# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy thing of Yahweh, and that soul shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a very stern warning. It was designed to guard against the temptation to spin out eating the peace offerings over several days, so that you personally benefitted from the meat. We are not to offer that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow" (<em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>). By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, a leash binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; for Israel is God's partner, not His dog. But rather was it designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If all Israel were obedient to the Law of Moses, there wouldn’t have been any poor in Israelite society (<em><a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a></em>). But the same Law of Moses repeatedly instructed Israel to be generous and sensitive to the poor; it tacitly recognized, as did Jesus, that there would always be poor within Israel, for the Law would never be fully kept (<em><a href='B:470 26:11'>Mat 26:11</a></em>). We see in the structure of the Law the recognition of human failure in a way which no other law has ever equaled. There’s a tendency to assume that the poor are poor because of their own poor decision making and therefore we have no responsibility to help them- although we are all poor decision makers in various ways, especially in spiritual matters. The Law taught a principle we need to learn also- that even if folk have dug a whole and fallen into it, we are still to assist them and be sensitive to their situation.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not steal, nor lie, nor shall you deceive one another- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command not to steal is associated with not deceiving others nor lying to them. Dishonesty, even if it’s unrelated to material gain at another’s expense, is a form of theft; we are taking from another wrongfully. The Hebrew indeed means to steal, but also carries the idea of deceit. For to deceive another is to effectively steal from them, to take away and misuse their belief and trust in you and your integrity. And all deceit is ultimately in order to gain something wrongly, even the thing gained isn't anything material.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not swear by My name falsely, and profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em> phrases this in terms of not taking God's Name in vain. But the idea of not taking Yahweh's Name "in vain", 'vanity', is often associated with idolatry. Israel never formerly rejected Yahweh, and never became atheists. They mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry on the basis that they claimed that they worshipped Yahweh through worshipping the idols. This is what emboldened them to later place idols in Yahweh's temple. They were taking Yahweh's Name as a form of vanity, "in vain", a kind of idol. Thus their relationship with Yahweh was not to be a "vain thing" (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The vulnerability and sensitivity of God is reflected in the way that He is concerned that His covenant people, His wife, who bears His Name, might profane His Name (<em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:11'>Deu 5:11</a></em>). His repeated concern that His Name be taken in vain doesn't simply refer to the casual use of the word "God" as an expression of exasperation. God is concerned about His people taking His Name upon themselves (<em><a href='B:40 6:27'>Num 6:27</a></em>) in vain- i.e., marrying Him, entering covenant relationship with Him, taking on His Name (which we do through baptism)- but not being serious about that relationship, taking it on as a vain thing, like a woman who casually marries a man who loves her at the very core of his being, when for her, it's just a casual thing and she lives a profligate and adulterous life as his wife. When God revealed His Name to His people, opening up the very essence of His character to them, He was making Himself vulnerable. We reveal ourselves intimately to another because we wish for them to make a response to us, to love us for what we revealed to them. God revealed Himself to Israel, He sought for intimacy in the covenant relationship, and therefore was and is all the more hurt when His people turn away from Him, after having revealed to them all the wonders of His word (<em><a href='B:350 8:12'>Hos 8:12</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:30 5:16'>Lev 5:16</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not oppress your neighbour, nor rob him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The oppression in view is things like not paying him his hire every day (<em><a href='B:50 24:14-15'>Deu 24:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:13'>Lev 19:13</a></em>). The ethnic background of the man was irrelevant; he was to be treated as a person and not in any way abused because of his weak economic position. "Oppress" is the same word translated "deceive"; to not oppress others through deceiving them would elicit the heaviest judgment from God, when the person realized the deception and cried to God because of it (<em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>). Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em> adds: "Each day you must give him his hire. The sun must not go down on it for he is poor and sets his heart on it, lest he cry against you to Yahweh and it be sin to you". This is one of many examples of the utter inversion of values to be found in the sphere of God's dealings with men: The rich are to almost fear the landless poor labourer, in case he feels hard done by and prays to God against the rich. The power, in ultimate and spiritual terms, is with the poor- and the balance of power is against the wealthy. <em><a href='B:660 5:4'>Jas 5:4</a></em> specifically alludes to this command, and says that the cry of those we have been insensitive to will enter the ears of Yahweh of Hosts, a title typically associated with His active judgment. The cries of those we hurt are effectively a calling out to Yahweh of Hosts to enter into judgment with us. Whilst we may not have hired labourers, there are many ways in which we can make our less privileged brethren cry out in pain to God; particularly through refusing them fellowship at the Lord's table.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind; but you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As if God is especially sensitive to our abusing others’ disadvantages in whatever form, and His wrath about this is to be feared. <em><a href='B:50 27:18'>Deu 27:18</a></em> has "Cursed is he who makes the blind wander out of the way’". It was Aaron, their revered leader, who had made Israel wander "out of the way" through the golden calf apostacy (<em><a href='B:20 32:8'>Exo 32:8</a></em>). The people surely could not have repeated these words without thinking of Aaron. It was intended, therefore, as a reminder to them of how their very standing with God was by grace alone; and they were not from any wonderful spiritual pedigree, but instead were God's people by grace through faith. Paul repeats the essence of this teaching in warning against making our brother stumble, even if he is spiritually blind. And he applies this therefore to what we eat and the things our own conscience may allow us to do.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’You shall do no injustice in judgment: you shall not be partial to the poor, nor show favouritism to the great; but you shall judge your neighbour in righteousness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are not to judge in the sense of condemn others, but it’s inevitable in daily life that we have to form opinions. But we must always remember that the person we are judging is in fact our neighbour, our brother, our equal; our judgment shouldn’t be rooted in any sense of feeling inherently superior over him or her, spiritually or otherwise. We are warned in <em><a href='B:20 23:3'>Exo 23:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a></em>&nbsp; against bias in any way- feeling pity for a poor man who has done wrong is as bad as bias toward the wealthy. Economic status is of no matter, compared to human behaviour and the human person.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people. You shall not endanger the life of your neighbour. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Unless we talk frankly to our brother about issues (:17) between us <em>alone</em>, then we will end up hating him in our heart (even though it may not feel like that) and we will gossip about him. The frank raising of the issue with our brother is associated with loving our neighbour as ourselves. This is actually the opposite to what we would think; we would imagine that it would be more 'loving' to say nothing to our brother. But in this case, we will inevitably gossip about him and be bitter against him. The practice of true love will result in an open community in which we can frankly discuss with each other the issues which concern us, with love and not hatred in our hearts. This is the teaching of <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. No wonder the Proverbs expand upon it so much. And no wonder the Lord appropriated it as a ground rule for His ecclesia- there must be no gossip in the church (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbour, and not bear sin because of him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that if we don’t have transparency with our neighbour, if we don’t rebuke them openly and specifically, then we will end up hating them. Just saying nothing about those situations calling for rebuke will only drive you to hate the person in the end. "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbour" (<em><a href='B:30 19:17-18'>Lev 19:17-18</a></em>). Unless there is direct, one on one dialogue, the hatred born of misunderstanding will develop. But reasoning together is something only possible if we perceive the value of persons. By not rebuking our brother, by saying nothing and not engaging with the issues when we need to, we are likely to breed anger in our hearts against him or her. Again we note that the law of God is unlike secular legal codes in that it speaks so much about attitudes of the heart, which are unseen by others and can never be formally judged by any human legal apparatus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One reason we fail to love others as ourselves is because we may in fact not love ourselves in the sense of perceiving our own value before God. Unless there is direct, one on one dialogue, the hatred born of misunderstanding will develop. But reasoning together is something only possible if we perceive the value of persons.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The structure of the law of Moses seemed to almost encourage the idea of serving God on different levels. After much study of it, the Rabbis concluded that there was within it “a distinction between holy and holy just as much as there is between holy and profane”. They were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so (<em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God's</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Proverbs is often a commentary upon the Law. The many passages there about gossiping are based upon this passage, in <em><a href='B:30 19:16-18'>Lev 19:16-18</a></em>. The fact this passage is expanded upon so many times in Proverbs would indicate that gossip was as major a problem among the old Israel as it is among the new. But notice the fine psychology of the Spirit here: gossip in the church is related to having a grudge, to hating your neighbour in your heart, to not loving your neighbour as you love yourself (and we are very conservative about our own failings). When the Lord spoke about hating your brother being the same as murdering him (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>), he may well have been thinking of this passage in Leviticus. To hate your brother in your heart, to gossip about him, was and is as bad as murdering him. And this same connection between gossip and murder is made in the prophets (<em><a href='B:330 22:9'>Eze 22:9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:240 26:22'>Pro 26:22</a></em>). But the Law provided a way out. If you had something against your brother, frankly tell him about his failure, so that you would not hate him in your heart. If we don't do this, or try to get someone else to do it, we will end up hating our brother in our heart and we will gossip about him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep my statutes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued that the following commandments in this verse were hedges around the law to assist obedience- rather than addressing issues which were immoral in themselves.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The first mention of mules in the Bible is when Absalom murders his brother Amnon (<em><a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a></em>). They were cross bred in disobedience to this command. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God's laws can just be ignored.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commandments about not inappropriately mixing things in Deuteronomy 22 are sandwiched between commandments about avoiding sexual perversion and inappropriate bonding, such as adultery, sex with a father's wife (<em><a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a></em>), and the perversion of <em><a href='B:50 22:5'>Deu 22:5</a></em>, which is also about inappropriate mixture of sexual behaviours. There is a similar sexual context here in :20. The idea of these commands about not mixing seed and animals may be as it were a fence around these laws. The fear was that this was going to be a subliminal temptation towards sin. Rather like the command not to plant trees near an altar of Yahweh, lest this lead to the subliminal temptation to worship the trees like an asherah grove.&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Neither shall there come upon you a garment made of two kinds of material-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, as discussed above, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about this. Rather the idea was that in daily life, there was to be the lesson of separation and avoidance of inappropriate bonding. <em><a href='B:50 22:11'>Deu 22:11</a></em> speaks specifically of not mixing linen and wool. It could be argued that "linen" came from Egypt (<em><a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>), whilst wool was the classic produce of Israel.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:460 2:11-15'>Mal 2:11-15</a></em> shows that the sin of marriage out of the faith is because it is a denial of God's principles regarding children; He instituted marriage to create “a Godly seed". It stands to reason that marrying an unbeliever (or an uncommitted believer, for that matter) cannot very easily produce a Godly seed. Israel were not to sow "mingled seed" in their fields, or make clothes of "mingled" materials (<em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>). The materials would, as the Lord Himself mentioned, tear apart. The garment wouldn't last. And sowing different seeds together likewise would bring no fruit to perfection. But the LXX in these passages is quoted in one place only in the NT: "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (<em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>). If we are, <em>the relationship can't work</em>. So don't think that if we marry out of the Faith, it will all work out OK. Unless there is serious repentance (and even then, not always), <em>it won't work</em>. It will be a garment patched up with two different materials.<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave girl, pledged to be married to another man, and not ransomed, or given her freedom; they shall be punished. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :19. The Mosaic law appears to take into account that slavery is indeed slavery, and this does make a difference (also <em><a href='B:20 21:20-21'>Exo 21:20-21</a></em>). The toleration of slavery was a concession to their weakness, but having made the concession, God shows integrity in to some extent accepting the status of the slave and the diminished rights which go with that.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, even a ram for a trespass offering-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nothing is said about payment of recompense to the intended bridegroom of the woman, perhaps because the idea is that he was also a slave and didn't have full rights; see on :20.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is commonly stated in the Mosaic law that the priest made atonement. Any thoughtful person would have soon concluded that indeed the blood of bulls and goats could not of itself atone for sin (<em><a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a></em>). The role of the priest in bringing about the atonement was therefore critical. And yet they too were flawed. So this invited the spiritually minded to look forward to the coming of an ideal priest, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you come into the land, and have planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years shall they be forbidden to you. It shall not be eaten-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Forbidden fruit naturally recalls the forbidden fruit on the tree in Eden. To grab as much as we can immediately without working for it nor recognizing that the firstfruits of all human endeavour must be given to the Lord- is all very human and common. But to do so is painted as being as bad as taking the forbidden fruit of Eden, with all the long term suffering which came as a result of short-termism.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, for giving a praise offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was all designed to teach self control. For three years the fruit couldn't be eaten, on the fourth year the fruit must be offered to God, and only on the fifth year could the fruit be eaten (:25). Self control, delayed gratification, looking to the long term rather than the short term, is what spiritual life is all about. And such things are increasingly in deficit in secular society.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, that it may yield its increase to you. I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication could be that if the required self control discussed on :24 was not followed, then the tree would not "yield its increase"- a phrase often used about how God would make the plants of the land yield their increase abundantly to an obedient Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not eat any meat with the blood still in it; neither shall you use enchantments, nor practise sorcery-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These two commandments are put together because drinking blood was part of many idol worshipping rituals. Hence LXX speaks of eating blood <em>"</em>upon the mountains". One practical consequence of this was that obedience would have meant social separation from the Canaanites; for none of them observed these positions on blood, indeed eating blood or meat with much blood in it was a delicacy. Blood represents life; to take life to ourselves rather than recognize it is God’s results in us losing our lives (<em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>). Just as simply as the blood was to be given to God, so we are to give our lives to God. To take the blood to themselves is in fact spoken of as being as bad as murder (<em><a href='B:30 17:4'>Lev 17:4</a></em>). This seems extreme language, but it underlines how important to God is this principle- that life is His and we are to give it to Him rather than live or take it to ourselves. In baptism, we give our lives to God and figuratively die and are buried with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). We are to live life in this spirit that life is not ours but to be given to God. This frees us from all the manic human concern to live life to the full for ourselves. We no longer have this concern if we continually accept the principle that life is not ours, but God's.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "observe times" is literally "exercise the evil eye". They were to reject pagan notions of a cosmic Satan and demons, and believe instead that good and evil come from God, not the evil eye (<em><a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the style of mourning in the surrounding world. And it had some hints of idolatry. We could take this as meaning 'Don't follow the fashions of the world when they are allusive to idolatry and sinful ways'. And that has abiding relevance. The spiritual way of life seeks to cut off all opportunities for the flesh; all subliminal encouragements to sin are to be rooted out of our lives, rather than seeing how close we can sail to the wind.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The context refers to such marks as showed loyalty to an idol or to the dead who were thought to be still alive. Whereas the Bible teaches that death is unconsciousness. Whilst there is nothing morally wrong with cutting the skin, the idea was that Israel weren’t to even appear associated with pagan rituals for the dead. We likewise should naturally not want to even appear like worshippers of any other god (of whatever kind) when Yahweh is our only God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t profane your daughter, to make her a prostitute; lest the land fall to prostitution, and the land become full of wickedness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sexual misbehaviour sets an example which spreads so easily. Thus if a very poor man discreetly prostituted his daughter out of financial desperation, the whole land would fall to whoredom and sexual abandon. But the idea behind&nbsp; making a daughter a prostitute likely refers to making her serve as a cult prostitute in the idol rituals. The serious nature of sexual sin is that it leads others into sin, by its very nature. The Lord Jesus reasoned likewise (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The stress may be upon the word "<em>My</em>". The systems of idol worships also required days to be kept as holy to them, and <em>their </em>sanctuaries to be reverenced. For the context here is all about avoiding idolatry. Yahweh's claims upon His people are supreme. There is no way we can worship both Yahweh and idols; the Sabbath was to kept exclusively for Him rather than also to the other gods who also demanded that a Sabbath be kept to them. Perhaps this was one reason for the Sabbath legislation at this time- to preclude keeping Sabbath to any other god. But Israel as so many today sought to worship Yahweh through idol worship. The church at Corinth made the same mistake.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t turn to those who are mediums, nor to the wizards-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Bible is written in terms which the surrounding people would have understood; therefore it sometimes speaks of how things appear to be <em>as if</em> this really is the case. God warns against dabbling with “them that <em>have</em> familiar spirits” (<em><a href='B:30 19:31'>Lev 19:31</a></em> AV); not ‘those who think they’ve got access to the supposed spirit world which, of course, doesn’t exist’. This is the same approach the New Testament adopts to the demons issue.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Don’t seek them out, to be defiled by them. I am Yahweh your God-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is exactly what Saul did in seeking out the witch of Endor. He thereby showed that Yahweh was not his God, and yet he went to the witch because he wanted to find connection with Yahweh.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall rise up before the gray head, and honour the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God. I am Yahweh-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>"Fear the Lord your God" of <em><a href='B:20 9:30'>Exo 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:14'>Lev 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:32'>Lev 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:17'>Lev 25:17</a></em> becomes "love the Lord your God" in the greater maturity of Deuteronomy, the second law (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>). Some time, read through the book of Deuteronomy in one or two sessions. You'll see many themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. It really shows how Moses felt towards Israel, and how the Lord Jesus feels towards us, and especially how he felt towards us just before his death. For this is what the whole book prefigures. "Love" and the idea of love occurs far more in Deuteronomy than in the other books of the Law. There are 23 references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to only 5 in Ex. - Num.; Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love. He saw these things as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of maturity he warned his beloved people against them. His mind was full of them. The LXX uses the word ekklesia eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other words (<em><a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:16'>Deu 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:1-3'>Deu 23:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Responsibility for the whole family God had redeemed was a mark of Moses; maturity at the end of his life, at the time of Deuteronomy. It is observable that both as a community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to be motivated in kindness to others by the recollection that they had been redeemed from Egypt; the memory of our redemption through the waters of baptism (cp. the Red Sea)&nbsp;should have the same effect upon us. Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 24:14'>Deu 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as relevant to you personally. They were "types of us". Note how <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em> speaks of "<em>our</em> fathers"- even when Paul is writing to Gentiles. He intended them to see in the Jewish fathers a type of themselves. Israel's keeping of the Passover implied that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that night. All down the years, they were to treat the stranger fairly: "for you know the heart of an alien" (<em><a href='B:20 23:9'>Exo 23:9</a></em>). The body of believers, the body of Christ, is not only world-wide geographically at this point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance, to include all those who have truly believed. This is why David found such inspiration from the history of Israel in his own crises (e.g. Psalms 77).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or of quantity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "judgment", s.w. "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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's deliverance from Egypt was by grace, not justice. They worshipped idols there and took them with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). Their salvation was by grace and not by justice, for their just desert was to be abandoned there. Our salvation is likewise only "just" because we are in Christ, on a personal level we are saved despite our unworthiness. One response to this is to seek to be just in all our dealings.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deuteronomy, the second law, stresses these things. <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em> says that "You must not have in your bag different weights, a great and a small". Deceitful traders still use balancing weights (Heb. "stones") of different weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. But the reference to the bag suggests that this command strikes at the forethought before the action. Don't go to market having prepared such weights in your bag. Any human legal code would focus just upon the act of using deceitful weights, whereas God foresees the planning and thought process behind the act of sin. <em><a href='B:50 25:14'>Deu 25:14</a></em> goes further: "You must not have in your house different measures, a great and a small". To avoid temptation it’s best to not even possess things which we may be tempted to misuse. See on :13. The act of deceiving at the market was analyzed by God as beginning in the home, and it was there and to that thought that the Divine law struck. Even possessing such "different measures" was a temptation to misuse them, and we take the lesson that we are to remove sources of temptation.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 25:16'>Deu 25:16</a></em> adds: "For all who do such things, all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God". The 'doing' in view is not deceiving customers in the marketplace but the forethought which preceded it- having unjust weights and measures in your bag when you set out to market, or even having them in your home (<em><a href='B:50 25:13-14'>Deu 25:13-14</a></em>). The Lord Jesus rightly interpreted this teaching as meaning that the thought is counted as the action, the doing. These forethoughts, planning deceit in order to gain a petty amount of material advantage, were seen by Yahweh as "abomination", the word for idol worship. And such things are our temptation constantly.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them. I am Yahweh’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; ; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp; 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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The theme of this section appears to be of capital offences against God, which were to be punished by execution, or by God cutting the person off in His own way and time.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover, you shall tell the children of Israel, ‘Anyone of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech; he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite this very clear statement, made right at the beginning of the wilderness journey (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>), the Israelites carried the tabernacle of Moloch through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). They heard these words, but refused to let them really take lodgment within them. And neither did the Levites, to whom they were originally addressed. We must ask ourselves whether we are really allowing God's words to truly register with us. "The people of the land" may refer to the Gentiles living in Israel; see on :4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I also will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word translated ‘to cut a covenant’ is also translated ‘cut off’ in the sense of death (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:2-3'>Lev 20:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:9'>Isa 48:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 2:21'>Pro 2:21</a></em>). Death and blood shedding are essential parts of covenant making<em>,</em> and in this sense the covenant was ended too by death / cutting off. This means that God would pay special attention to this individual, setting His face against them, and remove them from His covenant people- whether or not He slew them immediately. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because he has given of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our attitude to our children is our attitude to God’s Name. We need to ask ourselves how in our context we might be giving our children to Molech? ‘Giving’ children to Molech may not only have referred to child sacrifices but also dedicating children to the service of Molech. Our children are to be dedicated to God and nobody and nothing else.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the people of the land all hide their eyes from that person, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and don’t put him to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Acting as if we didn’t notice something is a sin of omission just as bad as a sin of commission. "The&nbsp; people of the land" is literally 'the people of the <em>eretz</em>', a phrase which usually refers to the non-Israelite peoples within the land promised to Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 23:7'>Gen 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 42:6'>Gen 42:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:18'>Num 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:28'>Num 13:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:24'>Jos 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:43'>1Ki 8:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:53'>1Ki 8:53</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 5:25'>1Ch 5:25</a></em> etc.). This would be the likely understanding of the phrase here (and in <em><a href='B:30 4:27'>Lev 4:27</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all who play the prostitute after him, to play the prostitute with Molech, from among their people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a></em>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<em><a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a></em>). The language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<em><a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His. Just as Israel were not to be like the Egyptians they were leaving, nor like the Canaanites into whose land they were going (<em><a href='B:30 18:1-5'>Lev 18:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:23-24'>Lev 20:23-24</a></em>). We are to be a people separated unto Him. