# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As with Israel, the ways of life and death are set before us (<em><a href='B:50 30:15-20'>Deu 30:15-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:8'>Jer 21:8</a></em>). Moses, on the day of his death and at his final spiritual maturity, realized that this was the ultimate choice. His appeal to <em>therefore </em>chose life is painfully evident in its logic. We are either on the road to the Kingdom, or to eternal death; from God's perspective. We may not see the issues of life that clearly; we may not see our direction as clearly as God does.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I command you this day to love Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes and His ordinances, that you may live and multiply, and that Yahweh your God may bless you in the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“If you love me you will keep my commandments” (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>) reflects a major identical theme in <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3-4'>Deu 13:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>. Moses at the end of his life, when he spoke Deuteronomy, was very much the image of the future Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>); to love God is to love His word. If we love Christ, we will keep His words (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<em><a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all related to showing love (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, the essence of which is love of people, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if your heart turns away and you will not hear, but shall be drawn away and worship other gods and serve them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The heart that <em>turns away</em> from God by free choice then becomes <em>drawn away</em> by other forces. Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I declare to you this day, that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land, where you pass over the Jordan to go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses pleaded with them to see that "this day... this day... this day" he set before them life and death, forgiveness or salvation (<em><a href='B:50 30:15-19'>Deu 30:15-19</a></em>). The Lord Jesus had His mind on this when He told the thief with the same emphasis that "this day" He could tell them that he would be saved, not condemned (<em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>). He felt like Moses, but greater than Moses, in that He not only set before men the choice, but could grant them the salvation they sought. The fact Israel did prolong their days for some centuries in the land, despite their disobedience, is therefore a reflection of God's great patience with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Finely aware of the seriousness of our relationship with God, Moses pleads with Israel to "choose life", not with the passivity which may appear from our armchair reading of passages like <em><a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a></em>. I wonder if he wasn’t screaming this to them, breaking down in the climax of logic and passion which resulted in that appeal. Yet he knew that the majority of Israel would not choose life. When he appeals to them to choose obedience he is therefore thinking of the minority who would&nbsp; respond. Yet he knew that the majority of Israel would not choose life. When he appeals to them to choose obedience he is therefore thinking of the minority who would respond. Our Lord Jesus, with his knowledge of human nature, must have sensed that so many of those called into his new covenant would also turn away; He must have known that only a minority of Israel would choose the life which He offered. Yet like Moses He doubtless concentrated his thoughts on the minority who would respond. Moses spoke Deuteronomy without notes. It was no set piece address. All these things were in his heart; their proneness to failure, the coming of judgment for sin, his knowledge of their future apostasy. Enter into the <em>passion</em> of it all. The man who was willing to give his eternal life for them, about to die for the sake of their provocation- singing a final song to them, giving a final speech, which showed that he knew perfectly well that they would turn away from what he was trying to do for them, and therefore the majority of them would not be saved.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Blessing" is parallel with "life", and eternal life may ultimately be in view in Moses' mind. 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). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Love Yahweh your God, to obey His voice and to cling to Him; for He is your life and the length of your days, that you may dwell in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<em><a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a></em>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a></em>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Cling" is "cleave". The idea of 'cleaving' to God is a big theme of Moses in Deuteronomy (<em><a href='B:50 4:4'>Deu 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:17'>Deu 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>); the only other time Moses uses the word in his writings is in <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>, concerning a man cleaving to his wife. Moses seems to have been suggesting to Israel that their covenant relationship with God meant they were <em>marrying God</em>. This was a real paradigm breaker. We may be used to such things. But against the theological background of the time, not to say the generally low level of spirituality among Israel, this was a shocking idea. It reflected the heights to which Moses had risen.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord’s common Upper Room theme of ‘abiding’ in Him uses the same word as Moses used in the LXX when exhorting his people to ‘cleave unto’ God (<em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>). This abiding involved loving God and keeping His commandments- all ideas which occur together in <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And Moses finished speaking all these words".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am one hundred and twenty years old this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He died on his birthday. His life so clearly splits up into three periods of 40 years; the 40 years leading sheep around Sinai clearly prepared him for 40 years leading Israel. We too can look back on life and see how clearly God had arranged things.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I can no more go out and come in, and Yahweh has said to me, ‘You shall not go over this Jordan’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. We note that he makes no reference to the reason why he couldn't enter the land. He makes his age an excuse for not entering the land, but we read later that his natural strength was not at all abated. Even in his great spiritual maturity, even Moses maybe found it hard to accept personal sin and consequences for it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God, He will go over before you. He will destroy these nations from before you and you shall dispossess them. Joshua shall go over before you, as Yahweh has spoken-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>. Moses recalled how God had said to him "The LORD thy God He will go over before thee", and then said to Joshua "be strong and of a good courage, fear not nor be afraid of them: for the LORD<em> thy</em> God (the same Angel called 'the LORD thy God' in&nbsp; relation to Moses), He it is that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee nor forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a></em>). These words are quoted in <em><a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a></em>, and it is good to note the original Angelic context in which the words were used: "Be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I (the Angel) will never leave thee nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord (i. e. the Angel) is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me". Later on we see that Joshua did conceive of God in terms of the Angel- he took Moses' exhortation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At Moses' death, the positive thrust of his closing exhortation was his conviction that the Angel of His presence which had been with them so far would continue to be so, to enable them to enter the land. This alone shows the great part that the Angel played in Moses' life. "The Lord thy God, He will go over before thee. . . and Joshua shall go over before thee. . . and Joshua shall go over before thee (showing Moses' belief that Joshua would work with the Angel- cp. <em><a href='B:230 91:1-16'>Psa 91:1-16</a></em>, where Moses commends Joshua for keeping close to the Angel in the tabernacle). . . Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God (the Angel God of Israel), He it is that doth go with thee, He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 31:3-6'>Deu 31:3-6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will do to them as He did to Sihon and to Og, the kings of the Amorites and to their land, whom He destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The victories over Sihon and Og were intended as foretastes and assurances of the Kingdom, and we have the same in our lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will deliver them up before you and you shall do to them according to all the commandments which I have commanded you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The truth was that they were not obedient to the commandments. Their entry to the land was predicated upon their obedience, but they were disobedient. So they entered the land by grace, and that experience was intended to elicit their obedience. Divine commandment is likewise for us a way or channel to express our gratitude for salvation by grace rather than a requirement in order to attain salvation by our works.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be strong and courageous, don’t be afraid nor be scared of them, for Yahweh your God, He it is who goes with you. He will not fail you nor forsake you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on 31:17; <em><a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a></em>. <em><a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em> say that despite the sins Israel may commit, their Angel-God "will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant... He will not fail thee". But then <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em> says that because the people would disobey Him, God "will forsake them... and they shall be devoured... and I will surely hide My face in&nbsp; that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought". We have seen that in the Pentateuch, especially in God's dealings with Israel on their journey, God&nbsp; is&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; conceived of as an Angel; which would explain the apparent fickleness shown here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses called to Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land which Yahweh has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall cause them to inherit it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Cause them to inherit it" could imply that their inheritance was still conditional. For the inheritance was predicated upon their obedience, and they were disobedient. So they would only enter it thanks to Joshua / Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is Yahweh who goes before you. He will be with you. He will not fail you neither forsake you. Don’t be afraid neither be dismayed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note that the promise of Moses that God would not fail nor forsake Joshua, but would be with him (<em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>) was similar to the very promise given to Moses which he had earlier doubted (<em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:15'>Exo 4:15</a></em>). Such exhortation is so much the stronger from someone who has themselves doubted and then come to believe.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, who bore the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, and to all the elders of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word of his God was in his heart, as he stood there before Israel, that people whom he loved, those for whom he wished to make atonement with his own life, even his eternal life. " Yea, he loved the people" is the Spirit's comment (<em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> - the " he" in the context seems to be Moses). It could only be the Spirit which would write so concisely. " Yea, he loved the people....they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words" . This is God's comment on that last meeting between Moses and Israel. And then he pours out his heart to them, he reels off what we have as the book of Deuteronomy (it takes about four hours to read it through loud), writes a copy of the Law (31:9; notice how <em><a href='B:50 24:1-22'>Deu 24:1-22</a></em> was <em>written</em> by Moses, <em><a href='B:480 10:5'>Mar 10:5</a></em>), sings a Song to that silent multitude (surely with a lump in his throat, especially at points like 32:15), and then he turns and climbs the mountain to see the land and meet his death. The fact it all happened on his birthday just adds to the pathos of it all (<em><a href='B:50 31:2'>Deu 31:2</a></em>). The huge amount of work which he did on that last day of his life looks forward to the Lord's huge achievement in the day of his death. No wonder Yahweh describes that day of Moses' death with an intensive plural: "The days (i.e. the one great time / day) approach (s.w. "at hand", "made ready") that thou must die" (<em><a href='B:50 31:14'>Deu 31:14</a></em>). It seems that he said much of the book in one day; hence his repeated mention of the phrase " this day" throughout the book. The people were often reminded that they were about to “go over (Jordan) to possess” the land (<em><a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:11'>Deu 11:11</a></em> RV), as if they were on the banks of Jordan almost. In reality that speech of Deuteronomy was the outpouring of his heart, pleading with Israel to be faithful to the covenant, encouraging them to be aware of their weakness,&nbsp; encouraging them to go forward and inherit the Kingdom. Not only do we have a powerful type of the Lord Jesus in all this; Israel assembled before him really do represent us. <em><a href='B:50 32:36'>Deu 32:36</a></em> (" the Lord shall judge his people" ) is quoted in <em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em> as relevant to all of us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded them saying, At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tents- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "After seven years" may suggest this refers to a special ceremony to be performed seven years after they had entered Canaan, when all the land was intended to be subdued before them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>when all Israel has come to appear before Yahweh your God in the place which He shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the frequent references to Yahweh choosing a specific geographical location for the sanctuary. This apparently was not fulfilled, for the ark moved around a lot. This was a tacit reflection of Israel's disobedience, and of how the inheritance of the Kingdom was to be reinterpreted and rescheduled until the last days. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Assemble the people, men, women and the little ones and your foreigner who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear Yahweh your God and observe to do all the words of this law- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All Israel were envisaged as attending this ceremony; but as noted on :11, it never happened. The "foreigner" could refer to the members of the "mixed multitude" amongst them, or may reflect Yahweh's hope that some like Rahab and the Gibeonites would accept covenant relationship with Yahweh rather than having to be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and that their children, who have not known, may hear and learn to fear Yahweh your God as long as you live in the land where you go over the Jordan to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that fearing Yahweh would lead to their living long in the land. But they didn't fear Yahweh. The fact Israel did prolong their days for some centuries in the land, despite their disobedience, is therefore a reflection of God's great patience with them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, your life will end shortly. Call Joshua and present yourselves in the Tent of Meeting, so that I may commission him. Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. Yahweh said that He would give Joshua a charge; but Moses gave Joshua the charge (<em><a href='B:50 31:14'>Deu 31:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a></em>). God was so strongly manifested in Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared in the Tent in a pillar of cloud. The pillar of cloud stood over the door of the Tent- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And the Lord descended in a cloud", as if the theophany of Sinai was now repeated. The Angel in the pillar of cloud shone forth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, you shall lay down to sleep with your fathers, and this people shall rise up and play the prostitute after the strange gods of the land where they go to be among them, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>. A few hours before the death of Moses, he had been telling Israel: "While I am yet alive with you this day (for a few more hours), ye have been rebellious against Yahweh; and how much more after my death?" (<em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>). Earlier that same day the Angel had told him: "Thou shalt <em>lie down </em>(mg.) with thy fathers (cp. the Angel lying him down in the grave)... and this people will <em>rise up </em>(i.e. immediately after his death), and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land" (<em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>). No wonder this was ringing in Moses' ears as he came to his death. Yet he triumphed in the fact that a minority would not give way. <em>His very last words</em> were a confident exaltation that ultimately Israel would overcome their temptations, the influence and idols of the surrounding world. But he knew that the majority of them would spiritually fall because of these things. Therefore he was looking forward to the minority in Israel who would gloriously overcome, who would come to the Kingdom, the land of corn and wine, when the heavens would drop dew. This is clearly the language of <em><a href='B:230 72:1-20'>Psa 72:1-20</a></em> and Isaiah about the future Kingdom. Moses met death with the vision of the faithful minority in the Kingdom, in the promised land, having overcome all their besetting temptations. And the Lord Jesus died with exactly that same vision (<em><a href='B:230 22:22-31'>Psa 22:22-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:30-36'>Psa 69:30-36</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and I will hide My face from them and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come on them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Haven’t these evils come on us because our God is not among us?’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was envisaged as happening in the next generation (:16). But the tragedy was that for all their sufferings, Israel generally didn't come to this realization, and will only fully do so in the last days. So we see here God's desperate hope for them, a hope which was a reflection of His love.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will surely hide My face in that day for all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words were spoken by the Angel in the pillar of cloud whose face was now shining forth (:15). The idea practically may be that the shekinah glory would no longer be seen in the tabernacle. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore write this song for yourselves and teach it to the children of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In illiterate society, songs were the usual way to remember beliefs and history and keep them alive. It was God's intention that His people would sing this to themselves, ever reminding themselves of His grace and purpose with them, and of their likelihood to waste it all by falling away.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For when I have brought them into the land which I swore to their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise Me and break My covenant- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They carried the idols and tabernacle of false gods with them through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). So it was grace indeed to speak in terms of their future apostacy and acceptance of other gods. Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When many evils and troubles have come on them, this song shall testify before them as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed; for I know their imagination which they plan this day, before I have brought them into the land which I swore- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing they had the idols already with them (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>), it was clear that they intended to use them in Canaan. God knew their hearts, and realized this was "their imagination". Constantly we see God's focus upon the state of the heart. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the continual emphasis upon "the same day" and "this day..." throughout Deuteronomy. A fair case could be made that all this happened on the last day of Moses' life; an intense final day of a very busy life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, Be strong and courageous, for you shall bring the children of Israel into the land which I swore to them, and I will be with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will be with you" surely refers to God, but Moses at the end of his life was totally identified with God, and spoke personally on His behalf.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em> is perhaps the clearest basis for the words of <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>. This describes how Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way <em><a href='B:230 22:1-31'>Psa 22:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:1-36'>Psa 69:1-36</a></em> (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a <em>work </em>which was <em>finished </em>(e.g. <em><a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a></em>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“It is finished" has some connection with the Lord loving His people “to the very end" (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em> - <em>eis telos</em>). To the end or completion of what? Surely the Lord held in mind Moses’ last speech before he died. Then, “Moses had finished writing all the words of this Law in a book, even to the very end (LXX <em>eis telos</em>)" (<em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em>). It was Moses’ law which was finished / completed when the Lord finally died. Again we marvel at the Lord’s intellectual consciousness even in His death throes. The fact He had completed the Law was upmost in His mind. This alone should underline the importance of never going back to reliance upon that Law, be it in Sabbath keeping or general legalism of attitude. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Presumably to the Kohathites (<em><a href='B:40 4:4-5'>Num 4:4-5</a></em>) who carried the ark; but only the priests could touch it, so perhaps they are in view here, as the ark had to be touched in order to fix the scroll of the law to the side of it (:26). The priests often carried the ark (<em><a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:9-10'>Jos 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:6'>Jos 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:3'>1Ki 8:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have been the book of the law which was found in Jeremiah's time, having become detached from the ark.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I know your rebellion and your stiff neck; even while I am alive with you this day you have been rebellious against Yahweh, and how much more after my death?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the people were "stiff-necked", refusing to bow their necks in obedience, and thereby liable to destruction if God was amongst them (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>), God was willing to give this stiff-necked people a place in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>). And so although God had said that He would not go in the midst of a stiff-necked people, yet Moses asks Him to do so (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>)- for He senses God's desire to save them by grace despite their hardened disobedience.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was specifically Moses' song which called heaven and earth to witness (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Perhaps the idea was that "earth" was witness in that a copy of the law or the song was to be placed by the ark; and God in heaven was witness too.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you, and evil will happen to you in the latter days, because you will do that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God can be grieved (s.w. 'provoke to anger'). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication would be that the song was Divinely inspired, it came to him and he spoke or sung it to them until the revelation had finished. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Give ear, you heavens, and I will speak. Let the earth hear the words of my mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The echoes of Deuteronomy in the Lord’s goodbye speeches shouldn’t be missed; for Moses at this time truly was a superb type of the Lord Jesus. Deuteronomy concludes with two songs of Moses, one addressed to the Father (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>), and the other to his people (<em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em>). It is apparent that the Lord’s final prayer in <em><a href='B:500 17:1-26'>Joh 17:1-26</a></em> is divisible into the same two divisions- prayer to the Father, and concern for His people. It has been observed that the prayer of <em><a href='B:500 17:1-26'>Joh 17:1-26</a></em> is also almost like a hymn- divided into seven strophes of eight lines each. It would appear to be John’s equivalent to the record in <em><a href='B:480 14:26'>Mar 14:26</a></em> of a hymn being sung at the end of the Last Supper. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lives of both Moses and the Lord ended with a farewell discourse and prayer. Not only do the words of the Lord consciously allude to Moses’ words in Deuteronomy, but John’s comments do likewise. John’s comment that “Jesus knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world…” (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>) is without any doubt referring to the well known (at the time he was writing) Jerusalem Targum on <em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>: “And when the last end of Moses the prophet was at hand, that he should be gathered from the world…”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Significantly, the Pentateuch begins with the account of the creation of “heaven and earth” and concludes with Moses appealing to the “heavens and earth” of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>). This is not to say that <em><a href='B:10 1:1-31'>Gen 1:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 2:1-25'>Gen 2:1-25</a></em> <em>only</em> recount the creation of Israel; but it was probably understood by early readers and hearers as God’s account of the creation of the land on which Israel found themselves living. For an observer on the earth / land of Israel, the impression is given that the whole of creation came into existence on account of Israel. The stars etc. came into existence to give light on the earth / land of Israel; just as in the new creation, all things likewise “are” for <em>our </em>sakes, even if the rest of the world benefits too. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Let’s remember that under inspiration, Moses wrote Genesis, presumably during the 40 years wandering. He therefore wrote it in a context- of explaining things to Israel as they stumbled through that wilderness, wondering who they were, where they came from, where they were headed. This explains why there are so many links within the Pentateuch- e.g. the Spirit “flutters” over the waters in <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>, just as God like an eagle (a symbol of the Spirit) “flutters” over Israel in bringing about their creation as a nation (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). The point is that what God did at creation, He can do at any time. As He made the waters “swarm” in <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>, so He made the waters of the Nile “swarm” with frogs (<em><a href='B:20 8:3'>Exo 8:3</a></em>) in order to save His people from a no-hope, chaotic, disordered, hopeless situation. The command to subject the animals in Eden (the land promised to Abraham?) corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall condense as the dew, as the small rain on the tender grass, as the showers on the herb- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reads in LXX as a commandment to accept the teaching of Moses in this song: "Let my speech be looked for as the rain, and my words come down as dew". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will proclaim the name of Yahweh. Ascribe greatness to our God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>. Moses is asking them to glorify God as he had done, inviting them to make his life path that of every Israelite: "For <em>I</em> have called on the name of the Lord: assign <em>ye</em> greatness to our God" (LXX). Yet Israel came to glorify Moses as a person, as religious people do, without seeing the reality of this invitation to be like Moses personally. Paul grasped this, and says that we each with unveiled face have seen a greater glory than Moses saw; thus inviting us to be like Moses but to see even far greater glory (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Proclaim the Name" (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>) is the same phrase used about 'calling upon the Name' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>). The calling out / proclamation of Yahweh's Name, in the Gospel and ultimately in the declaration of the Name on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), elicits a desire to call that Name upon us, which we initially do through baptism into that Name. And like Moses, we in turn proclaim the Name to others (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> s.w.).&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I have proclaimed the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX) was surely in Christ's mind in His goodbye prayer of <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>; and those words are in the context of Moses' song, which roundly exposed Israel's future apostacy. The character, the fundamental personality of God, is declared through appreciating human weakness and apostacy. Christ's words of <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em> were likewise in the context of revealing apostacy and future weakness. Thus through recognition of sin we come to know God; this is the fundamental message of Ezekiel and other prophets. Through knowing our own sinfulness we know the righteousness of God, and vice versa. Thus properly beholding the righteousness of God as displayed on the cross ought to convict us of our sinfulness, as it did the people who saw it in real life (they "smote upon their breasts" in repentance, cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>).&nbsp; As Christ declared God's Name just before His death (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), so did Moses (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX).&nbsp; Moses saw at the end of his life that there was no third way: it was either complete dedication and salvation, or rebellion and condemnation. See on <em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord told the Father that He had given the disciples His words, “and they have received them” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). This is evident allusion to the editorial comment in <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> about how all Israel received God’s words through Moses. Likewise “I manifested Your name… they have kept Your word” (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>) = “I will proclaim the name of the Lord… they have observed thy word” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). One marvels at the way the Lord’s mind linked together so much Scripture in the artless, seamless way in which He did. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus fed off the majesty of the Name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:400 5:4'>Mic 5:4</a></em>)- this was how inspirational He found the things of the Name. To fear the Name of Yahweh was to “observe to do all the words of this law” (<em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>). Meditation and sustained reflection upon the characteristics of God as epitomized and memorialized in His Name will of itself lead to a conformation of personality to that same Name. If we declare that Name to others, they too have the chance to be transformed by it- thus Moses comments: “Because <em>I </em>will publish the name of the Lord, ascribe <em>ye</em> greatness unto our God” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We in our turn are to manifest God's Name by outgoing witness; so many of the Psalms were written in order to do just that. Moses 'proclaimed the name of Yahweh' (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> RV)- just as the Angel had proclaimed the Name to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 34:1-35'>Exo 34:1-35</a></em>. In perceiving God's Name we are seeing something which cannot be kept to ourselves; God's personality of itself bids us proclaim it. And Moses goes on in the same verse to urge Israel to do as he was doing: "Ascribe <em>ye</em> greatness unto our God".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the Rock; His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's final address to His people before His death was based upon these last words of Moses. “Holy Father… righteous Father” (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>) was a form of address which the Lord had in a sense lifted from Moses when he addresses God as “righteous and holy” (<em><a href='B:50 32:4'>Deu 32:4</a></em> LXX).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They have dealt corruptly with Him; they are not His children any more because of their blemish. They are a perverse and crooked generation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is saying that his prophesy that they would "corrupt themselves" would indeed come true (<em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:50 4:16'>Deu 4:16</a></em> says that this corruption with or of Yahweh would be through idolatry and making images. It is man who is made in the form / image / likeness of God (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>). Our emphasis must be upon replicating God's thinking in ourselves, making ourselves after His image and likeness. Rather than seeking to worship a physical image of Him in the form of an idol or animal. To do so is to corrupt both Him and the humanity which He intends to be in His image and likeness.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "Their spot is not the spot of His children" effectively refers to this corruption of Yahweh's image. But there is specific allusion to the marks which idolaters placed on their bodies and foreheads; given specific latter day significance in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:20:4'>Rev 20:4</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This description of Israel is quoted about the world in <em>Php_2:15</em>. If God’s people worship this world’s idols, then they are counted by God as the world. "Corrupted" is s.w. "'destroyed" or "perish". All judgment is finally self inflicted. Sin is its own judgment; hence the Hebrew word for "corruption" also means "destruction", for moral corruption is its own destruction. God Himself does judge, but always prefers men to judge themselves. Apostate Israel are spoken of as the pagan world; and therefore at the day of judgment the rejected of the new Israel will be condemned along with the world (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>); assigned their portion “with the unbelievers” (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Do you thus repay Yahweh, foolish people and unwise? Isn’t He your father who has bought you? He has created you and established you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The appeal is to their salvation history<em>- </em>Israel's redemption (being "bought") from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>), their establishment in the land and creation as a nation at Sinai. So often, their experience&nbsp; of these things is alluded to in the law as a basis and reason for their loyalty to Yahweh's laws, and living in a culture of grace and kindness to others- given their own experience of grace. We too must never forget our own spiritual path and redemption by God's hand, active throughout our lives. Such personal reflection upon our life's path is therefore necessary if we are to continue to be awed by His grace to us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations. Ask your father and he will show you, your elders and they will tell you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In our world, human history is generally felt to be bunk, irrelevant to this generation, of merely passing cultural fascination to the hurrying man of modern society. And in some ways, that may indeed be a legitimate take on secular history. But Biblical history is to be seen quite otherwise by God's people. It is a living word spoken to us, and the salvation acts which are there recorded happened to us. We are to learn from history, not as a merely fascinating exercise. But the Bible is history, and yet it is a living word to us. Israel were supposed to reason back from the actions of Egypt towards them, and their weakness spiritually at that time. And to respond personally to that grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:340 10:20-21'>Dan 10:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:9-11'>Exo 24:9-11</a></em>. A total of 70 bulls were offered at the feast of ingathering. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> presents us with the picture of men and women redeemed from <em>every</em> kindred (tribe / clan), tongue (<em>glossa- </em>language), people (a group of people not necessarily of the same ethnicity) and nation (<em>ethnos</em>- ethnic group, lit. ‘those of the same customs’). This means that, e.g., not only redeemed ‘Yugoslavs’ will stand before the throne in the end; but Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians... every ethnic group, with every custom, will have representatives who will have believed the Truth and been saved. This idea is confirmed by considering how 70 bullocks had to be sacrificed at the feast of ingathering (<em><a href='B:40 29:1-40'>Num 29:1-40</a></em>), prophetic as it was of the final ingathering of the redeemed. But 70 is the number of all Gentile nations found in <em><a href='B:10 10:1-32'>Gen 10:1-32</a></em>. And it is written: “When he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>). A total of 70 went down with Jacob into Egypt; and thus 70 seems an appropriate number to connect with the entire Gentile world. My point is, representatives of <em>all</em> of them will be finally ingathered. It could be that this conversion of all men occurs during the final tribulation (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:6'>Rev 14:6</a></em>); but it seems to me that the context demands that people from every nation etc. are already redeemed in Christ and await His return.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Canaanite explanation of the family of the gods was that it contained a total of 70 gods – Ugaritic Tablet II AB 6:46 speaks of the “seventy sons of Asherah”. This is re-focused by the record of <em><a href='B:10 10:1-32'>Gen 10:1-32</a></em> – which speaks of 70 nations of men. Likewise <em><a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 1:5'>Exo 1:5</a></em> speak of the 70 sons of Jacob – and <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em> says that the number of the Gentile nations was fixed “according to the number of the sons of God” or, “Israel” (according to some texts). The belief in the 70 gods of the Canaanite pantheon is therefore re-focused down to earth – where there were 70 sons of Jacob, 70 nations in the world around Israel, and <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em> may imply that each is cared for by a guardian Angel in Heaven.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to <em><a href='B:50 32:8-9'>Deu 32:8-9</a></em> LXX, humanity has been divided up “according to the number of the angels of God”; each nation has its Angelic representative in Heaven. These representative, all righteous Angels are spoken of as being ‘punished’ in the sense that their charges on earth are punished. Note the parallelism in <em><a href='B:290 24:21-22'>Isa 24:21-22</a></em>:</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>“Yahweh will punish</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The host of heaven in heaven</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And on earth the kings of the earth”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This doesn’t mean that the representative Angels are themselves sinners; but they are identified in the court of Heaven with those on earth whom they represent. We think of Angels representing nations in Daniel and Zechariah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh’s portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are His inheritance, and we are His. An inheritance was of major significance to the Semitic mind. We see here how we are all things to Him, and He is to be all things to us, and no mere passing religious hobby. Israel were to be God's inheritance if they were obedient (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). They weren't, but His love was such that He still took them as His inheritance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He found him in a desert land, in the waste howling wilderness. He embraced him, He cared for him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s search for man is a repeated theme of the prophets. “Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, I saw your fathers” (<em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em>). “He found him in a desert land… He encircled him, He cared for him, He kept him as the apple of his eye” (<em><a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a></em>). “I said, Here am I, here am I… I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people… I called, no one answered” (<em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:1-2'>Isa 65:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a></em>). “I have found David my servant” (<em><a href='B:230 89:20'>Psa 89:20</a></em>). So it’s not us as it were reaching out to God; He is fervently reaching out to us, and we have to come to realize that. We don’t so much as find God, as realize that He already is earnestly with us. Every man and woman is somehow a life “bound in the bundle of living in the care of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a></em>). We come to realize that before we were formed in the womb, God knew us (<em><a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a></em>). God hunts for us like a lion, Job came to realize; and in this "You show yourself wonderful to me" (<em><a href='B:220 10:16'>Job 10:16</a></em>). And we are searching for God. God is not indifferent to our searching for Him. Those awestruck moments of wonder, of radical amazement, are where God finds us at the time we are searching for Him. Both sides are seeking each other; and in those moments, they meet. As a Jewish poet put it: "And going out to meet thee / I found thee coming toward me". In those moments, heaven and earth kiss each other. There is a click, a flash, between Almighty God and us- as we stand at a bus stop, turn left into Acacia Avenue, lay there on our bed meditating. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He kept him as the apple of His eye-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the most sensitive spots on the body. Anyone who even comes near God’s people stimulates a natural response from God, so sensitive is He to our pain in this life. We are the apple of God’s eye (<em><a href='B:230 17:8'>Psa 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a></em>), and His word must be as the apple of our eye (<em><a href='B:240 7:2'>Pro 7:2</a></em>). We dwell in God, and His word dwells in us (<em><a href='B:500 15:1-27'>Joh 15:1-27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As an eagle that stirs up her nest and flutters over her young, He spread abroad his wings. He took them, He carried them on His feathers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way that Israel were intended to be a missionary nation is brought out very beautifully by the way that God speaks of carrying Israel on eagles' wings out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:50 32:11'>Deu 32:11</a></em>). Apparently, the eagle throws one of its young into the air and catches it, bearing it on its wings, until it learns to fly freely, and then the others learn from this how to fly. If this is the right track of interpretation, then we are left with the conclusion that it was God's intention that all the Gentile world were intended to be God's ultimate children, and that they would learn from the example of Israel. But Israel failed to fly as God intended, and thus they were not the intended example for others. Note in passing how God's intention is that we should fly freely- not merely be His initiative-less servants for the sake of it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is depressed by Israel complaining at how boring the manna was. He doubts God's earlier promises to him: " Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight (God said he had, in <em><a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a></em>)...have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto them, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers (not "our" - notice the uncharacteristic separation between Moses and Israel). Whence should I give flesh unto all this people...if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in the sight (as God had earlier promised him that he had)" (<em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em>). God was the father and conceiver of Israel, the one who would carry them to the land (<em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:11-12'>Deu 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>); it is as if Moses is saying: They're your children, you look after them, don't dump them on me. Although compare this with his earlier love for them, willing to sacrifice himself for them. God then says that He will provide more food for Israel. But Moses almost mocks God: "Shall the flocks and herds be slain for them, to suffice them?". And the Angel angrily replied: "Is the Lord's hand waxed short? thou shalt see whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not" . If he had faith, Moses surely would have realized that if God could provide manna, he could provide any food. Moses seems to have suffered from fits of depression and also high spirituality.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh alone led him, there was no foreign god with Him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although there was no pagan god with Yahweh at the time of the exodus, there was with Israel- for they took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea, carrying the tabernacle of Moloch with them for guidance as well as Yahweh's (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>), just as we are tempted to take the world with us through the waters of baptism rather than seeing it as cut off from us (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Right at their birth by the Red Sea, the Almighty records that "the people feared Yahweh, and believed Yahweh, and His servant Moses" (<em><a href='B:20 14:23'>Exo 14:23</a></em>). No mention is made of the Egyptian idols they were still cuddling (we don't directly learn about them until <em><a href='B:330 20:1-49'>Eze 20:1-49</a></em>). Nor do we learn that this "belief" of theirs lasted a mere three days; nor of the fact that they rejected Moses, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. "There was no strange god" with Israel on their journey (<em><a href='B:50 32:12'>Deu 32:12</a></em> AV); but there were (<em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>). The reconciliation is that God counted as Israel as devoted solely to Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The degree to which righteousness is imputed to us is hard to feel. <em><a href='B:50 32:12'>Deu 32:12</a></em> states that there was no strange God with Israel- but <em><a href='B:330 20:1-49'>Eze 20:1-49</a></em> says they took the idols of Egypt with them. God counted wayward Israel as righteous; at that time, as Balaam said, God did not see iniquity in Israel, nor behold the perversity that was in Jacob. Paul speaks of the fruits of righteousness, the same Greek word translated "justification" (<em>Php_1:11</em>). Justification by faith brings forth fruits of righteousness. When the disciples argued about who should be the greatest, the Lord replied that " it is not so among you: whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister" (<em><a href='B:480 10:43'>Mar 10:43</a></em> R.V.). He expected them to live up to the righteousness which He imputed to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made him ride in victory on the high places of the earth and fed him with the increase of the field. He caused him to suck honey out of the rock, oil out of the flinty rock-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a></em>. The promised land was to flow with milk and honey to those who kept covenant. And yet Saul later precluded the people from experiencing the blessings of the covenant by petty legalism and a desire for personal control. The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<em><a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a></em>). Tragically, Israel went back to those very “high places” to worship the local idols, as the prophets so often lament.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>butter of the herd and milk of the flock with fat of lambs, rams of the breed of Bashan and goats, with the finest of the wheat. Of the blood of the grape you drank wine- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such agricultural abundance is all the stuff of the blessings for obedience. They were disobedient, but still God blessed them with the blessings for obedience- in the hope that such grace would elicit obedience and faithfulness to Him. But tragically it didn't. The very opposite (:15).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked. You have grown fat. You have become covered with flesh. Then he forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. Moses in Deuteronomy so many times warns that Israel would become unfaithful to God once they became prosperous. This is a major theme with him. Any request for material prosperity must be made knowing that really this is not for the best spiritually. And God must struggle with those requests as a parent does with a request for something which they want to give, because they love their child, but know that it will almost certainly be misused. It’s no surprise therefore that the majority of God’s people have been poor- it is the poor who respond to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 11:5'>Mat 11:5</a></em>), and the wealthy are a minority amongst us (<em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jeshurun" means 'the upright one'. But they were never upright, and were rebellious from the day Moses knew them. But this is how they were seen by God when He fell in love with the people in the wilderness, not seeing iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). "Lightly esteemed" is s.w. "disgrace".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They moved Him to jealousy with strange gods, they provoked Him to anger with abominations-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God can be grieved (s.w. 'provoke to anger'). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They sacrificed to demons, not God, to gods that they didn’t know, to new gods that came up recently, which your fathers didn’t fear- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Demons are associated with idols, and they are not the gods which they are believed to be (:21; <em><a href='B:530 10:20'>1Co 10:20</a></em>). The language of demon possession we meet in the Gospel records is therefore the language of the day to describe healing of illnesses attributed to demons; but demons have no real existence because there is only one God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dale Martin in an article points out that there are six different Hebrew words which are all translated 'daimon' in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, and this is the term which the New Testament uses for 'demons'. He concludes: “Ancient Jews used <em>daimonion</em> to translate five or six different Hebrew words.&nbsp; In the ancient Near Eastern context, those words referred to different kinds of beings … What they have in common, nonetheless, is that they all were thought of as gods – in fact, as the gods other people falsely worship: the gods of the nations... we find no equation of fallen angels with Greek <em>daimons</em>” (pp. 662, 670). As an example, the Hebrew 'sedim' translated "demons" in <em><a href='B:50 32:17'>Deu 32:17</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 106:37'>Psa 106:37</a></em> is defined by Martin as follows: "In the ancient Near Eastern context, the word sedim is related to the Assyrian sidu, which referred to the great bull statues in front of the Assyrian palaces, sometimes depicted with wings. According to some modern commentators, the word <em>adon</em> originally meant simply “lord” and served as a divine title like “Baal” or “Adonai”. It could, therefore, be taken to refer to ancient gods of Canaan and other surrounding people, who could have viewed them as good powers or gods". The connection between demons and idols is quite clear, both from context and linguistic analysis.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the Rock who became your father you are unmindful, and have forgotten God who gave you birth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>. As discussed on :7, their problem was that they refused to accept the historical perspective on their lives. They were not awed by the way God had brought them by grace to their present location. Like spoilt children, they came to presume upon special grace as the norm, and failed to see the wonder of it. We note that we have here an example of where God likens Himself to a woman, something unusual in the religious thinking of the times. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh saw and abhorred, because of the provocation of His sons and His daughters-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and is then hurt by what He sees (<em><a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. But God is therefore hurt and 'surprised' at sin- He saw Israel as the firstripe grapes, but they were worshipping Baal even then (<em><a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a></em>). Thus God can allow Himself to feel an element of surprise- and this was a shock to Jeremiah, who queried: "Why are You like a man who is caught by surprise...?" (<em><a href='B:300 14:9'>Jer 14:9</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end shall be, for they are a very perverse generation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God Himself knows the end from the beginning and need fear no man; but His Angels do not have ultimate knowledge or strength, and therefore such language is more suited to them. This ‘language of limitation’ may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. He <em>can</em> see all things, and yet in the time of Israel's apostacy He hides His face from them (<em><a href='B:400 3:4'>Mic 3:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 32:19-20'>Deu 32:19-20</a></em>). He enters fully into our humanity by as it were limiting His omniscience and omnipotence in order to relate with us in real time.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Children in whom is no loyalty-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Loyalty" is the word for "faith" or "trust". Such trust in the Father should have come naturally, but from babyhood they revolted against Him. <em>Pistis</em>, one of the NT words for 'faith' is used here in the LXX, and is translated in the LXX as both 'faith' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 12:22'>Pro 12:22</a></em>) and 'truth' (<em><a href='B:240 12:17'>Pro 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:22'>Pro 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a></em>). Indeed, another word used in the LXX is 119 times translated 'truth' and 26 times 'faith'. There <em>is</em> a connection between true knowledge of the Gospel and faith. And this faith is the basis for our works. We don't just learn the propositions of the one faith before baptism, and forget them. The triumphant spiritual life <em>lives them out</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God. They have provoked Me to anger with their vanities-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read of God being slow to anger (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em>), at others, of Him not restraining His anger, or restraining it (<em><a href='B:230 78:38'>Psa 78:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:9'>Isa 48:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:8'>Lam 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:22'>Eze 20:22</a></em>), and holding His peace (<em><a href='B:290 57:11'>Isa 57:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a></em>), and being provoked to anger by the bad behaviour of His covenant people (<em><a href='B:50 32:21'>Deu 32:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:58'>Psa 78:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:3'>Isa 65:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a></em>). God clearly has emotions of a kind which are not unrelated to the emotions we experience, as beings made in His image. But those emotions involve a time factor in order to be emotions. We read of the anger of God "for a moment" (<em><a href='B:230 30:5'>Psa 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:7-8'>Isa 54:7-8</a></em>), and of His wrath coming and going, leaving Him "calm" and no longer angry (<em><a href='B:330 16:42'>Eze 16:42</a></em>). When we sin, we provoke God to anger- i.e. at a point in time, God sees our sin, and becomes angry. This is attested many times in Scripture. But it's meaningless if God is somehow outside of our time and emotions. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is interpreted in the New Testament as referring to the conversion of the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:520 10:19'>Rom 10:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:10'>1Pe 2:10</a></em>). It was intended to provoke them firstly to jealousy, but then to accepting the same God of Israel which the Gentiles had accepted. Paul sees the Jewish anger at Gentile conversion to Christ as a reflection of their jealousy. If Gentiles became followers of some idol cult, the Jews would have been indifferent. But their jealousy was provoked by Israel accepting Jesus of Nazareth as God's Son and Saviour. This jealousy was and is surely a reflection of a bad conscience, just as subconsciously Joseph's brothers knew that Joseph was not dead but alive, and standing before them. It was Israel's 'knowledge' of the Gospel they had heard which is related by Paul to their anger and jealousy. And we see the same today in many who exhibit anger and jealousy over the faith of others. This is a function of their 'knowledge' which they are in denial of. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For a fire is kindled in My anger, which burns to the lowest Sheol. It devours the earth with its increase, and sets the foundations of the mountains on fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gilgamesh and the pagan myths presented whole groups of gods as responsible for and presiding over death and the underworld, and another, separate, pantheon of gods as involved in creation. The Biblical emphasis upon one God is significant and unusual; it is Yahweh who sends man back to the dust from which He created him, and the same Yahweh who is in total control of <em>sheol</em> (the grave or underworld), and in a sense even present there (<em><a href='B:50 32:22'>Deu 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 26:6'>Job 26:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:7-8'>Psa 139:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:11'>Pro 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a></em>). The same God is in control of the earth, as taught here by God through Moses. The state of the dead is defined in Genesis as a return to dust, and later Scripture emphasizes that this means unconsciousness, for the righteous merely a sleep in hope of bodily resurrection. This was radically different to the ideas espoused by the peoples amongst whom Israel travelled and lived. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will heap evils on them. I will spend my arrows on them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These arrows are alluded to with reference to the Babylonian desolation (<em><a href='B:310 3:13'>Lam 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:16'>Eze 5:16</a></em>). "Evil arrows" were thought to be cast by displeased gods; but here Yahweh insists that there is no supernatural evil, and He is going to be the one who fires such arrows. His omnipotence meant that there was no place left for any understanding of "evil" as coming from some cosmic evil being, such as the "satan" of modern theology.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall be wasted with hunger and devoured with burning heat and bitter destruction- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses to come upon Israel as a result of the latter day invasions are described in terms which are extremely apposite to modern warfare. The plagues to come upon Israel as a result of the invasions are almost impossible to identify with anything presently known:&nbsp;"a consumption... a fever... an inflammation... an extreme burning... blasting... the burning ague that shall consume the eyes" (<em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>) all seems to echo the language of nuclear fall-out.&nbsp;"They shall be burnt... and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction" (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>) is similar. The release of complex chemical weapons, as well as nuclear detonation, would explain why rainfall patterns will be interrupted during this latter day tribulation (<em><a href='B:50 28:23'>Deu 28:23</a></em>).&nbsp;The fall-out from such weapons would create the murderous rain of dust upon the land which <em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em> speaks of:&nbsp;"The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed".&nbsp;It is twice emphasized that those in the land would suffer blindness (<em><a href='B:50 28:28-29'>Deu 28:28-29</a></em>), which may also be related to such nuclear or chemical fallout. This has not yet happened;&nbsp; the context invites us to read this as literal rather than figurative.&nbsp;We know that the latter day invaders who attack Jerusalem will both fight each other and have their eyes rot in their sockets (<em><a href='B:450 14:12'>Zec 14:12</a></em>), the implication being that they use their weaponry against each other as well as against Israel.&nbsp;Their earlier use of these weapons would account for this blindness coming upon Israel, and again we see the principle that what the attackers do to Israel will be inflicted upon them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will send the teeth of animals on them and the poison of crawling things of the dust-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole record of Adam and Eve in Eden is alluded to multiple times in Moses' law. As they were given a command not to eat, so Israel were asked not to eat certain things. As there was a snake who was there in the 'land' of Eden, so there was the equivalent amongst Israel- the false teachers, the tribes who remained, etc., the "serpents of the dust" (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em> - an evident allusion to the language of the snake in Eden). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:110 22:22'>1Ki 22:22</a></em> gives an insight into the workings of the court of Heaven, with an Angel told: "Go out and do so". This describes the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do God’s word. So when we read of God sending lions (<em><a href='B:120 17:25-26'>2Ki 17:25-26</a></em>), sending wild beasts and famine (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:17'>Eze 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>), sending locusts (<em><a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a></em>), it would seem that Angels are sent forth from God’s throne in order to command animals to obey God’s word. And moreover, He sends an evil spirit between men (<em><a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a></em>) and stubborn hearts are also sent from God (<em><a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a></em>). The same Angels who are sent to control the animals can also therefore work to give men certain attitudes of mind.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Outside, the sword shall bereave and inside, terror shall be on both young man and virgin, the nursing infant with the grey-haired man- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>During their latter day tribulation, Israel will experience intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a></em>).&nbsp;This extraordinary level of paranoia will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau - representing Israel's confrontation with the Arabs in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>). This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>).&nbsp;Ezekiel had prophesied of this time:&nbsp;"Terrors (an intensive plural - i.e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon my people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>).&nbsp;Likewise our Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>). This fear will be absolute paranoia:&nbsp; "I will make you a terror to yourself" (<em><a href='B:300 20:4'>Jer 20:4</a></em>) because of latter day Babylon's invasion;&nbsp;"ye shall flee when none pursueth you... I will send a faintness into their hearts... the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them" (<em><a href='B:30 26:17'>Lev 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>). "I will bring the land into <em>desolation</em>" (<em><a href='B:30 26:32'>Lev 26:32</a></em>) uses a Hebrew word which can imply stupefaction by fear.&nbsp;This paranoia will be associated with a manic depression which will have its roots in a chronically bad conscience towards God, going back thousands of years to their national childhood:&nbsp;"I will... cause sorrow of heart... they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity... and also in the iniquity of their fathers shall they pine away" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:39'>Lev 26:39</a></em>). Note how the <em>land</em> will be brought into this mental desolation. Frequently the land of Israel is paralleled with the people (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 19:14'>Jer 19:14</a></em> cp. 26:17). The intense desolation of Jewry will be reflected physically in the state of their land. And the resolution of this psychological torment will only be through repentance and acceptance of the Saviour Messiah whom they crucified.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I said I would scatter them afar, I would make their memory to cease from among men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But by grace, God never did this; He preserved their name / memory. Yahweh's Name, by contrast, was to be an eternal memory (<em><a href='B:20 3:15'>Exo 3:15</a></em>). He was to be remembered for how He had articulated His Name in how He had historically acted in saving the patriarchs, and He would be remembered for how He was going to act to save His people from Egypt. What was to be memorialized was therefore His actions, rather than simply the letters YHWH. It was His wonderful works which were to be remembered (<em><a href='B:230 111:4'>Psa 111:4</a></em>, s.w. "My memorial"). By contrast, the sinful works and persons of the wicked would not be remembered / memorialized, be they Amalek (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 17:14'>Exo 17:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a></em>), or God's apostate people (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 32:26'>Deu 32:26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but I feared the provocation of the enemy, lest their adversaries should judge wrongly, lest they should say, ‘Our hand is exalted, Yahweh has not done all this’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this was the argument used by Moses when God had threatened to destroy Israel and make of him a great nation instead. Now we see God as it were persuaded by Moses' argument, and adopting it as His own. We see here His remarkable humility and openness to influence by our prayers and reasoning before Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For they are a nation without wisdom; there is no understanding in them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could continue the quotation of the enemies in :27, but it seems to lead on rather to :29- their lack of understanding refers to their refusal to understand that one could have chased a thousand (:30). Wisdom and understanding is therefore effectively referring to faith, trust that the promises of God will be indeed fulfilled. Any wisdom or understanding that doesn't lead to this is useless. This is the fallacy of academic Bible study. It was and is the mistake of Judaism. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Faith is all about realizing that action and attitudes now will affect our eternal future. The way of the flesh is to just live for the present- and not consider the future, let alone the final end of all things at the day of judgment. In allusion to this verse, the same phrase is used of how Daniel understood the latter end of Israel (<em><a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan 10:14</a></em>), and how the final generation of repentant Israelites will "consider" at their "latter end" after they have experienced the wrath of God (<em><a href='B:300 23:20'>Jer 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:24'>Jer 30:24</a></em>). But they were to consider the "latter end" of things in this life, and not wait until condemnation at the last day before perceiving the ultimate truth of life and death. And we can do the same. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How one could have chased a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight, had not their Rock sold them and Yahweh delivered them up!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Verse<em>s </em>30-33 could refer to Israel, who "could have chased a thousand...", or to her enemies. Thus GNB "They fail to see why they were defeated; they cannot understand what happened.&nbsp;Why were a thousand defeated by one, and ten thousand by only two? The LORD, their God, had abandoned them; their mighty God had given them up.&nbsp;Their enemies know that their own gods are weak, not mighty like Israel's God.&nbsp;Their enemies, corrupt as Sodom and Gomorrah, are like vines that bear bitter and poisonous grapes...". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that the Gentiles tacitly recognized that Yahweh was superior to their gods / rock. Or the lament may be that the Gentiles, like Israel, failed to perceive ultimate realities with the understanding of faith: "For their gods are not as our God, but our enemies are void of understanding" (LXX).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, of the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB takes this as referring to Israel's enemies, but it could as well refer to Israel. For Moses has just stated that Israel are spiritually as Sodom and will be treated like Sodom (see on <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>). The idea would be that they were presently sowing seeds of attitudes which would come to fruition in the grapes of judgment. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their wine is the poison of serpents, the deadly venom of asps- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, we could with GNB read this as referring to Israel's enemies, but it could as well refer to Israel. The grapes and wine of blessing could have their awful counterpart in the grapes of Divine wrath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isn’t this laid up in store with Me, sealed up among My treasures?