# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor says, the man whose eye was closed says-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that Balaam had tried to use superstitions about the 'evil eye' against Israel and had lifted up his eyes against Israel in this way (see on :2). But his (evil) eye had been closed by God and he was now taken over by God's Spirit in order to as it were have his eye opened to bless Israel. We note "eye" in the singular, not the plural. But he was being directed to remember how his eyes had been closed to the Angel standing in the way, opposing him. And then they had been opened. He was still being nudged towards repentance, despite committing the presumptuous sin of trying to curse God's people, knowing that whoever cursed them would be cursed. These considerations explain the similarity and confusion within the Hebrew word for "closed" and "opened" used here.<em></em></p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he says, who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down, and having his eyes open- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>His eyes were opened to the Angel blocking his way, and when he realized how he had closed his spiritual vision to the Angel trying to stop him going to Balak, he fell down on his face (<em><a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a></em>). But when he is later given a vision of Balak’s judgment, the vision which Balaam didn’t want to see, he describes himself as “the man whose eye was closed” and yet had to see the vision with his eyes open (<em><a href='B:40 24:3'>Num 24:3</a></em>). He didn’t learn the lesson. He closed his eyes so as not to see the vision, and yet God forced him to open his eyes and see it. And again, he fell down upon his face (<em><a href='B:40 24:4'>Num 24:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em> RV), as he had when the Angel blocked his path earlier. He wouldn’t learn his lesson, he wouldn’t perceive how circumstances were being repeated in God’s desperate effort to get him to repent.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>How beautiful are your tents, Jacob, and your tents, Israel!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated parallel of Jacob and Israel was to reflect how God imputed righteousness to the historical Jacob, changing his name in recognition of it, and He was doing the same to Israel's people. God is described in the prophets as being in love with Israel at this time (<em><a href='B:330 16:8'>Eze 16:8</a></em>), just as He is with us on our wilderness journey towards His Kingdom. He didn’t ‘see’ their sin (see on <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). Very often, the name Jacob is associated with the way that God sees His people of Jacob / Israel as righteous when in fact they are not (<em><a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:10'>Num 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:5'>Num 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:6'>Psa 105:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 41:8'>Isa 41:8</a></em>). The names “Jacob” and “Israel” are often used together (e.g. <em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>) to show how God saw the Jacob as Israel, without forgetting he was still Jacob. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As valleys they are spread forth, as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, as the tents which the Lord has pitched (s.w. :5). 'Planted' is an image frequently used about how God would plant His people permanently in Canaan, and the figure is sometimes used along with the idea of 'never to be removed' (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 44:2'>Psa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>). As Yahweh planted the garden of Eden, so He speaks here of how He had already planted His people- the first step towards a potential restoration of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>). But the reality was that at the time Balaam was speaking, the people of Israel were in tents, waiting to enter the land. But God saw them as if they were already there and established- just as He sees us even in our wilderness years as His Kingdom, even though it is not yet literally established. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As cedar trees beside the waters-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated use of the idea of "as" was perhaps to reflect how God saw them- as if they were righteous. <em><a href='B:400 6:4-5'>Mic 6:4-5</a></em> records God's response to Balak and Balaam is a parade example of His saving grace to Israel, which was intended to encourage the Israel of Micah's day. <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em> speaks of this time- God "found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at its first season; but they came to Baal Peor, and consecrated themselves to the shameful thing". God saw them as if they were so wonderful- but they turned to worship Baalpeor (<em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>). Our response to imputed righteousness must not be the same.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Unless we read "palms" for "cedar trees", we must note that cedars do not grow beside water; although cedars were considered to have been planted by Yahweh (<em><a href='B:230 104:16'>Psa 104:16</a></em>). This would then connect with the earlier thought about the aloes, that they were planted "contrary to nature" by God in Canaan.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> explains how God created "every plant of the field before it was in the earth / eretz / land (promised to Abraham)". Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Water shall flow from his buckets, his seed shall be in many waters, his king shall be higher than Agag; his kingdom shall be exalted-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His King" is Israel's King. There is here an intimation that Israel's seed and king- Messiah would have personal conflict with 'Gog', a leader of a coalition of surrounding nations. Throughout the chapter, a total of nine neighbouring nations are mentioned, under the leadership of a tenth individual- Agag / Gog. Such victories never happened in Israel's history because they failed to live up to the potential power they were given in this prophecy, but the essence will come true in Messiah's latter day victories against another group of nine Arab nations headed up by a Gog / Agag figure, as outlined in Ezekiel 38. See on :24. "Agag" was a generic name for the kings of Amalek, rather like 'Abimelech', 'Caesar' or 'Pharaoh'. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God brings him out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of the wild ox- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel had felt so weak before the apparent strength of the Canaanites. They believed the faithless words of the ten spies. They failed to appreciate their potential strength. In <em><a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a></em> we learn that the Moabites feared that "Now this multitude will lick up all that is around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field". God had specifically told Moses not to fight with Moab (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>), and I suggested on <em><a href='B:40 22:2'>Num 22:2</a></em> that there was some contact between Balak and Moses. When Israel passed along the highways, they had been careful not stray from the route and had not drunk from the wells of those whom they passed through. Moab need have had no fear that Israel would lick up all around. It was only those who came out against Israel in battle who had been defeated, and Balak would have been wiser to learn from thIsa. But God gave them according to their fears by saying He would make Israel like a powerful ox (also <em><a href='B:40 23:22'>Num 23:22</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He shall eat up the nations his adversaries, shall break their bones in pieces and pierce them with his arrows-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The shame was that God saw Israel as triumphing over their enemies- but instead, they were beguiled by them, slept with their women and worshipped their idols. They were to "pierce them through with (their) arrows" - and Phinehas therefore pierced through the Midianite woman with a javelin (<em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>), just as Levi was to pierce through his enemies (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He couched, he lay down as a lion, as a lioness; who shall rouse him up?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The past tenses suggest God saw Israel as already having entered and possessed Canaan; He likens them to a lion which couched down before it sprung in to Canaan and destroyed the tribes. But the sad record of Joshua and Judges is that Israel feared their enemies and were oppressed by them. The great potential didn't come true. It was so sad for God, and is the understandable basis for His anger in chapter 25 when Israel did the very opposite and joined themselves in sexual and moral submission to the Baal of Peor. These prophecies would come to have their ultimate fulfilment in the Lord Jesus as the lion of Judah; for Israel didn't have the boldness of a lion when they entered Canaan. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Everyone who blesses you is blessed, everyone who curses you is cursed-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a sober reminder to Balaam, out of his own mouth, that whoever cursed Israel as he was trying to do- would be cursed. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balak’s anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, I called you to curse my enemies, and, behold, you have altogether blessed them these three times- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam ought to have perceived that each time he tried to curse Israel and ended up blessing them, it was like him trying those three times to ride his donkey down the lane with God standing in the way to block him. The same phrase “these three times” occurs three times in that record (<em><a href='B:40 22:28'>Num 22:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:32-33'>Num 22:32-33</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore now flee you to your place! I thought to promote you to great honour; but, behold, Yahweh has kept you back from honour- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Kept you back" is the word used in <em><a href='B:40 22:16'>Num 22:16</a></em> for how Balak urged Balaam initially: "Please let nothing hinder you (s.w.) from coming to me". Repeatedly, God is the one who hinders or keeps back (<em><a href='B:10 30:2'>Gen 30:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 25:34'>1Sa 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:20'>Neh 9:20</a></em> etc.). Balak seems to be effectively saying 'Don't let Yahweh hinder you'. Balak recognizes that it was Yahweh and not Balaam who had hindered, and his words are really a lament that Yahweh had kept back Balaam. He knew that Balaam was eager for it. "Don't let your God / religion stop you..." is the call of temptation which the world makes to God's people of every generation. And heeding it is to go in the way of Balaam.&nbsp; <em>&nbsp; </em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam said to Balak, Didn’t I also tell your messengers whom you sent to me, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Messengers" is the Hebrew <em>malak</em>, the same word translated "Angels". The Angels as in supernatural beings cannot sin. They are of Divine nature. Any passengers which appear to talk of Angels sinning are using <em>malak </em>in the sense it is used here, of human beings who were messengers or servants.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I can’t go beyond the word of Yahweh, to do either good or bad of my own mind. I will say what Yahweh says?’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly Balaam really wanted the promised reward from Balak. He wanted God to curse Israel; <em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:60 24:10'>Jos 24:10</a></em> state that God did not hear Balaam's prayers about thIsa. But there is no record that he prayed to God to curse Israel. But clearly his unspoken desires were read by God as a prayer, just as Elijah's feelings about Israel were read as his making intercession to God against Israel. Likewise our ability to verbalize is not the same as ability in prayer. Our deepest, unspoken feelings are seen by God as prayer. <em><a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a></em> goes so far as to say that God turned Balaam's curse into a blessing- implying Balaam's thoughts were read by God as asking Him to curse Israel. See on 25:11.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Peter alludes here in his defence: "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (<em><a href='B:510 4:20'>Act 4:20</a></em>). He told the Sanhedrin that to make true Christians agree not to preach was simply an inappropriate suggestion, because "we cannot but&nbsp; speak" out- it was something which went part and parcel with the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. Peter was not just an illiterate fisherman; so many of his words and phrasing indicate a thorough familiarity with the Greek Old Testament. Here, he seems to have <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em> at the back of his mind; Balaam says that although Balak is forbidding him to speak, he cannot but speak what God has inspired him with, even&nbsp; if it is intensely unpopular with those around him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the very similar statement Balaam makes in <em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em> he speaks of Yahweh as "my God". Now he omits reference to Yahweh as "my God". Balaam knew that when Divine words of prophecy came to him, he had to speak them out, and could not add to or diminish from them (<em><a href='B:40 22:18'>Num 22:18</a></em>) nor add any good or bad to them according to what was in his own mind (<em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>). This is all a helpful insight into what it meant for a prophet to be Divinely inspired. The words they uttered were from God and were not their own opinions at all. For Balaam would dearly loved to have cursed Israel and not to have uttered the words of blessing which he did. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, behold, I go to my people. Come, I will inform you what this people shall do to your people in the latter days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam understood the 'last days' to be when the Davidic dynasty would arise (<em><a href='B:40 24:14'>Num 24:14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 4:1'>Mic 4:1</a></em>)- and so I take this as another indication that in some sense, Solomon could have been the Messiah of the 'last days'.&nbsp; But he like many such figures, failed to live up to the potential possible. This is the tragic story of so many lives. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor says, the man whose eye was closed says- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may imply he was a 'seer' who didn't want to see. He was seeing and stating that which was not at all what he wanted to. See on :1-4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he says, who hears the words of God, knows the knowledge of the Most High, and who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down, and having his eyes open- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam's claim that "I didn't know..." of God's opposition to his journey to curse Israel was untrue (<em><a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a></em>); so he is made to say in prophecy that he did know God's will (<em><a href='B:40 24:16'>Num 24:16</a></em>). See on :1-4. Falling down with open eyes is to direct Balaam back to how he had fallen down before the Angel with his eyes now open to the Angel. We marvel at how God was continually trying to nudge him even at this stage towards repentance. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I see him, but not now; I see him, but not near- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is 'I see him (Israel), but not (as he is) now; I see him, but not (camped as he is now) near (to me)’<em>.</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A star will come out of Jacob, a sceptre will rise out of Israel, and shall strike through the corners of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth-</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This star and sceptre would seem to refer to Israel’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus. It seems He will yet win a resounding victory against Israel’s Arab enemies, represented here by Moab, and be higher than Agag (:7), or Gog. <em><a href='B:330 38:1-7'>Eze 38:1-7</a></em> speaks of Christ’s latter day conflict with Gog. It seems there will be a final conflict around the time of Christ’s return, in which He will finally save Israel from all their surrounding enemies. The wise men said that they had seen the star of the King of Israel and were following it- they were clearly alluding to this prophecy, and the Star was therefore ultimately the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The future king was to be totally out of Israel, an Israelite indeed. This is an eloquent prophecy of the Lord's human nature and lack of any personal pre-existence. Likewise :19, He was to "arise out of Jacob". See on <em><a href='B:40 21:28'>Num 21:28</a></em>. David was the future king who would smite Moab (<em><a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a></em>), so we look forward to David's great Messianic son doing this- the Lord Jesus.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Edom shall be a possession. Seir, his enemies, also shall be a possession, while Israel does valiantly-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite occasional victories against these powers, Israel never possessed them and they revolted against Israel repeatedly (under Solomon, <em><a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a></em>; Joram, <em><a href='B:120 8:20'>2Ki 8:20</a></em>; Ahaz, <em><a href='B:140 28:17'>2Ch 28:17</a></em> and during the Babylonian invasion, <em><a href='B:330 35:15'>Eze 35:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:10'>Oba 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:380 1:13'>Oba 1:13</a></em>). Yet total dominion over them was potentially possible for Israel. These things will only come fully true in the last days. Edom in the last days will be possessed by their enemies, i.e. Christ and his true Israel, referring back to the promise that Abraham's seed would physically and spiritually possess the gates of his enemies (<em><a href='B:40 24:18'>Num 24:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :17, there is an incipient fulfilment of these things in David, to whom Edom became servants (<em><a href='B:100 8:14'>2Sa 8:14</a></em>). So we are bidden to look forward to David's great Messianic son doing this- the Lord Jesus. <em><a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a></em> seems to specifically apply this to the Lord's latter day victory over Israel's neighbours, as the shorter term possibilities were not realized to the extent they could have been: "And saviours shall come upon Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of Jacob shall come one who shall have dominion, and shall destroy the remnant from the city- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the city in view immediately was "Ar" which means "the city". Had Moab not hired Balaam, then God's original intention that Moab not be touched would have come true (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>). We see here the open nature of God's purpose, ever able to change according to human response and behaviour. But the idea was that a Messianic figure would appear at that time. I have suggested on Joshua 1 that Joshua was that figure, and his name is the Hebrew equivalent of "Jesus". But he didn't live up to his potentials. And so he became but a type of the future Lord Jesus Christ. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or we can read this as "And dominion will be exercised out of Jacob, and the remnant (of Israel’s enemies) will be destroyed out of the city". In this case, "out of Jacob" is parallel with "out of the city", and in a latter day context this would apply to Zion and the emergence from there of the Lord Jesus against Israel's enemies. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked at Amalek and took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations, but his latter end shall come to destruction- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "latter end" may refer to a specific fulfilment in the last days or some latter day equivalent of Amalek. There were various fulfillments at the time of Saul (who also took Agag prisoner, <em><a href='B:90 15:7-8'>1Sa 15:7-8</a></em>), David (<em><a href='B:90 27:8'>1Sa 27:8</a></em>) and Hezekiah (<em><a href='B:130 4:41-43'>1Ch 4:41-43</a></em>). But all those kings of Judah failed to fully live up to the Messianic potential they had. So they became types of the final latter day fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He looked at the Kenite, and took up his parable and said, Your dwelling place is strong, your nest is set in the rock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a word play upon the very similar words for "nest" and "Kayin" or "Kain", whence "Kenite". Moses' first wife Zipporah was the daughter of a Kenite (<em><a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a></em>). Balak was the son of Zippor, the male form of Zipporah. Balaam was known to them. I have earlier suggested that they knew of Yahweh from the 40 years Moses lived with them, and now after his divorce with Zipporah, they had turned against Israel. And because of their knowledge of Yahweh and wilful attempt to curse His people, they had more responsibility and were to be judged severely. The word for "Kayin" or "Kain" can mean a smith, "the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron" (<em><a href='B:10 4:22'>Gen 4:22</a></em>). And so they are presented as the descendants of unrighteous Cain. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nevertheless Kain shall be wasted, until Asshur carries you away captive- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Assyrians and Babylonians took the ten tribes and Judah into captivity, and we assume the Kenites were taken with them- for there were Kenites amongst the Jewish exiles who returned from Babylon (<em><a href='B:130 2:55'>1Ch 2:55</a></em>). This kind of internal corroboration within the records is to me the most powerful evidence of the Divine inspiration of the Bible.