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seriousness of sin is partly in the influence it has upon others. To give children to Molech encouraged others to sin by the example set. The power of our example upon others is far greater than we realize. Verse 14 likewise teaches that sexual perversion in one case could easily lead to wickedness being practiced amongst the whole congregation. Israel were told to destroy any of their number who worshipped idols; but if they failed to do this, God said that He Himself would remove that man from the community. He doesn't say that the whole nation of Israel would become personally guilty by association and therefore the whole nation would be treated by Him as the one man who was idolatrous.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The person that turns to those who are mediums, and to the wizards, to play the prostitute after them, I will even set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inclusiveness of Yahweh of His people, the nature of who His Name reveals Him to be, should of itself have led Israel to not discriminate against other races: “For I am Yahweh your God”. Because Yahweh <em>is</em> who He is, therefore we must be like Him; His very existence and being demands it of us (<em><a href='B:30 20:7'>Lev 20:7</a></em> cp. 19:2, 10). If we really know the characteristics implicit in His Name, we will put our trust in Him (<em><a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 124:8'>Psa 124:8</a></em>). If we see / know God in the experiential sense, we will do no evil (<em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep My statutes, and do them. I am Yahweh who sanctifies you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note the logic of <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em> and indeed the whole spirit of the Law given at Sinai: Because it is Yahweh who sanctifies / counts righteous His people, therefore, in thankful response, "you shall keep My statutes and do them". As they stood and sat before Yahweh and Moses, He sanctified them, or in Ezekiel's terms, picked up a sickly baby and turned her in His eyes into a beautiful woman. And their response to that imputed righteousness was to keep the laws they were given.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; ; 15:5,9 ("beware");&nbsp; 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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both the Lord's death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it. <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em> and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the immediate context here, cursing parents may be equivalent to sleeping with them or sexually misusing them as part of Moloch worship (:2-5). In the very similar passage in Leviticus 18, at this point there is the prohibition of sex with parents; here we read of not cursing them. The idea may be that sexual misbehaviour involves leading others into sin. If parents agreed to participate, then they would be cursed by God, and so effectively the child who tried to sleep with their parents as part of Moloch worship was cursing them, by bringing a Divine curse upon them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Another man’s wife, even... his neighbour’s wife" is a definition which suggests that every man in the community was to be treated as one’s neighbour. Hence in the New Testament, loving our neighbour is interpreted as meaning loving all others within the community of God’s people (<em><a href='B:550 5:13-14'>Gal 5:13-14</a></em>). We shouldn’t think that because someone is unknown to us or distant from us in whatever sense, that we can act differently to them than we would to the one living next door to us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In a polygamous society, this is not the same as "your mother". We learned in :2-5 that this kind of thing happened amongst the Gentile Moloch worshippers, but was not to happen amongst God's people. Paul makes some kind of allusion to this by complaining that this was happening in the church at Corinth, but it didn't happen amongst the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em>). His idea may be that there had been some moral progression amongst the Gentiles in this area- but sadly not amongst God's people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have committed a perversion-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Perversion" is AV "confusion", and is the word also used of God's condemnation of men in "confusion" unto destruction (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:9'>Gen 11:9</a></em>). Again we see that sin is its own judgment; people condemn themselves by their behaviour, living out condemnation in their sins. Israel are condemned for having 'mixed themselves' amongst the Gentiles (s.w. <em><a href='B:350 7:8'>Hos 7:8</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their blood shall be upon them-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Blood being upon them seems a variation of "they shall bear their iniquity"; the guilt for their own blood or life was upon them. The Lord Jesus Christ knew from Isaiah 53 that He was to bear Israel's sins, that the judgments for their sins were to fall upon Him. Israel ‘bore their iniquities’ by being condemned for them (<em><a href='B:40 14:34-35'>Num 14:34-35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 5:17'>Lev 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a></em>); to be a sin bearer was therefore to be one condemned. To die in punishment for your sin was to bear you sin. There is a difference between sin, and sin being laid upon a person. <em><a href='B:40 12:11'>Num 12:11</a></em> brings this out: “Lay not the sin upon us… wherein we have sinned”. The idea of sin being laid upon a person therefore refers to condemnation for sin. Our sin being laid upon Jesus therefore means that He was treated <em>as if</em> He were a condemned sinner. He briefly endured within Him the torment of soul which the condemned will feel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Abomination" is a word distinctly and specifically associated with idol worship. The context of these commands is an appeal not to follow the ways of Moloch worshippers (:2-5). As was the case in Corinth centuries later, idol worshippers slept with both male and female prostitutes; and that is what is primarily in view here.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burned with fire, both he and they; that there may be no wickedness among you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"They shall be burnt with fire" makes this punishment appears different to that stipulated in the other legislation, where we read simply that the sinners "shall surely be put to death". However, the idea isn't that in this case of a man taking a wife and her mother, they were to be burnt to death. Rather does it mean that the corpses were to be burnt with fire. Achan likewise was stoned to death, and then his corpse burnt with fire (<em><a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a></em>). The idea seems to be that the sin was so gross that there was to be a public lesson made out of it. We read of the smoke arising from the burning of Babylon and other enemies of the Lord's people (e.g. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:9'>Rev 18:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:18'>Rev 18:18</a></em>). The idea was that there was to be a warning to others from this; and that surely was the intention here in <em><a href='B:30 20:14'>Lev 20:14</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; and you shall kill the animal- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a woman approaches any animal, and lies down with it, you shall kill the woman, and the animal: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :15. Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level. "Their blood" requires an ellipsis to be read in- 'the guilt for their blood / loss of life'. This behaviour was likely in the context of idolatry, and was particularly an Egyptian religious rite which the people had taken with them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness; it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is no mere coincidence that so many of these forbidden relationships were seen in the patriarchal family. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister (<em><a href='B:10 20:17'>Gen 20:17</a></em>). So we see that Israel were being reminded that their whole national basis was rooted in moral weakness from the start. They were God's people by grace alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies with a woman having her monthly period, and uncovers her nakedness; he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> says that if a man sleeps with a menstruating woman then they must both die. But <em><a href='B:30 15:24'>Lev 15:24</a></em> says that in this case the man must be unclean seven days. I suggest that the language of uncovering nakedness in <em><a href='B:30 20:18'>Lev 20:18</a></em> is talking about some form of illicit or perverted relationship, perhaps with a woman under the stroke of Divine judgment. But here we are reading of menstruation. Menstrual blood was a times drunk or used in various cultic rituals.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked his close relative: they shall bear their iniquity-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Uncovering nakedness alludes to the result of the first sin in Eden. The idea therefore is not that it is a sin to simply see a parent naked. Rather is it that such sins are sins because you are leading your sexual partner into sin and they will receive the same judgment as Adam and Eve- their nakedness will be uncovered. And so the Lord Jesus likewise reasons that the problem with sexual sin is that it leads other parties into sin (<em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin: they shall die childless-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication of dying childless is that they had slept with each other in order to have children- perhaps not specifically with each other, but because this was part of a fertility ritual. But it would not work- in fact the opposite. They would both be unable to have children. And perhaps dying childless could mean that their existing children would die before they died.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity: he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :20 for 'dying childless'. "Impurity" is the Hebrew word for rejection, especially at the last day (<em><a href='B:100 23:6'>2Sa 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 18:18'>Job 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:17'>Hos 9:17</a></em>). Sin is its own judgment; in this sense, man condemns himself rather than being condemned by God. We stand before His judgment in daily life; we make the answer now. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all My ordinances, and do them; that the land, where I am bringing you to dwell, may not vomit you out-</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 mishpat, 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.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em> that Leviticus was given at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings. At that point, God was casting out the nations from Canaan. Their refusal to enter the land was therefore a waste of so much potential. And a reflection of their disbelief in words like these which were spoken to them. Israel were eventually cast out of the land as the Canaanites were intended to be; and yet God's patience with them was remarkable. We note that God's plan was to cast out the nations before Israel so that they could enter the land immediately after leaving Egypt. But there is no evidence this happened- because the people chose not to enter the land. And when they did, they themselves didn't cast out the nations but rather coexisted with them in the land, and worshipped their gods. Again we see how so much potential was wasted; just as many have the path to entrance into the Kingdom made clear for them, but they reject it.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The period for gathering iniquity was fulfilled, and so the land was intended to vomit out the Canaanites (<em><a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a></em>). But we see here the flexibility and open ended nature of God's ways of working. For one thing, that period was extended by around 40 years; for Israel didn't enter the land when they were intended to, and so the local inhabitants remained there. And the vomiting out of the inhabitants was to be fulfilled through human agency, i.e. the Israelites were to cast them out with God's help. But they generally didn't do this, and chose to coexist with those inhabitants within the land, and to serve their gods.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am Yahweh your God, Who has separated you from the peoples- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that 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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves abominable by animal, or by bird, or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have separated from you as unclean for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact God had separated His people from this world (:24) was the reason for the commandments about them making a distinction between clean and unclean. There is nothing unclean of itself, the commands were given as a mechanism for teaching and reminding Israel in their daily lives of their separation from uncleanness. Those animals designated by God as “unclean” were “unclean <em>for you</em>”- not that they were in themselves.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Israel were to "detest" idols and idolatry as "abomination" (<em><a href='B:50 7:26'>Deu 7:26</a></em>), so they were to "abhor" and treat as "abomination" unclean animals (<em><a href='B:30 11:11'>Lev 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 11:13'>Lev 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 11:43'>Lev 11:43</a></em>), lest they "make yourselves abominable (s.w. "detestable") with any creeping thing" (<em><a href='B:30 20:25'>Lev 20:25</a></em>). I suggest this is the reason why God designated some animals as 'abominable'; because of their association with idol worship. The idols of Egypt were often in the form of animals, and sex with animals was part of the rites. Just as in primitive societies today. There is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>); no animal is morally more or less clean than another. The commandments about unclean animals were clearly intended just for Israel living within a culture of idolatry / abomination involving those kinds of animals.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be holy to me; for I, Yahweh, am holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Peter quotes these words to his Jewish converts (<em><a href='B:670 1:15-16'>1Pe 1:15-16</a></em>)<em>: "</em>But like He who called you is holy, be you yourselves holy in all manner of living. Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy". Orthodox Jews such as they once were would have been obsessed with holiness in the sense of ritual separation. But this was to be extended to "all manner of living". By being holy / separate over a few things, they were tempted to think that vast areas of life in other areas could be lived as they wished. This was and is the problem with legalistic obedience. Hence the focus on all manner of living.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words are quoting from the Levitical code of conduct for priests (<em><a href='B:30 11:44-45'>Lev 11:44-45</a></em>). But those same words were spoke to all the congregation (<em><a href='B:30 19:2'>Lev 19:2</a></em>)- for it was God's intention that all Israel should develop into a nation of priests. And this very idea is applied by Peter to the entire church (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>). We likewise cannot assume that others shall take care of our spirituality; we are in fact called to be Levites for others. All of us have this calling.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And have set you apart from the peoples, that you should be Mine-</p>But in reality, Israel mixed with the peoples and were not set apart from them. Although God potentially enabled this. We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all. Consider how God told Israel that&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they kept His commandments,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;they would be His “peculiar treasure” (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). This conditional promise is then referred to by Moses as having been fulfilled- Israel became His “peculiar treasure” by status even though they did<em>&nbsp;not</em>&nbsp;keep His commandments (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em> s.w.; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>). Moses concludes by saying that “the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people (s.w.)…<em>&nbsp;</em>that&nbsp;thou shouldest keep all his commandments” (<em><a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a></em>). See what’s happening here. God said that<em>&nbsp;if</em>&nbsp;they were obedient,&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;they would be His special people. Yet He counted them as His special people even though they were not obedient. And He did this so that they would be so touched by this grace that they&nbsp;<em>would</em>&nbsp;be obedient.<em></em>


text:
<em>A man or a woman that is a medium, or is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them’-</em><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or (ESV, GNB) "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<em><a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God's final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<em><a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a></em>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<em><a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a></em>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest shall not defile himself for the dead among his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Mourning the deceased was not of itself defiling. What is in view is the custom of touching the corpse, which would make them unclean. Touching a corpse made a person unclean seven days (<em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>), and if the priests were on duty then this would have caused a disruption in their service. And they were being asked to put God's service before the desire to touch the corpse of their loved ones. They were not being forbidden to mourn their loss, but rather were being asked not to become defiled by touching the corpse. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>except for his relatives that are near to him: for his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, for his brother-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether Paul's command not to weep for the dead who die in the Lord (<em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>) may have this in mind. The idea may be that this allusion is one of many which encourages the Christian believers to see themselves as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and for his virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband; for her he may defile himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The list in :2,3 includes only direct blood relatives; his wife is omitted. See on :4. But it could be assumed that his wife was included amongst the "relatives near to him" of :2. Ezekiel was a priest, and when his wife died and he didn't mourn her, the people were surprised as to why he didn't (<em><a href='B:330 24:16'>Eze 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 24:19'>Eze 24:19</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew uses the word '<em>baal</em>' in the sense of master or husband. So some interpret this as meaning 'He shall not defile himself as an husband (i.e. for his wife) among his people'. But we wonder why, when he was allowed to do so for his other close relatives (:2,3). But LXX has "He shall not defile himself suddenly among his people to profane himself"- as if without self control, sudden expressions of grief could lead a person into uncleanness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall not shave their heads, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beards- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the style of mourning in the surrounding world. And it had some hints of idolatry. We could take this as meaning 'Don't follow the fashions of the world when they are allusive to idolatry and sinful ways'. And that has abiding relevance. The spiritual way of life seeks to cut off all opportunities for the flesh; all subliminal encouragements to sin are to be rooted out of our lives, rather than seeing how close we can sail to the wind.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nor make any cuttings in their flesh- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This refers to such marks as showed loyalty to an idol or to the dead who were thought to be still alive. Whereas the Bible teaches that death is unconsciousness. Whilst there is nothing morally wrong with cutting the skin, the idea was that Israel weren’t to even appear associated with pagan rituals for the dead. We likewise should naturally not want to even appear like worshippers of any other god (of whatever kind) when Yahweh is our only God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whatever carries God's Name is Him; and we bear that Name by baptism into it. We are to be aware of this and not profane it by inappropriate contact with that which is unclean.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For they offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, the food of their God; therefore they shall be holy- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God invited Israel to eat with Him at the altar, which became His table with their sacrifices as God's food, eaten by Him. The equivalent for us is eating with God at the Lord’s table, the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). Eating together was understood in Semitic culture as a sign of religious acceptance and fellowship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall not marry a woman who is a prostitute, or profane; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Reference to the possibility of prostitutes who were not punished with death is another tacit recognition within the Law that it would not be fully kept; for prostitution was outlawed. Thus in the very structure of the Law we see God’s sensitive recognition of the fact it would not be fully kept. His sensitivity to and provision for our failures in advance, both individually and collectively, shouldn’t lead us to think that therefore we needn’t take His principles seriously; His foreknowledge of our weakness shouldn’t be perceived by us as a safety net for our sinfulness. We recall how Solomon when confronted by two prostitutes did not order them to be slain as the law required; and his judgment was that of Divine wisdom, which is of grace.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sanctify him therefore; for he offers the bread of your God: he shall be holy to you; for I Yahweh, who sanctify you, am holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the prostitute, she profanes her father: she shall be burned with fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prostitution in view was likely not for economic reasons, but was rather being a cult prostitute at an idol shrine. This mixture of Yahweh worship and idolatry was especially obnoxious to God. The woman would have profaned not only her earthly father but also her Heavenly Father. This is why this kind of prostitute was to be punished whereas as noted on :7 there were others who were apparently tolerated.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who is the high priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor tear his clothes;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "he having been consecrated to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments". If he was on duty, especially at the day of atonement, then this was to be of paramount importance, reflecting the Lord's absolute focus upon His work on the cross. There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word <em>chiton</em> used in <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em> is that used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:3'>Gen 37:3</a></em> to describe Joseph’s coat of many pieces. Josephus (<em>Antiquities</em> 3:7:4,161) uses the word for the tunic of the High Priest, which was likewise not to be rent (<em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). The Lord in His time of dying is thus set up as High Priest, gaining forgiveness for His people, to ‘come out’ of the grave as on the day of Atonement, pronouncing the forgiveness gained, and bidding His people spread that good news world-wide.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not to say that long hair is wrong in itself for a male. The pagan priests of Egypt, from where Israel had just been brought out, were noted for their long hair, which stood out from the rest of the male population in Egypt who generally had shaved heads at that time. The principle is that we shouldn’t perceive our religion as merely just one of many other religions; there is something utterly unique about our way to God through Christ, who is our only mediator, the only way, “the truth”. Whilst on one hand God doesn’t judge the outward appearance but the heart, we should also be careful not to have externalities which make us appear to be ‘pagan’ and not the unique people of God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He would have been unclean for seven days if he did (<em><a href='B:40 19:11'>Num 19:11</a></em>), and this would have meant that his ministrations for the people, especially at the day of atonement, would have been interrupted. He like the Lord Jesus was to focus upon the work of saving the people more than anything else.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord’s comment: “Let the dead bury their dead” (<em><a href='B:470 8:22'>Mat 8:22</a></em>) reveals how He had a way of so radically challenging the positions held by normal people of the world, to a depth quite unheard of- and He did it in so few words. <em><a href='B:30 21:11'>Lev 21:11</a></em> forbad the High Priest to be polluted by touching the corpse of his parents, which would’ve precluded him from the usual Jewish manner of burying the dead in the first century. By asking His followers to act as if under the same regulation, the Lord was inviting His followers to see themselves, each one, as the High Priest. We may merely raise our eyebrows at this point, as a matter of mere expositional interest. But to those guys back then, this was major and radical, a man would have to sum up every ounce of spiritual ambition in order to rise up to this invitation. And psychologically, we could say that those first century illiterate Jews were subject to a very powerful systemic spiritual abuse. By this I mean that they were so emotionally hammered into the ground by the oppressive synagogue system that they felt themselves unworthy, no good, not up to much, awful sinners, woefully ignorant of God’s law, betrayers of Moses and their nation… and the Lord addresses these people and realistically asks them to feel and act like the High Priest! No wonder people just ‘didn’t get’ His real message, and those who did were so slow to rise up to the heights of its real implications. And we today likewise toil under a more insidious systemic abuse than we likely appreciate, with the same sense of not being ultimately worth much… until the Lord’s love and high calling bursts in upon our lives, releasing us from the mire of middle class (or aspired-to middle class) mediocrity into a brave new life.<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The calling to priesthood was not to be taken lightly. There was the death penalty for not remaining on duty during the seven days of their inauguration (<em><a href='B:30 8:35'>Lev 8:35</a></em>), and it could be that <em><a href='B:30 21:12'>Lev 21:12</a></em> implies the same as a general principle. We cannot just resign our responsibilities; for we are called to the priesthood, our baptism and clothing in the righteousness of Christ was our calling and inauguration (see on <em><a href='B:30 8:6-7'>Lev 8:6-7</a></em>). It is not for us to walk away from our calling. We are in this for life, serving until death, and then eternally in God's Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall take a wife in her virginity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "He shall take for a wife a virgin of his own tribe". Perhaps this is therefore one of the passages alluded to by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em> when he taught that marriage was to be "only in the Lord". See on :15. He was also alluding back to the command to Zelophehad's daughters to marry "whom they think best", but only "in" their tribe, otherwise they would lose the inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 36:6-7'>Num 36:6-7</a></em>). The implication is that those who do not marry "in the Lord" will likewise lose their promised inheritance. And this rather strange allusion indicates one more thing: the extent of the seriousness of marriage out of the Faith is only evident to those who search Scripture deeply.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A widow, or one divorced- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry; but a virgin of his own people shall he take as a wife-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Prostitutes were envisaged as not always being put to death. See on :7. By not doing so, Solomon showed his wisdom. "His own people" may refer to 'from his own tribe', as in :13 LXX.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not profane his seed among his people; for I am Yahweh who sanctifies him’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "Otherwise, his children, who ought to be holy, will be ritually unclean. I am the LORD and I have set him apart as the High Priest". The idea of children being clean or unclean is alluded to by Paul when he says that "The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" (<em><a href='B:530 7:14'>1Co 7:14</a></em>). We noted on <em><a href='B:30 21:13'>Lev 21:13</a></em> another allusion to this section in 1 Corinthians 7. Principles relevant to the High Priest are now applied to every believer; willful marriage to the unclean would not produce holy / clean children. Just as the tearing down of the veil into the most holy was a signal that all in Christ, and not just the High Priest, should now go in there just as the High Priest had done- and do his work, in essence. This was a high calling for those used to the Judaist system doing everything for them. In Christ they were called not just to priesthood, but to participate with and in Him who does the work of the High Priest.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The demands we will now read for unblemished Levites to serve Yahweh recall the requirements for unblemished sacrifices. But the thoughtful Israelite would have reflected that no man nor animal is without blemish. These commandments were to elicit a desire for perfection which was not possible. And this desire was only realizable in the change of human nature which was to be possible only through the appearance of an unblemished priest and sacrifice, the Lord Jesus. We too are brought up against our blemishes, in order to make us long for this final change which has to be brought about by God's action rather than our own efforts at perfection.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Say to Aaron, ‘None of your seed throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Of your seed" is LXX "of thy tribe". See on :16. God invited Israel to eat with Him at the altar, which became His table with their sacrifices as God's food, eaten by Him. The equivalent for us is eating with God at the Lord’s table, the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). Eating together was understood in Semitic culture as a sign of religious acceptance and fellowship. As we sit to eat at the Lord's table, quite naturally the very experience elicits self examination. And we realize that we are blemished; but by grace we are urged to eat at the Lord's table.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For whatever man he is that has a blemish, he shall not draw near: a blind man, or a lame, or he who has a flat nose, or any deformity-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A person who feels they are somehow a nice guy and worthy of invitation will be the one who tends to consider others as unworthy of invitation to the Kingdom. He or she who perceives their own desperation will eagerly invite even those they consider to be in the very pits of human society. The lame, blind etc. were not allowed to serve God under the law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>), nor be offered as sacrifices (<em><a href='B:50 15:21'>Deu 15:21</a></em>), nor come within the holy city (<em><a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a></em>). The Lord purposefully healed multitudes of lame and blind (<em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>), and allowed them to come to Him in the temple (<em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). His acted out message was clearly that those who were despised as unfit for God’s service were now being welcomed by Him into that service. The lame and blind were despised because they couldn’t work. They had to rely on the grace of others. Here again is a crucial teaching: those called are those who can’t do the works, but depend upon grace.