The sending out of the spies was a concession to human weakness; <em><a href='B:40 13:17-20'>Num 13:17-20</a></em> says that they were sent in order to find out whether the land of Canaan was a good land, and the feasibility of overcoming the people who lived there. But God had categorically given assurances on these points already; yet Israel preferred to believe the word of men than that of God. They had been told not to hesitate but immediately enter the land (see on :21). However, God made a concession to their weakness, and gave the command to send out the spies (<em><a href='B:40 13:2'>Num 13:2</a></em>). But when Israel heard their faithless tales of woe, they decided they didn’t want to inherit the Kingdom prepared for them. When we make use of concessions to human weakness, we often end up in situations of temptation which we find too strong for us. The best way is to simply go straight forward in faith in God’s word of promise rather than relying on human strength.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Yet you wouldn’t go up- </em></p><p>This of course applied to a generation previous to that whom Moses was addressing at this point. There are examples of where the individual Israelite had the actions of the body of Israel in the past imputed to him (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:2'>Deu 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a></em>). This isn’t ‘guilt by association’, but rather an example of the ineffable unity of all God’s people, wherever and whenever they lived, over time as well as over space. Thus the most lonely individual can read the historical records of God’s people in the past and feel a true sense of community with the people of God, knowing that these things are his very own personal legacy and spiritual inheritance. </p><p><em>But rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that. Israel had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore couldn't enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:7'>Deu 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23-24'>Deu 9:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:4'>Num 27:4</a></em>); they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's commandment (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:20'>Deu 21:20</a></em>). For he himself had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 20:24'>Num 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites "rebels" (<em><a href='B:40 20:10'>Num 20:10</a></em>), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different way. </p>


text:
<p><em>and you murmured in your tents and said, Because Yahweh hated us He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us- </em></p><p>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>).</p><p>We marvel at how the passionate love of God for Israel at this time, falling in love with them and not beholding iniquity in Jacob, could be perceived now as hatred for Israel. It is a psychological classic, revealing the fickleness of the human mind when it is not firmly based in faith in God's stated words.</p>


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


text:
<p><em>Then I said to you, Don’t dread, neither be afraid of them-</em></p><p>The fact we were called to baptism therefore inspires us to believe that we really will be there in the Kingdom. This is prefigured by the way in which Moses pleaded with those who doubted in the wilderness that the fact they had been brought through the Red Sea was a guarantee that God would likewise bring them into their inheritance in Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:29-33'>Deu 1:29-33</a></em>). Yet they failed to believe this; they forgot the wonder of their Red Sea deliverance, just as we can forget the wondrous implications of our baptism, and thus lose faith in our ultimate salvation.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>Yet in this thing you didn’t believe Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>Again Moses is quoting the words of his own condemnation, for not believing Yahweh his God (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>). Disbelief in God was the reason Israel too were barred from entering Canaan (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>). When Moses reminded them of this, he was alluding to how he was in essence no better than them, having also been rejected from entering Canaan for disbelief (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>). So we wonder in what tine of voice he reminded them of this. For he appealed to them as a fellow sinner, in this sense no better than them. And this was the potential power of his appeal.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>Also Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes saying, You also shall not go in there-</em></p><p>See&nbsp;on&nbsp;:34.<em>&nbsp;</em>Moses truly was made spiritually strong out of weakness. His faith fluctuated, until at last he came to a spiritual height at the end of his life. He was willing to give his physical and eternal life for Israel's salvation (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>). In a sense, his desire was heard. Because of the sin of a moment, caused by the provocation of the people he loved, God decreed that he could not enter the land of promise. <em>For their sakes</em> he was barred from the land; this is the&nbsp; emphasis of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:230 106:32-33'>Psa 106:32-33</a></em> says that Moses was provoked to sin because Israel angered God, and that <em>therefore</em> "it went ill with Moses for their sakes". Truly, God works through sinful man to achieve His glory. Thus Moses says that he must die “Because <em>ye</em> (plural) trespassed against me” (<em><a href='B:50 32:51'>Deu 32:51</a></em>). This all helps explain why Christ had to die, apart from the fact that he was mortal. He died the death of a sinner for our salvation, he felt all the emotions of the rejected, the full weight of God's curse; for "cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). We have seen that Moses is a superb and accurate type of the Lord Jesus. Therefore Moses in his time of dying must grant us insight into the death of our Lord, the prophet like him (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a></em> says that the rebels in the wilderness “shall not enter into the land”, with reference to how when Moses called the people “rebels” and beat the rock, he was disallowed entry into the land. Because he called them rebels, i.e. unworthy of entry to the Kingdom, he also was treated as a rebel. If we condemn others, we likewise will be condemned. On another level, he was simply barred for disobedience; and on yet another, his prayer to the effect that he didn’t want to be in the land if his people weren’t going to be there was being answered; and on yet another and higher level, his offer to be blotted out of the book of inheritance for Israel’s sake was also being heard. Thus God works within the same incident in so many ways!</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>But as for you, turn, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea- </em></p><p>This looks ahead to the terrible sending away of the rejected from the judgment seat at the last day. "Turn" is s.w. "turn away". They had turned away from God in their time of opportunity, and often wished to return to Egypt. And so it was appropriate for them to be told to return / turn away from the Kingdom. Condemnation is really self chosen, and will be a living out of the decisions already taken by the condemned. Truly "we make the answer now"; the essence of judgment is now. </p>


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


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to me, Tell them, ‘Don’t go up, neither fight, for I am not among you, lest you be struck before your enemies’-</em></p><p>Moses had pleaded so strongly for Yahweh to "go among" them. He realized that those prayers had been answered at the time, but not ultimately. The Angel in the pillar of cloud had already turned away into the wilderness, and was not going to go up before them into Canaan. </p>


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


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


text:
<p><em>You returned and wept before Yahweh; but Yahweh didn’t listen to your voice, nor gave ear to you-</em></p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a></em> s.w.). <em><a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a></em> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a></em>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<em><a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a></em>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<em><a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a></em>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>).</p><p>Those rejected by God at His judgment still desperately want to enter His Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:11'>Mat 25:11</a></em>). In that day of final judgment, all present will desperately want only one thing- to enter the Kingdom. Nothing else will matter. We should have that spirit with us now.</p>


text:
<p><em>So you stayed in Kadesh many days, according to the days that you remained-</em></p><p>The ecclesia in the wilderness were ‘types of us’. They were rejected from entry into the Kingdom; and when that finally sunk in, they “returned (s.w. convert, turn back) and wept before the Lord; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice” (<em><a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a></em>). The rejected will “return (s.w. convert) at evening: they make a noise like a dog (whining for acceptance), and go round about the city (cp. the foolish virgins knocking on the closed door)” (<em><a href='B:230 59:6'>Psa 59:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 59:14'>Psa 59:14</a></em>). Nobody will be indifferent at the final judgment. All will desperately seek to enter the Kingdom; and we must realize that now. Like Israel at this point, they will not want to return to Egypt (the world), but will be unable to enter the Kingdom. It will be an unbearable limbo, of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The descriptions of condemnation in figurative language all refer to this awful psychological anguish. Knowing the terror of the Lord, we are to persuade men now, to in faith go ahead and inherit the Kingdom. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>For Yahweh your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand; He has known your walking through this great wilderness; these forty years Yahweh your God has been with you and you have lacked nothing- </em></p><p>Because God ‘knew’ Israel’s journey through the wilderness, therefore they “lacked nothing”. The Hebrew language reflects certain realities about the nature of God's ways. The common Hebrew word for 'to see', especially when used about God's 'seeing', means also 'to provide' (<em><a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:8'>Gen 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 16:17'>1Sa 16:17</a></em>; ). What this means in practice is that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He sees and knows all things.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p>says that the Edomites and Moabites sold Israel food and water as they passed through. But <em><a href='B:50 23:3-4'>Deu 23:3-4</a></em> says that the Moabites didn't do this and were cursed because of it. Perhaps a few Moabites did do so, but Moab generally didn't. But see note on <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em>.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>For what great nation is there that has a god so near to them as Yahweh our God is whenever we call on Him?-</em></p><p>"So near" is s.w. kinsman. God was as a kinsman to Israel. No other God was able to be this close and therefore this close to being human as Yahweh. A relative was seen in those days as one who would provide for you, redeem you, stand up for you, one you could always turn to. And God was Israel's kinsman <em>par excellence</em>. It is thrice emphasized that Israel were a "great nation" because of this closeness of their God (<em><a href='B:50 4:6-8'>Deu 4:6-8</a></em>). The Hebrew term "great nation" is at the foundation of the promises to Abraham which form the new covenant. Through the seed (the Lord Jesus) "I will make of you a great nation" (<em><a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>). God had earlier told Moses that He would destroy Israel and make of Moses a "great nation" (<em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>); but Moses had successfully pleaded with God not to do so and to continue His attempt to make Israel the intended "great nation". So all Moses' references here to Israel as a "great nation" are a reflection of his own desire that they would come to this status. But their greatness was in having God so close to them. Moses himself had known God very near to him, had spoken with God and heard God's voice- he had experienced the 'greatness' of the relationship God intended with all His people. But Israel preferred not to hear God's voice direct, they moved away from the possible intimacy, and preferred instead a human mediator and system of religion interposing between God and man. </p><p>The Lord Jesus speaking of "The Angels of God in Heaven" (<em><a href='B:470 22:30'>Mat 22:30</a></em>) suggests that they spend a fair proportion of their time located there physically. God ‘comes near’ whenever we call upon Him (<em><a href='B:50 4:7'>Deu 4:7</a></em> RV). Perhaps this refers to an Angel literally being sent out from Heaven to come near to us in working out the answer to our prayer. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em>For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and from the one end of the sky to the other, whether there has been anything like this great thing, or has been heard like it?- </em></p><p>No other God came so close to His people to speak to them directly. The tragedy was that Israel asked that God <em>not </em>do this, and speak with them through Moses. They wanted to interpose a religious system between God and themselves for fear of facing up to the awesome reality of personal relationship with God. And so it has ever been amongst 'religious' people. The invitation to search through the records of all human history would have been more relevant to Judah in captivity in Babylon, with access to such records, than to Israel in the wilderness. I suggest this is another example of where Deuteronomy was rewritten under Divine inspiration for the exiles- for they too needed to quit idolatry and go forward in faith to possess the same promised land and establish God's Kingdom in it. See on :44.</p>


