# comment

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron; and the whole congregation said to them, Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would that we had died in this wilderness!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why does Yahweh bring us to this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will be a prey: wouldn’t it be better for us to return into Egypt?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They recognized the Lord had brought them out of Egypt. Their lack of faith was not the same as atheism, rather was it a lack of faith in the possibilities of the God they believed in. There should be no question amongst us, not in our deepest heart, about returning to the world / Egypt, the life we knew before our baptism (cp. the Red Sea crossing, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). If we do allow this question, then it will lead to actually doing this in practice (:4).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em> adds: "And you murmured in your tents and said, Because Yahweh hated us He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us". We marvel at how the passionate love of God for Israel at this time, falling in love with them and not beholding iniquity in Jacob, could be perceived now as hatred for Israel. It is a psychological classic, revealing the fickleness of the human mind when it is not firmly based in faith in God's stated words.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all the congregation threatened to stone them with stones. The glory of Yahweh appeared in the Tent of Meeting to all the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We now understand why the account of Numbers 13, 14 follows on from that of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12. For this was exactly how He had acted at the time of that rebellion. Stoning with stones was usually for religious heresy. So we can imagine that the idolatrous people now turned to the gods they had carried with them out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>) and accused Joshua and Caleb of some kind of religious apostasy. But the basis of their anger was that they subconsciously knew that Joshua and Caleb were telling the truth, although it was not a truth they wished to hear. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, How long will this people despise Me?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be a way of God asking Moses not to pray for more time, to as it were leave God alone to destroy Israel. He is saying that this situation cannot continue any longer. Just as He asked Moses in <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em>. But Moses knew God well enough to still intercede, and change the intention of God to disinherit the people at this time. See on :23. The idea of "provoke" is to scorn, to blaspheme, and this is what we do to God if we doubt we shall inherit the Kingdom. The language used about Israel's lack of faith is extreme. They "despised" the land (:32) even though it seems they didn't doubt it was a good land, they just doubted whether they could. They gathered together against God (:35). The language all shows that the most fatal error is to not believe we will be saved- this is far and more fundamentally worse than any sin of hot blood. See on <em><a href='B:500 12:37'>Joh 12:37</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have worked among them?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s not that the people were atheists. They speak about the existence of Yahweh quite freely (:3). But to not believe that He will give us the Kingdom, the promised land, is to effectively be in denial of Him. We too can be effective atheists when we doubt our salvation by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read "How long...?" as a desperate hope for the time to more quickly come when the people would believe. The pain of God leads Him to hope, even desperate hope; and again that hope is expressed and felt in terms which are relative to our kind of time. Hence His many questions relating to 'How long?': "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe me?" (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>); "How long will it be till they are pure?" (<em><a href='B:350 8:5'>Hos 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:27'>Jer 13:27</a></em>). These aren't merely rhetorical questions. There's an element of literality about God's question- He doesn't know how long it will be, He can only imagine and hope- for Israel has free will, and will not turn to Him just when He says so. For He is in covenant relationship with them, He loves them, and as we've emphasized, that must involve each party allowing the other to function independently and to have their own time and free choice for returning. These questions, and other similar statements from God, are almost God's probing of possible paths into the future- the future which He could, of course, choose to know, but it seems He chooses not to fully know. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One wonders whether the questions God asks at times are in fact only merely rhetorical; perhaps some of them are genuine reflections of how He has restrained His foreknowledge in order to become vulnerably in love with His people. For example: “How long will these people treat me with contempt?” (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>). I’m aware that by saying these things, I’m pushing a view of God that is quite different to that held by many believers. My comment is that the view of God widely held in Christianity has its roots in Plato’s philosophy that God is totally without emotion and unable to be touched by our situation on earth in a passionate manner. The very first clause of the 39 Articles of the Church of England reads: “God is without body, parts, and passions”. The Westminster Confession of Faith says the same- God is “without passions”. Frankly I find it incredible that this kind of thing can be said, when the Bible is so utterly full of examples of God’s passionate response to human grief upon earth. It seems clear enough to me that those churches founded upon such suppositions are simply flatly in contradiction to clear Bible teaching, and reflect their roots in pagan philosophy rather than God’s word. Rather than in any sense bringing God ‘down’, it seems to me that by assigning to Him the characteristics and possibilities which His own word so often speaks of, we are in fact elevating His awesomeness and wonder. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will strike them with the pestilence- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pestilence" which was the plague upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 9:3'>Exo 9:3</a></em>) was to come upon a hard hearted Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:6'>Jer 21:6</a></em>). The plagues upon Egypt form the basis for the vials and seals of Revelation, which speak of judgment to come upon the land of Israel. It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And disinherit them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the same word translated "inherit" or "possess" in <em><a href='B:40 13:30'>Num 13:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>. The word also means 'to destroy'. We are God's inheritance- we are to be totally devoted to Him. If we don't want to be, then He will inherit / destroy us anyway. This is the logic of total devotion- we are devoted to Him, and must willingly go along with this or else He will destroy us. The idea is alluded to in <em><a href='B:40 14:22'>Num 14:22</a></em> - because God's glory must fill the earth, therefore the sinners would be destroyed. And again in <em><a href='B:40 14:33'>Num 14:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:35'>Num 14:35</a></em> we read of the sinners being "consumed", a Hebrew word meaning to be perfected or even cleansed.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same three words used of how God would make Abraham's seed a great and mighty nation (<em><a href='B:10 18:18'>Gen 18:18</a></em>). God was alluding to that intention, but saying that He could cease fulfilling it the way He had been working on, and do it another way- through Moses. They would then have become as He intended- a nation of Levites. God's purposes are therefore open ended to some extent.&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said, I have pardoned according to your word-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :18,19. Others can be forgiven because of our intercession (see too <em><a href='B:480 2:5-6'>Mar 2:5-6</a></em>). This has huge implications; for in this case we should be praying constantly for others, if the prayers of a third party can have such power in another’s life. Thanks to Solomon’s prayer, and <em>if</em> he had been obedient, all Israel would have been blessed and experienced Yahweh dwelling amongst them (<em><a href='B:110 6:12-13'>1Ki 6:12-13</a></em>). Moses prayed for God to forgive Israel; and He responded: “I have pardoned, according to <em>your</em> word” (<em><a href='B:40 14:20'>Num 14:20</a></em>) rather than according to their repentance and prayer. Indeed it would seem from <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> that Israel were delivered from the Egyptians due to <em>Moses’ </em>faith in the Christ whom the sprinkled Passover blood pointed forward to. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The men, whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation to murmur against Him, by bringing up an evil report against the land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Had they believed in the power of God, then <em>whatever</em> ‘adversary’ was in the land, in whatever form, was ultimately of no real power (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:36'>Num 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>). And yet it was not God’s way to specifically tell the people that there was no such dragon lurking in the land of Canaan – instead He worked with them according to their fears, by making the earth literally open and swallow up the apostate amongst them (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>) – emphasizing that by doing this, <em>He</em> was doing “a new thing”, something that had never been done before – for there was no dragon lurking in any land able to swallow up people. And throughout the prophets it is emphasized that <em>God</em> and not any dragon swallowed up people – “The Lord (and not any dragon) was as an enemy; <em>He</em> has swallowed up Israel” (<em><a href='B:310 2:5'>Lam 2:5</a></em> and frequently in the prophets). The people of Israel who left Egypt actually failed to inherit Canaan because they believed that it was a land who swallowed up the inhabitants of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), relating this to the presence of giants in the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). As Joshua and Caleb pleaded with them, they needed to believe that whatever myths there were going around, God was greater than whatever mythical beast was there. And because they would not believe that, they failed to enter the land, which in type symbolized those who fail to attain that great salvation which God has prepared.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you have come into the land of your habitations, which I give to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1. "Habitations" may imply that each family would have their own specific area which they were to possess and inhabit. Just as we each have specific intended futures and roles within the Kingdom of God, both now and eternally. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and will make an offering by fire to Yahweh, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, to accomplish a vow, or as a freewill offering, or in your set feasts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :1. The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To make a pleasant aroma to Yahweh, of the herd, or of the flock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Of the herd" continues the common Mosaic theme, that the animal was not to be raised specially for sacrifice but was to be taken out of the herd, it was one "of" them. This looks ahead to the human nature of the Lord Jesus as one of us, taken "of" the herd of humanity.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall offer for the drink offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This had only previously been required in the specific case of <em><a href='B:20 29:40'>Exo 29:40</a></em> but was now being made applicable to every sacrifice. After the rejection of the people in Numbers 14, God wanted them to have this extra feature in relationship with Him. I see it that way, rather than Him as it were punishing them with more legislation. For that was not at all the purpose of any of His Mosaic laws. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus shall it be done for each bull, or for each ram, or for each of the male lambs, or of the young goats-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :12. The repetition of "each" stresses that each animal was to be accompanied by the required side offerings. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire to Yahweh, and their sin offering before Yahweh, for their error- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>James may have sins of ignorance in mind when he says that obeying all the law but breaking just one commandment will lead to condemnation (<em><a href='B:660 2:10'>Jas 2:10</a></em>). His argument becomes all the more powerful if he is alluding here, for the point is then made that this holds true even if that one commandment is broken in ignorance. Clearly the only way to justification with God is through faith in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’But the soul who does anything in presumption, whether he is native-born or a foreigner, the same blasphemes Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David murdered, committed adultery and even the deadly sin of presumption (<em><a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a></em>). Yet these were overlooked by God <em>as if</em> they were 'surface' sins; the real man David was accepted by God and held up as a wondrous example to all the faithful. Such is His softness towards us, and more essentially, His earnest desire to save men who may not 'make it' on the basis of straight obedience. The context here in the previous chapter is of Israel having been presumptuous in trying to enter Canaan when told they now could not do so (<em><a href='B:50 1:43'>Deu 1:43</a></em>). </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :1, the context here is Israel's rejection because they had wilfully disobeyed Yahweh and blasphemed Him (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>). This man was similar, and perhaps that is why his case is recorded here. He is an example of the presumptuous sin just spoken of in :30. The mention that Israel were in the wilderness when this happened may appear to be stating the obvious. But many of the laws, including those so far in this chapter, had been prefaced with the comment that they were to be observed when Israel were in Canaan. Perhaps there was a wilful misunderstanding of the Sabbath law as only applicable in Canaan. I say wilful misunderstanding, because the man was judged as guilty of the sin of presumption (:30,31). So often, caviling over legalistic interpretation of the law is because we are seeking to simply ignore God's law and go our own way; see on :33. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The only other occurrence of the Hebrew phrase "gathering sticks" is in the description of the widow woman of <em><a href='B:110 17:10'>1Ki 17:10</a></em>. We wonder whether she was doing so on the Sabbath; and yet Elijah was taught that he had to depend upon this for him to have food to remain alive. Just as unclean ravens brought him his food. We are likewise taught the same at times. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated occurrence of the phrase "in the wilderness" in <em><a href='B:40 15:32'>Num 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:3'>Num 27:3</a></em> leads the Rabbis to identify the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath as Zelophehad, who therefore "died in his own sin", an allusion to <em><a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a></em> which uses this term in prefacing the incident of gathering sticks. Although it is then noteworthy that he had apparently faithful daughters.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Firewood would have been scarce in the wilderness, so this man perhaps found some and wanted to gather it on the Sabbath before anyone else could. The motive for reporting him would therefore have been jealousy and anger, rather than pure concern that the Sabbath had been broken. So often those who report others breaking God's laws have their own agendas. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em> stresses that the Lord Jesus died in the same place, outside the camp of God’s people. Although Jesus never sinned, in His time of dying He so closely identified with condemned sinners that even in our moments of sin He can still identify with us (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). The people who gathered manna on the Sabbath were not dealt with like this, although it was an equally clear breaking of specific laws. We can only conclude that people may sin in the same external way, but God knows the heart and in this case, the man was guilty of the sin of presumption (:30,31) rather than a lesser level of disobedience. But only God can judge these things. All we see is the external actions and sin. We cannot therefore "judge" because we fail to see the heart behind the wrong action. And clearly God does judge identical actions differently, as we see by comparing this man with those who gathered manna.</p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them that they should make themselves fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of each border a cord of blue-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>People touched the hem of Jesus’ garment, the fringes mentioned here, in search of healing (<em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:36'>Mat 14:36</a></em>). By doing so, they were recognizing that their healing was possible because of His righteous obedience to the Father’s commandments. His power to heal has a basis- not merely that He is powerful of Himself, but because of His moral obedience. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If there is an external being who makes us sin, surely he would have been mentioned extensively in the Old Testament? But there is a very profound and significant silence about thIsa. The record of the Judges period, or Israel in the wilderness, show that at those times Israel were sinning a great deal. But God did not warn them about some powerful supernatural being or force which could enter them and make them sin. Instead, He encouraged them to apply themselves to His word, so that they would not fall away to the ways of their own flesh (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 27:9-10'>Deu 27:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 15:39'>Num 15:39</a></em> is especially clear about our innate sinful tendencies: "Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly" (Heschel's translation). In some Orthodox Jewish liturgies, this verse is to be repeated twice each day. And so it should be by us all. For this is the heart of the matter, the essence of the believer's struggle against sin within. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reminder was pertinent at the time, for they had just been told to return towards the Red Sea and the border with Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 14:25'>Num 14:25</a></em>). They were being reminded that even in what appear to be steps backward, God is still at work to bring us out of Egypt and into His Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Korah is presented as the ringleader of the rebellion (<em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>). But his sons apparently survived, dissociating themselves from their father, becoming the "sons of Korah" who were musicians in the sanctuary. As we see throughout the Biblical records, good men have bad sons and vice versa. Spirituality is in the end totally individual and personal. The Kohathites pitched on the same side of the tabernacle as the Reubenites. So we see the simple takeaway lesson- watch whom you mix with, even amongst the people of God. For people tend to lead each other into sin.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, You take too much on yourself, since all the congregation are holy, each one of them, and Yahweh is among them. Why then lift yourselves up above the assembly of Yahweh?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The complaint may have been that Moses was exalting his own immediate family to the priesthood, and Korah and the Levites were subservient to them. Perhaps Korah led the rebellion against Moses because he objected to how Elzaphan son of Uziel had been appointed over the Kohathites (<em><a href='B:40 3:30'>Num 3:30</a></em>). Kohath had four sons, Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uziel (<em><a href='B:20 6:18'>Exo 6:18</a></em>). Amram's sons, Moses and Aaron, had already received high honour in ruling over all Israel. So Korah, as the firstborn son of the next born son Izhar, thought that he ought to have been over the Kohathites. But instead, the son of Uziel, Kohath's youngest son, had been made prince of the Kohathite clan. This is typical of how God appoints those who are least qualified and strong in secular terms. But Korah disliked thIsa. He felt he was next in line to be the leader of the Kohathites. </p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Do this: take censers, Korah, and all his company- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Censers were for offering incense, which was exactly how Nadab and Abihu were slain (<em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em>). So this was the kind of leading into temptation which we are to pray shall not happen to us (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). Their path to repentance was being offered to them, but the consequences of refusing it were now higher. The intended response was 'No. We give in. To offer incense like that and come near to the incense altar in the holy place is not for us. We would rightly be slain for doing so. So, we give in and retreat from our position'. But human pride was in the way. And they took up the offer, leading to their justifiable destruction. For by knowingly doing what they knew would lead to destruction, they were committing the sin of presumption which forms a context to this account (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em>). Balaam was put in a similar position- he was told to go with the elders of Moab, but only speak God's word. The intention was that he fall down and repent, and refuse to go with them. But he went with them, ostensibly in obedience to God's word of command which was leading him to self destruction. See on :29. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and put fire in them, and put incense on them before Yahweh tomorrow; and it shall be that the man whom Yahweh chooses, he shall be holy. You have gone too far, you sons of Levi!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :6, they were being invited to either repent, or go forward to self destruction. The Hebrew seems to imply that Yahweh had already chosen a holy one, and it was not them. The command to "put fire in them" was because they had "gone too far". So that they were being led down the path to destruction, unless they dropped everything and repented. God likewise works with people today. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is it a small thing to you, that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of Yahweh, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They didn’t consider servanthood within the family of God to be a very great honour; they wanted leadership and personal honour from those they would be over. This is the great paradox, the acme of humility, that serving is actually an honour. But there are so few who really grasp thIsa. Leadership, like respect, is something which can never be demanded nor sought after if we are truly God’s people. Notice that to serve others in God’s family is to come “near to (God) Himself”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come near before Yahweh" is usually translated "offer (sacrifice) before Yahweh", and is translated that way multiple times. Although rarely (<em><a href='B:20 16:9'>Exo 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:5'>Lev 9:5</a></em>) it is used of the congregation coming near before Yahweh. But the congregation didn't generally want to come before Yahweh, and so He chose just the Levites to come before Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 8:10'>Num 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> s.w.). It was God's intention that all Israel should be His servants, a nation of priests. But He changed and ammended His approach, and chose just the Levites for thIsa. We see here how open God is to change, so that by all means He may have relationship with His people. Under the new covenant, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) as He initially intended even under the old covenant. And yet there is always the tendency to leave the priestly work to specialists rather than perceiving our personal call to do it. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore you and all your company are gathered together against Yahweh; and Aaron, who is he that you murmur against him?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>. Israel’s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers “strove against Moses... when they strove against Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em> cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they murmured against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). They thrust Moses away from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) - yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> concerning how God still has not cast away Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but you must also make yourself a prince over us?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books.&nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was very angry, and said to Yahweh, Don’t respect their offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet he was the humblest man on planet earth at the time (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). Anger isn’t advisable for us, as it can easily lead us into sin; but of itself, anger isn’t necessarily incompatible with humility. Yet here Moses' faith slipped for a moment; because his spirit was provoked by Israel, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips and was therefore barred from entering the land (although maybe such an apparently temporary slip was the reflection of deeper problems?). Yet it does seem uncharacteristic, a tragic slip down the graph of ever rising spirituality. There must have almost been tears in Heaven. Being easily provoked was one of Moses' characteristics; consider how he turned himself and stormed out from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:6'>Exo 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>); how his anger waxed hot when he returned from the mount, how he went out from Pharaoh in great anger, how he first of all feared the wrath of Pharaoh and then stopped fearing it; how Moses was "very wroth" at Israel's suggestion that he was appropriating the sacrifices for himself; how he was "angry" with Eleazer (<em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:16-17'>Lev 10:16-17</a></em>). This temperament explains his swings of faith. Was the Lord Jesus likewise afflicted? </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul alludes to these words: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel" (<em><a href='B:510 20:33'>Act 20:33</a></em>); and Paul maybe had these words in mind again in <em><a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a></em>: "We have hurt no man... we have defrauded no man". Always we are to be looking out for similarities between our experiences and those of Biblical characters. For it is in this way the we through patience and comfort of the scriptures have hope; and the Bible becomes a living word speaking to us directly. LXX "I have not taken away the desire of any one of them" could mean they were implying he had messed with their wives (<em><a href='B:330 24:16'>Eze 24:16</a></em>). Sexual slander is always a cheap shot taken at any religious leader, and Moses was surely liable to it, seeing the people hated him so much and were always murmuring at him.