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is to the judgment of the last day (:35), which will be like being given a cup of bitter wine to drink (:32,33). God giving people wine to drink is a double symbol- either of condemnation (as here), or of blessing. It is why the communion service is a cause for self-examination, for we must ask ourselves whether we are drinking His cup to our eternal blessing or condemnation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Vengeance is Mine and punishment, at the time when their foot slides; for the day of their calamity is at hand. The things that are to come on them shall make haste- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that “Vengeance is <em>mine</em> (not ours, not the state’s), and requital" (<em><a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a></em>), and God will take that vengeance at the last day and not necessarily in this life (<em><a href='B:290 63:4'>Isa 63:4</a></em>). In another sense, that taking of vengeance, that requital, was worked out by God on the cross. There the Lord Jesus was clothed with the ‘garments of vengeance’ (<em><a href='B:290 59:17'>Isa 59:17</a></em>); the day of the crucifixion was “the day of vengeance" (<em><a href='B:290 63:4'>Isa 63:4</a></em>). This is one reason why God doesn’t operate a tit-for-tat requital of our sins upon our heads- because He dealt with sin and His vengeance for it in the cross, not by any other way. Hence David calls Yahweh the “God of revenge", the one <em>alone</em> to whom vengeance belongs (<em><a href='B:230 94:1'>Psa 94:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:3'>Psa 94:3</a></em>). Our response to all this is to believe that truly vengeance is God and therefore we will <em>not </em>avenge ourselves (<em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>). I take this to apply to all the micro-level ‘takings of vengeance’ which we so easily do in our words, body language, attitudes etc., in response to the hurt received from others. The cross alone enables us to break the cycle. All the sins, all the grudges that called for revenge or "vengeance", were to be placed upon the scapegoat, and it was released into the desert (<em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em>). They could watch it scampering away into the bush. This is how we are to understand the placing of human sin- yes, the sins committed against you this day by others- upon the Lord as He hung on the cross.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Moses addressed the people at that point, these things were "at hand" and "make haste". There are several times when God warns that generation that they will not last many days in the land if they are disobedient. The scenario of judgment is implied to be coming upon that generation. But it didn't. God hung on with Israel for centuries. It was like the kind of relationship which we have often observed in life- one party passionately loves the other, but the other doesn't respond is constantly unfaithful to that love, of which they are completely not deserving. It's a Hosea and Gomer situation. And this is God's love for Israel. But just as such relationships usually come to an end at some point, even it takes decades, so in the end, Israel walked out of it with God and slew His own Son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh will judge His people and have compassion on His servants when He sees that their power is gone, that there is none remaining, shut up or left at large-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. Israel assembled before Moses really do represent us, for this is quoted in <em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em> as relevant to all of us coming before judgment. But our verse goes on to say that at this very time of judgment, He will have compassion upon His people. Which is a comforting thought to take with us to the judgment seat of Christ.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"For the Lord shall judge His people" is quoted in <em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em> concerning the judgement seat. But the context here is wonderful. Israel are hopeless sinners under judgment, and God on the basis of pure pity for them, rather than their obedience, relents of judgment. And His judgment of them is paralleled with His having compassion upon them. I don't wish to imply that convicted sinners are just waved through into the Kingdom because God feels sorry for people in the misery of their gnashing of teeth. But all the same, we must give the argument here its full wonderful weight. God's judgment is His compassion. And He will show that compassion on the basis of pure pity rather than obedience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will say, Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh was the rock of Israel, but it seems just as they sacrificed to Yahweh so they did to idols (:38); as they called Him their rock and refuge, so they did the idols. This verse explains the pity and compassion God will show to His condemned people (:37). He will look back, from that point of final judgment, to how all their lovers and gods had not helped them. And this only elicits His final compassion to them rather than solely His wrath. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>which ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you! Let them be your protection- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They offered the best of their sacrifices, the fat, to their idols. They are bidden now call upon all the things they have previously trusted in, be it missile systems or religion, and finally realize that in Yahweh and His Son alone can be their salvation. Those things are now effectively dead, and will not "rise up" in resurrection; for Yahweh alone is the God of resurrection. "Protection" is s.w. "hiding place". It is Messiah, the Lord Jesus, who will be Israel's latter day "covert (s.w.) from the tempest" of the invaders (<em><a href='B:290 32:2'>Isa 32:2</a></em>). See on :43. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>See now that I, even I, am He. There is no god with Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal. There is no one who can deliver out of My hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The force of "See now" is that this is God speaking to Israel in their latter day condemnation (:36 = <em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>), giving them the one last desperate chance which a remnant will accept. They are bidden accept Yahweh for the "I am" which He uniquely is, and finally quit idolatry and all other gods for all time. They are to recognize that He has slain them and can alone make alive; and <em><a href='B:330 37:1-28'>Eze 37:1-28</a></em> speaks of Israel's national death and resurrection.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I lift up My hand to heaven and say, as surely as I live forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is God's final oath that finally, judgment will not be further delayed and is about to fall (:41). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if I whet My glittering sword and My hand takes hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My adversaries and will punish those who hate Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "I will sharpen my sword like lightning". As explained above, these things will come to full term in the very last days, when finally judgment will no longer be endlessly delayed, but Yahweh's sword will fall in judgment, He will take hold upon judgment and fulfil it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make My arrows drunk with blood. My sword shall devour flesh with the blood of the slain and the captives, from the head of the leaders of the enemy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This devouring of the flesh of the slain enemies of Israel is specifically applied to the last days in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:18'>Rev 19:18</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:19:21'>Rev 19:21</a></em>. "The head" is Hebrew <em>rosh</em> and may refer to the latter day <em>rosh</em> which invades Israel and is destroyed in <em><a href='B:330 38:1-23'>Eze 38:1-23</a></em>. The destruction of <em>rosh</em> in <em><a href='B:330 39:1-29'>Eze 39:1-29</a></em> is described in similar terms as used here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Rejoice, you nations, with His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants. He will take vengeance on His adversaries and will make expiation for His land, for His people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him". These words are interpreted in the New Testament as referring to the Lord Jesus being worshipped by the Angels when He is brought into the world at His second coming (<em><a href='B:650 1:6'>Heb 1:6</a></em>); and the Gentiles rejoicing with Israel in Jesus as Christ (<em><a href='B:520 15:10'>Rom 15:10</a></em>). The Messiah Jesus is in view as the final salvation for Israel (see on :38). But salvation in Him will be predicated upon Israel's final repentance and turning to Him whom they once slew. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he and Joshua the son of Nun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This exactly corresponds to the command "write ye", you plural (<em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>). Joshua was to assist Moses in doing this and he did so. We marvel at the internal correspondence within the Biblical record, which to me is the most powerful evidence of its Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses had finished speaking all these words to all Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses, perhaps on the very last day of his life, assembled all Israel by their tribes, and with a voice no doubt cracking with emotion, <em>pleaded </em>with them to understand that <em>there's nothing like the God of Israel and His Truth</em>, and it must therefore be at the very centre, at the very <em>core</em>,&nbsp;of a man's soul: "There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun...who is like unto thee, O people saved by Yahweh... Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day... for it is not a vain thing for you; <em>because it is your life</em>" (<em><a href='B:50 33:27-28'>Deu 33:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:46-47'>Deu 32:46-47</a></em>). "The love of Christ constrains us".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he said to them, Set your heart to all the words which I testify to you this day, which you must command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For it is no vain thing for you, because it is your life- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Enter into the <em>passion</em> of it all. The man who was willing to give his eternal life for them, about to die for the sake of their provocation- singing a final song to them, giving a final speech, which showed that he knew perfectly well that they would turn away from what he was trying to do for them, and therefore the majority of them would not be saved. As he came to the end of his speech, he seems to have sensed they didn’t grasp the reality of it all: “It is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life” (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>); and thus his speech rises to a crescendo of intensity of pleading with them, after the pattern of the Lord.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of not taking Yahweh's Name "in vain", 'vanity' (<em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>), is often associated with idolatry. Israel never formerly rejected Yahweh, and never became atheists. They mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry on the basis that they claimed that they worshipped Yahweh through worshipping the idols. This is what emboldened them to later place idols in Yahweh's temple. They were taking Yahweh's Name as a form of vanity, "in vain", a kind of idol. Thus their relationship with Yahweh was not to be a "vain thing" (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And through this you shall prolong your days in the land, where you go over the Jordan to possess it- </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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses that same day saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the continual emphasis upon "the same day" and "this day..." throughout Deuteronomy. A fair case could be made that all this happened on the last day of Moses' life; an intense final day of a very busy life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Go up into this mountain of Abarim, to Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab that is opposite Jericho, and see the land of Canaan which I give to the children of Israel for a possession- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God's people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Die on the mountain and be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses being gathered to his people by an Angel (<em><a href='B:50 32:50'>Deu 32:50</a></em>) may also refer to his spirit / Angel returning to where the guardian Angels of his ancestors were. This solves the considerable difficulty of his ancestors being physically dead and decayed, and being buried in a different place from where Moses died. LXX "be added to thy people" suggests God keeps a record of all Israel. The command to die suggests Moses was being asked to be willingly complicent with the idea of his death, just as Isaac was, and as the Lord Jesus was.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In those hours as Moses stood there saying those words of Deuteronomy, and then as he sung that song of Moses to them of <em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>, I think we see Moses at his finest. His voice would have been that of a young man, and yet with all the passion of meaning of his 120 years. And then he blesses those assembled tribes, the <em>love</em> of that man for Israel flowing out, with that same wondrous voice. "Yea, he <em>loved </em>the people". And then, no doubt with a lump in his throat, swallowing back the tears, he turned and walked away, up that mountain, higher and higher, with the blue mountains of Moab shimmering in the distance. "That selfsame day" Moses spoke Deuteronomy, God commanded him: "Get thee up into this mountain... and behold the land... and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people" (<em><a href='B:50 32:50'>Deu 32:50</a></em>). Like the Lord Jesus, he received a commandment to die (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a></em>), and yet he presumably did not know how to consciously fulfil it according to his own actions. He climbed the mountain alone, that same day he spoke Deuteronomy. Presumably he spoke Deuteronomy in the morning, sung the song of Moses, and then "that selfsame day" died. It would have taken him time to climb the mountain, to be met at the top by the Angel, who then showed him the land, kissed him (see later) and buried him. Presumably he died late in the day, watching the sun setting over the promised land-&nbsp; perhaps at the same hour Jesus died. The pathos of the scene is wondrous, the Song of Moses as it were can be heard still echoing. Yet in the sadness of it all, we see&nbsp; prefigured the death of Christ for us. It was for their sakes that Moses didn't enter the land, remember. That is the emphasis the Spirit gives. As he climbed, for it would have taken a while, perhaps he thought back to those years in Egypt, the struggle of his soul in those years. You may think I'm being over emotional, but it seems to me as he climbed he would have thought back to his dear mum to whom he owed his relationship with God, the mother he'd doubtless disowned for forty years, admitting that he was the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He would have reflected how at age 40 he was honest with himself, how he told the world who his real mother was (probably, tragically enough, after her death, sad that her son seemed to have rejected her for the pleasures of Egypt), how he had refused to be called any longer the son of Pharaoh's daughter. I mean, if we had say 24 hours to live, and we were told to go for a walk before we died, I guess we'd think back to our childhood for at least a moment, wouldn't we. And he was a man, just like you and me, with all a man's feelings, all a man's memories, all a man's humanity. I believe, although I can't prove it, that he wept all the way to the top, climbing farther and farther away from the people he loved, knowing that the majority simply didn't understand him and what he had suffered for them. And perhaps as he sung the song of Moses, he thought back to those weak years in Midian, to Zipporah, to the arguments with her, to the pain of the divorce, to the Ethiopian woman, to the long lonely days with the animals. And then to the wonder of the Red Sea, to the nervousness of meeting the Angel, to the joy of that communion in another mountain. He knew that Angel well, they spoke face to face as men who are friends speak to each other (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For you shall see the land before you, but you shall not go there into the land which I give the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is laboured by God so many times. Moses had carefully omitted the reason why he could not enter the land when explaining it to Israel. He was now reminded of it; for God wanted him to die not in denial of his sin, but fully recognizing it. And He works likewise in our lives, leading us to a crescendo of humility by the time we die.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Man of God" refers to a prophet (<em><a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 12:22'>1Ki 12:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 13:14'>1Ki 13:14</a></em> etc.). What Moses now says is presented as reported speech directly inspired by God, presumably written down by Joshua after Moses' death.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Yahweh came from Sinai and rose from Seir to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Most Rabbis are insistent that the Hebrew for "came from Sinai" effectively means "came down upon", referring to God's manifestation upon Sinai. The idea of John Thomas was that this verse refers to a 'march of the rainbowed Angel', the saved believers, from the judgment seat in Sinai, from whence they march to destroy various European nations in Israel. There are multiple problems with this view, not least that Moses here is recalling an incident in the past, when Yahweh "came" upon or from Sinai. Surely the theophany on Sinai is in view, perhaps the idea being that the Angels who 'came down' then continued to march with Israel through the wilderness. "Rose from Seir" uses the word for the rising of the sun; therefore He "shone forth" from Paran. It was as if the sun was arising on a new day; but Israel turned away from entering the Kingdom, even though it was made possible for them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shone forth from Mount Paran- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The significance of this is in that this was from where the 12 spies set out from in their faithless exploration of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 13:3'>Num 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:26'>Num 13:26</a></em>). They failed to walk in step with the Spirit. There were ten thousands of Angels going with them in glory in order to give them the Kingdom, but they were faithless and turned back.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He came with ten thousands of holy ones. At His right hand was a fiery law for them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deborah alludes to this verse in saying that she has experienced the same in the victory over Sisera (<em><a href='B:70 5:4-5'>Jdg 5:4-5</a></em>). She feels as if she sees and feels "this Sinai" shaking, as if Deborah felt herself back there standing before Sinai witnessing the great theophany there, in that she has seen it before her eyes, as it were, in what God has now done in giving her victory against Sisera. This is the power of Biblical history. There is a living word which continues to speak to us; the historical victories of God are replicated, in essence, in our own experiences. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 33:2-3'>Deu 33:2-3</a></em> RVmg. bring out the solidarity between the Angels and Israel by describing them both as thousands of saints / holy ones. It would appear that all the people of Israel had a guardian Angel- this seems to be implied by <em><a href='B:20 7:4'>Exo 7:4</a></em> "(I will) bring forth Mine armies (of Angels), and My people the children of Israel", implying that there were two armies leaving Egypt- one of Angels, another of their charges. Thus we read in <em><a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a></em> "it came to pass that <em>all</em> the hosts of the LORD (a phrase often used about the Angels- but here concerning the Israelites too) went out from the land of Egypt". In the same way as the Angels were especially Israel's guardians in guiding them out of Egypt, it may be that the Angels minister in a guardian capacity to us especially in leading us out of the world to baptism (cp. the Red Sea). <em><a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a></em> offers tentative support in that the Angels are said to "minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation". At baptism we become heirs of salvation (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>)- those who "shall be heirs" are those as yet outside the promises of salvation. Confirmation of all this is provided by a careful reading of <em><a href='B:50 33:2-3'>Deu 33:2-3</a></em>. This describes God coming "unto them" (Israel) "with ten thousands of saints"- i.e. Angels- and giving them "a fiery Law". The next verse records: "Yea, He loved the people; all His saints are in Thy Hand (Angelic language)... every one shall receive of Thy words". Here the saints appear to be the people, thus showing that God's love to Israel was shown by each of them having an Angel (thousands of saints for thousands of people), who individually taught them the word of God, albeit all at the same time. The Angels in the court of Heaven are watching us, almost with baited breath. We are made a theatre unto the Angels, as if they are in the audience as we act out our lives (<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em> RVmg.).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yes, He loved the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And he spared his people" could refer to God's sparing of the people after they declined to enter the Kingdom (see on :2), or the reference may be to how Moses spared the people through the love of his intercession and self sacrifice. This simple clause is one of the few which state so baldly the sublime truth- that God loves His people. But we could also read this as a parenthesis, added by the Divine inspiration of the editor of Deuteronomy, simply stating that Moses loved the people. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word of his God was in Moses' heart, as he stood there before Israel, that people whom he loved, those for whom he wished to make atonement with his own life, even his eternal life. "Yes, he loved the people" is the Spirit's comment (<em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> - the "he" in the context seems to be Moses). It could only be the Spirit which would write so concisely. "Yea, he loved the people... they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words". And then he pours out his heart to them, he reels off what we have as the book of Deuteronomy, written at the end point of the spiritual growth of Moses. But in reality that was the outpouring of his heart, pleading with Israel to be faithful to the covenant, encouraging them to be aware of their weakness,&nbsp; encouraging them to go forward and inherit the Kingdom. In those hours as he stood there saying those words, and then he sung that song to them of <em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>, I think we see Moses at his finest. And then he blesses those assembled tribes, the <em>love</em> of that man for Israel flowing out, and then, no doubt with a lump in his throat, swallowing back the tears, he turned and walked away, up that mountain, higher and higher, with the blue mountains of Moab shimmering in the distance. Even before that, surely his voice had faltered, even broken down, when he spoke to them of the tragedy of their future apostasy, of how the gentle and sensitive woman among them would eat her own children. And how the days would come when they would awake in the morning and say ‘Would God it were evening’. As he foresaw in essence the horrors of the Nazi camps, and of so much else… he could only have said those words with tears and passion. For “he loved the people”. If ever there was an understatement…</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pathos of the scene is wondrous. Yet in the sadness of it all, we see&nbsp; a type, more than a type, a superb image, of the death of Christ for us. It was for their sakes that Moses didn't enter the land, remember. That is the emphasis the Spirit gives. As he climbed, for it would have taken a while, perhaps he thought back to those years in Egypt, the struggle of his soul in those years. You may think I'm being over emotional, but it seems to me as he climbed he would have thought back to his dear mum to whom he owed his relationship with God, the mother he'd doubtless disowned for forty years, claiming that he was the son of Pharaoh's daughter; until at age 40 he was honest with himself, he told the world who his real mother was, he refused to be called any longer the son of Pharaoh's daughter. I mean, if we had say 24 hours to live, and we were told to go for a walk before we died, I guess we'd think back to our childhood for at least a moment, wouldn't we. And he was a man, just like any of us.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And perhaps he thought back to those weak years in Midian, to Zipporah, to the long lonely days with the animals. And then to the wonder of the Red Sea, to the nervousness of meeting the Angel, to the joy of that communion in another mountain. He knew that Angel well, they spoke face to face as men who are friends speak to each other (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). How fitting that at the top, he met that Angel again. The same love, the same open-faced friendship would have been there. The Angel showed him the Kingdom, opening his eyes to see to the very boundaries of the land. And then he buried him, laying him in the grave in hope of better days, when Christ would come and raise his people, when God's people would at last be obedient. What an end. Out of weakness, such weakness, he was made strong. His temperamental faith, with its flashes of devotion, turned into a solid rock, a real ongoing relationship with a loving Father. <em>Every one</em> of his human relationships had failed: with his brother and sister, with his wife, with his people. But finally that lonely man found his rest in Yahweh, Israel's God, he came to know Him as his friend and saviour. No wonder he is held up, by way of allusion throughout the New Testament, as our example.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All His saints are in Your hand. They sat down at Your feet; each receives Your words-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "all his sanctified ones are under thy hands; and they are under thee; and he received of his words". This initially speaks of how Moses received God's words and shared them with Israel, who were placed in his hand. But it all looks forward to the Lord Jesus. The Lord told the Father that He had given the disciples His words, “and they have received them” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). This is evident allusion to the editorial comment in <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> about how all Israel received God’s words through Moses. Likewise “I manifested Your name… they have kept Your word” (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>) = “I will proclaim the name of the Lord… they have observed thy word” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). One marvels at the way the Lord’s mind linked together so much Scripture in the artless, seamless way in which He did. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance for the assembly of Jacob- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It might help if we try to visualize the practical benefits of keeping the laws. "In keeping of them is great reward", David commented (<em><a href='B:230 19:11'>Psa 19:11</a></em>). Moses likewise: "The Lord commanded us to do all these statutes... <em>for our good always</em>" (<em><a href='B:50 6:24'>Deu 6:24</a></em>)- not for their irritation, or as a pointless test of obedience. Perhaps this is why the giving of the Law is described as an expression of God's <em>love</em> for Israel (<em><a href='B:50 33:2-4'>Deu 33:2-4</a></em>). It was the loving marriage contract between God and Israel. We must see the keeping of the law by the faithful Israelite as being done within a certain spiritual atmosphere. It would have been impossible to keep all those laws from a series of deliberate acts of the will. The truly obedient Israelite would have developed a way of life and thinking, a culture of kindness to others, which achieved obedience to them. This was surely how Jesus was able to perfectly fulfil the Law. "If a man do (the commands) he shall even live in them" (<em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em>) seems to refer to this atmosphere of obedience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He was king in Jeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God imputed righteousness to Israel at this time, seeing them as Jeshurun, the upright one, not perceiving iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>); because He so loved them. He fell in love with them in the desert. LXX "And he shall be prince with the beloved one, when the princes of the people are gathered together with the tribes of Israel". The thought in this case would be looking ahead to Messiah as the beloved one.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let Reuben live, and not die, nor let his men be few-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Reuben was the firstborn but was demoted because of his sin. But he is mentioned here in first place. The request for him not to die, and to not have few descendants, may be a statement to the effect that Moses wished that the effect of all curses for disobedience would finally be removed. And that only will come true in the Kingdom of God when the Lord Jesus returns. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At this point we would expect Simeon to be blessed, but he is apparently omitted. Although the Alexandrian LXX renders the last part of this verse as "Let Simeon be very numerous". At the census taken when they left Egypt, Simeon numbered 59,300, but only 22,000 at the census taken at the end of the wanderings. So Moses may therefore be wishing that Simeon would stop declining and grow. But we note that there are at least 24 lists of the 12 sons of Jacob / tribes of Israel. And they each slightly differ. The names are in different orders, and some are omitted- e.g. Levi is sometimes omitted, or the two sons of Joseph are sometimes listed, and sometimes not. Simeon and Levi were cursed because of how they had treated the Hivites (<em><a href='B:10 49:5-7'>Gen 49:5-7</a></em>). Levi had no allocation of land, and Simeon's small portion was carved out of that of Judah (<em><a href='B:60 19:1-9'>Jos 19:1-9</a></em>). Yet Levi were somehow justified because they had not allowed their cursed state to stop them serving Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 33:8-11'>Deu 33:8-11</a></em>), whereas Simeon perhaps wallowed in his curse and didn't seek to rise above it. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is for Judah. He said Hear, Yahweh, the voice of Judah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication was that Judah would be an intercessor with God who would be heard as Moses had been. And clearly the reference ultimately was to the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Bring him in to his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be read as a desire for the coming of this Messianic intercessor from the tribe of Judah.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With his hands he contended for himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is as in AV that his hands would be made strong, just as the hand of Joseph's were (<em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em> - another type of Christ). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be a help against his adversaries- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Messianic intercessor descendant of Judah was clearly to be strengthened for his task by Yahweh, just as happened with the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:230 80:17'>Psa 80:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Levi he said- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note that this is reported speech, written up under inspiration presumably by Joshua.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your Thummim and your Urim are with your holy one whom You proved at Massah, with whom You strove at the waters of Meribah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "whom they tempted in the temptation; they reviled him at the water of strife". It was this provocation which led Aaron to sin by striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Yet despite that sin, the Urim and Thummim remained on Aaron. They were the two stones on the breastplate which flashed out yes / no responses to prayers and questions. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Holy one" is 'consecrated one'. The Levites were consecrated in God's eyes by their zeal (motivated by the word) to rid Israel of apostacy; this is what constituted them Yahweh's "holy (sanctified) one" (<em><a href='B:50 33:8-9'>Deu 33:8-9</a></em>). The Lord alludes to this: "Sanctify them through (i.e. through obedience to) Your word" (<em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>), as the Levites were sanctified (<em><a href='B:130 23:13'>1Ch 23:13</a></em> Heb.). Through His allusions to this, the Lord Jesus was telling the disciples not to be frightened to stand alone from the community they knew and respected.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>who said of his father and of his mother, ‘I have not seen him’. Neither did he acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his own children; for they have observed Your word and keep Your covenant-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The loyal Levites were asked to kill their own brothers and neighbours in their tribal encampment area (<em><a href='B:20 32:27'>Exo 32:27</a></em>). The 3000 may have been the apostate amongst the tribe of Levi (<em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em>). So we are wrong to think that all the Levites were loyal to Moses and spurned the golden calf. Indeed it could be that those slain were the unfaithful amongst the tribe of Levi.<em></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 faithful 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 Your word, and kept Your 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. See on <em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words are alluded to by the Lord Jesus in explaining why He felt closer to those who listened to His word than to His natural family (<em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:46-50'>Mat 12:46-50</a></em>). He read these same words that we do. To feel this closely to those who are, like us, God’s spiritual children, can seem an impossible challenge at times; especially in family-based societies where life is one endless social club.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall teach Jacob Your ordinances, and Israel Your law- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"They shall..." was a command more than a predictive prophecy. Much which appears to be prophecy, such as the passage about the rebuilding of the temple at the restoration in <em><a href='B:330 40:1-49'>Eze 40:1-49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 41:1-26'>Eze 41:1-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 42:1-20'>Eze 42:1-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 43:1-27'>Eze 43:1-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:1-31'>Eze 44:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 45:1-25'>Eze 45:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 46:1-24'>Eze 46:1-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 47:1-23'>Eze 47:1-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 48:1-35'>Eze 48:1-35</a></em>, is command more than prediction. For the priesthood failed to teach Israel as here envisioned. See on :11.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall put incense before You and whole burnt offering on Your altar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "they shall place incense in the time of thy wrath continually upon thine altar". The idea, as in :7, is that just as Moses and Aaron had saved Israel by their intercession, so the future descendant of Judah and Levi would do so. And the ultimate fulfilment is in the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation describes Angels rushing in response to human prayers, vials of judgment being poured out on earth as a result of the incense of prayer accumulating...this is the power of prayer. If prayer is like incense, we must give <em><a href='B:50 33:10'>Deu 33:10</a></em> RVmg. its full weight- that incense would come up "in your nostrils". This is how intimately we are invited to see our prayers being received by God; this is the power of prayer. The golden vials full of prayers of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:8'>Rev 5:8</a></em> become the vials of judgments which are poured out on the land in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:8:5'>Rev 8:5</a></em> - so close is the connection between the events that mould history, and the incense of prayer. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh, bless his substance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This request for material blessing was in the light of the fact they had no land inheritance, and lived on their share of the gifts given to Yahweh. So the fulfilment of this blessing was dependent upon Israel's obedience. See on :10.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Accept the work of his hands- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That work was intercession for Israel; see on :10.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Strike through the hips of those who rise up against him, of those who hate him, so that they will not rise again- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference may be to the rising up against the established priesthood of <em><a href='B:40 16:1-50'>Num 16:1-50</a></em>. But the permanent, final crushing of those who rise up against Levi surely refers to the final latter day destruction of all opposition to the ultimate priest and intercessor, the Lord Jesus. The language is used about opposition to Him (<em><a href='B:230 69:24'>Psa 69:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Benjamin he said, The beloved of Yahweh shall dwell in safety by Him. He covers him all the day long-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is clearly to the presence of Yahweh dwelling between the cherubim over the ark. The temple was to be built in Benjamin's territory in Jerusalem. But David, a man of Judah, often appropriates this language to himself. For the Psalms speak of him as being covered by the wings of the cherubim, as if he were located on the mercy seat or lid of the ark where the blood of atonement was scattered every year, covered by the wings of God's cherubic care. "The beloved of Yahweh" was Solomon, so there may be a hint here of the potential possible for Solomon. But he failed, and so the prophecy and potential came fully true in the Lord Jesus. I noted on :5 that the LXX there speaks of Messiah as the beloved of Yahweh, so this may be the reference here too. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He dwells between His shoulders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could mean that Yahweh dwelt between the shoulders of Benjamin, just as the breastplate of glory was between the shoulders of the high priest. It would be another indication that the special presence of God in the tabernacle and with the high priest was in essence and spirit possible for all God's people. This came to full term when the veil was torn down at the Lord's death, and Paul argues that all of us can like the high priest enter into the holiest with the Lord's blood of atonement.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Joseph he said, His land is blessed by Yahweh for the precious things of the heavens, for the dew, for the deep that couches beneath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ephraim and Manasseh demanded more land at the time of <em><a href='B:60 17:14'>Jos 17:14</a></em>, but their argument was weak because they had been given ample land, but they refused to drive out the Canaanites or clear the forests in it (<em><a href='B:60 17:15'>Jos 17:15</a></em>). They claimed they deserved it because they had been "blessed". By saying this they were twisting scriptures which speak of their blessing (<em><a href='B:10 48:20'>Gen 48:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:25-26'>Gen 49:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:13-17'>Deu 33:13-17</a></em>), and therefore demanding more territory which was easier to live in. But the promised "blessing" didn't require they be given more land, and the other tribes were also "blessed". This is typical of how people take one verse here or there to justify their own secular claims. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blessing of dew was withdrawn during the three and a half years of Elijah's ministry, as he pleaded with Israel to repent. And so it will happen in the latter day Elijah ministry. Only when Israel repent will these blessings be realized again. God "will not be unto the residue (remnant) of this people as in the former days... the heavens shall (now) give their dew;&nbsp; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things" (<em><a href='B:450 8:10-12'>Zec 8:10-12</a></em>). The dew will come upon the whole land, because only this righteous remnant of Israel will be left alive. We note that dew represents teaching in <em><a href='B:50 32:2'>Deu 32:2</a></em>, and the repentance of Israel and restoration of blessing will be due to their response to the teaching of the Elijah ministry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for the precious things of the fruits of the sun, for the precious things of the growth of the moons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An allusion to the idea that on each new moon, a different type of fruit tree begins to ripen its fruit. This seems to me an example of where wrong scientific understandings are used without correction. But perhaps <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:2'>Rev 22:2</a></em> is the final fulfilment, when the forest of trees of life will bring forth fruits every month, i.e. at the monthly new moons. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for the chief things of the ancient mountains, for the precious things of the everlasting hills- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "from the top of the ancient mountains, and from the top of the everlasting hills". The idea of abundant fruit (:14) on the very top of huge mountains is the language of the establishment of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:230 72:16'>Psa 72:16</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for the precious things of the earth and its fullness, the good will of Him who was manifested in the bush. Let this come on the head of Joseph- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "let the things pleasing to him that dwelt in the bush come on the head of Joseph". The will of the God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was clearly the salvation of Israel. And that salvation would be associated with abundant fertility of the land in physical terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the crown of the head of him who was separate from his brothers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as Levi was separate from his brethren and commended for it (:9), so with Joseph. "Separated" is the word for Nazirite. He was literally 'Nazirited', consecrated, from among his brothers; this could be a reference to how he was the family priest, wearing the coat of many colours; and how he was clearly consecrated by God as well to be the family's saviour. Joseph's separation from his brethren, by their choice, was what separated him unto the things of God. And in so many lives, separation from the community of brethren, by their choice rather than pushing off in a huff from them, is what brings a person to special service toward God. And enables them to thereby save their brethren. Job would be a classic example, coming to full term in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>), who was separated from and by sinners that He might save sinners. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The firstborn of his herd, majesty is his. His horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall push all the peoples to the ends of the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that God would have potentially enabled Ephraim and Manasseh to do the bulk of the work in driving out the tribes. But half of Manasseh wanted to remain beyond Jordan, and there is no evidence they lived up to this potential at the time of the conquest. Just as so many are given the potential power to inherit the Kingdom, but refuse to use it. Moses ‘prophesied’ that Ephraim would “push the people (Gentile inhabitants of the land) together to the ends of the earth / land” (<em><a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a></em>). And yet <em><a href='B:350 7:8'>Hos 7:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 106:34-36'>Psa 106:34-36</a></em> criticize Ephraim for <em>failing</em> to push the people out of the land. Moses’ prophecies about the tribes sound like predictions; but they were actually commands which those tribes had the freewill to obey or not.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They are the ten thousands of Ephraim; they are the thousands of Manasseh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:10 48:5'>Gen 48:5</a></em>. The way Jacob insisted on blessing Ephraim as the firstborn seems to show some kind of favouritism and a desire to see his grandson living out his own experience, i.e. the younger son who fought his way up and received the blessings as opposed to the rightful heir. Ephraim becomes a code-name for apostate Israel throughout the prophets. And yet God accepted Jacob's preferential blessing of Ephraim and repeated this in <em><a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a></em>.&nbsp;Jacob foresaw how Simeon and Levi would be especially responsible for 'houghing the ox' (<em><a href='B:10 49:6'>Gen 49:6</a></em> RV), or bullock (Concordant Version), i.e. Christ (<em><a href='B:50 33:17'>Deu 33:17</a></em> RV), the bullock of the sin offering (<em><a href='B:650 13:11-13'>Heb 13:11-13</a></em>). <em><a href='B:10 49:6'>Gen 49:6</a></em> can also be rendered, with evident Messianic reference, 'murdering the prince' (<em><a href='B:10 49:6'>Gen 49:6</a></em> Adam Clarke's Translation). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in your going out-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea was that Zebulun would be blessed in her voyages by sea, in line with the blessing of <em><a href='B:10 49:13'>Gen 49:13</a></em> "Zebulun will dwell at the haven of the sea. He will be for a haven of ships. His border will be on Sidon". But this didn't happen. Zebulun was to dwell along the sea coast (LXX), where ships unload (a "haven"), "beside the sea" (GNB), until Sidon. But this wasn't the case. The canton of Zebulun even in Ezekiel's prophecy of the restored Kingdom was to be nowhere near Sidon, and Zebulun never had a border unto Sidon. According to Josephus (Ant. 19:10,16), Zebulun was never even bounded by the sea, being cut off by Asher. So again we see a case of a potential Kingdom blessing which was never realized. And this must be the great tragedy for God, to see so much potential wasted in so many lives. What joy for Him when we at least seek to fulfil those potentials He has given us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Issachar, in your tents- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Issachar was to have prosperous harvests so that they rejoiced in their homes ("tents", <em><a href='B:50 16:7'>Deu 16:7</a></em>). The contrast is with how Zebulun were intended to "go out" in trading and be blessed, and Issachar likewise in their more localized activities. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall call the peoples to the mountain. There they will offer sacrifices of righteousness, for they shall draw out the abundance of the seas, the hidden treasures of the sand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that they would invite the Gentiles to the mountain of God's inheritance, His Kingdom established in the land (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>). And the grateful Gentiles would bring their offerings and gifts to the land in response. Hence LXX "for the wealth of the sea shall suckle thee, and so shall the marts of them that dwell by the sea-coast". This is all the language of the restored Kingdom of God in Israel (<em><a href='B:290 60:5-6'>Isa 60:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:16'>Isa 60:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:11-12'>Isa 66:11-12</a></em>). The nations of the world were imagined as arriving at the sea ports in their territory. But instead, Israel retreated into mere religion rather than spirituality, and were not a light to the Gentile world as intended. Indeed instead of restoring the Kingdom as intended in those Isaiah passages, they instead became elitist and xenophobic towards Gentiles. And so the new Israel must learn from this.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Gad he said, He who enlarges Gad is blessed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If Israel had been obedient, their borders could have been enlarged (<em><a href='B:50 12:2'>Deu 12:2</a></em>). It seems God would have done this especially for Gad, even for the sake of one faithful man. Yet there’s no evidence it ever happened; another potential set up which was left unfulfilled because of the chronic lack of vision and satisfied-with-what-I-have attitude of God’s people. Who knows the height and depth, length and breadth of what could have been for God’s people? And the same is true for us today. According to Israel’s perception of the land, so it was defined for them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He dwells as a lioness and tears the arm, yes the crown of the head-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "as a lion he rested, having broken the arm and the ruler". The reference may specifically be to the destruction of the latter day invader of Israel, with Gad identified with the latter day lion of Judah, Messiah Jesus (<em><a href='B:10 49:9'>Gen 49:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He provided the first part for himself, for there was the lawgiver’s portion reserved. He came with the heads of the people. He executed the righteousness of Yahweh, His ordinances with Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And he saw his first-fruits, that there the land of the princes gathered with the chiefs of the people was divided; the Lord wrought righteousness, and his judgment with Israel". The reference may be to how Gad was apparently the leader of the "heads of the people" of Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh who wanted to take their inheritance east of Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:2'>Num 32:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:6'>Num 32:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:25'>Num 32:25</a></em>). The idea therefore was that they were told by Moses to see the inheritance they were allowed east of Jordan as merely a firstfruit of greater inheritance. Just as we are invited to receive&nbsp; firstfruit of inheritance of the Kingdom through the gift and experience of the Holy Spirit. But as with so many today, the first fruit was treated as the full experience, with no spiritual ambition to inherit more. "He executed the righteousness of Yahweh, His ordinances with Israel" would then be a very positive take on how the men of Gad apparently obeyed the agreement to go over Jordan and help their brethren inherit the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Dan he said, Dan is a lion’s cub that leaps out of Bashan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference may specifically be to the destruction of the latter day invader of Israel, with Dan identified with the latter day lion cub of Judah, Messiah Jesus (<em><a href='B:10 49:9'>Gen 49:9</a></em>). Bashan simply refers to the fact it was an area known for lions (<em><a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a></em>). Or perhaps there will be some specific latter day fulfilment of this in the area of Bashan. There may have been a potential initial fulfilment in Samson who was from Dan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of Naphtali he said, Naphtali, satisfied with favour, full of the blessing of Yahweh, possess the west and the south- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Blessing is here associated with favour, or grace. 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). So it seems Moses had in view the day when Naphtali would have spiritual blessings.</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>Of Asher he said, May Asher be blessed with children. Let him be acceptable to his brothers; let him dip his foot in oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These blessings look ahead to a day when Joseph would no longer be separate from his brothers (:16) and Asher would no longer be despised by his brothers. One great joy of the Kingdom will be the ultimate reconciliation between brethren. The blessing of oil doesn't refer to the discovery of crude oil in Israel, but refers to agricultural blessing of olive oil as in <em><a href='B:220 29:6'>Job 29:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:20'>Gen 49:20</a></em>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your bars shall be iron and brass- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "His sandal shall be iron and brass". The sandal or foot spoke of inheritance, so this may be a wish that Asher have iron and brass within their territorial inheritance (<em><a href='B:50 8:9'>Deu 8:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As your days, so your strength will be- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is as the Vulgate "let thine old age be as thy youth", wishing the blessing of Moses upon Asher. Again we see Moses set up as a realistic pattern to be followed, rather than to be as it were worshipped as an unapproachable icon, as Judaism effectively came to do. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There is none like God, Jeshurun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The appeal is to realize that their God is incomparable with any other god or idol.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Who rides on the heavens for your help, in His excellence on the skies-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Through it all we sense the great love of Yahweh, manifest in that Angel, for His servant. And this all typifies the tenderness of God for Jesus in his time of dying. As we think of the Angel lowering the body of Moses, with his arms around and underneath him, it seems no accident that the last words of Moses spoke of this very thing: "There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency in the sky. The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee... Israel then shall dwell in safety alone (language of the future Kingdom, <em><a href='B:330 39:26'>Eze 39:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:25'>Eze 34:25</a></em>):&nbsp; the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew. Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by Yahweh... thine enemies shall be subdued unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places" , i.e. their idols (<em><a href='B:50 33:26-29'>Deu 33:26-29</a></em> AV). Surely these Moses' last words could not have been said without his voice cracking with emotion. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The eternal God is your dwelling place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And the rule of God shall protect thee". This looks ahead to the Kingdom, when the rule of God will be openly upon earth.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Underneath are the everlasting arms. He thrusts out the enemy from before you and said ‘Destroy!’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Perish!". And yet although the Canaanites were thrust out by God from before them, they refused to accept this potential power to inherit the Kingdom. Just as so many do today. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel shall dwell in safety alone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Israel shall dwell in confidence alone on the land of Jacob". They would not share the land with other tribes, they alone would be there, and the other tribes would become part of Israel.&nbsp; In <em><a href='B:230 4:8'>Psa 4:8</a></em> David spoke of how God alone "makes me dwell in safety alone". The very same Hebrew words occur in <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em> – Israel will “dwell in safety alone” in the Kingdom. David felt that even in the midst of hardship, this time of Kingdom blessing had come for him internally, in the peace of his own mind. Likewise in our lives the essence of the Kingdom can come. We live the eternal life now.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fountain of Jacob in a land of grain and new wine. Yes, His heavens drop down dew-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul evidently disapproved of Jacob's attitude in falsely obtaining the physical blessing from Isaac (<em><a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a></em> surely alludes to it); but his evil deception of his father was used by God to grant him the physical blessing (<em><a href='B:10 27:28'>Gen 27:28</a></em> is confirmed by God in <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>), even though at the time he was dressed like a goat, connecting himself with fallen Adam and the rejected at the day of judgment; “Deceiving and being deceived” certainly rings bells with Jacob (<em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The passage in :26-29 speaks of God's dramatic intervention to permanently save Israel from their enemies in the last days, and associates this with the heavens dropping dew upon the land. Seeing this is a normal thing to happen, the implication must be that during the time of their enemies' domination the dew had not come. See on :13.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You are happy, Israel. Who is like you, a people saved by Yahweh, the shield of your help, the sword of your excellence!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "and his sword is thy boast". Israel would finally come to a point where they boasted not in their own strength (unlike today) but in Yahweh's saving work for them in giving them the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your enemies shall submit themselves to you; you shall tread on their high places- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Upon their neck". But "high places" would be a reference to the idolatrous “high places”, which the prophets lament were a spiritual snare to Israel. Moses’ final wish and knowledge was that ultimately, Israel would quit with idolatry and be Yahweh’s alone. Seeing that he had predicted their spiritual failures, Moses perhaps had his eye on the day when finally God’s people shall conquer all their temptations, even if only a minority of those with whom God works actually get there in the end, all the same, a minority will, and they will be God’s true Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses’ books were helping the wilderness generation to see where they were coming from historically. Passages like <em><a href='B:10 12:6'>Gen 12:6</a></em> now take on special relevance: "The Canaanites were then in the land". Moses was saying this as his people were about to enter a Canaan likewise occupied by Canaanites. He was bidding the people see their connection with their father Abraham, who then lived with Canaanites also in the same land. <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em> introduces us to Abraham as a man who had God as his "shield"; and <em><a href='B:50 33:29'>Deu 33:29</a></em> concludes the Pentateuch by saying that Israel as a nation should be happy because <em>they</em> have Yahweh as their "shield". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, opposite from Jericho. Yahweh showed him all the land of Gilead to Dan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This presumably required supernatural vision, it was a vision of the Kingdom. This vision may not have just been literal, because in <em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em> the blessings of Moses imply his foresight also of their future experiences in that land, especially in the last days. It was from "Abarim" (<em><a href='B:50 32:49'>Deu 32:49</a></em>). Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God's people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah to the hinder sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that he saw the western boundary, having seen the northern boundary in :1. The renowned Hebrew commentator Rashi claims "to the hinder sea" should be "unto the last day". As noted on :1, I suggest that the vision was not only geographical, but also of how things would be in the land over time, especially in the last days, as explained on <em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the South and the Plain of the valley of Jericho the city of palm trees to Zoar- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If indeed (see on :1,2) Moses saw not only geographically but also over time, he would have seen the events around Jericho as the walls fell, and seen things like the casting of the temple items in <em><a href='B:110 7:46'>1Ki 7:46</a></em> - which was done in the plain of the valley of Jericho. The LXX puts this description in terms of the promises made to Abraham which will be alluded to in :4: "from the River of Egypt unto the Great River, the River Euphrates, and unto the Western Sea".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to him, This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, saying ‘I will give it to your seed’. I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' final experience was to view the land just as Abraham did, looking to all points of the compass and then receiving the promise that he would one day, not immediately, eternally inherit it (<em><a href='B:10 13:14-15'>Gen 13:14-15</a></em>). So Moses was comforted that he was indeed a seed of Abraham. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses the servant of Yahweh died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses died "by the mouth of the Lord (Heb.). "By the mouth of the Lord" can imply a kiss; as if the Angel kissed Moses, and this resulted in his death. Remember, the Angel was Moses <em>friend</em> (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>). It was a reversal of how the Angel created Adam and breathed into his nose the Spirit; now the Angel kisses Moses and takes it away. And then he buried him, laying him in the grave in hope of better days, when Christ would come and raise his people, when God's people would at last be obedient. What an end. Moses seems to have foreseen this when he said that “We bring our years to an end with a sigh”, a final outbreathing (<em><a href='B:230 90:9'>Psa 90:9</a></em> RVmg.). And then the Angel built a sepulchre. Just picture that Angel perhaps digging, yes <em>digging</em> the grave, building the sepulchre of the rocks laying around in that cleft in the mountain. In the context of Moses leading Israel, we are told: "As a beast goeth down into the valley (tired at the end of a day, led there to drink by a loving owner), the Spirit (Angel) of the Lord caused him to rest" (<em><a href='B:290 63:14'>Isa 63:14</a></em>). Moses was buried by the Angel in a valley in the mountain (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>). The Hebrew translated " rest" means both to physically lay down and to comfort. So we have the picture of the Angel comforting Moses with the hope of resurrection, kissing him goodnight as it were, and then laying him down in the grave. The softness of God at the death of Moses, the gentleness, prefigured above all the gentleness, in a sense, of the Father with His Son at the cross; and His gentleness with each of us in out time of dying. Let's remember this idea. For short of the second coming, we're all mortal. There's something wondrous about the death of Moses. It's as if God took Moses' funeral- and said in truth 'This is the best man I've yet known', as a man might say at the funeral of his best friend.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth Peor, but no man knows of his tomb to this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the very place where they camped after being rejected from entering the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:29'>Deu 3:29</a></em>). In his death, Moses was completely identified with his sinful people, as was the Lord Jesus. For those association with Him, sin itself is thereby no longer a barrier between God and man. <em><a href='B:290 63:14'>Isa 63:14</a></em> says that the Spirit (the Angel) caused Moses to rest as a man leads his animal to water in a valley. The way the Angel buried Moses is very touching. “According to the word of Yahweh” (:5) can bear the translation “By the kiss of Yahweh”, as if the Angel with whom Moses was used to speaking face to face, as a man speaks with his friend, kissed him and as it were reversed the kiss of life, took his breath / spirit away, and laid him down to rest there on the mountain, then carried the body down to the valley and buried him there, to rest until the resurrection. The softness, respect and gentleness of God with His beloved in their time of dying comes over very strongly here.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An alternative reconstruction of the death of Moses is possible. Rabbinical commentators claim that "he buried him" (<em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>) is reflexive; it means that Moses buried himself. For confirmation of this, see S.R.Hirsch, <em>The Pentateuch</em>, Vol. 5 p:685 (New York: Judaica Press, 1971). It is the same Hebrew construction as in <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 6:13'>Num 6:13</a></em>. In this case, the description of Christ as 'making his own grave' (<em><a href=B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a></em>) could be read as an allusion to the death of Moses. Therefore the pattern of events was perhaps something like this: The Angel showed Moses the land;&nbsp;Moses, in the presence of the Angel, dug his own grave and lowered himself into it, as a conscious act of the will, in obedience to God's command (as the prototype of the Lord Jesus). The prophesy that Moses would <em>lie down</em> in death takes on a literal sense in this case (<em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>). Then the Angel kissed him, and he died. The Angel then built up the sepulchre over his body. Personally I feel this was what happened, but I am cautious to strongly push&nbsp; ideas which rely on a fine point of Hebrew grammar.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his youth abated-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was one of those old people who still had a ‘young’ attitude to life; not for him the cynicism which comes with old age; hence Deuteronomy is at times optimistic about people with what could be seen as an almost naive youthful optimism. One wonders whether he was therefore right to accept Jethro’s advice that he needed to arrange helpers lest he wear out (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em>), seeing that God had kept him so physically strong, and continued to do so. Strong defines those Hebrew words as meaning that his newness, his youth, had not been chased away (NEV "abated") by the years, as happens to most men. He had all the energy, intellectually and physically, of a 21 year old, yet with all the sadness and knowledge of God of his 120 years. All the times we read he "rose up early" to commune with God demonstrate his energy, his enthusiasm for the word of the God of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses accepted Jethro's advice on the basis that he will "surely wear away" (<em><a href='B:20 18:18'>Exo 18:18</a></em>); even though his natural strength never abated (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>), and God surely would not have asked him to do the impossible. Jethro at this time seems to have seen Yahweh as only one of many gods; he was a pagan priest. He prophesied that if Moses followed his advice, "all this people shall go to their place in peace" - which they didn't. <em><a href='B:40 10:31'>Num 10:31</a></em> suggests Moses saw Jethro's knowledge of the desert as better than the Angelic "eyes" of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:3'>Pro 15:3</a></em>) who were going ahead of the camp to find a resting place (<em><a href='B:40 10:33'>Num 10:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href=B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>). It seems Moses recognized his error on the last day of his life, when he admits Yahweh, not Jethro's wisdom, had led them (<em><a href='B:50 1:33'>Deu 1:33</a></em>). Likewise Paul in his final communication comments on the way that Mark with whom he had once quarrelled was profitable to him (<em><a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 9:1'>Deu 9:1</a></em> records Moses' assumption that Israel would enter Canaan on the day that he died: "You are to pass over the Jordan this day". But they did not pass over that day because they mourned for Moses 30 days. It is possible that Moses felt so despised by them that he assumed there would be no period of mourning for him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him, and the children of Israel listened to him and did as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must compare this with <em><a href='B:40 27:18'>Num 27:18</a></em>: "Yahweh said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him". Because Joshua had the Spirit, Moses was told to lay his hand on him. Yet <em><a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a></em> says that Moses laid his hand on him so that Joshua might receive the Spirit. Here we see the upward spiral of spirituality at work- those who are of the Spirit are made more spiritual. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom Yahweh knew face to face- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Messiah was the prophet promised "like unto" Moses (<em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>). This may therefore be a note to the effect that the Messiah had not yet arisen at the time of writing. Gideon was bidden rise up to the example of Moses- for there were many similarities between his call by the Angel, and the Angelic calling which Moses received at the burning bush. Thus Gideon was called to follow the Angel in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<em><a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a></em>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>. And yet he responds: "Alas! For I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!" (<em><a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a></em>). Gideon knew full well that Moses had seen the Angel "face to face" (<em><a href='B:50 34:10'>Deu 34:10</a></em>). Gideon's fear is therefore rooted in a sense that "No! I'm simply <em>not</em> Moses!". And it's the same with us. We can read of all these reasons to believe that Moses is really our pattern, and respond that "No! This ain't me...". But there, in the record of Gideon and his success, lies our challenge to rise up to the spirit of Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>in all the signs and the wonders which Yahweh sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Of all the miracles God has worked, those involved with the salvation of Israel from Egypt are repeatedly presented as the greatest ever done, and thereby Moses becomes the most spectacular Old Testament channel for the work of God's Spirit. And this reflects the personal wonder of the way God brought each of us out from the world onto the path to His Kingdom. For those raised Christian, this is so hard to perceive adequately enough.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and in all the mighty hand and in all the great terror, which Moses worked in the sight of all Israel- </em></p>The idea is that the hand of Moses did these things, hence GNB "the great and terrifying things that Moses did in the sight of all Israel". But the "great terror" was done by the mighty hand of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). The final accolade for Moses was that his hand was hand in hand with God's, he was a willing partner in the salvation of God's people. The same phrase "great terror" is used in <em><a href='B:300 32:20-21'>Jer 32:20-21</a></em>, but the point is made that this was an ongoing work "unto this day". This is the power of event in Biblical history. Those events are no mere past actions that are completed. God's word becomes a living word, as we perceive that the same hand which worked in those historical events is bringing about the essence of those events in our own lives.