text:
<p><em>Did a people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live?-</em></p><p>Israel complained that no other nation had ever been asked to hear the voice of their God in a personal way; they feared that hearing this voice meant their condemnation (<em><a href='B:50 5:26'>Deu 5:26</a></em>). But God meant it so positively; the fact they had heard God's voice was a sign of His amazing grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:32-33'>Deu 4:32-33</a></em>). Yet Israel turned the display of that grace into a reason to fear condemnation. They were far happier not being confronted by such radical grace, and the personal engagement of God with them. And so they desperately sought to use mere religion to shield them from this, asking Moses to go through with this engagement with God and then give them a few rules to obey, which didn't too deeply interrupt their lives. This is the abiding tendency of men of all ages; to flee from grace to the structures of mere religion.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or has God tried to take a nation for Himself- </em></p><p>The Hebrew word for "trials" means just that. God tried, He attempted, to take Israel out of Egypt and make them His own loyal people- just as He tries, unsuccessfully, with so many today. And it seems not all Israel kept the Passover, some were slain, and perhaps some chose to remain in Egypt. And the majority He took out, returned there in their hearts. But He tried, with amazing effort. In this we see the limitation of God, albeit self-imposed, due to His huge respect for human freewill. No other God tried (and tries) so hard to bring His people out from Egypt (the world) to be solely His. Every Red Sea / baptism deliverance of an individual is the sum of a huge amount of work from God. Those who were raised as believers need not think this to be irrelevant to them.</p><p><em>From the midst of another nation by trials, by signs and by wonders- </em></p><p>It is stressed that Israel were taken out from the "midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:51'>1Ki 8:51</a></em>). The plagues and wonders were done in "the midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 3:20'>Exo 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:3'>Deu 11:3</a></em>). The midst of Egypt appears to be defined in <em><a href='B:230 135:9'>Psa 135:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em> as being Pharaoh and his servants. The narrative therefore stresses so much his response to the plagues. God's especial focus had been upon his conversion, and yet he refused. Israel were taken out right from under his nose, from the very heart of Egypt. <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em> reveals what is not recorded in the historical record; that because the Israelites were so devoted to Egyptian idolatry still, His thought had been to destroy them "in the midst of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). But God's pole of grace overcame the pole of necessary judgment. He tolerated them and saved them, with enthusiasm, by the grace which comes from love- love taken to its ultimate, saving term. The whole narrative speaks as if the Hebrews were all at one place at one time and left "the midst of Egypt" together. Although unrecorded in the historical narrative, this would have meant that they gathered together "in the midst of Egypt" with Moses, who was not in Goshen but in the locality and presence of Pharaoh.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>By war and by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, according to all that Yahweh your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?-</em></p><p>Moses was to stretch forth his hand to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part and return, not his rod; because he was manifesting the hand of Yahweh which was to deliver Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 7:5'>Exo 7:5</a></em>). The repeated references to the stretched our arm or hand of Yahweh to save His people invite us to recall this incident, and to perceive that Yahweh's hand had been manifest through the hand of Moses (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:2'>Deu 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). That stretched out, saving arm and hand of Yahweh was and is stretched out still, to save His people (<em><a href='B:110 8:42'>1Ki 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em> "as at this day") and bring about a new creation in human lives (<em><a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a></em>). For the deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God's people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). What happened there was but the beginning of the work of God's outstretched arm (<em><a href='B:50 3:24'>Deu 3:24</a></em>). Yet the stretched out arm / hand of God is also a figure for His judgment (<em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:4'>Isa 10:4</a></em>). His hand is at work in our lives- either to our condemnation or our salvation. And it is for us therefore to humble ourselves beneath that mighty hand (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>It was shown to you so that you might know that Yahweh is God and that there is none else besides Him- </em></p><p>“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God (the Hebrew word for ‘god’ essentially means ‘power’) beside Me” (<em><a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a></em>); “Is there a God beside Me? There is no God; I know not any”, God says (<em><a href='B:290 44:8'>Isa 44:8</a></em>). Such verses occur time and again throughout the Bible. Because God is the source of all power and the only God, He is therefore a jealous God, as He often reminds us (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>). God gets jealous when His people start believing in other gods, if they say to Him, ‘You are a great God, a powerful God, but actually I believe there are still some other gods beside You, even if they are not as powerful as You’. This is the problem with believing that there are demons or a Devil in existence as well as the true God. This is just the mistake Israel made. Much of the Old Testament is spent showing how Israel displeased God by believing in other gods as well as in Him. The “demons” some people believe in today are equivalent to those false gods Israel believed in.</p>


text:
<p><em>Out of heaven He made you hear his voice so that He might instruct you, and on earth He made you see His great fire and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire- </em></p><p>Although God spoke to Moses alone in the mount, Moses stresses that actually God "spake unto <em>you</em> in the mount out of the midst of the fire". The word of God to His scribes really is, to the same gripping, terrifying degree, His direct word to us (<em><a href='B:50 4:36'>Deu 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:4'>Deu 5:4</a></em>. This explains why David repeatedly refers to the miracle at the Red Sea as if this had affected him personally, to the extent that he could ecstatically rejoice because of it. However it has to be noted that it was God's intention that Israel heard His voice directly. This would persuade them of His unique existence. But they refused to hear that word directly, preferring to hear it through Moses indirectly, and therefore the potential strengthening of faith didn't happen. And that is true of so many apparently Christian people today.</p>


text:
<p><em>Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their seed after them and brought you out-</em></p><p>“You did not choose me, but I chose you… out of the world” (<em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:19'>Joh 15:19</a></em>) corresponds to the oft repeated theme of Moses that God has chosen Israel “out of all peoples” (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em> RVmg.), by grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:37'>Deu 4:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:15'>Deu 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em>). Israel stood at Sinai and were told that if they were obedient, then they would be God's people. But then they were told that actually, God accepted them anyway as His people. And only <em>then</em> was the Law given to Moses- with the message that it was to be kept out of gratitude for what God had <em>already</em> done by grace in saving them just "simply so", because he loved them and had chosen their ancestors by grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:34-40'>Deu 4:34-40</a></em>). Likewise it was <em>because</em> God sanctified Israel that they were to keep the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:13-14'>Exo 31:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>). It wasn't that any human obedience made them holy- the laws were simply an opportunity to respond to the grace shown them. For God's salvation of them from Egypt, like ours from this world, was nothing but grace.</p><p><em>With His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt- </em></p><p>After the sin with the golden calf, God had told Israel that His presence would not go with them. But Moses had persuaded God to change on that (<em><a href='B:20 33:15-17'>Exo 33:15-17</a></em>), and he cites this as yet another amazing grace toward Israel by God. We note that he doesn't boast about the power of his prayers, but instead glories in what God had therefore done. </p>


text:
<p><em>to drive out nations from before you greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land for an inheritance, as at this day-</em></p><p>Our separation from this world isn’t merely negative. We are separated <em>from</em> the world ("brought you out", :37)&nbsp; so that we might be separated <em>unto</em> the things of God ("to bring you in"). These two ideas are found together in the Hebrew word for ‘holiness’. We learn here that the nations of Canaan were "greater", more numerous, than Israel. I have discussed on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em> how the word "thousand" has a wide range of meaning; and it is used of the six hundred "thousand" military age men who left Egypt. I suggested that we need not read this as a literal number, and that therefore the people of Israel were still relatively few, rather than several million as would be required if they had 600,000 military age men amongst them. For if Israel numbered a few million people, then the nations in Canaan would have numbered many million, if they were so much more numerous than Israel. And there are huge logistical problems with supposing a population in Canaan of say 20 million people.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Know therefore this day and lay it to your heart, that Yahweh He is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is none else- </em></p><p>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p><em>You must keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you this day, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which Yahweh your God gives you forever- </em></p><p>That God is one is a command, an imperative to action (<em><a href='B:480 12:28-29'>Mar 12:28-29</a></em>). It underlies the whole law and prophets (<em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<em><a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a></em>). Because "there is none else, you shall keep <em>therefore</em> his statutes" (<em><a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a></em>). The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for "I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel. </p><p>So does "prolong your days" mean that long life promised to the obedient Israelite under the Old Covenant? Solomon observed that a just mad perished young and "a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness" (<em><a href='B:250 7:15'>Ecc 7:15</a></em>). <em><a href='B:330 12:22'>Eze 12:22</a></em> suggests that faithless Israel cynically observed that "The days are prolonged" and God's prophetic word of condemnation had failed- implying they thought that prolonged days were being experienced by them despite their disobedience. The Hebrew phrase 'to prolong days' is found in <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>, where it is applied to how Messiah would 'prolong His days' not in this life, but in the resurrection. The repeated promises recorded in Deuteronomy of prolonged days upon the land of Israel would therefore hint at the eternity of the Kingdom rather than this life. Indeed, <em><a href='B:50 4:40'>Deu 4:40</a></em> says they would prolong their days "for ever". For an individual Israelite might be faithful but not prolong his or her days in the land because the whole people were to be carried away captive for their sins and the land given to a Gentile power. The opposite of 'days being prolonged' was 'utter destruction' (:26)- which would then speak of condemnation in the second death. This is one of many examples of where eternal life was possible under the Old Covenant- there were multiple different possibilities and plans God could have worked by. Israel could have accepted the Lord Jesus as their Messiah and not killed Him, and so forth. It seems the closer we probe God's word, the more open He is revealed as being.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Moses set apart three cities beyond the Jordan toward the east- </em></p><p>The emphasis was very much upon <em>them</em> making the cities of refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in the land (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities for yourselves" (<em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em>). Yet the record in <em><a href='B:60 18:1-28'>Jos 18:1-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 19:1-51'>Jos 19:1-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:1-9'>Jos 20:1-9</a></em> shows that Israel didn't do this, because they didn't even capture all the cities which were to be cities of refuge. Moses attempted to arrange it all for them; for Moses set apart cities of refuge. But arrangements for personal salvation cannot be done by someone else.</p>