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Korah, You and all your company go before Yahweh, you, and they, and Aaron, tomorrow-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :6,7 this was effectively a command which would lead them to their deaths. For there were many commands about the incense and who could offer it, warning that any who offered otherwise or who weren't priests, or came near to offer incense when they weren't qualified, were to die. Their path to repentance was being offered to them, but the consequences of refusing it were now higher. The intended response was 'No. We give in. To offer incense like that and come near to the incense altar in the holy place is not for us. We would rightly be slain for doing so. So, we give in and retreat from our position'. But human pride was in the way. And they took up the offer, leading to their justifiable destruction. </p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Separate yourselves from among this congregation that I may consume them in a moment!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Twice in quick succession God wishes to do this and is talked out of it, as it were, by Moses' intercession (:21,45). We get the impression of a fast moving, intense relationship between God and Moses. "This congregation" apparently referred to all Israel (:19); because in :22-26 we see the intercession of Moses and Aaron, and their obtaining of deliverance for "this congregation" so long as they literally separated themselves from the rebels. God wished to destroy the entire congregation, as He wished to at the time of the golden calf. But again, the intercession of Moses leads to a radical change of heart in God Almighty. Such is the power of prayer and intercession for others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They fell on their faces, and said, God, the God of the spirits of all flesh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Biblically, a man or woman is identified with their spirit in the sense of their mind or way of life. <em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> speaks of the spirits of just men, with whom the believer ought to associate. This means that we ought to identify ourselves with the way of life, the spirit of life, of “just men” of the past. God is “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (<em><a href='B:40 16:22'>Num 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:16'>Num 27:16</a></em>) in the sense that He is the God of all humanity. So “spirits in prison” can refer to people who, in their spiritual lives, are imprisoned. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Shall one man sin, and will You be angry with all the congregation?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s clear from the record in this chapter that the architect of the rebellion was Korah, the “one man” whom Moses referred to (see too :40,49; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>). But he influenced others to sin, and they were still guilty for their sin. Although God doesn’t count people as guilty merely by association, He expects us not to identify ourselves with sinful behaviour- hence verses 23-25 are God’s response to Moses’ concern that God might be indiscriminately applying the unfair principle of ‘guilt by association’. Moses is pleading with God in the spirit of Abraham, who likewise pleaded for a change in the outworking of God's purpose and stated intentions- on the same basis, that the innocent should not perish with the righteous. But Moses here seems over generous in considering that Korah was the "one man" who had sinned; those who had followed him into the sin of presumption still had to be punished.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Hereby you shall know that Yahweh has sent me to do all these works; for they are not from my own mind-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em> LXX: “Moses said, Hereby ye shall <em>know</em> that the Lord hath <em>sent me</em> to <em>do all these works</em>; for I have not done them <em>of myself</em>”. The ideas of <em>know, sent me, do these works, not of myself</em> are so frequent in John's Gospel and are alluding here: <em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:42'>Joh 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:25'>Joh 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:37'>Joh 10:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:10'>Joh 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:24'>Joh 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>. “The works… The Son can do nothing <em>of himself</em>” recalls Moses' words: “All these works… I have not done them of my own mind” (<em><a href='B:40 16:28'>Num 16:28</a></em> AV). The Lord was claiming to be as Moses, and a prophet greater than Moses; but not God. This verse is the basis of&nbsp; “I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me” (<em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then Yahweh hasn’t sent me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This describes "the common death of all men" as being "visited after the visitation of all men"; visiting is very much Angelic language, and thus indicates that an Angel consciously causes a man to die (by taking his breath away). This happened with Moses.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,7, the idea was that these men had been challenged by God through Moses to offer incense with their censors, which was priestly work, to which these men claimed to be fitted. If they did, then they would be slain, according to the law. Their only alternative was to either go ahead and do so to their destruction; or fall on their faces and repent. And so Moses is alluding to this when he says that if they were slain by direct Divine action, then his whole position about them would be justified. If they weren't, then they were indeed qualified to be priests, even though Moses' law said they weren't. and Moses would have been a false prophet of God's words. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:18'>Psa 106:18</a></em> says that God kindled a fire to destroy them, but in reality, they &nbsp;kindled that fire themselves (<em><a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:6'>Hos 7:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em> uses the same term for fire from Yahweh devouring Nadab and Abihu as in <em><a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a></em> about the destruction of Korah's rebels. They were clearly aware of what had happened to those rebels, and were daring God to repeat it. It was truly the sin of presumption.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if Yahweh make a new thing, and the ground open its mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain to them, and they go down alive into Sheol- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The Angels that sinned" in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em> allude to these men. “Angel” can mean “minister”, “messenger” (as John’s disciples were messengers or ministers to him, <em><a href='B:490 7:24'>Luk 7:24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> describes the rebels as “ministers” of the congregation. The Septuagint uses the word <em>aggelos</em> for “ministers”, which is the same Greek word translated “Angel” in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>. They left their first, or original, “principality” (<em><a href='B:720 1:6'>Jud 1:6</a></em>, A.V. margin); the rebels were princes, but wanted to be priests as well (<em><a href='B:40 16:2'>Num 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:10'>Num 16:10</a></em>). Because of this, the ground opened and swallowed them (<em><a href='B:40 16:31-33'>Num 16:31-33</a></em>), as a dramatic example to everyone of the fate of those who rebel against the Word of God. It was especially dramatic in that it is emphasized that this was the first time that such a thing had happened (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>). Thus they are now dead, “in everlasting chains under darkness”, in the heart of the earth, to be resurrected and judged at “the judgment of the great day”. <em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em> implies that “likewise”, i.e. like the angels that sinned, the Judaizers “speak evil of dignities”, e.g. Jesus and Paul. The rebels spoke evil of Moses and Aaron (<em><a href='B:40 16:11-14'>Num 16:11-14</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A case could be made that the whole record of Israel’s rejection from entering the land of Canaan is framed to adduce a reason for this as the fact they chose to believe that the land was inhabited by an evil dragon who would consume them there. This was a slander of the good land, and the whole point was that if they had believed in the power of God, then <em>whatever</em> ‘adversary’ was in the land, in whatever form, was ultimately of no real power (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:36'>Num 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>). And yet it was not God’s way to specifically tell the people that there was no such dragon lurking in the land of Canaan – instead He worked with them according to their fears, by making the earth literally open and swallow up the apostate amongst them (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>) – emphasizing that by doing this, <em>He</em> was doing “a new thing”, something that had never been done before – for there was no dragon lurking in any land able to swallow up people. And throughout the prophets it is emphasized that <em>God</em> and not any dragon swallowed up people – “The Lord (and not any dragon) was as an enemy; <em>He</em> has swallowed up Israel” (<em><a href='B:310 2:5'>Lam 2:5</a></em> and frequently in the prophets). The people of Israel who left Egypt actually failed to inherit Canaan because they believed that it was a land who swallowed up the inhabitants of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), relating this to the presence of giants in the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). As Joshua and Caleb pleaded with them, they needed to believe that whatever myths there were going around, God was greater than whatever mythical beast was there. And because they would not believe that, they failed to enter the land, which in type symbolized those who fail to attain that great salvation which God has prepared.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then you shall understand that these men have despised Yahweh-</em>"Despised" as in <em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em> is s.w. provoke or blaspheme. It is specifically associated with turning to other gods (<em><a href='B:50 31:20'>Deu 31:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:4'>Isa 1:4</a></em>). And that appears to be the context. The Israelites decided not to enter the land and instead to follow the gods of Egypt back to Egypt (<em><a href='B:40 14:11'>Num 14:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:23'>Num 14:23</a></em>). </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who appertained to Korah, and all their goods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Korah’s sons didn’t die (<em><a href='B:40 26:11'>Num 26:11</a></em>); they separated themselves from their father and his supporters in time. There are times when our loyalty to the Lord will result in us having to experience some kind of separation from family members who choose not to go the Lord’s way; Jesus foretold this would happen frequently (<em><a href='B:470 10:34-37'>Mat 10:34-37</a></em>). The men who "appertained to Korah" were therefore his religious followers rather than his immediate sons and family. "Their goods" may well have involved idol worship paraphernalia; see on :26.</p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Fire came forth from Yahweh, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Destruction by fire was an appropriate judgment for those who had offered strange fire. Judgment is related to the crime because men are self condemned more than being condemned by God. For saving, rather than destroying, i<em>s </em>God's passion. <em><a href='B:230 106:18'>Psa 106:18</a></em> says that God kindled a fire to destroy them, but in reality, they &nbsp;kindled that fire themselves (<em><a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:6'>Hos 7:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em> uses the same term for fire from Yahweh devouring Nadab and Abihu as in <em><a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a></em> about the destruction of Korah's rebels. They were clearly aware of what had happened to those rebels, and were daring God to repeat it. It was truly the sin of presumption. See on :6,7,29.