text:
<p>Yahweh the God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they struck them; so Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country- </p><p>This was only true on one level. "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 (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). 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 (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>They captured all the border of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok, and from the wilderness to the Jordan-</p><p>The territory is described from south to north, and then from east to west.</p>


text:
<p>So now Yahweh, the God of Israel has driven out the Amorites from before His people Israel, and should you take it over?-</p><p>By asking the Ammonites to accept Yahweh's legitimate claim upon this territory, Jephthah was effectively asking them to accept Yahweh as their God. In all God's judgments, there is the desire for human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Won’t you inherit that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever Yahweh our God has given to us, that we will take- </p><p>The idea of a god giving his people territory to possess was not at all foreign to the peoples of the land. Chemosh was god of the Moabites (<a href='B:40 21:29'>Num 21:29</a>; <a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:33'>1Ki 11:33</a>; <a href='B:300 48:7'>Jer 48:7</a>; <a href='B:300 48:13'>Jer 48:13</a>; <a href='B:300 48:46'>Jer 48:46</a>). But Moab and Ammon were closely connected. And Chemosh had failed to protect 'his' land from the Amorites. Jephthah states the issue as being a conflict between Yahweh and Chemosh, both apparently laying claim to the same land. So the only way out of the conflict was for Ammon to accept Yahweh as their God, instead of accepting Chemosh, the god of another nation (Moab) as their god. But we wonder whether Jephthah is not still reasoning from the false assumption that Yahweh was only the God of the land of Israel, rather than going further as David did, and perceiving Him as in fact king of all the planet, with a claim therefore on every human heart:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? Did he ever strive successfully against Israel, or did he ever fight against them?- </p><p>This is a somewhat more human argument. Balak king of Moab ought to have contested this land issue historically, but he never did.</p>