text:
<p><em>that the manslayer might flee there, who kills his neighbour unawares, and didn’t hate him in time past, and that fleeing to one of these cities he might live:-</em></p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word<em> ga'al</em> translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", <em>elpis</em>, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Moses was so sensitive to Israel’s weakness. He often reminds them that he knows that they will turn away from the Covenant he had given them (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 30:1'>Deu 30:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>). He knew that one day they would want a king, even though God was their king (<em><a href='B:50 17:14'>Deu 17:14</a></em>). He foresaw how they would see horses and chariots and get frightened (<em><a href='B:50 20:1-4'>Deu 20:1-4</a></em>). He knew that there would always be poor people in the land, even though if the Law was properly kept this would not be the case (<em><a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a></em> mg, 11). He knew they would accidentally commit murder and would need a way of escape; therefore he twice repeats and explains the law concerning the cities of refuge (<em><a href='B:50 4:42'>Deu 4:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>). These being a symbol of the future Messiah (<em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), this emphasis would suggest that like Paul and Jacob, the mind of Moses in his time of spiritual maturity was firmly fixed on the Lord Jesus Christ. See on 5:22</p>


text:
<p><em>Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites- </em></p><p>But Ramoth Gilead passed in and out of Israelite possession; and it is doubtful whether Manasseh ever bothered securing Golan from the local inhabitants. Likewise Kedesh, a city of refuge on the west of Jordan, was listed in <em><a href='B:60 19:1-51'>Jos 19:1-51</a></em> as a city not yet taken by Naphtali; yet it was commanded to be given by them to the Levites as a city of refuge (<em><a href='B:60 20:7'>Jos 20:7</a></em>). So their refusal or 'being slack' to take the city meant they had no wider vision, of providing a place of refuge for the needy within Israel as a whole. And there is no real evidence that this wonderful system of salvation and justice ever really worked in practice.</p><p>The cities were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel- </em></p><p>Deuteronomy is largely a transcript of the final speech of Moses, given at the very end of his life. But verses like this indicate an editorial hand, and I suggested on :32 that this was done under Divine inspiration in Babylon.</p>


text:
<p><em>these are the testimonies, the statutes and the ordinances, which Moses spoke to the children of Israel when they came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p>"Came forth" is s.w. "brought forth". Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>beyond the Jordan, in the valley over against Beth Peor, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel struck, when they came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p>Critics have made much of the apparent contradiction between the geographical details in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> and the location details in <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>. But I suggest that the names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> are not intended to be pinned down to specific locations. There are six of them, and it was unlikely that any reader would be able to pinpoint a location in the uncharted desert from these vague places. Rather, we are given a word picture of what the desert was like. The place names in <em><a href='B:50 1:1'>Deu 1:1</a></em> mean (in order)&nbsp; "Ornamental", maybe referring to the appearance of sand sculptures made by the wind; "quagmire", "whiteness", "tower" and "golden". </p>


text:
<p><em>They took his land in possession, and the land of Og king of Bashan, the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise-</em></p><p>"They took" again suggests an inspired editorial hand; see on :32,44.</p>


text:
<p><em>from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, to Mount Sion (the same is Hermon)- </em></p><p>This is not to be confused with Mount Zion in Jerusalem, nor the Hermon in the north. It is significant that there were mountains called Hermon in the extreme north and south of the land. It is a form of the word<em> herem</em>, the term used in <em><a href='B:50 3:6'>Deu 3:6</a></em> for the 'devotion' of the conquered land to Yahweh. Perhaps that was the idea. But we note that already, God has recalculated Israel's inheritance, bounded now by these mountains; whereas His initial intention was to give them the far wider area promised to Abraham. He likewise adjusts His hopes and expectations of His individual people, never giving up on any of us, but always seeking to lead us to at leas some inheritance in His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>and all the Arabah beyond the Jordan eastward, even to the sea of the Arabah, under the slopes of Pisgah- </em></p><p>The way Deuteronomy refers to cities East of Jordan as being "on this side Jordan" (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 4:41'>Deu 4:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:49'>Deu 4:49</a></em> AV) would suggest that the editor of the book was writing from a location East of Jordan- likely Babylon. Thus books like Deuteronomy were edited, under Divine inspiration, in the captivity- in order to show Judah how they were repeating the sins of their forefathers, and appealing to them thereby to learn the lessons. It has been observed that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings have certain similarities. For example, they all quote the Deuteronomy version of Israel's earlier history, leading to the suggestion that Deuteronomy was the first of the collection, a kind of introductory background history. See on <em><a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses called to all Israel and said to them, Hear, Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them and observe to do them- </em></p><p>Learning / understanding God’s principles is the way towards being obedient to them. None of His laws are mere senseless tests of our obedience or submission to Him; they have specific intention. They were to "hear" in such a way as they learned and observed the commandments. But "hear" means effectively 'to obey'. Our attitude to God's word, how we hear it, is critical. We can be a forgetful hearer, or a hearer who "does" (<em><a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a></em>). And obedience, 'hearing', leads to further obedience. But it all depends upon our attitude to God's word. </p><p>Moses really wanted Israel's well-being, he saw so clearly how obedience would result in blessing (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 6:3'>Deu 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a></em>). This is a major theme of Moses in Deuteronomy. There was therefore a real sense of pleading behind his frequent appeal for Israel to "hear" or obey God's words. "<em>Hear</em>, O Israel" in Deuteronomy must have had a real passion behind it in his voice, uncorrupted as it was by old age. He didn't rattle it off as some kind of Sunday School proof. At least four times Moses interrupts the flow of his speech with this appeal: "<em>Hear </em>(‘be obedient’), O Israel" (<em><a href='B:50 5:1'>Deu 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:3-4'>Deu 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:1'>Deu 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:3'>Deu 20:3</a></em>). And a glance through a concordance shows how often in Deuteronomy Moses pleads with them to hear God's voice. So he was back to his favourite theme: Hear the word, love the word, make it your life. For in this is your salvation. And the Lord Jesus (e.g. in passages like <em><a href='B:500 6:1-71'>Joh 6:1-71</a></em>) makes just the same urgent appeal.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh our God made a covenant with us in Horeb- </em></p><p>But that generation to whom Moses spoke at the end of his life had not been at Horeb / Sinai 40 years previously. Israel were to teach their children that God had personally saved <em>them</em> at the Red Sea. The covenant made with Israel then was made not only with the “fathers” who were then alive, but with every member of every generation of God’s people (<em><a href='B:50 5:3'>Deu 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:20'>Deu 6:20</a></em>). In this sense, Biblical history is a living word to every generation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh didn’t make this covenant with our fathers but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day- </em></p><p>We must read in an ellipsis here; clearly the idea is that what God had done at Sinai wasn’t <em>only</em> between Him and the people there at that time, <em>not so much </em>with the first hearers as with the later ones, with all His subsequent people. In our Bible study we must be aware that we are reading translations of languages which often rely on understanding the idiom for their real meaning to be delivered to us the readers. In Hebrew especially, we often have to read in an ellipsis; and this verse is a parade example.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh spoke with you face to face on the mountain out of the midst of the fire-</em></p><p>Moses himself realized the extent to which God saw him as representative of Israel; thus he told Israel: "The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 5:4-5'>Deu 5:4-5</a></em>). This is similar to the Lord Jesus Christ saying that because he had spoken God's words to us, we have seen God (<em><a href='B:500 14:8'>Joh 14:8</a></em>). It was Moses who saw God face to face (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>), yet he knew he was so representative of Israel that in reality <em>they</em> had seen God face to face. All the honours and glory given to Moses were thereby given to Israel <em>if they identified themselves with him</em>. And ditto for us and the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>(I stood between Yahweh and you at that time to show you the word of Yahweh, for you were afraid because of the fire, and didn’t go up onto the mountain) saying-</em></p><p>The way Moses sees Israel as far more righteous than they were reflects the way the Lord imputes righteousness to us. He says that Israel didn't go near the mountain because they were afraid of the fire (<em><a href='B:50 5:5'>Deu 5:5</a></em>), whereas <em><a href='B:20 19:21-24'>Exo 19:21-24</a></em> teaches that Israel at that time were not so afraid of the fire, and were quite inclined to break through the dividing fence and gaze in unspiritual fascination at a theophany which was beyond them. Standing between God and man means effectively to intercede (<em><a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a></em>), so it seems even on the first or second ascent of Sinai, Moses was interceding for the people. </p><p>Israel heard a voice, but were scared by the noise (<em><a href='B:50 4:12'>Deu 4:12</a></em>), and so perhaps the idea is that Moses "showed" them the words by interpreting the words to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage-</em></p><p>The fact that Yahweh really did redeem His people from Egypt is connected and associated with the command to have no other Gods apart from Him (<em><a href='B:50 5:6-7'>Deu 5:6-7</a></em>). The more we believe that we really have been redeemed, perceiving the saving hand of God in leading us out of Egypt, the more evident it becomes that this Saviour God demands our whole and total devotion. The exit from Egypt is described as a jail break, from the house of bondage. Their desire to return to it was strong, and so Moses continually stresses the true and awful nature of Egypt / the world. The language echoes that of God to Abraham: "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur" (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>). They were being asked to act as Abraham's seed, and respond as He did to the Divine initiative in separating them from the world- by following His commandments. </p>