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God does this?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Heb. "On account of God appointing him", referring to Asshur. "Who shall live...?" was a rhetorical question which begged the answer 'Those who repent'. And as noted on :22, some Kenites apparently did. At this point in time, these people were trying to curse Israel, fully aware that he who curses Israel shall be cursed. We marvel at God's patient desire for their repentance.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But ships shall come from the coast of Kittim; they shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber. He also shall come to destruction- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam's prophecy about Israel's final destiny speaks of how finally both Assyria and Eber will be judged for their abuse of Israel in the last days. "Eber" is 'the other side', a similar meaning as the words 'Syria' and 'Aram' in Hebrew, and effectively referring to Syria; or to those 'on the other side' of the Euphrates, namely Iran. They are mentioned together because they will be operating together- and now we see that they actually are coming together (<em><a href='B:40 24:24'>Num 24:24</a></em>). Whilst we must remember that Syria and Assyria were historically different, the current talk of a ‘Greater Syria’ and ‘The Islamic state of Iraq and Greater Syria’ is nothing less than Biblical ‘Assyria’ born again. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kittim or Kitti was a town in Cyprus. Because it became a naval base, it came to be put for powers further to the west whose ships used it. Thus it was a term used for Greece (<em>1Ma_1:1</em>; <em>1Ma_8:5</em> and cp. <em><a href='B:10 10:4'>Gen 10:4</a></em> where Kittim is a son of Javan / Greece) and also for Rome (<em><a href='B:340 11:30'>Dan 11:30</a></em>); hence the Vulgate here reads "Italia" for "Kittim". Kittim became a general term for maritime powers to the west of Israel (<em><a href='B:300 2:10'>Jer 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:6'>Eze 27:6</a></em>). Something similar happened to the term "Tarshish", which originally referred to the maritime port of Tyre, just as "Kittim" was originally Kitti in Cyprus. But "Tarshish" then came to apply to various maritime powers to the west of Israel, and doesn't have just one specific application to any single power.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Balaam rose up and went and returned to his place, and Balak also went his way-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Balaam figured that if Israel sinned against their God, then the prophecies of blessing and victory would not come true. He understood prophecy as conditional. He advised Balak to tempt Israel to commit fornication with the pagan gods so that the prophecies would not come true (<em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:14'>Rev 2:14</a></em>). Balaam is seen as the prototypical false teacher <em>within Israel</em> in <em><a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a></em> and <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em>. It could be that he entered the camp of Israel and told them the prophecies he had been inspired to make- and this would explain the (human) source of this material which Moses incorporated in Numbers- and having gotten their confidence, then encouraged them to commit fornication with Moab. This rings true, in that then Balaam was exactly prototypical of the false prophets <em>within the first century Israel of God</em> who were also teaching the new Israel to commit fornication and worship idols, having credibility because they had also uttered true prophecies. The latter day equivalent to this may be specific temptations for God's people in the very last days, on the borders of the Kingdom, which will involve sexual and idolatry issues.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel stayed in Shittim; and the people began to play the prostitute with the daughters of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We learn from <em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em> and <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:14'>Rev 2:14</a></em> that at this time, Balaam advised Balak to entice Israel with Moabite prostitutes, so that the people would be cursed by their God for immorality. The events of chapter 25 were therefore on Balaam’s advice. This desperate strategy reflects how headlong was Balaam’s desire to receive the wealth promised him, and how he sacrificed the welfare of God’s people upon that altar. In essence we can do the same today. We note that Israel are called prostitutes because they slept with the Moabite prostitutes. They had committed prostitution against Yahweh. For the covenant at Sinai was their marital covenant.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel bowed down to the gods of Moab (<em><a href='B:40 25:1'>Num 25:1</a></em>). But Israel were potentially <em>above</em> the Midianites (24:7,18); the Midianites vexed <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a></em>) when Israel had been prophesied as vexing <em>them</em> (hence they were told to now <em>vex</em> the Midianites in :17). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:28'>Psa 106:28</a></em> adds: "They joined themselves also to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead". To join oneself is the language of marriage. To eat sacrifice was a sign of fellowship with the god at whose table you were eating. And by doing these things they were effectively breaking their covenant relationship with Yahweh. But despite that, He still worked to save them and to preserve them nationally as His people. His grace is the more amazing, because He disregarded even their breaking of covenant with Him- because He was and is so passionate to save.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see the connections between eating in spiritual fellowship with idols, and prostitution. These connections continued, and were the root reason why the church at Corinth came to have sexual immorality and inappropriate feasting and alcoholic drinking happening at the breaking of bread service. They turned the Christian fellowship meal into an idol feast.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel joined himself to Baal Peor, and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Baal Peor refers to the Baal who was worshipped at the town of Peor, near where they were now encamping (<em><a href='B:50 3:29'>Deu 3:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:46'>Deu 4:46</a></em>). Each town and geographical area had its own gods, rather like today there is a geography to religion, different parts of the world or even areas within a country tend to have their local religions. The true God and His Truth is the same worldwide, which allows a unique international bond between those who know Him and are in His Son.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Israel <em>joined</em> himself unto Baalpeor" (<em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>) in a sexual context, and by doing so they were being unfaithful to Yahweh as their husband; see on :1. <em><a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a></em> comments on this as meaning that Israel "Separated themselves unto" Baalpeor. We cannot be 'joined to' something unless we are 'separated from' something else, and in this case, they were thereby separating themselves from Yahweh. If we are truly joined to Christ and each other, we <em>must</em> be separated from idolatry. It is impossible to experience this 'joining' with believers who are not 'separated'- one cannot be 'joined' in intercourse to more than one person. We <em>cannot</em> serve two masters without <em>hating</em> God.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul's selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. Thus Paul warns Corinth not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (<em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>), or else he would come to them and not spare. He is quoting the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em> concerning how Israel joined themselves to Baal-peor, resulting in Moses commanding the murder of all those guilty- just as Paul later did to Corinth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up to Yahweh before the sun, that the fierce anger of Yahweh may turn away from Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<em><a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a></em>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a></em>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>). That all the tribal chiefs were to be executed shows the need for a purge of the leadership, and how widespread was idolatry. LXX "and make them examples of judgment for the Lord".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a></em> speaks of God’s wrath turning away because those who had married Gentile women divorced them. God’s wrath is also turned away by the death of the sinner- the heads of the sinners in <em><a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a></em> were to be ‘hung up’ before the Lord so that His wrath would turn away. A similar example is to be found in <em><a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a></em>. Jeremiah often comments that God’s wrath is turned away by the execution of judgment upon the sinner (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 30:24'>Jer 30:24</a></em>). In this sense His anger and wrath are poured out or ‘accomplished’, i.e. they are no more because they have been poured out (<em><a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a></em>). The Lord's death on the cross as a representative of sinners therefore achieved the same. We are saved from wrath through Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the judges of Israel, Everyone kill his men who have joined themselves to Baal Peor-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command perhaps didn’t need to be carried out, because Phinehas took the initiative in killing the chief offenders (:7,8) and this act so impressed God that the plague was ended (:11). Here we have an example of how God sets up one plan or purpose, but is prepared to amend or change it according to human initiative suggesting another one, as Moses did several times. We see here therefore how open God is to dialogue, to living relationship with His people. Or it could be that we have in :5 an explanation of how :4 came about; the princes of Israel were slain by the judges of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brothers a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing that multiple Israelites slept with Moabites, there must have been particular significance in this man and woman. The whole incident is called "the matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian" (:18). The weeping at the tabernacle door was presumably in repentance "before Yahweh", the Angel of the presence within it. Moses was present there, and then the Israelite man and Moabitess leader appear and enter "into the chamber" (:8). I suggest the implication is that they entered the holy place or even the most holy, and there they were slain. They intended to perform a sexual ritual to Peor in the tabernacle of Yahweh. Hence the urgent need Phinehas felt to immediately stop thIsa. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note from <em><a href='B:20 6:25'>Exo 6:25</a></em> that "Eleazar Aaron’s son took one of the daughters of Putiel as his wife; and she bore him Phinehas". Putiel isn't mentioned elsewhere, but it appears to be a common Egyptian name. So the mother of Phinehas was an Egyptian, whom his father ought not to have married. Although we could argue the other way- that for an Egyptian to marry one of the slave Hebrews could be a reflection of this woman's acceptance of Yahweh as her God, even though most of His people were very far from Him. Perhaps this explains how incensed he was to see Israel returning to idolatry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he went after the man of Israel into the pavilion and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her body. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems from <em><a href='B:130 9:19-20'>1Ch 9:19-20</a></em> that it was at the door of the tabernacle / tent of the congregation that Phinehas stopped the apostasy of Israel. LXX "into the chamber". I have suggested on :6 that they entered the holy place or even the most holy, and there they were slain. They intended to perform a sexual ritual to Peor in the tabernacle of Yahweh. The vagueness of the word used for "pavilion" or "chamber" is perhaps to avoid the apparent blasphemy of having to admit that such acts had been performed in the holy place. We note that in this case, Phinehas would have charged in to sacred space with no regard for his ritual cleanliness, especially if he entered the most holy. But as ever, the spirit of the law triumphed over the letter. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems from <em><a href='B:40 25:6-8'>Num 25:6-8</a></em> that the Midianite woman and the Israelite were having sex within "the tent", the tabernacle. Phinehas was remembered for this by his descendants directing the guards at the door of the tent (<em><a href='B:130 9:19-20'>1Ch 9:19-20</a></em>).&nbsp;The actions of the couple were therefore intended to turn the holy place into a place where Yahweh was supposedly worshipped through sex with prostitutes, exactly the way of pagan religions, and which was a problem in the churches at Corinth and Ephesus.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spear connecting Jew and Gentile in death could be seen as pointing forward to the cross of Christ.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some editions of the LXX, followed by Paul in <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em>, gives 23,000. <em><a href='B:50 4:3'>Deu 4:3</a></em> implies that all who followed Baal Peor were destroyed, and only those who "were faithful" to Yahweh survived (<em><a href='B:50 4:4'>Deu 4:4</a></em>). But <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em> suggests that virtually all Israel went after Baal Peor and would all have been destroyed, had not Phinehas and his men slain 24,000 of them. What Phinehas did therefore had real and absolute meaning for God- those who did follow Baal Peor were counted as if they hadn't done so. This was imputed righteousness, and looks forward to the even greater effect of the intercession of the Lord Jesus for us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the key to understanding the difference is the phrase "in one day". <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em> says that 24,000 died as a result of a plague sent to punish them- but it is not recorded how quickly they died from the plague. We can assume that a "plague" took some time period to kill them. But <em><a href='B:40 25:4-5'>Num 25:4-5</a></em> records that immediately, that day, the judges of Israel were commanded to kill by the sword those who had committed the fornication, and Phinehas arose in response. Those deaths by the sword were different to those from the plague- perhaps 23,000 died that day from these executions, and then 24,000 died from the plague subsequently. Another option is to note that there were 23,000 Levites (<em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>). If each Levite killed a man (which <em><a href='B:40 25:5'>Num 25:5</a></em> "Let every one kill his man" might imply, cp. <em><a href='B:20 32:27'>Exo 32:27</a></em>), this would mean 23,000 died in that one day, and if 1,000 died subsequently from the plague, we then have the 24,000 of <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>. Or it may be that <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em> is actually continuing to refer to the golden calf incident mentioned in :7; for <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> LXX says that 23,000 died at that time. The Masoretic text says 3,000. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> specifically states that this slaughter happened in one day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Had Phinehas not killed the man who was teaching that marriage out of the Faith was quite acceptable, God would have punished <em>all the people of Israel</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em>). God is a jealous God, and Phinehas&nbsp; is commended for his jealousy for God in terms of separating from that false teacher. We naturally turn away from the seriousness of these things. Within our humanity, we would rather God were not like thIsa. But there is a harder side of God, a side which we come to know, to respect, understand and appreciate as we grow spiritually. We see here the power of intercession, and how the actions of one person can save others (as in <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>). This came to full term in the work of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest has turned My wrath away from the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He was perhaps inspired by how Moses had turned away Yahweh's wrath from Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>). Others likewise tried to turn away God's wrath from Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a></em>). The fact is, His emotions concerning a person or nation can change in accordance with the reasoning with Him of a third party. This is the whole basis of the Lord's intercession for us with the Father. With Phinehas, it was his actions more than his words; whereas with Moses, Jeremiah and Daniel, it was more a matter of words. The actions of the Lord on the cross, along with His ongoing words of intercession, achieve the same end for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I didn’t consume the children of Israel in My jealousy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Phinehas "executed judgment and the plague was stayed" (<em><a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a></em>). The Hebrew for "executed judgment" is the same word more usually translated to pray or entreat. His actions were understood by God as a prayer, just as our actions and situations can be understood as a prayer- see on <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em>. God’s feelings are to be ours; Phinehas "was jealous with My jealousy". His colossal love for His people means that He is also therefore jealous over their devotions to any other god.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elijah’s description of himself in his prayer as being very jealous / zealous for God (<em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a></em>) is an allusion of his to Phinehas, whose zeal in destroying the apostate in Israel saved the nation (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>). But Elijah is praying against Israel, for their total destruction, and making only a surface level allusion back to Phinehas. And likewise, much of the unbrotherly behaviour that has divided our own community has been justified by half-baked allusions to Biblical examples of ‘defending the faith’. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The priests "corrupted the covenant of Levi" (<em><a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a></em>), in that they married out of the Faith (<em><a href='B:160 13:29'>Neh 13:29</a></em>), thus violating the Spirit of the Levitical covenant- which was given in recognition of zealous action against relationships with Gentile women (<em><a href='B:40 25:12-13'>Num 25:12-13</a></em>). A number of prophets condemn the priests for sexual malpractices.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 106:31'>Psa 106:31</a></em> slightly extends this reward: "That was credited to him for righteousness, for all generations to come". Psalms 106 is a list of examples of grace. The grace of this was in that righteousness was counted to Phinehas. For none are righteous in their own strength; as Paul explains in Romans, it is credited to us by grace through faith. But how was it eternally credited to him? For descendants aren't counted righteous just because of their ancestors. The implication would therefore be that this imputed righteousness meant that he would therefore not die eternally; but he resurrected to life eternal. And this again is nothing but pure grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was God's intention that all Israel should be His servants, a nation of priests. But He changed and ammended His approach, and chose just the Levites for thIsa. And then out of them He chose just the descendants of Phinehas to be the priests. We see here how open God is to change and recalculation, so that by all means He may have relationship with His people. Under the new covenant, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) as He initially intended even under the old covenant. And yet there is always the tendency to leave the priestly work to specialists rather than perceiving our personal call to do it. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Sabbath is described as a perpetual, eternal ordinance between God and His people (<em><a href='B:20 31:16'>Exo 31:16</a></em>). Yet in the New Testament we read that the Old Covenant has been done away; and the Old Covenant clearly included the ten commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>), one of which was concerning the Sabbath. For this reason the New Testament is at pains to explain that Sabbath keeping is not now required of God’s people (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-3'>Rom 14:1-3</a></em>). Indeed, 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 olahm, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines <em>olahm</em> 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These two are named, showing they were more than just random examples of the many who had sinned that day. Their intention was to perform a sex ritual to Peor in Yahweh's tabernacle; and they were both in leadership positions.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur: he was head of the people of a fathers’ house in Midian- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Cozbi means "liar", the daughter of "the rock" (Zur)- a fake god. For Yahweh alone is a rock to His people. Her message was indeed a huge lie: that Yahweh and Baal worship could be fused through her as a leader of Midian openly performing a sex act with a similarly ranking leader of Israel. In the tabernacle of Yahweh. Zur was one of the five leading princes of Midian who was later slain along with Balaam (<em><a href='B:40 31:8'>Num 31:8</a></em>). Balaam and Zur were clearly associated. And so it seems that Balaam suggested that Zur's daughter Cozbi be used to lead Israel into sin, so that their God would curse them- and Balaam would get his coveted reward which he so obsessed about. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Initially, God didn't want Israel to interfere with Moab but rather to leave them in peace (<em><a href='B:50 2:9'>Deu 2:9</a></em>). But Moab had become obsessed with cursing Israel and leading them away from Yahweh so that He would curse Israel; and so God's purpose and plans again changed, and He now commands Israel to fight them; for Moab and Midian were united at this time, and the "wiles" of the Midianites in :18 are clearly those used by the Moabites in :1. Balak was a Midianite but king of Moab at the time. God's purpose is so deeply responsive to human behaviour, and takes it all into account.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Harass the Midianites, and strike them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Plague the Madianites as enemies, and smite them,&nbsp;for they are enemies to you". This clear definition of Midian as enemies was necessary; for Moses had been married to a Midianite and had lived there for 40 years. His Midianite father in law had once been well respected within Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for they harassed you with their wiles, with which they have deceived you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Harassed" is "vexed". Israel bowed down to the gods of Moab (<em><a href='B:40 25:1'>Num 25:1</a></em>). But Israel were potentially <em>above</em> the Midianites (24:7,18); the Midianites vexed <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a></em>) when Israel had been prophesied as vexing <em>them</em> (hence they were told to now <em>vex</em> the Midianites in :17). "The matter of Cozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian" shows the particular significance of this woman; see on :14,15.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened after the plague, that Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Atonement money had to be paid whenever a census was taken (<em><a href='B:20 30:12'>Exo 30:12</a></em>). Perhaps God wanted the people to appreciate more how they had been saved by His grace after the awful apostasy of Numbers 25. He wanted them to reflect upon the atonement they had received, and that was one function of ordering a census.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers’ families, all who are able to go forth to war in Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This numbering of the people just before they entered the promised land perhaps looks forward to the way that God will be aware of the exact number of those who will enter His Kingdom at the day of judgment when Christ returns. <em><a href='B:230 87:6'>Psa 87:6</a></em> appears to speak of a ‘writing up of the people’ in the last day. Perhaps too there is the idea that Moses as a shepherd had been given the sheep of God's flock when they left Egypt, and now He is handing them back at the end of his life, and counting them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the census may have been not so much to know numbers, but to define the Israelites into clear family units; for it was God's intention that each unit should have a specific inheritance in the land they were now going to enter. We likewise will each have a specific, unique nature of inheritance in the future Kingdom of God. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Reuben, the firstborn of Israel; the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the family of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hanoch (s.w. Enoch) was named after the son of Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:17'>Gen 4:17</a></em>) and means "initiated", rather hinting at unspirituality and paganism.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the family of the Carmites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Carmi" means "vinedresser", but there had been no viticulture possible during the wilderness wanderings. He may have been named in faith that this is what he would do once in the promised land. Or perhaps this is an example of where names are given to people in later life, in accordance with their secular work experience- and these stick with their descendants. Names like Smith, Tanner etc. would be examples in English. Hence people in the Bible often have various names.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Reubenites; and those who were numbered of them were forty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty- </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</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>2. Dan 62,700 rose to 64,400</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>3. Simeon 59,300 fell to 22,200</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>4. Zebulun 57,400 rose to 60,500</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</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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Pallu: Eliab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pallu", meaning severed / differentiated, is the word used to describe how Israel were separated from amongst the Egyptians at the Exodus (<em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:4'>Exo 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em>). Probably he picked up this name (see on :6) in reference to this; perhaps he had been severed from the Egyptians in some spectacular way.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, who were renowned in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers “strove against Moses... when they strove against Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em> cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they murmured against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). They <em>thrust</em> Moses <em>away</em> from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) - yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> concerning how God still has not <em>cast away</em> Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him. Moses manifested Yahweh and in this sense whatever was done to him was done to Yahweh. This doesn’t mean that Moses was Yahweh Himself in person. Likewise Jesus carried the Name of God (<em><a href='B:500 5:43'>Joh 5:43</a></em>) but wasn’t God in person. We who are baptized into the Name are in the same situation- whatever is done to us is done to God, and our attitudes to those in His Name are our attitudes to Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:43'>Mat 25:43</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A case could be made that the whole record of Israel’s rejection from entering the land of Canaan is framed to adduce a reason for this as the fact they chose to believe that the land was inhabited by an evil dragon who would consume them there. This was a slander of the good land, and the whole point was that if they had believed in the power of God, then <em>whatever</em> ‘adversary’ was in the land, in whatever form, was ultimately of no real power (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:36'>Num 14:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>). And yet it was not God’s way to specifically tell the people that there was no such dragon lurking in the land of Canaan – instead He worked with them according to their fears, by making the earth literally open and swallow up the apostate amongst them (<em><a href='B:40 16:30'>Num 16:30</a></em>) – emphasizing that by doing this, <em>He</em> was doing “a new thing”, something that had never been done before – for there was no dragon lurking in any land able to swallow up people. And throughout the prophets it is emphasized that <em>God</em> and not any dragon swallowed up people – “The Lord (and not any dragon) was as an enemy; <em>He</em> has swallowed up Israel” (<em><a href='B:310 2:5'>Lam 2:5</a></em> and frequently in the prophets). The people of Israel who left Egypt actually failed to inherit Canaan because they believed that it was a land who swallowed up the inhabitants of the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:32'>Num 13:32</a></em>), relating this to the presence of giants in the land (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>). As Joshua and Caleb pleaded with them, they needed to believe that whatever myths there were going around, God was greater than whatever mythical beast was there. And because they would not believe that, they failed to enter the land, which in type symbolized those who fail to attain that great salvation which God has prepared.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>At which time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Destruction by fire was an appropriate judgment for those who had offered strange fire. Judgment is related to the crime because men are self condemned more than being condemned by God. For saving, rather than destroying, i<em>s </em>God's passion. <em><a href='B:230 106:18'>Psa 106:18</a></em> says that God kindled a fire to destroy them, but in reality, they &nbsp;kindled that fire themselves (<em><a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 7:6'>Hos 7:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:30 10:2'>Lev 10:2</a></em> uses the same term for fire from Yahweh devouring Nadab and Abihu as in <em><a href='B:40 16:35'>Num 16:35</a></em> about the destruction of Korah's rebels. They were clearly aware of what had happened to those rebels, and were daring God to repeat it. It was truly the sin of presumption. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And they became a sign- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In that their censers became plates on the altar as warning against apostasy and rebellion. The example of sinners from previous generations ought to be a warning to us. Asaph in Psalms 73 explains how he struggled with the fact that sinners appear to have a blessed life and the righteous suffer; but when he entered the sanctuary, “then understood I their end” (<em><a href='B:230 73:17'>Psa 73:17</a></em>), probably a reference to him beholding the plates on the altar made from the censers of these sinners. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, the sons of Korah didn’t die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The inspired titles of the Psalms sometimes mention that the Psalm was written by the sons of Korah. They therefore dedicated themselves to God’s service, not following the bad example of their father. We in Christ are a new creation, and not inevitable victims of our upbringing or bad parental example. There are times when our loyalty to the Lord will result in us having to experience some kind of separation from family members who choose not to go the Lord’s way; Jesus foretold this would happen frequently (<em><a href='B:470 10:34-37'>Mat 10:34-37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Simeon after their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites; of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites; of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But according to <em><a href='B:130 4:24-25'>1Ch 4:24-25</a></em>, it was not through these sons but rather through the line of Shaul, born from Simeon's relationship with a Gentile woman, that the line of Simeon continued. Again we see God's style of working through human weakness, and the fact that Israel were not at all ethnically pure.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites; of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:10'>Gen 46:10</a></em> shows that Shaul was Simeon's son by a wrong, casual relationship with a Gentile. But ethnic purity was never made a condition of belonging to Israel. It was later Judaism which became obsessed with thIsa. Rather God's people were to be open to the Gentiles. And so the family of Shaul are counted as members of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty-two thousand two hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All these figures may seem irrelevant, but analyzing them provides confirmation that the Bible we read is indeed God’s inspired word, because there is so much incidental confirmation of the truth of the record provided. The sum total of Israel at the end of their wilderness wanderings was 1,820 less than it had been at the beginning, nearly 40 years previously. But the tribe of Simeon had decreased by 37,100 (cp. <em><a href='B:40 1:23'>Num 1:23</a></em>). The plague of chapter 25 had killed 24,000 people for committing fornication with the Moabites (<em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>); but the ringleader of that had been Zimri, a Simeonite prince (<em><a href='B:40 25:14'>Num 25:14</a></em>). It’s likely therefore that he led his tribe into the orgy with the Moabites, which resulted in so many of them being killed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Gad after their families: of Zephon, the family of the Zephonites; of Haggi, the family of the Haggites; of Shuni, the family of the Shunites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We notice the complete absence of any prefix or suffix referring to God in many of these names. Israel were not spiritually strong when entered the Kingdom. And perhaps we can take courage from that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Ozni, the family of the Oznites; of Eri, the family of the Erites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The seven sons of Gad differ in just one name from the list in <em><a href='B:10 46:16'>Gen 46:16</a></em>: "The sons of Gad: Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli". Ezbon ('quick to understand') has been replaced by Ozni ('quick ears'). The similar meanings of the names suggest these were just different forms of the same word. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Arod, the family of the Arodites; of Areli, the family of the Arelites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Arodi" is "wild ass man", a similar idea to the description of Ishmael in <em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>, who chose to go away from covenant relationship with God. We simply do not get a great impression of the family; and that is the point. Israel were not morally better than the surrounding nations, many of whom were descended from Abraham too. They were saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the sons of Gad according to those who were numbered of them, forty 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>The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the context of taking a census at this point in Israel's hi<em>s</em>tory, we enquire why the deaths of these men "in the land of Canaan" over 400 years ago is now mentioned. I suggest it was a warning- that even when they entered the land, they would still be subject to Divine law and would be judged for their sin. Presence in the land of Canaan was not to be seen as a kind of covering for their sin. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Judah after their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Perezites; of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 38:29'>Gen 38:29</a></em> gives the background: "It happened, as he drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came out, and she said, Why have you made a breach for yourself? Therefore his name was called Perez". The theme of the second born being the chosen one continues. It was accepted that Perez was the one in the line of the Messianic seed and that this pregnancy was of God (<em><a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a></em>), even though he was not technically the firstborn. "Made a breach" is literally 'to spread abroad', and is the word used in the promises of how the Messianic seed was to break forth or spread abroad (<em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites; of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hamul" means 'The one who was spared', which rather suggests he too had sinned like Er and Onan (:19), but was spared by grace. Again, we hardly get a very positive spiritual impression of Jacob's family. They were saved by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Judah according to those who were numbered of them, seventy-six thousand five hundred-</em></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>The sons of Issachar after their families: of Tola, the family of the Tolaites; of Puvah, the family of the Punites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What mother would call her child 'worm' ("Tola")? Clearly people were given names, or became known by names, other than their birth names- and these names stuck with them. There are many other examples of this, like Mahlon and Chilion. This explains why people could have far more than one name, and that must be remembered when comparing the genealogies.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Jashub, the family of the Jashubites; of Shimron, the family of the Shimronites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jashub" means 'he will return'. A faithful parent may have named him this in faith that Israel would one day return from Egypt to Canaan. Even when any ultimate change of circumstances may seem unlikely for us, we are to remember the final perspective- the fulfilment of the promises of the Kingdom in our lives. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Issachar according to those who were numbered of them, sixty-four thousand three 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>The sons of Zebulun after their families: of Sered, the family of the Seredites; of Elon, the family of the Elonites; of Jahleel, the family of the Jahleelites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Elon's name means 'grove of oaks', clearly with reference to pagan practices. The reference is maybe to the judge of this name (<em><a href='B:70 12:12'>Jdg 12:12</a></em>). The fact he is not recorded as having renamed himself could suggest that he remained an idolater, although was used by God to deliver Israel. Being used by God doesn't mean we are therefore faithful to Him and assured of His acceptance. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of the Zebulunites according to those who were numbered of them, sixty thousand five hundred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zebulun increased by a minimal amount over the course of the wilderness journey (see on :22). As discussed on :25, 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>The sons of Joseph after their families: Manasseh and Ephraim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Ephraim was the younger son, whom Jacob had made the firstborn, much to Joseph's disagreement. But here the two sons are listed according to their birth order. For all angst endured by the patriarchs about the question of who was the firstborn, the subsequent Biblical records make clear that this was of no real meaning. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites; and Machir became the father of Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Machir was Manasseh's son by a Gentile woman (<em><a href='B:130 7:14'>1Ch 7:14</a></em>). <em><a href='B:130 2:21'>1Ch 2:21</a></em> adds: "Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he took as wife when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub".<em>&nbsp;</em>We again have the theme of marital and sexual weakness in the family of Israel. Machir was Manasseh’s oldest son by a Syrian, Gentile woman. It was the Divine intention that marriage should be within the tribes of Israel so as to keep the inheritance which God intended. But here we have Manasseh and Judah intermarrying.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Gilead: of Iezer, the family of the Iezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Iezer" is the Abiezer of <em><a href='B:60 17:2'>Jos 17:2</a></em> and the Gideon story. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Asriel, the family of the Asrielites; and Shechem, the family of the Shechemites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are quite different numbers of families recorded within each tribe, and the genealogies in Chronicles are in places more detailed, mentioning other children and families. This may be because at this point not all chose to pay the atonement money required for the census (:1) and so were not numbered amongst Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites; and Hepher, the family of the Hepherites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hepher" means 'shame', and was surely not his birth name; see on :23. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters; and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact God allows His children to live His truth on different levels needs to be grasped firmly by us, lest we become discouraged that others live on an apparently lower level than we do in some aspects of life. Being surrounded by ‘lower levels’ ought to inspire us to the higher levels. Zelophehad had only daughters; usually, in his context, a man would have taken concubines in order to produce sons. The record of his only having daughters is presented in the context of genealogies which show that many Israelite men had more than one wife (<em><a href='B:130 7:15'>1Ch 7:15</a></em>). But Zelophehad wasn’t dragged down by this; God inspired him to maintain the higher level which he had chosen to live by. He didn't use the principle of Jephthah's vow. And his daughters likewise refused to be limited by their status as females, but obtained an inheritance amongst their brethren (<em><a href='B:40 27:1-7'>Num 27:1-7</a></em>)</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Manasseh; and those who were numbered of them were fifty-two thousand seven 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>These are the sons of Ephraim after their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthelahites; of Becher, the family of the Becherites; of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We notice the lack of any spiritual reference in the meaning of these names. "Becher", 'camel man', would be a strange name for someone who respected the law's pronouncement of the camel as an unclean animal. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A total of 57 families are mentioned in this list, excluding Levi. But only three families of Ephraim, and then one family from a grandson. It would seem they had chosen not to pay the atonement money required at the census (see on :1), and those who didn't want to make this acceptance of atonement were not numbered amongst Israel.