text:
<p>While Israel lived in Heshbon and its towns, in Aroer and its towns and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why didn’t you recover them within that time?- </p><p>As noted on :25, this is now a more human argument, to the effect that if a territory had been taken in war and kept for 300 years by its conquerors, then it could not reasonably be demanded back. But this is a human argument, and Jephthah should have surely just kept with the spiritual argument- that the land was Yahweh's, and He had given it to His people. We often see the same tendency; human, secular or logical arguments are deployed to uphold or support a position which is simply true because God's word has declared it to be so. This is where so much of 'apologetics' fails to be ultimately relevant. We think particularly of attempts to use science to bolster the Biblical accounts of God's miracles, or creation itself.</p>


text:
<p>I therefore have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to fight against me. Let Yahweh the Judge be judge this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon-</p><p>Jephthah speaks in the first person, as if this is a personal argument with him. But he does so because he realizes he is manifesting God. He also argues that Yahweh is the Judge between Yahweh and Chemosh in their conflicting claims to property. The argument means that it is foolish to enter into the judgment court, seeing this is the case. Paul uses the same kind of argument, in presenting the Lord Jesus as both our advocate for the defence as well as our judge. We cannot, therefore, be condemned; if we are truly "in" Him.</p>


text:
<p>However the king of the Ammonites didn’t listen to the words of Jephthah which he sent him- </p><p>Just as the king of Edom refused to listen to God's words (s:w. :17). For Jephthah is clearly speaking God's words here.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah and he crossed over Gilead, Manasseh and Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he crossed over to the Ammonites- </p><p>As he went, he asked the Israelites there to support him, but they didn't (<a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>). This repeats the theme of what happened at the time of Deborah, and also Gideon. And again we see the inability of people to learn from history. For the Spirit was clearly upon Jephthah as it was upon Gideon and Deborah. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh and said, If You will indeed deliver the Ammonites into my hand- </p><p>This need not imply doubt, but rather faith (for which he was noted in Hebrews 11). "If" in Hebrew doesn't have to imply that something is open to question, but can function as the word "when::.". But if indeed the "if" here betrays a lack of full faith, then this was the basis for his foolish vow. Perhaps a man of full faith would not therefore have needed to make this vow. He would have taken victory as an absolute given. So in this case, we see how taking the lower level of faith so often leads us into further problems.</p>


text:
<p>then whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering- </p><p>I will engage with the question as to whether or not Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering; but I wish to preface the presentation of evidence by observing that this is one of the many times that the Bible intentionally presents us with a question which is ambiguous and cannot be conclusively decided. For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God's word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter::. is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>That said, at this point I would note that animals don't live in houses where people live. Nor do they come forth from the doors of a house to meet the master of the house. So it seems he does indeed have his daughter in view from the start. And we might wonder whether this isn't something similar to how Saul pronounced death on whoever had eaten, "even if it be Jonathan my son", knowing surely that Jonathan had eaten as he had not heard the command and curse upon those who ate. Further, the phrase "offer it up for a burnt offering" is never used figuratively. Sacrifice as a concept is, but he doesn't use the word sacrifice. And yet contra this is the clear Divine disgust at human offerings, and Yahweh's condemnation of the other tribes for offering up their children to their gods. And as noted on :14, Jephthah had an excellent knowledge of the scriptures. So I conclude that the whole question is left intentionally ambiguous, with evidence both ways- in order to exercise our minds.</p><p>We could however go with Adam Clarke's suggestion that we translate the Hebrew as meaning ""I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering"; that is, 'If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him'". However :34 clearly presents Jephthah as in a state of tragic shock when his daughter comes out of the house to greet him, and if Clarke's get out is valid, then this reads very strangely. See on <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:4'>Jdg 12:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them and Yahweh delivered them into his hand- </p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); 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 (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) 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 eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>):&nbsp;See on <a href='B:70 12:2'>Jdg 12:2</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He struck them from Aroer to Minnith, twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the children of Israel- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter- </p><p>This was unusual for a man of some distinction, and we wonder if Jephthah had become impotent. Or it could be that his wife had become barren, and he had refused to remarry or take other wives. He stands in stark contrast to other judges of Israel, who had 70 or 30 sons. We see this as a sign of his integrity. The whole narrative is set up for us to sense that the&nbsp; girl coming out of the house to meet Jephthah sent a chill of terror and tragedy down Jephthah's spine. The tragedy of the scene is emphasized by the record mentioning that she was his only child. I discussed on :31 the pros and cons for thinking that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, and concluded that the evidence seems carefully stacked on both sides. Therefore I conclude that the incident is consciously crafted to help us engage carefully with the text, and there is no definite conclusion possible. His apparent integrity in only having one child is carefully balanced against his rashness of having made an oath which he now thinks he must carry out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When he saw her he tore his clothes and said, Alas my daughter! You have made me very sad and troubled, for I have made a vow to Yahweh and I can’t go back on it- </p><p>We could argue that he could have redeemed his daughter from the vow he involved her with (<a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>). But he decided in his mind: "I can't go back". Actually he could have done; but he so firmly chose the higher level that it was as if there was no way back. <a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>, in evident allusion to Jephthah, describes those who will attain the Kingdom as fearing Yahweh, and swearing to their own hurt and changing not. Some may swear and change and attain the Kingdom; but we are invited to follow Jephthah to the highest level. The principle of Jephthah's vow is seen in many other Bible characters.</p><p>Or it could be that for all his fluent knowledge of the history of God's people, he had not paid due attention to the details of the Mosaic law in <a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a>, and so was unaware of this. I discussed on :31 whether like Saul wanting to kill his son Jonathan, Jephthah just possibly might have wished to kill his daughter. For he knew she would come out of the house to greet him with tambourine if he won. And this would make his grief here either theatrical, or because he now realized the reality of what he had vowed.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My father, you have made a vow to Yahweh; do to me what you have vowed, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies the people of Ammon- </p><p>Her attitude is indeed commendable on one hand, but she sees her father's victory as being his personal vengeance upon his personal enemies. The idea of fighting for Yahweh against His enemies, and His vengeance, seems far from her.</p>


text:
<p>She said to her father, Let this one thing be done for me: let me alone two months to go around on the mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.</p><p>As discussed on :31, this could mean that she was resigned to death. Or the bewailing of her virginity could mean that she accepted that she was dedicated to Yahweh and therefore could never marry and have children. But there is no Mosaic concept of a woman being devoted to Yahweh by the oath of a third party, and therefore being unable to have children or marry. Even the oath of Naziriteship didn't preclude marriage. So again, as discussed on :31, we are left with evidence for and against the idea of her sacrifice. This, I suggest, is intentional.</p><p>For God wishes us to engage with Him, to reflect upon His word, and consider it carefully. And in the process of that consideration and careful engagement with God's word, we are led closer to Him. It is the process and not the product, the road rather than the destination, which is important in these cases. Whether we come down on the right or wrong side in our conclusion as to whether Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter::. is not the intention of the record. This of course is hard of acceptance by those literalists and legalists who insist that every Bible verse must have a clear, black and white interpretation, with no ambiguity.</p><p>Whatever Jephthah's unwisdom, motives or murderous plans which may or may not have lurked in a very dark mind which wished to slay his daughter, this doesn’t exclude him from being listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11. The lesson therefore is the same as that which we take from Samson. No matter how possibly tangled were a man's motives at some points in his life, no matter how strangely parts of a man's biography may read or appear when we meet them in live encounter, we are not to judge. For God at the end of all things may well accept him as faithful to Him. We are not to judge simply because we cannot judge.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go. He sent her away for two months, and she and her companions went and mourned her virginity on the mountains- </p><p>The vow surely implied that Jephthah would immediately offer up whatever came out of his house (:31). So by allowing two months to perform the vow, he was stretching the interpretation. Why not, then, annul it altogether? We note it was her virginity which was to be lamented, which would suggest it was a devotion to a virginal life that was in view, rather than death. But then to die childless was also seen as a tragedy worthy of bewailing.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed, and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel- </p><p>"And she was a virgin" is intentionally vague; fort tenses in Biblical Hebrew aren't at all precise. It could mean that she died, being a virgin. Or that she now lived the rest of her life as a virgin. But if the vow came into effect only after two months, then that could be read as implying she then died. Because she was a virgin at the start and the end of the two months. We note that the record doesn't state what Jephthah did to her; just that he did what he had vowed, and as discussed on :31,37, that vow is intentionally ambiguous. And the incident ends with this same open ended position, beckoning us to engage with the text and wonder what actually happened.</p>


text:
<p>that the daughters of Israel went each year to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year-</p><p>We wonder what there was to celebrate about this girl. For she could surely have run away, and would have found plenty to support her, just as Jonathan did when his father tried to murder him according to some unwise oath. Was the celebration of her obedience to her father's unwise oath? Or we could read "celebrate" as "lament" (AV). In which case this would be a lamentation of how a young woman had her life either ruined or ended because of the unwisdom of a male, and his pride in refusing to just take back his oath, in a mistakenly literalistic interpretation of <a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a>. Again, as discussed on :31,37,39, the record is intentionally vague, in order to invite our thought and engagement with it.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ephraim were gathered together and passed northward, and they said to Jephthah, Why did you go to fight against the Ammonites and didn’t call us to go with you? We will burn your house around you with fire-</p><p>The Ephraimites came over as offended because they weren’t invited to fight in a battle, even though they had shown no inclination; and they did this with both Gideon and Jephthah&nbsp; (<a href='B:70 8:1'>Jdg 8:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>). We see how the Biblical record is consistent in its depiction of character and personality, over incidents which occurred far apart. This is yet another internal evidence for Divine inspiration.</p><p>The threat to burn his house with fire, from which his daughter had emerged, may be an allusion to what he had done to her; and they sought to punish him by burning him to death, the punishment for apostacy. I discussed on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a>; <a href='B:70 11:37'>Jdg 11:37</a> how the whole question of 'Did Jephthah slay and offer his daughter?' is intentionally left ambiguous. And here again we have only a possible contribution towards the argument that he may have done this. But it is very tangential, purposefully so.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah said to them, I and my people were at great strife with the Ammonites and when I called you, you didn’t save me out of their hand- </p><p>We note the difference between this response to the Ephraimites, and that of Gideon in <a href='B:70 8:1-3'>Jdg 8:1-3</a>. Gideon was far humbler, and his softer answer turned away wrath. Whereas Jephthah is not so wise, and it results in bloodshed. We recall his unwisdom in his vow of Judges 11. Surely Jephthah ought to have learned from the history of how Gideon correctly responded in an identical situation- when again, the Ephraimites had not come forward to help him in routing Yahweh's enemies. We also note Jephthah speaks of how the men of Ephraim could have helped save him from the hand of the Ammonites. But it was Yahweh who delivered him out of the hand of the Ammonites, and placed the Ammonites into his hand (<a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>). In the flush of victory, Jephthah seems to have lost the humility which Gideon displayed as noted on <a href='B:70 8:2'>Jdg 8:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When I saw that you didn’t save me, I put my life in my hand and went against the Ammonites, and Yahweh delivered them into my hand-</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); 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 (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) 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 eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p><p>Why then have you come up to me this day, to fight against me?- </p><p>Again we sense an arrogance, in the flush of victory. As if to say, 'I just beat the Ammonites, why then try to fight me?'.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim, and the men of Gilead struck Ephraim because they said, You Gileadites are renegades of Ephraim from Ephraim and Manasseh-</p><p>The motivation for the conflict is here given as being merely racial and historical prejudice, rather than anything spiritual. And yet despite this yet further unwisdom and arrogance, Jephthah is listed as being amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, assured of resurrection to eternal life. We note that Jephthah took the initiative in attacking his brethren, and he did so because their words stuck in his mind, he kept repeating them, and therefore did what God was surely against- attacking and slaying his own brothers. This casual attitude to the death of others may, or may not, tie in to the discussion on <a href='B:70 11:31'>Jdg 11:31</a> as to whether he also intended to slay his own daughter.</p><p>We see here the power of unkind words, although LXX offers "because they that were escaped of Ephraim said, Ye are of Galaad in the midst of Ephraim and in the midst of Manasse". This would imply there had been a previous, unrecorded conflict between Gideon and the men of Ephraim:&nbsp; But 'You as Gileadites are really under our control' was the idea. GNB "The Ephraimites had said, "You Gileadites in Ephraim and Manasseh, you are deserters from Ephraim!"". And reflection upon those words made Jephthah so angry that he went and slew his brethren.</p>


text:
<p>The Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan before the Ephraimites. When the fugitives of Ephraim said, Let me cross over, the men of Gilead said to him, Are you an Ephraimite? If he said No- </p><p>The men of Gilead were related closely to the Ephraimites, hence the claim of :4. There was just a slight difference in accent between them. So this really was brother slaying brother, and shows Jephthah and his men in a very bad light. And yet, he is counted amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11, and we assume he must have repented for what he did here.</p>


text:
<p>then they said to him, Now say ‘Shibboleth;’ and he said Sibboleth, for he couldn’t manage to pronounce it right, then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan- </p><p>"Sibboleth" means both a stream- which is all the 'river' Jordan is at places in northern Israel- or a burden of abuse (<a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a>); and 'shibboleth' is an ear of corn. There are many examples of this kind of thing in dialects today. Maybe the idea was&nbsp; that if they couldn't say "shibboleth" then they were asking to be placed under an abusive burden of death, 'sibboleth'.</p><p>At that time, forty-two thousand of Ephraim fell- </p><p>This was nothing less than a bloodbath, a huge massacre. Although "thousand" when used of military conflict probably refers to a military division, rather than to a literal 1,000.</p>


text:
<p>Jephthah judged Israel for six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in a city of Gilead- </p><p>Perhaps it was during these six years that he repented of his unspiritual behaviour and unwisdom, and had the faith which was the basis of his commendation in Hebrews 11.</p>


text:
<p>After him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel-</p><p>All the judges / saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate judge / saviour of Israel. Ibzan, 'the splendid one' of Bethlehem, is a clear example.</p>


text:
<p>He had thirty sons and thirty daughters. He sent his daughters away in marriage, and brought in thirty women for his sons. He judged Israel for seven years- </p><p>He clearly wished to spread his influence far and wide. Perhaps "brought in" could imply from other tribes or even nations (AV "from abroad)", both of which were against the Mosaic intentions of keeping the inheritances within the tribes. We note the contrast with Jephthah, who had only one child, presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife.</p>


text:
<p>Ibzan died and was buried at Bethlehem-</p><p>See on :8; he was a type of Christ. However, the book of Judges rarely mentions Judah, so this may be the Bethlehem in Zebulun (<a href='B:60 19:15'>Jos 19:15</a>), from where the next judge also came (:11).</p>


text:
<p>After him Elon the Zebulunite judged Israel for ten years- </p><p>Elon's name means 'grove of oaks', clearly with reference to pagan practices. The fact he is not recorded as having renamed himself could suggest that he remained an idolater, although was used by God to deliver Israel. Being used by God doesn't mean we are therefore faithful to Him and assured of His acceptance.</p>


text:
<p>Elon the Zebulunite died and was buried in Aijalon in the land of Zebulun- </p><p>Elon and Aijalon have the same Hebrew consonants, and may be as in LXX the same basic word. Elon was a clan of Zebulun (<a href='B:10 46:14'>Gen 46:14</a>; <a href='B:40 26:26'>Num 26:26</a>), so this may refer to a man from that clan. The lack of a personal name would therefore indicate he was as it were an anonymous person used by God to deliver His people at a certain time.</p>


text:
<p>After him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite judged Israel- </p><p>"Abdon" means server, and "Hillel" means praise, usually of Yahweh. Although the Yahweh Name is absent from his name, we assume that he was a servant of Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:70 10:16'>Jdg 10:16</a>). And yet as noted on :15, his personal commitment to Yahweh failed to ensure that the whole people were His servants.</p>


text:
<p>He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkey colts, and he judged Israel for eight years- </p><p>The very large numbers of children by several of the judges suggests they were polygamists, and we therefore get the impression of men who were not very spiritual but were used by God to deliver His people. They throw Jephthah into positive contrast, as he had only one child; presumably because he refused to take other wives and retained his one barren wife as his only wife. And he is one of the few judges listed in Hebrews 11 as having had true faith.</p>


text:
<p>Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites-</p><p>The mention of the Amalekites is tacit admission that Abdon did not effect a major, lasting deliverance of Israel from their enemies. Or perhaps, as with Joshua, his victories were not followed up by the people. We see spiritual weakness at every turn in the Judges narrative.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years- </p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p><p>Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e:g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Sir_46:11-12: "The judges too::. all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord::.". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us::.</p><p>We know, or we ought to, how weak our moral judgment is, how prone we are to forget the degree to which God has justified us from our sins. This weakness is seen in the difficulty we have in analyzing the characters we read of in Scripture. For example, from reading the record of Lot in Genesis, it would seem that Lot was a materialistic, weak, faithless man who is shown to be the exact opposite to Abraham, who is held up as the example of real faith. Yet in the New Testament record, Peter points out that Lot was a righteous man. We are therefore left to conclude that the Genesis record is highlighting the weaker aspects of Lot's character, without commenting on the good points. We may have the same sort of surprise when we read in Hebrews 11 that Samson was a man of outstanding faith- yet the record we are reading at the moment in Judges seems framed to paint Samson as a womanizer, a man who lacked self-control and who only came to God in times of dire personal need.</p><p>But just imagine if only the negative incidents in our own lives, over a period of 20 (or 40?) years, were recorded. Anyone reading it would conclude that we were a complete hypocrite to claim to have any hope of salvation. In our self-examination, we sometimes see only this negative record; we fail to see that God has justified us, that in His record book, we are ranked among the faithful, as Samson was in Hebrews 11. Any character study of Samson needs to bear this in mind. Samson, over 40 years of service, courted a girl not in the faith and tried to marry her; once went to a prostitute in Gaza; and had an on-and-off relationship with a worthless woman in Sorek for a few months (?). And yet he seems to have lived the rest of his life full of faith and zeal- although I say this not in any way minimizing the mistakes he made. This is hardly evidence that Samson was the renegade sex-maniac that he is sometimes made out to be.</p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. 18:30 speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and 20:28 of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (15:11). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc.". It is even possible that his parents had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. All the Judges were preceded by a period of Israel prostituting themselves to the surrounding nations (<a href='B:70 2:16-19'>Jdg 2:16-19</a>); and this was evidently true of the period in which Samson grew up. From this apostate tribe and background came Samson. The way his own people angrily rebuked him that " Don't you know that the Philistines are lords over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>) was tacit recognition of the depth of their apostacy. They seemed to have no regret that they were fulfilling the many earlier prophecies that they would be dominated by their enemies if they were disobedient to Yahweh. The fact that Israel were dominated throughout Samson's life by the Philistines is proof enough that they were apostate at this time (<a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>;&nbsp;cp. <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>; <a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah, and his wife was barren and childless-</p><p>Samson lived at a time when Israel were hopelessly weak. His great desire was to do the work of the promised seed, who would save Israel from their enemies. He resented the Philistine domination and sought, single-handed, to overcome it in faith, not only for himself, but for his weaker brethren. As predestiny would have it, in recognition of his zeal for these things, he came from Zorah, 'the hornet'- a symbol of the Divine power that would drive the foreign tribes out of the land, as Samson dedicated himself to do (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>). And his father's name, Manoah, meant "rest", or inheritance (cp. <a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a>; <a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). Samson-ben-Manoah was therefore Samson, the son of the promised inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman and said to her, Look now, you are barren and childless but you will conceive and bear a son- </p><p>God's Angelic appearance to barren or childless women and promising them a very significant child is quite a theme. We think of Abraham and Sarah (<a href='B:10 17:19'>Gen 17:19</a>; <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>; <a href='B:10 18:14'>Gen 18:14</a>),&nbsp; Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:17'>1Sa 1:17</a>), Elizabeth (<a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a>) and Mary (<a href='B:490 1:31'>Luk 1:31</a>). These women were intended to have reflected upon the experience of those previous women, and to have taken strength and guidance from their response. This is the advantage of daily Bible reading and familiarity with the text and historical narrative of the scriptures. Even if we 'don't get anything out of it' at the point of reading, when events occur in our lives, we are able to see them in the context of Biblical history, and are comforted that we are not alone. Our experiences are not so totally unique. And it is the sense of walking alone in unchartered, unexperienced territory which is where much of our fear comes from. And yet because the hand of God works according to a historical pattern, we need not feel so alone; through patience and comfort of the scriptures we have hope (<a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a>), as if these historical records speak to us in a personified form and comfort us. See on :3,24.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore you must be careful and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don’t eat any unclean thing- </p><p>As discussed on :4, Manoah's wife was here promised that her son would be a Nazirite from birth; and she was to become the pattern for later women who were told likewise (<a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a>; <a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You shall conceive and bear a son, and no razor must come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he will begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>It would be simplistic for a character study of Samson to see Samson as some kind of sex maniac of a believer. He was a man of faith who, amidst a weak and indifferent brotherhood, tried to rise up to the spirit of Messiah in delivering Israel from their spiritual enemies. In order to devote himself to this, it seems that he chose the single life. In common with others who trod that path of zeal (e:g. Timothy and possibly Hezekiah), he couldn't maintain it all the time. He stumbled, and his stumbling in this area resulted in him reasoning that the end (i:e. the work he was doing) justified the means, and that therefore he could do God's work in a way which in fact gratified his own flesh. He had to learn the spirit of the cross-carrying Christ; the lesson of the whole burnt offering: that the whole of a man's life must be affected by the cross- not just those parts which we are willing to surrender. We can't mix the service of God with the service of self. There is no third road. Because Samson failed to realize this (until the end), he was a man who in many ways never quite made it; he never quite lived up to the spiritual potential which he had.</p><p>Although he was to be the beginning of serious deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, the whole story of Samson is prefaced by the fact that during the 40 years of Samson's' ministry (15:20 + 16:31), "the Lord delivered (Israel) into the hand of the Philistines" (13:1). It is emphasized in <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> that "at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel" ; and the men of Judah chode with him: "Don't you know that the Philistines are rulers over us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). The point is hammered home in <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>: "He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years". God's intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith. It may be possible to understand that the breaking of his Nazariteship was yet another way in which he never lived up to his God-given potential. He was "a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death" (13:7). Yet he broke the Nazirite vow by touching dead bodies and having his hair shaven (<a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>). This may mean that he chose to break God's ideal intention for him, to take a lower and lower level of service to God until actually he had slipped away altogether. However, it may be that God counted his desire for the high standard of Nazariteship to him. He saw him as if this never happened, in the same way as He saw Abraham as if he had offered up Isaac, even though ultimately he didn't (<a href='B:650 11:17'>Heb 11:17</a>; <a href='B:660 2:21'>Jas 2:21</a>). Intention, not the human strength of will to do the act, seems to be what God earnestly looks for.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman went and told her husband, A man of God came to me, and his face was like the face of the angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he was from, neither did he tell me his name-</p><p>LXX "I did not ask him His Name". Therefore the husband did ask His Name when He appeared again. She assumed this was a prophet, a "man of God", but she had the suspicion that it was in fact an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>but he said to me ‘You will conceive and bear a son; drink no wine or strong drink, and eat no unclean thing, for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death’-</p><p>He was a Nazirite to God (i:e. in God's eyes?) all his life- although he broke his Nazariteship by contact with dead bodies (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:15'>Jdg 15:15</a> cp. <a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>) and probably by drinking wine at his wedding (<a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a> "feast" = 'drinking', Heb:). This was not only imputed righteousness, but God counting the essential intentions of a weak willed man to him as if he had actually achieved what he fain would do.</p><p>Or it could be that we are to read this as meaning that it was God's intention that Samson should be a Nazirite to the day of his death- but he failed to live up to that Divine intention and potential. Which is a sad theme of the Judges record. <a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a> cp. <a href='B:70 16:17'>Jdg 16:17</a> implies that Samson himself felt he had broken his Nazariteship. Likewise Zacharias was "blameless" in God's sight, even though in this very period of his life he was in some ways lacking faith that his prayers would be answered (<a href='B:490 1:6'>Luk 1:6</a>). It is our holding fast that is our acceptable service (<a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a> mg:); not the occasional heroics of outstanding acts of obedience.</p><p>We know that we sadly oscillate between the flesh and the spirit. And yet Scripture abounds with examples of where God sees us as in a permanent state of either sin or righteousness. We are fountains that bring forth good water, and therefore by that very definition cannot occasionally bring forth bitter water; we are good fruit trees or bad ones. We aren’t a little of both, in God’s sight. This is surely because He sees us on the basis of the fact that we are in Christ, clothed with His righteousness, rather than as individuals who sometimes act righteously and sometimes not during the course of a day. Thus God saw Samson as a lifelong Nazirite, although we know there were times when he broke the Nazirite vow by, e:g:, touching dead bodies and having his hair cut. The challenging thing is to behold our brethren as having the “in Christ” status (for we can’t impute anything else to them, lest we condemn them), and not to see them from the point of view of people who sometimes act righteously and sometimes don’t.</p><p>Likewise the Angel declared that he would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). Yet he died with the Philistines firmly in control over himself and Israel. This was potentially possible in the Angelic plan; but he didn’t live up to what had been made possible in prospect. Significantly, Samson’s mother omitted to repeat this part of the Angel’s conversation when she relayed the incident to her husband (<a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a>)- perhaps because she didn’t believe that her child would be capable of this. And perhaps this was a factor in his failure to achieve what God had intended for him.</p>