text:
<p><em>You must have no other gods before Me-</em></p><p>It could be argued that this was a concession to weakness; for we could read this as meaning that even if Israel had other gods, Yahweh was to be supreme, and the others were not to be placed before Him. This was the attitude taken by the Lord Jesus in His tolerance of belief in demons, which were also false gods and connected with idols. But "before Me" can also mean 'in My presence'. To come into Yahweh's presence with any idol... would be unthinkable. See on <em><a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>You must not make an engraved image for yourself, any likeness of what is in heaven above, or what is in the earth beneath, or what is in the water under the earth-</em></p><p>“Likeness” is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any god, let alone Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:16-25'>Deu 4:16-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:18-19'>Isa 40:18-19</a></em>). The reason for this prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of our human personality and character.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not bow down yourself to them nor serve them, for I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me-</em></p><p>It's especially easy for young people to assume that they have little influence, that they can chose to act as they like and their choices won't affect anyone much beyond themselves. Yet we read of how God "visits" (Heb. to arrange, set in order, ordain) the sins of the fathers unto the third and even fourth generations- i.e. the number of generations which an old man is likely to see gathered around him (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:7'>Exo 34:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:18'>Num 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>). The choices of youth affect family life, which means our children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren are affected by the choices we make in carefree youth. </p><p>Throughout <em><a href='B:330 18:1-32'>Eze 18:1-32</a></em> God clarifies that He doesn’t punish children for the sin of their parents; He deals with people on an individual level. However, the effect of sin is often felt in the society of subsequent generations, and in the process of how that works out, God is there enabling and permitting it to happen; in the same way as we all suffer the consequence of Adam’s sin and yet can still be God’s acceptable children. </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. </p><p>The prophets were up against the same passionless spirit that pervades our societies today. “The Lord thy God (is) a jealous God” (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>) was changed in the Targums to “I am a God above jealousy” (<em>Mechilta</em>). The prophets speak so often of God’s wrath, love, hurt, pain, passion, anger, pathos… And they speak too of the terrible “repentings”, the kindling of contradictory impulses, which there apparently is in the mind of God. But jealousy is a lead feature within Yahweh's personality (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>). It speaks specifically of the jealousy of a man concerning the faithfulness of his wife (<em><a href='B:40 5:14'>Num 5:14</a></em>). God was the passionate lover and husband of His people, and it is inevitable therefore that the extent of that love would produce jealousy when they spurned Him and went after other men, the idols.</p>


text:
<p><em>and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments- </em></p><p>“If you love me you will keep my commandments” (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>) reflects a major identical theme in <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3-4'>Deu 13:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>. Moses at the end of his life, when he spoke Deuteronomy, was very much the image of the future Lord Jesus. </p><p>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>); to love God is to love His word. If we love Christ, we will keep His words (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<em><a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all related to showing love (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, the essence of which is love of people, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>You must not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain- </em></p><p>One reference of this is to the idea of a wife taking her husband's name; just as we do when we call the Name upon ourselves in baptism (<em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>). The Hebrew for "take" is also translated "marry" or "accept". Perhaps <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em> alludes to the idea in urging us not to "accept" or 'take' God's grace (the essence of His Name) "in vain". 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><p>We take on the Name of the Lord by baptism into that Name, just as Israel carried God’s Name as a people in Old Testament times. Our relationship with Him is not to be a vain thing to us, a mere social club we joined, a casual association- it is to be our life, at the very core of our being. </p><p>But the idea of not taking Yahweh's Name "in vain", 'vanity', is often associated with idolatry. Israel never formerly rejected Yahweh, and never became atheists. They mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry on the basis that they claimed that they worshipped Yahweh through worshipping the idols. This is what emboldened them to later place idols in Yahweh's temple. They were taking Yahweh's Name as a form of vanity, "in vain", a kind of idol. Thus their relationship with Yahweh was not to be a "vain thing" (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>).</p><p>"Guiltless" is a term which can mean "clear of responsibility to covenant relationship' (<em><a href='B:10 24:8'>Gen 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:41'>Gen 24:41</a></em>). God would not overlook the fact they were in covenant with Him and had taken His Name upon them, just as we take His Name upon us in baptism. And we are therefore not guiltless or clear of responsibility to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you- </em></p><p>We note that the Sabbath was one of the ten commandments. But&nbsp;the Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<em><a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a></em>).&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “... the Lord has given <em>you</em> (not all mankind) the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a></em>); “... You (God) made known to them (Israel) Your holy Sabbath” (<em><a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a></em>). The Old Covenant refers to the Law of Moses, which was replaced on the cross by the New Covenant.&nbsp;The ten commandments, including that concerning the Sabbath, were part of the Old Covenant which was done away by Christ. God "declared to you (Israel) His covenant which he commanded you (Israel) to perform, that is the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>).&nbsp;God "wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>). If we argue that keeping the covenant made in the ten commandments is necessary, we must also observe every detail of the entire Law, seeing that this is all part of the same covenant.&nbsp;It is evidently impossible to do this. “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a></em>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. <em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em> speaks of "the tablets of the covenant".&nbsp;The ten commandments were written on the tablets of stone, which comprised "the (old) covenant". Paul refers to this covenant as "written and engraved on&nbsp;stones", i.e. on the tablets of stone.&nbsp;He calls it "the ministry of death... the ministry of condemnation...” that which is “... passing away" (<em><a href='B:540 3:7-11'>2Co 3:7-11</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p>First. - <em><a href='B:560 4:6'>Eph 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:21'>1Jn 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>; Second. - <em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; Third. - <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>; Fifth. - <em><a href='B:560 6:1-2'>Eph 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:20'>Col 3:20</a></em>; Sixth. - <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; Seventh. - <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27-28'>Mat 5:27-28</a></em>; Eighth. - <em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>; Ninth. - <em><a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:25'>Eph 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:3'>2Ti 3:3</a></em>; Tenth. - <em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:40 3:1-51'>Num 3:1-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:1-31'>Num 5:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:1-27'>Num 6:1-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:1-89'>Num 7:1-89</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 8:1-26'>Num 8:1-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 9:1-23'>Num 9:1-23</a></em> can be found in <em><a href='B:610 1:1-20'>1Ti 1:1-20</a></em> alone, and <em><a href='B:40 1:1-54'>Num 1:1-54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 2:1-34'>Num 2:1-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:1-36'>Num 10:1-36</a></em> in <em><a href='B:530 5:1-13'>1Co 5:1-13</a></em>.</p><p> But never is the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath repeated in the New Testament as obligatory for us. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall labour six days and do all your work- </em></p><p>The context in :15 explains that one reason for the Sabbath was so that servants might rest, just as Israel had been servants in Egypt and had been given rest. The Sabbath was therefore not just to remember creation, but also the salvation from Egypt. Which is why, as explained on :12, the Sabbath was uniquely a sign between God and Israel rather than with other nations.</p><p>The idea is that man's week of labour is to reflect God's six days of labour during the creation week (:11). This parallel empowers us to see the grind of daily work as ultimately creative, and not mere vanity. The daily work which was part of the curse in Eden now becomes creative- if done "as unto the Lord". But we could also consider "you shall labour" to be a command to work, rather than laze around and by all means seek to avoid the results of the curse. Rather we are to see in the six days of labour an opportunity to reflect God's creative work; to use our labour to create, rather than to merely exist. This lifts the curse of labour so far above what it otherwise is.</p>