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh describes His servant Israel, both natural and spiritual, as a blind servant: "Who is blind but my servant?... who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?" (<em><a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a></em>). There is a real paradox here: a blind servant, or slave. What master would keep a blind servant? Only a master who truly loved him, and kept him on as his servant by pure grace. Yet this useless blind servant was God's servant and messenger- even though the blind were not acceptable as servants or sacrifices of God under the Law (<em><a href='B:30 21:18'>Lev 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:22'>Lev 21:22</a></em>)! God uses His spiritually blind servant people to proclaim His message to the world. The disciples, still blind to the call of the Gentiles, were sent out to preach to the whole world! And we too, blind as we are in many ways, are turning men from blindness to light.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or a man who has an injured foot, or an injured hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX gives "broken" for "injured". Perhaps this was to make a connection with how not a bone of the Passover lamb was to be broken. And this was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, of whom not a bone was broken (<em><a href='B:500 19:36'>Joh 19:36</a></em>). The priests were to be as living sacrifices.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or hunchbacked, or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye, or an itching disease, or scabs, or who has damaged testicles- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "or hump-backed, or blear-eyed, or that has lost his eye-lashes, or a man who has a malignant ulcer, or tetter, or one that has lost a testicle". The reference to the "itching disease" may refer to those who had received a specific Divine stroke of judgment, as discussed on Leviticus 13, 14. Eye lashes are particularly affected by leprosy, so this and the itch and scabs would sound like the stroke of Divine judgment which was similar to what we know as leprosy, although I suggested on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> that it was not leprosy as we now know it.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>no man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. Since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming. The sacrificial animals are spoken of as "the bread of your God" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:21'>Lev 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to Christ. In addition to alluding to the manna, Christ must have been consciously making this connection when He spoke about himself as the bread of God. The only time "the bread of God" could be eaten by the Israelite was at the peace offering. When in this context Christ invites us to eat the bread of God, to eat His flesh and drink His blood (<em><a href='B:500 6:51-52'>Joh 6:51-52</a></em>), He is looking back to the peace offering. But this is also an evident prophecy of the breaking of bread service. Many of the Jews just could not cope with what Christ was offering them when He said this. They turned back, physically and intellectually. They just could not grapple with the idea that Christ was that peace offering sacrifice, and He was inviting them to sit down with God, as it were, and in fellowship with the Almighty, partake of the sacrificed body of His Son. But this is just what Christ is inviting each of us to do in the memorial meeting, to sit down in fellowship with Him, and eat of His bread. God really is here with us at the memorial meeting. He is intensely watching us. He is intensely with us, He really is going to save us, if only we can have the faith to believe how much He loves us, how much He wants us to share His fellowship and know His presence. We are the new priesthood, and can only eat this bread of God if we are unblemished. But we are full of blemishes. We can only be unblemished through believing that we are "in Christ", the unblemished One.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall eat the food of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "The gifts of God are most holy, and he shall eat of the holy things". Whatever blemish the man had, he could still personally fellowship with God, but he was not to publically offer the offerings of others. The priests at that moment were to be consciously representative of the sacrifices, which are the only other things which have the language of ‘blemish’ and ‘unblemished’ applied to them (e.g. <em><a href='B:30 22:20'>Lev 22:20</a></em>). The message may be that whatever a man's disqualification from public ministry, he should never be denied eating "the food of his God", fellowship at the Lord's table.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not come near to the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish; that he may not profane My sanctuaries, for I am Yahweh who sanctifies them’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :16, there was no man nor animal which was totally without blemish or (Heb.) 'spot'. The thoughtful Israelite would have therefore looked ahead to an unblemished priest and sacrifice which was not to be of the Mosaic order. This idea is alluded to when Paul and Peter write to Hebrews that the Lord Jesus offered "without spot"&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>); and through being "in" Him, we too are counted as without spot, by imputed righteousness (<em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a></em>). This idea is hinted at here in this verse; the unblemished were not to come near to the veil, because it is Yahweh who would sanctify them / make them holy. This appears at first blush to be a juxtaposition of ideas; but the sense is that the all were in fact blemished, and it was only Yahweh who would sanctify them or make them holy.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses spoke to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Leviticus is addressed to the Levites, indeed it could be that the entire book is a transcription of the things said at the inauguration of the Levites after the tabernacle was completed. But "all the children of Israel" were to be aware of them; the priesthood and regulations were to be no secret. All the people were to be made aware of them, so they might perceive the principles being taught. This contrasts with how the pagan religions tended to keep their priestly regulations a close kept secret.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language of the next verses is used elsewhere about the peace offerings, so perhaps they were particularly in view. Voluntary devotion to God doesn't mean we can ignore His principles<em>.</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Tell Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they make holy to Me, and that they don’t profane My holy name. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The summary idea is as in GNB "You must not bring disgrace on my holy name, so treat with respect the sacred offerings that the people of Israel dedicate to me". Eating the offerings was one of the many antecedents of the memorial meeting. Once the offerer had dedicated himself to making it, he was condemned if he didn't then do it, and yet also condemned if he ate it unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em>). So a man <em>had </em>to either cleanse himself, or be condemned. There was no get out, no third road. The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of “eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. And so it is with us as we face the emblems. We must do it, or we deny our covenant relationship. And yet if we do it in our uncleanness, we also deny that relationship. And thus the breaking of bread brings us up before the cross and throne of the Lord Jesus- even now. It brings us to a realistic self-examination. If we cannot examine ourselves and know that Christ is really in us, then we are reprobate; we "have failed" (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em> G.N.B.). Self-examination is therefore one of those barriers across our path in life which makes us turn to the Kingdom or to the flesh. If we can't examine ourselves and see that Christ is in us and that we have therefore that great salvation in Him; we've failed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Tell them, ‘If anyone of all your descendants throughout your generations approaches the holy things, which the children of Israel make holy to Yahweh, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was not allowed for unclean offerers to eat peace offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em>), nor could Levites or priests approach to the sacrifices whilst unclean (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>). But there is no statement that the offerer had to be clean, indeed <em><a href='B:50 12:22'>Deu 12:22</a></em> says that in some circumstances, some sacrifices could be eaten by the offerer whilst unclean. We see here God's willingness to by all means accept the offerer of sacrifice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever of the seed of Aaron is a leper or has an issue shall not eat of the holy things, until he is clean. Whoever touches anything that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goes from him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on <em><a href='B:30 13:1'>Lev 13:1</a></em> and throughout Leviticus 13, 14, I suggest that the leprosy in view is a specific stroke of Divine judgment, from which the person could be cleansed by repentance. It doesn't refer to leprosy as we now understand it, i.e. Hansen's disease. Whilst a priest was under Divine judgment, he couldn't eat in fellowship with God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or whoever touches any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean; or a man from whom he may take uncleanness, whatever uncleanness he has-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "whoever" continues to apply to the Levites; see on :3. Leviticus is specifically commandment to the Levites.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the person that touches any such shall be unclean until the evening, and shall not eat of the holy things, until he bathe his body in water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As we as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) read of these requirements not to eat the holy things whilst unclean, we may wonder how we as sinners can ever eat the bread and drink the wine as required to remember Christ’s death. But the fact is, we have been washed and sanctified for service by baptism into the Name of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em> alludes here). This is a status we are continually in- for this is the wonder of the concept of our being “in Christ”.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he shall eat of the holy things, because it is his food-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The food which the Levites ate is also called God's food (see on <em><a href='B:30 21:17'>Lev 21:17</a></em>); their eating of it for themselves was effectively God eating the sacrifices of the people. So in eating it, they were to manifest God, and therefore not be in a state of uncleanness.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That which dies of itself, or is torn by animals, he shall not eat, defiling himself by it. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 22:31'>Exo 22:31</a></em> says they were to throw such food to the dogs and not eat it. Perhaps "dogs" meant Gentiles.&nbsp;This command wasn’t only for hygienic reasons. God wished to encourage His people to have a healthy work ethic, not taking short cuts, but eating animals they had raised themselves for that purpose. We live in a society where laziness and trying to live for free has become almost an art form. We cannot ultimately get around the curse, that we shall eat only as a result of the sweat of our own labour. We have to accept our humanity and our fallen condition, looking for the lifting of the curse in God’s future Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall therefore follow My requirements, lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. I am Yahweh who sanctifies them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were to be holy or sanctified, because Yahweh counted them as holy / sanctified. We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No foreigner shall eat of the holy thing: a foreigner living with the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law has a lot to say about welcoming foreigners and being hospitable to them. We as the “Israel of God” (<em><a href='B:550 6:16'>Gal 6:16</a></em>) should likewise be open rather than closed to the people of the world around us, even though we are in another sense separated <em>from</em> them and <em>unto</em> the things of our God. The priests who ate the meat sacrificed by the Israelites were representing God by doing so. The food which the Levites ate is also called God's food (see on <em><a href='B:30 21:17'>Lev 21:17</a></em>); their eating of it for themselves was effectively God eating the sacrifices of the people. So in eating it, they were to manifest God and therefore a foreigner was not appropriate for this. This was not racism; for foreign slaves and their children could eat of it (:11), the idea therefore seems to be a Gentile traveller who had been given temporary hospitality by a Levite.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if a priest buys a slave, purchased by his money, he shall eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they shall eat of his bread- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gentiles who had been bought for a price by a priest to be his servants were treated as Israelites. This looked forward to Christ, the final Priest, buying us with His own blood that we might be His servants, and thereby we are fully part of His family and the people of God (<em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she shall not eat of the heave offering of the holy things-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The girl who married a Gentile couldn’t eat of the holy things; and neither could a Gentile who was passing through, it is stated, in this same passage (<em><a href='B:30 22:11'>Lev 22:11</a></em>). The point was: if you marry a Gentile, then you are a Gentile, and you forego your spiritual privileges which you have as an Israelite.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if a priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of Numbers 5, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But no stranger shall eat any of it- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But if the stranger had been bought by the Priest, he or she was no longer a stranger (:11). Paul has this passage in mind when he rejoices that those baptized into Christ are no longer strangers and foreigners but members of God’s family and fellow citizens with “the saints”, a term which he may well have understood in this context as referring to the community of Israel (<em><a href='B:560 2:19'>Eph 2:19</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priests shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The summary idea is as in :2 GNB "You must not bring disgrace on my holy name, so treat with respect the sacred offerings".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and so cause them to bear the iniquity that brings guilt, when they eat their holy things; for I am Yahweh who sanctifies them’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of “eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. See on :3.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the following section is that the offerings now described had to be as the offerers, whose 'without blemish' status has just been described. Perhaps this was to develop the reflection that the offerer was to be as the offering. Because the offering represented the offerer; and this is made explicit in the New Testament invitation to be living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘Whoever is of the house of Israel, or of the foreigners in Israel, who offers his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill offerings, which they offer to Yahweh for a burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that you may be accepted, you shall offer a male without blemish, of the bulls, of the sheep, or of the goats- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). So this looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But whatever has a blemish, that you shall not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of being not accepted may mean that the fire of God would not appear and consume it. "Acceptable" translates the same Hebrew word used for "at your own will" (:19,29; <em><a href='B:30 1:3'>Lev 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:5'>Lev 19:5</a></em>). The sense is that offering a blemished animal would as it were cancel out the commendable freewill desire to offer to God. Our desire to serve God on our initiative doesn't mean that we can ignore the need to give Him the best.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to Yahweh to accomplish a vow, or for a freewill offering, of the herd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted: no blemish shall be therein- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This repeats the principle discussed on :20; that a desire to serve God on our own initiative does not mean we can ignore His principles. They are not somehow subsumed beneath the value of our freewill; His will is to be honoured more than ours. And yet "perfect to be accepted" would have struck the thoughtful Israelite as a principle which left them for ever unacceptable- for no offerer nor offering was "perfect". And so again the whole structure was set up to elicit a desire for the perfect One, the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Blind, injured, maimed, having a wart, festering, or having a running sore, you shall not offer these to Yahweh, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this is precisely what the priests at the time of the restoration are condemned for doing in <em><a href='B:460 1:8'>Mal 1:8</a></em>. The excuse of the priests would have been that it was the people who offered these defective animals. But they were judged as responsible, as their acceptance of them encouraged the masses in their disrespect. Thus they failed to speak out against the low spiritual standards of their flock, but instead went along with them.&nbsp;So the masses got the spiritual leadership they wanted, even if they despised them (<em><a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a></em>). For this reason, both society and priesthood were equally to be condemned. They offered blemished sacrifices, when it had been prophesied / commanded in the Ezekiel prophecies of the restored temple that Israel were not to do this (<em><a href='B:330 43:23'>Eze 43:23</a></em>). Those prophecies were command more than prediction, and only conditional upon Israel's obedience- which was not forthcoming. So much prophetic potential was wasted, as it is in human life today. See on <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 2:14'>Mal 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A bull or a lamb that has any deformity or is lacking in his parts, that you may offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For a freewill offering, God would accept a deformed animal (<em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>), even though this was against His <em>preferred principle </em>of absolute perfection in offerings. There was no atonement without the shedding of blood; and yet for the very poor, God would accept a non-blood sacrifice. This all reflected the zeal of God to accept fallen men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That which has its testicles bruised, crushed, broken, or cut, you shall not offer to Yahweh; neither shall you do thus in your land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Animals weren’t to be castrated. We see in this not only a reflection of the huge value God places upon life in general, but also His sensitivity to animals. Verses 27 and 28 may reflect the same. Animals are usually castrated if they have defects so that they don't produce more deformed animals. But if Israel were obedient to the covenant, their animals would be healthy and not deformed, so obedience to this command would have been easier. If we follow the Spirit, then we are led into an upward spiral of spiritual life and an atmosphere whereby obedience leads to obedience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Neither shall you offer any of these as the food of your God from the hand of a foreigner; because their corruption is in them. There is a blemish in them. They shall not be accepted for you’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of eating the bread of God, the sacrifice which represents His son, and thereby having fellowship with Him, should send our minds forward to John 6. "The bread of God is He which comes down from heaven", i.e. our Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:33'>Joh 6:33</a></em>). Not for nothing do some Rabbis speak of 'eating Messiah' as an expression of the fellowship they hope to have with Him at His coming. The sacrificial animals are spoken of as "the bread of your God" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:21'>Lev 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em> etc.), pointing forward to Christ. In addition to alluding to the manna, Christ must have been consciously making this connection when He spoke about himself as the bread of God. The only time "the bread of God" could be eaten by the Israelite was at the peace offering. When in this context Christ invites us to eat the bread of God, to eat His flesh and drink His blood (<em><a href='B:500 6:51-52'>Joh 6:51-52</a></em>), He is looking back to the peace offering. But this is also an evident prophecy of the breaking of bread service. Many of the Jews just could not cope with what Christ was offering them when He said this. They turned back, physically and intellectually. They just could not grapple with the idea that Christ was that peace offering sacrifice, and He was inviting them to sit down with God, as it were, and in fellowship with the Almighty, partake of the sacrificed body of His Son. But this is just what Christ is inviting each of us to do in the memorial meeting, to sit down in fellowship with Him, and eat of His bread. God really is here with us at the memorial meeting. He is intensely watching us. He is intensely with us, He really is going to save us, if only we can have the faith to believe how much He loves us, how much He wants us to share His fellowship and know His presence.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that these commands are given to the Levites- we are reading Leviticus. They were not to consider that the low standards of others were not their concern.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat, is born, then it shall remain seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for the offering of an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Animals often died after birth, and it was only by the eighth day that it was apparent whether or not it was deformed. This was to remind them that they were to offer the best to God, and not to offer that which cost them nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whether it is a cow or ewe, you shall not kill it and its young both in one day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mosaic law sought to inculcate a culture of kindness and extreme sensitivity to all, even animals. Read like this, the law about not boiling a kid in its mother's milk is similar to the prohibitions of killing on the same a cow and a calf, or a ewe and her lamb. It is likely that this was also related to a paganic fertility ritual, performed at harvest time ; and God didn't want His people to even remotely be associated with that. For He alone was the source of all fertility.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The peoples' behaviour in <em><a href='B:90 14:32'>1Sa 14:32</a></em> is portrayed as breaking every principle of the commands about eating blood in <em><a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a></em>. They ate blood, and also killed calves and mothers on the same day (disobeying <em><a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a></em>). All because they were more obedient to their oath to Saul not to eat anything until sundown, rather than to God's covenant. For all this, they were to have God against them and be cut off from God's people. The essence of this has been seen so many times in church history. An insistence upon petty legalism leads people to commit major sin. They are more obedient to the party line and the barked orders of their leadership, than to God. And the legalistic demands of their elders lead them to make utter shipwreck of their faith, breaking the most elemental principles of their covenant with God. Once sundown came and they were free from the oath to Saul, the people were totally disobedient to the covenant.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Yahweh, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levite was not to just assume that an unacceptable peace offering was not his concern. He was not to just do his job as if it were a secular day job of mere religion. His passion was to be that others might be accepted by God; and as a nation of priests (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) we should have the same spirit.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be eaten on the same day; you shall leave none of it until the morning. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of the peace offerings was designed so as to encourage the person who decided to make such a freewill offering to execute immediately- they were to eat it the same day they offered it, and the sacrifice would be totally unacceptable if it was killed but left for some days (<em><a href='B:30 19:5-7'>Lev 19:5-7</a></em>). If we have an impulse to respond to the Lord, we should respond to it immediately. This isn’t mere impetuosity. It’s a spirit of always having an immediacy of response, which empowers us to overcome the procrastination which holds us back so much. Leviticus 7 warns against various ways of using the peace offering for the benefit of the offerer. One such idea may have been to kill meat and eat it over three days, and then claim this was a peace offering- when actually it involved eating meat which the offerer wanted to eat anyway. So the warning is against using voluntary offerings (in whatever way) as a front for doing our own thing, offering what cost us very little, and only appearing to others to have a great religious devotion. <em><a href='B:30 19:7'>Lev 19:7</a></em> warns that "If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination". We note that "the third day" was not to be taken as 72 hours, and this affects our understanding of the chronology of the Lord's death and resurrection. If we think our freewill devotions to be God can be done as we wish without regard for His principles, then what we do is obnoxious to Him. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” is often used about idol worship; we will not be worshipping Him, but the idols of our own image and standing in the eyes of people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and do them. I am Yahweh-</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");&nbsp; 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>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be made holy among the children of Israel. I am Yahweh Who makes you holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They as us were to live out in practice the status which God had given them. He had made them holy and acceptable in His sight, and they were therefore to live in a holy manner. Because we bear the Lord’s Name by baptism into it, we <em>are</em> Christ to this world. Likewise, those in covenant relationship in the Old Testament bore Yahweh’s Name, and were therefore in all ways to act appropriately lest their behaviour “profane My holy name”.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language echoes that of God to Abraham: "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur" (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>). They were being asked to act as Abraham's seed, and respond as He did to the Divine initiative in separating them from the world- by following His commandments. Whenever God speaks about His Name, it is in the context of His emphasizing His huge commitment to Israel as His people, often in the face of their weakness (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:26'>Exo 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>). The very meaning of God's Name is of itself encouraging- although it is somewhat masked in English translations. God 'is' not just in the sense that He exists, but in that He 'is' there with and for us. The verb behind 'YHWH' was "originally causative", i.e. God not only 'is' but He causes things to happen. We aren't to understand Him as passive, just a stone cold Name... but rather passionately active and causative in our sometimes apparently static and repetitive lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are connections between the various sections of Revelation and the Jewish feasts. Here's a summary:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 5 Passover <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 7 Tabernacles <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:15-16'>Rev 7:15-16</a></em> RV = <em><a href='B:20 23:16'>Exo 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:22'>Exo 34:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 14:16-20'>Zec 14:16-20</a></em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 8, 9 Day Of Atonement <em><a href='B:30 16:31'>Lev 16:31</a></em>; more detailed links in Harry Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach pp. 104,105.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 11 Dedication & Purim The Torah readings for these feasts were Numbers 7 and Zechariah 2-4 about the dedication of the temple; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:11:10'>Rev 11:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:190 9:19'>Est 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a></em>. The period from Tabernacles to Purim is exactly 5 months- as mentioned in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 12 Pentecost & Passover The Jews traditionally ask: "On this Sabbath, shall I reap?"<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 14 Tabernacles <em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 15 + 16 Atonement & Passover Leviticus 16; Psalms 118 the Hallel Psalm<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 19 Passover Psalms 113, 114 Passover Psalms<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 21, 22 Tabernacles<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Laying out the material chronologically, we have:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 5: Passover<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6 months<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 7: Tabernacles<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapters 8 & 9: Atonement and Tabernacles<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Dedication 5 months (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>)<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Purim<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 12: Passover and Pentecost<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 14: Tabernacles<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 15: Atonement<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 16 & 19: Passover <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 21 & 22: Tabernacles<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The conclusion would therefore be that we have in the book of Revelation a literal account of the three and a half years tribulation, with the Jewish feasts being the key marker points. And it would appear there will be an especial period of five months tribulation as described between Revelation chapters 9 and 11.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘The set feasts of Yahweh, which you shall proclaim to be holy assemblies, even these are My set feasts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Convocation" or "assembly" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God's people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy assembly; you shall do no kind of work. It is a Sabbath to Yahweh in all your dwellings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>), using the word which is used in the Septuagint for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath. Just as we are to live the "eternal life" now, the type of life we will eternally live in the Kingdom is to be lived and experienced now. In this sense, as Hebrews makes clear, we "have entered into rest", and yet in another sense we labour now to enter into that rest at the Lord's return. This is a classic case of the "now but not yet" theme of the Bible.