<em></em></p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Aaron, Take your censer, and put fire from off the altar in it, and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation, and make atonement for them; for wrath has gone out from Yahweh! The plague has begun-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fire of the altar was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. Wrath, the command to destroy, had gone forth from Yahweh- but in the gap between the statement of destruction and the execution of it, God is open to persuasion to change. This points up the power and possibilities in intense mediation before Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and behold, the plague has begun among the people: and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :45. The NT not only encourages us to all be priests; but we can even aspire to the High Priesthood, in a certain sense. The veil was torn down so that we might all enter in to the most holy, doing the work of the High Priest for others. <em><a href='B:660 5:16'>Jas 5:16</a></em> speaks of the need to pray for one another, that we may be healed. This is an undoubted allusion back to mighty Moses praying for smitten Miriam, and to Aaron staying the plague by his offering of incense / prayer (<em><a href='B:40 16:47'>Num 16:47</a></em>). Surely James is saying that every one of us can rise up to the spirit of the High Priest in this way. The provision for Naziriteship encouraged the average Israelite to enter into the spirit of the High Priest by imposing some of the regulations governing his behaviour upon them. </p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and take of them rods, one for each father’s house, of all their princes according to their fathers’ families, twelve rods. Write every man’s name on his rod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names written were presumably the names of the heads of the tribes (:3). "Rods" can also mean "tribes", so a rod was an appropriate symbol for a tribe (<em><a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall write Aaron’s name on the rod of Levi; for there shall be one rod for each head of their fathers’ families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The exercise was in order to declare the spiritual leader of the people, and so Aaron's name was placed on Levi's rod; for Aaron was, as it were, the candidate God was putting forward.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall happen, that the rod of the man whom I shall choose shall bud; and I will make to cease from Me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>. Israel’s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers “strove against Moses... when they strove against Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em> cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they murmured against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). They <em>thrust</em> Moses <em>away</em> from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) - yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> concerning how God still has not <em>cast away</em> Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn't want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God's saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God's people who have started the journey with Him. Their murmuring against Moses was a murmuring against God; our attitude to our brethren is our attitude to God. See on :12,13.&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses laid up the rods before Yahweh in the tent of the testimony- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the rods were cut off and dry, unable to produce fruit. The fact Aaron's rod budded and bore fruit was therefore evidence of God's grace through the Spirit, giving life and fruit to that which was otherwise unable to bear fruit. The idea was that Aaron and his descendants were not intrinsically better than the other tribes; for this was the impression which the other tribes had. He was simply the chosen channel for the Spirit in the particular work of priesthood. And it is the same with any used by God in public ministry. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the next day that Moses went into the tent of the testimony, and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and put forth buds, and produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of budding, blossoming and bearing fruit is used in <em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em> about <em>all</em> Israel. The initial hearers of Isaiah’s words would have thought back to how Aaron’s rod budded, blossomed and bore fruit as a sign that God had chosen that family and not all Israel. However, <em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em> makes it clear that God’s ideal intention was that all Israel would be a nation of priests (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). This came to fulfilment in essence with the end of the Levitical priesthood and the establishment of all those in Christ as a new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The almond is the first tree in Palestine to bud, so it means literally the watching tree, as if it were alive and eager to come to life.&nbsp;The idea is that the fruit on the almond was a kind of firstfruit, with promise of further fruit amongst other trees. It had always been God's intention that all Israel should be a nation of priests. The fruit was a sign of what the work of the priests should achieve for all Israel; the essence was not the rod but the fruit. God wanted Israel as a whole to be fruitful; He wanted them all to blossom, bud and fill the earth with fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). The priesthood were to be but a foretaste and firstfruit of a far greater blossoming of all Israel. And yet this remained God's intention only. The whole idea was reapplied and reinterpreted for fulfilment in the Lord Jesus and all in Him. &nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The candlestick is described in similar terms, having bowls like almonds, flowers (s.w. "buds") and blossoms (<em><a href='B:20 25:31-34'>Exo 25:31-34</a></em>). The idea was that the priesthood should be like the candlestick, giving light in the darkness of the tabernacle where there was no natural light, and illuminating the way towards the most holy place and fellowship with Yahweh Himself. The people were bidden see Aaron's budded, blossoming rod as a kind of candlestick. For that was how the priesthood was to be through the teaching of God's word to Israel and bringing them towards fellowship with God. Hence the imagery of the candlestick is later applied to all believers (the church is the candlestick, <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:20'>Rev 1:20</a></em>), for it is God's intention now that all believers are priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses brought out all the rods from before Yahweh to all the children of Israel: and they looked, and took every man his rod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God's interpretation of the almond rod in <em><a href='B:300 1:11-12'>Jer 1:11-12</a></em> was that "I watch over My word to perform it". The word translated 'hasten' or "watch over" is very similar to the word for 'almond'. Almonds are associated with God's eyes; the bowls of the lampstands were almonds (<em><a href='B:20 25:33-34'>Exo 25:33-34</a></em>). <em><a href='B:450 4:2'>Zec 4:2</a></em> talks about these almond bowls on the candlestick, and <em><a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a></em> interprets them as the "eyes of Yahweh which run to and fro through the whole earth". <em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em> talks about the Angels in the same way; "the eyes of Yahweh run to and fro throughout the whole earth to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him". Similarly in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:4:5'>Rev 4:5</a></em> the lamps in the bowls of almond are equated with the "seven spirits (or Angels) of God". <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em> equates the seven eyes with the seven spirits. Thus the almond rod which Jeremiah saw represented God's eyes or Angels who would watch over the word of God which Jeremiah was to speak to perform it. Jeremiah was a priest, and this was to have been true for all the priests. Their most important role was to teach God's word. They are called<em> elohim </em>just as are the priests. All Israel could have been priests, that was God's original intention; but they failed, and so He had chosen a specific family to do this work. But it was ever His intention to make all Israel blossom and bud (see on :8). , </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the children of rebellion; that you may make an end of their murmurings against me, that they not die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "a sign for the children of the disobedient; and let their murmuring cease from me". It seems that this is directed at the family members of those slain in Korah's rebellion and the plague which followed. Despite the dramatic deaths of around 15,000 people (<em><a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:49'>Num 16:49</a></em>), it seems that their relatives were still murmuring and were likely to also be slain. Aaron had successfully interceded for the plague to be stopped and for all Israel not to be destroyed as God had intended. And yet despite such grace and all that empirical, visible evidence, they still wanted to overthrow Moses and have a captain to take them back to Egypt. For they had returned there in their hearts. It was only God's desire to ultimately save His people which meant that He persevered with His plan, and therefore went to the trouble of giving further evidence that Moses and Aaron were His chosen leaders.&nbsp; And He did this "that they not die". He didn't want to slay anyone.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did so. As Yahweh commanded him, so he did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses is stressed throughout the records, and is used to present him as a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>). The point here may be that Moses as a non priest, a Levite and not the High Priest, had entered the most holy place before the "testimony" and the very presence of God, and then re-entered it a second time- and had not been slain. Because God is not a literalist nor legalist. It would not have been appropriate if Aaron had done this, as he was as it were one of the candidates. Constantly we see God overriding the letter of His own law in order to keep the Spirit of it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, we perish! We are undone! We are all undone!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their sense that they are condemned and liable to destruction comes right after the declaration of Aaron's family as the rightful priests. We wonder why they now feared so much. Presumably they had continued some plan to take over the tabernacle service and leadership; see on :5,13. Isaiah quotes these words when he feels he has come too close to God's presence (<em><a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a></em>). It would seem that despite the mass destruction of 15,000 such rebels in Numbers 16, many still wanted to rebel, and had come too close to the tabernacle; hence :13 LXX laments that whoever touched the tabernacle would die. Perhaps there was yet another (unrecorded) outbreak of judgment after Aaron's rod was revealed, and now the rest of Israel are recoiling from it, fearing that they will "all perish" (:13). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of Yahweh, dies! Will we all perish?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Who touches...". it would seem that they had touched the tabernacle or had attempted to "come near" to Yahweh as the priests alone were to "draw near" to Him. The subsequent warning in <em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em> of death for doing this would imply that this was said by the Levites. Likewise <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em> "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems they still refused to accept they could not do the work of the priests, and therefore Numbers 18 warns them yet again. Despite the fearful events of Numbers 16, with the destruction of 15,000 people who had tried to revolt against Moses and Aaron, it seems that some were still "murmuring" against them and seeking to take over the tabernacle. Hence their deep fear when Aaron's family were confirmed as priests; see on :12,13. Tragically it seems that no matter how much God speaks and demonstrates His will, people will still rebel against Him. Empirical evidence seems to have no value, compared to the power of a heart which has returned to Egypt and away from God. The answer to "Will we all perish?" is left hanging- because the real answer is 'You should have done, but Moses and Aaron whom you so despised interceded for you, and you did not perish by grace alone'. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But you shall not redeem the firstborn of a cow, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat. They are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To sprinkle blood upon something didn't necessarily mean the object was forgiven. For an inanimate altar didn't need forgiving. The blood of the covenant was sprinkled (s.w.) upon the people as a sign of their involvement with the covenant process of salvation, rather than as a statement of their forgiveness (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em>). Likewise with the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:140 35:11'>2Ch 35:11</a></em>). This was an act of identification rather than forgiveness of sin. The function of the altar was valid before God, or efficacious, because of its association with the blood of Christ; for the blood of the animals slain upon it couldn't bring salvation of itself, but only through God's way of looking at that blood is looking ahead to that of His Son (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). And so the altar was associated with the blood which represented His blood.