text:
<p><em>but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God in which you must not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your livestock, nor the stranger who is within your gates; so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you- </em></p><p>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>), using the word which is used in the Septuagint for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath. Just as we are to live the "eternal life" now, the type of life we will eternally live in the Kingdom is to be lived and experienced now. In this sense, as Hebrews makes clear, we "have entered into rest", and yet in another sense we labour now to enter into that rest at the Lord's return. This is a classic case of the "now but not yet" theme of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm, therefore Yahweh your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day-</em></p><p>Israel stood at Sinai and were told that if they were obedient, then they would be God's people. But then they were told that actually, God accepted them anyway as His people. And only <em>then</em> was the Law given to Moses- with the message that it was to be kept out of gratitude for what God had <em>already</em> done by grace in saving them just "simply so", because he loved them and had chosen their ancestors by grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:34-40'>Deu 4:34-40</a></em>). Likewise it was <em>because</em> God sanctified Israel that they were to keep the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:13-14'>Exo 31:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>). It wasn't that any human obedience made them holy- the laws were simply an opportunity to respond to the grace shown them. For God's salvation of them from Egypt, like ours from this world, was nothing but grace.</p><p>Moses was to stretch forth his hand to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part and return, not his rod; because he was manifesting the hand of Yahweh which was to deliver Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 7:5'>Exo 7:5</a></em>). The repeated references to the stretched our arm or hand of Yahweh to save His people invite us to recall this incident, and to perceive that Yahweh's hand had been manifest through the hand of Moses (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:2'>Deu 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). That stretched out, saving arm and hand of Yahweh was and is stretched out still, to save His people (<em><a href='B:110 8:42'>1Ki 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em> "as at this day") and bring about a new creation in human lives (<em><a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a></em>). For the deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God's people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). What happened there was but the beginning of the work of God's outstretched arm (<em><a href='B:50 3:24'>Deu 3:24</a></em>). Yet the stretched out arm / hand of God is also a figure for His judgment (<em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:4'>Isa 10:4</a></em>). His hand is at work in our lives- either to our condemnation or our salvation. And it is for us therefore to humble ourselves beneath that mighty hand (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Honour your father and your mother as Yahweh your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land which Yahweh your God gives you- </em></p><p>Paul quotes this in <em><a href='B:560 6:2'>Eph 6:2</a></em>, with the comment that this is "the first commandment with promise"<em>. </em>Paul clearly saw "the promise" of the old covenant as being the hope of the new covenant; the hope of the promises made to the Jewish fathers was the Christian hope, as Paul so clearly stated at his trials. This involves eternal possession of a glorified earth- and not going to Heaven on death as an immortal soul.</p><p>The contemporary Near Eastern legal codes prescribed the most severe penalties for crimes against the wealthy and their property. Rich people were given lesser punishments than poor people for the same crime. The value of persons reflected in Yahweh's law meant that all people were judged equally before the law, and truly there was no respect of persons with the true God. Both father and mother are placed together as worthy of equal honour (<em><a href='B:30 19:3'>Lev 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>)- whereas the contemporary laws were oriented towards respect of the male rather than females. </p><p>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not murder- </em></p><p>The command not to murder has as its basis the fact that human life is not for us to use as we will (<em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). It is God's life and is His- and this applies to our view of others lives as well as our own. Others, therefore, are not for us to use as we will. Gentleness and sensitivity to the life of others, in family life, the workplace, on the road... is therefore an outcome of our belief that the 'other' person likewise has been created by God and has life from Him. To drive in an unkind way, to act in a thoughtless way to others detriment, is therefore the same basic error as taking human life in murder. </p><p>The command "You shall not murder" must be understood in the context of a situation where the same Law also commanded certain sinners to be put to death within the community, and at times Israel were Divinely commanded and enabled to kill others outside of the community. We have to look, therefore, for a more specific meaning for this commandment- and it seems it is speaking specifically of blood revenge, killing the person who murdered one of your relatives. According to <em><a href='B:40 35:25-28'>Num 35:25-28</a></em>, if the murder was unintentional, i.e. manslaughter rather than murder, then the person could flee to a city of refuge lest he be slain by the avenger of blood. There is no guidance for the avenger of blood in these 'cities of refuge' passages; rather is there the assumption that he might well attempt to take revenge even for manslaughter, and in this case the unintentional murderer should flee from him into a city of refuge. But clearly enough, this was not God's will- for "You shall not kill". But such is God's grace that He built into His law a recognition that His people would fail. This isn't what we would expect of a 2+2=4 God, where broken commandments are to be punished and period. In this case, we see here a tacit recognition even within the Mosaic Law that the commandments- in this case "You shall not kill"- wouldn't always be obeyed, and therefore extra legislating was added to enable this situation to be coped with. This isn't only an example of God's sensitivity to human sin and weakness of hot blood (although it is that). It's an insight into how the very structure of His law is such that He understands human weakness, and is eager to ensure that it hurts others as little as possible. No more human 'god' would have dreamed this up. This grace has the stamp of the ultimately Divine, and any attempt to understand it within the frames of literalistic, legalistic analysis are doomed to failure. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither must you commit adultery- </em></p><p>This is as is, but we note the majority of references to "adultery" in the Hebrew Bible refer to unfaithfulness to God. And we cannot rule out the possibility that God also had that in view; for these commandments were the basis of His relationship with His people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither must you steal- </em></p><p>The Hebrew indeed means to steal, but also carries the idea of deceit. For to deceive another is to effectively steal from them, to take away and misuse their belief and trust in you and your integrity. And all deceit is ultimately in order to gain something wrongly, even the thing gained isn't anything material.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither must you give false testimony against your neighbour- </em></p><p>AV "bear false witness". But the Hebrew for "bear" means not only "to give" in a legal sense. Otherwise this commandment would only apply to the need to be truthful in a court case. The Hebrew<em> anah</em> is literally "to eye", 'to give heed to'. Don't pay attention to lies, don't listen to gossip- understood like that, this commandment becomes relevant to daily life, and not just to the occasional times when a person might have to bear legal witness against someone.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither must you covet your neighbour’s wife, neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour’s-</em></p><p>The Law of Moses was the only legal code to criminalize internal attitudes; nobody knows who covets what in their hearts, and there was no legal apparatus to punish this particular transgression of law. But the Law of Moses was a direct covenant between God and every individual amongst His people, and to Him they were personally responsible and answerable.</p><p>The command not to covet what looks good is very much rooted in a warning not to commit Eve’s sin of seeing the fruit and yielding to temptation (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>). The sin in Eden was every sin; we see elements of every one of our own sins in that sin. The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> etc.) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<em><a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a></em>). As Eve saw the fruit and fell for it, so the people of Reuben and Gad saw the land East of Jordan and imagined how good it would be to have it, despite having been given 'all the land' West of Jordan to enjoy (cp. Adam and Eve's dominion in Eden) (<em><a href='B:40 32:1-2'>Num 32:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:7'>Num 32:7</a></em>). In all these allusions (and they exist in almost every chapter of the Bible) we are being shown how human sin is a repetition in essence of that of our first parents. The insistent emphasis is that we should rise above and <em>not</em> be like them. And yet this call for personal effort and struggle with ourselves in order to overcome sin is muted and misplaced by all the stress upon a supposed Devil tempting Eve, pushing the blame onto him, and thereby de-emphasizing our role in overcoming sin within ourselves. And so we see so many loud-mouthed condemners of the Devil totally not 'getting it' about the need for personal self-control and spiritual mindedness in daily life and private character. </p>


text:
<p><em>These words Yahweh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a great voice; and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me-</em></p><p>When he commented about the commandments that God “added no more” (<em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>), he foresaw his people’s tendency to add the Halacahs of their extra commandments… He could foresee the spiritual problems they would have in their hour by hour life, he appreciated how both their nature and their disobedience would be such a problem for them, and Moses foresaw that they would not cope well with it (ditto for our Lord Jesus). See on <em><a href='B:50 4:42'>Deu 4:42</a></em>.</p><p><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>-</p><p> 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><em>When you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness as the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders- </em></p><p>They came near to Moses, but remained at a distance from God, indeed they fled away from Him (<em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>). The original plan had been as in <em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX: "When the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn't happen- see on <em><a href='B:20 19:14'>Exo 19:14</a></em>. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on <em><a href='B:20 19:10'>Exo 19:10</a></em>. The people "perceived" Yahweh's holiness and their sinfulness and continued idolatry. And they shied away from Him, whereas His intention was that they came close. These words are so sad. It was a rejection of intimacy with God.</p><p>There were so many similarities between Elijah and Moses; Dale Allison points out:</p><p>Confronted Ahab (<em><a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a></em>) = Confronted Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 5:1'>Exo 5:1</a></em>)</p><p>Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<em><a href='B:110 19:3'>1Ki 19:3</a></em>) = Fled into the wilderness fearing for his life (<em><a href='B:20 2:15'>Exo 2:15</a></em>)</p><p>Miraculously fed “...bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening...” (<em><a href='B:110 17:6'>1Ki 17:6</a></em>) = Miraculously fed “...meat to eat in the evening, and bread to the full in the morning...” (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em>)</p><p>Gathered all Israel to Mount Carmel (<em><a href='B:110 18:19'>1Ki 18:19</a></em>)=Gathered all Israel to Mount Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:17'>Exo 19:17</a></em>)</p><p>Combated the prophets of Baal (<em><a href='B:110 18:20-40'>1Ki 18:20-40</a></em>) = Combated the magicians of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 7:8-13'>Exo 7:8-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:20-22'>Exo 7:20-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:1-7'>Exo 8:1-7</a></em>)</p><p>Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<em><a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a></em>) = Successful in his intercession for Israel to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:11-14'>Exo 32:11-14</a></em>)</p><p>Elijah took twelve stones at Carmel “...according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob...” (<em><a href='B:110 18:30-32'>1Ki 18:30-32</a></em>) = Moses had twelve pillars set up at Sinai “...corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel...” (<em><a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a></em>)</p><p>The Lord accepted Elijah’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<em><a href='B:110 18:36-39'>1Ki 18:36-39</a></em>) = The Lord accepted Moses and Aaron’s offering by sending fire from heaven and consuming it completely. The people threw themselves down on their faces. (<em><a href='B:30 9:22-24'>Lev 9:22-24</a></em>)</p><p>By Elijah’s authority 3000 idolatrous prophets were slain (<em><a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a></em>) = By Moses’ authority 3000 idolaters were slain (<em><a href='B:20 32:25-29'>Exo 32:25-29</a></em>)</p><p>After killing the prophets of Baal Elijah climbed Carmel to pray. (<em><a href='B:110 18:42'>1Ki 18:42</a></em>) = After killing the idolaters Moses climbed Sinai to pray (<em><a href='B:20 32:30'>Exo 32:30</a></em>)</p><p>Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<em><a href='B:110 19:8'>1Ki 19:8</a></em>) = Went without food for forty days and forty nights (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:9'>Deu 9:9</a></em>) </p><p>Elijah was in “the cave” on Horeb (=Sinai) when the Lord “passed by” (<em><a href='B:110 19:9-11'>1Ki 19:9-11</a></em>) = Moses was hidden “in the cleft of the rock” when the Lord passed by Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 33:21-23'>Exo 33:21-23</a></em>)</p><p>Elijah saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Horeb (=Sinai). (<em><a href='B:110 19:11-12'>1Ki 19:11-12</a></em>) = Moses saw storm, wind, an earthquake and fire upon Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:16-20'>Exo 19:16-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22-27'>Deu 5:22-27</a></em>). </p><p>Prayed that he might die (<em><a href='B:110 19:1-4'>1Ki 19:1-4</a></em>) = Prayed that he might die. (<em><a href='B:40 11:10-15'>Num 11:10-15</a></em>).</p><p>The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon his enemies (<em><a href='B:120 1:9-12'>2Ki 1:9-12</a></em>) = The Lord brought down fire from heaven upon those who rebelled against him (<em><a href='B:40 16:1-50'>Num 16:1-50</a></em>; cf. <em><a href='B:30 10:1-3'>Lev 10:1-3</a></em>)</p><p>Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan by striking the waters with his cloak and passed over on dry ground. (<em><a href='B:120 2:8'>2Ki 2:8</a></em>) = Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea by stretching out his staff and passed over on dry ground (<em><a href='B:20 14:16'>Exo 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:21-22'>Exo 14:21-22</a></em>)</p><p>His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had (<em><a href='B:120 2:1-25'>2Ki 2:1-25</a></em>) = His successor was one who had served him and came to resemble him in many ways, parting the waters of the Jordan as he had the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:60 3:1-17'>Jos 3:1-17</a></em>)</p><p>Was taken away in the Transjordan (<em><a href='B:120 2:9-11'>2Ki 2:9-11</a></em>) = Died in the Transjordan (<em><a href='B:50 34:5'>Deu 34:5</a></em>)</p><p>Mysteriously translated (<em><a href='B:120 9:1-37'>2Ki 9:1-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 10:1-36'>2Ki 10:1-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 11:1-21'>2Ki 11:1-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 12:1-21'>2Ki 12:1-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 13:1-25'>2Ki 13:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 14:1-29'>2Ki 14:1-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 15:1-38'>2Ki 15:1-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 16:1-20'>2Ki 16:1-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 17:1-41'>2Ki 17:1-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 18:1-37'>2Ki 18:1-37</a></em>) = Died mysteriously and buried in a valley, but his burial place was unknown. (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>)</p><p>The point of these similarities was that the Angel wanted Elijah to be like Moses; to pray for the peoples’ salvation, to return to the people and lead them and teach them. Moses had begged for God’s mercy for His people; but Elijah was so full of self-justification that he prayed against Israel. And so with us, we are potentially led into situations where we are to discern the similarities between us and Bible characters; we are set up with opportunities to respond in a way that reflects how we have learnt the lessons from them. The way the Lord Jesus perceived this in His wilderness temptations is a great example.</p>