text:
<p>Then Manoah entreated Yahweh and said, Oh Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we should do to the child who will be born- </p><p>The Angel had explained already; they were to raise him as a Nazirite. But as with Gideon, Manoah had a weak faith and wanted continual confirmation. And there was also the fact that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness, as He does to many cultural mores which are a denial of deeper spiritual principle.</p>


text:
<p>God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field, but Manoah her husband, wasn’t with her- </p><p>I suggested on :8 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so by all the same first appearing to the woman alone, and not directly to Manoah in the first instance.</p>


text:
<p>The woman quickly ran and told her husband, and said to him, The man has appeared to me, who came to me that day-</p><p>The record of Samson's birth frequently uses the phrases "the man" and "the woman" (:10,11), as if to send the mind back to Eden- with the implication that Samson was the seed of the woman, in type of Christ. "The woman" is a phrase nearly always associated in Scripture with the birth of someone who was to be a seed of the woman. "Of all that I said unto the woman, let her beware", coming from the mouth of an Angel (:13), surely confirms the Eden allusions.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, Are you the man who spoke to the woman? He said, I am- </p><p>To hear the words of God directly, Manoah has to follow after his wife. I suggested on :8,9 that he may well have doubted how a woman could speak to him God's words. He wanted to hear them for himself. And God made a concession to that weakness. But He does so in such a way that still requires him to follow behind his more spiritual wife (see on :23), in order to hear those words.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said, Now may your words come true. What should the child’s way of life and mission be?- </p><p>There may be here the slight hint that he did not have total faith in the words of promise. For we could understand him as meaning 'Well I hope what you say is true. Should it be true, then how should we, in that case, raise the child; what is his mission going to be, so that we might raise him towards it?'. I note on :23 that his wife has more faith and perception than he does. And it is highly significant that the description of the "mission", to deliver Israel from the Philistines, is told only to the woman and not to Manoah.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, All that I said to the woman she must do- </p><p>Although God is making a concession to Manoah's weakness in appearing to him, He emphasizes that His primary word had been to the woman, not to Manoah. The concession to his chauvinistic weakness was therefore not total, but done in such a way that he was reminded that God had chosen his wife before him in revealing His word. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe- </p><p>"Let her observe" may have been the command to Manoah, to not stand in the way of her obeying the call to also be a Nazirite. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, Please, let us detain you so that we may make a young goat ready for you-</p><p>The record of Samson has a large number of examples of the repetitions in Biblical narrative. They are situations where he was connected into the experience of those who had gone before- e:g. Manoah's desire to detain the Angel recalls <a href='B:70 6:18'>Jdg 6:18</a>; <a href='B:10 18:5'>Gen 18:5</a>. His desire to detain the Angel and offer sacrifice was exactly that of Gideon (6:18). His belief after he had seen the Angel ascend (<a href='B:70 13:20'>Jdg 13:20</a> = <a href='B:70 6:21'>Jdg 6:21</a>), and his subsequent fear, were again expressed in the words of Gideon (<a href='B:70 13:21-22'>Jdg 13:21-22</a> cp. <a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). As Gideon was, perhaps subconsciously, the hero of Manoah, so Samson followed his father's spirituality in this, wanting likewise to copy Gideon. It seems he lived out parental expectation, and imbibed the spirituality of his father without making it his own. Born and raised believers, beware.</p>&nbsp;<p>The whole scene is very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a>. Manoah responded as Abraham did, and later he would have perceived the similarities, and therefore grasped that this "man" was indeed an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to Manoah, Though you detain me, I won’t eat your food, and if you prepare a burnt offering, you must offer it to Yahweh. Manoah didn’t know that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>And yet as noted on :15, the whole scene was so very similar to that of <a href='B:10 18:7-8'>Gen 18:7-8</a> that we conclude that Manoah ought to have perceived ["know"] that this was an Angel. The fact he didn't is therefore an indication of lack of spiritual perception on his part. See on :23. The fact the Angel didn't eat of his food and meat, whereas the Angels who visited Abraham did so, could be read as a possible rebuke of Manoah for not perceiving this was an Angel. See on :17.</p><p>"Detain" is the word used for the Angelic restraining of the womb from bearing children (<a href='B:10 20:18'>Gen 20:18</a>), and had been used specifically about Sarah (<a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a>). And this whole incident was intended to help them see the similarities with Abraham and Sarah's Angelic visitation. The Angel may intend them to grasp the point- that they thought they were detaining / restraining Him, when He had been restraining them from having children until this point. Perhaps only later did they perceive this, if at all. There are many such Biblical allusions built in by God to our life experiences; and we may or may not ever perceive them in the course of our lives. Self examination of the path and details of our lives is clearly intended by God.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, What is your name, that when your words come true, we may honour you?-</p><p>The record says that Manoah said this "to the Angel", whilst clearly thinking this was a mere man. He acts and reasons as if this is a man, and he needs to know his name so that he can give him honour. When surely his mind should have been upon honouring God. "When" may also bear the implication of "if", as if he still didn't completely believe these words (see on :12). As noted on :16, his lack of perception that this was an Angel is criticized implicitly.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh said to him, Why do you ask about my name, since it is beyond understanding-</p><p>Or, "wonderful", implying 'miraculous'. This again was urging Manoah to understand that this was not a human prophet, but an Angel with the power to do miracles. I have noted on :16,17 that Manoah is being implicitly criticized for not perceiving this was an Angel. And so the Angel replies with exactly the Angelic words to Jacob (<a href='B:10 32:29'>Gen 32:29</a>). Their subsequent fear (<a href='B:70 13:22'>Jdg 13:22</a>) is that of <a href='B:10 32:20'>Gen 32:20</a>. See on <a href='B:70 14:12'>Jdg 14:12</a>. Yet despite this, Manoah fails to make the connection, for only at the point :21 does he realize this was an Angel.</p>


text:
<p>So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to Yahweh. Then the angel did a wonderful thing as Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>Manoah had initially wanted to prepare food for the visitor, but He had declined it, and told him instead to offer it to Yahweh. And Manoah does so.</p>


text:
<p>When the flame went up toward the sky from the altar, the angel of Yahweh ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on- </p><p>The fact they had an altar on their property indicates that they did serve Yahweh, although not in the ideal sense of offering at His sanctuary. "Ascended" is the word usually translated "offering". The idea is that the Angel was identified with the sacrifice, meaning that it had been accepted. Despite all Manoah's lack of spiritual perception throughout the encounter, as lamented on :16-18.</p><p>And they fell on their faces to the ground- </p><p>The phrase used of men doing this with a sense of unworthiness and conviction of sin (<a href='B:10 44:14'>Gen 44:14</a>; <a href='B:60 7:6'>Jos 7:6</a>; <a href='B:80 2:10'>Rth 2:10</a>). Now that they had been humbled, God could work further with them. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>But the angel of Yahweh didn’t appear to Manoah or to his wife any more. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh- </p><p>See on :16,17,18. It was the very absence of God’s direct appearance in his life that in the end persuaded Manoah that truly, he did have a fully valid relationship with Him. And the apparent silence of God is intended to teach us likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God- </p><p>He failed to learn the lesson from Gideon, who had likewise wrongly panicked (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>; <a href='B:70 6:28'>Jdg 6:28</a>); and likewise of Jacob and others who saw the face of an Angel and lived (<a href='B:10 16:14'>Gen 16:14</a>; <a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Isaiah too failed to learn this lesson from history (<a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But his wife said to him, If Yahweh wanted to kill us He wouldn’t have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from us, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these- </p><p>Here we have a repeat of the essence of the situation between Deborah and Barak, where again a woman’s faith was greater than a man’s fear; see on :12. Such interconnections within the Biblical record reveal an overall Divine mind behind the entire volume. And we see too how Biblical history is intended to serve as a precedent for us, teaching us that we are not alone, not on unmapped territory never passed before. But all is working out as God has worked previously.</p>


text:
<p>The woman bore a son, and named him Samson, and the child grew and Yahweh blessed him-</p><p>"The child grew, and Yahweh blessed him" is the language used of Samuel, John and the Lord Jesus- all likewise chosen from the womb, with births announced by Angels to childless women. See on :2,3. It is possible that his parents still had elements of weakness in them; for his name doesn't include the 'Yah' prefix, and 'Samson' ('splendour of the sun') may be a reference to the nearby town of Beth Shemesh ('house of the sun-god'). It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh began to trouble him in the camp of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol-</p><p>Samson was possessed of a finely tuned conscience. The first instance of this is when we read how the Spirit of Yahweh troubled him (Heb:) from time to time in the camp of Dan, in the very places where his people had earlier failed to follow up the victories of Joshua-Jesus by their spiritual laziness. He was troubled, deeply, by the Philistine dominance and Israel's unfaithfulness to Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>). God works directly on the human spirit by His Spirit. And so He provoked Samson to have these concerns in his spirit, and God's Spirit confirmed Samson's positive response to these proddings, which were initially of God's working directly on his heart. This is how the Holy Spirit likewise works today.</p><p>The context of Samson's marriage does seem to suggest that Samson himself sought occasion against the Philistines; for the Spirit of the Lord had been troubling his conscience as to why the people of Dan had not followed up Joshua's victories, and had allowed themselves to be overrun by the uncircumcised (13:25 Heb:). The only other references to "troubled" are in <a href='B:10 41:8'>Gen 41:8</a>; <a href='B:230 77:4'>Psa 77:4</a>; <a href='B:340 2:1'>Dan 2:1</a>; <a href='B:340 2:3'>Dan 2:3</a>. The Spirit of God worked with Samson's spirit, so that it was troubled as he went for his solitary walks of meditation. It was no accident that he was buried in the very place where his conscience was first awakened (<a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>); he maybe asked for this burial place, to show he had at last returned to his innocent spiritual beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines-</p><p>Judah also did wrong in Timnath with a woman, and was deceived and shamed by her (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a> = <a href='B:10 38:17'>Gen 38:17</a>). Earlier Scripture, which it seems Samson well knew and appreciated, was crying out to Samson to take heed. But he was blind to the real import of it all. It is emphasized that Samson "went down" to her (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>), as if his literal descent to her in the valley was also a retrograde step spiritually. Samson's marriage was wrong. And so it was. And yet his hero Gideon&nbsp;(see on <a href='B:70 13:15'>Jdg 13:15</a>) had likewise 'gone down', the record emphasizes, to liberate Israel from their enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). In view of the other examples of Samson consciously imitating Gideon, it is likely that he was seeking an opportunity to deliver Israel from the Philistines. And yet he mixed his motivations. He loved the girl, he wanted to gratify his flesh with the forbidden fruit. He loved the world, and thereby became in some sense an enemy of God (<a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>). But then he loved Gideon, he loved the holiness of Yahweh, he hated the world and the Philistines, he loved Israel, weak as they were, and wanted to deliver them from their spiritual bondage. And instead of casting him off as a man of such divided heart that he was not worthy of God's covenant love, God worked with him. And by using a purposeful ambiguity, He has recorded this for us in such a way as unites God's desire for Israel's deliverance with that of Samson.</p><p>It may be that as Gideon "went down" to destroy God's enemies (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), so Samson justified his 'going down' to the Philistines to take their women, as well as to destroy their warriors (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>). As Gideon was somehow 'separate from his brethren' in his zeal, so was Samson. And yet Samson seems to have copied just the externalities of Gideon; not the real spirit. And therefore as Gideon foolishly multiplied women to himself in the spiritual weakness of his middle age, so perhaps Samson saw justification for his attitude. 'If heroic Gideon could indulge the flesh in this area, I surely can'. He fell into our common trap: to compare ourselves amongst ourselves, to measure ourselves against human standards as we find them among the contemporary brotherhood (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>). Saul should have realized that Samson, like him, idolized Gideon, but only on a surface level- and should have taken the lesson. But he didn't see the points we've made in this paragraph. He could have done, but he didn't bother. And so with us. The word supplies us the potential power to overcome. It can often happen that the daily readings are almost purpose-designed for our present situation. Yet if we neglect to read them- that help lies untapped.</p><p>Samson fell for the 'little of both' syndrome, justifying it under the guise of Scriptural examples. He had done this in his youth; he "went down" to take a Philistine girl for wife (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:7'>Jdg 14:7</a>; <a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a>); and yet by doing so he was seeking an opportunity to slay Philistines. He may well have had in mind the sustained emphasis on the fact that Gideon went down to destroy the Midianites (<a href='B:70 7:9-11'>Jdg 7:9-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:24'>Jdg 7:24</a>). He went down morally and physically, and yet he justified this by thinking that as Gideon went down physically, so would he. Such is the complexity of the process of temptation. And all this is written for our learning:&nbsp; Significantly, the major temptations within the Lord's mind- as far as we can tell from the record of the wilderness temptations- was to misinterpret Scripture to His own ends; to soften the cross.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>He came up and told his father and mother, I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore get her for me as my wife- </p><p>This marriage with an unbeliever was clearly wrong. It could be argued that because the father was responsible for his son's marriage partner (<a href='B:70 12:9'>Jdg 12:9</a>; <a href='B:70 14:2'>Jdg 14:2</a>; <a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; <a href='B:10 24:3-9'>Gen 24:3-9</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30'>Neh 10:30</a>), therefore Samson's father was equally guilty for Samson's 'marriage out of the faith'. Many of the commands against intermarriage were directed to parents, commanding them not to give their children in intermarriage. And Manoah is presented in Judges 13 as consistently lacking in spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Then his father and mother said to him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? Samson said to his father, Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes- </p><p>The disappointment of Samson's parents is that of Esau's (<a href='B:10 26:35'>Gen 26:35</a>; <a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a>; <a href='B:10 28:1'>Gen 28:1</a>). For all Manoah's slowness to respond and perceive in Judges 13, he clearly was amongst the faithful minority. Samson's action was quite contrary to the spirit of the Law: marriage with the local tribes was categorically prohibited (<a href='B:20 34:16'>Exo 34:16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:3-4'>Deu 7:3-4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>). Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you::. thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson being tied up and blinded by Delilah; and yet it also had an element of fulfillment with his wife. The similarity is such as to suggest that Samson's marriage out of the Truth was definitely wrong because it was a fulfillment of the words of Joshua 23. "Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers::. that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?" implies that she wasn't the first one; he had often got involved with Philistine girls down in the valley, despite his conscience for Yahweh troubling him as he walked alone on the heights (<a href='B:70 13:25'>Jdg 13:25</a> Heb:). Samson gave no good answer to his parents: simply "Get her for me; for she is right in my eyes" (14:3, repeated in 14:7 for emphasis- he really did fall for the lust of the eyes). This insistence rather than explanation would suggest a bad conscience in Samson. Likewise the crowd only shouted out the more when asked why and for what crime they wished to crucify Jesus (<a href='B:470 27:23'>Mat 27:23</a>). The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel. See on :10,11.</p><p>She was 'right in his eyes' (14:3 AVmg:) not for beauty but in the sense that 'she suits my purpose' (Heb:). The same Hebrew is used not concerning beauty but rather utility in <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:100 17:4'>2Sa 17:4</a>; <a href='B:110 9:12'>1Ki 9:12</a>. The way in which Samson set up the riddle, almost expecting that they might tease it out of him through his wife, the way in which he agreed that if they did this, he would give them the clothes of 30 Philistines::. it all suggests that Samson set the whole thing up to seek an opportunity against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>But his father and mother didn’t know that it was from Yahweh, for He sought an occasion against the Philistines, for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel-</p><p>The "He" can be read as both God and Samson; they both had the same desire, and God worked with mixed up Samson to this end. Working all this out from the evidence presented in the record is hard work. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>):&nbsp;But the whole question of Samson's marriage is overshadowed by this fact that " It was of the Lord, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines". He used this incident to begin to raise up Samson as a Judge of Israel (<a href='B:70 2:16'>Jdg 2:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:18'>Jdg 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 17:10'>1Ch 17:10</a>). This is surely one of Scripture's purposeful ambiguities, designed to provoke us to meditation: it is unclear whether " he" refers to Samson or Yahweh. There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. And yet this would require that God almost made Samson have a desire for that woman. For God's Spirit works directly upon the human spirit, and yet confirms our spirit in where we really want to go. This may not be impossible- it may be that Paul's God-given "thorn in the flesh" was a similar forbidden passion. It would be an example of God leading into temptation (<a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a>). However, it is more likely that God worked through Samson's wrong desires, through his human weakness, to bring about God's purpose and glory.</p><p>It is often maintained that "judge not" refers to not judging motives. If we are not to judge motives, but we are to 'judge' in some sense, this would mean that we must judge the outward works of men. And yet Biblical and human analysis reveals that outward behaviour is often not a reflection of inner motive (e:g. Samson's marriage). To judge outward behaviour without considering motives is almost pointless. There are countless cases of where the same action may be right or wrong depending on motive. Thus both David and Uzziah acted as the High Priest, but only Uzziah was condemned for it; David refused to choose his punishment as God asked him, preferring to leave it to God, whereas when Ahaz did something similar, he was condemned for it; Rahab's lie is commended as an act of faith, whilst other lies are sins; Samuel and Eli both had the same experience of their children being apostate and them being criticized for it, but only Eli is condemned for this.</p><p>God's intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samson went down with his father and mother, to Timnah and came to the vineyards of Timnah, and suddenly a young lion roared against him-</p><p>We get the picture of Samson and his parents walking the four miles down into the valley, and Samson goes off for a wander in the vineyards. The vineyard was a symbol of Israel (<a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a>; <a href='B:290 1:8'>Isa 1:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:290 27:2'>Isa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:300 12:10'>Jer 12:10</a>; <a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a>). This may have been already evident to Samson from <a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a>; although most likely the symbol of Israel as God's vineyard was already established by his time. Conscious that Timnath was the 'portion assigned' to Dan and yet they had failed to take it, Samson meditates there in the vineyards, a symbol of Israel, the people who should have been there. Inheriting Philistine vineyards was one of the blessings promised (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>) and initially obtained by Joshua-Jesus (<a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a>). And yet those vineyards were now back in Philistine control. A lion suddenly appeared and roared against him, just as the Philistines later would (<a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>). The lion was a common symbol of Israel's enemies. The Spirit came upon Samson and he overcame it, in evident symbol to him that he really could deliver Israel from the Philistines. There is every reason to think that Samson appreciated all this symbology.</p><p>And yet did Samson ultimately slay the lion of the Philistines and bring the promised blessings of honey to Israel (cp. <a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a>; <a href='B:50 8:8'>Deu 8:8</a> etc:)? No, not really. He achieved some tokenistic success against their warriors; but Israel remained enslaved (<a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). He didn't live up to that potential which God had enabled him to achieve. And yet although it may seem that his life was wasted, in that he didn't really bring much deliverance for anyone- the whole process of it saved him personally. Those whose families and converts have turned away from the Faith will identify with this comfort. But whilst the above case for Samson's spiritual commitment can be made, there is evidence galore that his motives were mixed in this matter of Samson's marriage. Consider: why did he as a Nazirite go for a walk in vineyards, among the forbidden fruit (cp. Christians putting themselves into compromising situations)? This was typical of him: a great zeal and understanding, mixed with a desire to walk as close to the edge as possible, and to ultimately have a little of both. He had a fascination with vineyards, which the record brings out. Like an ex-alcoholic staring at the bottles in the shop ‘just out if interest’, so Samson fooled about with what was forbidden- just as we all tend to.</p><p>Not only do circumstances repeat between the lives of God's children, but also within our lives. We may pass through a very similar experience more than once. The human chances of this ever happening again were remote. But the similarity and repetition may be so that we learn the lesson we failed to learn; or it could even be a punishment for not learning the lessons we should have learned. Again, Samson's life demonstrates this. The lion roared against him as the Philistines did (<a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a> s:w. <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>); and not least in the uncanny similarities between the way his first wife enticed him and wrung his secrets from him, and the way 40 years later another worthless woman did the same to him (<a href='B:70 14:15-17'>Jdg 14:15-17</a> = <a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:15-16'>Jdg 16:15-16</a>). He just didn't see the similarities, or if he did, he didn't learn any lessons. Admittedly, it's far easier for us, presented with the records as they are, spanning 40 years within a few pages.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him and he tore it as he would have torn a young goat, having nothing in his hand, but he didn’t tell his father or his mother what he had done- </p><p>It was only after it roared against him that the Spirit came upon him and enabled him to kill it. He had to take the first nervous steps towards that lion in faith, and then the Spirit came upon him and confirmed his actions. The fact he didn't tell his parents what he had done may not only indicate his humility, but also suggests he was not naturally a strong man. To say he had just killed a lion would seem ridiculous.</p><p>The stress is on the way in which the Spirit came upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>; <a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>), as it did on other judges (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>; <a href='B:70 11:29'>Jdg 11:29</a>). "Not by&nbsp; might, nor by power, but by my spirit" (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>) may be referring to these incidents; demonstrating that when God's spirit acts on a man, it is not human muscle at all that operates. He is even listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>).</p><p>Samson killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>)- so the Spirit tells us. Yet these things were all done by him at times when he had at best a partial faith. He had a worldly Philistine girlfriend, a sure grief of mind to his Godly parents, and on his way to the wedding he met and killed a lion- through faith, Hebrews 11 tells us (<a href='B:70 14:1-7'>Jdg 14:1-7</a>). The Philistines threatened to burn him with fire, unless his capricious paramour of a wife extracted from him the meaning of his riddle. He told her, due, it seems, to his hopeless sexual weakness. He then killed 30 Philistines to provide the clothes he owed the Philistines on account of them answering the riddle (<a href='B:70 14:15-19'>Jdg 14:15-19</a>). It is evident that Samson was weak in many ways at this time; the Proverbs make many allusions to him, the strong man ruined by the evil Gentile woman, the one who could take a city but not rule his spirit etc. And yet underneath all these weaknesses, serious as they were, there was a deep faith within Samson which Hebrews 11 highlights.</p><p>The latter day invader is likened to a beast devouring Israel (<a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a>), having the Assyrian invader as its prototype. But the Philistines are here likened to a lion ravaging God's people, the vineyard of God. Thus the period of invasions by Israel's smaller neighbours is a prelude to the final invasion by Assyria/Babylon:&nbsp;These larger powers are also symbolized by the lion (<a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went down and talked with the woman, and she pleased Samson well-</p><p>This again indicates that he didn't simply and totally use her as a tool towards his purpose of killing Philistines. He did really love her, and was wrong in this.</p>


text:
<p>After a while he returned to take her- </p><p>Samson is described as wanting to "take" a wife; this Hebrew word is 51 times translated 'take away', 31 times 'fetch'. He evidently didn't intend to live there with her; he wanted her to come and live with him in the Israelite encampment, four miles up in the hills from the valley where she lived.</p><p>And he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion. In it there was a swarm of bees, in the body of the lion, and honey-</p><p>God sent the lion against Samson. He did this in order to go along with Samson's symbolic thoughts, and this may afford some justification for Samson's marriage. He was there, wandering in those vineyards, meditating how they were representative of the blessings which belonged to Israel, and yet they were now in the hands of God's enemies. And then, God furthers the parable: He sends a lion, symbolic of the Philistines, and Samson is given power to overcome him. And further, when Samson returned to the carcass to meditate deeper on 'the fallen one' (14:8 doesn't use the usual word for 'carcass'- s:w. " fall" <a href='B:240 29:16'>Pro 29:16</a>; <a href='B:330 26:15'>Eze 26:15</a>; <a href='B:330 27:27'>Eze 27:27</a>; <a href='B:330 31:13'>Eze 31:13</a>), "behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion" (14:8). The Hebrew for "swarm" is normally used (124 times) about a congregation of people, often God's people Israel. And the Hebrew for 'Bee' is 'Deborah', a celebrated earlier judge. God was surely teaching him that through his victory over the Philistine lion, God's people could be inspired to be faithful, and would therefore be able to enjoy the promised blessing of honey, taken out of the Philistines. Samson saw all this; for he "took" (Heb. is usually used in the sense of 'to take dominion over') the honey, partook himself, and shared it with others. In all this there is a detailed type of the Lord's representative sacrifice on the cross. On the cross, He won the victory over the lion of the devil (<a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> cp. <a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>; <a href='B:690 3:8'>1Jn 3:8</a> may allude to Samson's victory). This enabled us to be empowered to partake the Kingdom blessings. As Samson walked away from the carcass some days after killing it (14:8 Heb. "a time" = 'days'- three days?), with the honey in his hands, eating it and offering it to others, so the Lord left the empty tomb. See on :9.</p><p>Samson discovered a congregation (Heb. 'edat) of bees- deborim, in Hebrew. The judge Deborah would've been fairly recent history for Samson; she would have been the heroine of anyone like Samson, who also arose to save Israel from their enemies at that time. Surely he was being gently led to reflect that there were a whole congregation of Deborahs ['bees'] around, and he should eat of them. And yet Samson went his loner road, and suffered the consequences of it- rather like Elijah, who was in denial of the fact there were actually at least another 7000 in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Or perhaps Samson was simply being asked to execute his deliverance of Israel after the pattern of Deborah, to 'eat' of her, to fellowship her example and spirit. But he chose not to 'get it'; as we so often do in the countless nudges and prods which God gives us in daily life.</p>


text:
<p>which he took it into his hands and went on, eating as he went. He came to his father and mother and gave some to them and they ate, but he didn’t tell them that he had taken the honey out of the body of the lion- </p><p>See on :8. The way he ate and gave to his parents and they also ate without him telling them where he got it from is a clear reversal of what happened in Eden (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>; doubtless Eve didn't tell Adam either where the fruit came from): but here the fruits of spiritual victory rather than failure were enjoyed and shared. The promised blessings of honey were conditional upon Israel's obedience (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> cp. <a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a>), although granted in prospect (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a>). Israel at Samson's time were disobedient and therefore didn't have the Kingdom blessings. And yet the whole acted parable taught that through the supreme zeal of one lonely man, into whose struggle not even his parents could enter (14:6,16), the blessings of obedience could be brought to the disobedient multitude of God's people. And here we have the essence of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>His father went down to the woman, and Samson made a drinking feast as was the custom for the young men- </p><p>The process of marriage involved Samson in participating in the traditions of the surrounding tribes (this is emphasized: <a href='B:70 14:10-11'>Jdg 14:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>). The "feasting" was strictly 'drinking' (Heb:)- and Samson the Nazirite attended this. Even if he didn't partake, he was placing himself directly in temptations' way to break his Naziriteship. Just like walking alone in the vineyards.</p>


text:
<p>When they saw him they brought thirty companions to be with him- </p><p>The problem with marriage out of the faith is that you don't marry just a person, but a family. And so he now has 30 "friends", all of them unbelievers. But we suspect Samson had evil intent in all this, for his marriage was because he sought opportunity against the Philistines. The groom ought to have brought 30 friends with him, but he didn't. And so the bride's family provided them. LXX says they did this "because they feared him". They sensed he had evil intent toward them.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, Let me tell you a riddle now. If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing-</p><p>We wonder whether somehow, Samson knew he was going to tell his wife and she would tell the others, thereby creating the need for 30 garments, which he would obtain by murder. Perhaps he knew this only on a deeply subconscious level. But clearly he was using their deceit in suddenly expecting him to come up with 30 changes of clothes for his "friends" as an excuse to murder 30 Philistines. For the entire marriage was because he sought an opportunity to fight the Philistines.</p><p>They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you can’t give me the answer, then you shall give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. They said to him, Tell us your riddle, that we may hear it- </p><p>It was Samson's duty as the groom to provide 30 changes of clothing (a huge expense), or at least, this was what they perhaps unexpectedly told him at the wedding. But perhaps he knew this full well ahead of time, and was using it as an excuse to kill 30 Philistines. How that exactly would work out, he perhaps didn't know. He clearly did love his bride, and she did indeed betray his love and trust. It is impossible to totally decode where he really stood in all this in psychological terms- for his motives were mixed and his plans and intentions were therefore perhaps not clearly defined in his own mind.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Out of the eater came forth food. Out of the strong came forth sweetness. They couldn’t give the answer in three days- </p><p>"The eater" (Heb. 'the devourer') and "the strong" not only referred to the lion, but more essentially to Samson himself. The same basic word for 'eater' is used as a verb to describe how Samson 'ate' / 'devoured' the honey from the lion (<a href='B:70 14:9'>Jdg 14:9</a>). And years later the Philistines realized how Samson's riddle described himself: for they rejoiced that "the destroyer (devourer) of our country" was now overcome (<a href='B:70 16:24'>Jdg 16:24</a>). Samson saw that through his God-given strength he could bring forth the honey of blessing to Israel. They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they said to Samson’s wife, Entice your husband to tell us the riddle, or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire. Have you called us here to mock us?- </p><p>Thirty changes of clothes was a major expense. "To mock us" can be rendered "to make us poor". Or the idea may be that they would have to strip themselves naked and give their clothes to Samson.</p>


text:
<p>Samson’s wife wept before him and said, You must hate me, and don’t love me. You have given a riddle to my people but you haven’t told it me. He said to her, I haven’t even told it to my father or my mother; why should I tell you-</p><p>He speaks to his wife as if she should expect that he was closer to his Hebrew parents than to her: "'I haven't even explained it (the riddle) to my father or mother', he replied, 'So why should I explain it to you?'" (14:16 NIV). <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a> taught that a man must leave his parents and cleave to his wife in marriage; she must be closer to him than them. It could be that by saying this, Samson was reminding her that he didn't see their relationship as full marriage; he was only using her (cp. how he 'used' a Philistine as his best man, <a href='B:70 14:20'>Jdg 14:20</a>). Yet he did what only days before had been unthinkable: he told her his finest and most personal secret, which he wouldn't even tell his dear parents. Such is the fickleness of our nature. And yet there seems reason to think that somehow Samson foresaw his possible failure, and arranged to use the situation to forward God's work. It could even be that the girl was party to Samson's plan; she may have appeared to have a genuine interest in Samson's spiritual aims. The Philistines themselves realized this when they chode with Samson's wife that they had been called to the wedding 'to have our possession taken away' (14:15 Heb:). They saw the aim of Samson's marriage: to dispossess them and take their possession for Israel. It seems no accident that he chose Timnath, 'a portion assigned'- to Israel. This was part of the land promised to Dan, but which they had allowed the Philistines to overrun (<a href='B:60 19:43'>Jos 19:43</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>). And Samson would have seen himself as 'Samson-of-Zorah', the hornet- symbol of the Egyptian tribes which drove out the Canaanites in preparation for Israel's later victories (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She wept before him for seven days, while their feast lasted, and on the seventh day he told her, because she pressed him severely. Then she told the riddle to her people. On the seventh day before the sun went down-</p><p>As "she cried the whole seven days of the feast" (14:17 NIV), she daily "pressed him". This is the very same Hebrew word used in many passages to describe how an apostate, Gentile-loving Israel would be pressed / oppressed by their enemies (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>; <a href='B:300 19:9'>Jer 19:9</a>; <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). Samson was in some sense apostate at this time, yet he had faith and was strongly motivated; and for this he was blessed by God with strength to defeat the Philistines. The daughters of the Philistines hate God's people (<a href='B:100 1:20'>2Sa 1:20</a>; <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:57'>Eze 16:57</a>). The Ezekiel passages stress the paradox: that Israel (whom Samson represented) loved the women who hated them.</p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also hated her (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a>; he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable.</p>