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This sacrifice was to provide purification from death through its ashes, which were to be mixed with water (:9), perhaps the running water from the rock, which water followed them through the wilderness- for what other source of “running (Heb. ‘springing’) water” (:17) could they have had in the wilderness? It speaks very clearly of Christ’s death; for He was without blemish and never came under the yoke of sin; He too was killed outside the camp of Israel (:3 cp. <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 9:13'>Heb 9:13</a></em> specifically alludes to how the ashes of this heifer were typical of Christ’s sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded: Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without spot, in which is no blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). So this looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The red heifer appears to have been the source of the water of cleansing which was required by many situations envisaged under the Mosaic law. But it is unclear whether multiple red heifers were to be slain to provide enough ashes to create such water, or whether this was a one off sacrifice and cleansing ritual to be done only in the wilderness. It is a deconstruction of the Egyptian sacrifice of a spotless red bull to Typhon, the god of evil, broadly equivalent to the (mis)conception of 'satan' held by many. It was deconstructed by this ritual, in that the red bull was to be offered to Yahweh, not a satan being; and would bring forgiveness and cleansing rather than safety from a 'satan' being. For human uncleanness rather than the supposed machinations of a 'satan' figure is where our focus should be. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And which was never yoked- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The red heifer as the source of cleansing through water (cp. baptism) looked ahead to the Lord Jesus. The naturalness which Jesus had with people reflects His respect for the freedom which God has given His people to chose for themselves. He was Himself supremely free, due to His pure conscience before the Father. He was typified by the red heifer “upon which never came yoke” (<em><a href='B:40 19:2'>Num 19:2</a></em>). We were set free from sin by Christ through “freedom” (<em><a href='B:550 5:1'>Gal 5:1</a></em> RV). But we were set free by Him as a person. His freedom, His freedom from sin and the freedom that must have characterized His person, is what liberates us too. And it is the experience of that freedom, the freedom from sin that comes through forgiveness (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em>), which can be ‘used’ to love others (<em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em>).</p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One shall burn the heifer in his sight: her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No part of the animal was to be kept and eaten by the priests or Levites. I will suggest on :11 that the entire ritual was a one off situation, providing cleansing for those who were now going to bury the 15000 people slain as a result of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16; and this would have included many Levites, who had aspired wrongly to the priesthood. So it would have been inappropriate if they had eaten of the sacrifice themselves. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All associated with the crucifixion of Christ. The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. His mind was evidently full of the word, He would have seen the symbolism of everything far more than we can, from the thorns in His mock crown, to the hyssop being associated with Him at the very end (the hyssop was the fulfilment of types in <em><a href='B:20 12:8'>Exo 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:22'>Exo 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:4'>Lev 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:6'>Lev 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:49-52'>Lev 14:49-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:6'>Num 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:18'>Num 19:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The defilement of the priest by the sacrifice is unique amongst all the offerings commanded. On one hand, it looks ahead to how the Lord Jesus died on the cross, and "cursed is every one who hangs on a tree" (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). He was not made personally sinful by the process of His death, but He was thereby definitely associated with all that is unclean. We think of <em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>&nbsp;AV: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him". But in the immediate context, I suggest that these rituals were for the cleansing of the priesthood as well as the living supporters and relatives of those slain in the rebellion of the Levites in Numbers 16. It could be that Aaron and the priesthood had given in to the pressure of the rebellious Levites and allowed some of them to come near to the sanctuary, and they had to bear guilt for this sin (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>). Hence the commandment at this point that now they should never again allow Levites to come into the sanctuary (<em><a href='B:40 18:3'>Num 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:5'>Num 18:5</a></em>). This makes better sense of the "henceforth..." in <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em>: "Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die". This is clearly given in the context of the rebellions of Numbers 16, 17, where the Israelites had tried to do thIsa. And indeed it seems they had come near the tent of meeting and touched the holy things, and it was of grace that more of them had not been slain for doing so. I suggest that the priests had allowed the Levites and Israelites to come close to the sanctuary; they were not to ever do so again, and I suggest the unique cleansing sacrifice of the red heifer in Numbers 19 was in order to cleanse them from this sin. According to the passages in Numbers 18, the entire priesthood were worthy of death because of allowing the non priests into the sanctuary. But the red heifer ritual cleansed them from this sin unto death, and therefore becomes a powerful type of the Lord's stoning sacrifice for us as condemned sinners.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside of the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity. It is a sin offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well enquire what particular sin had been committed. Cleansing from impurity which arose from touching dead bodies didn't require a sin offering. I have suggested on :7 that the sin in view is the way the priesthood had bowed to pressure from the Levites and allowed them to enter the sanctuary. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is mentioned because this was an example of how the water of cleansing, made from the ashes of the red heifer, could be used. But if it were to be used every time there was a death, then it would've required many ashes from red heifers. We wonder therefore if these commands are specifically for the Levites at the sanctuary. Otherwise, there would need to be red heifer sacrifices and ashes made throughout Israel. I discussed on :4 how the impression could be taken that this was to be one sacrifice for all time (another element of how it typified the Lord's death), and that therefore it would only have been applicable to the wilderness situation. Perhaps what was specifically in view was the cleansing required for the 15000 people who had just been slain in the events of Numbers 16, 17, and who were now going to be buried. There would have been mass defilement of people during the burial and mourning process, and these people were sinners. Therefore there was this special cleansing ritual foreseen.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The same shall purify himself with water on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean; but if he doesn’t purify himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have hints of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus on the third day, leading to our complete cleansing on the seventh day- God's Kingdom established on earth. See on :16.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, and on all the vessels, and on the persons who were there, and on him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the association of hyssop with the Lord's death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:29'>Joh 19:29</a></em>). That hyssop had been dipped in red wine, representing blood, and the Lord surely saw the relevance to Himself. "I am that hyssop", He would have thought. On the cross, He was the door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), and He experienced hyssop with red wine (representing blood) brushed against Him. Just as the doors at Passover had blood brushed onto them using a hyssop plant, and this was the basis of Israel's salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died there, and was buried there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite all the visible wrath of God against those who rebelled in Numbers 16 with 15000 dying, the condemnation of the priesthood to death and then their being saved by the unique, saving provision of the red heifer (see on <em><a href='B:40 19:4'>Num 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:7'>Num 19:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>)... the people still rebelled. This is all a classic case of where visible, empirical evidence doesn't of itself elicit true faith in God. And those who base their faith upon 'scientific evidence' on one hand or Pentecostal claims of miracles... need to be warned by thIsa. We wonder whether the death of Miriam was related to her abiding sense of rebellion against her brothers Moses and Aaron. Perhaps the root of her name, Mara (bitter) became sadly true for her in her older age.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was no water for the congregation. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people strove with Moses and spoke, saying, We wish that we had died when our brothers died before Yahweh!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel “chode with Moses... they strove with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:40 20:3'>Num 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 20:13'>Num 20:13</a></em>) uses the same Hebrew word for both “chode” and “strove”. To strive with Moses was to strive with the Lord- i.e. with the guardian Angel that was so closely associated with Moses? <em><a href='B:40 20:4'>Num 20:4</a></em> continues rather strangely with the Israelites addressing Moses in the plural: “The people chode with Moses, saying... Why have ye (you plural) brought up...”. Could it be that even they recognized his partnership with God? Likewise <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>: “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye (plural) brought us up out of Egypt to die?”. "Our brothers" shows that the people were at one with the rebels who had died in the events of Numbers 16, and hence Moses addresses them all as "rebels" (:10). He was on one hand full of spiritual perception, but lack of faith and unwise words on the other. This kind of terrible mixture of flesh and Spirit is sadly to be found in all God's children, even the very best of them like Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why have you brought the assembly of Yahweh into this wilderness that we should die there, we and our animals?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obvious answer was that not Moses but God had brought them into the wilderness, they had went the way they were led by the Angel going before them in the pillar of cloud and fire. But they didn't want to accept that as any evidence. Again, as discussed on :1, visible, empirical evidence didn't persuade anyone of anything much. In their hearts they had returned to Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>), and so they would see everything through the lens of their desire to return there. And so it is with those who love the world and simply do not want the things of the Kingdom. The manna was being given, but they disregarded it, and assumed they would die without the luxury foods of :5. We have a powerful insight into the mentality of so many. They are not satisfied with food and clothing, and for them, life is "death" without all the "extras". </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the rod and assemble the congregation. you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note carefully the process of failure here. Moses and Aaron were told to <em>both</em> speak to the rock, and this would result in Moses personally bringing forth water: “Gather thou (singular) the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye (plural- both of them) unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou (Moses personally) shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink” (<em><a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a></em>). But Moses seems to have dismissed Aaron’s intended involvement and assumed that he alone could bring the water out with his rod. Yet Aaron was also condemned for this incident- presumably because he didn’t speak to the rock but just let Moses smite the rock with his silence meaning consent. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock and he said to them, Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring water out of this rock for you?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that, and compare it with the tone of voice he used when at the end of his life reminding them of how they had been rebellious. Israel had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore couldn't enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:7'>Deu 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23-24'>Deu 9:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:4'>Num 27:4</a></em>); they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's commandment (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:20'>Deu 21:20</a></em>). For Moses himself had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 20:24'>Num 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites "rebels" (<em><a href='B:40 20:10'>Num 20:10</a></em>), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different way. He saw the whole congregation as no better than the rebels who had perished previously, 15000 of them, in the rebellion of Numbers 16 which Israel were now in essence repeating.