text:
<p><em>and you said, Behold, Yahweh our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God does speak with man and he lives- </em></p><p>They recognized the theory- that they had heard the voice of their God, and that God could speak with a man like Moses directly without the man dying. But they didn't want that intimacy; it was not for them (:25). And they justified it beneath a veneer of fake humility, claiming they were too sinful to hear God's voice. They rejected intimacy with God for religion and following a man, even if he were a very good and genuine man.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now therefore why should we die? For this great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of Yahweh our God any more, then we shall die- </em></p><p>The tragedy was that to hear the personal voice of their God was intended to build their faith, and was the most wonderful empirical, experiential evidence that He was real (<em><a href='B:50 4:32-33'>Deu 4:32-33</a></em>). But faced with it, they hurriedly turned away. And this is true in essence of so many people. See on :26. </p>


text:
<p><em>For who is there of all humanity that has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire as we have, and has lived?- </em></p><p>Israel complained that no other nation had ever been asked to hear the voice of their God in a personal way; they feared that hearing this voice meant their condemnation (<em><a href='B:50 5:26'>Deu 5:26</a></em>). But God meant it so positively; the fact they had heard God's voice was a sign of His amazing grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:32-33'>Deu 4:32-33</a></em>). Yet Israel turned the display of that grace into a reason to fear condemnation. They were far happier not being confronted by such radical grace, and the personal engagement of God with them. And so they desperately sought to use mere religion to shield them from this, asking Moses to go through with this engagement with God and then give them a few rules to obey, which didn't too deeply interrupt their lives. This is the abiding tendency of men of all ages; to flee from grace to the structures of mere religion.</p>


text:
<p><em>Go near and hear all that Yahweh our God shall say, and tell us all that Yahweh our God shall tell you, and we will hear it and do it-</em></p><p>See on <em><a href='B:50 30:12'>Deu 30:12</a></em>. God wanted to speak directly with Israel at Sinai; and yet they urged Moses personally to go and hear what God wished to say, and tell them about it: "Go thou (you singular) near and hear" (<em><a href='B:50 5:23'>Deu 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:27'>Deu 5:27</a></em>). Moses urged them not to fear, and told them that this was all a test from God for them (<em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>). But they didn't rise to it. Yet God accepted this lower level, so did He wish to communicate with them. And He used Moses as a mediator through whom He spoke His word to His people.</p><p>We too have a tendency to shy away from a direct relationship with God through His word, and prefer a system of human mediators to bring God to us- as we see in the established churches. But God wants to have direct contact with us through the medium of His word.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me and Yahweh said to me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you; they have well said all that they have spoken- </em></p><p>This is all intentionally similar to the situation with Pharaoh in <em><a href='B:20 10:29'>Exo 10:29</a></em>, when "Moses said, You have spoken well. I will see your face again no more". For Israel had seen God's face insofar that Moses had seen it (<em><a href='B:50 5:24'>Deu 5:24</a></em>). And they didn't want it, and so they would not be given it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Oh that there were- </em></p><p>God’s capacity to imagine, to see possible futures to some extent, explains the poignancy behind His words in places like <em><a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a></em>: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments!", "Oh that they would have a mind such as this always" (<em><a href='B:50 5:29'>Deu 5:29</a></em>), "O Israel, if you would but listen to me" (<em><a href='B:230 81:8'>Psa 81:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a></em>). It's as if He could see the potentially happy future which they could've had stretching out before Him. </p><p><em>Such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!- </em></p><p>Adam Clarke correctly understands the Hebrew here as meaning "Who will give such a heart to them, that they may fear, etc. They refuse to receive such a heart from me; who then can supply it?". God was willing to give them a new heart, to work through His Spirit directly upon their spirit. But they didn't accept that gift, just as many refuse it today, preferring to keep God at a distance and follow mere religion. The new covenant as explained in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is all about accepting this new heart and spirit from God.</p><p>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p><em>Go, tell them, Return to your tents- </em></p><p>God went along with their rejection of intimacy with Him, and so He surely said these words with much regret. They preferred <em>their </em>tents to His tent. </p>