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Benjamin after their families: of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple truth is that Benjamin, the "little one" (<em><a href='B:10 44:20'>Gen 44:20</a></em>), has more descendants listed to his name in the Chronicles genealogies than any of the brothers. <em><a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a></em> clearly alludes to this- "a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation". It is the theme of the patriarchal family; the firstborns are deposed, the elder serves the younger, the weak become strong, the little one becomes mighty.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Shephupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Shephupham" means 'serpent like' and was surely not his birth name; see on :23. This family got this name from a corrupt ancestor. But they paid their atonement money (see on :1) and were numbered amongst Israel. Bad background is no reason a person cannot be numbered amongst God's people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: the family of the Ardites; of Naaman, the family of the Naamites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em> says that Benjamin had ten sons when the Jacob family moved into Egypt, but here seven of them are in fact his grandsons. Benjamin was hardly a child when the brothers came to buy corn. He was in his 20s, and according to the Hebrew text he had ten sons already, and presumably some daughters; perhaps suggesting that his father's favouritism and obsession with him had not been helpful morally, and had resulted in him having multiple relationships from a young age. However, the LXX lists only three sons, and makes the rest of the list the sons of Bela. And yet Benjamin would not have been old enough to have been a grandfather. So it could be that he had married a woman who had children of her own who became Benjamin's, or that he somehow adopted these children. There would have been a very large extended family around Jacob, and maybe these children were simply under the care of Benjamin. However, the genealogy in <em><a href='B:40 26:40'>Num 26:40</a></em> appears to support the LXX text here, with Ard and Naaman given as grandsons of Benjamin and not sons. We must remember that genealogies, numbers and dates are not used in Semitic languages in the strictly literalistic way in which they are in European languages. <em><a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a></em> can therefore argue that Melchizedek blessed Levi because he blessed Abraham, and Levi was a descendant of Abraham, "yet in the loins of his father". And this establishes Melchizedek as greater than Levi, and in turn, the priests descended from him. That argument may appear very stretched and even technically inaccurate to European ears. But it had absolute validity in Hebrew thought. And so the grandchildren of Benjamin, yet unborn, could be listed as being in existence when Benjamin went into Egypt, and even be numbered amongst the group at that time. This is why the grandchildren of the maids are counted as if they are the direct children of the maids; see on <em><a href='B:10 46:9'>Gen 46:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:18'>Gen 46:18</a></em>. We likewise read that Jacob brought his twelve sons out of Mesopotamia, including Benjamin (<em><a href='B:10 35:24'>Gen 35:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:26'>Gen 35:26</a></em>). But Benjamin was born later, in Canaan. But on this basis of being counted as "in the loins of" an ancestor, Benjamin could also be presented as having come out of Mesopotamia. If this kind of thing were better appreciated by Bible readers, it would be better understood that there was no personal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus in actuality, although He is spoken of as existing prior to His birth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the sons of Benjamin after their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five thousand six 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>These are the sons of Dan after their families: of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites. These are the families of Dan after their families- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Shuham is called "Hushim" in <em><a href='B:10 46:23'>Gen 46:23</a></em>, which means "hasty", not a particularly spiritual characteristic. As noted earlier, Hebrew names are not necessarily birth names, but the names by which people came to be known, reflective of their personalities or experiences. However he is here called "Shusham", "humble". So maybe his over hasty actions humbled his descendants in due course.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the families of the Shuhamites, according to those who were numbered of them, were sixty-four thousand four hundred-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dan had only one son and yet by this time had become the second largest tribe in Israel. Benjamin had ten sons (<em><a href='B:10 46:21'>Gen 46:21</a></em>) but was one of the smallest tribes. Again we see how God doesn’t work through human strength or advantage; the passage of time reveals over the generations that human blessing soon fades away.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Judah increased by a ratio of 1:02, 74,600 rose to 76,500. Dan also increased by exactly the same ratio of 1:02, 62,700 rose to 64,400. Likewise Benjamin increased by a ratio of 1:28, 35,400 rose to 45,600; and Asher also increased by the same ratio of 1:28, 41,500 rose to 53,400. Quite what we are to make of that isn't clear, although the figures are so exact that clearly God was in it. If the idea is that number of children is associated with blessing under the old covenant, perhaps the point is that amongst the children of God, some will respond to exactly the same extent as others. Others just marginally more than others- thus Zebulun increased by a ration of 1:05, 57,400 rose to 60,500. Whereas others respond markedly more, or less. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Asher after their families: of Imnah, the family of the Imnites; of Ishvi, the family of the Ishvites; of Beriah, the family of the Berites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the names here are absolutely secular in their meaning and have no hint of spirituality. The consistent impression is that Israel were a secular, unspiritual people who were saved by grace. Even other nations tended to have the names of their gods mixed in with their personal names; but the list we have here has very little of that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the sons of Beriah: of Heber, the family of the Heberites; of Malchiel, the family of the Malchielites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note how most of the names which reference God feature the 'El' suffix or prefix and not 'Yah' or 'Iah'. This is understandable, for Moses declared the Name of Yahweh to the people after most of these men had been born. This kind of artless internal corroboration is to me one of the strongest arguments for the Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the daughter of Asher was Serah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The mention of women in such lists is unusual, and I suggest that the names are of those who became heads of family clans within the tribes. So the mention of Serah would mean that she became a head of family; although rare or unknown in the world around them, this was not totally unheard of in the Jacob family and we see in this the respect of women amongst the people of God.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sons of Naphtali after their families: of Jahzeel, the family of the Jahzeelites; of Guni, the family of the Gunites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Jezer" (:49) means "image", "Guni" means "painted with colours", both suggestive of idolatry. If the people were fully committed to Yahweh, we would expect them to have removed all associations with idolatry from their names. For I have noted repeatedly that people often changed their names or became known by other names. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>of Jezer, the family of the Jezerites; of Shillem, the family of the Shillemites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 46:24'>Gen 46:24</a></em> lists Jezer (see on :48) and Shillem as also sons of Naphtali. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Naphtali according to their families; and those who were numbered of them were forty-five 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 :47.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the children of Israel, six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must remember that "thousand" can refer to a group rather than a literal number. Perhaps in commentary upon the temptation to trust in numbers now that the number had been taken, Moses says that the number of Israel was "as numerous as the stars in heaven" (<em><a href='B:50 1:10'>Deu 1:10</a></em>). And yet they went into Canaan knowing they were not the most numerous of the tribes there (<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>). So Moses may have in view Angels as stars, the idea being that whatever number Israel were on earth, they had the hosts of Angels in Heaven fighting on their side, an Angel for each of them. For all trust in numbers is not the approach of faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the census may have been not so much to know numbers, but to define the Israelites into clear family units; for it was God's intention that each unit should have a specific inheritance in the land they were now going to enter. We likewise will each have a specific, unique nature of inheritance in the future Kingdom of God. But those who refused to pay the atonement money were not numbered (see on :1). The inheritance of the Kingdom requires our acceptance of the atonement and response to it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The number of the names" is the phrase used in <em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em> of the very early church. The idea was that the fledgling Christian church was now the new Israel of God, who were to go out and do spiritual warfare in conquering the world for Christ. The idea of inheriting our "lot" is often applied to our inheritance in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:13'>Dan 12:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance: to everyone according to those who were numbered of his family shall his inheritance be given-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We would expect the quality of the land to be factored in. But instead, land area was to be simply proportionate to the size of the family. God's ideal intention was that Israel would be obedient and experience the blessings of the covenant outlined in Leviticus 26, which would include huge fecundity of the land- even on the top of the mountains there was to be corn. But they failed, and so these blessings didn't come about; and perhaps the actual division of the land was therefore based on more secular and spiritually realistic assumptions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The living inherit from the dead, but this is phrased in the Hebrew to imply that the dead "fathers" were being given an inheritance by the living. This is flagging attention to something. The idea was perhaps that the promised inheritances were going to be eternally experienced by those dead "fathers", as they along with the patriarchs were to be resurrected to inherit the land.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :54, there was initially the ideal assumption that Israel's obedience would lead to huge agricultural blessing in the land, of a supernatural degree. Therefore the quality of the land, in a secular, agricultural sense, was not taken into account. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered of the Levites after their families: of Gershon, the family of the Gershonites; of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites; of Merari, the family of the Merarites- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gershon" means 'expelled', maybe meaning that like Reuben he was expelled from the role of firstborn (he is mentioned first as if he was the firstborn). This is a theme of the Genesis record. But perhaps because of these weaknesses, the line to the high priest ran through Kohath.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the families of Levi: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites. Kohath became the father of Amram-</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 :62 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>The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt: and she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Amram lived to the same age as Levi (<em><a href='B:20 6:16'>Exo 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>). Numbers and ages are used in Semitic literature often in a non literal sense, in order to make some point. Perhaps the idea here is that Amram was indeed a true son of Levi; despite Israel's general apostasy in Egypt, he married within his own tribe, as if seeking to keep the spirit of the later legislation to this effect. Moses' father Amram had married his father's sister (<em><a href='B:20 6:20'>Exo 6:20</a></em>), thus disobeying the principle of <em><a href='B:30 18:20'>Lev 18:20</a></em>. The founding fathers of Israel broke these very principles, showing how the whole nation was built upon Divine grace rather than obedience. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"<em>The </em>fire" refers to the fire of the altar which was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. But they offered strange or Gentile fire, other than from that fire. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Those who were numbered of them were twenty-three thousand, every male from a month old and upward; for they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>38,000 Levites were numbered by David in <em><a href='B:130 23:3'>1Ch 23:3</a></em>, although "thousand" may mean a division rather than a literal 1000. At the time of <em><a href='B:40 4:47-48'>Num 4:47-48</a></em> there were only 8,580. And Levite males from a month old were 22,000 in Num. 3:39 and 23,000 at the time of <em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>. This suggests a great increase in the number of Levites by David's time; or perhaps he more generously counted who was a Levite, because he wanted to have as many as possible involved in his grandiose plans for the temple services. There was no need for such large numbers of Levites in order to serve God effectively, for there were far fewer Levites at the time of the figures given in the book of Numbers, and the sanctuary and Divine service still continued. See on :58.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron was now dead, so the record is careful to say that Moses and Eleazar numbered the people at the end of their wanderings, whilst Moses and Aaron numbered them at the start of their wanderings. Having studied every verse of the Bible over the course of many years, the lack of contradiction in the text is such an impressive sign of Divine inspiration. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But among these there was not a man of them who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest, when they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The point may be that the Levites were not numbered then, and we have just read that they <em>were</em> numbered at the <em>end </em>of the wilderness journey. This would explain why Eleazar and Phinehas were not slain. The Rabbis like to suggest that "a man" refers to males and females were not included in the condemnation, but I cannot find reason to be certain about that.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher the son of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of these women all feature the 'Yah' suffix. This is unusual as most of the names we read at this time at best have 'el' for God, or are just of secular meaning. All these women had accepted the revelation of the Name of Yahweh given by Moses. I say they accepted it because it is clear that many people didn't keep their birth names but acquired other names later in their lives, reflective of their life experience and developed beliefs.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a></em>); and this in turn inspired the daughters of Zelophehad to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<em><a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a></em>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a></em>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated occurrence of the phrase "in the wilderness" in <em><a href='B:40 15:32'>Num 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:3'>Num 27:3</a></em> leads the Rabbis to identify the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath as Zelophehad, who therefore "died in his own sin", an allusion to <em><a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a></em> which uses this term in prefacing the incident of gathering sticks. Although it is then noteworthy that he had apparently faithful daughters.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give to us a possession among the brothers of our father- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Considering the low status of women at that time, we see here a commendable spirit of initiative and spiritual ambition for these women to dare ask a male dominated society to change their rules to allow them to have an inheritance. We see too how God and Moses weren’t at all anti-women, and responded positively. Note how the women were allowed to come directly to the decision makers, without needing to appoint a male representative for their case, as was common in surrounding cultures. The value of the human person is consistently seen throughout the Pentateuch. They asked about this matter <em>before</em> the land had been possessed, reflecting their strength of faith that God would fulfil His promise of giving His people the Kingdom; they imagined what it would be like there, and acted accordingly even before they got there, as if the land was already theirs in possession- just as we should. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses brought their cause before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not the only example of where the Mosaic law was structured so as to intentionally need further interpretation and clarification. It was designed to provoke relationship with God, rather than as a legalistic total statement of how to live in every part of life. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In most societies of the time, a woman didn't get her father's inheritance, but instead was intended to marry into another family. The inheritance of land passed through the male line. But these women were perceptive, and realize that the inheritance was going to be eternal, and so they wanted their father to have his name preserved in association with his inheritance- otherwise he would as it were lose his inheritance because he had no sons. And so they were granted their request. We see from <em><a href='B:150 2:61'>Ezr 2:61</a></em> another case of how this worked out in practice. God cannot be accused of being against women; His legislation valued every human person to a degree unseen in any contemporary legislation. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall speak to the children of Israel saying, ‘If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :6. For land inheritance to pass on through the female was unheard of in contemporary legal codes. We are all somewhat in Zelophehad's position. He sinned and died for it, but he has the hope still of eternal inheritance in the Kingdom at the resurrection- in his own name. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What was important was that the man's inheritance should pass on in his own name, or that of his family. As discussed on :6, the reasoning behind this was because it was God's intention that Israel should eternally inherit their allotments in the land, at the time of resurrection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :6,8,9, this was not a case of male preference. It was so that the land allotment which God had given to each family remained in the name of that family. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be to the children of Israel a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One wonders why this statute had not been included within the Law of Moses. Perhaps God had reserved it in potential, waiting the initiative of these women? See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I have given to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:500 3:3'>Joh 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>, the Lord speaks of how a man must be born again in order to see and enter the Kingdom. He parallels seeing the Kingdom with entering it. Moses saw the land of the Kingdom of God, but couldn’t enter it. This is surely behind the Lord’s words here. Given the many allusions to Moses in John’s Gospel, I submit that the Lord was surely saying something about Moses’ seeing of the land before he died (<em><a href='B:40 27:12'>Num 27:12</a></em>). It’s as if He felt that Moses’ seeing the land meant that he would ultimately enter it. To be enabled to see the land, with ‘born again’ special eyesight, was therefore a guarantee that Moses would enter the Kingdom. And <em><a href='B:290 33:17'>Isa 33:17</a></em> speaks of beholding the King in his beauty and seeing “the land that is very far off” (an obvious allusion to Moses seeing the land) as a picture of ultimate salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God's people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother was gathered-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the promised land but being unable to enter it himself points to how the Law of Moses gave a view of salvation, but couldn’t bring people into it. He had specifically asked to be able to "see" and enter the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:25-27'>Deu 3:25-27</a></em>), and God's response was to agree to let him "see" it, but He did not agree that Moses could enter it. So we have highlighted the difference between seeing and entering the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>because you rebelled against My word in the wilderness of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify Me at the waters before their eyes. (These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore couldn't enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:7'>Deu 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23-24'>Deu 9:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:4'>Num 27:4</a></em>); they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's commandment (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:20'>Deu 21:20</a></em>). For he himself had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 20:24'>Num 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites "rebels" (<em><a href='B:40 20:10'>Num 20:10</a></em>), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different way. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to Yahweh, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses did not get bitter at his rejection, nor disinterested in Israel's future because he would not be with them in the land. He asked God to provide a replacement for him. We see here Moses’ selflessness, his concern was always for the wellbeing of God’s people rather than his own status. He didn’t ask for one of his own family members to take over the leadership; for he realized that spiritual leadership must be based upon spiritual qualification, not family connection.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let Yahweh, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Biblically, a man or woman is identified with their spirit in the sense of their mind or way of life. <em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em> speaks of the spirits of just men, with whom the believer ought to associate. This means that we ought to identify ourselves with the way of life, the spirit of life, of “just men” of the past. God is “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (<em><a href='B:40 16:22'>Num 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:16'>Num 27:16</a></em>) in the sense that He is the God of all humanity. So “spirits in prison” can refer to people who, in their spiritual lives, are imprisoned. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This effectively meant 'to lead them in battle' (<em><a href='B:60 14:11'>Jos 14:11</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That the congregation of Yahweh be not as sheep which have no shepherd- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Quoted by Jesus about the crowds of Israelites in the first century (<em><a href='B:470 9:36'>Mat 9:36</a></em>). He clearly saw those confused and misguided people, with all their wrong beliefs and attitudes, as still the congregation of God. We also learn from what Moses says and the Lord’s approval of it that God’s people need shepherds. There is an undoubted teaching regarding the need for leadership / shepherding throughout the Bible. When God’s people are leaderless, they go astray.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses sought for a prophet / successor like unto him, who would lead out and bring in the sheep of Israel (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:21'>Num 27:21</a></em>). The descriptions of the good shepherd not losing any sheep (<em><a href='B:500 10:28'>Joh 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>) perhaps allude to the well known Jewish stories about Moses being such a good shepherd that he never lost a sheep. L. Ginzberg, <em>Legends Of The Jews</em> has a section on ‘Moses as faithful shepherd’ (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1910) Vol. 2 pp. 300-316).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was a shepherd for 40 years, and then for 40 years he put this into practice by leading Israel as God's shepherd for 40 years in the same wilderness (<em><a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:11'>Isa 63:11</a></em>). As Moses was willing to sacrifice his eternal life for the salvation of the sheep of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:30-32'>Exo 32:30-32</a></em>), so Christ gave his life for us. John's Gospel normally shows the supremacy of Christ over Moses. In this connection of them both being shepherds willing to die for the flock, Moses is not framed as being inferior to Christ- in that in his desire to die for Israel, he truly reached the fullness of the spirit of Christ. "The good shepherd" was a Rabbinical title for Moses; Christ was saying "I am Moses, in his love for your salvation; not better than him, but exactly like him in this". In a sense, Moses' prayer was heard, in that he was excluded from the land for their sakes (<em><a href='B:50 1:37'>Deu 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>); they entered after his death. This was to symbolize how the spirit of his love for Israel was typical of Christ's for us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because Joshua had the Spirit, Moses was told to lay his hand on him. Yet <em><a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a></em> says that Moses laid his hand on him so that Joshua might receive the Spirit. Here we see the upward spiral of spirituality at work- those who are of the Spirit are made more spiritual and confirmed in their spirituality. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and commission him in their sight- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Commission" carries the idea of practically commanding him. A similar public transference of authority from Moses had happened in <em><a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall put of your honour on him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may obey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 27:20'>Num 27:20</a></em> LXX says that Moses put or gave of his glory upon Joshua- and this passage is alluded to by the Lord in <em><a href='B:500 17:22'>Joh 17:22</a></em>: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them”. Note that the Lord’s prayer of John 17 is full of allusion to Moses. So the disciples, indeed all those for whom the Lord prayed in His prayer, are to see themselves as Joshua. Further, in the same context, the Lord washed the disciples’ feet. This would’ve been understood by the disciples as an allusion to a well known Jewish legend that in <em><a href='B:40 27:15-23'>Num 27:15-23</a></em>, Moses acted as a servant to Joshua by preparing a basin of water and washing Joshua’s feet. And the LXX of Moses’ final charge to Joshua in <em><a href='B:50 31:7-8'>Deu 31:7-8</a></em> (“fear not, neither be dismayed”) is quoted by the Lord to His disciples in <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before Yahweh. At his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contrast with Moses was that God communicated directly with him face to face with the Angel, whereas He would communicate with Joshua through the High Priest. The Urim and Thummim were apparently stones in the breastplate which flashed out binary yes / no responses to questions. "Breastplate" is LXX "oracle", as if the judgment flashed out from the Urim and Thummim associated with the breastplate&nbsp; was God's word or oracle to His people. After the time of David, we don't hear of them being used- perhaps because the ministry of the prophets became God's chosen way of communicating His word to His people. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses did as Yahweh commanded him; and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the obedience of Moses is stressed because it would have been absolutely normal for a leader of his magnitude to assume that his sons, or at least the sons of his brother Aaron, should take over from him. But instead a man from another tribe is chosen. And Moses in characteristic humility and desire to see God's work done and His glory achieved... has therefore no objection to this and submits to it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he laid his hands on him, and commissioned him, as Yahweh spoke by Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commands about the continual burnt offering are repeated more frequently and in more detail in the Law of Moses than those about anything else or any other offering. It’s as if God perceived the likely tendency of His people to forget the regular sacrifices and focus instead on the occasional ones; and to disregard the commands about the grain offering, which was so small and yet so valuable to God. It is likewise continually stressed in the legislation that these continual sacrifices were “a pleasant aroma to Me” (:2). Spirituality is about daily discipline, not occasional acts of devotion; hourly prayer, daily Bible reading, constant spiritual mindedness, rather than occasional attendance at a church meeting. When God later asked Israel “Did you offer unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?” (<em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:42'>Act 7:42</a></em>), the answer implied is that no, they did not. Hence this repetition here at the end of the wilderness journey. The whole purpose of their being given Canaan was so that they would have an environment in which to keep God’s laws (<em><a href='B:230 105:45'>Psa 105:45</a></em>). Likewise with us- if we’re not interested in keeping God’s principles in this life, there will be little point in our being given the Kingdom, which is likewise an arena in which we can live perfectly according to His principles.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘My offering, My food for My offerings made by fire of a pleasant aroma to Me, you shall observe to offer to Me in their due season’- </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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall tell them, ‘This is the offering made by fire which you shall offer to Yahweh: male lambs a year old without blemish, two day by day, for a continual burnt offering- </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>). </p>


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The other lamb you shall offer at evening. As the grain offering of the morning, and as the drink offering of it, you shall offer it, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally <em>"</em>between the two evenings", as at Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>). See on :4.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the Sabbath day two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, and the drink offering of it- </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. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here for the only time in the Law it is pointed out that the Sabbath sacrifices must include a grain offering, although this principle had been given in <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>. The theme of this chapter is that the small offerings mustn’t be forgotten nor minimized in importance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are great implications of the little word "besides". There was the warning not to let the offering of other sacrifices tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace. I was recently working with a group of fine brothers and sisters trying to plaster and paint a house against a deadline. We worked day and night quite literally- and afterwards confessed to each other that in those days, our prayer and Bible reading had taken a major slip. Of course at the time, we all told ourselves that we were about the Lord's work... which we were. But my point is that the "continual burnt offering" of devotional 'quiet time' with the Lord, prayer and Bible reading, really must not slip. I challenge us to start each day with some "quiet time", to make Him our arm every morning, to strive the harder for a more disciplined life- with the dynamic in it all being the transfixing experience of knowing Jesus as our finest friend, inspiring brother, matchless Saviour, Son of God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt offering to Yahweh: two young bulls, and one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing; see on :4. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God's redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, for each bull; and two tenth parts of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The new moon festival was to effectively be a Sabbath of rest and worship (<em><a href='B:290 66:23'>Isa 66:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 46:1'>Eze 46:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 8:5'>Amo 8:5</a></em>), a time for worship and teaching of the law (<em><a href='B:120 4:23'>2Ki 4:23</a></em>). Most of the surrounding nations worshipped the moon whenever there was a new moon (<em><a href='B:50 4:19'>Deu 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:26-27'>Job 31:26-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:2'>Jer 8:2</a></em>). God saw that this was going to be part of the religious need of people at that time, and He makes a kind of concession to that weakness and need. Israel were to keep a new moon festival- but dedicate it to Him. We marvel at His awareness of human needs within the cultures they live in.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a tenth part of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering to every lamb; for a burnt offering of a pleasant aroma, an offering made by fire to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Their drink offerings shall be half a hin of wine for a bull, and the third part of a hin for the ram, and the fourth part of a hin for a lamb: this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This had only previously been required in the specific case of <em><a href='B:20 29:40'>Exo 29:40</a></em> but in <em><a href='B:40 15:10'>Num 15:10</a></em> was then made applicable to every sacrifice. After the rejection of the people in Numbers 14, God wanted them to have this extra feature in relationship with Him. I see it that way, rather than Him as it were punishing them with more legislation. For that was not at all the purpose of any of His Mosaic laws. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One male goat for a sin offering to Yahweh; it shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact they were offering 'extra' offerings was not to take them away from realizing their sin and need for atonement. Such reminders are always necessary. The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten- </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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first day shall be a holy gathering: you shall do no servile 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. The repeated emphasis upon this is to demonstrate that blessing and salvation was to be by grace and not works. They were to cease from their own works. And this repeated lesson taught to them is likewise taught to us in different ways. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil: you shall offer three tenth parts for a bull, and two tenth parts for the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For "mixed", see on :13. One of the most obvious similarities between these offerings and the breaking of bread is that they both feature bread and wine, associated with a slain animal in the midst (<em><a href='B:40 15:9-10'>Num 15:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 6:17-19'>2Sa 6:17-19</a></em>). And further, both require the eating of the sacrifice by the offerer. The peace offering and Passover (also typical of the memorial meeting) featured the offerer eating the sacrifice "before the Lord". This phrase "before the Lord" is continually emphasized in the records of the peace offerings. I guess we would all admit that our sense of the presence of the Father and Son at our memorial meetings has much room for improvement. We really are "before the Lord" as we sit there. God came unto men when they offered acceptable peace offerings (<em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em>), as He is made known to us through the breaking of bread. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sacrifices on each of the seven days were two young bullocks, one ram and seven lambs 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.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In this way you shall offer daily, for seven days, the food of the offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh. It shall be offered besides the continual burnt offering, and the drink offering of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is so often stressed, both in this chapter and elsewhere, that these continual offerings mustn’t be forgotten about at the time of the greater festivals. See on :1. But these "continual" offerings were designed to provoke the question in the heart of all thoughtful believers: 'Does God really want all these animals?'. David at the time of his sin with Bathsheba was taught that God didn't actually want them so much as He wanted a contrite heart which throws itself upon Him. He did not so much require the continual burnt offerings, but rather "Offer to God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, pay your vows to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:230 50:8'>Psa 50:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:15'>Psa 50:15</a></em>). Heartfelt praise was what God hungered for, not ritualistic sacrifice. To this day, He is thrilled by from the heart thanksgiving, and actions of gratitude for what He has done ("pay your vows"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day you shall have a holy gathering: you shall do no servile work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gathering" 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>Also in the day of the first fruits, when you offer a new grain offering to Yahweh in your feast of weeks, you shall have a holy gathering; you shall do no servile work- </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. At the time when every hour of the day was used to bring in the harvest, the people were to have a break from their labours.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The usual pattern for the offerings was sin offering, burnt offering (dedication to God on the basis of being reconciled from sin) and then peace offerings, celebrating the resultant peace with God. But here the burnt offering comes first (:27), with the sin offering as a kind of afterthought (:29). The idea is that the harvest must be dedicated to God and accepted as His blessing and gift. But there was to be the awareness that they were all sinners and this gift had been by grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for each bull, two tenth parts for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Frankincense was to be added to the flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). This was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat, to make atonement for you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :27. The total number of animals offered therefore comes to 13 (10 in :27, one in :30, two in :31). This perhaps refers to the 13 tribes, including Levi. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, you shall offer them (they shall be to you without blemish), and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Every animal is blemished in some way, but they were to offer that which in their eyes (“to <em>you</em>”) was without blemish. Whilst we are to offer our best, it’s only the best in our eyes, and is only accepted by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy gathering. You shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing of trumpets to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the first day of their civil year; the religious year began with Passover. <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 was a lead up to the affliction of souls on the tenth day of that month at the day of atonement. 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>You shall offer a burnt offering for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: one young bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </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>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for the bull, two tenth parts for the ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul writes of the church in Corinth that God has "tempered" the whole body together (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). This is alluding to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mixed" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc.). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that "tempering" of the body which God has made. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual stress upon the usage of oil (<em>shehmen</em>) may look ahead to the <em>meshiach</em>, the Christ, the anointed one. All aspects of the offerings looked ahead to the Lord Jesus Christ.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Frankincense was to be added to the flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:1'>Lev 2:1</a></em>). This was a type of incense which would have given a pleasing smell to the burning flour. This represented how pleased God was with the offering even of a handful of flour (<em><a href='B:30 2:2'>Lev 2:2</a></em>). Small sacrifices please Him immensely. And they are what comprise daily life. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy gathering; and you shall afflict your souls. You shall do no kind of work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was the day of atonement. "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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering to Yahweh for a pleasant aroma: one young bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old (they shall be to you without blemish)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it ("to you without blemish"); 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>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for the bull, two tenth parts for the one ram- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 16:13'>Eze 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:19'>Eze 16:19</a></em> speak of how God fed Israel with fine flour and oil. These things are only mentioned together (43 times!) with reference to the sacrifices which Israel were to offer to God. But God says that He had given these things to Israel, and even fed them with them. The idea therefore was that they were giving back to God what He had first given them. And this must be remembered in all our sacrificing. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the lack of mention of the drink offering, of wine, which usually accompanied all sacrifices. Unless it is mentioned in :11. I suggest this omission may have been to signpost attention towards the huge significance of the blood of the day of atonement sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>one male goat for a sin offering; besides the sin offering of atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This additional sin offering on the day of Atonement isn’t mentioned in the previous legislation about the day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. Because Israel had failed to keep the sacrifices during the wilderness journey as they should have done (so <em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em> implies), God now at the end of the wilderness journey added more sacrifices to be kept. Perhaps the Israelite was to see in this male goat a symbol of himself, worthy only of rejection- the goat being a symbol of the rejected in <em><a href='B:470 25:33'>Mat 25:33</a></em>; and the “sin offering of atonement” as representative of the whole community’s unforgiven sins. This is the great paradox- that those who consider themselves rejected will be accepted, and those who think of themselves as accepted in their own strength will be rejected. The Lord's right hand is our left hand, and vice versa, if we imagine ourselves standing before Him. Those who put themselves to <em>their</em> right hand , i.e. justify themselves, are putting themselves at His left hand; and vice versa (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifteenth day of the seventh month you shall have a holy gathering. You shall do no servile work, and you shall keep a feast to Yahweh seven days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gathering" 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>You shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: thirteen young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old; they shall be without blemish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In total, the feast of Tabernacles required 70 oxen to be sacrificed. Far more animals were sacrificed in this feast than for any other. Yet this was the feast of joy- teaching that true happiness is related to sacrifice to God, rather than keeping for ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering, fine flour mixed with oil, three tenth parts for every bull of the thirteen bulls, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>13 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 lambs. 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. 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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and a tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The handful of flour was to be given for every individual lamb, and not as some blanket amount to cover all 14 lambs. God wanted them to realize that their joy and celebration was to always have embedded within it an awareness of their forgiveness and Passover deliverance. And to this day, this is to be the basis for our joy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The offering of other sacrifices was not to tempt the people to think that the "continual burnt offering" was therefore not to be taken seriously on those days. The regular, purposeful beginning and ending of each day with devotion to the Lord is something which nothing else should ever displace.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the second day you shall offer twelve young bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to remind them that the Passover deliverance through the lamb was effectively ongoing. The Passover lamb was likewise to be a year old (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>). We too are to live constantly under the impression of the Lord's sacrifice and redemption of us. Israel were asked to use a lamb of the first year to record various times when they should be thankful for God's redemption of them in the events which comprise life (<em><a href='B:30 9:3'>Lev 9:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 12:6'>Lev 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:12'>Lev 23:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:18-19'>Lev 23:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:12'>Num 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:14'>Num 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:15'>Num 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:17'>Num 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 7:21'>Num 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:3'>Num 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:9'>Num 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:11'>Num 28:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:19'>Num 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:2'>Num 29:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:8'>Num 29:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:13'>Num 29:13</a></em>). This was to continually recall to them the events of their great redemption through the Red Sea. And the essence of our redemption, our baptism and salvation through the blood of the lamb, must likewise be brought ever before us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual offering of bread (flour) and wine with each animal looked ahead to the breaking of bread meeting. The sacrificed animal is present in the form of the now living Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and their drink offerings-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each day of their rejoicing in God’s grace toward them, Israel were to offer a sin offering as a reminder of the fact they were sinners, and all God’s blessings toward them were given to a sinful people. We must never let slip our recognition of our sinfulness before God, and unworthiness in ourselves of His blessings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the third day eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The decreasing number of bullocks may have been in order to highlight the final offering, of the significant number of seven bullocks. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the sacrifices were to be made upon the basis that the offerer was giving back to God what God had given him. That included the grain ("meal") and drink offerings. Thus the same words are found in <em><a href='B:360 2:14'>Joe 2:14</a></em>: "Who knows? He may turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, even a meal offering and a drink offering to Yahweh, your God".&nbsp; The sense may therefore be: "The one who experiences this, will experience a God who turns and relents, and goes even further- He will restore you grain and wine. But you are to use that blessing of grace by offering it to Yahweh, your God". </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fourth day ten bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The decreasing number of bullocks was perhaps related to the symbolism of the bullock for strong, powerful labour. This was to decrease, until the final sacrifice of seven bullocks was understood as the power of the work of the future Messiah, the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </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>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Female animals were also accepted for sacrifice. The male animals however were worth more than female ones on the secular market, and so the insistence upon male offerings was not because God favours males over females; but simply because He was asking for the most valuable to be given to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the fifth day nine bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps just as the glory of the Mosaic system was always fading on Moses' face, the lesson is that the entire Mosaic system was decreasing rather than increasing- for it was to come to an end in the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Grain and wine offerings were used in pagan worship (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 57:6'>Isa 57:6</a></em>), just as feasts were kept to celebrate the new moon. The nature of the law of Moses was designed by God to accept the people's religious need to make such offerings and celebrate such regular events- but it was turned towards the worship of Yahweh rather than idols and gods. We marvel at God's sensitivity to the psychological needs of His people, according to the time and culture in which they live.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the sixth day eight bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Part of the grain / flour / cake was typically burnt upon the altar and the wine poured out upon it (<em><a href='B:10 35:14'>Gen 35:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:9'>Exo 30:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 16:15'>2Ki 16:15</a></em>); and part of it was eaten by the priests, representing God's acceptance of it, and how He was dining with the offerers at His table, represented by the altar.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offerings of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This laboured, repeated reminder is required in essence today- we are never to think that our daily, morning and evening personal devotions to God are overridden by some special project or obviated by the fact we are e.g. going to church or a church function that day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day seven bulls, two rams, fourteen male lambs a year old without blemish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A total of 70 bulls were offered at the feast of ingathering. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em> presents us with the picture of men and women redeemed from <em>every</em> kindred (tribe / clan), tongue (<em>glossa- </em>language), people (a group of people not necessarily of the same ethnicity) and nation (<em>ethnos</em>- ethnic group, lit. ‘those of the same customs’). This means that, e.g., not only redeemed ‘Yugoslavs’ will stand before the throne in the end; but Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians... every ethnic group, with every custom, will have representatives who will have believed the Truth and been saved. This idea is confirmed by considering how 70 bullocks had to be sacrificed at the feast of ingathering (Numbers 29), prophetic as it was of the final ingathering of the redeemed. But 70 is the number of all Gentile nations found in Genesis 10. And it is written: “When he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>). A total of 70 went down with Jacob into Egypt; and thus 70 seems an appropriate number to connect with the entire Gentile world. My point is, representatives of <em>all</em> of them will be finally ingathered. It could be that this conversion of all men occurs during the final tribulation (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:14:6'>Rev 14:6</a></em>); but it seems to me that the context demands that people from every nation etc. are already redeemed in Christ and await His return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea may be that each animal was to be individually accompanied by the flour and wine. Each animal was to be seen as an individual meal offered to God and shared with Him. There was to be no blanket offering of flour and wine in one go, lest this wonderful reality be somehow obscured.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering; besides the continual burnt offering, the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All these "continual" offerings were designed to provoke the question in the heart of all thoughtful believers: 'Does God really want all these animals?'. David at the time of his sin with Bathsheba was taught that God didn't actually want them so much as He wanted a contrite heart which throws itself upon Him. He did not so much require the continual burnt offerings, but rather "Offer to God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, pay your vows to the Most High" (<em><a href='B:230 50:8'>Psa 50:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:15'>Psa 50:15</a></em>). Heartfelt praise was what God hungered for, not ritualistic sacrifice. To this day, He is thrilled by from the heart thanksgiving, and actions of gratitude for what He has done ("pay your vows"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly: you shall do no servile 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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh: one bull, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the whole purpose of the decreasing number of bullocks over the previous days was to teach that there was only one bull ultimately required by God- pointing forward to the future perfect sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>their grain offering and their drink offerings for the bull, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the ordinance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the numbers of bullocks decreased, so did the number of the grain and drink offerings. A human religious system would likely have increased the numbers of sacrifices each day, leading up to a crescendo of mass offerings. But Israel were taught by the decreasing number of sacrifices that God didn't actually require sacrifices, but rather one specific sacrifice- which was to be the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, and the grain offering of it, and the drink offering of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are connections between the various sections of Revelation and the Jewish feasts. Here's a summary:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 5 Passover Revelation 5 :x6,9 = <em><a href='B:20 12:13'>Exo 12:13</a></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></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.</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></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 12 Pentecost & Passover The Jews traditionally ask: "On this Sabbath, shall I reap?"</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 14 Tabernacles </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 15 + 16 Atonement & Passover Leviticus 16; Psalms 118 the Hallel Psalm</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 19 Passover Psalms 113, 114 Passover Psalms</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 21, 22 Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Laying out the material chronologically, we have:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 5: Passover</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>6 months</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 7: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapters 8 & 9: Atonement and Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Dedication 5 months (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:5'>Rev 9:5</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 11: Purim</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 12: Passover and Pentecost</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 14: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 15: Atonement</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 16 & 19: Passover </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chapter 21 & 22: Tabernacles</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>1 year</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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall offer these to Yahweh in your set feasts, besides your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your grain offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God envisaged that at the time the whole community were engaged in extra special devotion to Him, the individual might still wish to make a private sacrifice. We can’t ride into God’s Kingdom on the back of others, e.g. our family members or our church. Our collective devotions shouldn’t lead us to think that God doesn’t seek our private freewill dedication to Him. </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; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses told the children of Israel according to all that Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The address to the tribal elders was perhaps because these issues of dedicating things were largely about dedicating property. The difficult area was when a person who was not the head of a family tried to dedicate property to the Lord. God had given each family a specific inheritance and wanted that to remain within the family name. So in practice, it was the elders of the tribes who were going to deal with these issues. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man vows a vow to Yahweh, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also when a woman vows a vow to Yahweh and binds herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Girls married young in Semitic cultures of the time, usually in their teens. God here foresaw the possibility of a young girl wanting to do something extra special for Him. In contemporary religions, active participation in religion was typically something for older males. But such is God’s value of the human person that He eagerly anticipated young people, even children, making a special act of devotion to Him on their own initiative. Mary’s teenage ambition to become the mother of Messiah is the supreme example to today’s youngsters, growing up as they do in a world where selfish ambition is the order of the day as never before.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her father hears her vow and her bond with which she has bound her soul, and her father holds his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The insistence that the male head of the family had to agree was because the vow was likely to give part of the family property to Yahweh. The land had specifically been given to families as inheritances, and it usually passed on through the male line, to keep the name of the family identified with the inheritance. So the woman had no right to promise to give it away, without first having the agreement of her husband or male head of family.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her father disallow her in the day that he hears, none of her vows or of her bonds with which she has bound her soul shall stand; and Yahweh will forgive her, because her father disallowed her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Women got married young. But here is envisaged a situation where a girl promises something to Yahweh, before she gets married. The idea is that children too were in relationship with God, and could make a voluntary dedication to Him. The idealism and ambition of youth were to be channeled towards God's service. And these regulations show that the law of Moses expected this kind of commitment from youth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she has a husband while her vows are on her, or the rash utterance of her lips with which she has bound her soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The spirit of this legislation seems to assume that vows would be made rashly, and therefore these laws were required. The Lord Jesus therefore commanded that we should not swear at all, but rather just live integrity before God (<em><a href='B:470 5:34-36'>Mat 5:34-36</a></em>). This was an indication of how well the Lord understood human nature, since He also had it. He knew that vows and oaths were likely to be broken; and so we should accept our humanity and simply not make such vows.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her husband hears it, and hold his peace at her in the day that he hears it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds with which she has bound her soul shall stand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The simple principle established here is that there are times when silence means consent. The Proverbs wisely advise us not to meddle in others’ business and to hold our tongue in some cases. But there are other times when not to speak up can have damaging consequences upon others, especially those less mature than ourselves.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband forbids her in the day that he hears it, then he shall make void her vow which is on her, and the rash utterance of her lips with which she has bound her soul; and Yahweh will forgive her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Rash utterance" is the same word as used to describe how Moses "spoke rashly with his lips" (<em><a href='B:230 106:33'>Psa 106:33</a></em>). He was denied entrance to the kingdom of God on earth because of that. That seems a rather heavy judgment for rash speaking. But here again, rash speaking in promising to give something and then not giving it- is presented as an unforgivable sin. People of the time were apparently used to making various exaggerated promises to God. And these were abhorrent to Him. He wishes those in relationship with Him to be serious and committed to Him, and to realize the extraordinary value He places upon human usage of words and language. This is reflected in the New Testament teaching about the power and eternal consequences of human words. See on :12. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the vow of a widow, or of her who is divorced, everything with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A divorced woman was counted as genuinely single; the sin of marriage breakup is in the factors leading to the breakup of the marriage, but afterwards the person is seen by God as single. Divorce under the Law of Moses was possible only for adultery, and adultery was punishable by death. Yet God foresaw that there would be women who had done this and yet remained alive by grace, or who had been falsely accused; and correctly imagined that such women would love to make a freewill dedication of themselves to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she vowed in her husband’s house or bound her soul by a bond with an oath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A vow appears to refer to a promise to give or dedicate something to God, whereas an oath tends to refer to an undertaking not to do something. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and didn’t disallow her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she bound her soul shall stand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Silence means consent (<em><a href='B:40 30:12'>Num 30:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 30:15'>Num 30:15</a></em>). This is a huge principle which challenges us in so many areas.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband made them null and void in the day that he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand. Her husband has made them void; and Yahweh will forgive her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To make a vow and not perform it was a sin. The implication is that it was only forgivable if a woman had vowed property over which her husband had a say, and he had disallowed it. We note that it is a vow and not an oath which is in view; a vow was associated with giving property to Yahweh, whereas an oath was a promise not to do something. Given the very serious nature of vowing and not performing it, apparently an unforgivable sin, we wonder why people would vow when it was not obligatory? The reasons appear here to be in the area of "rash utterance", getting carried away with words; or possibly pride. Contrary to what is the habit in some parts of Christianity, giving is never to be done under duress of whatever kind, nor 'rashly'. God wants us to give to Him on the basis of sober, reasoned commitment rather than the emotion of a moment. See on :8.