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the Sabbath was one of the ten commandments. But&nbsp;the Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<em><a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a></em>).&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “... the Lord has given <em>you</em> (not all mankind) the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a></em>); “... You (God) made known to them (Israel) Your holy Sabbath” (<em><a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a></em>). The Old Covenant refers to the Law of Moses, which was replaced on the cross by the New Covenant. God "declared to you (Israel) His covenant which he commanded you (Israel) to perform, that is the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>).&nbsp;God "wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>). If we argue that keeping the covenant made in the ten commandments is necessary, we must also observe every detail of the entire Law, seeing that this is all part of the same covenant.&nbsp;It is evidently impossible to do this. “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a></em>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. <em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em> speaks of "the tablets of the covenant".&nbsp;The ten commandments were written on the tablets of stone, which comprised "the (old) covenant". Paul refers to this covenant as "written and engraved on&nbsp;stones", i.e. on the tablets of stone.&nbsp;He calls it "the ministry of death... the ministry of condemnation...” that which is “... passing away" (<em><a href='B:540 3:7-11'>2Co 3:7-11</a></em>).&nbsp;However, nine of the ten commandments have been reaffirmed, in spirit at least, in the New Testament: 1st. - <em><a href='B:560 4:6'>Eph 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:21'>1Jn 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>; Matthew ; Second - <em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; Romans Third - <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>; Fifth - <em><a href='B:560 6:1-2'>Eph 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:20'>Col 3:20</a></em>; Sixth - <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; Matthew Seventh - <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27-28'>Mat 5:27-28</a></em>; Matthew Eighth - <em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>; Ninth - <em><a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:25'>Eph 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:3'>2Ti 3:3</a></em>; Tenth. - <em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 can be found in 1 Timothy 1 alone, and Numbers 1, 2, 10 in 1 Corinthians 5. But never is the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath repeated in the New Testament as obligatory for us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the set feasts of Yahweh, even holy assemblies, which you shall proclaim in their appointed season-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul alludes here when he says that the breaking of bread meeting- the only ‘feast’ we have under the New Covenant- is a proclaiming of Christ’s death (<em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is Yahweh’s Passover- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel both kept Passover and went through the Red Sea at night.&nbsp;Indeed, it is stressed six times in Exodus 12 that it was “night", and hence <em><a href='B:50 16:1'>Deu 16:1</a></em> reminds them to carefully keep the Passover (i.e. at night), “for... your God brought you forth&nbsp;out of Egypt by night".&nbsp;Other latter day prophecies speak of the events of the second coming being at "night":&nbsp;Lot left Sodom in the very early hours of the morning;&nbsp;and it was "at midnight (that) there was a cry made" informing the virgins of their Lord's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to Yahweh. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These seven days were to recall the seven days of creation; for the exodus was a new creation of Israel, out of the water of the Red Sea.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first day you shall have a holy assembly. You shall do no regular work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Work was obviously required in order to keep the Passover; the "work" in view is therefore secular work. But the Hebrew phrase "regular work" is that repeatedly used for "the work of the service" of the tabernacle, performed by the Levites (<em><a href='B:20 35:21'>Exo 35:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:24'>Exo 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:1'>Exo 36:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:5'>Exo 36:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:13'>1Ch 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 9:19'>1Ch 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 23:24'>1Ch 23:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 25:1'>1Ch 25:1</a></em> etc.). Perhaps this command in Leviticus was specifically addressed to the Levites, and the idea was that at the times of the festivals, the Levites were to focus upon keeping them in their own families and not be unduly taken up with the work of the sanctuary beyond what was required by the Mosaic law. The principle is that we must not be so taken up with religious duty that we neglect our own personal worship, especially in our own families.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh seven days. In the seventh day is a holy assembly: you shall do no regular work’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sacrifices on each of the seven days were two young bullocks, one ram and seven Iambs for a burnt offering, with the accompanying meat offerings, and one goat for a sin offering (<em><a href='B:40 28:19-24'>Num 28:19-24</a></em>). This explains why the Jews at the time of the Lord's death were careful about not being defiled so that they might eat the Passover (<em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>). The reference is not to the Passover lamb, but to these sacrifices which began the seven day feast of unleavened bread which followed the Passover feast, which only last one day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether the following commandment about the feast of ingathering was therefore given at a slightly different time to the preceding material about Passover; or whether the inspired recording of it wished to emphasize a subdivision.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you have come into the land which I give to you, and shall reap the harvest, then you shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued that the following ritual was specific to the first generation who entered the land. But see on :14. But there is no historical record of their obedience to it. Constantly Israel were reminded that God would indeed give them the promised Kingdom, even though at that time as they wandered in the wilderness it must’ve seemed merely a nice idea. He encourages us likewise.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he shall wave the sheaf before Yahweh, to be accepted for you. On the next day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The portion to be waved was placed on the priests hands (<em><a href='B:20 29:25'>Exo 29:25</a></em>), and then 'waved' or 'swung' towards the altar and then back- not from right to left. The idea was that the offerings were first given to God, recognizing they should be consumed on the altar to God; but then given back to the priest by God. So they ate them having first recognized that their food was really God's, all was of Him, and He had given it back to them to eat. This should be our spirit in partaking of any food, as we are the new priesthood. Our prayers of thanks for daily food should include this feature. All things are God's and anything we 'offer' to Him is only giving Him what He has given to us (<em><a href='B:130 29:14'>1Ch 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:16'>1Ch 29:16</a></em>). Joseph was likened to a sheaf (<em><a href='B:10 37:7'>Gen 37:7</a></em>), as a type of the Christ who was the wave sheaf.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb without blemish a year old for a burnt offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus. The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain, until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God. This is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The following ritual was specific to the first generation who entered the land. But there is no historical record of their obedience to it. And yet subsequent generations were to keep this<em>,</em> feeling each year as if they had just entered the land. In this sense Biblical history becomes alive; we live in newness of life, as the historical records come alive for us time and again. History is not therefore bunk for us. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘You shall count from the next day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be completed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This sheaf represented the Lord Jesus; see on :16. This came to the feast of Pentecost, around 50 days after Passover. After the Lord's death there was to be a great harvest celebration- and that is the significance of the mass baptisms on the day of Pentecost, the greater harvest after the harvesting of the Lord Jesus in His resurrection. All those baptized chose to do so of their own freewill, but things worked out wonderfully in fulfilling the feasts in spiritual terms. We see here the interplay between Divine sovereignty and human volition.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even to the next day after the seventh Sabbath you shall number fifty days; and you shall offer a new grain offering to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 16:9'>Deu 16:9</a></em> adds: "You must count for yourselves seven weeks: from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks". These 50 days led to the Greek term "Pentecost"<em>.</em> The putting of the sickle to the barley harvest was therefore at Passover (<em><a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a></em>). The wheat harvest was seven weeks after this. The Lord's death at Passover was as the barley harvest, and we recall that barley was the food of the poor. He died on 13 / 14 Nissan, and resurrected on 16/17 Nissan, which was when the 50 days to Pentecost began to be counted from; for that was the time when the sickle was put to the grain and the firstfruits harvested (<em><a href='B:30 23:15'>Lev 23:15</a></em>). But at the feast of Pentecost 50 days later, there were the baptisms of 3000 people. This was as it were the wheat harvest, of which the Lord's resurrection was a foretaste and firstfruit (<em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a></em>). That great multitude represented all who would afterwards believe, and be finally harvested at the last day.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring out of your habitations two loaves of bread for a wave offering made of two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour. They shall be baked with yeast, for first fruits to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yeast represents human sin (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>), and was often banned from being offered. But here it was required- to remind the people that they were sinners, and yet God still accepts the offerings of sinners. On the morning after the Passover Sabbath a sheaf of firstripe barley must be waived (i.e. passed to and fro) before the Lord; this represents the resurrection of Christ and the fact He is a firstfruits of us; but so encouragingly, a few weeks later at Pentecost the corresponding wave offering before the Lord was two loaves <em>baked with leaven</em>. Leaven always represents sin or corruption. They represent Jews and Gentiles who because of Christ's resurrection and triumph can come into the presence of God despite their leaven, our natural wretched man of the flesh, not having been completely purged out of them. Personally I feel that the N.T. indicates that it is God's desire that we should break bread weekly; if so, then the seven days of unleavened bread afterwards then represent our restrained lives in the coming week until we come to break bread again.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall present with the bread seven lambs without blemish a year old, one young bull, and two rams. They shall be a burnt offering to Yahweh, with their grain offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of a sweet aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>).<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before Yahweh, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to Yahweh for the priest-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The two lambs offered for a burnt offering at the end of harvest contrast with the single lamb offered at the start of it (:12). This was to underline that the receipt of blessing from God must be responded to in dedication to Him- which is what the burnt offering represented.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make proclamation on the same day: there shall be a holy assembly to you; you shall do no regular work. This is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The celebration of harvest was typically a celebration of the fruits of human labour. But God's people were to be careful to realize that any harvest blessings were ultimately of God and not of their labour.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap into the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest: you shall leave them for the poor, and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelites were reminded of this principle at this point in the legislation lest they become so caught up with realizing their own material blessings that they forgot that others were not so blessed. Whenever we reflect upon our material blessings we are to immediately remind ourselves that others somewhere are not so blessed, and we have a duty towards them. The idea was that the poor could come after the field had been harvested and glean. By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, a leash binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; for Israel is God's partner, not His dog. But rather was it designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feast of trumpets is mentioned separately to that of the day of atonement, but it was clearly intended to prepare for it. To blow trumpets was to proclaim a King, or to rejoice in his kingship. Yahweh was Israel's King. <em><a href='B:230 81:2'>Psa 81:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 81:4'>Psa 81:4</a></em> interprets the feast as jubilation that God is king and judge of Israel- and this thought of judgment leads to the soberness of the day of Atonement. Yahweh is indeed proclaimed as judge, but we can jubilate in that because He will judge with grace and forgiveness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest to you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy assembly-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:160 8:2'>Neh 8:2</a></em> records that this feast was used in order to teach the law to the assembled people. It w<em>a</em>s a lead up to the affliction of souls on the tenth day of that month at the day of atonement.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do no regular work; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is repeated emphasis upon not working whilst remembering God's saving work. Throughout the Mosaic law, there was the clear teaching that it was God's work and not that of man which was to be celebrated and was to be the basis of relationship with God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feast of trumpets featured both conviction of sin and also joy in God's salvation and forgiveness; the same strange mixture of emotions we see in the record of its observance in <em><a href='B:160 8:1-10'>Neh 8:1-10</a></em>, and which we experience in our own lives. And this was all to prepare for the same mixture of emotions at the day of Atonement which followed straight on.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>However on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement: it shall be a holy assembly to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Afflict your souls" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember the state they had been in prior to their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them. All this is an abiding principle for us. True redemption of others has to be rooted in an awareness of our own affliction. This is particularly necessary for those who were as it were schooled into Christ by reason of their upbringing. The details of the offerings are given in <em><a href='B:40 29:7-15'>Num 29:7-15</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note from <em><a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a></em> that the fast of the seventh month, which clearly refers to this fasting at the day of atonement, was to be a time of joy and cheerful feasting once Israel were assured of their forgiveness. And this was fulfilled to a limited extent when the exiles (apparently on the day of atonement) mourned in conviction of their sins, and then with their eyes streaming with tears, were told to go and rejoice with a feast (<em><a href='B:160 8:10'>Neh 8:10</a></em>). It was this spirit which was to be found in the subsequent feast of tabernacles, which was to commemorate and rejoice in sin forgiven. But there is reason to think that the exiles on that occasion were told to in fact celebrate on that very day of atonement; another indication that God never intended His law to be eternally fixed and literally unchanging. Although it is worth considering whether in fact the law was actually requiring fasting; rather was the emphasis upon affliction of souls after conviction of personal sin.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do no kind of work in that same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew definitely reads as if it is the day of atonement which made atonement. This verse has been clung on to by Judaism at times when the temple was not standing and the sacrifices associated with the day of atonement were not offered. Their argument was and is that it is the day of atonement which makes atonement, because the atonement is from God's sovereign grace. And indeed there is some truth in this. For it was ever impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, and Paul's argument in Hebrews is based upon the implications of the day of Atonement. It indeed looks ahead to another and more ultimate atonement, by God's grace through His pronouncement. And that pronouncement was made regardless of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices; it was made over the blood of His crucified Son.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For whoever it is who shall not bow himself down in that same day shall be cut off from his people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But only God could see which soul did not afflict itself (see AV). So many of these laws were not able to be judged by men; and indeed Yahweh was Israel's judge and not any human judiciary. Hence in <em><a href='B:290 58:3-5'>Isa 58:3-5</a></em> we read of God's judgment of an insincerely kept day of Atonement. The people fasted and bowed down their heads- but God saw that it was an affliction of soul, and in fact they did this for the sake of their own egos. They were to afflict their souls and on this basis give practical help to the afflicted souls (<em><a href='B:290 58:3'>Isa 58:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:5'>Isa 58:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:10'>Isa 58:10</a></em>). And this was to be the spirit of the subsequent feast of booths. Our generosity to others who are afflicted is to be upon the basis of our own conviction of personal sin and self affliction because of it.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whoever it is who does any kind of work in that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :29, the emphasis is upon how God Himself, and not His people, would cut off or destroy such a person. Whilst work was forbidden during the other feasts, this threat is added only here concerning the Day of Atonement. This was how important it was for them to realize that atonement for our sins is in the end by God’s grace through the sacrifice of the animals who represented Christ; and not according to our works.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God in the prophets complains that <em>His people </em>don’t keep the Sabbath. He didn’t cut off the individuals as He threatened. The Lord (<em><a href='B:470 12:5'>Mat 12:5</a></em>) said that the priests " profaned" the Sabbath; He didn't say that because they kept the spirit of it, that was acceptable. By using a word as extreme as " profaned" He seems to be even emphasizing the point. This isn’t to say that God says but doesn’t do. It’s just that His grace and patience is beyond His law.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall do no kind of work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how God so wished the people to cease from their own works, and to believe in justification by faith through grace, rather than by their own works.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall bow down yourselves. In the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall keep your Sabbath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Sabbath is always called God's Sabbath, celebrating His rest from His works; here, the Sabbath associated with the day of Atonement is called Israel's Sabbath. The need to rest from their own works is so strongly stressed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The material about the feasts is clearly split up into clearly defined sections, probably to assist memorization in a largely illiterate society.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and say, ‘On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the feast of tents for seven days to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to celebrate the joy of forgiveness received at the day of Atonement. The communal nature of it was in order to provide an opportunity for the generosity to others which was intended to arise from personal experience of God's gift of salvation and forgiveness. See on :29.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the first day shall be a holy assembly: you shall do no regular work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This huge stress upon not working is to be noted. The feast was celebrating God's forgiveness of His people on the day of Atonement, and it was critical for Israel to realize that it was His grace and not their works which was the basis of their salvation. It is therefore quite wrong to think of the Mosaic law as teaching salvation by works; it taught the very opposite.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seven days you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh. On the eighth day shall be a holy assembly to you; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh. It is a solemn assembly; you shall do no regular work-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The details of the offerings are given in <em><a href='B:40 29:12-38'>Num 29:12-38</a></em>. Thirteen bullocks were to be sacrificed on the first day, and the number of bullocks decreased by one every day until seven bullocks on the last day. Additionally there were to be two rams and fourteen iambs. The sin offering on each day was one kid of the goats. On the eighth day the burnt offering consisted of one bullock, one ram, seven lambs, and the sin offering of one kid of the goats. Over the eight days, this made a total of seventy-one bullocks, fifteen rams, one hundred and five lambs and eight kids plus meat and drink offerings.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the appointed feasts of Yahweh, which you shall proclaim to be holy assemblies, to offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh, a burnt offering, and a grain offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, each on its own day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the word used in <em><a href='B:20 5:13'>Exo 5:13</a></em> of the 'daily work quota' of Israel under Egyptian abuse. But the phrase is used of their daily work for Yahweh, in collecting manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>) and serving in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:30 23:37'>Lev 23:37</a></em>). They were being reminded that they had changed masters when they crossed the Red Sea, just as Paul says happens when we are baptized (Romans 6). And the Red Sea crossing represented baptism into Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Like us, Israel were not radically free to do as they pleased. What happened was that they changed masters; hence the appeal to Pharaoh to let God's people go, that they may serve Him rather than Pharaoh. We too will only find ultimate freedom through this servitude to God's ways, and will finally emerge into the radical liberty of the children of God in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>besides the Sabbaths of Yahweh, and besides your gifts, and besides all your vows, and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated use of the word “besides” emphasized that times of special commitment to God shouldn’t lead us to forget the regular sacrifices and devotions which we are to make. An example of this would be that if one spends some days away at a church gathering, we are not to forget our own personal quiet time with God, prayer and Bible reading.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruits of the land, you shall keep the feast of Yahweh seven days: on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Leviticus was given at the beginning of the wilderness journey (see on <em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). There was continual encouragement that they would indeed possess the promised kingdom and eat the fruits of that land. Just as we are given such continual encouragement by the same God whose greatest will is that we should inherit the Kingdom. This feast would not therefore have been kept whilst Israel lived in tents all the time in the wilderness. Sadly they would have likely considered it an irrelevancy, as in their hearts they returned to Egypt. The solemn rest was ultimately the "rest" of the Kingdom which Joshua didn't give Israel, but the Lord Jesus will. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9-17'>Rev 7:9-17</a></em> uses the imagery of the feast of tabernacles to describe the entire Kingdom of God upon earth; then we will spend eternity in joyful fellowship, celebrating the gift of atonement made possible by the Lord Jesus. The ingathering of fruits of the land / Kingdom would then refer to the time when all the people of God have been gathered in. The firstfruits of that harvest were ultimately the Lord Jesus, but the image also appears to refer to a specific group of Jews saved during the last tribulation (see on <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God seven days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The image of rejoicing Israelites with palms in their hands is the image of <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:9'>Rev 7:9</a></em>, used of the final joy of the Kingdom, when forgiveness of sins and atonement comes to its ultimate term. <em><a href='B:160 8:15'>Neh 8:15</a></em> records the fulfillment of this "as it is written" by taking "olive branches". But the olive branches are not listed here; we conclude that obedience "as it is written" still involves keeping the spirit rather than the letter of the law. God is not a literalist nor a legalist, and to interpret the Mosaic law in such a casuistic way is to miss the spirit of the entire law.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep it a feast to Yahweh seven days in the year: it is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seven days looks forward to the eternity of God's Kingdom. For this feast celebrated the atonement received on the day of atonement.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall dwell in booths seven days. All who are native-born in Israel shall dwell in booths-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The dwelling in booths / tents is not specifically recorded in the historical record, but we do read that on leaving Egypt, Israel camped at Succoth- a related word to "booths" in Hebrew (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:20'>Exo 13:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 33:17'>Gen 33:17</a></em>). They camped there in tents; but they camped there in fear of their own vulnerability before Egypt / the world, as well as relief that they had left Egypt / the world. And God wanted His people to always remember that spirit. The booths were not strictly tents, but as it were miniature replicas of the tabernacle. And it was Yahweh who dwelt in the tabernacle. Their dwelling in the mini tabernacles was therefore in order to encourage them to manifest Him, and His generous spirit. Therefore <em><a href='B:50 16:14'>Deu 16:14</a></em> commands that the Gentiles and marginal people should be entertained at this time. So the idea was that they should be generously entertained within the booths erected by the Israelites. This would be an appropriate way of reflecting the generosity shown to them in personal forgiveness (see on :29) and at the deliverance from Egypt (:43).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s not recorded in the account of the Exodus that God made Israel dwell in booths; but see on :42. Often later Scripture gives us extra information about what happened at a historical event. This is why we need to use the entire Bible in order to get the correct picture about what happened in the historical sections.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>; ), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed feasts of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for "feasts" means literally an assembly, and the same word is translated "synagogue". The essence of the feasts was therefore the gathering together of God's people, and it is in this spirit that all assemblies of God's people are kept under the new covenant. The Old Testament feasts were therefore by their nature not intended to be kept individually. And it has ever been God's intention that His people should not serve Him in total isolation from each other.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole congregation of Israel were to bring a small amount of oil and flour for the bread each week. The constantly burning oil and presence of the small loaves was a symbol of how Israel were continually before Him. Yet the amount of oil and flour required each week was miniscule in comparison to the size of all Israel- there were probably three million of them at the time this law was given (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). But God is the God of small things. In the very small things we offer Him, we are remembered before Him. Israel were taught that this tiny offering of oil and flour each week was so highly significant; offering even very small things shouldn’t be seen by us as unnecessary or insignificant before God. The way Jesus noticed the widow offering two tiny coins and commented upon it is proof of this (<em><a href='B:490 21:2'>Luk 21:2</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pure olive oil" apparently refers to olive juice which bursts naturally from the first ripe olives. But we enquire where Israel obtained olive oil from in the wilderness, especially such "pure" olive oil to such great amounts as required here? Perhaps they had been given lots of it as they left Egypt and gave it to the priests. But for 40 years? I suggest as on <em><a href='B:20 27:8'>Exo 27:8</a></em> that this was God's ideal intention, and many of these laws were applicable only in contexts when obedience to them was possible. God's law is not therefore at all a reflection of a God who is a literalist or legalist. For by its nature, the law of Moses shows that He was not like that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Outside of the veil of the Testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh continually: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 27:21'>Exo 27:21</a></em> adds "Aaron and his sons". "The tent of meeting" is the tent where God met with His people over the blood of atonement upon the ark of the covenant. But that "meeting" was effectively not with the people, as only the priests entered into the holy place, and the high priest alone, only once / year, into the ultimate place where God met with His people- the Most Holy place. But the candlestick was to be kept burning in order to point the way into the Most Holy. All this suggested that there was something lacking in the entire system. God was prepared and even willing to meet with His people over the blood of atonement on the day of atonement. That meeting was therefore predicated upon their repentance and forgiveness. But it would have left the people aware that a fuller meeting with God was somehow promised. And this would come to full term when the Lord's death tore down the veil, and the way into the holiest was opened for all, not just the priests nor the High Priest.