text:
<p>the men of the city said to him, What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion? He said to them, If you hadn’t ploughed with my heifer you wouldn’t have found out my riddle-</p><p>They had to declare the riddle "and find it out" (14:12 AV). This would indicate that they had to actually find the carcass of a lion with honey in it. They plowed behind his wife as a heifer, and so were led by her to Samson's secret place of meditation where the dead lion was (<a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a>).</p><p>There is reason to think that to some degree, Samson may have realized that his life was pointing ahead to the great Messianic deliverer yet to come, the Lord Jesus Christ. Samson may have recognized the strength of the future Saviour when he gave his riddle to the Philistines. He meditated upon that dead lion with the sweet honey in it, and formulated his comment: "What is sweeter than honey? What (or, Who?) is stronger than a lion (Heb. 'the strong one'- this is one of Samson's many word plays)?". 'Who is stronger than the strong one?' was an idea picked up by the Lord Jesus in, I suggest, conscious allusion (<a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a>); although it is masked in the English text. He was the strong one who was stronger than the strong man of sin. Through His victory, the roaring lion of the devil lays dead. And in his skull is sweet honey; did Samson see in this the same meaning as David did in <a href='B:230 119:103'>Psa 119:103</a>? Did he so understand the nature and method of the Lord's work that he appreciated that the Lord's victory over all His people's enemies would be through the power of God's word, lying there in the place of the mind of the beast He overcame? Yet Samson killed the lion himself; surely he felt that to some degree he was the strong man who had overcome the beast,&nbsp; through his application to God's word. His frequent references and allusions to God's past revelation, both in his words and actions, would indicate that he was a man of the word.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them and took their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle-</p><p><a href='B:30 26:3-8'>Lev 26:3-8</a> had promised dramatic success against their enemies on the basis of obedience to the Law. The fact Samson had this power was therefore proof that he really was reckoned by God as zealously obedient to the Law; and yet he was like this in the midst of a sadly apostate Israel. I take this view of his strength. This is in itself no mean achievement: to rise to a level of spirituality much higher than that achieved by the surrounding brotherhood.</p><p>Significantly, he went down to the valley of Ashkelon, the very place that Joshua had conquered but Judah had been unable to drive out the Philistines from (1:18,19), and slew 30 warriors.</p><p>His anger was burning, and he went up to his father’s house-He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (14:19), and "utterly hated her" (15:2). And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation. When he slew the thirty men at Ashkelon, as he seemed to have planned right at the start in his seeking occasion against the Philistines, he was "burning with anger". His motive was partly bitterness and the revenge of a man humiliated and deceived by a woman; but his slaughter of the Philistines was also done in faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>), with God given strength to confirm his faith.</p>


text:
<p>But Samson’s wife was given to his companion, whom he had considered a friend- </p><p>AV "used". We get the impression that he 'used' his wife as he 'used' this best man, because his motive was to use the situation in order to dispossess and murder Philistines. But he also genuinely loved the girl. His motives were terribly mixed.</p>


text:
<p>But after a while, in the time of wheat harvest, Samson visited his wife with a young goat. He said, I will go in to my wife into the room. But her father wouldn’t allow him to go in-</p><p>As the Spirit came upon Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:34'>Jdg 6:34</a>), so it is described as coming upon Samson (<a href='B:70 14:6'>Jdg 14:6</a>). It seems that the incident in ch. 15, where Samson visits his wife with a kid and uses this as an excuse to kill many Philistines, was planned by him to reflect Gideon's zeal. The way Gideon brought a kid to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:19'>Jdg 6:19</a>) may reflect how Samson came with a kid (<a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>). See on :4.</p>


text:
<p>Her father said, I was certain that you utterly hated her, therefore I gave her to your companion. Isn’t her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please take her instead- </p><p>Samson really loved that girl (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>; <a href='B:70 14:17'>Jdg 14:17</a>; <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>), even though he also utterly hated her (he must have gone through this process again with Delilah in the time that led up to her final betrayal). This true love for her makes Samson's marriages look more questionable. The turning of love to hatred is what happened when Amnon raped Tamar. The Biblical record is consistently psychologically credible, and true to observed human experience in this area. Unlike the contemporary, uninspired histories and legends of the other nations around Israel.</p><p>He seems angry that he had let himself fall too deeply for that Philistine girl (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>), and "utterly hated her". And yet this human anger may also have been mixed with a more righteous anger, in that to give his wife to another was adultery, and it happened that they carried out (perhaps unconsciously?) the punishment for adultery which the law required (<a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a>; Leviticus 21; Leviticus 9). He realized that the Philistines had led him into sin, and he just wanted to destroy the source of his temptation.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, This time I will be blameless of harm to the Philistines-</p><p>He burnt those vineyards in a desire to be "blameless from the Philistines" (15:3 AVmg:). The same word is translated unpunished, guiltless, innocent, clean, acquitted; as if he knew he had sinned, but believed that by further fighting of Philistines he could gain his forgiveness. He had to be brought to the shame of Gaza Prison to learn that forgiveness was by absolute faith, not works and hatred of this present world.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, tied them tail to tail in pairs and put a firebrand between each pair of tails- </p><p>I noted on :1 how Samson was seeking to imitate Gideon, who apparently was his hero. He takes 300 foxes and puts firebrands in their tails. Why 300? Surely this was in conscious imitation of how Gideon took 300 men and put firebrands in their hands, and with them destroyed God's enemies (<a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>). The connection between the faithful 300 and the foxes could suggest that in Samson's eyes, he didn't even have one faithful Israelite to support him; he had to use animals instead.</p>


text:
<p>When he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing grain of the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks and the standing grain, and also the olive groves-</p><p>Samson used the whole situation as an opportunity to burn up the corn and vineyards of the Philistines, in conscious allusion to how the law stipulated that a man who did this to his Israelite neighbour must make retribution (<a href='B:20 22:5'>Exo 22:5</a>):&nbsp;He was emphasizing that these people were not his neighbours, they were not in covenant relationship, and he openly showed that he treated them accordingly. Likewise he took vengeance on the Philistines (<a href='B:70 15:5'>Jdg 15:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>), when the Law taught that Israel were not to take vengeance (same word) on each other (<a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a>), but could do so on their enemies (<a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a>; <a href='B:50 32:43'>Deu 32:43</a> cp. <a href='B:60 10:13'>Jos 10:13</a>). Note, in passing, how he set those foxes up as cherubim, again imitating Gideon's flaming torches- a ball of whirling fire coming in judgment upon the Philistines. The fox was a symbol of apostate Israel in later Scripture (<a href='B:330 13:4'>Eze 13:4</a>); perhaps Samson made the same connection, and wanted to symbolize how through his faith and insight, weak Israel could be turned into the cherubim of God in bringing judgment on the Philistines and deliverance for themselves. The way he used their tails to bring such destruction may have been a reference to <a href='B:50 28:13'>Deu 28:13</a>; <a href='B:50 28:44'>Deu 28:44</a>, where apostate Israel, suffering for their sins as they were in Samson's time, are described with the same word: they would be the tail of the nations. He saw that he was the one who could bring salvation and blessing to Israel.</p><p>He later teased Delilah to tie him with seven “withs”, the Hebrew word implying made from a vine. He just would mess with the forbidden. The way he burnt up those vineyards in 15:5 may have been as a result of realizing that the answer lay in total devotion and rooting out of temptation, rather than wandering around in them as he did in Judges 14; cutting out the eye that offends. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines said, Who has done this? They said, Samson, the son-in-law of the Timnite, because his wife was given to his companion. The Philistines came up and burnt her and her father with fire- </p><p>The seven day marriage feast, associated with a deceitful father in law offering the sister of the desired bride in marriage- this is all the same as Jacob experienced (<a href='B:10 29:27'>Gen 29:27</a>), right down to the fact that the younger sister was fairer (<a href='B:70 15:2'>Jdg 15:2</a> cp. <a href='B:10 29:16-17'>Gen 29:16-17</a>). Samson should have learnt from the evident similarities with Jacob; but like Jacob, he still trusted his own strength. <strong>&nbsp;</strong>See on <a href='B:70 13:18'>Jdg 13:18</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to them, If you behave like this, surely I will be avenged on you- </p><p>Saul followed Samson's weak side when at this same time he demanded to be avenged of his enemies (<a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>); yet this wasn't Samson at his best (<a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>; <a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). On one hand, Samson uses this murder of his wife and father in law as a pretext for killing more Philistines. But yet we also sense that he had loved the girl, and wanted vengeance as any Hebrew man would have wanted for the murder of his wife.</p>


text:
<p>He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them, then he went and lived in the cave in the rock of Etam-</p><p>He smote the Philistines "hip and thigh" (AV) with a great slaughter, alluding to the sacrifices (s:w. "shoulder" <a href='B:20 29:22'>Exo 29:22</a>; <a href='B:30 9:21'>Lev 9:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:24'>1Sa 9:24</a>; <a href='B:330 24:4'>Eze 24:4</a> - nearly all usages of this word in Samson's Bible referred to the "shoulder" of the sacrifices), as if he was offering them as a sacrifice to Yahweh. Hip on thigh" is apparently a better rendering, implying hand to hand combat. This would serve to emphasize his contact with the dead bodies, as he hurled them to the ground one by one. And yet the Spirit of Yahweh came upon him to enable this- a breach of the letter of the Nazarite law.</p><p>But then he "went down (again- see on <a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>) and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam. You don't go down if you are going up to the top of a rock. But perhaps spiritually he 'went down', to dwell in isolation from the people he was supposed to be judging / leading, in the rocks. Dwelling in the rocks is associated with a bad conscience in <a href='B:290 2:21'>Isa 2:21</a>; <a href='B:290 57:5'>Isa 57:5</a>. Yet for all this, God counted him as having judged Israel 20 years at this stage (15:20); even though there was this evident break when he simply ran away from his people.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Philistines went up, and encamped in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi- </p><p>Samson's victory at Lehi may have inspired Shammah to slay the Philistines at the same place, years later (<a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>; AV "into a troop" is Heb. "Lehi"). And yet Samson's victory with a donkey jawbone would have been inspired by Shamgar's victory with an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). This is how the body of Christ should function; one spiritual victory inspiring another.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah said, Why have you come up against us? They said, We have come up to take Samson prisoner, to do to him as he has done to us- </p><p>He says that he had killed Philistines because "I merely did to them what they did to me" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a> NIV). There was no mention of the fact that he was seeking occasion against God's enemies (even though he was speaking to Hebrews). He passed off his actions as pure revenge- which on one level, was all they were. The Philistines had earlier said that they wanted to take Samson "to do to him as he did to us" (<a href='B:70 15:10'>Jdg 15:10</a>). And Samson replies in the same primitive way: that he only did to them what they did to him. It seems that Samson spoke to them on their level. And yet when the Philistines came upon Samson, roaring against him like the lion in <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>, God's Spirit once again came upon him in confirmation of his faith. And yet his motives were hopelessly mixed. He was partly the angry young man, the jilted lover, wishing to express his native anger- and yet doing so by claiming that he was serving God. And indeed he was- but with mixed motives. We see this kind of thing in ourselves, and in many who claim to serve God.</p>


text:
<p>Then three thousand men of Judah went down to the cave in the rock of Etam and said to Samson, Don’t you know that the Philistines are rulers over us?- </p><p>This was tacit recognition of the depth of their apostacy. They seemed to have no regret that they were fulfilling the many earlier prophecies that they would be dominated by their enemies if they were disobedient to Yahweh. The fact that Israel were dominated throughout Samson's life by the Philistines is proof enough that they were apostate at this time (<a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>; <a href='B:70 16:31'>Jdg 16:31</a>).</p><p>What is this that you have done to us?- </p><p>Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?".</p><p>He said to them, As they did to me, so have I done to them-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>. If we ask 'What exactly did they do to him? What did they kill and burn of his?', the answer must be 'His wife'. He perhaps felt that she was worth hundreds of them, and the burning of their livelihood, leaving famine in it's wake, was what they had done to him emotionally. Yet it is curious how he loved the Philistines and yet hated them.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, We have come down to tie you up so that we can deliver you into the hand of the Philistines. Samson said to them, Swear to me that you will not kill me yourselves-</p><p>He had to beg his own people not to try to kill him themselves (even whilst he had long hair), because he knew that the strength he had was only for certain specific purposes- i:e:, to deliver God's people from the Philistines (15:12). </p><p>15:12 bind. The way they came to bind Samson has suggestions of Legion (<a href='B:490 8:29'>Luk 8:29</a>); perhaps they considered him to be mentally ill, and attributed his strength to fits? Or worse, did they consider the work of the Spirit of God to deliver them to be that of demons? If so, Samson was typifying the Lord's later experience (<a href='B:470 12:24-27'>Mat 12:24-27</a>). The way Jesus spoke of himself in this context as the stronger than the strong man (cp. Samson) encourages this view. And yet the strong man who was bound, i:e. the devil, can also be seen as a reference to Samson. Again, we are left with a difficult question: Was Samson telling them the truth when he said that his motive at Lehi was purely personal revenge? Or were they so unspiritual that he spoke to them on their level, even though at other times he pleaded with them to quit their idolatry (<a href='B:70 2:16-19'>Jdg 2:16-19</a>)? Or were his motives simply hopelessly mixed? Within him was a burning desire to do God's work; he was the one faithful Israelite who could chase 1,000; and yet in the company of his unspiritual brethren, he let his human side come out, and wrapped up his zeal for the Lord in human terms- even though there was some truth in how he expressed it. This kind of thing can so easily happen in our Christian experience; we bring out the worst in each other.</p>


text:
<p>They said, No, we will tie you up and deliver you into their hand, but we will not kill you. They bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock- </p><p>The way they tie him up and he begs them not to kill him (15:12,13) hardly sounds like Samson judging Israel (:20). And yet this was his desire, and this is what God imputed to him, in the same way as he was a Nazarite to God (i:e. in God's eyes?) all his life (<a href='B:70 13:7'>Jdg 13:7</a>)- although he broke his Nazariteship by contact with dead bodies (<a href='B:70 14:19'>Jdg 14:19</a>; <a href='B:70 15:15'>Jdg 15:15</a> cp. <a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a>) and probably by drinking wine at his wedding (<a href='B:70 14:10'>Jdg 14:10</a> " feast" = 'drinking', Heb:). This was not only imputed righteousness, but God counting the essential intentions of a weak willed man to him as if he had actually achieved what he fain would do.</p>


text:
<p>When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him, and the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily on him. The ropes that were on his arms became as charred flax, and his ropes dropped off his hands-</p><p>The Spirit likewise came upon him to kill the Philistines in Lehi (15:14). It wasn't a permanent strength. This is in harmony with the way in which the Spirit was used in the New Testament. The Spirit came upon the apostles and they were filled up with it, as it were, and then drained of it once the work was done; and had to be filled with it again when the next eventuality arose. The shouting of the Philistines recalled the roaring of the lion against Samson (<a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>). As in our lives, one experience prepares us for the next one, which occurs on a far greater scale than the first one.</p>


text:
<p>He found a fresh jawbone of an ass and struck down a thousand men with it-</p><p>Samson slaying Philistines with a jawbone suggests Shamgar slaying Philistines with an ox goad (15:15 cp. 3:31).</p><p>15:15 Samson grabbed a jaw-bone and exalted that with that he had slain a thousand men at Lehi. The word for "jawbone", Lehi, means literally 'that which is soft'. God was teaching him that His strength was only perfected in weakness. His words are a conscious allusion to <a href='B:60 23:10'>Jos 23:10</a> (and <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a>): "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you". It could be that he counted the bodies, or counted each man he slew, consciously trying to get up to 1,000 in order to fulfill the prophecy. Although !a thousand" may refer to a military unit rather than a literal number. Samson doesn't say that he alone killed the thousand men; he did it with the jaw-bone (coming from a Hebrew root meaning 'soft', 'weak'). This jaw bone is one of the seven weak things which are mentioned in Judges as being the tools of God's salvation: left handed man (<a href='B:70 3:21'>Jdg 3:21</a>); an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>); a woman (<a href='B:70 4:4'>Jdg 4:4</a>); a nail (<a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a>); a piece of a millstone (<a href='B:70 9:53'>Jdg 9:53</a>); a pitcher and trumpet (<a href='B:70 7:20'>Jdg 7:20</a>). God's people are likened to an ass frequently (<a href='B:10 49:11'>Gen 49:11</a>; <a href='B:10 49:14'>Gen 49:14</a>; <a href='B:290 1:3'>Isa 1:3</a>; <a href='B:300 2:24'>Jer 2:24</a>; <a href='B:350 8:9'>Hos 8:9</a>; <a href='B:490 13:15'>Luk 13:15</a>; <a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a>). The first two references would have been known to Samson at Lehi; and he may have reflected that the fact the firstborn of an ass must be redeemed by a lamb was prophetic of how Messiah would save all His otherwise condemned people (<a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a>; <a href='B:20 34:20'>Exo 34:20</a>). Could it not be that despite their cruel betrayal of him and utter faithlessness, dear Samson felt he was living out a kind of acted parable of what was possible for Israel: that through his zeal, and in his hands, the weak people of God could achieve the great victory over thousands which Moses and Joshua had earlier foretold? In this he was a superb type of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps on heaps; with the jawbone of a donkey I have slain a thousand men-</p><p>Samson's victory song at Lehi smacks of personal vengeance, showing how mixed were his motives. There is little suggestion of the humble servant merely doing God's will:</p><p>"With a donkey's jaw-bone</p><p>I have made donkeys of them.</p><p>With a donkey's jaw-bone</p><p>I have killed a thousand men" </p><p>(15:16 NIV).</p><p><a href='B:30 26:3-8'>Lev 26:3-8</a> had promised dramatic success against their enemies on the basis of obedience to the Law. The fact Samson had this power was therefore proof that he really was reckoned by God as zealously obedient to the Law; and yet he was like this in the midst of a sadly apostate Israel. This character study of Samson takes this view of his strength. This is in itself no mean achievement: to rise to a level of spirituality much higher than that achieved by the surrounding brotherhood.</p><p>Joshua's final exhortation to Israel contains a passage which reads as some kind of prophecy of Samson. It is proof enough that Samson is to be read as a symbol of Israel: "Be therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses::. that you come not among these nations, these that remain among you (true in Samson's time)::. but cleave unto the Lord your God:::no man has been able to stand before you (this was Samson)::. one man of you shall chase a thousand (cp. <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>): for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you (this was exactly true of Samson in <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>)::. take good heed unto yourselves::. else if you go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them (as Samson did), and go in unto them, and they to you (cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; <a href='B:70 16:1'>Jdg 16:1</a>, where Samson went in to the Philistine women): know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you (cp. <a href='B:70 16:20'>Jdg 16:20</a>); but they shall be snares and traps unto you (Delilah!)::. and thorns in your eyes, until you perish" (<a href='B:60 23:6-13'>Jos 23:6-13</a>). This passage would associate Samson's God-given strength and victory over the Philistines with his obedience to God's word. It was not that Samson was just an arbitrary tool in God's hand. Frequently the things Samson says and does are full of allusion to various passages in the Law, and also earlier incidents recorded in Judges which would have been known to him probably as the oral word of God.</p>


text:
<p>When he had finished speaking he threw away the jawbone, and that place was called Ramath Lehi- </p><p>And yet it was out of that jawbone which he discarded that water came to save his life (:19). He had used and then as it were cast away his first wife and best man, considering that the end [defeating the Philistines] justified the means. He is perhaps being shown that his attitude was wrong. The value and meaning of the human person, even if they are Philistines, is such that nobody should ever just be used and discarded.</p>


text:
<p>He was very thirsty and called on Yahweh and said, You have given this great deliverance by the hand of Your servant; now shall I die for thirst and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised-</p><p>His request for water in that dry place was abundantly answered- in the same way as Yahweh had responded to exactly the same request from a faithless Israel in the desert (<a href='B:20 17:1-7'>Exo 17:1-7</a>; <a href='B:40 20:2-13'>Num 20:2-13</a>). And the way he names the well after the miraculous provision of water, and the way presumably the opened well remained (15:19), has links with pseudo-Israelite Hagar (Gen. 16:19; 21:19). And yet even in these similarities, it must be noted that there was a certain spiritual culture in Samson's prayer. He didn't make a direct, crude demand for water. He placed his situation before God, and left it to Him to respond as He knew best. This is a feature of many spiritual prayers: not to crudely, directly ask for the obvious; but to simply inform the Almighty of the situation, in faith.</p><p>Samson at Lehi saw them as unclean asses; and yet he loved their women. And yet in the midst of this almost arrogance, he cries: "I thirst", and so exhibits something of the spirit of Christ in His final hour of agony and ultimate conquest on the cross (<a href='B:500 19:28'>Joh 19:28</a>). Samson&nbsp; despised the uncircumcised Philistines, as he had been brought up to (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a>). He knew they hated him and yet he loved them and yet he hated them- all this shows the complexity of human nature, and describes our attitude to the world and the things of the flesh. And yet the only real answer is to cut off the flesh; to gouge out the eye that offends; not to comfortably go along with the fact that we have such a love: hate relationship with the flesh. For we cannot serve two masters; we can only ultimately love one. The Lord we serve is in many ways a demanding Lord. &nbsp;</p><p>Samson dying of thirst crying desperately for water recalls Hagar's experience (15:19 cp. <a href='B:10 21:19'>Gen 21:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But God split the hollow place that is in Lehi and water came out of it- </p><p>This is the language of God's provision for Israel in the wilderness. The word translated "Lehi" is that for jaw bone (s AV), as if the water came out of the discarded jaw bone.</p><p>When he had drunk, his spirit came again and he revived, therefore its name was called En Hakkore- </p><p>We note how place names were altered or given to commemorate what had happened. The way that so many paganic place names survived in ancient Israel is a reflection therefore of how little effort they made to eradicate pagan influence- for they were mostly idolaters themselves.</p><p>Which is in Lehi to this day- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>He judged Israel in the days of the Philistines for twenty years-</p><p>God's intention was that Samson was to deliver Israel from the Philistines; but somehow he never rose up to it, and only 'began' to do it (<a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a>). They remained under the Philistines, even during his ministry. And he was hardly accepted as Israel's judge / saviour, for they tied him up and handed him over to the Philistines. He made a few sporadic attempts in red hot personal zeal, confirmed by God, to deliver Israel. But he never rose up to the potential level that God had prepared for him in prospect. And yet for all this, he was accepted in the final analysis as a man of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Samson went to Gaza and saw there a prostitute, and went in to her-</p><p>The way this passage starts with "Then" (see Heb:, AV) is one of several classic conjunctions which occur in the Biblical record. The "But" of <a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a> is another. After the spiritual and personal glory of the fight at Lehi, "Then::." Samson goes to Gaza and sees a whore. It may not have happened immediately afterwards (<a href='B:70 15:20'>Jdg 15:20</a>), but it seems purposefully placed where it is in the record. A similar example occurs in <a href='B:70 14:19-20'>Jdg 14:19-20</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>: after repenting of his marriage with the Philistine girl and using his failure as an opportunity to seek occasion against God's enemies, Samson then relents and lets his human love for the girl take him over, and he goes to visit and sleep with her. And again in <a href='B:70 16:3'>Jdg 16:3</a>, we see Samson repentant as he lies there at midnight, and he rises up and in the spirit of the Lord's cross, carries away the gate of his enemies. And then, "it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman::." (<a href='B:70 16:4'>Jdg 16:4</a>). He simply couldn't keep up the level of spiritual intensity which he fain would have. And again, we know much about this problem .</p><p>And yet Samson went to Gaza conscious that his people had failed to drive out the tribes there (<a href='B:60 11:22'>Jos 11:22</a>). Judah had captured it in Joshua's strength (<a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a>), but had let the Philistines return. So Samson chose Gaza from spiritual motives; and yet he schemed out his plan to enable him to gratify his flesh. But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he "got up and took hold of the doors::." (<a href='B:70 16:1'>Jdg 16:1</a>; <a href='B:70 16:3'>Jdg 16:3</a> NIV):&nbsp; If he went in to spend the night there, he presumably entered the house at around 7 or 8. He had what he wanted, and then lay there thinking, the record seems to suggest, and decided to not lay there all night as he planned, but get up and do God's work. Whilst it is unrecorded, surely there were prayers of deep and fervent repentance as he lay there? His conscience likewise seems to have struck him after he attempted to marry the Philistine girl, and also when he burnt up the vineyards. And so again here. He may have justified his behaviour by reference back (in his deep subconscious, maybe) to how the spies sought to destroy Jericho by entering the city and lodging with a whore.</p><p>When Samson decided to attack Gaza by going into a harlot's house, he may have been consciously imitating the way the spies played their part in Jericho's destruction (16:1). And yet it was once again only a surface imitation. He fell for the 'little of both' syndrome, justifying it under the guise of Scriptural examples.</p>


text:
<p>The Gazites were told, Samson is here! They surrounded him and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, staying quiet all night and saying, Wait until dawn, then we will kill him-</p><p>See on <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>. The purpose of this final tragic chapter in Samson's life was to bring Samson to a final realization that there was no third way in the service of Yahweh: it's all or nothing. The Lord worked through Samson's 'little of both' syndrome. The Lord Jesus read the Samson record this way: He recommended that we too tear our eyes out to stop us stumbling from the path of total devotion (<a href='B:480 9:47'>Mar 9:47</a>). We all know how the story turns out. And it's one of those parts of Scripture which I for one don't reading. I don't want to go on from chapter 15 to chapter 16. I know what's coming, and I'd rather not be reminded of the whole tragic sequence. And yet it's there, absolutely for our learning. And Samson should have already learnt. As his first wife had vexed her with her words to tease his secret from him, so Delilah did. As the Philistines laid wait for Samson as he lay with the whore in Gaza (16:2), so they laid wait in Delilah's bedroom (16:9). He had already repented of using God's service as an excuse for satisfying his own flesh in the incident with the Gaza prostitute. He had bitterly walked away from his first Philistine wife. He burnt down the vineyards, recalling how he had foolishly strolled in them as a Nazarite. He must have looked back and seen how he had played with fire. And now, he goes and does it all again. He goes to the valley of Sorek, 'choice vines', and Samson falls for Delilah, 'the vine'. He went down to the vineyards again; the Nazarite tried to take fire into his bosom again.</p>


text:
<p>Samson lay until midnight, then arose and took hold of the doors of the city gate and the two posts, picked them up, along with the bar, put them on his shoulders and carried them up to the top of the mountain that faces Hebron-</p><p>"Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight" (16:3 AV) gives a different picture: of Samson 'laying' with her as a man lays with a woman, and then getting up and going out to do God's work. The interplay between sexuality and spirituality was never stronger.</p><p>The incident in Gaza is evidently typical of the Lord's work. There was Samson, "the splendour of the sun" , 'compassed in' by his enemies (as Christ on the cross, <a href='B:230 118:5'>Psa 118:5</a>; <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>) in Gaza ('fortified stronghold', cp. death). Then he arose in the darkness, rendered powerless the gates of death and carried them up 30 miles to a high altitude (cp. Heaven), to Hebron, 'the city of fellowship', where the tomb of Abraham was (<a href='B:10 23:19'>Gen 23:19</a>), and where Gentile giants had once lived (<a href='B:40 13:22'>Num 13:22</a>), conquered by faithful Israelites. Joshua had taken Hebron (<a href='B:60 10:36'>Jos 10:36</a>) but Israel had not followed up his victory, and the Philistines had returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back. And Samson, although a type of Christ, was intensely aware of all this failure (cp. how he chose Gaza and Timnath, areas with a similar history, for his other exploits). It would seem that Samson killed the men at the gates, the leaders of the city, and then took the gates with him (16:3 cp. 2). The Hebrew used for Samson 'taking away' the gates is that translated 'possess' in the Genesis promises. Thus he possessed the gates of his enemies and slew their figureheads, as the Lord did through the cross. Samson obviously saw some specific meaning in taking the gates to Hebron and the tomb of Abraham. He surely saw that he was prefiguring Messiah's work of taking the gate of his enemies, as promised to Abraham. Or perhaps he saw himself as 'in' the Messiah, and sharing in what He would do in the future. Archaeologists have found tablets that refer to the power of Baal to possess the gates of all who oppose him; and Samson evidently wanted to show the superiority of Yahweh over Baal. The fellowship ('Hebron') which was enabled by the Lord's victory should never be undone by us; He died that He might gather together in one all God's people, to reconcile us all in one body both to each other and to God. To break apart the body is therefore to deny the essential intention of the cross. There are other points of contact with the Lord's passion. The men of Gaza laid wait in the gates of the city; they were therefore the rulers? But they decided to only kill him in the morning. The rulers of the Jews decided likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Afterward, he fell in love with a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah- </p><p>Samson had a mixed conscience when he slew the lion. He was in the vineyards, the very place where he shouldn't have been as a Nazarite, although he justified it by spiritual and even Biblical reasoning. He then burns up those vineyards in order to have a blameless conscience. He then loses that good conscience and cowers in the rocks. And then later he goes to the valley of Sorek (Heb. 'the vine') and forges a relationship with another worthless woman. Samson's marriage looks less acceptable in this context. So he returned to his old desire to walk near the forbidden fruit of the vine. His purges of conscience were temporary, and he returned to the old haunts and ways.</p>


text:
<p>The lords of the Philistines came to her and said, Entice him, and find out where his great strength lies, and how we might prevail against him to tie him up and subdue him. Then we will each one of us give you eleven hundred pieces of silver-</p><p><a href='B:240 6:26-27'>Pro 6:26-27</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a> make clear allusion to Samson and Delilah, and they suggest that Delilah was a "whorish woman". In this case, her motivation for betraying Samson was fundamentally financial, apart from other lesser factors which there probably were. The bribe she was offered has been estimated in modern terms as around US$ 1 million (2019). And Judas likewise went to the chief priests and asked how much they would give him for betraying the Lord. Again, Samson was a type of Christ. This all indicates the unbelievable materialism which is in our natures: to betray a good man, even the Son of God, ultimately for pieces of metal. We must have all asked: 'Why, oh why, did Samson go on trusting her, when it was so obvious she was going to betray him?'. It may have been because she was an Israelitess (even if a renegade). The way she says "The Philistines are upon you!" (16:20) and the way the lords of the Philistines came up to her (16:5) may suggest this. Their offer of money to her was exactly after the pattern of the Jews' approach to Judas. The way "pieces of silver" feature in both records leads us to wonder whether the correspondence was so exact that she also betrayed the helpless Samson with a kiss, as Judas did. See on <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>.</p><p>We note that the same sum of 1100 pieces of silver will occur in the next chapter; see on <a href='B:70 17:2'>Jdg 17:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, Please tell me where your great strength lies, and how you might be tied up and subdued- </p><p>As his first wife had vexed her with her words to tease his secret from him, so Delilah did. But Samson didn't learn from his life, and this is the tragedy of so much spiritual failure- people don't learn from history, both their own and others.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said to her, If I am tied with seven fresh cords that were never dried, then shall I become weak like other men-</p><p>He&nbsp; teased Delilah to tie him with seven “cords” or AV "withs", the Hebrew word implying made from a vine. He just would mess with the forbidden. Samson tells Delilah that if he is bound, he will be weak "like one man" (16:7 Avmg:). This is surely an allusion to passages like <a href='B:30 26:8'>Lev 26:8</a> and <a href='B:60 23:10'>Jos 23:10</a> - that one man would chase many. Samson implies that he fights like he is many men; he appropriated those blessings to himself. He came to assume he had faith. Lifetime Christians have the same tendency, with the joy and vigour of first faith now far back in time. Samson had been bound before and had burst those bonds (<a href='B:70 15:13'>Jdg 15:13</a>); he seems to have assumed that one past deliverance was an automatic guarantee of future ones. His great zeal for the Lord's work seems to have lead him to chose the single life; and yet he evidently was in the habit of occasional affairs (<a href='B:70 14:3'>Jdg 14:3</a> "is there never::." ), using prostitutes and having on and off relationships with women like Delilah. Samson thought his devotion and the appalling apostacy of his brethren somehow justified it. Note how Timothy and Hezekiah seem to likewise have stumbled in their commitment to the single life.</p>


text:
<p>Then the lords of the Philistines brought to her seven fresh cords which had not been dried, and she tied him with them- </p><p>As this all happened in the bedroom (:9 NEV "inner room"), it seems to me that she used them in some kind of sexual bondage game. Yet as noted on :9, even at such a low spiritual point in his life, God's Spirit remained with him.</p>