text:
<p><em>But as for you, stand here by Me- </em></p><p>God through the Angel had earlier stood upon a rock in Sinai with Moses next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>). Later, Yahweh asks Moses to stand upon a rock in Sinai next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 33:21'>Exo 33:21</a></em> s.w.). We see how God gently and progressively leads His people closer to Him, using every experience He gives us to prepare for the next one, on an ever more intimate level with Him.&nbsp;</p><p><em>And I will tell you all the commandments, the statutes and the ordinances, which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess- </em></p><p>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must observe to do therefore as Yahweh your God has commanded you; you must not turn aside to the right hand or to the left- </em></p><p>The wall of water on their right hand and left when they crossed the Red Sea is twice emphasized (<em><a href='B:20 14:22'>Exo 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:29'>Exo 14:29</a></em>). It is alluded to later, when they are urged to not depart from God's way, not to the right hand nor left (<em><a href='B:50 5:32'>Deu 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>). We passed through the Red Sea when we were baptized (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We were set upon a path which is walled up to keep us within it. And we are to remain in that path upon which we were set. To turn aside from it would be as foolish as Israel turning away from their path and trying to walk into the walls of water.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must walk in all the way which Yahweh your God has commanded you, in order that you may live and that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days-</em></p><p>Does "prolong your days" mean that long life promised to the obedient Israelite under the Old Covenant? Solomon observed that a just mad perished young and "a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness" (<em><a href='B:250 7:15'>Ecc 7:15</a></em>). <em><a href='B:330 12:22'>Eze 12:22</a></em> suggests that faithless Israel cynically observed that "The days are prolonged" and God's prophetic word of condemnation had failed- implying they thought that prolonged days were being experienced by them despite their disobedience. The Hebrew phrase 'to prolong days' is found in <em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>, where it is applied to how Messiah would 'prolong His days' not in this life, but in the resurrection. The repeated promises recorded in Deuteronomy of prolonged days upon the land of Israel would therefore hint at the eternity of the Kingdom rather than this life. Indeed, <em><a href='B:50 4:40'>Deu 4:40</a></em> says they would prolong their days "for ever". For an individual Israelite might be faithful but not prolong his or her days in the land because the whole people were to be carried away captive for their sins and the land given to a Gentile power. The opposite of 'days being prolonged' was 'utter destruction' (:26)- which would then speak of condemnation in the second death. This is one of many examples of where eternal life was possible under the Old Covenant- there were multiple different possibilities and plans God could have worked by. Israel could have accepted the Lord Jesus as their Messiah and not killed Him, and so forth. It seems the closer we probe God's word, the more open He is revealed as being.</p><p><em>In the land which you shall possess- </em></p><p>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now these are the commandments- </em></p><p>In the RV this verse reads: "Now this is <em>the commandment</em> (singular), the statutes and the judgments… the Lord our God is one" (:4). And then they are told to write the statutes on their door posts etc. It would have been hard to literally write all 613 of them there. Yet the whole way of life for Israel was epitomized in the single command… that God is one. It was and is a <em>command</em>; not a mere statement; and it was this they were to speak to their children about and continually meditate upon. Thus the unity of God is even today a summary of all God's desires and requirements for us, that He should be the one and only in our lives, with all this means in practice. The Jewish zealots who died at Massada had as their battle cry "the Lord our God is one!", and some time later Rabbi Akiba was flayed alive by the Romans, crying as the skin was stripped from his bones: "The Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might". And there are many accounts from the Holocaust of similar things. </p><p><em>The statutes and the ordinances which Yahweh your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land which you go over to possess-</em></p><p>In <em><a href='B:50 6:1-2'>Deu 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:6-7'>Deu 6:6-7</a></em> Israel is commanded to <em>do</em> the law so that their children would do it also. Whilst on one hand we each have sovereign free will, there can be no doubt that we are affected by others. </p><p>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p><em>in order that you might fear Yahweh your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, yes you, your son and your son’s son, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged- </em></p><p>The commandments were given in order to be obeyed (:1), so that they would keep the commandments. This at first blush appears circular reasoning. But rather the idea is of an upward spiral of spirituality, whereby obedience led to obedience. The various laws were designed to be self reinforcing, which is why the law was "perfect", and was not to be added to nor subtracted from. The intention was that obedience to the commandments elicited a spirit of life which was spiritual, and which facilitated further obedience and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em>Hear therefore, Israel, and observe to do it, so that it may be well with you and that you may increase mightily, as Yahweh the God of your fathers has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey-</em></p><p>It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity.</p><p>Moses really wanted Israel's well-being, he saw so clearly how obedience would result in blessing (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 6:3'>Deu 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a></em>). This is a major theme of Moses in Deuteronomy. There was therefore a real sense of pleading behind his frequent appeal for Israel to "hear" or obey God's words. "<em>Hear</em>, O Israel" in Deuteronomy must have had a real passion behind it in his voice, uncorrupted as it was by old age. He didn't rattle it off as some kind of Sunday School proof. At least four times Moses interrupts the flow of his speech with this appeal: "<em>Hear </em>(‘be obedient’), O Israel" (<em><a href='B:50 5:1'>Deu 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:3-4'>Deu 6:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:1'>Deu 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:3'>Deu 20:3</a></em>). And a glance through a concordance shows how often in Deuteronomy Moses pleads with them to hear God's voice. So he was back to his favourite theme: Hear the word, love the word, make it your life. For in this is your salvation. And the Lord Jesus (e.g. in passages like <em><a href='B:500 6:1-71'>Joh 6:1-71</a></em>) makes just the same urgent appeal.&nbsp;</p><p>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p><em>Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one- </em></p><p>The fact there is only one God means that He is to have our total loyalty and love (:5). If there were two gods, each would have 50%. But the one God demands our total devotion. That God is one is a command, an imperative to action (<em><a href='B:480 12:28-29'>Mar 12:28-29</a></em>). It underlies the whole law and prophets (<em><a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a></em>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<em><a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a></em>). Because "there is none else, you shall keep <em>therefore</em> his statutes" (<em><a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a></em>). The Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for "I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel. </p><p><em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> is far more than a Sunday School text. Indeed God is one; but consider the context. Moses has set the people up to expect him to deliver them a long list of detailed commands; he has told them that God told him to declare unto them "all the commandments… that they may do them… ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you… ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you… now these are the commandments… that ye might do them…<em> hear therefore O Israel and observe to do it</em> (singular)…". Now we expect him to reel off a long list of commands. But Moses mirrors that last phrase with simply: "<em>Hear, O Israel</em>, the Lord our God is one" (<em><a href='B:50 5:31-33'>Deu 5:31-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:1-4'>Deu 6:1-4</a></em>). And in this context he gives no other commandments. "Observe to do <em>it</em>" is matched with "The Lord our God is one". This is the quintessence of all the commands of God. And he goes straight on to say: "And these words…shall be in your heart" and they were to talk of them to their children in the house and by the way, bind them upon their hands and on the posts of their homes. Some Jewish traditions, perhaps correctly, place the <em>shema</em>, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one" in their phylacteries. And this is indeed the context. It was the unity of God and the imperative from it to love Him with all the heart which is what was to be programmatic for their daily living. This is why it was Jewish practice to recite the <em>shema</em> several times a day, and also on their deathbed. </p><p>The record in <em><a href='B:480 12:32'>Mar 12:32</a></em> presents an obviously monotheistic Jewish scribe as being in complete agreement with the Lord Jesus about the unity of God. The Lord Jesus evidently supported the Old Testament's strict monotheism. When Jesus speaks of His Father as "the one who alone is God" (<em><a href='B:500 5:44'>Joh 5:44</a></em> NRSV), He is evidently alluding to the classic statement of monotheism in <em><a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a></em> - that Yahweh is the one God. And the inspired writers of the New Testament did the same thing. James commented to Jews upon their belief in one God: "You believe that God is one. You do well" (<em><a href='B:660 2:19'>Jas 2:19</a></em>). He doesn't seek to correct their monotheism. Why, if the Trinity issue was so utterly vital and obvious? </p>


text:
<p><em>and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might-</em></p><p>Some time, read through the book of Deuteronomy in one or two sessions. You'll see many themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. It really shows how Moses felt towards Israel, and how the Lord Jesus feels towards us, and especially how he felt towards us just before his death. For this is what the whole book prefigures. "Love" and the idea of love occurs far more in Deuteronomy than in the other books of the Law. "Fear the Lord your God" of <em><a href='B:20 9:30'>Exo 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:14'>Lev 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:32'>Lev 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:17'>Lev 25:17</a></em> becomes "love the Lord your God" in Deuteronomy (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>). There are 23 references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to only 5 in Ex. - Num.; Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love. He saw these things as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of maturity he warned his beloved people against them. His mind was full of them. The LXX uses the word ekklesia eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other words (<em><a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:16'>Deu 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:1-3'>Deu 23:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Responsibility for the whole family God had redeemed was a mark of Moses; maturity at the end of his life, at the time of Deuteronomy. It is observable that both as a community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.</p><p>"Love the Lord your God with <em>all </em>your heart, and with <em>all </em>your soul, and with <em>all </em>your might". Time and again, Moses in his final hours used these words, as he pleaded on that last day of his life for Israel to grasp the nettle, to take on board the idea of loving God, of giving our all (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3'>Deu 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; an impressive seven-fold emphasis). I can almost hear his voice cracking as he stressed the word "all" . Having pleaded six times for them to love God with <em>all </em>their soul and <em>all</em> their might, Moses then makes the point that if they enter the Kingdom, there they will be <em>made by God</em> to love Him then with all their soul and might (<em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>). The logic is over-powering. In the Kingdom, our very nature, every fiber of our being, will be bent towards love of God. If this will be our eternal destiny, isn't it logical that we at least aspire to it now? Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers).</p><p>Loving Yahweh with all the heart, soul and mind was understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<em><a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a></em>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a></em>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>These words which I command you this day shall be on your heart- </em></p><p>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p><p>The names of God's people are in the heart of the Lord Jesus, our great High Priest (<em><a href='B:20 28:29'>Exo 28:29</a></em>); just as God's words are to be upon the hearts of His people (<em><a href='B:50 6:6'>Deu 6:6</a></em>). Through the medium of His word, there is thus a mutuality between God and man. </p>


text:
<p><em>and you must teach them diligently to your children and talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up- </em></p><p>The latter day repentant remnant will be characterized by talking to each other of spiritual things (<em><a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>), especially of the law (<em><a href='B:460 3:7'>Mal 3:7</a></em>). But we are to do this now in our day of opportunity, and not be forced to it by tribulation. The priests were the official teachers of Israel, but it was ever God's intention that all Israel should be priests. All under the new covenant are declared priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). All Israel were to be teaching each other (<em><a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a></em>), especially their children- not leaving it to others, nor over relying upon a priesthood or spiritual eldership to teach their children. This is a myth inadvertently created by the Sunday School movement, excellent and commendable as that movement is- that a child is sent to "Sunday School" and there learns God's ways. The real teaching is done sitting in the house and walking by the way, and not by specialist teachers. The specific reference to teaching when you lie down and rise up could suggest that God specifically intended His people to teach their children, every morning and every evening. This is the essence of family life in the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bind them for a sign on your hand and they shall be for memorials between your eyes- </em></p><p>As taught in <em><a href='B:50 6:6'>Deu 6:6</a></em>, the essence was that "These words which I command you this day shall be on your heart". The heart refers to the mind, the brain, if you will; and we could understand this as meaning that this was to be externally memorialized by binding them between the eyes. This is how orthodox Judaism understands it. But I suggest that the memorial was essentially in the heart, and this is just another way of speaking about the wholeness of internal and external devotion to God's words. Whatever is done externally with the hand, whatever is thought about in our mind between our eyes, is to be dominated by our awareness of God's laws. We fail to read in later scripture any mention of literally making boxes containing God's law and wearing them. The Passover deliverance was likewise to be a "frontlet" (s.w. "memorial") between the eyes and upon the hand (<em><a href='B:20 13:16'>Exo 13:16</a></em>); but not in any literal sense. They were to be ever mentally aware of their great salvation, and live accordingly.</p><p>Contemporary ideas about Satan, demons etc. are often alluded to in the Pentateuch, and Israel are given the true understanding. Wearing a phylactery wasn't a new concept; the idea "refers to amulets which were worn in order to protect their wearers against demons". So by giving this command, Israel's God was showing His people that instead of being on the <em>defensive</em> against demons, needing good luck charms against them, they should instead replace these by a positive remembrance of God's words in their hearts and actions. Rejoicing in His salvation and constantly remembering it was intended to totally sideline the various false beliefs about demons which were prevalent at the time. It could be argued that God is saying that instead of the literal phylacteries of the pagan Gentile world, they were to have an internal mental awareness of their God.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall write them on the door posts of your house and on your gates- </em></p><p>Writing God's laws on door posts recalls the daubing of Passover lamb blood on the door posts. Indeed at Passover time, the faithful Israelite would have painted over the laws of Moses with the blood of the Passover lamb. This was looking ahead to how those laws were to be blotted out by the Lord's sacrifice. It was perhaps also to remind them that the blood of the Passover lamb, shed for their salvation, was an imperative to their obedience to God's laws. And again we see contemporary religious ideas deconstructed; for "It was the custom of the ancient Egyptians to inscribe on lintels and door-posts sentences of good omen". Such good luck charms were to be replaced with realistic practical calls for obedience in real life; for this was the basis of Divine blessing, and not good luck charms.</p>