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall keep in order the lamps on the pure gold lampstand before Yahweh continually- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand is used as a symbol of the ecclesia in the visions of Revelation 2, 3. The purpose of the ecclesia is to enable the oil of the Spirit to be burnt, to turn it into light. We are to keep our own personal light burning continually, day and night. Jesus had this in mind when He likened us to women waiting for the bridegroom to come at night, whose oil lamps should not be allowed to go out (<em><a href='B:470 25:8'>Mat 25:8</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lampstand is a symbol of the ecclesia; the lamps are us.&nbsp; The oil is the spirit of Jesus. Aaron was as Jesus. He daily ‘orders’ us, enabling us to shine. Jesus understood this to be so in saying that He came to fan men's’ lamps into brighter light, to mend smoking flax, not give up on it. And He is actively about this work on a daily basis as were the priests.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These "cakes" were quite large seeing that about six pints of flour were used for each of them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set them in two rows, six on a row, on the pure gold table before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The bread on the table connects with the breaking of bread at the table of the Lord under the New Covenant. The bread was replaced- as it were eaten by God- each week (:8). Whilst there is no specific command as to how frequently we should break bread, it would seem from <em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em> that some of the early Christians did it weekly, and this is no bad example for us to follow. <em><a href='B:20 25:30'>Exo 25:30</a></em> expresses this as "You shall set bread of the presence on the table before me always". "The bread of the presence" doesn't simply mean that it was bread which was in God's presence; for that is the meaning covered by "before Me always". Rather the idea is that God's especial presence was there in the eating of the bread. The God who dwelt the other side of the veil, over the mercy seat, as it were came out from there and was present when the bread was eaten. We may have here some hint that there is a special presence of the Father and Son at the breaking of bread, which is the Christian equivalent of this table (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put pure frankincense on each row, that it may make the bread be for a memorial, even an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Many times we read of God being provoked to remember someone, often for good (<em><a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em> LXX "that God may mercifully remember"; <em><a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a></em> LXX; 37:1 LXX; <em><a href='B:450 6:14'>Zec 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 17:18'>1Ki 17:18</a></em>). This language of limitation surely suggests that the God who could be omniscient over time, not needing to have anything brought back to His memory, allows Himself to 'forget' so that sin or righteousness again brings things to His remembrance. Thus generosity and prayer is a memorial before God in the sense that it brings a person to His memory or attention (<em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>), and He appropriately responds in their lives.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes often that he "makes mention" or 'remembers' his brethren in regular prayer (<em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:16'>Eph 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:4'>Phm 1:4</a></em>). The Greek <em>mneia</em> is the word used in the LXX for the "memorial" of the incense or the meal offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 2:16'>Lev 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:15'>Lev 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:7'>Lev 24:7</a></em>), or the constant fire on the altar (<em><a href='B:30 6:12-13'>Lev 6:12-13</a></em>). That fire, that flour, that incense, had to be carefully and consciously prepared; it had to be the result of man's labour. And likewise, Paul seems to be saying, he first of all thought through the cases which he then presented to the Father.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every Sabbath day he shall set it in order before Yahweh continually. It is on the behalf of the children of Israel an everlasting covenant- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word <em>olahm</em>, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire by a perpetual statute-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priests had no inheritance amongst Israel, they survived by eating parts of the offerings. Their eating of them represented God’s ‘eating’ of the sacrifices, the altar being described as His table (<em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>), and His acceptance of the offerer and fellowship with them- for eating what had been brought to you was a sign of acceptance and religious fellowship with the donor.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This suggests there was some intermarriage between the Egyptians and Israelites, which explains why a mixed multitude left Egypt with the Israelites. That mixed multitude were apparently not spiritually committed to the things of Israel's God once the going got tough in the desert (<em><a href='B:20 11:4'>Exo 11:4</a></em>). The similarity of phrasing with <em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em> leads the rabbis to claim that this was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew. See on :17.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Went out" is to be connected with how the rebels of <em><a href='B:40 16:27'>Num 16:27</a></em> "came out" in argument as in <em><a href='B:240 25:8'>Pro 25:8</a></em>. This striving together could have been in a legal sense, before the judges. The idea is not necessarily of a literal fight between the two men. Perhaps when he was judged against, he blasphemed (:10). The idea is certainly that his blasphemy was done openly and publically in the spirit of rebellion. As the Israelites encamped according to "the names of the tribes of their fathers" (<em><a href='B:40 26:55'>Num 26:55</a></em>), it could be that this man whose father was an Egyptian was somehow encamped outside the camp, and he had come into the camp to foment rebellion and express his anger at his position. However the command in :17 could suggest that the half Egyptian had slain an Israelite in this striving.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him to Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps he repeated the language of Pharaoh who did the same (<em><a href='B:20 5:2'>Exo 5:2</a></em>). The context is of the shewbread, so perhaps the striving together in :10 was connected with the use of the shewbread. Bringing the case to Moses suggests that it had first been brought before the system of judges beneath him (<em><a href='B:20 18:13-26'>Exo 18:13-26</a></em>). This confirms the suggestion made on :10 that the striving together may have been before the judges, as it were in court.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we marry out of the family of faith (:10), our children may well not have the reverence towards the true God which they should have. Her name may have been preserved as a permanent reproach for her influence upon her apostate son; or perhaps we are to understand her name, "Peaceable", and her father's name "Man of the words", and her tribe "Judgment", as implying that she was faithful and not associated with her son's apostacy.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They put him in custody, until the will of Yahweh about this should be declared to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A similar incident was dealt with the same way in <em><a href='B:40 15:34'>Num 15:34</a></em>. It was clear that the person should be executed, but perhaps the question was what method of execution should be used, as it was unclear whether he was to be treated as a Jew or Gentile.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The penalty of death by stoning was appropriate to an Israelite, whereas Gentiles would have been slain by the sword. So although the man was the son of an Egyptian, and foreigners only entered the congregation after three generations (<em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>), this man was treated as an Israelite. So as ever in God's judgments, we discern even there some element of grace.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This contrasts with how the one who blasphemed the name of Yahweh was to be killed (:16). The command is specifically in the context of the Egyptian man who had blasphemed Yahweh. It is as if God is saying that blasphemers of their own gods were still in sin, but Yahweh pronounced no judgment upon them. This is one of a number of Biblical examples of where God requires some level of integrity from those who don't know Him and have their own wrong religious ideas. He even apparently commends the Gentiles for not changing their gods and being faithful to them, whilst lamenting Israel's penchant for many gods and their unfaithfulness to all of them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to answer the unclarity which was the reason for Moses asking God's advice; they were unsure whether to treat this man as a foreigner or an Israelite. See on :12,13.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who strikes any man mortally shall surely be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This additional clarification could be in the immediate context of the striving between the half Egyptian and the Israelite in :10. Perhaps the Israelite had been killed. If indeed this man was the son of the Egyptian whom Moses slew (see on :10), then we can better understand why his abiding anger led him to want to slay an Israelite in revenge.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who strikes an animal mortally shall make it good, life for life- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The context seems to suggest that this was a slaying of an animal intentionally in order to damage the owner.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If anyone injures his neighbour; as he has done, so shall it be done to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command may be in connection with the fight between the two men of :10. The equivalent command in <em><a href='B:20 21:22-25'>Exo 21:22-25</a></em> is also in the context of two men fighting.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has injured someone, so shall it be done to him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses' Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is how you should behave...'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up the <em>choice</em> of taking that higher level, even though making use of the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though in certain cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to simply forgive'.<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who kills an animal shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The slain animal was to replaced by another animal; the slain man was to be replaced, as it were, by the death of the murderer. The idea of 'making it good' could possibly hint that through his willing submission to death, the murderer could be forgiven. The Hebrew <em>shalam</em> carries with it the idea of making peace, but the death of the murderer could only make peace with God rather than with the man whom he had slain.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall have one kind of law, for the foreigner as well as the native-born; for I am Yahweh your God’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we have unbelievers into our homes or any situation where we are in charge of the social situation, we are to ensure that God’s principles are upheld. Again translating this into modern terms- if parents have unbelieving children in their home to play with their own children, God’s principles are still to be upheld by the visitors.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inclusiveness of Yahweh of His people, the nature of who His Name reveals Him to be, should of itself have led Israel to not discriminate against other races: “For I am Yahweh your God”. Because Yahweh <em>is</em> who He is, therefore we must be like Him; His very existence and being demands it of us (<em><a href='B:30 20:7'>Lev 20:7</a></em> cp. 19:2, 10). If we really know the characteristics implicit in His Name, we will put our trust in Him (<em><a href='B:230 9:10'>Psa 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 124:8'>Psa 124:8</a></em>). If we see / know God in the experiential sense, we will do no evil (<em><a href='B:710 1:11'>3Jn 1:11</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<em>Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they brought out him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. The children of Israel did as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essential idea of the Hebrew word used for cursing here is to treat as a light thing (s.w. <em><a href='B:110 16:31'>1Ki 16:31</a></em> "as if it had been a light thing"). To treat the things of God as a mere hobby, as light rather than "heavy", which is the idea of the Hebrew <em>kabod </em>translated "glory"... is to curse God. It is the same idea as taking God's Name in vain, as a vain, light thing. And this is the problem with hobby level religion. What may begin as a mere religious hobby may lead us to the eternal weight of God's glory. And no longer must we treat these things as a light thing. True spirituality must eclipse mere religion. And if it doesn't, then we risk effectively cursing God, treating Him as a light thing, just a passing part of our lives...<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses in Mount Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The assumption at this point was that those hearing these words would soon be established in the promised land. God foreknew they would not, but He goes ahead with His ideal potentials with absolute enthusiasm and legitimate enthusiasm.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a Sabbath to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As will be explained below, the whole purpose of the legislation was to teach Israel spiritual things. Whilst leaving land fallow is indeed a good idea, we must remember that the incredible fecundity promised was the result of Divine blessing for covenant keeping, and not of agricultural technique.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in its fruits-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The parallel here is with six days of work followed by the seventh day of rest. The seventh year was therefore to be a temporary suspension of the curse, the possibility of having a taste of the Kingdom now; just as we today can live "the eternal life", the kind of life which we will eternally live in the Kingdom. The idea of the Sabbath year was also to lead Israel away from the mentality of justification by works. And that was to involve faith in God's provision, rather than trust in our own works. We note that work is a commandment; there is no way to avoid the curse. But the Sabbath day and Sabbath year shows that even in this life, we have a foretaste of the Kingdom when the curse shall be no more.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to Yahweh. You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The legislation about the feasts stressed so often that Israel were not to work at these times. The weekly Sabbath likewise taught the need to trust in God rather than human works. The spirit of it all was that "There's more to life than work, put relationship with God, in the Spirit of the Sabbath rest of the Kingdom, before mad accumulation of wealth". Having hopefully learned these lessons week by week and feast by feast, the people were thus spiritually educated for the far greater test of not working for a whole year, or even three years, in the Jubilee year. There is no historical evidence that Israel ever kept this legislation as outlined here. They failed to learn the lessons and to be taken further in faith. This is why the land had to keep its Sabbath during the years of exile to compensate for how it had never been allowed to rest under the tenure of the Israelites.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>What grows of itself in your harvest you shall not reap, and the grapes of your undressed vine you shall not gather. It shall be a year of solemn rest for the land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was so that the poor could eat (<em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em>). So through this experience, the landowners were treated as the poor and landless. They too had to live by faith in God's provision and not in their own works or ownership of assets. God works likewise with us all, helping us to identify with the poor, that we might have a heart and identity with those who lack our resources. LXX has "thou shalt not gather fully the grapes of thy dedication". The idea may be that the fruit of the vine was the best fruit, but it was to be dedicated to God. Israel were not therefore to make or drink wine in the Sabbath or Jubilee years.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Sabbath of the land shall be for food for you; for yourself, for your servant, for your maid, for your hired servant, and for your stranger, who lives as a foreigner amongst you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em> expresses the reason for this as being "that the poor of your people may eat". It’s true that often, although not always, poverty is partly due to poor decisions and mismanagement, and any aid given is often misused. And it’s true that the materially poor are partly poor (in many cases) exactly because of that. And yet the Bible teaches generosity to “the poor”. There is no attempt in the Bible teaching about “the poor” to subdivide them into the genuinely poor, and those who are poor because of their own fault or laziness, or who are asking for support when they don’t actually need it. A person who comes to you claiming need is “the poor”. Thus Israel were not to farm their land in the seventh year, “that the poor of your people may eat” (<em><a href='B:20 23:11'>Exo 23:11</a></em>). This immediately raised the issue that all manner of people could eat the fruit which grew naturally on the land that year- but there is no legislation to try to limit who had access to it. Those who had food in their barns might eat what grew- but there was no mechanism within the law which controlled that. The point is, in our spiritual poverty we are just the same. We are in that position partly because of our human situation and other factors over which we have no control; but also partly and largely because we choose to be in it. We cry to God for the riches of His forgiveness- and we waste it, by doing the same sin over and again. Our hold on spiritual things is weak, we don’t respond with the grace and appreciation we ought to. We’re spiritually lazy. We’re no better than those who are materially poor through nothing but their own fault. Our generosity to them is a reflection of our recognition of this.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For your livestock also, and for the animals that are in your land, shall all its increase be for food-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "the wild beasts". God feeds wild animals from that which grows naturally, and here He wanted the people to do the same; to experience and live out something of His generosity to all. But the acceptance that wild animals would exist is perhaps a tacit recognition that the full blessing of the covenant would not come, for the presence of wild beasts in the land was a sign of lack of blessing (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>). It's rather like the promise that there would be no poor in the land, and yet there is plenty of Mosaic legislation about poor Israelites. We see in this God's acceptance that His people would not live and experience as they should, and yet His legislation accounted for that- for He so thirsted for relationship with them. And He likewise is acceptant of our imperfection and failure to receive the blessings we could and should receive. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall count off seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years; and there shall be to you the days of seven Sabbaths of years, even forty-nine years-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seventh year was also a Sabbath year, so the idea is that there would be two years when the land was not sown, which meant that there would be a bumper harvest given enough for three years (:21).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then you shall sound the loud trumpet on the tenth day of the seventh month. On the Day of Atonement you shall sound the trumpet throughout all your land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This clearly established that the jubilee of abundant Divine provision and rest from works was a result of the atonement. That atonement clearly looked forward to the work of the Lord on the cross, as Hebrews makes clear. Therefore the things of the jubilee year are those of the Kingdom made possible for us through that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make the fiftieth year holy, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee to you; and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To preach (proclaim) the acceptable year of the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) is parallel with “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (<em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>). Likewise there are to be found other such allusions to the proclamation of Jubilee: “We as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive… the grace of God… a time accepted… in the day of salvation (the Jubilee) have I succoured thee: behold, now is the <em>accepted time</em>” (<em><a href='B:540 6:1-2'>2Co 6:1-2</a></em>) “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached (proclaimed, s.w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). This is alluded to in <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em> where we read that Jesus proclaimed “the acceptable year of the Lord”. We are to make the same proclamation in preaching the good news to all people- “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached ("proclaimed", s.w. <em><a href='B:490 4:19'>Luk 4:19</a></em>) in his name among all nations” (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>). The year of Jubilee began with the Day of Atonement, which is understood in the New Testament as foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins. We are now to live in a permanent state of Jubilee, announcing it to all people. The Hebrew word translated “jubilee” carries the idea of forgiveness, release, freedom. This is our message to all the people of the world.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "neither shall ye gather its dedicated fruits". The idea may be that the fruit of the vine was the best fruit, but it was to be dedicated to God. Israel were not therefore to make or drink wine in the Sabbath or Jubilee years. The confusion between 49th and 50th year is because the seventh year was a jubilee year anyway, so there were two years when the land wasn't cultivated. In the Sabbath year they could eat what grew naturally, but not in the Jubilee year. This was a massive leap of faith. Only God's law would judicially require such behaviour, in faith in His provision.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jubilee year is presented as the land itself. They were to eat the increase of the jubilee year in that their barns were to be full of harvest. They were not to eat that which grew naturally (:11). We think of how the harvests of Egypt gave enough food for seven years, and of how the rich fool thought he had enough in his for many years. But the food which could be stored would have only been basic grain- none of the nicer things which are specifically cultivated would have kept in store for so long. So the Jubilee was a call to live a basic life, remembering their fathers sustained by the harvests of Egypt- by grace alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His property" is intentionally contrasted with the reality that "the land is Mine" (:23). The concept of ‘private property’ is indeed a myth. For we die, and leave it all behind. The Mosaic law sought to teach this- because “The land is mine”, what appeared to be a ‘sale’ of property wasn’t really a sale at all- quite simply because the land was God’s (<em><a href='B:30 25:13'>Lev 25:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:23'>Lev 25:23</a></em>). And likewise our ‘generosity’, as David observed, isn’t really that at all- for we only give God back what He has given us. In fact, when you think about it, the only ‘thing’ that Biblically a person can say is ‘theirs’ is their partner or family- even though these are also given of God. And so it’s sadly understandable that a materialistic, wealthy society always becomes one that has a low estimate of the family unit and the exclusive sanctity of marriage.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reality was that the property returned to the owner; but we read that the owner was to return to his property. We see encouraged a mutuality between each individual and their place or inheritance in the Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you sell anything to your neighbour, or buy from your neighbour, you shall not wrong one another- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Do wrong..." is the word used of how the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 22:21'>Exo 22:21</a></em>). The oppression would be through deceiving the buyer concerning how many years were left until the Jubilee. It would be like selling a ten year lease for the price of a forty year lease. But Israel did oppress the simple and ignorant (<em><a href='B:330 22:7'>Eze 22:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 22:29'>Eze 22:29</a></em>), and so were oppressed by Babylon (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 50:16'>Jer 50:16</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbour. Relative to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ultimate time of Jubilee will be at the return of Christ. We are to perceive the value of all things we buy relative to this. Effectively, the Jubilee was a time of release from debt. “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>) is probably another allusion to the Jubilee. We release / forgive men their debt to us, as God does to us. If we choose not to participate in this Jubilee by not releasing others, then we cannot expect to receive it ourselves.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the length of the years you shall increase its price, and according to the shortness of the years you shall diminish its price; for he is selling the number of the crops to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be, the number of harvests expected until the Jubilee year. But the number of harvests depended upon Israel's blessings for obedience. If they were disobedient, then there would be no harvests. If they were obedient, then every year they would not harvest the land before the time for sowing had come (<em><a href='B:30 26:5'>Lev 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a></em>). So there was built in to this law an opportunity to reflect upon the potentials possible if they were obedient. God's ideal was that there would be a continual harvest; but His legislation in <em><a href='B:30 25:16'>Lev 25:16</a></em> accepts the reality that this would not happen. His awareness of our failure to reach our potential height of blessing is seen throughout His word. See on :7.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not wrong one another; but you shall fear your God; for I am Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An awareness that Yahweh is intensely watching our treatment of our brethren should have an abiding effect upon us. All forms of harshness, dishonesty and unkind division from them are thereby forbidden to any who truly fear God. For "wrong one another", see on :14 (s.w.).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore you shall do My statutes, and keep My ordinances and do them; and you shall dwell in the land in safety-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew mishpat, "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 mishpat, 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.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land shall yield its fruit, and you shall eat your fill, and dwell therein in safety- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this was conditional upon their obedience (<em><a href='B:30 26:5-6'>Lev 26:5-6</a></em>). This is one of many examples where "Shall..." is used not as total prophecy, but as a statement of a conditional future- even if the conditions are not immediately stated. The style reflects God's earnest desire to give His people the promised Kingdom blessings. And here He asks them to believe it, as He asks us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you were to say, What shall we eat the seventh year? Behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase; -</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can’t have a spirit of meanness in our personal lives if we are proclaiming Yahweh’s release. This is one of many instances where the process of preaching the Gospel benefits the preacher. The jubilee offered release from the effects of past misfortune and even past foolishness in decisions; and our offer of jubilee offers this same message in ultimate term. Incidentally, the Lord had implied that we are in a permanent Jubilee year situation when He said that we should “take no thought what ye shall eat …Sow not nor gather into barns” and not think “What shall we eat?” (<em><a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:31'>Mat 6:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:30 25:20'>Lev 25:20</a></em>). There must be a spirit of telling this good news to absolutely <em>all</em>. And yet according to Luke’s own emphasis, it is the poor who are especially attracted to the Jubilee message of freedom (<em><a href='B:490 6:20-23'>Luk 6:20-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:1'>Luk 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:22-23'>Luk 7:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:10-17'>Luk 13:10-17</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>know that I will command My blessing on you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for the three years-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For all Moses’ desire for Israel’s obedience, there are some subtle differences in his attitude to law and obedience between Deuteronomy, and the law earlier given. Thus in Leviticus it was stressed that obedience would bring blessing; whilst <em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em> says that obedience results in fearing the fearful Name of Yahweh and His glory. Fear shouldn’t lead to obedience; but obedience leads a man to <em>know and fear his God and His Name</em>. This is blessing enough. Like Jacob and Job, Moses came to a fine appreciation of Yahweh’s Name at his latter end.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sow the eighth year, and eat of the fruits, the old store; until the ninth year, until its fruits come in, you shall eat the old store- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If Israel had doubts about how they would survive in the seventh year when the land rested, God would provide them with bumper harvests in the sixth year. But when the Lord bids us take no anxious thought what we shall eat on the morrow, He is surely directing us to the higher level, despite His willingness to make concession to human weakness. We note how God is intensely aware of our worries and doubts about His promised provision; and He answers them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and live as foreigners with Me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The principles of the Jubilee taught that all persons and land belong to God; we are only temporarily using them, and nothing ultimately belongs to us personally; all is God’s. This helps us cope better with ‘loss’ of possessions, and should keep us from the manic materialism which has been bred by capitalism, whereby all seek personal ownership of land and resources. Yet we note the parallel between the land being God's, and it being theirs- for they were not to sell it exactly because it was their eternal possession. This "Yours is the Kingdom", but it is God's pleasure to give us the Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In all the land of your possession you shall grant a redemption for the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units. This was "The inheritance of fathers", "your possession" (<em><a href='B:30 25:27-28'>Lev 25:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 36:7-8'>Num 36:7-8</a></em>). God had given specific inheritances to His people, that this was not to be sold or traded. The division by lot in <em><a href='B:60 15:1'>Jos 15:1</a></em> presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was given a specific inheritance. This legislation stopped the accumulation of property and wealth in the hands of a few, and protected the unwise and even lazy from the total loss of property.