text:
<p>Now she had an ambush waiting in the inner room- </p><p>The idea is, "the bedroom". See on :8. The Philistines are described as "abiding" in Delilah's house (16:9 AV)- a word normally used in the sense of 'permanently living'. It would seem that Samson didn't permanently live with her, but occasionally visited her, until at the end he was happy to live with her (she pressed him "daily"), co-habiting with her other Philistine lovers. With his hair shaven, he 'went out, as at other times'- deciding bitterly that he had really had enough, and once again he would walk out on her, this time for good, and would 'shake himself' and take a hold on himself. But this time it was too late.</p><p>She said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He broke the cords, as a string of tow is broken when it touches the fire. So his strength was not known-</p><p>The thongs burst from him as when string comes close to a flame. This is similar to the scene in <a href='B:70 15:14'>Jdg 15:14</a>, where because the Spirit was upon him, Samson became like a burning fire which snapped his bonds. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, You have made a fool of me and told me lies! Now please tell me how you can be tied- </p><p>We are left to imagine all the crocodile tears and lies told by Delilah regarding how she set him up to be ambushed and slain by Philistines, whilst claiming she loved him.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, If I am tied with new ropes with which no work has been done, then I shall become weak like other men-</p><p>Samson ends up bound (s:w. "tied") in fetters of brass. He was truly an Israelite in bondage to the Philistines, the very thing he had so despised and given his life to fighting against. But in these bondage fames with Delilah, he liked being tied up in bondage to a Philistine. We have a deep insight here into how he actually both loved and hated Philistine bondage. This inability to wholly dedicate himself to Yahweh's ways and people was to be his undoing.</p>


text:
<p>So Delilah took new ropes and tied him with them and said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! The ambush was waiting in the inner room. He broke them off his arms like a thread- </p><p>In the next two occasions when Samson broke his bands (<a href='B:70 16:12'>Jdg 16:12</a>; <a href='B:70 16:14'>Jdg 16:14</a>), the language of breaking them as if there was fire within him (as in :9, see note there) doesn't occur. It may be that although the fire of the Spirit was within him, Samson came to feel that he, of his own ability, was doing the miracles: "he snapped the ropes off his arms::.". There is even a sense of unjustified, egoistic sarcasm in the way he gets the Philistines to tie him with flimsy pieces of grass and then breaks them off and kills them.</p>


text:
<p>Delilah said to Samson, Until now you have fooled me and told me lies. Tell me how you can be tied. He said to her, If you weave the seven braids of my hair into the fabric on the loom, I will become as weak as other men-</p><p>See on <a href='B:230 118:10-12'>Psa 118:10-12</a>. He initially says: "If they bind me::." (16:7), but changes this to "If you::."; he knew beforehand that she would betray him, although couldn't admit it to himself. And so we see the complexity of Samson's situation. It was not that his telling of the secret to Delilah was necessarily a sin in itself. He trusted her and yet knew on another level she would betray him. This is just a part of human nature. It helps explain why the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him (<a href='B:500 6:64'>Joh 6:64</a>), and yet how He could really trust in Judas as his own familiar friend, confide in him (<a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>), tell him that he would sit with the other eleven on thrones in the Kingdom (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a>). This was ever a serious contradiction for me, until considering the Samson : Delilah relationship in depth. A man can know something about someone on one level, but act and feel towards them in a quite different way than this knowledge requires. David likewise must have known Absalom’s deceit; but he chose not to see it, for love’s sake. “They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things [just as Absalom did in the gate]::. but I, as a deaf man, heard not” (<a href='B:230 38:12-13'>Psa 38:12-13</a>). Paul surely knew how Corinth despised him, how little they knew and believed, and as he himself said, the more he loved them, the less they loved him. And yet in all honesty he could say: “As you abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence and in your love to us” (<a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a>). Yet the more abundantly he loved them, the less they loved him- not the more abundantly. Yet he saw them as loving him abundantly. One also gets the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the telltale signs (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>). Or Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand::. against his better judgment, surely (<a href='B:100 20:10'>2Sa 20:10</a>). This is a feature of human nature; the contradictions evident in the Jesus : Judas relationship and the Samson : Delilah relationship are only explicable for me by realizing this. The whole thing is an eloquent essay in the Lord's humanity and the depth of His 'in-loveness' with Judas the traitor.</p><p>And this Lord is our Lord, the same yesterday and today. Our self-knowledge will be deepened by realizing that we too have this spiritual schizophrenia: it's not that we are spiritual one day and unspiritual the next. We are both flesh and spirit at the very same moment. Appreciation of this will help us cope with the more evident failures of our brethren. It doesn't necessarily mean that they must be written off as totally unspiritual and insincere because of acts and attitudes of evident unspirituality. The Spirit is still there, at the very same moment. Think of how Samson slept with a whore until midnight, and then in faith rose up and was granted the Spirit to perform a great act of Christ-like, cross-like victory over the enemies of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>She wove his hair into the fabric and fastened it with the pin, and said to him, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He awoke and pulled away the pin from the loom and the fabric-</p><p>The way Samson asked Delilah to fasten the hair of his head with a nail and then try to have mastery over him is a parody of what would have been a well known incident: Deborah's mastery over Barak (<a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a>). This would indicate that Scripture was never far from his mind. In Samson's relationship with Delilah, he got closer and closer to the edge. Samson tells Delilah to bind him, then he gets closer to showing his hand: he asks her to do something to his hair. And then, he falls to the final folly. It could even be that after the previous teasings he left her completely (16:14 AV "he went away")- after the pattern of his previous twinges of conscience concerning his first wife, his love of vineyards, his lying with the whore in Gaza::. But he evidently returned to her.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, How can you say, ‘I love you’, when your heart is not with me? You have fooled me three times and have not told me where your great strength lies-</p><p>Even at his weakest, Delilah had observed that his heart wasn't with her: it was somewhere else, i:e. with the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>When she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, he became tired to death-</p><p>Samson's marriage reflects a spiritual brinkmanship which was his spiritual undoing, however. For the same word is used concerning how Delilah&nbsp;later vexed him unto death with her words, and then Samson rose up and slew the Philistines with God's help. The same word is used concerning how the Gentile enemies of an apostate Israel would afflict them (<a href='B:50 28:53'>Deu 28:53</a>; <a href='B:50 28:55'>Deu 28:55</a>; <a href='B:50 28:57'>Deu 28:57</a>). Yet at this very same time, Samson had faith. But there came a time- there had to come a time, for the sake of Samson's eternal salvation- when this having a little of both had to be ended.</p>


text:
<p>So he told her everything, and said to her, No razor has ever come on my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, then my strength will go from me and I will become weak like any other man-</p><p>Samson's zeal to deliver Israel was confirmed by God, in that he was given gifts of Holy Spirit in order to enable him to deliver Israel. However, this doesn't mean that he himself was a man rippling with muscle. The Philistines wanted to find out the secret of his strength; it wasn't that he had such evidently bulging muscles that the answer was self-evident. He told Delilah that if his head were shaved, he would be like any other man. He was therefore just an ordinary man, made strong by the Father after the pattern of the Saviour he typified. It wasn't a permanent strength. This is in harmony with the way in which the Spirit was used in the New Testament. The Spirit came upon the apostles and they were filled up with is, as it were, and then drained of it once the work was done; and had to be filled with it again when the next eventuality arose. Indeed, the word baptizo strictly means 'to fill and thereby submerge'; hence the use of the term in classical Greek concerning the sinking of ships or the filling of a bottle. Therefore the idea of baptism with Holy Spirit could simply be describing a temporary filling of the Apostles with power in order to achieve certain specific aims.</p><p>If this is indeed how Samson experienced his fillings with the Spirit, it throws new light on the way he allowed Delilah to apparently suck information out of him. She asked for the secret of his strength; he knew she would betray him; he told her; she betrayed him, which meant a group of Philistine warriors came and hid themselves in the house (full known to Samson); and he then rose up and killed them, using the gift of God's Spirit. He was so sure that God would use him in this way, that he thought he could do anything in order to entice Philistine warriors into his presence- even if it involved gratifying his own flesh. The way he threw away the jawbone after killing 1000 Philistines at Lehi may suggest that&nbsp; he felt that now he had done the job, the instrument was useless; and he begged the Lord to give him drink. He knew that now he was an ordinary man again.</p>


text:
<p>When Delilah saw that he had told her everything, she sent for the lords of the Philistines saying, Come up once more, for he has told me everything. Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought the money with them-</p><p>It has been suggested from the way the Philistine lords are described as coming up to her, and the way in which she speaks of&nbsp; "the Philistines" (16:18-20), that she was in fact an apostate Israelitess. And thus he justified himself:&nbsp;We are left to ponder how Delilah lived after she had received all the money she clearly coveted. Was she happy? Did what she did buy her happiness? Clearly not.</p>


text:
<p>She made him sleep on her knees, and then she called for a man who shaved off the seven braids of his head. Then she began to torment him, and his strength left him-</p><p>See on <a href='B:140 33:12-13'>2Ch 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>. It should be noted that his strength was not somehow magically associated with his hair; his strength went from him because Yahweh departed from him (16:19,20). We have seen earlier that Samson was well into spiritual brinkmanship. It had characterized his life, according to the selection of incidents the record presents us with. The sequence of events is worth listing:</p><p>Delilah asked Samson to tell her his closest secret, </p><p>then Delilah bound Samson as he asked;</p><p>Samson awakes from a deep sleep with Delilah;</p><p>Delilah playfully afflicts Samson while he is bound and Samson overcomes Delilah (16:19 implies this happened each time);</p><p>Then Samson realizes Delilah has betrayed him;</p><p>and the Philistine warriors were there waiting in the bedroom.</p><p>Then Samson goes out of the bedroom, shakes himself and kills them.</p><p>Then Delilah says Samson doesn't really love her</p><p>- and they repeat the experience.</p><p>This is the classic material for love : hate relationships. At first sight, Samson appears an incomprehensible fool. But more extended meditation reveals the human likelihood of it all. She would've convincingly repented and asked for one last chance- time and again. It is hard not to interpret his sleeping exhausted with her and then the bondage session as some kind of sex game, followed by drinking alcohol so that he fell fast asleep [thus mocking his Nazirite vow]. And yet Samson thought he was strong enough to cope with it, as did Solomon years later. He may even have had some kind of desire to simply mock the Philistines when he suggested they should tie him up with seven pieces of grass. He seems to somehow have known that his first wife would wangle his secret from him and betray him, and thus he would have the opportunity to kill Philistines- even though he didn't intend to open his heart to her (<a href='B:70 14:16'>Jdg 14:16</a>). And now the same happened. He seems to have known that she would betray him, although he evidently thought better of her; for he was deeply in love with her.</p><p>The shame of the final fight is graciously unrecorded. The events of 16:19-21 seem a little out of sequence. It would seem that Delilah awoke Samson, and he thought he would go outside, shake himself and kill the Philistines whom he was sure were in wait. But she started to tease him as before in their games of bondage; but this time, "she began to subdue him, and he began to weaken" (16:19 LXX; one meaning of 'Delilah' is 'the one who weakens'). "Began" is a strange translation; it is often translated to profane / humble. She spiritually abused him. And then she called the Philistines. He was powerless, physically, beneath that woman, and was therefore no match for them. The fact she was physically stronger than him when the Spirit of the Lord left him is proof enough that he was not a physically strong man in his own right. The way the apostate woman subdued him physically, in the name of a love / sex game, would have remained in his memory. He, the strong man of Israel, had been conquered by a worthless woman. His humiliation was to be typical of Israel's: "children are their oppressors (cp. the young lad at the feast?), women rule over them" (<a href='B:290 3:12'>Isa 3:12</a>). It is quite possible that Peter had Samson in mind, when he wrote of how "they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness::. they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world::. they are again entangled therein, and overcome::." (<a href='B:680 2:18-20'>2Pe 2:18-20</a>). Samson had been spiritually overcome, and therefore physically he was overcome and brought in bondage.</p>


text:
<p>She said, The Philistines are upon you, Samson! He awoke out of sleep and said, I will go out as before and shake myself to be free of them. But he didn’t know that Yahweh had departed from him-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>. The way Samson was so deeply sleeping on Delilah's knees that he didn't feel them shave him, and then he went out and shook himself (this seems a fair translation)- all this could suggest he was drunk. There is no concrete evidence for this, but his love of vineyards would suggest he had a yearning for the forbidden fruit. And Sorek means the vine, and "Delilah" can be understood as 'vine woman'. He had broken the Nazarite vow by touching dead bodies, he obviously thought that having unshaven hair was only tokenistic and irrelevant to the real spirit of Nazariteship, and therefore he may have reasoned that alcohol was also another tokenism. Thus his reductionism destroyed him (almost). Perhaps it was brought about by a wilful misunderstanding of God's waiving of the Nazarite ban on touching dead bodies; for after all, God had made Samson a Nazarite, and then empowered him to go and kill Philistines in personal combat, thereby touching dead bodies. So God waived one principle for a more important one; and yet Samson abused this, taking the principle far further than God intended, to the point that he ended up justifying sin as righteousness.</p>&nbsp;<p>"He didn't know that Yahweh had left him" is the depth of spiritual tragedy. The Lord Jesus may have had this in mind when He spoke of how the rejected would not know what hour He would come upon them (<a href='B:730 3:3'>Rev 3:3</a>). Samson went through the experience of rejection at the Lord's hands in advance of the actual judgment seat. He was set grinding in the prison- a figure which was later picked up as representative of the unbeliever generally (<a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a>; <a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a>; <a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a>). He was as it were delivered to satan, that he might learn (<a href='B:610 1:20'>1Ti 1:20</a>); his own wickedness corrected him (<a href='B:300 2:19'>Jer 2:19</a>). And this finally brought him to himself. His experience was a pattern for the apostate Israel whom he loved. Yahweh forsaking His people is associated with them cutting off their hair in <a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a> - an evident allusion to Samson's shame. As the Philistines rejoiced over Samson and praised their god for their victory, so Babylon was to do years later, as Zedekiah like Samson had his eyes put out.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines seized him and put out his eyes, and they brought him down to Gaza, bound him with fetters of brass, and made him work at grinding in the mill in the prison-</p><p>"Bound" is the word used for how Delilah had bound Samson with weak things like grass and hair, just as the Israelites had bound him before handing him over to the Philistines. The same word is used. He now found that he was unable to break what he was bound with. He was truly an Israelite in bondage to the Philistines, the very thing he had so despised and given his life to fighting against.</p><p>He was given women's work in prison, grinding at the mill, in order to rub the point in (<a href='B:20 11:5'>Exo 11:5</a>; <a href='B:470 24:41'>Mat 24:41</a>). 'Grinding' was some kind of figure of speech for the sex act (s:w. <a href='B:220 31:10'>Job 31:10</a>). The "fetters of brass" with which he was bound would have recalled his games of bondage with Delilah, and the same word is translated "filthiness" in a sexual context (<a href='B:330 16:36'>Eze 16:36</a>). The word used for 'prison' means literally 'house of binding'- an extension of Delilah's house, they would have joked. One can imagine how the story of how Delilah enticed him would have become the gossip of the nation.</p><p>The idea of binding the strong man must surely look back to Samson. The language can't just be accidentally similar (cp. <a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>). This means that the Lord saw Samson as the very epitome of Satan, even though ultimately he was a man of faith (<a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Thus the Spirit doesn't forget a man's weakness, even though ultimately he may be counted righteous.</p>


text:
<p>However the hair of his head began to grow again after he had been shaved-</p><p>The record seems to suggest there was a link between the growth of his hair, and God giving him strength again. This doesn't mean that there was some metaphysical link between his strength and his hair. Rather does it show how God responded to his faith and what was behind the growth of his hair, and therefore gave him strength to destroy the Philistines. It would seem that Samson decided to keep the Nazarite vow again. He was in no position to offer the inaugatory sacrifice which the law required; and yet he threw himself upon God's grace, trusting that his zeal would be accepted by God; that he, the sinner and failure and shamer of Yahweh, could be allowed to make that special act of devotion in Nazariteship. And he was accepted in this, as witnessed by the great power of the death of Samson:&nbsp;</p><p>It must be emphasized that his strength was not tied up in his hair. He only ground in the prison a short time, until the great sacrifice was offered to Dagon in thanks for Samson's capture. In that time, his hair grew- but not very long, in such a short time (no more than months, <a href='B:70 16:22-23'>Jdg 16:22-23</a>). The growth of his hair is to be associated with his renewed determination to keep the Nazarite vow. He was reckoned by God as a lifelong Nazarite (<a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>); the time when his hair was cut was therefore overlooked by God. His zealous repentance and desire to respond to the gracious way in which God still recognized him as a lifelong Nazarite, although he wasn't one, inspired him to a real faith and repentance. It was this, not the fact he had some hair again, which lead to God empowering him to destroy the palace of Dagon.</p><p>The question arises: why did Samson tell Delilah that if his hair was cut, he would become weak? Surely he must have known within him that she would do it, in line with past experience? He went out as before to fight the Philistines, surely aware that he had been shaved, and yet assuming God would still be with him. He had come to realize that his long hair was not the real source of his strength, on some kind of metaphysical level. He saw that his strength was from the Spirit of God, not long hair or Nazariteship. He went out knowing, presumably, that his hair had been shaven, and yet still assumed he would have God's strength. And even when his hair began to grow again, he still had to pray for strength (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>). He fell into the downward spiral of reductionism. He figured that if his hair was shaved, well it was no big deal. He was supposed to be a Nazarite all the days of his life, and yet perhaps he came to reason that because he had touched plenty of dead bodies, he therefore needed to be shaved anyway (<a href='B:40 6:9'>Num 6:9</a>). He thought that therefore God would accept him in principle as a Nazarite even though he had broken the letter of Nazariteship, and therefore losing his hair was only a surface level indicator of spirituality:&nbsp;&nbsp; And yet there is also good reason to think that there was an association in Samson's mind between his hair and his God-given strength. For why did he " tell her all his heart" by saying that if he were shaved, he would lose his strength? And of course, when his hair was cut off, then his strength went. Samson saw a link between being a Nazarite and having strength (<a href='B:70 16:17'>Jdg 16:17</a>). When Samson went outside from Delilah and shook himself as he usually did, was he not shaking his hair free before attacking the Philistines, as if he saw in his hair the source of his strength? However, this must all be balanced against the evidence that Samson originally realized that his strength came from God, not his hair. Whilst he even had this realization, theoretically, when he gave Delilah the possibility of shaving him, he also at this time had the conception that his strength was associated with his hair length. I would suggest that this can be resolved by understanding that although his strength was not in his hair, this is how Samson came to see it. And therefore God went along with this view, and treated Samson as if his strength was in his hair. And therefore He departed from him when he allowed his hair to be shaved. If Samson had really told Delilah the truth about the source of his strength, he would have said: 'Faith, causing the Spirit of God to come upon me to do His work'. Samson knew this, and therefore he allowed her to shave him; and yet it was also true that in his heart of hearts, he also at the same time believed that his hair was the source of his strength. So he was the victim of reductionism, as well as tokenism. He came to see the mere possession of long hair as a sign of spirituality. And yet at the same time he reduced and reduced the real meaning of Nazariteship to nothing. Difficult as this analysis may be to grasp, I really believe that it has much to teach us; for the latter day brotherhood is afflicted with exactly these same problems.</p>


text:
<p>The lords of the Philistines gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to rejoice, for they said, Our god has delivered Samson our enemy into our hand-</p><p>The Philistines didn't kill Samson immediately; they wanted to prolong the agony of his death. It was evidently their intention to kill him. Perhaps it was their plan to torture him and then finally torture him to death at the feast to their god- cp. the Lord's planned death at Passover. The great sacrifice which they planned to offer (Heb. 'kill') was probably Samson.</p>


text:
<p>When the people saw him, they praised their god. They said, Our god has delivered our enemy, the destroyer of our country who has slain many of us, into our hand-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 14:14'>Jdg 14:14</a>. Gentiles praising their gods, mocking Yahweh, and then suddenly being destroyed was a scene repeated in <a href='B:340 5:4'>Dan 5:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When their hearts were merry they said, Call for Samson so that he can entertain us. They called Samson out of the prison, and he performed before them. They set him between the pillars-</p><p>Samson suddenly called up out of the prison house (16:25) recalls Joseph (<a href='B:10 41:14'>Gen 41:14</a>) and John the Baptist (<a href='B:470 14:9'>Mat 14:9</a>). The same Divine hand was at work in such different lives, leaving the same hallmarks behind in the record. And the more familiar and thoughtful we are about Biblical history, the more we too will perceive this.</p>


text:
<p>and Samson said to the boy who held him by the hand, Allow me to feel the pillars on which the house rests so that I can lean on them-</p><p>A read through all the recorded words of Samson will reveal a growing humility and spirituality. "Suffer me that I may::. that I may" (16:26 AV) reflects a courtesy and humility distinctly lacking in his previous recorded speech. His growth came to its intended climax in the repentance and final peak of spirituality which he achieved in his time of dying. Or it may be that the utter exhaustion of Samson from their afflictions (prodding with sticks?) is revealed when he asks the lad "Suffer me::." (Heb. 'allow me to rest / take a break'). This pointed forward to the Lord's physical exhaustion, driven to the limit of human endurance, must be imagined.</p>&nbsp;<p>God patiently worked through the weakness of Samson to achieve not only a great final victory over the Philistines, but also Samson's own salvation. The way Samson asked the lad to guide him to the pillars in the Philistine language, learnt in his mis-spent relationships with women, the way he knew the architectural structure of the Dagon-temple, where presumably he had been in his earlier love-hate affair with the Philistines- God didn't reject him for these earlier failures, but worked with him, making use of the knowledge and experience which Samson had picked up along the road of earlier failure. This is how God works with us, too- if only we would have the humility to realize it. And the least we can do is to replicate it in our dealings with our failing brethren.</p><p>Samson dying between the two pillars is broadly similar, as a kind of silhouette, to the Lord's death between two other crosses. The way the lad (also a Hebrew? for they spoke the same language?) "held" Samson's hand is significant, for the same word is translated 'to strengthen / encourage'. Perhaps the lad strengthened Samson as the repentant thief did the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about three thousand men and women watching while Samson performed- </p><p>The destruction of them all would have left a huge hole in Philistine power. And yet still Israel failed to capitalize on this victory, for by Saul's time, Israel were effectively in bondage to them again.</p>


text:
<p>Samson called to Yahweh and said, Lord Yahweh, remember me please, and strengthen me please, just this once oh God, that I may with one blow be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes-</p><p>&nbsp;Like Paul and the crucified thief, Samson by his death came to a deep realization of the reality of judgment to come: "Remember me" must be read in this context. It carries the connotation of 'remember me for good and therefore forgive me at the judgment' in <a href='B:230 25:6-7'>Psa 25:6-7</a>; <a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a>. It seems that Nehemiah was inspired by this at his end (<a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>; did he too come to a finer realization of his failures at the end?). "Remember me" was a cry only used prior to Samson by men in weakness: <a href='B:10 15:8'>Gen 15:8</a>; <a href='B:60 7:7'>Jos 7:7</a>; <a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a> (Gideon, Samson's hero, had used it). Yet now Samson appropriates it to himself in faith that he will be mercifully treated at the judgment. And his example in turn inspired Nehemiah. The intensity of Samson's repentance was quite something. It must have inspired Manasseh (<a href='B:140 33:11'>2Ch 33:11</a>), who like Samson was bound (16:21) and humbled (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>; <a href='B:70 16:16'>Jdg 16:16</a>; <a href='B:70 16:19'>Jdg 16:19</a> AVmg:)- and then repented with a like intensity. And Zedekiah went through the same basic experience, of capture by his enemies, having his eyes put out, his capture attributed to false gods; and he likewise repented (<a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>). &nbsp;</p><p>Samson is therefore listed amongst those who out of weakness were made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>). A character study of Samson must remember this about him. This could suggest that he was even weaker than a normal man; or it could be a reference to the way in which out of his final spiritual weakness and degradation he was so wonderfully strengthened.</p><p>But Samson's death plea for vengeance against the Philistines for his two eyes sounds woefully human. Indeed, the RSV and RVmg. speak of him asking for vengeance "for one of my two eyes", as if he felt that even if God gave the destruction he asked for, this would only half avenge him. This would indicate a real bitterness, an unGodly hatred of both sinner and sin. In some ways, for all the intensity of weeping before God in repentance (16:28 LXX), Samson had not progressed much from his attitude in <a href='B:70 15:7'>Jdg 15:7</a>, over 20 years before- where he once again had admitted that his motive for 'seeking occasion against the Philistines' was partly just personal revenge. The spirit of not avenging oneself but leaving it to God to do was evidently something he never quite rose up to in his life (<a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a>). "That I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes" seems to be quite without any desire for the vindication of God's Name. Although it seems to me it was wrong, and betrayed some unspirituality, yet it is taken as the epitome of the desire of all the faithful for vindication through the coming of Christ (<a href='B:730 6:10'>Rev 6:10</a>). Samson died therefore with some unconquered weakness, just as we will and as will our brethren. Yet we are assured in <a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a> that he will be saved in the end.</p><p>In the time of his humbling and mocking, in the wake of years of spiritual self-assurance, Job set such a clear prototype of Samson that Samson surely must have realized this, as he ground in the prison house. Job too suffered from blindness in his afflictions (<a href='B:220 11:20'>Job 11:20</a>; <a href='B:220 17:5'>Job 17:5</a>; <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>; <a href='B:220 30:12'>Job 30:12</a>).</p><p><a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a> mocked by youth = <a href='B:70 16:26'>Jdg 16:26</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:6'>Job 30:6</a> The wicked dwell in the rocks = <a href='B:70 15:8'>Jdg 15:8</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:9'>Job 30:9</a> "Now I am their song, yes, I am their byword" = <a href='B:70 16:25'>Jdg 16:25</a></p><p><a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a> "He has loosed my cord and afflicted me" = In <a href='B:70 16:8'>Jdg 16:8</a> the same word is used of the cords with which Samson was bound, and which the Philistines loosed. Only a short time later God was afflicting him through Delilah (16:19)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:12'>Job 30:12</a> "Upon my right hand rise the youth; they push away my feet::. they mar my path, they set forward my calamity". This indicates Job's poor eyesight and how the youth abused him. = This is exactly what happened to Samson. The lad made him dance, according to Jewish tradition, by poking Samson with sticks (16:25,26)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:17'>Job 30:17</a> "My bones are pierced in me in the night season: and my sinews take no rest". = Both Samson and Job came to fellowship something of the Lord's future cross: the unnatural darkness, the pierced bones, the constant ache of sinews: as Samson ground and danced, and as the Lord heaved Himself up and down on His sinews to breathe.</p><p><a href='B:220 30:19'>Job 30:19</a> "He has cast me into the mire (sometimes an idiom for prison), and I am become like dust and ashes" = As Samson in prison came to be like an ordinary man (dust and ashes; 16:11).</p><p><a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a> "I cry unto You::. I stand up" = Samson cried to Yahweh, standing up (16:28)</p><p><a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a> "Howbeit he will not stretch out his hand to the grave" = Samson likewise would have come to the hope of personal resurrection.</p><p>According to Samson's appreciation of these links, so he would have reaped encouragement and hope. Job's last words were followed by a final humbling, and then the glorious justification of himself and the judgment of his enemies, to culminate in his future resurrection. One hopes that Samson saw the point and grasped hold of the hope offered. And this is not all. There were other words in Job which would have so comforted Samson at the end: "Behold, God is strong::. He withdraws not His eyes from the righteous::. and if they be bound in fetters, and be held in cords of affliction; then He shows them their work, and their transgressions that they have exceeded. He opens also their ear to discipline, and commands that they return from iniquity::. but the hypocrites in heart::. cry not (as Samson did) when He binds them" (<a href='B:220 36:5-13'>Job 36:5-13</a>).</p><p>There is further evidence, from later Scripture, that Samson's zeal was born from the word. A character study of Samson needs to consider what later Scripture implies about him. It seems that Jeremiah was one of several later characters who found inspiration in Samson, and alluded to him in their prayers to God, seeing the similarities between his spirit and theirs:</p><p>"O Yahweh [Samson only used the Yahweh Name at the end of his life], You know: remember me [as Samson asked to be remembered for good], and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors ["that I may at once be avenged of the Philistines"]::. know that for Your sake I have suffered rebuke [the Philistines doubtless mocked Yahweh as well as Samson]. Your words were found, and I did eat them [cp. Samson loving the word and eating the honey which he "found" in the lion]: and Your word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart::. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers::. I sat alone because of Your hand [Samson's separation from an apostate Israel]::. why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable?" [the finality of his blindness] (<a href='B:300 15:15-17'>Jer 15:15-17</a>). If these connections are valid, Samson's love of the word was a very big part of his life.</p>


text:
<p>Samson took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and leaned on them, one with his right hand and the other with his left- </p><p>The way he chose to destroy the Philistines at the end by bringing down the posts of their temple (16:29,30) has some connection with the way he chose to take up the posts of Gaza. Perhaps he remembered his earlier failure and repentance in Gaza, and now he was back there (16:21), he repented again and wished to replicate his earlier repentance and victory for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines! He pushed with all his might and the house fell on the lords and on all the people who were there. So he killed more in his death than he killed in his life-</p><p>Samson's desire to die with the Philistines could be read as suicidal. In this case, he had elements of weakness at the end, and yet he was accepted as dying in faith. Or it could be understood that he wanted to die because he believed that through his death, he would achieve God's plan for taking the gates of his enemies. In this case he would have had the spirit of Christ.</p><p>Samson's death was died in faith, and at his time of dying he had been made strong out of weakness, on account of his faith (<a href='B:650 11:32-34'>Heb 11:32-34</a>). "Let me ('my soul', AVmg:) die with the Philistines" was surely a recognition that in his heart he had been a Philistine, for all his hatred of them and despising of them as uncircumcised, and thus outside the covenant (15:18). It could be that he was too hard on himself. Yet Samson wanted to receive the just desert for his life: to die with the Philistines. His mind may well have been on Scripture as he died, such as <a href='B:60 23:10-11'>Jos 23:10-11</a>, which spoke of how one man would chase a thousand (he had earlier appropriated this to himself in <a href='B:70 16:7'>Jdg 16:7</a>)- if Israel took good heed to their souls (AVmg:). And perhaps Samson realized that he hadn't taken good heed to his soul, and therefore had ultimately been unable to chase a thousand men. And yet he died in faith, even though with a deeply appreciated recognition of his sinfulness. As with Paul and Jacob, deep recognition of personal sinfulness was a feature of their spiritual maturity. And as with Jacob, Job and Moses, Samson seems to have reached a progressively higher appreciation of the Name of God. His calling on Yahweh Elohim at the end, weeping before Him, was the first and only time he ever used that title; and the first time we actually read the covenant Name on his lips (cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>).</p><p>Samson's recalls the words of <a href='B:650 2:14-15'>Heb 2:14-15</a> about the Lord Jesus: "through death he (destroyed) him that had the power of death". Through His own death, Christ destroyed the power of sin, epitomized in the dead Philistines. <a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a> goes on to say that the Lord delivered "them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage". Those words are packed with allusions to the time of the judges- Israel in hard bondage to their Philistine masters, living in fear, until judges or 'deliverers' like Samson delivered them from their oppressors. The same great relief which Israel felt after Samson's deliverances of them, can be experienced by us spiritually. The sins, the doubts, the fears which we all have as we analyze our spiritual standing, should melt away when we recall the great deliverance which we have received.</p>&nbsp;<p>The final effort of Samson, both to speak and to act, bowing himself (Heb. 'stretching himself out to his full extension') with all his spiritual and physical energy: this was the final effort of the Lord. Again, we see in both how we are lead to a final crescendo of spiritual effort at the end of life, although this may be articulated in various forms.</p><p>Samson died with a confession of unworthiness on his lips- in his case, that he deserved to die the death of a Philistine (<a href='B:70 16:30'>Jdg 16:30</a>)- but he will actually be in the Kingdom (<a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then his brothers and all the household of his father came down and took him, and brought him up and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the burial site of Manoah his father. He had judged Israel for twenty years-</p><p>The way the body was taken up by brave Israelites after Samson's death recalls the action of Joseph and Nicodemus:&nbsp; It was no accident that he was buried in the very place where his conscience was first awakened (<a href='B:70 13:25'>Jdg 13:25</a>); he maybe asked for this burial place, to show he had at last returned to his innocent spiritual beginnings.</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah- </p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a> speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and <a href='B:70 20:28'>Jdg 20:28</a> of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). See on <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which I heard you utter a curse - I took them. His mother said, Yahweh bless you my son-</p><p>One theme of the history of Dan is the mixture between flesh and spirit, and this was to come to full term in the life of Samson. His idolatrous mother blesses him by Yahweh, and she is an idolater. 1100 pieces of silver would imply that this woman was very wealthy, for 10 pieces of silver a year was a good salary (:10), and so the apostacy we are to read of would likely have been amongst the wealthy leadership class. She had cursed the thief, but when she found it was her son, she turns the curse into a blessing. We compare this with how Jephthah didn't feel he could change such an oath once uttered. 1100 pieces of silver was exactly the amount of money which each prince of the Philistines was to pay Delilah for Samson's betrayal (<a href='B:70 16:5'>Jdg 16:5</a>). We wonder whether this woman may have been Delilah, or connected with her; for I gave some reasons for believing she was perhaps an Israelitess.</p>


text:
<p>He returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother and she said, I solemnly dedicate my silver to Yahweh for my son to make an engraved image and a molten image. Then I will give it back to you- </p><p>The idea seems to be that she would dedicate the money but somehow retain within her power. His repentance therefore cost him nothing, and neither really did her supposed sacrifice to Yahweh; whereas it is a principle of sacrifice that it must cost us something, we must be left in deficit after it, in real terms (<a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>). We see how deeply Israel had fallen into thinking that idolatry was justified, because it was a form of Yahweh worship. Their later placing of idols in the temple of Yahweh could only really have happened on that basis. And this has been the abiding temptation and tendency for God's people; to mix the flesh and the Spirit, to have a little of both, rather than making wholehearted commitment to Him. And it is seen too in the mixture of paganism with Biblical truths in the theology of standard Christianity.</p>


text:
<p>So he returned the money to his mother and she took two hundred pieces of it and gave them to the silversmith, who made it into an engraved image and a molten image, and they were put into Micah’s house- </p><p>And then the rest of the money she returned to Micah (see on :3). "Micah" means 'who is like Yah!'. His mother had named him like this and he probably would have agreed with his name, hence he kept it; but this was the mere externality of religious devotion. For clearly they were idolaters, wrongly claiming to serve Yahweh through serving idols. See on :3.</p><p>Or we can translate: "So he restored the money to his mother (and his mother took two hundred shekels), and she gave it to the founder". The 200 would be roughly one fifth of 1100, which means he may have given this to his mother in obedience to the Mosaic command of <a href='B:30 6:5'>Lev 6:5</a>. In which case we see how confused they all were, keeping parts of God's law and having a genuine conscience towards God; whilst being idolaters and very ignorant of His ways.</p>


text:
<p>This man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and household gods and consecrated one of his sons to be his priest- </p><p>Micah was clearly a passionate religionist. The apostacy of such people was partly due to the failure of the priesthood. He therefore consecrated one of his sons to be a priest. Part of his apostacy, making his own holy place and ephod, was perhaps due to the fact that the sanctuary of Yahweh wasn't functioning properly. It was still in Shiloh (<a href='B:70 18:31'>Jdg 18:31</a>), but perhaps being abused as it was at the time of Eli, so that people didn't wish to attend it. Individual failure is always personally culpable, but this isn't to say that spiritual leaders aren't also to be held accountable by God for it.</p>