text:
<p><em>When Yahweh your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers to give you, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, great and good cities which you didn’t build- </em></p><p>This continues the repeated reminder that they had been shown grace and a place in the Kingdom not according to works. This emphasis upon grace now leads up to the appeal to quit any other gods (:14)- because Yahweh alone is the God of grace. The other gods had no concept of this; it was unique to Yahweh. And true grace is likewise the unique feature of true Christianity.</p><p><em><a href='B:390 2:8'>Jon 2:8</a></em> reflects Jonah's understanding of this: "Those who regard lying vanities forsake their own mercy". This is a profound truth; true grace ("mercy" is<em> hesed</em>) and salvation is only found in Yahweh the God of Israel. To forsake Him is to forsake our own access to mercy and grace. Jonah was surely reflecting upon how the sailors had begged their idols and gods for salvation, and not found it. Only Yahweh had provided such saving grace, both to them and to Jonah. This reflection was surely to motivate Jonah to now go and try to persuade the Ninevites of Yahweh's grace. Jonah is constantly quoting from the Psalms, and here he may have in mind <em><a href='B:230 31:6'>Psa 31:6</a></em>: "I have hated them that regard lying vanities". But now Jonah doesn't hate the idolaters personally, but rather perceives the tragedy of the fact that they are rejecting their own access to Yahweh's grace. Yahweh is all about mercy, or grace; again, <em><a href='B:230 59:17'>Psa 59:17</a></em> "the God of my mercy" is in mind. But we preclude His grace if we trust in the lying vanities of this world.</p>


text:
<p><em>houses full of all good things which you didn’t fill, and wells dug out which you didn’t dig, vineyards and olive trees which you didn’t plant, and you shall eat and be full-</em></p><p>The gift of these things to Israel was by God's grace- for He could have commanded them to destroy all such vineyards. They were intended to learn from this grace, that works cannot save, and our blessings are a pure gift from God rather than achieved by our works. But instead they forgot Yahweh (:12) and turned to justification by religious works, because they had refused to be awed by His grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>then beware lest you forget Yahweh, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage-</em></p><p>Israel never became atheists, they never formally abrogated Yahweh, never formally rejected Him. But they forgot Him, in that in daily life they forgot the wonder of His grace, especially in His historical salvation of them. And it is day by day spiritual mindedness which is the context here. The exit from Egypt is described as a jail break, from the house of bondage. Their desire to return to it was strong, and so Moses continually stresses the true and awful nature of Egypt / the world. The language echoes that of God to Abraham: "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur" (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>). They were being asked to act as Abraham's seed, and respond as He did to the Divine initiative in separating them from the world- by following His commandments.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must fear Yahweh your God and you shall serve Him and shall swear by His name-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:490 4:8'>Luk 4:8</a></em> records how “Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. He understood that we can only serve two masters: God or the flesh (“mammon” is another personification of the flesh, similar to ‘satan’). He saw His own flesh, His own internal thoughts, as a master begging to be served which He must totally reject. His words are a quotation from <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em>, which warns Israel to serve Yahweh alone and not idols. He perceived His own natural mind and desire as an idol calling to be served.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you- </em></p><p>The Lord quoted <em><a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a></em> against His wilderness temptations “You shalt fear the Lord your God (alone)”. He probably had <em><a href='B:50 6:14'>Deu 6:14</a></em> in mind “You shall not go after other gods”. Perhaps He interpreted the pagan idols as the evil thoughts of His heart. Earlier <em><a href='B:50 6:7-8'>Deu 6:7-8</a></em> had warned that not repeating the Law would result in idol worship – and Christ saw that His neglect of the Father’s word would result in His serving His evil desires. Thus the purpose of the temptations was to prove whether Christ would really keep and apply the word in His heart (<em><a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a></em>), as it was for Israel in their wilderness.</p><p>"Go after" is a phrase Moses frequently uses in his last speech in Deuteronomy, but not elsewhere. It means literally to follow or walk after. He warns against going after other gods (<em><a href='B:50 4:3'>Deu 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:14'>Deu 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:19'>Deu 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:28'>Deu 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:2'>Deu 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>), and urges following / walking behind / going after Yahweh alone (<em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>). I suggest he was reflecting upon how by following after Yahweh in the Angel, the people had been brought out of Egypt, through the wilderness and to the promised kingdom. Caleb had faithfully followed / walked after Yahweh, and so entered the land. The phrase is used of the people following after the ark to enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:9'>Jos 6:9</a></em>). Following after idols led them just to pointless wandering in circles. And so it is in human life today. Following idols leads to pointless wandering, whereas following Yahweh has a specific destination in view- possession of the Kingdom. Elijah uses the phrase when telling Israel they could either follow after Baal, or Yahweh; and if Yahweh is God, then we are to follow Him (<em><a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a></em>). We cannot follow two directions. But Israel followed after (s.w.) vanity and thereby became vain (<em><a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a></em>). They carried the tabernacle of Moloch and also of Yahweh, throughout the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:510 7:1-60'>Act 7:1-60</a></em>:). Following after Baal is paralleled with following / walking after the imagination of their own evil heart (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 3:17'>Jer 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 9:14'>Jer 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:10'>Jer 13:10</a></em>), walking after their own spirit rather than God's (<em><a href='B:330 13:3'>Eze 13:3</a></em> s.w.) and their own covetousness (s.w. <em><a href='B:330 33:31'>Eze 33:31</a></em>). To walk / live just according to the word of our own imaginations is our great temptation. But we are to instead follow God's imaginations and heart, as revealed in His word (<em><a href='B:330 20:16'>Eze 20:16</a></em> s.w.). This is where our acceptance of the word of God as indeed His word... has endless implications. </p>


text:
<p><em>for Yahweh your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of Yahweh your God shall be kindled against you and He shall destroy you from off the face of the land- </em></p><p>Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" (AV- i.e. you singular), or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. </p><p>If God's wrath burns hot against people, it means death for them (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 22:24'>Exo 22:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:33'>Num 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>). But Moses averted this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em> by his intercession. He does so because God's wrath had burned hot against him personally (<em><a href='B:20 4:14'>Exo 4:14</a></em> s.w.), but he had been saved from death by grace. And so he reflects this in appealing for he salvation of others, against whom God's wrath burned hot (<em><a href='B:20 32:10-11'>Exo 32:10-11</a></em>). But Moses at the end of his life warns them not to make God's wrath burn hot against them again- because he will not be around to intercede for them (<em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not test Yahweh your God as you tested Him in Massah-</em></p><p>Meditate upon scripture as you go around daily life. Israel were told: "Ye (plural) shall not tempt the Lord". The Lord Jesus personalized this to Himself, and quoted it as: "Thou (singular) shalt not tempt the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 4:7'>Mat 4:7</a></em>). He told the Jews that when it is written "I am the God of Abraham", this was God speaking unto <em>them personally </em>("...which was spoken unto you by God, saying..."), teaching them personally that there would be a resurrection (<em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>). </p><p>At the very time Israel put God to the test at Marah (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>), God responded by testing <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:20 15:25'>Exo 15:25</a></em>). When Israel were weary of God, He wearied them (<em><a href='B:290 43:22'>Isa 43:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:24'>Isa 43:24</a></em>). Because they turned their back on Him (<em><a href='B:300 2:27'>Jer 2:27</a></em>), He turned His back on them (<em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>); because they broke His eternal covenant with them, He eventually did likewise. On the other hand, God set the rainbow in the sky so that whenever <em>He </em>looks upon it, He will remember His covenant with man (<em><a href='B:10 9:16'>Gen 9:16</a></em>). The pronouns seem wrong; we would expect to read that the rainbow is so that whenever <em>we </em>look upon it, we remember... but no. God condescends to man to such an extent that He invites us to understand that whenever we remember the covenant with Him, He does likewise.&nbsp;</p><p>God comes down to the terms and language of men in His zeal to save. He invites the Jews to put Him to the test: if they paid their tithes, He would bless them with fruitful harvest (<em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em>). And yet surely the whole message of God’s revelation is that we are to accept His hand in our lives, that obedience won’t automatically bring blessing now, that we are not to put our God to the test (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 4:7'>Mat 4:7</a></em>) but to trust in Him and the coming of His Kingdom to resolve all things. And yet Yahweh seems to come down from these high principles in Malachi’s time, to try to convince them of the logic of devotion to Him. </p><p>Ahaz quoted these words about not testing God. "The pride that apes humility" says all that is necessary. We can appear to be humble, and by doing so actually express our pride. The point has been made elsewhere that a brother may say to a sister full of praise for his Bible study: "It was nothing really, no, not that good". But if another sister says to him: "I thought your Bible study was nothing really, not much good at all"; how does he react? Did he <em>really</em> mean his 'humble' words to his admirer? Ahaz is one of many Biblical examples of this kind of false humility. He refused to ask a sign of Yahweh, when invited to, lest he be like apostate Israel in the wilderness, and tempt Yahweh (<em><a href='B:290 7:12'>Isa 7:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>). But this was actually a 'wearying' of God, and he was given a sign relating to his condemnation (<em><a href='B:290 7:12-13'>Isa 7:12-13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You must diligently keep the commandments of Yahweh your God and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you- </em></p><p>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>; <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"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). 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>