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your brother becomes poor, and sells some of his possessions, then his kinsman who is next to him shall come, and redeem that which his brother has sold-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Boaz extrapolated from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth and thereby redeem the land of the family. But the law here didn't require that. Boaz was going further than this law required. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, a leash binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; for Israel is God's partner, not His dog. But rather was it designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice. By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man has no one to redeem it, and he becomes prosperous and finds sufficient means to redeem it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy for her (<em><a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a></em>), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as Israel’s <em>go’el </em>, redeemer (<em><a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 47:4'>Isa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a></em>). The redeemer could redeem a close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times (<em><a href='B:30 25:25-26'>Lev 25:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:47-55'>Lev 25:47-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:12'>Rth 3:12</a></em>). The redeemer was also the avenger of blood (<em><a href='B:40 35:9-28'>Num 35:9-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:3'>Jos 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:9'>Jos 20:9</a></em>). All these ideas were relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are slaves this day in the land you gave…” (<em><a href='B:160 9:36'>Neh 9:36</a></em>). The wonderful prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive brethren?<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then let him reckon the years since its sale, and restore the surplus to the man to whom he sold it; and he shall return to his property- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word translated "Jubilee" carries the idea of 'return'; but the spirit of that return could be practiced at times other than the Jubilee. And it is the same in our lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he isn’t able to get it back for himself, then what he has sold shall remain in the hand of him who has bought it until the Year of Jubilee: and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em> speaks of our place in God’s Kingdom as our possession which has been purchased by the blood of Christ, and which we will receive as an inheritance at His return. This is all Jubilee language. The eternal time of Jubilee will be when the Kingdom is established upon earth, and we will each receive both literally and more abstractly an eternal inheritance in that Kingdom on earth, each with a varying number of towns to rule over (<em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em>). Whether we are rich or poor in this life, whether or not we purchase our ‘own’ homes (:29), we are assured that our very own personal possession is assured, and we will return to it eternally in the Kingdom of God at Christ’s return. The Israelite who became “poor”, either by his own failures, others’ manipulations or his own poor decision making, would have continually looked forward to the year of Jubilee- when finally he and his family would be free, no longer in servitude, and could return to their very own land and inheritance as their eternal possession (:34). We look forward to Christ’s return with the same spirit.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it has been sold. For a full year he shall have the right of redemption-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws about houses in cities are far less protective than for land. The implication could be that God's intention was that Israel didn't develop urban life, but instead stayed in the inheritance He had given each family, and rejoiced in the abundant harvests of blessing He would shower upon them there. And this is the impression we have in the prophecies of the restored Kingdom.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it isn’t redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations. It shall not be released in the Jubilee-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that the walled cities would not fall within the personal inheritance of any family. For if they did, then they would be covered by the laws about the redemption of land. It was God's intention therefore that Israel lived in their family allotments. Urban life was not His ideal intention, but as with so much of the law of Moses, He recognized their likely future weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the houses of the villages which have no wall around them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country: they may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the Jubilee- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :29,30, God's intention therefore was that Israel lived in small settlements and not walled cities. For if they had faith they would have no need of walled cities, for there would be peace in the land (<em><a href='B:30 26:6'>Lev 26:6</a></em>). The entire law therefore was designed to elicit an upward spiral of obedience and blessing; it was not the miserable chain of legalism which it is made out to be.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nevertheless the cities of the Levites, the houses in the cities of their possession, the Levites may redeem at any time-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had no land inheritance, only cities. Or better, towns. As explained on :29,30, God's intention therefore was that Israel lived in small settlements and not walled cities. Ideally, the only cities were to be those of the Levites. This detailed potential intention was never realized by Israel; just as the extensive&nbsp; and intricate commands about the restoration of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 never were. One of the greatest tragedies for God must be all the wasted potentials He sets up in countless lives. And His joy is when we at least begin to realize them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Levites may redeem the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, and it shall be released in the Jubilee; for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :32. The Levites would only be driven to the desperation of selling their houses if Israel failed to generously provide for them through their tithes. Again God's law foresees their likely failure. Just as He does not expect perfection from us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the same phrase for "everlasting possession" used in the pro<em>mises </em>to Abraham about eternal possession of the land. The intention was that Israel would develop into the Kingdom of God on earth. And the land given the Levites in possession would indeed be eternally theirs. But this great intention never came near to fulfillment; it has been reinterpreted and rescheduled for fulfillment in the eternal Kingdom enabled by the Lord Jesus, with the Levitical priesthood replaced by Him and all God's people would be the priests.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>’If your brother has become poor, and his hand can’t support him among you; then you shall uphold him. He shall live with you like an alien and a temporary resident-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That is, with the same generosity you should show a foreigner. But the acceptance that poor Israelites would exist is perhaps a tacit recognition that the full blessing of the covenant would not come, for the promise was that there would be no poor in the land; and yet there is plenty of Mosaic legislation about poor Israelites. We see in this God's acceptance that His people would not live and experience as they should, and yet His legislation accounted for that- for He so thirsted for relationship with them. And He likewise is acceptant of our imperfection and failure to receive the blessings we could and should receive. See on :7.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God; that your brother may live among you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's parable of the lazy servant alludes here. He spoke to Jewish people who would have known that His advice to the rejected man to have lent out His money for interest was at variance with this teaching. The Lord may have meant that the man should have given His money, the Gospel, to the Gentiles, from whom interest could be taken. Or He may have meant that 'You should at least have done <em>something</em>, even if it broke the letter of the law- and then I would have had compassion on you. But you did precisely nothing and kept it for yourself and got on living your life for your own pleasure and profit rather than Mine'.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reason is given in :38. Because Israel had been redeemed from Egypt, they were to be generous to their brethren, and generally open handed (<em><a href='B:30 25:37-38'>Lev 25:37-38</a></em>). This is why the Acts record juxtaposes God’s grace / giving, and the giving of the early believers in response (<em><a href='B:510 4:33'>Act 4:33</a></em> cp. 32,34-37).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh your God, Who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because of Israel's experience of the Red Sea redemption, therefore they were to have a generous spirit to their brother. Because the Egyptians were hard taskmasters, and Israel had been graciously saved from them, <em>therefore</em> they were not to be hard on each other (<em><a href='B:30 25:40'>Lev 25:40</a></em>). If the oppressed (as Israel were oppressed) cry out unto you (as Israel cried out for their affliction), you must hear them, otherwise God will hear them and punish you, as if you are the Egyptian taskmaster (<em><a href='B:20 22:24-27'>Exo 22:24-27</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is shot through with direct and indirect reference to the Red Sea experience. It was as if this was to be the motivator for their obedience and upholding of the culture of kindness which the Law sought to engender (Leviticus 23, 24; <em><a href='B:50 17:7'>Deu 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19-22'>Deu 24:19-22</a></em>). And our experience of redemption from this world ought to have the same effect.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your brother has grown poor among you, and sells himself to you; you shall not make him to serve as a slave-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The covenant promised wealth and blessing to an obedient Israel. There were therefore to be no poor within Israel. The Israelite who became “poor did so either by his own failures, others’ manipulations- or his own poor decision making. But God's law foresaw this failure to realize the potentials He had enabled, and legislated accordingly, still seeking to show grace even in this dysfunctional situation. And that is a pattern for us; for we have all received such grace and must show it to others. If a man digs a hole and falls into it, he is still in the hole and needs our grace.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As a hired servant and as a temporary resident he shall live with you; he shall serve with you until the Year of Jubilee-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps we should note "live with you". The servant was to be a family member. We see here a hint toward God's dislike of slavery, although He tolerated it as He tolerates much lower level behaviour.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family, and to the possession of his fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see God's intention that His people should ideally live in the parcel of land which He had specifically given them. Any work or period away from home was to be but a temporary thing. As noted above, God's intention was that God's people enjoyed the inheritance He intended for them. And He geared things to promote that. He likewise has similar specific plans and intentions for us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They shall not be sold as slaves-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as the land was God's and Israel were intended to have on a kind of eternal leasehold, so all Israel were His servants and were not to be treated as the servants of men. He had brought them out of Egypt to serve Him; He had required Pharaoh to release them so that they might serve <em>Him </em>and not Pharaoh. Likewise at our Red Sea baptism, there is a change of masters, as Romans 6 makes clear. We are never to forget that; that our brethren are not ours but the servants of the Lord, they are His and not ours. And we are to treat them appropriately. But "they shall not sold as slaves" was again a conditional statement, although the conditions aren't made immediately apparent. For if they left covenant with Him, they would no longer be His slaves and would be sold into the Gentile world as He later threatened- and as happened (<em><a href='B:50 28:68'>Deu 28:68</a></em>). But whilst they remained in covenant with Him, they were His servants. We note how the Lord Jesus took all this to a higher level, in declaring us not even servants, but friends (<em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not rule over him with harshness, but shall fear your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Constantly, fear of God is given as a reason never to be harsh nor abusive in any way to God's people. We can deduce that He therefore has a particular interest in how we treat our brethren. Any language or even impression of harshness must therefore be outlawed. The same word is used here of how the Egyptians were harsh toward Israel in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 1:13-14'>Exo 1:13-14</a></em>), and so by behaving like this we declare ourselves as not God's people but being of the world. And the word is again used as a reason why Judah were finally rejected- they had been "harsh" to each other (<em><a href='B:330 34:4'>Eze 34:4</a></em>). These principles are not only relevant to those in leadership or power positions. If someone sins against us, we are in power over them; and it is for us not to be harsh towards them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for your male and your female slaves whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God was surely against slavery, for it is a reflection of a lack of value of the human person; and all are made in the image of God. But I suggest God allowed slavery if the slave were a Gentile as a concession to their human weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover of the children of the aliens who live among you, of them you may buy, and of their families who are with you, which they have conceived in your land; and they will be your property- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was continually envisaged a presence of Gentiles in Israel. The "mixed multitude" who came out of Egypt may have been initially in view, but they were to be naturalized into Israel in their third generation. So the idea was that as Israel were a missionary nation, a light to the Gentile world, Gentiles would indeed come and live among them. But the legislation here seems geared towards incorporating those Gentiles into Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them may you take your slaves forever; but over your brothers the children of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Becoming Israel's eternal slaves would be through the children of any Gentile slaves being given an inheritance within the Israelite family; in this sense they would be "forever" in the family. "You may make them..." is misleading; it was not an option. This was a command. They were to do this. As we learn from the book of Ruth, there was great concern about marring an inheritance by splitting it up amongst too many children. So the idea surely was that if indeed Israel did buy Gentile slaves, then they were to give their children a part of the family inheritance, adopting them into their family. In this sense they would become their "slaves forever"; that is perhaps said almost sarcastically. God permitted slavery, but He was making it unattractive for those who only wanted slaves for secular work. These slaves would effectively become part of the Israelite family and their children would share in the family inheritance. It was another reflection of God's continual desire to incorporate Gentiles within the nation of Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If an alien or temporary resident with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him has grown poor, and sells himself to the stranger or foreigner living among you, or to a member of the stranger’s family-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "or to a proselyte by extraction". The situation envisaged here refers to the curse for disobedience, whereby the Gentiles would rise up above the native Israelites (<em><a href='B:50 28:43'>Deu 28:43</a></em>). Again we see how God's law constantly envisaged Israel's failure, and sought to legislate for their protection even then. This is grace indeed.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :47, the situation here is that Israel had sinned and individuals were being judged for that. But there was hope for redemption through "one of his brothers", an oblique reference to the Saviour redeemer, the Lord Jesus, who was to arise to save sinful Israel as one of their brothers (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>), fully of their nature.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any who is a close relative to him of his family may redeem him; or if he has grown rich, he may redeem himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 49:7-9'>Psa 49:7-9</a></em> appears to be a commentary upon these things: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give God a ransom for him. For the redemption of their life is costly, no payment is ever enough, that he should live on forever, that he should not see corruption". Even if a man became strong enough to redeem himself, or his brethren could- the ultimate redemption was from eternal death. Whilst the effects of the man's sin (see on :47) might be ameliorated by his brethren, the thoughtful Israelite was to reflect that the ultimate redemption from sin could not come from any known person, but from the future Messianic Saviour, raised up from amongst their brothers.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall reckon with him who bought him from the year that he sold himself to him relative to the Year of Jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according to the number of years; according to the time of a hired servant shall he be with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no mention made of the potential strength of the person nor his age, which surely would have been critical. For a 50 year old sold into servitude with 40 years to run until the Jubilee would surely have been worth less than a 20 year old. Those factors are not weighted, when they cry out to be factored in to such legislation. I suggest that this was to nudge the Israelites towards the higher level- that the person sold into servitude really ought to be released anyway. And they should not be valued for how much work they might produce, but rather the year of redemption ought to be the final and only issue which affected the evaluation of a person. The legislation permits servitude and Gentile slavery, but is effectively geared against it. LXX is somewhat different, apparently outlawing anything apart from a yearly contract to serve: "then shall he calculate with his purchaser from the year that he sold himself to him until the year of release: and the money of his purchase shall be as that of a hireling, he shall be with him from year to year". Or GNB "They must consult the one who bought them, and they must count the years from the time they sold themselves until the next Year of Restoration and must set the price for their release on the basis of the wages paid hired workers".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If there are yet many years, according to them he shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :50. The Hebrew text is unclear, GNB for :52,53 offers "They must refund a part of the purchase price according to the number of years left,&nbsp;as if they had been hired on an annual basis". In this case the idea would be that the purchaser had to pay a kind of fine to the person who had been redeemed. Again, the law permits slavery and servitude but effectively makes it unattractive; the purchaser of a servant could end up seriously out of pocket if the servant was redeemed before the year of Jubilee.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If there remain but a few years to the year of jubilee, then he shall reckon with him; according to his years of service he shall give back the price of his redemption-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :51 that this may imply that the initial purchaser of the servant had to pay a kind of fine; making such purchases of servants or slaves very risky and unattractive. To have forbidden slavery and purchase or servants would have been too much for Israel to swallow, as these practices were so inherent in their world experience. We see God's great sensitivity in recognizing this; and yet His laws led to the thoughtful person finding slavery unattractive. We find the same essential sensitivity and grace in the way that the New Testament as it were 'allows' belief in demons, even though they don't exist; and yet the implication and style of the records effectively deconstructs the idea of their existence.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As a servant hired year by year shall he live with him: he shall not rule with harshness over him in your sight-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Any social superiority we may have over others is temporary, and must be seen in the context of the year of Jubilee which has been announced in Christ. The whole concept was designed to teach humility and gentleness in relationships. "In your sight" could mean that those who spotted any abuse of servants was to be reported and acted upon. All Israel were to be aware of abuse issues and to ensure that they didn't occur. Again, the classic idea of slavery is being deconstructed and made impossible to operate.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he isn’t redeemed by these means, then he shall be released in the Year of Jubilee, he, and his children with him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No mention is made of the wife, because it is perhaps assumed that husband and wife should be treated as a unit. The common idea that the children of a servant somehow belonged to the master is here shattered. Again, the practice of slavery as generally practiced in those days is not being tolerated. The family unit is given paramount importance, and everything is geared towards the independence of that family unit.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For to Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. I am Yahweh your God’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Those who had servants were to remember that they themselves were servants. Maybe Paul had this in mind when he reminded us that all our brothers and sisters are servants of Christ and not of us, and we therefore have no right to judge another man’s servant (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>). As Israel were to be a nation of servants, so should the Christian community be today.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘You shall make for yourselves no idols, neither shall you raise up an engraved image or a pillar, neither shall you place any figured stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew words for 'image' and 'imagination' are related, just as they are in English, Russian and other languages. This ancient law suddenly becomes bitingly relevant in our highly visual, screen oriented age- we are not to worship imaginations. The idols of the world are to be thrown down. Paul perceived the connection between stone images and psychological imaginations when he wrote of how we are to cast down (the language of casting down idols) imaginations and every high, lifted up thing that is against Christ (<em><a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a></em>). People live their lives worshipping imaginations, chasing vaguely defined psychological dreams- of what it would be like to drive that car, live in that house, have that career, live with that man or woman. And these are our idols in this age, which we are to cut down and replace with the Christ centered mind.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall keep My Sabbaths, and have reverence for My sanctuary. I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The stress may be upon the word "My". The systems of idol worships also required days to be kept as holy to them, and their sanctuaries to be reverenced. For the context here is all about avoiding idolatry. Yahweh's claims upon His people are supreme. There is no way we can worship both Yahweh and idols; the Sabbath was to kept exclusively for Him rather than also to the other gods who also demanded that a Sabbath be kept to them. Perhaps this was one reason for the Sabbath legislation at this time- to preclude keeping Sabbath to any other god. But Israel as so many today sought to worship Yahweh through idol worship. The church at Corinth made the same mistake.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The list of blessings in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 were given by God perhaps knowing at the start that they would never be realized- "It shall come to pass, if you shall hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>). God gave such detailed blessings for obedience even though they would never be realized by Israel. Likewise He gave such detailed plans for the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 - even though the envisaged, possible scenario never came about because Israel chose to be disobedient.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The amount of fruit given was going to be huge (:5). But it would be because of the rains given by God, as if God was still going to bring about the blessing through natural means. This could imply a change of climate to almost tropical. The creation of such a specific microclimate over the promised land would be no difficulty for God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your threshing shall reach to the vintage, and the vintage shall reach to the sowing time; and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's dwelling in peace and safety before the final invasion (Ezekiel 38) could then speak of a time when Israel have repented and Christ is already back. In this case, the blessings of Leviticus 26 would then describe the blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom rather, when Israel are totally obedient, rather than having had any fulfillment in Israelite history to date.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The experience of preaching is in itself a foretaste of the future world-wide Kingdom. The harvest is both at the end of the age, according to the parables of Matthew 13, but also is ongoing right now (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>) as we gather in the harvest of converts. The Lord in <em><a href='B:500 4:35-36'>Joh 4:35-36</a></em> took this figure far further, by saying that the harvest is such that the interval between sowing and harvesting is in some sense collapsed for those who engage in preaching. The reaper was already collecting his wages; the harvest was already there, even though it was four months away (<em><a href='B:500 4:35'>Joh 4:35</a></em>). This clearly alludes to the promises that in the Messianic Kingdom there would also be no interval between sowing and harvest, so abundant would be the harvest (<em><a href='B:30 26:5'>Lev 26:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:13'>Amo 9:13</a></em>). And hence, we are impelled to spread the foretaste of the Kingdom world-wide by our witness right now. God's ideal was that there would be a continual harvest; but His legislation in <em><a href='B:30 25:16'>Lev 25:16</a></em> accepts the reality that this would not happen. His awareness of our failure to reach our potential height of blessing is seen throughout His word.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and no one will make you afraid; and I will remove evil animals out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the acceptance in <em><a href='B:30 25:7'>Lev 25:7</a></em> LXX that wild animals would exist is perhaps a tacit recognition that the full blessing of the covenant would not come, for the presence of wild beasts in the land was a sign of lack of blessing (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>). It's rather like the promise that there would be no poor in the land, and yet there is plenty of Mosaic legislation about poor Israelites. We see in this God's acceptance that His people would not live and experience as they should, and yet His legislation accounted for that- for He so thirsted for relationship with them. And He likewise is acceptant of our imperfection and failure to receive the blessings we could and should receive.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were times in Israel's history when they did chase their enemies, e.g. at the time of David's victory over Goliath (1 Samuel 17). Likewise in the earlier reign of Solomon, Israel lived fruitfully and were multiplied (:9). But they were far from obedient to God's laws. But He all the same gave them the blessings for obedience. This was partly due to His love and grace, and partly because He accepted the faithfulness of a minority as being the obedience of the majority; and in this we see a foretaste of the imputed righteousness of Christ granted to all those in Him, despite their personal failure to achieve total obedience to Divine law.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand; and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If five chased 100, this meant that one Israelite chased 20. But then the ratio increases- 100 chasing 10,000 means that one Israelite chased 100. The idea may be that their victories would ever increase in wonder. But if we understand by "a hundred" '100 groups of five', i.e. 500 men, then we have the same ratio- for 500 men chasing 20 each would mean they chased 10,000.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will have respect for you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and will establish My covenant with you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is all the language of the Abrahamic promises. These promises can come true in a progressive sense in our lives in accordance with our living in step with God's ways. The language suggests that each one of God's people stands with Abraham that starry night; he is no distant saint, but a living personal example whose path of faith is to be replicated in the life of each of God's children.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That God can “respect” mere humans indicates not only His humility but also His extreme sensitivity to us and His delight in our feeble attempts to please Him; rather like a parent may be thrilled by the responses of a baby, totally insignificant as they are in themselves.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had left Egypt with great riches of silver and gold, and this is "your silver and gold" which was to be multiplied even more (<em><a href='B:50 8:13'>Deu 8:13</a></em>). The multiplication of Abraham's seed promised to him clearly meant not simply numerical multiplication, but material multiplication too. That is the sense too in <em><a href='B:30 26:9'>Lev 26:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>. We wonder why God gave them all this blessing, knowing that it would lead to such spiritual temptation and failure. We wonder why He gives so many of His people today the same huge blessings, however unappreciated they are. One simple answer is that it is because He loves us with all the love of a father for his children; He rejoiced to multiply them (<em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). The king of Israel was warned in the same words not to multiply silver and gold lest his heart turn away (<em><a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a></em>). The idea may be that we are to leave God to multiply our silver and gold if He wishes, and not set our heart to doing so.