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essence of the sin was lack of faith (:12), not simply striking the rock; for only Moses struck it, but Aaron was equally punished. The emphasis is perhaps upon "this rock" rather than "we". As if they didn't believe that from that rock could possibly flow water, although God had worked in that way before. Perhaps this is why he struck it once, and no water came, as if in demonstration of his point. And he struck it again- and God answered a fool according to his folly, and God made water come out of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read this as Moses not sanctifying God (:12) by speaking as if he could bring the water out of the rock alone, in his own strength. The people had just fired a series of questions at him, asking why <em>he</em> had brought them out of Egypt and led them through the desert. The obvious answer to their questions was that it was not Moses who had done these things, but God working through Moses. They failed to see God manifest in Moses, and looked at him merely as acting in his own strength. And it could be that in this moment, he came to see himself as they saw him. He sinned terribly because he allowed others' perceptions of him to become his own self perception. And we can take that lesson to ourselves in every generation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice: and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had previously struck the rock and water came out (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>), but this time he was asked to speak to it- yet instead, he struck it. See on :10. Smiting the rock, which represented Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>), could be understood as effectively crucifying Him, twice over (<em><a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a></em>). Perhaps he became over familiar with God, assuming he could do as he wished without careful respect for God’s word. He failed to believe in the power of the spoken word (:12), effectively he rebelled against the commandment (<em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>); he assumed that detailed obedience wasn’t necessary to God’s commandment; and he gave the impression that he rather than God was giving the water (“shall <em>we</em> bring you water...?”, :10). One angry sentence can reveal so much about our attitudes. Moses had earlier asked that he be excluded from entering the land so that Israel might enter (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em> - see note there). In a strange way, that prayer was heard. Although Moses sinned, repeatedly we read that he didn’t himself enter the land for Israel’s sake (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>). They are blamed for provoking him to speak poorly (<em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>). God works through our sins in a strange way; and what we ask for in prayer, we have a way of receiving, in essence. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was willing to give his physical and eternal life for Israel's salvation (<em><a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a></em>). In a sense, his desire was heard. Because of the sin of a moment, caused by the provocation of the people he loved, God decreed that he could not enter the land of promise. For <em>their sakes</em> he was barred from the land; this is the emphasis of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:230 106:32-33'>Psa 106:32-33</a></em> says that Moses was provoked to sin because Israel angered God, and that therefore "it went ill with Moses for their sakes". Truly, God by grace works through sinful man to achieve His glory. Thus Moses says that he must die “Because ye (plural) trespassed against me” (<em><a href='B:50 32:51'>Deu 32:51</a></em>). This all helps explain why the Lord Jesus Christ had to die, apart from the fact that He was mortal. He died the death of a sinner for our salvation, He felt all the emotions of the rejected, the full weight of God's curse; for "cursed is every one that hangs on a tree" in crucifixion (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>). Moses is a superb and accurate type of the Lord Jesus. Therefore Moses in his time of dying must grant us insight into the death of our Lord, the prophet like him (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact Aaron was also equally punished indicates that the essence of the sin was not striking the rock. For only Moses struck the rock. It was lack of faith (:12). God sees through to the essence of sin.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn’t believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Disbelief in God was the reason Israel too were barred from entering Canaan (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>). When Moses reminded them of this in <em><a href='B:50 1:32'>Deu 1:32</a></em>, he was alluding to how he was in essence no better than them, having also been rejected from entering Canaan for disbelief (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>). So we wonder in what tine of voice he reminded them of thIsa. For he appealed to them as a fellow sinner, in this sense no better than them. And this was the potential power of his appeal.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Moses didn’t believe in God as he should have done, God still did the miracle. He is prepared to accept even imperfect faith. For Moses' faith slips for a moment; his spirit is provoked by Israel, so that he speaks unadvisedly with his lips and is therefore barred from entering the land (although maybe such an apparently temporary slip was the reflection of deeper problems?). Yet it does seem uncharacteristic, a tragic slip down the graph of ever rising spirituality. There must have almost been tears in Heaven. Being easily provoked was one of Moses' characteristics; consider how he <em>turned himself</em> and stormed out from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:6'>Exo 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>); how his anger waxed hot when he returned from the mount, how he went out from Pharaoh in great anger, how he first of all feared the wrath of Pharaoh and then stopped fearing it; how Moses was "very wroth" at Israel's suggestion that he was appropriating the sacrifices for himself; how he was "angry" with Eleazer (<em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:16-17'>Lev 10:16-17</a></em>). This temperament explains his swings of faith. Was the Lord Jesus likewise afflicted?</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses doubtless had faith of a sort to hit the rock, having gathered all Israel there, and expect water to come out. Indeed, the water did come out, the miracle happened… but God’s ultimate comment was that in that event, Moses actually did not have faith. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals a submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because ye believed me not... ye shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books.&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Yahweh, and He was sanctified in them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Somehow God is never beaten; man can do nothing against the Truth, only for it (<em><a href='B:540 13:8'>2Co 13:8</a></em>). He wasn’t beaten when Moses failed to sanctify Him (:12); He sanctified Himself through His judgment of that failure: “Ye believed me not, <em>to sanctify me</em> in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and <em>he was sanctified</em> in them” (<em><a href='B:40 20:12-13'>Num 20:12-13</a></em>).&nbsp;And 'sanctified' is from the same root as 'Kadesh' where they were encamped. Perhaps it was later named that to memorialize how God all the same was sanctified. Somehow God’s word never returns unto Him void, somehow the lost sheep is always found. These are not just expressions of the essential hopefulness of the Father and Son (although this in itself is something to be truly inspired by); these are statements which reflect the way in which within God’s scheme of working, everything works out to His glory.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words were said with hearts melting with fear of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>). <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em> was but a conditional promise: "Command the people saying, ‘You are to pass through the border of your brothers the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir, and they will be afraid of you". For in <em><a href='B:40 20:18'>Num 20:18</a></em> we learn that "Edom said to him, You shall not pass through", and they came out against them. I suggest that instead of believing these words, and the promise that the hearts of all would fear them (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>), the Israelites feared Esau- just as faithless Jacob had done. And so things were transferred the other war around. Esau was not afraid of Israel, as potentially they could have feared. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> says that the Edomites and Moabites sold Israel food and water as they passed through. But <em><a href='B:50 23:3-4'>Deu 23:3-4</a></em> says that the Moabites didn't do this and were cursed because of it. Perhaps a few Moabites did do so, but Moab generally didn't. Or perhaps the sense of <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> is that Moab and Edom did let Israel pass through without harassing them, hence GNB "All we want to do is to pass through your country... The descendants of Esau, who live in Edom, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, allowed us to pass through their territory". But Edom didn't let Israel pass through (<em><a href='B:40 20:18'>Num 20:18</a></em>). So the point of <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> may be that Sihon was warned that Edom and Moab had been asked to do this but had not done so, and Sihon was to take warning from this, to learn from the mistakes of others. However, we should note that <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> speaks of "the children of Esau who dwell in Seir". These Edomites perhaps did let Israel pass through, whereas the Edomites in the Kadesh area didn't. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then will I give its price. Let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:6'>Deu 2:6</a></em> sounds like definite prophecy: “Command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau... and they shall be afraid of you...ye shall buy meat of them for money.... ye shall also buy water of them for money”. And yet when Israel came to these people and tried to pass through, and offered them money for bread and water, they were rejected by them (<em><a href='B:40 20:16-21'>Num 20:16-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 11:17'>Jdg 11:17</a></em>). The condition- that Edom had the freedom to reject them- isn’t mentioned, but it nonetheless stood. Prophecy is an imperative to action- it isn’t just a fascinating study of how predictions have been matched with reality. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with many people, and with a strong hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must put this together with <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em> "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed the way". So when Edom "refused to give Israel passage through his border" (<em><a href='B:40 20:21'>Num 20:21</a></em>), their refusal was because they were "dismayed" and terrified, not because they had some nonchalant confidence against Israel. This is an example of where we must place scripture together to get an accurate picture.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Soon after this incident, Israel were commanded not to despise an Edomite (<em><a href='B:50 23:7'>Deu 23:7</a></em>)- although this is just what Edom had done to them. We aren’t to treat others as they treat us, but leave their judgment with God. These incidents took place in the 40th year of their wanderings (<em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>), and the commands of Deuteronomy were given at the same time. Moses could have reasoned that "the elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob)" (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>) and engaged him in battle. But the way of wisdom is to always walk away from conflict with our brethren, even if they are unreasonable.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the border of the land of Edom, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hor" and "mount" are the same word in Hebrew. <em><a href='B:50 10:6'>Deu 10:6</a></em> defines the point as "Moserah". "Moserah" means 'place of chastisement / correction'. Aaron and Moses will be in the Kingdom despite their sin, but it needed Aaron's death for them to be corrected. And perhaps it was only in his time of dying that Aaron was fully corrected. The form of our death can be used by God to bring us to the spiritual point He wishes us to reach. The punishment was therefore their correction, and was not the angry lashing out of an offended Deity. Moses only mentions this place name at the end of his life, indicating how he looked back and perceived that indeed he had been corrected and learned his lesson, even if it cost him his life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Disbelief in God's word (<em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em>) was rebellion against it. The point is made that they were wrong to address Israel as "rebels" (:10) for they were no better. Perhaps it is only in our time of dying that we fully realize our sinfulness, and that we are no better than other sinners; see on :23. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the South- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may not be in chronological order; it could be that in these chapters we have a series of conflicts with the surrounding tribes at the start of the journey. It could also be that this defeat by Arad was part of a series of defeats of those who insisted on trying to enter the land after they had been told they must wander in the wilderness for a generation. It would be as if they tried to go by the 'way of the spies' again, but how at Arad their way was finally blocked. In this case, the victory against the Canaanites of :3 would refer to a later victory against them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. 'the way of the spies'. History was being intentionally repeated, in the hope that the Israelites would learn the lesson, reflecting that they were taking the same road the spies had taken, and challenging themselves to have more faith than they did. And history likewise repeats in our lives for the same reason.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promise that an obedient Israel would make their enemies flee before them was not operational here. The conclusion is surely that Israel had sinned and therefore were defeated. These words are frequently used about Israel's judgment at the hand of their enemies because of their sinfulness. All this lends weight to the conclusion that this was another attempt by Israel to enter Canaan as happened immediately after the news of their rejection (<em><a href='B:50 1:44'>Deu 1:44</a></em>). Those rejected from the Kingdom at judgment day will likewise desperately want to be there, nobody will be passive in that day, nor shrugging their shoulders as people do today when encountering the possibility that they may not be there. The wilderness journey speaks of our lives after baptism. It's not a story of glorious victory after glorious victory. There are defeats and failures, partly from our failures, and partly because God in His wisdom knows that this too is part of our path towards the Kingdom. The initial defeat was required in order to make the people trust in Yahweh for victory (:2); and we have multiple such experiences in life.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "utterly destroy" means to devote. Whatever comes into our hands during our wilderness journey should be devoted to the Lord. But it was in any case a command to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:2'>Deu 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:17'>Deu 20:17</a></em>). We shouldn’t consider that which is our duty to do as some kind of special dedication to God which deserves His reward. But so eager is God for relationship with His people that He all the same agreed (:3).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:3'>Num 21:3</a></em><em> Yahweh listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. The name of the place was called Hormah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hormah means 'devoted', LXX 'Anathema'.&nbsp; Paul spoke of those who leave the faith as 'Anathema' (<em><a href='B:530 16:22'>1Co 16:22</a></em>), but the idea was likely that we should consider even those we separate from as 'devoted' to the Lord. We do not condemn, but pass them to the Lord, in the hope that they will finally be devoted to Him. There's a powerful logic in all this- we are to be devoted to the Lord in any case, either by condemnation or by willing devotion of ourselves to Him in this life, that we might be eternally devoted to Him. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof- and all finally returns to Him in any case. This idea sheds light on the reference in <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em> to delivering a wrongdoer to "Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved". The idea of delivering over in Hebrew thought was understood as delivering over to God. The 'satan' may therefore refer to a Divine Angel or some other Divine agent who would attempt to work to bring back the straying sheep, that it might be saved at the end. All separation, therefore, should be in a spirit of desiring the individual's salvation, and not as an expression of our own personal anger or dislike. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em><em> They travelled from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Much discouraged" is Heb. 'reaped down', the same word used about how they felt in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a></em>). They adopted the same attitude they had in Egypt, ever searching for something better, and now not wanting to accept what God had planned for them, not looking at the end of their journey but just caught up in the immediacy of their daily feelings. Yet they had just had the exhilaration of having made a vow to God about the cities of Canaan, obeying it, and seeing God answer them. Before that, they had sinned (see on :1). And now, they were again discouraged and low. This is the yo-yo path through the wilderness we all experience. It's not going to be entirely positive. They likely reasoned that God should have spared them this awful part of the journey because they had just been obedient to Him. But that's not how the path to the Kingdom Isa. The sequence in this chapter so far was: Disobedience- Cursing - Obedience - Blessing- Cursing. And sometimes (as in the blessing of Isaac materially after his lying about his wife) the sequence can be: Disobedience- Blessing- Blessing. There is no clear connection between obedience and immediate blessing or cursing. God sees a far wider and longer picture and perspective than we do. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their route took them back on themselves at this point, heading back towards Egypt. This may have been the psychological trigger for their desire to be back in Egypt (:5). We must try to avoid things and situations which may stimulate a desire to leave the way to the Kingdom and return to the world.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Because of the way" reflects how this was indeed geographically one of the worst parts of Israel's journey, through shifting sands blown by the strong sirocco winds. Only camels can survive here, so it's likely that the sheep and oxen Israel had brought from Egypt would've died at this point. And this was just immediately prior to their entry of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 33:41'>Num 33:41</a></em>, so this may look forward to the final tribulation for His people before the Lord's return.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is in the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a></em> something which defies translation. We read there that God was so hurt by Israel's sufferings that in sympathy with them, "His <em>nephesh</em> ("soul") was shortened" or expended. The phrase is used in <em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em> and <em><a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a></em> about death or the diminishment of life. God's pain was such that this was how He felt, because He so internalized the sufferings of His people. And how much more in the death of His Son? </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em><em> The people spoke against God, and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 20:3'>Num 20:3</a></em>. Israel “chode with Moses... they strove with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:40 20:3'>Num 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 20:13'>Num 20:13</a></em>) uses the same Hebrew word for both “chode” and “strove”. To strive with Moses was to strive with the Lord- i.e. with the guardian Angel that was so closely associated with Moses? <em><a href='B:40 20:4'>Num 20:4</a></em> continues rather strangely with the Israelites addressing Moses in the plural: “The people chode with Moses, saying... Why have ye (you plural) brought up...”. Could it be that even they recognized his partnership with God? Likewise <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>: “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye (plural) brought us up out of Egypt to die?”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To die in the wilderness</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the punishment and consequence of their own sins; but we easily blame others, and even God, for the consequence of our own sins.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For there is no bread, and there is no water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An exaggeration, because they go on to say that they hated the "light bread", the manna, which they were given. We can likewise assume we have nothing when in fact we do have God's basic provision. Likewise "no water" was surely untrue- the water from the rock followed them (<em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). But they forgot God's daily material blessings and felt they had nothing at all. For good reason should we regularly give thanks for our food and not forget that we are daily loaded with His material blessings. See on 21:16 <em>I will give them water. </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It would seem from <em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em> that Israel went hungry- because they refused to eat the manna. How God works through sin is revealed in the way that although God always provided food for Israel in the wilderness, He ‘suffered them to hunger’ for 40 years, in order to try to teach them that man lives not by bread alone, but by God’s word (<em><a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a></em>). The Jews in the wilderness despised the food God gave them as worthless; they went hungry not literally, but in the sense that they despised the manna of God’s provision. And He allowed them to have that hunger, in order that He might (try to) teach them about the value of His word. He didn’t simply punish them for their ingratitude. He sought to work through it in order to teach them something. Even the process of rejection results in the victims coming to ‘know the Lord’. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And our soul loathes this light bread-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew translated "light" is usually used in the sense of 'cursing', which in Semitic thought means to make light of a person or thing. They felt the bread was inadequate for their needs, and it was a sign of their cursing by God. So easily do men come to the same attitude towards the manna we are given in the wilderness- the word of the Lord Jesus. They accept it is given, but consider it inadequate for their needs.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From there they travelled, and encamped in the valley of Zered- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, 'by the brook Zered'. This was a tiny brook that could be walked over easily without hardly getting the feet wet. The idea is that they had been unable to cross this tiny river which was seen as the boundary of the promised land- for 38 years (<em><a href='B:50 2:14'>Deu 2:14</a></em>). The tiny brook is given such significance to demonstrate to them how easy entrance into the land really was. It seems this was when the manna and water from the rock ceased (hence the need to buy water soon afterwards, <em><a href='B:50 2:28'>Deu 2:28</a></em>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz; and he fought against Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jahaz" is the word for 'threshing floor', and suggests the victory was therefore a foretaste of judgment upon the tribes opposing Israel. But they could have avoided that condemnation- for peace was offered to them first (:26). </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel took all these cities; and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all its towns- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would have been Israel's first experience of major battle, victory and possession of conquered cities. It was in order to encourage them that the opposition in Canaan would likewise crumble before them. We continually sense His hand working to educate us in the path of faith<em>. </em></p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Israel lived in the land of the Amorites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All this happened quite soon before the conquest of Canaan. Even on our wilderness journey, before we have possessed the Kingdom, we do have some foretastes of that Kingdom; in the same way as Israel began to possess the promised land in some limited sense whilst still in the desert. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They turned and went up by the way of Bashan; and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on <em><a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:10'>Deu 3:10</a></em>, some of the places they had known in their wilderness journeys (cp. our life now after baptism, which is like crossing the Red Sea, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>) were revisited and taken by Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 12:4'>Jos 12:4</a></em>), and incorporated into God's Kingdom. Perhaps situations and places we know in this life will then become eternally ours when we possess them in God's Kingdom.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Og lived in Ashtaroth (<em><a href='B:50 1:4'>Deu 1:4</a></em>). Ashtaroth was the name of one of the deities which the surrounding tribes worshipped; Edrei means "strength". The message is that the apparent strength of the idols and those who trusted in them had been overcome. And having won victories which were foretastes of those Israel would win in Canaan, Moses now urges the people to go forward in faith. In Yahweh's strength, they could overcome the idol worshipping tribes, despite their apparent strength. But Israel still kept those idols with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Don’t fear him; for I have delivered him into your hand, and all his people, and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Fear is always the antithesis of faith. God is often called an "awesome God" (<em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> etc.). The Hebrew word for "awesome" is that for 'fear' (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>; Genesis 18; Genesis 15 etc.). The idea is that God's people are to be in such fear / awe of Him that they fear / are in awe of nothing else. Hence <em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> says that Israel should "not be scared of" their enemies, because their God is "awesome", He is the one to be feared.