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes- </p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn't want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn't base their view upon God's word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p>


text:
<p>There was a young Levite who had been living in Bethlehem Judah- </p><p>I suggested on :3-5 that the apostacy of Micah and others like him was partly a result of the Levites to teach them a better way. And the absence of Levitical teachers, and the apparent non functioning of the sanctuary, would in turn have been a result of the people not paying tithes to the Levites so that they could do this teaching work. And so everything had spiraled downwards. Bethlehem was not a priestly city, and so this Levite had been living there but not working as a Levite. Presumably because his home city was a place where the tithes were not paid, this Levite had gone to live in Bethlehem looking for work.</p>


text:
<p>and he left the city to find a better place, and came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah- </p><p>The Levites has no inheritance of land, and so life was extremely difficult for them when they were not paid tithes by the other Israelites. They became like this man, wandering labourers who went looking for any kind of work just to keep them alive. He perhaps went to the house of Micah because he was evidently wealthy; for his mother had 1100 pieces of silver to spend on religion, when&nbsp; a good salary was 10 pieces / year. That money was 110 years of good salary. The Levite likely went there in the hope of finding work in the house of a rich man.</p>


text:
<p>Micah said to him, Where have you come from? He said to him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem Judah, and I am looking for a place to live- </p><p>Not having their own land, the Levites were homeless when the tithes weren't paid, or if their priestly allotment was taken from them by the tribe where the priestly city was. I noted on the distribution of the priestly cities in Joshua that many were in areas not subdued by Israel, or in remote, peripheral regions. So the Levites became landless labourers, often homeless.</p>


text:
<p>Micah said to him, Live with me and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver per year, a suit of clothing and your food. So the Levite agreed-</p><p>Micah asked the young Levite, who was “unto him as one of his sons”, to “be unto me a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 17:10-11'>Jdg 17:10-11</a> - note the paradox), resulting in others likewise asking him to “be unto us a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 18:19'>Jdg 18:19</a>). The point is, no matter how unqualified a person may be for the job, they may be pressed into being leaders because that’s what nominally religious people so desperately need. They need someone to call 'father'; and it seems Pharaoh treated Joseph in the same way (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>). It is very noticeable amongst those who are themselves senior or heads of some kind of group, be it domestically or in the workplace. The way the Lord forbad this (<a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a>) was therefore tantamount to disallowing any merely 'religious' approach to God. He personally was to be understood as Father, and a personal relationship developed with Him.</p>


text:
<p>The young Levite was content to dwell with the man and became unto him as one of his sons- </p><p>The paradox is that this young man was wanted by Micah as a father to him. Even though he was of an age and maturity to merely be Micah's son. It was as if Micah's religious impulse led him to by all means want someone to be his spiritual senior, no matter how young or unqualified they were. And we see precisely this mentality in all cultures of our world today.</p>


text:
<p>Micah consecrated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, living in his house-</p><p>It was priests who were to consecrate Levites; but Micah is just taking bits and pieces from God's true religion and making them part of his own do it yourself religious system. And we see this going on all the time, both now and historically. Biblical verses and precedents are taken quite out of context, and mixed in with paganism and human ways.</p>


text:
<p>Then Micah said, Now know I that Yahweh will do good to me, since I have a Levite as my priest-</p><p>We feel almost sorry for Micah. He had a basic conscience, feeling struck by guilt that he had stolen a huge sum from his mother, equivalent to 110 years of good salary. He wants Yahweh in his life and His blessings, but he thinks it can be attained by mere externalities, and through worshipping other gods. He was desperate for teaching; and the Levite failed him in this, perhaps because he too had not been taught God's ways and law.</p>


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel- </p><p>This seems to repeat <a href='B:70 17:6'>Jdg 17:6</a> "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes". &nbsp;</p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn't want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn't base their view upon God's word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p><p>And at that time the tribe of the Danites looked for a place to live in, because up until then they had not come into their inheritance among the tribes of Israel- </p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. Likewise "the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>). In similar vein, He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Dan sent five men of their family, men of valour, from Zorah and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land and to search it, and they said to them, Go, explore the land! They came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, and lodged there- </p><p>Zorah was Samson's hometown, and I suggested on <a href='B:70 17:1'>Jdg 17:1</a> that Judges 17-21 is further background about Samson. We see then that Samson's people had not inherited the land intended because they had not driven out the local inhabitants as God intended, and as was therefore potentially possible. And therefore they were looking to get more living space by settling another area which was easier to take over, taking a short cut to the Kingdom. The invasion of Laish (:7) was because "The children of Dan did not drive out the Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain; and the Amorite would not suffer them to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their portion" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> LXX).</p>


text:
<p>When they were near the house of Micah they recognized the voice of the young Levite, so they went in there and said to him, Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? Why are you here?-</p><p>"Regarded the voice" may mean they noted that he had a different accent, and this corroborates with the way Ephraimites had a different accent to other Israelites (<a href='B:70 12:6'>Jdg 12:6</a>). Such internal harmony within the Biblical records is to me the clearest evidence of Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, This is what Micah has done with me, and he has hired me to be his priest-</p><p>This presumably implies that he showed them the ephod and other imitations of the tabernacle which Micah had made.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Please enquire of God to find out whether our journey will be successful-</p><p>We see again the deep religious conscience within these men of Dan, although it was so misplaced and mixed with idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>The priest said to them, Go in peace. Your way has the approval of Yahweh- </p><p>We get the impression that he just said this without making any semblance of looking at the mock ephod and urim and thummim which Micah had made. To claim to give Yahweh's approval in such an arbitrary way was really quite blasphemous.</p>


text:
<p>Then the five men departed and came to Laish. They saw that the people there lived in security like the Sidonians, quiet and unsuspecting, and they were prosperous, lacking nothing- </p><p>See on :2. <a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p><p>Also they were far from the Sidonians and had no dealings with anyone else-</p><p>"With anyone else" could be "with Syria". They were on the very border of Syria. The idea would be that they were too far from Sidon to be helped by them, and had nothing to do with Syria over the border. This change to "Syria" requires only a 'daleph' and 'resh' to be confused in the Hebrew alphabet; and these letters have only a miniscule difference which in early printed form is often obscure. This would be an example of the Divinely inspired Bible being infallible apart from having some errors caused by copyists.</p>


text:
<p>The men returned to their brothers to Zorah and Eshtaol, and their brothers asked them, What did you find?-</p><p>The business of sending out spies, who return with a good report which is eagerly believed by their brethren, all has a kind of similarity to the spying out of the land of Canaan at the conquest. LXX "what did ye bring back?" recalls the fruit of the land being brought back to show the Israelites by Joshua and Caleb. And so is developed the theme of misplaced idealism. For they ought to have taken the land allotment which God gave them. But they didn't and sought an easier way, by attacking softer targets elsewhere. Samson himself continued this mixture of spirituality and human thinking.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Come on, let us go up against them, because we have seen the land, and it is very good. Do you doubt? Don’t hesitate; go in to take possession of the land- </p><p>As discussed on :2,8, they are mixing the flesh and the Spirit. They quote the words of Moses and Joshua about the land of Israel being a good land, and urge each other to take possess "of the land". But they had ignored that commandment and had not taken possession of "the land". Instead they were using those words to encourage themselves to massacre a group of unsuspecting people in a very limited "land".</p>


text:
<p>When you get there, you will find an unsuspecting people, and the land is large. God has given it to you, a place where there is no lack of anything that is in the earth- </p><p>The men of Dan here quote the words of <a href='B:50 8:9'>Deu 8:9</a>, but out of context. Those words were true of the entire land promised to Abraham. But the men of Dan didn't drive out the tribes from the land. Instead, they applied these words to a tiny, remote part of it in Laish, and encouraged themselves on the basis of these words to go and massacre a group of unsuspecting people and take their land- with the blessing of Micah's false gods.</p>


text:
<p>Six hundred armed men of the family of the Danites set out from there, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol- </p><p>I have noted on previous verses that the Danites were liking to imagine that they were as Israel going up from Egypt to inherit the land of Canaan. In fact, they were leaving the area in the land they had been faithless to inherit, and were going to inherit just a tiny area where the people were weak. But they encourage themselves by alluding to the words of Joshua and Moses about inheriting the entire land. We therefore note that the 600 men "armed" or 'in ranks' may be seen as intended to imitate the six hundred thousand 'men in ranks' of Israel as they marched toward Canaan (<a href='B:40 11:21'>Num 11:21</a>). However, a group of "six hundred men" is found so often in the records that we suspect that it may not be literal, but rather refer to a military unit or subdivision (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>; <a href='B:70 18:11'>Jdg 18:11</a>; <a href='B:70 20:47'>Jdg 20:47</a>; <a href='B:90 13:15'>1Sa 13:15</a>; <a href='B:90 14:2'>1Sa 14:2</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:90 30:9'>1Sa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:100 15:18'>2Sa 15:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They went up and encamped in Kiriath Jearim in Judah. That is why they called that place The Camp of Dan, to this day; it is behind Kiriath Jearim- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>They went from there to the hill country of Ephraim, and came to the house of Micah-</p><p>For 600 men to visit Micah would suggest that he was a well known leader in the area. We noted earlier that his mother gave him 1100 shekels of silver at a time when a good salary was 10 shekels / year:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the five men who went to spy out the country of Laish said to their brothers, Do you know that there is in these houses an ephod and household gods, an engraved image and a molten image? Now therefore consider what you have to do- </p><p>The five spies had come to Micah for blessing on their journey, and obviously thought that Micah's set up of false gods modelled around imitations of Yahweh's sanctuary, along with a Levite for a priest, was all pretty cool. And they coveted it all for themselves. As in :25, they speak of their criminal and violent intents in an indirect way.</p>


text:
<p>They turned in there and came to the house of the young Levite, to the house of Micah, and asked him how he was- </p><p>They focus upon the Levite; he was clearly aware of their intentions, and was eventually not against them, as he saw he would get more income from being a spiritual father to a larger group. The landless Levite labourer who had come looking for work with Micah::. became covetous and ended up with an excellent income.</p>


text:
<p>The six hundred armed men of Dan stood by the entrance of the gate- </p><p>They clearly so coveted Yahweh's supposed presence and help through the idols that they were willing to steal and kidnap to get it. They show the mixture of flesh and Spirit, of misplaced ideals, which were so typical of Samson their judge.</p>


text:
<p>The five men who had gone to spy out the land went in there and took the engraved image, the ephod, the household gods and the molten image; and the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six hundred armed men- </p><p>The idol paraphernalia required five men to carry it. It was not therefore huge.</p>


text:
<p>When these men went into Micah’s house and fetched the engraved image, the ephod, the household gods and the molten image- </p><p>The ephod was an imitation of the high priestly breastplate. The Hebrew reads strangely, as if the engraved image was the ephod, or closely associated with it. We fear that they had actually made an idolatrous image of Yahweh, exactly what he had forbidden. And they were worshipping the Baals in the name of Yahweh worship.</p><p>The priest said to them, What are you doing?- </p><p>The Levite was initially shocked, but soon went along with their evil plans. Although effectively they kidnapped him (:19).</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Keep quiet, put your hand on your mouth and go with us, and be unto us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and a family in Israel-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 17:11'>Jdg 17:11</a>. Micah had asked the young Levite, who was “unto him as one of his sons”, to “be unto me a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 17:10-11'>Jdg 17:10-11</a> - note the paradox), resulting in others likewise asking him to “be unto us a father and a priest” (<a href='B:70 18:19'>Jdg 18:19</a>). The point is, no matter how unqualified a person may be for the job, they may be pressed into being leaders because that’s what nominally religious people so desperately need. They need someone to call 'father'; and it seems Pharaoh treated Joseph in the same way (<a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a>). It is very noticeable amongst those who are themselves senior or heads of some kind of group, be it domestically or in the workplace. The way the Lord forbad this (<a href='B:470 23:9'>Mat 23:9</a>) was therefore tantamount to disallowing any merely 'religious' approach to God. He personally was to be understood as Father, and a personal relationship developed with Him.</p>


text:
<p>The priest’s heart was glad, and he took the ephod, the household gods and the engraved image, and went with the people- </p><p>Why was he glad? Probably his motives were mixed, for that is the theme of this history of the tribe of Dan at this time. He was glad he could 'serve' more people, in his mixed up way, even though he was an idolater; and also glad at the offer, presumably, of more money than he was previously earning.</p>


text:
<p>So they turned and departed, putting the little ones, the livestock and the goods in front of them- </p><p>Fearful that Micah would chase after them and attack them from the rear. Although Micah was outnumbered, he was so passionate about his idols and his priest that he was deemed capable of a very vicious attack upon them. Again we see the mixed motives of men at this time, burning down one side for Yahweh, and down the other for the flesh and idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>When they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men who were in the houses near to Micah’s house were gathered together and overtook the Danites- </p><p>Not only Micah but the folks in his village were passionately devoted to those idols. It wasn't a case of just making some more, but rather were they very deeply devoted to them. Again we see the mixed motives in them all.</p>


text:
<p>They shouted after the Danites, who turned round and said to Micah, What is the matter with you that you come with such a company?-</p><p>Although they were just presumably a few houses, all the men must have armed themselves and charged out against this far superior force. As noted on :22, they were so passionate about their idols.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and have gone away, and what else do I have? How then can you say to me, ‘What is the matter with you?’- </p><p>Despite his wealth and position within society, Micah told the truth when he said that his own little religion, paganic and perverting of Yahweh worship as it was, was everything to him. "What else do I have?" he dolefully and truthfully lamented. And we see this attitude in so many people. Their religion is by far the most powerful passion in their lives. But this doesn't thereby justify them as true believers, for Micah was far away from true worship of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites said to him, Don’t argue with us, or angry fellows might attack you, and you will lose your life, with the lives of your household- </p><p>As in :14, they speak of their criminal and violent intents in an indirect way. They speak as typical criminals. 'You might just get attacked by a bunch of angry yobbos around here, you know. Best to go home, or else such a gang might not only kill you, but go to your houses and then murder all your families'. And yet they made this threat because they were so desperate to have those idols, which they thought meant Yahweh's blessing upon them. Again, we see how hopelessly mixed were their motives.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites went on their way, and when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back to his house- </p><p>Micah was willing to fight for his idols, such was his passion. But he realized he was outnumbered. A true believer in Yahweh would have believed that one in covenant with Yahweh could chase a thousand; and Judges has several examples of small groups defeating much larger armies. But Micah, for all his professed belief in Yahweh, was not a true believer, and assessed things in purely secular terms.</p>


text:
<p>They took what Micah had made and his priest and came to Laish, to a people unsuspecting and secure, and attacked them with the sword, and they burnt the city with fire- </p><p>Although Micah had paid for some of his idol paraphernalia to be made by others, he was ultimately the maker of it. The stress is that these things were what his hand had made. And there is an intended juxtaposition between their having the idols and the priest with them, and then slaying unsuspecting people without giving them the chance to first make peace and accept the God of Israel, as required in the law of Moses. They burnt the city with fire as if they were replicating Joshua's conquest of the land, again reflecting their terrible mixture of motives and desire to just take bits and pieces from Yahweh's ways and ignore the rest. Just as many do today. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>There was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon and they had no dealings with anyone else- </p><p>See on :7, probably "with Syria", the neighbouring power just over the border.</p><p>It was in the valley that lies by Beth Rehob. They built the city and lived there- </p><p>If they intended to live there, we enquire why their first burnt the city and then rebuilt it- when they could have lived in the houses already standing. I suggest that they burnt it because they wanted to appear to be following the law about devoting a city to Yahweh, and copying Joshua's example of burning some of the cities he took. But as explained in :27, they were utterly oblivious to whole masses of basic Mosaic teaching. Like many today, they thought that just obeying a few out of context Biblical principles would justify them living like any other unbeliever.</p>


text:
<p>They called the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born to Israel, but the name of the city before was Laish- </p><p>Unlike Israel very often did, they didn't allow the old names to remain, but renamed this after their ancestor Dan, meaning 'judgment'. Again we see an attempt to follow the culture of their Israelite religion on a surface level, when their hearts were far from it.</p>


text:
<p>The Danites set up for themselves the engraved image, and Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of Moses and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the time of the captivity of the land-</p><p>Judges 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. Here, <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a> speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and <a href='B:70 20:28'>Jdg 20:28</a> of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. <a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a>), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Revelation 7.</p><p>"The land" is "the ark" in some manuscripts. See on :31. But I see no reason why the Assyrian or Babylonian captivities are not in view; for Judges was rewritten or edited under Divine inspiration during the captivity. This would mean that the Danites in this peripheral location on the very borders of the land quietly continued their apostacy all through the various reforms of the kings, as well as the time of David. And this is really what we understand from the many laments that Israel had persistently and consistently worshipped idols throughout their generations.</p>


text:
<p>So they set up for themselves Micah’s engraved image which he had made, using it all the time that God’s house was in Shiloh- </p><p>Here and :30 emphasize the "engraved image", and I suggested on :18 that this could have been an image of Yahweh- exactly what was prohibited so strongly. Clearly they didn't bother going to the sanctuary because they considered that they had their own absolutely legitimate sanctuary to Yahweh, replete with a direct descendant of Moses as priest. Even though he would not therefore have been a Levite. And they worshipped an image for Yahweh.</p><p>It is tempting to think that "until the captivity" in :30 is effectively parallel with 'the time God's house was in Shiloh'. I noted on :30 that the captivity in view may have been of the ark, and not of the people to Babylon or Assyria. The house or sanctuary of God was in Shiloh only until the time of Saul. When the ark went into captivity with the Philistines, and the sanctuary moved to Nob and then to Gibeon in the time of David, the time period in view may have finished. However I suggest that out of the three recorded places where the sanctuary was located (Shiloh, Nob and Gibeon), Shiloh was the nearest of them to Dan. The idea may therefore be that even when the sanctuary was relatively near them, they didn't go to it. They had their own sanctuary right in their own town. We note again the description of the sanctuary as "the house", even though no temple was then built- another reminder that these records were rewritten after the temple had been built, probably during the exile.</p>


text:
<p>In those days, when there was no king in Israel-</p><p>This seems to repeat <a href='B:70 17:6'>Jdg 17:6</a> "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes". </p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn't want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn't base their view upon God's word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p><p>There was a Levite living on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah- </p><p>Not having their own land, the Levites were homeless when the tithes weren't paid, or if their priestly allotment was taken from them by the tribe where the priestly city was. I noted on the distribution of the priestly cities in Joshua that many were in areas not subdued by Israel, or in remote, peripheral regions. So the Levites became landless labourers, often homeless. This Levite appears to have been somewhat better off, and had a relationship with a woman other than his wife from Judah, far from where he was living. He had presumably met her in his various travels as a landless man. But immediately we get the impression he is not going to be a spiritual man- for he had another woman apart from his wife.</p>


text:
<p>His concubine was unfaithful to him, and went away from him to her father’s house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there for four months- </p><p>Again the impression is reinforced that neither this Levite nor his woman on the side were very spiritual people. He was effectively unfaithful to his wife, and she was unfaithful to him. The fact she left him and returned to her family may have been because she feared he would physically abuse her- which he eventually does by cutting up her body into parts, showing himself no better than the men who raped her to death. And suggesting she indeed had reason to fear his abuse. Her unfaithfulness to him could have been punished by death. And yet the huge fuss made about her death therefore seems inappropriate to the fact that in God's book, she deserved death anyway.</p>


text:
<p>Her husband went after her to persuade her to return. He had his servant with him and a couple of donkeys, and she brought him into her father’s house. When her father saw him, he was pleased to meet him- </p><p>I noted on :2 that the Levite hardly loved his concubine. And yet it seems that on another level he did. This is typical of the theme of mixed motives in Judges. We note too that girl's father seemed to like her married lover. We get the impression that this was a case of male drinking partners getting on well with each other, and not interested in the fact she had been unfaithful; they just wanted to get the family relationship back together. She may well have been pregnant by the Levite- hence his interest in having her back. For he couldn't have really loved her to cut up her body as he later does. The "couple" of donkeys were literally two donkeys (:2). As he was wealthy enough to have a concubine, a servant and donkeys, we wonder why he didn't bring a third donkey- for the concubine to ride on. The conclusion is surely that he didn't care for her; and his desire to get her back may well have been because she was pregnant with his child.</p>


text:
<p>His father-in-law, the girl’s father, persuaded him to stay, and he stayed with him three days, eating and drinking and sleeping there-</p><p>Eating and drinking are associated with illicit sexual behaviour, so we wonder whether the "sleeping" was also in this area. Hence in :6 "enjoy yourself" comes after eating and drinking. We can assume that the drinking involved drinking alcohol to excess, and we note that the Levite mentions that he is carrying plenty of wine with him in :19. It all builds up the impression that this Levite is not a very spiritual person; and neither is his concubine nor her family.</p>


text:
<p>On the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he got ready to depart- </p><p>LXX "he stood up to depart" could imply he had been drunk before that.</p><p>And the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, Strengthen yourself with something to eat and then go on your way- </p><p>The man clearly likes the Levite and wants him to stay with him at all costs, recalling the apostate Micah of Judges 17 by all means wanting the unspiritual Levite to stay with him.</p>


text:
<p>So they sat down, ate and drank together, and then the girl’s father said to the man, Please stay another night and enjoy yourself- </p><p>"Enjoy yourself" clearly suggests these men were drinking to excess and possibly misbehaving sexually; see on :4. AV "let thine heart be merry", the phrase used of the apostate Levite in <a href='B:70 18:20'>Jdg 18:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When the man got up to go, his father-in-law urged him to stay, so he stayed there again- </p><p>We get the impression that the Levite just couldn't resist the temptation to drink.</p>


text:
<p>On the fifth day he got up early to leave, and the girl’s father said, Please refresh yourself and stay until the afternoon; and they ate together- </p><p>They ate but didn't drink together as planned. The girl's father managed to delay him until afternoon, when the logical time to start the journey was in the morning (:9). But the Levite can't make an early start because he is always so drunk the night before, and can't get up early. That is the clear implication. We get the impression of weak will and carnality in this man. The record focuses upon the two men; the girl, who may well have been pregnant which was why he wanted her back so as to claim the child, didn't feature in their behaviour. The Levite is presented as not caring for her- building up to the impression that what he will do with her body and the fuss he will make is all hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>When the man, his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, Look now, it’s nearly evening; please stay all night. Stay here and enjoy yourself, and tomorrow set off early and go home- </p><p>Afternoon was an unwise time to start the journey, as they would need to find somewhere to stay at night; and travel was dangerous and lonely after dark. The truth is, this Levite is so alcoholic that he was always drunk at night, and so early morning starts weren't what he was capable of.</p>


text:
<p>But the man wouldn’t stay that night; he got up and departed, and went towards Jebus (that is Jerusalem) with his two saddled donkeys and his concubine- </p><p>We are left to wonder as discussed on :3 why a man wealthy enough to have a servant, a concubine and donkeys didn't bring a third donkey for the (pregnant?) concubine to ride. We get the impression from "his two donkeys and his concubine" that the concubine had to walk whilst he and his male servant rode the donkeys. Continually the impression is built up that he didn't really care for the girl at all, and the outcry he was to make was hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>When they were near Jebus, the light was almost gone, and the servant said to his master, Please come and let us go into this city of the Jebusites, and stay the night there- </p><p>The servant was clearly fearful of travelling at night, knowing the dangers from wild animals and robbers. He had no particular fear of the Jebusites, showing that Israel was reconciled with the local inhabitants- because they worshipped the same gods.</p>


text:
<p>His master said to him, We won’t go into the city of a foreigner whose people are not Israelites; we will go on to Gibeah- </p><p>Again we see the theme of mixed hearts in Judges. The Levite is presented as very unspiritual; but he refuses association with non Israelites. He will not even sleep a night in a Gentile inn- although there was no Mosaic prohibition of coming into the home of a Gentile. We recall at the time of Peter that New Testament Judaism had made entering the home of a Gentile an unlawful thing. And it was the same hypocrisy behind this Levite here. The unspiritual Levite with his donkey is the image used by the Lord in His parable of the good Samaritan, and it also features an inn which the Levite refused to use to assist the injured man. The Lord therefore presents this Levite in a bad light.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his servant, Come and let us get to one of these places; we will spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah-</p><p>These were about two or three hours journey further on from Jerusalem where they were.</p>


text:
<p>So they went on and towards evening they were near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin- </p><p>This was to be the "Gibeah of Saul". We note Saul was from such an unspiritual place with such an awful spiritual history. But for all that bad background, the Spirit of God would have turned him right around- had he wished it. For bad background is no obstacle to the transforming work of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>They stopped there to spend the night in Gibeah. They went in and sat down in the street, because no-one took them into his house for the night-</p><p>Again (see on :12), the Lord may have this incident in mind when He says that He will condemn those at the judgement who in this life did not take in strangers (<a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a>). We are intended to reflect that he would have been better treated had he arrived in Jebus that night than he was amongst the Israelites in Gibeah. The fact nobody showed hospitality was a reflection of the unspirituality of Gibeah. "The street" is better 'the square'.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening there came an old man from his work in the field. He was from the hill country of Ephraim and he lived in Gibeah, but the men of the place were Benjamites- </p><p>He was therefore from the same area where the Levite was living (:1). This was surely Divine providence. Perhaps the men of Gibeah were so xenophobic that they also hated even this old man who was from another tribe.</p>


text:
<p>When he saw the traveller in the street the old man said, Where are you going? Where have you come from?- </p><p>These words are a direct quote of the Angel's words to Hagar, when she is fleeing from Sarah and has nowhere to go, and faces death and danger alone in the desert (<a href='B:10 16:8'>Gen 16:8</a>). Clearly the old man was faithful to Yahweh and immediately thought in terms of Biblical and spiritual precedent, and wished to act as the Angel had acted to Hagar when He 'found' her. We should be the same, always thinking in terms of Biblical precedent.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, We are on our way from Bethlehem Judah to the far side of the hill country of Ephraim. I am from there and I have been in Bethlehem Judah. I am going to the house of Yahweh, and no-one has taken me into his house- </p><p>This was a lie; the man was returning home, and not going to Bethel or to the sanctuary of Yahweh. We note the term "house of Yahweh" again indicates the records here were edited [under Divine inspiration] during the exile, or at least after the temple had been built. The Levite may mean that he was a Levite who served in God's house, and therefore Israel ought to have taken him into their houses; but they were so apostate and even against Yahweh's sanctuary and the Levites that they did not. He may also be implying that it was because he served in Yahweh's house that these apostates wouldn't have him in their houses. Which may have been true, but was very hypocritical for a man who has been drunk the last five days. Maybe indeed the Benjamites despised the sanctuary of Yahweh, and the Levites; and this was the real reason why Yahweh allowed their destruction at the hands of the brethren.</p>


text:
<p>Yet we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine also for me and for the maidservant and for the young man who is with us. We don’t need anything- </p><p>The fact the Levite mentions he has plenty of wine with him suggests he may well have been an alcoholic; for we recall him drinking wine to excess with his woman's father for some days before this journey. It all builds up the impression that this Levite with his donkey is not a very spiritual person, and the Lord's parable of the good Samaritan may well have this Levite in view- presenting him as an unspiritual man.</p>


text:
<p>The old man said, Peace to you! But I will provide for you; don’t stay all night in the street-</p><p>The story is clearly a repeat of the actions of Lot toward the Angels he met on the streets of Sodom. Again we are asked to see that situations repeat within the lives of God's servants. And we are to perceive this, being always comforted that we are not alone; the biographies we have in the Bible are to comfort us that we are not travelling unchartered territory, no experience is not completely unique to us.</p>


text:
<p>So he brought him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank-</p><p>The old man comes over as spiritually minded (:17) and although an old man, like a true seed of Abraham, still entertaining strangers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>As they were enjoying themselves- </p><p>The same phrase is used about how the Levite got drunk repeatedly with his father in law. The Levite basically tells the old man that he has wine with him and they can have a nice time together with it, if he stays at his place (:19).</p><p>The wicked men of the city surrounded the house, beating on the door; they said to the owner of the house, the old man, Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may have sex with him!-</p><p>This is a repeat of the situation in Sodom, and "that righteous man" Lot is paralleled in the old man- weak, but spiritual and with God in his heart.</p>