<em></em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat old store long kept, and you shall move out the old because of the new- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may be a specific reference to the legislation about the year of Jubilee just given in Leviticus 25. They would be given such a big harvest before the year of Jubilee that they would eat it for three years. But if they were obedient to the covenant, then every year would be like the year of Jubilee. They would live permanently in that spirit. Having to move out the old begs the question "Where to?". Presumably to the poor and marginalized, to the extent that there would be no poor left in the land, as was God's ideal intention. The Lord seems to have had this verse in mind when speaking of the householder who brings out of his treasures things new and old, once he accepts the new covenant (<em><a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a></em>). And Paul likewise speaks of the person in Christ letting the old things pass away ("move out") because of the new things (<em><a href='B:540 5:17'>2Co 5:17</a></em>). Clearly we in Christ are to live in the spirit of this, in spiritual terms.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will set My tent among you: and My soul won’t abhor you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>David and Solomon sought to force the fulfillment of this promise to place God's dwelling place within Israel by building a temple for God to dwell in. They wanted to bring about the effects of obedience by human strength; rather like seeking peace in Christianity without making true peace with God through repentance. The same words translated "set (My) tabernacle" are found in <em><a href='B:330 25:4'>Eze 25:4</a></em>, where God says that in distinction to this, Israel's enemies would set <em>their</em> dwellings / tabernacles within Israel. If God doesn't live in us, then the world will do so; we will be indwelt by some spirit, be it God's or that of the flesh and the world. We can't just be neutral in this.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I will set My tabernacle among you- God did this (<em><a href='B:100 7:6-7'>2Sa 7:6-7</a></em>), by grace, even though the precondition of Israelite obedience was not met. Such is His desire to dwell with His people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you will be My people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, God did this (<em><a href='B:100 7:6-7'>2Sa 7:6-7</a></em>), by grace, even though the precondition of Israelite obedience was not met. Such is His desire to walk with His people. Revelation concludes with the picture of God's tabernacle being with men and walking amongst us (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em>)- the reward for obedience given by grace to we who have been disobedient.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Be your God... My people" is alluded to in the closing visions of Revelation, which speak of this as the final destiny of God's people- even though we have all failed to be obedient. Obedience, therefore, will be imputed to us, and we shall receive the blessings of obedience even though we have not attained total obedience. "The tabernacle of God" being God's people; He being our God;&nbsp;God living and walking with us (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em>) is evidently alluding to <em><a href='B:30 26:11-12'>Lev 26:11-12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 29:45-46'>Exo 29:45-46</a></em> concerning the ultimate blessings of the covenant after Israel's final repentance.&nbsp;The shadowy fulfillment they have had in the past through God's manifestation in an Angel doesn't mean that these promises can and must only be fulfilled by some form of God manifestation.&nbsp;Surely <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:3'>Rev 21:3</a></em> is saying that at the second coming the principle of God manifestation will change in that God will personally be with His people.&nbsp;Because we have so far lived under the paradigm of God manifestation, let's not think that it's not possible for God to personally be with us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh your God, Who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves; and I have broken the bars of your yoke, and made you go upright’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The emphasis is on the word "their". Israel were to change masters- to become <em>God's</em> servants and not those of Pharaoh. We do the same at our Red Sea baptism, as Romans 6 explains.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘But if you will not listen to Me, and will not do all these commandments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The judgments to come upon the earth / land of Israel in Revelation are presented in four groups of seven. This is exactly the pattern of Leviticus 26, where Israel are threatened with seven-fold judgments; and if they did not repent, then the seven-fold judgments would be repeated. Four times this is threatened; if they had repented after the first seven-fold judgments, there would have been no need for the others. It seems to me that the sequence of events in the last days is likewise impossible to predict in detail, because depending upon human freewill, the fulfillment of the various prophecies may be suspended or be realized in more symbolic ways, as we have already seen God working like this in the past.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He not only repeats all the curses of Leviticus 26 to them, but he adds even more, under inspiration (<em><a href='B:50 28:50-57'>Deu 28:50-57</a></em>). Presumably the Angel had explained in one of their conversations how Israel would suffer even greater punishment than what He had outlined in Leviticus 26.&nbsp; Notice in passing that Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are not strictly parallel. And in some ways, Moses became more demanding, whilst at the same time emphasizing grace and love.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and if you shall reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances, so that you will not do all My commandments, but break My covenant; -</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :44. God promised that even if Israel sinned, He would never break His covenant with them (<em><a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a></em>). But He did (<em><a href='B:450 11:10'>Zec 11:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em>), as witnessed by the termination of the Law of Moses, which was the basis of His covenant with Israel. His love creates yet another Bible paradox. Israel broke the covenant by their disobedience (<em><a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em> and many others). God therefore broke His part of the covenant. Yet God made His promises concerning the unbreakable covenant because He chose to speak in words which did not reflect His foreknowledge that Israel would sin. The apparent contradiction is resolvable by realizing that God did not set His mind upon Israel's future apostasy when He made the 'unbreakable' covenant with them. And yet the paradox still ultimately stands; that He broke His covenant with them when they sinned. He worked through this punishment in order to establish an even more gracious new covenant.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will <em>appoint</em> over you terror" uses a Hebrew word which appears elsewhere concerning appointing officers over a land (<em><a href='B:10 41:34'>Gen 41:34</a></em>), implying some form of enemy rulership over Israel during the desolation period. 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.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God's blessings and cursings involve His direct operation upon the human heart. Many of the cursings involve psychological attitudes- fleeing when nobody is chasing (:17), having pride broken (:19), faintness sent into the heart (:36) etc.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will set My face against you, and you will be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you will rule over you; and you will flee when no one pursues you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fleeing of the Egyptians from Israel in the midst of the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) was a case of fleeing when none pursued them. This was the judgment upon Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:17'>Lev 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a></em>), which was to arise because in their hearts they had returned to Egypt (the world) and were therefore to be judged as Egypt, "condemned with the world" they had loved (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A spirit of fear, nervousness and negativity can be given by God as a result of willful disobedience to His ways. He can give a spirit (mental attitude) of fear (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you in spite of these things will not listen to Me, then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It should be noted that the record of the curses in Leviticus 26 splits them up into six sections, each introduced by a phrase like, "If you will not for this hearken unto me... then..." more curses would come (<em><a href='B:30 26:14'>Lev 26:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:23'>Lev 26:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:27'>Lev 26:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>).&nbsp;It is tempting to associate this with the series of six judgments to be poured upon Israel and her enemies as outlined in the six seals (Revelation 6) and six vials (Revelation 16), leading up to the seventh period, of Israel's repentance and Christ's Kingdom. There are many other points of contact between the curses and the language of the seals and vials.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"If you will not for all this <em>hearken</em> unto me" (<em><a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a></em>) may suggest that God's word will be spoken to Israel along with the trials brought about by the curses.&nbsp;&nbsp; This again indicates that the Elijah ministry will operate within Israel during their period of final downtreading. See on :23.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will break the pride of your power, and I will make your sky like iron, and your soil like brass-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same word is used in <em><a href='B:120 25:13'>2Ki 25:13</a></em> concerning the breaking of the brass temple pillars by the Babylonians. The Babylonian invasion clearly looks forward to the final destruction of Israel in the last days. The lack of rain recalls how this was the situation during the three and a half years of Elijah's appeal to Israel to forsake idolatry. And that looks ahead to the latter day Elijah ministry.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and your strength will be spent in vain; for your land won’t yield its increase, neither will the trees of the land yield their fruit-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ye shall sow your seed in vain... your strength shall be spent in vain:&nbsp; for your land shall not yield her increase" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:20'>Lev 26:20</a></em>), not only confirms the many other hints that Israel's physical fertility will be ruined during this period, despite that implication that Israel will make a major effort to be agriculturally self-sufficient in the tribulation.&nbsp;This may indicate a world-wide trade embargo against her, or a blockade which the West refuses to challenge.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you walk contrary to Me, and won’t listen to Me, then I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"If..." could suggest that when suffering the curses for disobedience, they would then be offered the opportunity for repentance. But if they refused this, then the plagues would not be of 'short continuance' as was potentially possible, but would last "long" (<em><a href='B:50 28:59'>Deu 28:59</a></em>), or made seven times heavier (<em><a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will send wild animals among you, which will rob you of your children, destroy your livestock, and make you few in number; and your roads will become desolate-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:110 22:22'>1Ki 22:22</a></em>. "Your highways shall be desolate" (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em>&nbsp; AV) is definitely picked up in <em><a href='B:70 5:6'>Jdg 5:6</a></em>, concerning the result of the&nbsp; reign of terror in Israel. They were saved from it through repentance and the raising up of a saviour / judge, looking ahead to the Lord Jesus in the last days. The highways and transport infrastructure of modern Israel face a like fate.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle" (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 28:31'>Deu 28:31</a></em>) speaks of the "beasts of the earth / land" (<em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em>), who refer to the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham. The use of cattle raiding language in <em><a href='B:330 38:12'>Eze 38:12</a></em> would then lead us to equate that latter day invasion with the final fulfillment of the curses upon Israel here.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the acceptance that wild animals would exist in the land (<em><a href='B:30 25:7'>Lev 25:7</a></em> LXX) is perhaps a tacit recognition that the full blessing of the covenant would not come, for the presence of wild beasts in the land was a sign of lack of blessing. It's rather like the promise that there would be no poor in the land, and yet there is plenty of Mosaic legislation about poor Israelites. We see in this God's acceptance that His people would not live and experience as they should, and yet His legislation accounted for that- for He so thirsted for relationship with them. And He likewise is acceptant of our imperfection and failure to receive the blessings we could and should receive.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If by these things you won’t be returned to Me, but will walk contrary to Me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems that the curses mentioned in this chapter aren’t just a general list, but there is an intended chronological sequence. God had planned from the start that if Israel were disobedient, then He would bring various judgments, in order to help them be obedient; and if they failed, He would bring more, again with the intention that they responded to them. The curses for disobedience weren’t therefore merely an offended deity lashing out at a people who had irritated Him; God has purpose and positive spiritual intention even in the judgments He brings into peoples’ lives. He is constantly seeking our return to Him, just as the shepherd searched for the lost sheep until He found it (<em><a href='B:490 15:4'>Luk 15:4</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"If you will not be <em>reformed</em> by me" (<em><a href='B:30 26:23'>Lev 26:23</a></em> AV) uses a Hebrew word elsewhere translated 'to teach', defined by Strong as 'to chastise by words'. This provides further confirmation of the ideas discussed on :18 about a latter day appeal by a teaching ministry to Israel, as they go through these curses.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will also walk contrary to you; and I will strike you, even I, seven times for your sins-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To have God against you ("even I") is a terrible thing (<em><a href='B:650 10:31'>Heb 10:31</a></em>). But they had walked contrary to God (:21), and so inevitably they would find Him walking against them. It was their choice. It was not that God was walking with them and then turned around and walked against them. They decided to walk against God, and so it is axiomatic that He was therefore walking against them. All judgment is effectively chosen by men, sin is its own judgment. Men more condemn themselves rather than being condemned by Him against their will.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bring a sword upon you, that will execute the vengeance of the covenant; and you will be gathered together within your cities: and I will send the plague among you; and you will be delivered into the hand of the enemy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pestilence" which was the plague upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 9:3'>Exo 9:3</a></em>) was to come upon a hard hearted Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:6'>Jer 21:6</a></em>). It will do in the last days (<em><a href='B:330 33:27-29'>Eze 33:27-29</a></em>). The plagues upon Egypt form the basis for the vials and seals of Revelation, which speak of judgment to come upon the land of Israel. It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Withdrawal into fenced cities was what happened in the Assyrian invasion (<em><a href='B:120 18:13'>2Ki 18:13</a></em>). The great emphasis on how famine and plague would lead to Israel's capture by their enemies rather than straight military defeat (<em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>), is especially relevant to Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jerusalem (cp. <em><a href='B:300 14:12'>Jer 14:12</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; All these curses had elements of historical fulfillment, but will have their main fulfillment in the last days.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Most especially is Babylon called "the enemy": <em><a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 6:25'>Jer 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:11'>Jer 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:16'>Jer 31:16</a></em> and an impressive 11 times in Lamentations.&nbsp; 'Babylon' has specific latter-day application to the neighbouring enemies of Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words are quoted in <em><a href='B:290 3:1'>Isa 3:1</a></em> concerning Judah's deprivation at the hands of the Assyrians.&nbsp;The curses, like all Bible prophecy, had multiple fulfillments over Israelite history- but will come to complete fulfillment only in the last days.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ezekiel's prophecies of the coming Babylonian tribulation have several references to Leviticus 26. The initial fulfillment was in Babylon, but it looks ahead to that in the last days. "They shall eat bread by weight" (<em><a href='B:330 4:16'>Eze 4:16</a></em>) = "They shall deliver you your bread by weight" (<em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>); "The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of (Zion), and the sons shall eat their fathers" (<em><a href='B:330 5:10'>Eze 5:10</a></em>)= "You shall eat the flesh of your sons" (<em><a href='B:30 26:29'>Lev 26:29</a></em>). "I will make you waste" (<em><a href='B:330 5:14'>Eze 5:14</a></em>) = "I will make your cities waste" (<em><a href='B:30 26:31'>Lev 26:31</a></em>, s.w.); "...draw out a sword after (you)" (<em><a href='B:330 5:12'>Eze 5:12</a></em>) = "I will scatter you among the heathen, and draw out a sword after you" (<em><a href='B:30 26:33'>Lev 26:33</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note that to break the bread in a place was an idiom for breaking the life there (<em><a href='B:330 4:16'>Eze 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:16'>Eze 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:13'>Eze 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>). This was what the Lord asks us to remember- not the physical breaking of His body, but the breaking of His life for us and sharing it with us (<em><a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a></em>). The Lord’s death is surely to be understood as a tearing apart of the flesh nature and tendencies which He bore; and it is this we remember in breaking the bread which represents His flesh.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And you shall eat, and not be satisfied-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So many of the judgments are mental attitudes (especially :16,36). God gives people attitudes of mind, positive and negative. And He uses that ability today through the work of the Spirit on human hearts. Israel were given manna in the wilderness, and they ate it and were full (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em>). But they were promised that in the promised land of the Kingdom, they would likewise eat and be full, again from blessing given by God (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 8:10'>Deu 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:15'>Deu 11:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:12'>Deu 26:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:20'>Deu 31:20</a></em>). After our Red Sea baptism, we are now in the wilderness; but by feeding on the manna, the word of God in the Lord Jesus, we have a foretaste of the Kingdom experience. But the curse for disobedience was that they would eat and not be full / satisfied (<em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you in spite of this won’t listen to Me, but walk contrary to Me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :24 for "walk contrary". We note the parallel between listening and walking. Daily life, walking, is to be guided step by step by our listening to God's word. In our age and situation, daily Bible reading is a major part of this process, as well as developing the ability to hear those ancient words speaking to us as we face the life moves which make up daily walking in this world.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will walk contrary to you in wrath; and I also will chastise you seven times for your sins- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This chastisement was in order to elicit repentance and change, s.w. <em><a href='B:50 8:5'>Deu 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em> - it was not the lashing out of an offended Deity, but the chastisement of a loving Father. God had spoken to Israel from Heaven with His own voice, that He might "instruct" (s.w. chastise) them (<em><a href='B:50 4:36'>Deu 4:36</a></em>). Although He was madly in love with Israel in the wilderness, He chastised them even there and tried to teach them to live by His word daily (<em><a href='B:50 8:5'>Deu 8:5</a></em> s.w.), but they refused all this. If we refuse God's direct statements to us through His word, then He uses life situations to try to teach or instruct us. And this will come to full term in Israel's latter day afflictions, until they finally admit they have been chastised / instructed and turn to God and His Son in repentance (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 31:18'>Jer 31:18</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the account of the great famine in Samaria which this invasion brought about, there is the extraordinary record of the two women arguing about the eating of their children (<em><a href='B:120 6:29'>2Ki 6:29</a></em>).&nbsp;The inclusion of this incident in the record must be to recall <em><a href='B:30 26:29'>Lev 26:29</a></em>, where it is prophesied that this is exactly what would occur.&nbsp;Ben-hadad's invasion is typical of the onslaught of the last day. Likewise in the Babylonian context "The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of (Zion), and the sons shall eat their fathers" (<em><a href='B:330 5:10'>Eze 5:10</a></em>); see on :26.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and My soul will hate you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was done by Josiah (<em><a href='B:140 34:5'>2Ch 34:5</a></em>) because God said that He would do this if His people broke covenant. Josiah was recognizing that indeed they had broken covenant and were worthy of such things. He was agreeing that this curse was true and legitimate and hastened to bring it about, with the humility which only comes from conviction of sin.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will lay your cities waste, and will bring your sanctuaries to desolation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same word is used of the Babylonian desolation of Judah, both historically and in the last days "I will make you waste" (<em><a href='B:330 5:14'>Eze 5:14</a></em>)<em>. </em>See on :26.<em> "Waste" </em>uses a Hebrew word which means 'wasted by intense heat' - i.e. nuclear fission? See on :16.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And I will not take delight in the sweet fragrance of your offerings-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As can be imagined, there will be much Jewish prayer in the last days, but the majority of Israel will fail to accept that it is faith in Christ's mediation of prayer, rather than the mental intensity of supplication, which brings a response. Spiritual Israel may have to re-learn this lesson at the same time.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“A pleasant aroma” is a very common phrase. This concept is important to God. It first occurs in <em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em> where it means that God accepted Noah's sacrifice and vowed that the pole of saving mercy in His character was going to triumph over that of necessary judgment. Under the new covenant, it is persons and not sacrifices or incense which are accepted as a "pleasant aroma" (<em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>). The word for "pleasant" means strong delight; this is how God's heart can be touched by genuine sacrifice. Those pleasing offerings represented us, the living sacrifices (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And so it is applied to us in <em><a href='B:540 2:15'>2Co 2:15</a></em> - if we are in Christ, we are counted as a pleasant aroma to God. But Israel in their tribulation will still have rejected the Lord Jesus, so they can never be a pleasing aroma. The offering of ourselves to Him is nothing of itself, but because we are in Christ and counted as Him, we are a delight to God. Hence the colossal importance of being “in Christ”. "Aroma" or "smell" is a form of the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em>, the word for spirit or breath. God discerns the spirit of sacrifices, that was what pleased Him rather than the burning flesh of animals. Our attitude of mind in sacrifice can touch Him. Sacrifice is therefore accepted, Paul says, according to what a person has to give, but the essence is the attitude of mind behind it. We think of the two coins sacrificed by the widow.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein will be astonished at it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The desolation of the physical land of Israel is associated with God's anger at Israel's disobedience, and the physical blossoming of the land with His blessing for obedience. But since 1948 the land of Israel has blossomed physically- but without Israel's obedience. This, then, is the outpouring of God's grace in these last days. This 'remembering of the land' by God will be if dispersed Israel repent (:42). They did not- but God has gone beyond His terms of blessing here, such is His grace and desire to save Israel. In this spirit :45 seems to say that even if they are disobedient, God will still remember His covenant desire to bless them. This is grace indeed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you; and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same phrase is used of the Babylonian desolation of Judah, both historically and in the last days:&nbsp; "I will... draw out a sword after (you)" (<em><a href='B:330 5:12'>Eze 5:12</a></em>)<em>. </em>See on :26.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the land will enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land. Even then the land will rest and enjoy its Sabbaths-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Judah's exile in Babylon was to allow the land to enjoy her Sabbaths (<em><a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a></em>). But the restoration from Babylon was not because of Judah's repentance; it was brought about by God's grace, because Judah were largely impenitent. "Enjoy" is literally 'repay', and this idea is found in <em><a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a></em> "her iniquity has been repayed". The idea of the Isaiah reference was that the exile had as it were repayed for Israel's refusal to obey the legislation about the Sabbath years and Jubilee years, which as explained on Leviticus 25 required huge faith to obey- which they didn't have. We see that God has His way ultimately; Israel didn't obey that legislation, and yet God made the land have that Sabbath rest through the exile of the people upon it.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As long as it lies desolate it shall have rest, even the rest which it didn’t have in your Sabbaths, when you lived on it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Closer study reveals the variableness of outworking of the time periods. <em><a href='B:300 25:11-12'>Jer 25:11-12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a></em> speak of a 70 year period of Babylonian rule over Judah, beginning with the invasion of BC597. But Babylon only ruled over Judah for 49 years, before Babylon fell to the Persians. This would connect with the way that <em><a href='B:450 4:3'>Zec 4:3</a></em> speaks of 7 menorah candlesticks each with 7 lamps, making 49 lamps. 49 is the cycle of 7 Sabbath years that culminated in the jubilee year, and the jubilee year, the proclamation of liberty to the land (<em><a href='B:30 25:8-12'>Lev 25:8-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 27:7-24'>Lev 27:7-24</a></em>) is a figure used so often in Isaiah to describe the freedom of Judah once released from Babylon. <em><a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a></em> speak of the land enjoying her Sabbaths whilst Israel were in exile for their sins- i.e. for 49 years. So it seems that there could have been some restoration after 49 years- but it didn't happen. But <em><a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a></em> and <em><a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a></em> seem to reinterpret those 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecies as speaking of a 70 year period during which Jerusalem and the temple would be desolate. And yet there again, Ezekiel was asked to prophecy that Judah would suffer for their sins for 40 years (<em><a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a></em>). Perhaps something could've happened after 40 years... Perhaps some restoration could have happened to the ten tribes after 390 years (<em><a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a></em>), although there's no sign it ever did. And then, the starting point of the 70 or 40 years was somewhat flexible- for <em><a href='B:330 22:3-4'>Eze 22:3-4</a></em> records Ezekiel's prophecy that the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (the starting point of the time periods) was actually being hastened, brought forward, by the terrible behaviour of the Jews living there after the initial Babylon invasion of the land. In fact, if a person had been found who would have powerfully interceded for Jerusalem, 'stood in the gap' (<em><a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a></em>), God wouldn't have destroyed Jerusalem - "that I should not destroy it" is an allusion to Abraham interceding for Sodom in <em><a href='B:10 18:28'>Gen 18:28</a></em>. There were simply so many possible scenarios! And this is what we must expect if even time periods can be shortened or extended in response to human behaviour.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As for those of you who are left, I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a driven leaf will put them to flight; and they shall flee, as one flees from the sword; and they will fall when no one pursues- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>During their latter day tribulation, Israel will experience "faintness in their hearts", 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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They will stumble over one another, as it were before the sword, when no one pursues: and you will have no power to stand before your enemies-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is one of a number of word pictures among the curses which recall the scenes of Nazi death camps. But even they were nothing to the scenes which tragically are yet to come in the last days. The stumbling when no man chased them is another indication of a psychological state given to them. We recall that this was the method of destruction God used against Israel's enemies, e.g. in the time of Gideon. And they were to experience the same judgments as their enemies. Revelation makes this clear in a latter day context, where the seals of judgment upon Israel are in fact essentially the same as the vials of judgment upon their enemies.