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seems to have appreciated fully his representative role when he addressed Israel: "The Lord said unto <em>me</em>... I will deliver (Og) into thy (singular) hand... so the Lord our God delivered into <em>our</em> hands Og" (<em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>). David recognized this unity between Moses and Israel; David describes both Israel and Moses as God's chosen (<em><a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a></em>). All these things looked forward to our victory on account of being "in" Christ; through baptism, and then through a life lived in Him and in identity with Him.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled, and encamped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To describe the Israelite encampment as beyond Jordan implies the author is west of Jordan. Moses' writing here may well have been edited under inspiration later. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God came to Balaam and said, Who are these men with you?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God knew. It was a rhetorical question, designed to make Balaam reflect that here in his home he had the enemies of God’s people. To invite someone to stay was an act of fellowship- with those who wanted him to curse Israel. Knowing that whoever cursed Israel would be cursed by Yahweh. God likewise at times makes us stop and think, sometimes making us put into words out loud the situation we are really in.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Behold, the people that has come out of Egypt, it covers the surface of the earth. Now, come curse me them; perhaps I shall be able to fight against them, and shall drive them out’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam simply states what Balak has told him. He asks for nothing. But we don't need to specifically verbalize requests in order for God to perceive the request. God's answer in :12 reflects how He perceived this apparent statement as in fact a request for permission to go with the men and curse Israel. God reads our attitudes as prayers, and sees the requests implicit in our words. “I, even I only am left" was Elijah's cry to God as he realized the depth of Israel's apostasy (<em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>). But this was interpreted by God as a prayer for God to condemn Israel (<em><a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a></em>). God read what was in Elijah's heart, and counted this as his prayer. Elijah prayed to God against Israel when he told Him that he alone was left faithful- i.e. he was asking God to destroy the nation now. Our essential feelings are read by the Father as prayers.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam rose up in the morning, and said to the princes of Balak, Go to your land; for Yahweh refuses to permit me to go with you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There’s a hint of resentment against God here; and Balaam should’ve told them direct that he was not going to curse God’s people. It’s rather like us excusing ourselves from doing something sinful by telling people that our “stupid religion” doesn’t allow it- rather than personally identifying ourselves with the reason why we will not do it.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam answered the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can’t go beyond the word of Yahweh my God, to do less or more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Yahweh my God" indicates that Balaam was a prophet of Yahweh and considered Yahweh his God. His behaviour therefore is all the more reprehensible. But in the very similar statement Balaam makes in <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em> he omits reference to Yahweh as "my God". Balaam knew that when Divine words of prophecy came to him, he had to speak them out, and could not add to or diminish from them (<em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em>) nor add any good or bad to them according to what was in his own mind (<em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>). This is all a helpful insight into what it meant for a prophet to be Divinely inspired. The words they uttered were from God and were not their own opinions at all. For Balaam would dearly loved to have cursed Israel and not to have uttered the words of blessing which he did. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the angel of Yahweh stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em> describes how an Angel of God stood in a narrow, walled path before Balaam, so that his donkey fell down beneath him. That Angel is described as a "satan", an adversary, to Balaam. Job comments how the sufferings which the 'Satan' brought upon him were God 'walling up my way that I cannot pass' (<em><a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a></em>). The connection is clear- and surely indicates that Job's satan was a satan-Angel, acting as an adversary to Job just as such an Angel did to Balaam. See on <em><a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a></em>. Job and Balaam have certain similarities- both were prophets (in Job's case see <em><a href='B:220 4:4'>Job 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a></em> cp. 15:8; <em><a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a></em>); both had genuine difficulty in understanding God's ways, but they to varying degrees consciously rebelled against what they did understand; both thus became angry with God (in the Angel), and were reproved by God through being brought to consider the Angel-controlled natural creation.&nbsp; What happened at this point was what later happened to Judah (<em><a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a></em>), and like Balaam they insisted on pressing on when God had closed in their path. For the significance of the path through the vineyards, see on :26. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, and she thrust herself to the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; and he struck her again-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It would seem that the natural creation may see the Angels when they are invisible to us- thus Balaam's donkey saw the Angel standing in the way and was too frightened by the realness of it to go further (<em><a href='B:40 22:25'>Num 22:25</a></em>). This was to teach Balaam that he ought to have seen the Angelic presence at work without having his eyes specially opened to see the Angel, in the same way as the ass didn't need it's eyes opened to see the Angel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Crushed" is the word used throughout the Pentateuch for the 'oppression' of Israel in Egypt, and most of the other occurrences speak of Israel's oppression by the Gentiles. Balaam was representative of Israel, going against what God wanted, and being oppressed / crushed in order that they might stop in their tracks and repent. But they generally refused.</p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:680 2:16'>2Pe 2:16</a></em> comments: "But he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spoke with a man's voice and hindered the madness of the prophet". Peter was unafraid to rebuke the high flying intellectuals who were wrecking the first century ecclesia. He likens his rebuke of them to the "dumb ass speaking with man's voice" which rebuked Balaam. This was what he chose to identify himself with; that inspired donkey. There was no great trained intellect in Peter; yet his zeal for God's word puts us to shame. As the time of the end progresses, it seems that more and more of Christ's church (in the Western world) are educated people. In this I see a tremendous danger. A man who could probably not read, who probably wrote his inspired letters by dictation because he couldn't write himself, had a zeal for understanding which puts us to shame. Paul correctly made the point (and who more aware that his intellectuality could run away with him than Paul) that God has chosen the weak things to confound the mighty; He has chosen the simple of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1, 2). I get some kind of intuitive feeling that Paul had Peter at the back of his mind as he wrote this letter to working class Corinth (<em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>). The deep mutual respect between theologian Paul and fisherman Peter is a real working model for our ecclesias. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The dumb ass was speaking God's word. But that word was spoken in order to save Balaam from destruction at the hand of the Angel who stood in front of him. We see here God's justice and grace working together. God made the Angel go out to kill Balaam; and made the ass speak to Balaam and collapse beneath him so that this didn't happen. It's rather like the Angel of death going out to destroy all the firstborn on Passover night, including that of the Israelites; but turning away from the houses over which the Passover Angel hovered. Thus one Angel delivered people from another Angel. There is no contradiction here; rather an insight into the careful balance within all God's operations with men. He doesn't simply operate on auto-pilot.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go. Perhaps Yahweh will come to meet me; and whatever He shows me I will tell you. He went to a bare height- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were on the heights or high places of Baal (<em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em>), and Balaam tells Balak that he must remain by the altars, whilst Balaam goes off for a walk on his own to meet Yahweh. Surely he was intending to pretend he had met Yahweh and then return to Balak by the altars and then to utter some words of cursing, supposedly from Yahweh.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on 3,4, Balaam indeed returns to Balak having had a meeting with Yahweh and having received a message. </p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? How shall I defy whom Yahweh has not defied?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Defy" is LXX "devote", the idea being that Israel was to be devoted to destruction, just as Yahweh Himself had several times stated He wished to do. The same Hebrew word is used of God's anger with His people in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a></em>). Perhaps Balak and Balaam had used this in the complex self justification of how they could try to curse Israel, when God had said that whoever cursed Israel would be cursed. But now God says that He has not defied / devoted His people to destruction. But He had done. The contradiction is intentional; for what comes out of Balaam's prophecies is the theme of imputed righteousness. God passionately loved Israel, and counted them as spotless, especially in defending them to the world. Just as the Lord Jesus was very positive about His disciples to the world, although very critical of them when they were with Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For from the top of the rocks I see him, from the hills I see him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The significance of "I see him" is that his intention to 'see' Israel with the supposed 'evil eye' was being turned right around. See on <em><a href='B:40 22:41'>Num 22:41</a></em> He was instead 'seeing' blessing for them, from "the top of the rocks", the promontory to which he had climbed up in :3. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, it is a people that dwells alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We could translate <em><a href='B:40 22:35'>Num 22:35</a></em> "But only whatever I shall speak, that you will speak", as if God is not commanding him anything but rather warning him that he is going to be overtaken by His Spirit to utter blessings and not curses upon Israel- which is exactly what happened. But Balaam was to seek to work against this statement that Israel "shall not be reckoned among the nations" by encouraging Israel to unite with Moab in the adultery of Beth Peor, so that they would be united with the nations and so God's words would become untrue- and curse rather than blessing would come. For Balaam perceived that these words speak of God's intentions from His side; Israel themselves still had to choose not to be reckoned amongst the nations.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God brings them out of Egypt, he has as it were the strength of the wild ox- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel had felt so weak before the apparent strength of the Canaanites. They believed the faithless words of the ten spies. They failed to appreciate their potential strength. In <em><a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a></em> we learn that the Moabites feared that "Now this multitude will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field". God had specifically told Moses not to fight with Moab (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>), and I suggested on <em><a href='B:40 22:2'>Num 22:2</a></em> that there was some contact between Balak and Moses. When Israel passed along the highways, they had been careful not stray from the route and had not drunk from the wells of those whom they passed through. Moab need have had no fear that Israel would lick up all around. It was only those who came out against Israel in battle who had been defeated, and Balak would have been wiser to learn from thIsa. But God gave them according to their fears by saying He would make Israel like a powerful ox (<em><a href='B:40 23:22'>Num 23:22</a></em>).&nbsp; </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