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will eat you up- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The land of your enemies will eat you up" implies that Israel's enemies are to be seen as a beast. This sort of language is quite common in the prophecies which speak of a latter-day beast devouring Israel (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 49:19'>Isa 49:19</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those of you who are left will pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's repentance would involve a recognition that their fathers had sinned; in contrast to their way of praising their ancestors as great men of God, when in fact they slew God's prophets and crucified His Son. There is no religion like Judaism for quoting with veneration the various fathers of their faith, and seeking to whitewash all Jewish Bible characters from any real wrongdoing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If they confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and also recognize that because they walked contrary to Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Confess" is the word for praise. Praise is related to the realization that sin has been forgiven. Hezekiah's praise on realizing God's mercy to him was expressed in a desire to walk in quiet fellowship with God for the rest of his life. There is no suggestion that praise was some kind of ecstatic exuberance of emotion. The normal Hebrew word translated "praise" is also translated "confess" in the context of confessing sin (<em><a href='B:30 5:5'>Lev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:21'>Lev 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:40'>Lev 26:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 5:7'>Num 5:7</a></em>). Contrition of heart because of appreciating our own failures is therefore one way of praising Yahweh's Name. So often does the word "praise" occur in the context of praising the <em>Name</em> of Yahweh, or the praising of "the God of Israel", i.e. Yahweh.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I also walked contrary to them, and brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled, and they then accept the punishment of their iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :24 for "walk contrary". This clearly demonstrates how the whole of Jewry will be destroyed apart from this righteous remnant who are left (:39) - and that even they will be a remnant of a remnant.&nbsp;&nbsp;This accords with our previous conclusions, that there will be a group within latter-day Israel who associate themselves with the remnant, but who do not fully repent. They may well meet their final curse in the (temporary) fires of Gehenna, outside the city of their refuge.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham; and I will remember the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read of God ‘remembering’ His covenant (<em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:10'>Jer 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em>); and of God ‘not remembering’ or forgetting the sins of His covenant people (<em><a href='B:290 43:25'>Isa 43:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a></em>). If words mean anything, this surely implies that sins which God once remembered, He then stops remembering and ‘forgets’. Such language seems on one hand inappropriate to the God who by nature doesn’t have to forget and can recall all things. But He has willingly entered into the meaning of time which is experienced by those with whom He is in covenant relationship. He allows Himself to genuinely feel it like it is. The 'gap' between God stating His plan and its actual fulfillment is the opportunity for men and women to plead with Him, as Moses did, as Abraham did regarding Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 18:17-22'>Gen 18:17-22</a></em>), as so many have done...<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The land also will be left by them, and will enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them: and they will accept the punishment of their iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some prophecies were delayed / rescheduled in their fulfillment. Others have their intended fulfillment changed into another form. <em><a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a></em> speaks of how Jerusalem’s “punishment is accepted” (RVmg.), referring to how <em><a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a></em> had said that the land would lie desolate until her punishment was fulfilled. This passage could have come true when Judah returned from captivity. But it didn’t. It is applied to the preaching of John the Baptist in the first century; but again, Judah would not hear. And so once again the land lay desolate again, until now the time has arrived for the final Elijah prophet.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because, even because they rejected My ordinances, and their soul hated My statutes-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :44. Israel have ever claimed to love God's word, studying every letter of every word in the Mosaic law with apparently great respect. But God sees things from His perspective. And they despised and even "hated" those statutes and rejected them. For they all led to His Son, whom they crucified. We have here an example of how God sees to the essence of implied positions. If we hate or despise God’s word, He will hate us (:30). Our attitude to God’s word is related to His attitude to us. The very least we can do is to read His word daily and love it, through all our weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The covenant was broken, not least because Israel broke it and abrogated it (see on :15). The promise here however is that even when Israel were to be in the land of their enemies as punishment for their sins, “I will not cast them away”. God will not cast away Israel (<em><a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a></em>). Only if Heaven can be measured will God cast away Israel (<em><a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a></em>). God has not cast away His people (<em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>). And yet the same word is found in statements like “My God will cast them away” (<em><a href='B:350 9:17'>Hos 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 54:6'>Isa 54:6</a></em>); the same Hebrew word occurs when God says He would “reject” Israel (<em><a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a></em>)<em>. </em>This is only explicable as a paradox of God's grace. Although we could read Romans as Paul arguing that God has only not rejected His people in that He has redefined His people as those now "in" His Son who was "Israel" as intended.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<em><a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a></em>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a></em>), "and yet for all that.. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<em><a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a></em> s.w.). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s.w. <em><a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a></em>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<em><a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a></em>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<em><a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a></em>), "and yet for all that... I will not reject them / cast they away" (<em><a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a></em> s.w.). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<em><a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other. See on :15.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but I will for their sake remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am Yahweh’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :32. The "memorial portion" of the offerings was to serve as a reminder to God, as it were, of the covenants which He "remembered"<em>.</em> He of course doesn't forget His covenant but ever remembers it (<em><a href='B:230 105:8'>Psa 105:8</a></em> etc.), yet He is presented in human terms as having His memory rekindled, as it were, by human prayer, faith, situations and sacrifices so that He "remembers the covenant" (<em><a href='B:10 8:1'>Gen 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:24'>Exo 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:5'>Exo 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:42'>Lev 26:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:45'>Lev 26:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em> and often). The regular sacrifices were such a "memorial" or 'reminder'- both to God and to His people. The place of prayer, regular sacrifice of giving, breaking of bread at the "memorial meeting" etc., are all equivalents for us under the new covenant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the statutes, ordinances and laws, which Yahweh made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by Moses-</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. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This chapter is as it were an appendix to the Law because it concerns vows which were freewill decisions to give something to God and weren’t part of the legal demands which God made upon His people in the previous chapters. It’s good for us to at times make a special commitment to God from a joyful heart. The values attached to people in the next verses seem to speak of the price that should be paid if a person wished to cancel the dedication of themselves or even of others which they had made. It seems Jephthah may have been ignorant of these provisions and therefore suffered immensely from not paying attention to all God’s law (<em><a href='B:70 11:31-40'>Jdg 11:31-40</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When a man makes a vow, the persons shall be for Yahweh by your valuation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be argued that this continues from the theme of Leviticus 25 about valuing persons. There, the context was valuing them in the context of the year of Jubilee. Here, the valuation is in the context of vowing property to God's service. In this sense, Leviticus 27 is not really an appendix but a continuation (although see on :1). The idea in this verse is perhaps that a vow must not be vaguely expressed, but must be defined specifically- in order to discourage the general desire and expression of a wish to give something to God, and then just leaving it as a vague, undefined desire which could later be pulled back from. And that is an abiding lesson for us all. LXX implies this section speaks of a person vowing themselves to God rather than vowing to give a servant to His service: "Whosoever shall vow a vow as the valuation of his soul for the Lord".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your valuation shall be of a male from twenty years old even to sixty years old, even your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The person was valued at what they would be worth on the secular market as it were, which is why the female is valued at less (:4); not because God thinks women are less valuable, but because the idea was that the person was being given to the Lord's service just as a property could be given, and to redeem or take back the gift, an appropriate price must be paid according to the secular value of whatever had been dedicated.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :3. Jephthah could have redeemed his daughter from the vow he involved her with (<em><a href='B:30 27:4'>Lev 27:4</a></em>). But he decided in his mind: "I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back" (<em><a href='B:70 11:35'>Jdg 11:35</a></em>). Actually he could have done; but he so firmly chose the higher level that it was as if there was no way back. <em><a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a></em>, 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.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the person is from five years old even to twenty years old, then your valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :3, this was not because God was devaluing females; the idea was that a dedication of a person should not be undertaken lightly, and if it was to be changed, then the person who made the vow had to pay the secular value of the person. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the person is from a month old even to five years old, then your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have an example of this when Hannah dedicated Samuel to the sanctuary from a young age.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the person is from sixty years old and upward; if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again as discussed on :3,5, the idea is not that God is devaluing elderly people nor women nor youngsters. The idea simply is that the secular value of the person must be calculated and the price required for redeeming them back had to be decided accordingly.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he is poorer than your valuation, then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him who vowed shall the priest value him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This provision seems to foresee the possibility that a totally poor person would dedicate themselves to God’s service (e.g. doing some work related to the maintenance of the sanctuary) and yet need to change that commitment (perhaps to care for a sick and dying relative), and yet have nothing to pay for his own redemption. The idea is 'Too poor (to pay) your valuation'. This freewill dedication of oneself to God’s service is alluded to when Paul praises some of the Macedonian believers for devoting their own selves to the Lord (<em><a href='B:540 8:5'>2Co 8:5</a></em>), and the family of Stephanas for having ‘ceremonially consecrated’ themselves to serving their fellow believers (<em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em> Gk.). What could we devote ourselves to do, remembering that wealth is no barrier to making this kind of devotion?<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is an animal, of which men offer an offering to Yahweh, all that any man gives of such to Yahweh becomes holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation and in :10 is typical of where the law foresees people trying to disobey. Whatever animal was given was holy / dedicated for good. No substitute could therefore be given. But if a substitute was given (:10), then that too would be dedicated. The <em>l</em>aws were geared to discourage anyone from making a rash vow, and towards acceptance that whatever we give to God should never be demanded back. Giving must be total and absolute and never regretted later; and that again is an abiding principle.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change animal for animal, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Changing what we have given to God according to new circumstances isn’t encouraged; we should give and assume that what we gave is now not ours any longer. Giving should be frank and final, with no thought of regret afterwards or considering what might have been if we had not given it- e.g. letting our mind wander around the possibilities of what we could have used money for if we’d not given it to God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is any unclean animal, of which they do not offer as an offering to Yahweh, then he shall set the animal before the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The unclean animal would have been given for the domestic use of the priests.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the priest shall value it, whether it is good or bad. As you the priest values it, so shall it be-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A bad animal that was unclean could still be given to God. The idea was that the very poor could still be allowed to give to God whatever they could. And that again is an abiding principle. For giving is not only for rich Christians. It is to be the spirit for all God's people of whatever social or economic status.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of it to its valuation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact the unclean could be redeemed but not the clean perhaps hints at the Lord's redeeming work. He came as a doctor for the sick, the unclean, rather than for the healthy who considered themselves clean.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man dedicates his house to be holy to Yahweh, then the priest shall evaluate it, whether it is good or bad: as the priest shall evaluate it, so shall it stand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is continually the hint that the person vowing would consider his 'gift' of a different value to what it really was. There was always the concern that public vowing was not from pure motives. <em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em> is of the same spirit: "When you make a vow to Yahweh your God you must not be slack to pay it, for Yahweh your God will surely require it of you and it would be sin upon you". This was to guard against the temptation to make a vow which was publically impressive before men, but then not to pay it. Any attempt to garner kudos for our spiritual devotion is absolutely wrong; such spiritual pride is the worst. God would therefore "require it" and severely judge those who did this (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>). Not being slack to pay a vow (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>) fits in with a wider Biblical theme of being quick in responding to God. It comes to full term in the New Testament accounts of immediate baptisms straight after people had grasped the basic message of the Gospel. "Yes straight away" is what God really seeks from His children. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples immediately left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he who dedicates it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we note that the law is geared towards the conclusion that any gift to God should not be given in the hope of getting it back. What is given is given and we live in the joy of having made that gift, without regretting it or seeking to recoup it. Although God does make concessions to those who for some reason wanted or needed to retract their gift. "It shall be his" is a reminder that when something had been given, it was no longer "his".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man dedicates to Yahweh part of the field of his possession, then your valuation shall be according to the seed for it: the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that the field was calculated in accordance with how much seed was required in order to sow it, and not the projected harvest from it. The quality of the land was not taken into account. Fifty shekels of silver was a lot if indeed a homer (10 ephahs, <em><a href='B:330 45:11'>Eze 45:11</a></em>) of barley was all that it produced. Again, the law is geared to make redemption of such a dedicated field very expensive, and to enforce the idea that vows should not be rashly made. And what is given to God should not be considered as reclaimable. See on :17.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he dedicates his field from the Year of Jubilee, according to your valuation it shall stand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that the 50 shekels of :16 was the price for the field if dedicated for the Jubilee cycle, a shekel / year making therefore 50 shekels.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he dedicates his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon to him the money according to the years that remain to the Year of Jubilee; and a reduction shall be made from your valuation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :17; apparently the idea was a shekel for every year.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he who dedicated the field will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall remain his-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Remain his" is not the sense; rather is the idea that the field would be established to him. The idea is as in :15, "it shall be his", whereas after it had been vowed to God, it was not his. Again the lesson is that giving to God means we are totally in deficit, we have actually parted with what was ours and it is no longer ours. We must remind ourselves of this definition of giving; for we are not to "give" in some secret hope that what we give will return to us somehow, at least in part. Failure to realize this led to the destruction of Ananias and Sapphira.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Giving something to Yahweh and then selling it to another man was an awful thing to do. But the law foresaw that people would be inclined to "give" to God and yet still assume ownership and power over what they had given. Like a donor to a charity then thinking they can thereby take control of that charity. The punishment for this was that the field would be totally lost both to that man and any who had purchased it (:21).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to Yahweh, as a field devoted; it shall be owned by the priests-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :20. The land was God's anyway, so the punishment for the wrong behaviour of :20 was that the 'owner' would be taught this lesson- for he could hardly complain at this judgment, if he accepted the land was God's anyway.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he dedicates to Yahweh a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his possession- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here we have the tendency revealed to be generous with that which is not ours. The principle is that we are not to offer that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the priest shall reckon to him the worth of your valuation up to the Year of Jubilee; and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a holy thing to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The value of all things is relative to the Year of Jubilee, which speaks of the return of Christ (see on <em><a href='B:30 25:10'>Lev 25:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:15'>Lev 25:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:20'>Lev 25:20</a></em>). And we are to live by this principle.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the Year of Jubilee the field shall return to him from whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land belongs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea could be that the field itself was not bought, as the land possession of the Israelites was not to be sold, but rather the usage of the land to grow crops. Although this indicated that the ideal situation in the land was not going to be achieved, whereby each Israelite enjoyed super abundant harvests in the land God had specifically given to them. Constantly we see examples of where the law of Moses foresaw human failure and yet God was still eager to work with them, even though they were not experiencing His ideal intentions for them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All your valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs to the shekel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were various definitions of shekels; but as in our lives, all valuation, our entire worldview and value system, is to be based upon God's way and values rather than ours or those of the surrounding world.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Only the firstborn among animals, which is made a firstborn to Yahweh, no man may dedicate it: whether an ox or sheep, it is Yahweh’s-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We should avoid the temptation to give what we owe to God anyway as if it is a gift of special freewill devotion.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is an unclean animal, then he shall buy it back according to your valuation, and shall add to it the fifth part of it; or if it isn’t redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The redemption of unclean devoted animals was to be at the basis of the animals value plus one fifth. But the firstborn of donkeys were to be redeemed with a lamb, and a lamb would have been of less value than a newborn donkey. The firstborn of the donkey was to be redeemed by a lamb (<em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em>) as a ritual reminder of the power of the Passover lamb's redemption. The value of its blood was far greater than its commercial value. And this was to point forward to the value of the blood of the Lord Jesus, far more precious than of any gold or silver (<em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>). The donkey was the most common domestic animal, and it was an unclean animal. It was therefore representative of common people, in their unclean state. Firstborn donkeys were to be redeemed because they were to be understood as representative of God's people, redeemed by the Passover lamb.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote to Yahweh of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have been reading earlier in this chapter of how things devoted in a vow could be redeemed, usually upon the payment of extra money. So now in this section the devoted things must refer to something different. Perhaps what is in view is the things devoted in tithe to the priests; the priests were not sell these things back to the donor. Verse 30 speaks of the tithe. Or perhaps the devoted things refer to things taken in warfare<em>, </em>which makes more sense when we come to :29. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No one devoted, who shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed: he shall surely be put to death-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :28, what may be in view are people or things captured in warfare which were devoted to Yahweh. If someone (like Achan) was to be slain, then they must be- and money was not to be taken in order to save their lives. <em><a href='B:230 49:7'>Psa 49:7</a></em> alludes here, lamenting that no man, no matter how rich or powerful, can redeem his brother in this case. But that passage goes on to imply that it is the Lord Jesus who alone can do so, through abrogating all such legal condemnation.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is Yahweh’s. It is holy to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whilst devoted animals could not be redeemed, it seems agricultural produce could be (see on :28). But there must be firstly the recognition that it was Yahweh's. It had been given to Him, and did not belong to the donor any more. It was His, and should not be given in the hope of somehow getting it back. However what may be in view here is the natural growth of the seeds in the land, and not of cultivated crops. In the context of this chapter, which speaks about vows, perhaps the idea is that the tithes were not to be claimed as voluntary offerings, as if to try to impress others by their apparent generosity when in fact they were only giving the required tithes anyway. The law was clearly aware that there would be such tendencies, and we must accept that we have the same.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man redeems anything of his tithe, he shall add a fifth part to it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They could only possibly redeem their own tithe; they were not to look at the tithes of others and wish them for themselves. Constantly the legislation is geared towards stopping people from 'giving' with a view to taking back what they had given. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the tithe of the herds or the flocks, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Rabbis explain this as meaning: "When a man was to give the tithe of his sheep or calves to God, he was to shut up the whole flock in one fold, in which there was one narrow door capable of letting out one at a time. The owner, about to give the tenth to the Lord, stood by the door with a rod in his hand, the end of which was dipped in vermilion or red ochre. The mothers of those lambs or calves stood without: the door being opened, the young ones ran out to join themselves to their dams; and as they passed out the owner stood with his rod over them, and counted one, two, three, four, five, etc., and when the tenth came, he touched it with the coloured rod, by which it was distinguished to be the tithe calf, sheep, etc., and whether poor or lean, perfect or blemished, that was received as the legitimate tithe".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall not analyze whether it is good or bad, neither shall he change it; and if he changes it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God foresaw their disobedience to His stated principle, and made a concession and provision. This ruling about tithes is an example: “...neither shall he change it: and if he change it...” (<em><a href='B:30 27:33'>Lev 27:33</a></em>). Likewise God told Israel that He wanted altars made of earth; but He knew they would want to make altars of stone like the other nations, and He made allowance for this (<em><a href='B:20 20:24-25'>Exo 20:24-25</a></em>). The Law has several examples of this living on different levels. "Ye shall let nothing of (the Passover) remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire" (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em>) is an evident example. We should not be carefully calculating in our giving to God, trying to do so at minimal cost to ourselves.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the commandments which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that no more commandments would now be given. The law had been given as a whole and was not to be meddled with or have additional commandments added, although Deuteronomy appears to be God's clarification of some of them at the end of the wilderness wandering. The whole system of laws was designed to inculcate an upward spiritual spiral, with each law reinforcing others. Removing some laws or adding others would not in fact make the path to obedience easier; the laws given were especially designed to be adequate and self reinforcing, and any removal or addition would destroy their purpose and collective effect.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was 54 weeks, just over a year, since leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:18'>Exo 12:18</a></em>). The tabernacle had been erected a month before (<em><a href='B:20 40:1'>Exo 40:1</a></em>) and they had been now at Sinai around 11 months (<em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ families, according to the number of the names, every male, one by one- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Much of the later reasoning of the law assumed that each Israelite family would receive a unique land inheritance in the Kingdom, just as we shall each have a unique nature of inheritance in the future Kingdom. Therefore such a list of all Israel was required, and had to be constructed before leaving Sinai to enter the land- for that was the intention, although the people turned away from it when they heard the report of the spies.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from twenty years old and upward, all who are able to go out to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their divisions- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The disorganized mass of people who had fled Israel were now prepared for military action- for it was God's intention that once numbered, they should leave Sinai and enter Canaan. He makes so much effort to set people up for inheriting the Kingdom, acting in full trust that their faith will remain strong- although as with Israel believing the spies, so many turn away and refuse to enter the Kingdom. The implication was that every male citizen of military age was going to be a soldier. Although they would not be used to fight in reality, for Yahweh would give them the victory (at least that was what He intended) they had to be absolutely prepared to fight for the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With you there shall be a man of every tribe; each one the head of his fathers’ house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The previous census was made by the Levites, but now God wanted the heads of families to take responsibility for their families; for the land was to be divided up by families, as God is a family God. See on :2. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men who shall stand with you: Of Reuben, Elizur the son of Shedeur- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The list of tribes here is in the order of their later encampment—south, east, west and north. Gad is however displaced. "Elizur", 'God is my rock', is a name indicating faith that God would indeed be a rock to Israel. And probably these were names which were taken by choice rather than birth names. But Israel turned back from entering Canaan; their leaders had the names of faith but in reality their faith was weak. And we must ask ourselves whether that is the case with us, having a name that we spiritually live when we are dead. </p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> says that "Your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and all who were numbered of you". This excluded the Levites, as they were not numbered. Robert Roberts rightly described the generation that was under twenty years old on leaving Egypt as the most faithful of all Israel's generations. The faithful element with whom God so 'fell in love' was not just comprised of the 'under 20s'. Joshua and Caleb also featured amongst them, as did the Levites (who the curse of destruction in the wilderness did not apply to: <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. 1:47). There would have been a bond between those younger people and the Levites. Numerically, the largest of these three groups who constituted the 'faithful element' was the under 20s. It is fitting, therefore, that this faithful remnant are personified as a young person. Thus God reflected to Hosea: "When Israel was a child (s.w. "young man"), then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:350 11:1'>Hos 11:1</a></em>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