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it or her husband may make it void- </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>). The woman might vow to go through a period recalling how Israel had been in Egypt; but as this had huge domestic implications in an agrarian society, she could only do so if her husband agreed. 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.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her bonds which are on her. He has established them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To vow and then not give to God was a major sin, and as her vow involved dedication of property under his control, he shared in that sin, or, in the blessing of dedication. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he shall make them null and void after that he has heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here to bear iniquity seems to specifically mean to have responsibility for sin (as in <em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>)<em>. </em>"Bear iniquity" is therefore an idiom for being personally guilty. Yet the idiom is used about the Lord Jesus Christ in His bearing of our iniquity on the cross (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was our sin bearer and yet personally guiltless. This is the paradox which even He struggled with, leading to His feeling of having been forsaken by God (<em><a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a></em>). This means that although Christ never sinned, He knows the feelings of sinners, because His identity with us was so deep and complete.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the statutes, which Yahweh commanded Moses, between a man and his wife and between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father’s house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation may well have arisen in response to some specific cases which were not covered in the law given at Sinai. The Mosaic law was not designed as a deterministic legislation over every imaginable area of life. It was intended as a springboard towards personal relationship with God. And therefore it required interpretation and reverent engagement with God for help in understanding, and receipt of progressive revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh was to be avenged upon Midian (:3), and so was Israel (:2). Yahweh is His people and what is done to His people is done to Him. Just as the Lord Jesus asked Saul to stop persecuting<em> Him</em>. The Father and Son feel all done to their people as done to them. For the nature of true love is that identifies with others. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Avenge the children of Israel for the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in :3 we read of avenging Yahweh. The insults against God’s people are against Him. Many of His children struggle today with a sense of justice not having been done to them, and a desire to see some level of justice or vengeance against their abusers. This day will come, if indeed the injustice has been done to us because of our devotion to God; because whatever is done to God’s people is done to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke to the people, saying, Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute Yahweh’s vengeance on Midian-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2,3. This conflict was apparently just before the people entered the land of promise and approached Jericho. So this was to provide them with battle experience, and more especially with experience of God's saving grace; for not one of them was to perish in the conflict.&nbsp; The victory was to so clearly be from God. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of every tribe one thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, you shall send to the war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A "thousand" is not necessarily 1,000, but can refer to a group, family or military regiment. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>12,000 was a small army compared to what could have been raised- for there were over 600,000 fighting men numbered amongst Israel at this time. But throughout His military history, God has taken special pleasure in using small numbers to defeat far larger ones, and that principle continues in how He works today. However, 12,000 fighting men may be a way of describing a particular kind of military division, as it occurs later in <em><a href='B:70 8:25'>Jdg 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 21:10'>Jdg 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a></em> and <em><a href='B:230 60:1'>Psa 60:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses sent them one thousand of every tribe to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God chose Phinehas the priest to be the army commander, whereas Joshua was the more obvious human choice for that job at this time. But God wished to demonstrate that it is spiritual principle which must lead His people rather than human strength and appropriacy. It was Phinehas who had so well perceived the spiritual danger of the Moabites earlier (<em><a href='B:40 25:7'>Num 25:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They warred against Midian, as Yahweh commanded Moses; and they killed every male- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is every adult male, for the children were initially taken captive (:9). There is no record given of the strategy for the battle. The fact there was not a single Israelite casualty all contributes towards the impression that this was an unusual and Divine deliverance. It was given to them to encourage them that the whole of Canaan could be conquered in this way. For from this point they were based opposite Jericho, poised to enter Canaan. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they killed with the sword- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Zur's daughter Cozbi means "liar", the daughter of "the rock" (Zur)- a fake god. For Yahweh alone is a rock to His people. Her message was indeed a huge lie: that Yahweh and Baal worship could be fused through her as a leader of Midian openly performing a sex act with a similarly ranking leader of Israel. In the tabernacle of Yahweh (see on <em><a href='B:40 25:6'>Num 25:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a></em>). Zur was one of the five leading princes of Midian who was later slain along with Balaam. Balaam and Zur were clearly associated. And so it seems that Balaam suggested that Zur's daughter Cozbi be used to lead Israel into sin, so that their God would curse them- and Balaam would get his coveted reward which he so obsessed about. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their livestock, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a prey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were criticized for taking the women alive (:14,15). Although the more specific commandments about engagement with enemies are given in Deuteronomy, just a short time later, they were expected to use sanctified common sense. They ought to have realized that the women who had led them into sin in Numbers 25 needed to be destroyed and not taken as trophies. Whilst there was no specific command about this, they were expected to have perceived it. We see again that the law of Moses was not presented as a legal code to be obeyed in a literalistic way, but rather as a source of principle intended to guide behaviour in matters not specifically covered by the law. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All their cities in the places in which they lived, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "burnt with fire" is used many times in the Pentateuch and nearly always about sacrifices. These were to be offered to God rather than lived in by the Israelites; for it was God's intention that all Israel should go over Jordan, although He later made concessions to those who wanted to inherit east of Jordan. But the destruction of the cities east of Jordan reflects His desire that the people should not inherit there at that time; the promise of Canaan was that they would live in the houses which they had not built (<em><a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of animal-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The prey" is literally "the jaws", and refers to the animals; "the spoil" refers to the men. As the male adults were all killed, this must refer to the underage males who would have been seen as good potential slaves and were therefore "spoil". But they were later rebuked for this (:17). They were intended to have worked out how to behave in this matter, despite the lack of specific commandment. But the people failed to use the law of Moses as it was intended to be- a springboard towards personal engagement and relationship with God. Instead at best they used it as a mere legal code. The areas where the law was silent were intended to be those areas where the Israelites worked out the implications of God's revealed will, and saw for themselves how to behave.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab which are by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eleazar had now effectively replaced the aged Phinehas. We note that Israel were encamped opposite Jericho when they won this amazing victory. It was clearly intended to encourage them that this is how all their conflicts could go in Canaan. We too are given encouragement for later trials and situations we will experience. Life is not at all a random path. All is designed to confirm us in an upward spiral of faith and spiritual achievement.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds who came from the service of the war- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :9, they were intended to have worked out for themselves, despite the lack of specific commandment, that taking these women was wrong and a way of entering into temptation; see on :16. Moses' anger was with the captains because this was a conscious policy decision they had made, and it would lead the people into sin (:16). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was distressed that the Israelite army had failed to perceive the spiritual reason for the battle- it was to stop the Midianites posing a temptation to Israel with their women as they had in chapter 25. Sometimes God’s people can fight His battles and even be given victory, whilst failing to perceive the spiritual intent behind the war.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, these caused the children of Israel through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"These..." could suggest that these were the very women who had offered their bodies to the Israelites in return for worship of Baal Peor. They were cult prostitutes and should have been destroyed.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a harder side of God, the side we'd rather not see. God almost seems to underline the hardness of it in the way He records His word; thus He emphasizes that the "little ones" of the Canaanite cities were to be killed by the sword (<em><a href='B:50 2:34'>Deu 2:34</a></em>), the male babies of the Midianites were to be killed by God's command (<em><a href='B:40 31:17'>Num 31:17</a></em>; which was exactly what Herod ordered). The unfulfilled believer will accept the gracious side of God (which is undoubtedly the aspect more emphasized in the Bible), but refuse to really accept this other side, while passively admitting that this harder aspect of God is revealed in His word. But it's all or nothing. We either accept the self-revelation of God in the Bible, or we reject it- that's how <em>He</em> sees it. Our temptation is to think that God sees things as we see them, to think that God is merely an ideal human being. But the day of judgment will reveal otherwise (<em><a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a></em>). He is God, not man. It is not for us to set the terms. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God makes concessions to human weakness. Having reminded Israel of how they sinned with the Midianites, He allows them to keep unmarried Midianites as wives (<em><a href='B:40 31:16'>Num 31:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 31:18'>Num 31:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Encamp outside of the camp seven days: whoever has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This all rather sounds like the laws for purification from 'leprosy', which I elsewhere suggested was not Hansen's disease but a specific stroke from God. This legislation was also geared against the men immediately sleeping with the young women whom they had captured. They were to enter into serious relationship with them, and not use them as sexual trophies in hot blood. See on :46.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood, you shall purify yourselves- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :19, this recalls the legislation about 'leprosy', which I have suggested was a specific stroke of Divine judgment. Their taking of the Midianite women was seen by God as a serious sin, and they had as it were been stricken with judgment for this and had to be cleansed from it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle, This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had been expected to follow the principles inculcated by the law, although they hadn't been given specific legislation about spoil at this point. But they had failed to grasp this and so now they were given laws to precisely govern their behaviour. But these laws could have been given before the event. They were given after it. Because it was God's intention that Israel ought to have perceived the right course of action on the basis of the principles so far revealed, rather than needing endless sets of laws to define behaviour in every life situation. But they failed in this, and so further law was given. See on :28. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>whatever gold, silver, brass, iron, tin and lead- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There appears to be an allusion to this passage in <em><a href='B:530 3:11-15'>1Co 3:11-15</a></em>: "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work shall be revealed. For the day of judgment shall declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire itself shall test each man's work of what sort it Isa. If anyone's work shall endure which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If anyone's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire". Paul doesn't really quote in direct context, but uses words and phrases apparently out of context, which was typical of Jewish midrash. <em><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a></em> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation (<em><a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a></em>).&nbsp;And it's the same idea here with the spoils from the Midianites. They represent our converts in the war of preaching the gospel. Their worth will be revealed at the last day. The fire of condemnation will as it were burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>everything that may withstand the fire you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water for impurity; and all that doesn’t withstand the fire you shall make to go through the water- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"<em>The </em>fire" refers to the fire of the altar which was ideally intended to be that kindled at the time of <em><a href='B:30 9:24'>Lev 9:24</a></em> when the tabernacle was consecrated. It was to be kept perpetually burning by the sacrifices being continually placed upon it, a lamb every morning and every evening. The fire which never went out or was 'quenched' (<em><a href='B:30 6:13'>Lev 6:13</a></em>). is a double symbol. The phrase is used multiple times with reference to the wrath of God in condemning sinners; it is the basis of the idea of eternal fire which will not be quenched. Rather like the cup of wine from the Lord being a symbol of either condemnation or blessing. So we have a choice- be consumed by the eternal fire now as living sacrifices, or be consumed by it anyway at the last day. <em>"The</em> water" may refer specifically to the water of separation made from the ashes of the red heifer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and you shall be clean; and afterward you shall come into the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 14:9'>Lev 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:13'>Lev 15:13</a></em> uses this as the ritual for the cleansing of the leper. The people had been smitten with a stroke of punishment, which is what 'leprosy' was rather than what we now know as leprosy. And they were to repent and go through the cleansing process. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The principle is that the fighters / achievers must not keep their achievements for themselves but share them. This has never been popular, and so at David's time it was as if this law was instituted for the first time (<em><a href='B:90 30:21-25'>1Sa 30:21-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of animal, you, and Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers’ households of the congregation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the booty was not to be numbered (:32). The idea was that people and animals could be used in the service of God in the tabernacle. Whereas the general booty couldn't be.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and divide the prey into two parts between the men skilled in war who went out to battle, and all the congregation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This kind of policy of sharing the spoils of war with the congregation was repeated in Israelite history (<em><a href='B:90 30:24-25'>1Sa 30:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:12'>Psa 68:12</a></em>). It ensured that the minority called upon to do highly visible and humanly heroic work didn’t do it for themselves nor to settle their own scores, but always with an eye to benefitting the community of God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Levy a tribute to Yahweh of the men of war who went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of giving a portion of the spoils of war to Yahweh was taught by Abraham's example (<em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>). I suggested on :21 that they had been expected to follow the principles they already knew, without being given specific laws for every situation. Perhaps they likewise should have worked this out from Abraham's pattern of tithing the spoils of war. But they didn't make the connection, and so had to be given this specific legal command. See on :48.&nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Israel’s half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, of all the livestock, and give them to the Levites, who perform the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Duty" is a military term, implying warfare. They were therefore to be given the spoils of war, as their regimented, disciplined devotion to serving God was to be seen as a kind of military service. Just as we too fight the good fight of faith (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the prey over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The numbers given here are huge. We must remember that the term "thousand" doesn't have to mean 1,000 as a number, but can refer to a group or subdivision of some sort.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>seventy-two thousand head of cattle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Oxen". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>sixty-one thousand donkeys- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We can summarize the distribution:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>675000 Sheep: 337500 to the soldiers, 337500 to the congregation; 675 to God, 6750 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>72000 Oxen; 36000 to the soldiers, 36000 to the congregation; 72 to God, 720 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>61000 Donkeys; 30500 to the soldiers, 30500 to the congregation; 61 to God, 610 to the Levites</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>32000 People (virgin women and young girls); 16000 to the soldiers, 16000 to the congregation; 32 to God, 320 to the Levites.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of the women who had not known man by lying with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would indicate a huge number of the Midianites in total. To have slain say 100,000 men without a single casualty (:49) was the kind of miracle possible only in God's strength. But I have noted that "thousand" and "hundred" may be technical terms for groups or subdivisions rather than literal numbers. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The half, which was the portion of those who went out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The apparently pointless repetition of the figures was perhaps to show that indeed, not one person nor animal went missing, but the division of the prey was made precisely as commanded. For at times like these, things do tend to 'go missing'. But there was absolute integrity at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Yahweh’s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and seventy-five- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder whether this tribute given "to Yahweh" was the number of animals sacrificed to Him, or whether they too were given to the Levites.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which Yahweh’s tribute was seventy-two- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder if the Lord had this in mind when sending out the otherwise strange number of 72 apostles. They were "Yahweh's", dedicated to Him, to serve as oxen in His service.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred, of which Yahweh’s tribute was sixty-one-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The donkey was an unclean animal, and yet God was still able to find a use for 61 unclean donkeys. We all have some way of being useful for Him whatever our status. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The persons were sixteen thousand, of whom Yahweh’s tribute was thirty-two persons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>32 to God, 320 to the Levites makes 352 Midianite females devoted to God. This is the numerical value of the word "Hebrew". These women were to become true Hebrews, again indicating that racial purity was never significant to God in defining His people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses gave the tribute which was Yahweh’s wave offering to Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again the obedience of Moses to God is continually emphasized, and he thereby became a type of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 3:2-5'>Heb 3:2-5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Israel’s half, which Moses divided off from the men who warred- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sharing the results of our own labour has never been popular, it's why people don't like paying taxes. The ideal principle was as in <em><a href='B:90 30:21-25'>1Sa 30:21-25</a></em>, that those who fought should have the same part as those who didn't. But in this case there was a large concession to human weakness; for the division was not proportionate per head of population. There were far more people in Israel than the 12,000 soldiers who fought, and per head, they each received far more than the other Israelites.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(now the congregation’s half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We enquire how exactly such a huge number of animals was divided amongst them. If proportionately, then each family would likely have received a few sheep. So they each individually felt and saw the blessing of the victory God had given.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty-six thousand head of cattle- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Or, oxen. The only time we read the figure 36,000 again is in the number of soldiers in Issachar in <em><a href='B:130 7:4'>1Ch 7:4</a></em>. But Issachar was a strong ox (<em><a href='B:10 49:14'>Gen 49:14</a></em> LXX). I see no great semantic moment in this connection. But as with many such connections which appear to have no great interpretive significance, we sense here the same Divine mind throughout all Scriptural revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and thirty thousand five hundred donkeys- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This huge number of donkeys implied they would be doing a lot of travelling and transporting. And indeed this was the intention- for they were about to enter Canaan and go to their specific inheritances. Although many of the people didn't do so, and were satisfied just with a bit of fertile land wherever they found it, this was the Divine intention which He empowered potentially to be fulfilled. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and sixteen thousand persons)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why the term "persons", literally <em>nephesh adam</em>, is used rather than "virgin females" or something similar. I suggest it is in order to remind the Israelites that these females were persons and should be valued as such; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>even of the children of Israel’s half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of animal, and gave them to the Levites, who performed the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh; as Yahweh commanded Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The duty" is "the warfare". They were therefore to be given the spoils of war, as their regimented, disciplined devotion to serving God was to be seen as a kind of military service. Just as we too fight the good fight of faith (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:18'>1Ti 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands, and the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had been commanded by God to give part of the spoils of war in terms of the women and animals captured. The idea of giving a portion of the spoils of war to Yahweh was taught by Abraham's example (<em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>). I suggested on :21 that they had been expected to follow the principles they already knew, without being given specific laws for every situation. Perhaps they likewise should have worked this out from Abraham's pattern of tithing the spoils of war. But they didn't make the connection, and so had to be given this specific legal command to share out the people and animals. But now they get the point, and of their own initiative come to Moses and offer the rest of the spoils of war, apart from the people and animals. The law of God is not a chain, a leash, for man is not a dog ever seeking freedom from the Divinely imposed ties that bind. Rather is His law a springboard to the freedom of serving God upon our own initiative. And here we have a rare example of where men 'got it' and did just that. See on :53. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they said to Moses, Your servants have taken the sum of the men of war who are under our command, and there lacks not one man of us-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s usual for military men to consider themselves as an elite in their own right. But these leading military leaders considered themselves as nothing but servants to their spiritual leader. Humility in leadership is vital amongst God’s people. That such vast numbers had been slain without a single Israelite casualty was clear evidence that this very large scale victory was of God. The victory was to encourage them that they could likewise conquer Canaan in God's strength.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>We have brought Yahweh’s offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and necklaces-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Even in times of spiritual victory, we are to never lose sight of our basic sinfulness and need for atonement with God. The situation is similar to that at the exodus, when the wealth of Egypt was taken by the Israelites and then given back to God for the construction of the tabernacle. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To make atonement for our souls before Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They are clearly aware of their serious failure in taking the Midianite women, which had resulted in their being stricken down in some way (see on :19,24). But we wonder whether they had made the mistake which many make- thinking that material wealth and donating it can somehow atone fore sins. When it was the shedding of blood, and faith in the Lord's future sacrifice foreshadowed in it, which alone is the basis for atonement (<em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest took their gold, even all the worked jewels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :50 that this donation of wealth was given under the misunderstanding that gold could atone for sin; when it was faith in God's grace and His purification which was required. But despite that misunderstanding, God still accepted their offering. As He accepts all those who truly love Him, despite their misunderstandings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the gold of the wave offering that they offered up to Yahweh, of the captains of thousands and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was a significant amount, likely around 200 kg. of gold and jewels (:51). They were so deeply moved by the principle of giving to Yahweh they had just been taught, that they now of their freewill offered this to Him. See on :48. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>(The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself)-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :48 that the way they now offer that booty to God was an act of repentance, realizing that indeed all they had taken "every man for himself" should not have been taken "for himself". Rather it was to be shared back to God as the giver of all. And they came to this position on their own initiative. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds and brought it into the Tent of Meeting, for a memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Likewise the bronze from the censers of the rebels were made a memorial for Israel "before Yahweh" by being made into plates around the altar. So we can assume that something was made from this gold and it remained in the tabernacle. </p>


text:
<em>Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock. When they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead that behold, the place was a place for livestock-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record sounds as if it were only these tribes; it is Reuben and Gad who make the agreement to not return to the land East of Jordan until the other tribes are settled (:25). But the bad attitude spread to Manasseh, according to Joshua 22; at this time, only three individuals from Manasseh were given an inheritance East of Jordan (32:40-42). But this spread to half the tribe wanting such an inheritance there. A theme of this chapter is how bad attitudes spread so easily.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> etc.) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<em><a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a></em>). As Eve saw the fruit and fell for it, so the people of Reuben and Gad saw the land East of Jordan and imagined how good it would be to have it, despite having been given 'all the land' West of Jordan to enjoy (cp. Adam and Eve's dominion in Eden) (<em><a href='B:40 32:1-2'>Num 32:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:7'>Num 32:7</a></em>). In all these allusions (and they exist in almost every chapter of the Bible) we are being shown how human sin is a repetition in essence of that of our first parents. The insistent emphasis is that we should rise above and <em>not</em> be like them. And yet this call for personal effort and struggle with ourselves in order to overcome sin is muted and misplaced by all the stress upon a supposed Devil tempting Eve, pushing the blame onto him, and thereby de-emphasizing our role in overcoming sin within ourselves. And so we see so many loud-mouthed condemners of the Devil totally not 'getting it' about the need for personal self-control and spiritual mindedness in daily life and private character. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A very great multitude of livestock</em>- Remember that wealth in those days was not measured by bank accounts but by animals. They had worked hard for this because many animals would have died at some points in the wilderness journey- see on <em><a href='B:40 21:4'>Num 21:4</a></em>. Their temptation to seek the Kingdom now arose from being wealthy; they saw a good place for their animals and they wanted the Kingdom right away. The Lord in the wilderness faced the same essential temptation- to take the Kingdom now. This was what first century Israel wanted, and it led them to reject their Messiah. And it's what we all would like. To have our nice homes and villas now, rather than bear the cross before the eternal crown.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<em>The children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spoke to Moses and to Eleazar the priest and to the princes of the congregation, saying- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Gad are repeatedly mentioned as leading this request. And it seems <em><a href='B:50 33:21'>Deu 33:21</a></em> LXX comments upon this in Moses' blessing of Gad: "And he saw his first-fruits, that there the land of the princes gathered with the chiefs of the people was divided; the Lord wrought righteousness, and his judgment with Israel". The reference may be to how Gad was apparently the leader of the "heads of the people" of Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh who wanted to take their inheritance east of Jordan (<em><a href='B:40 32:2'>Num 32:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:6'>Num 32:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:25'>Num 32:25</a></em>). The idea therefore was that they were told by Moses to see the inheritance they were allowed east of Jordan as merely a firstfruit of greater inheritance. Just as we are invited to receive&nbsp; firstfruit of inheritance of the Kingdom through the gift and experience of the Holy Spirit. But as with so many today, the first fruit was treated as the full experience, with no spiritual ambition to inherit more. "He executed the righteousness of Yahweh, His ordinances with Israel" would then be a very positive take on how the men of Gad apparently obeyed the agreement to go over Jordan and help their brethren inherit the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<em>Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Sebam, and Nebo, and Beon-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>These place names occur in the later Old Testament, but always with reference to the fact that Gentiles lived there. So Reuben and Gad’s short term desire for inheritance didn’t last for long; subsequent generations lost those lands. Although they changed the names of these cities (:38), their original names evidently stayed with them because the Gentiles re-took them from Reuben and Gad.</p>


text:
<em>the land which Yahweh struck before the congregation of Israel, is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We have just read in Numbers 31 of the huge amount of livestock they had received after the amazing victory over the Midianites. The records corroborate so perfectly, as we would expect from their having one ultimate Divine author.</p>


text:
<em>They said, If we have found favour in your sight, let this land be given to your servants for a possession. Don’t bring us over the Jordan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>They said this to Moses, who so dearly wished to enter the land but wasn’t able to. The paradox is obvious and intentional; Moses could easily have answered their request with reference to it, but he omits all personal reference, in his selfless way; and focuses instead on the impact their choice would have on God’s people as a whole. For their salvation and not his own was uppermost in his mind.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were intended to themselves go over Jordan into the promised land of Canaan. But they speak as if they are being brought over by Moses, as if against their will, or at best, as a result of their submission to a will more powerful than their own. This is not how we should see our journey to the Kingdom. We ourselves should want to enter the land. This could be read as meaning that they despised the land promised. Although comparing the various definitions of that land, it is so that the territory was open to re-definition according to Israel's strengths and weaknesses. The final crossing over Jordan as recorded in Joshua 4 is however clearly typical of our final entry into the Kingdom, and to opt out of it can be therefore read quite negatively. 'Crossing over Jordan to enter Canaan' is seen in the Bible as the point of entering the land of Canaan, which had effectively become the promised land for Israel (e.g. <em><a href='B:40 33:51'>Num 33:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:10'>Num 35:10</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em> "I shall pass over Jordan into the land the Lord gives us"). Not going over Jordan was the punishment given to Moses in excluding him from the land (<em><a href='B:50 3:27'>Deu 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>). To not wish to do so was therefore voting themselves out of the land of Canaan. But the Eastern bank of Jordan was within the land promised to Abraham. So I would conclude that they were using a Biblical argument to justify their desire for an immediate Kingdom, and this is just how the flesh justifies our weaknesses.</p>


text:
<em>Moses said to the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brothers go to the war, and shall you sit here?- You sit here</em>- The contrast is between 'sitting', being passive and sedentary, and 'possessing' Canaan (:5)- the Hebrew meaning to seize. We are to seize the Kingdom, not passively; we are to by all means lay hold upon it (<em>Php_3:12</em>), taking the Kingdom as storm troopers (<em><a href='B:470 11:12'>Mat 11:12</a></em>). They wanted the easier way- dwelling in an area which was apparently offering less opposition than the land West of Jordan. We likewise can take the easy way to the Kingdom (or so it seems), taking the path there which appears the way of least resistance, convenience and passivity.&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<em>Why do you discourage the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which Yahweh has given them?-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Our attitude to the Kingdom has far greater influence on others' hearts / thinking than we realize. The Hebrew is usually translated "disallow" or once "break" (<em><a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a></em>); attitude is hereby described in proactive terms. We can break others' hearts without saying a word to them- by our attitude. And the final equilibrium of God's judgment will take this into account. It's not so much what laws we broke, but the effect we had upon others which is to be so significant in that day. Our attitudes to possessing the Kingdom affect others; if we don’t want to go over ourselves, we will discourage others. The power of example is far greater than we realize. Jesus may have referred to this incident when He condemned the Pharisees for not entering the Kingdom of God themselves and not sending forth others on their way there either (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em> Gk.).</p>


text:
<em>Your fathers did so when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Gaddites and Reubenites didn't say a word to the others, didn't at all in so many words discourage them from entering the land. But in essence, their attitude was as bad as what their fathers did in stating that the land was too hard to possess. It could be that Moses' perceived that really, they were fearful of the opposition in the land, just as their fathers had been. And again we can infer that the land East of Jordan was perceived as not giving any insurmountable opposition to them.</p>


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


text:
<em>Yahweh’s anger was kindled in that day, and He swore, saying- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>If God's wrath burns hot against people, it means death for them (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 22:24'>Exo 22:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:33'>Num 11:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:3'>Num 25:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>). But Moses averted this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 32:10'>Exo 32:10</a></em> by his intercession. He likewise averted it to some extent in that God's intention was to destroy all Israel immediately, but instead Moses' intercession changed the outworking of God's kindled wrath- for Israel continued, the unbelievers over 20 died in the desert, but the younger ones survived to enter Canaan. We see here how open God is to the mediation of third parties, and how open ended therefore is His purpose. </p>


text:
<em>‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me -</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Caleb' can mean 'dog', and so this is appropriate. Joshua and Caleb were characterized by the comment that they “wholly followed the Lord” when they went to spy out Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:11-12'>Num 32:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:8-9'>Jos 14:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a></em>), and urged Israel to go up and inherit it. This refers to the way that the Angel had gone ahead of them, and they faithfully followed where the Angel had gone, and believed that Israel could follow that Angel wherever it led. When Israel finally did go into the land, they were told that Joshua would ‘go before’ them, and they were to follow him and thereby inherit the land (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>). From this we see that circumstances repeat in our lives. As Joshua had been told to be strong good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<em><a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a></em>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<em><a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a></em> cp. 23:6). </p>


text:
<em>except Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, because they have followed Yahweh completely’-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was a Gentile (<em><a href='B:60 15:17'>Jos 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 36:11'>Gen 36:11</a></em>); and yet in <em><a href='B:40 13:6'>Num 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 34:19'>Num 34:19</a></em> his descendants are incorporated into the tribe of Judah. Likewise Samuel, an Ephraimite (<em><a href='B:90 1:1'>1Sa 1:1</a></em>), was counted as a Levite (<em><a href='B:130 6:16-28'>1Ch 6:16-28</a></em>). Indeed it would appear that 'genealogies' in the Bible very often reflect themes of associations rather than being literal accounts of blood descent. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<em><a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a></em>). But "Kenizzite" (also <em><a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a></em>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <em><a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a></em>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<em><a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a></em> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<em><a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a></em>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<em>Yahweh’s anger was kindled against Israel, and He made them wander back and forth in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, who had done evil in the sight of Yahweh, was consumed-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>That generation disbelieved that they could enter the land. They didn't 'do' any evil but their mental attitudes, their heart, was counted as doing evil. This continues the theme noted on :7 and :8; mental attitudes are counted as actions.</p>


text:
<em>Behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, an increase of sinful men- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :7,8,13,15 and elsewhere, a theme of this incident is that mental attitudes are counted as proactively sinful behaviour. They were an "increase" or descendants of the sinful men mentioned in :8, their 'fathers' who had likewise not wanted to enter the land. Again their motives are being revealed as identical to that of their fathers- fear of opposition, and preferring to sacrifice the Kingdom for the sake of non-action. The particular "fathers" (:8) and "sinful men" in view would have been the princes of Reuben and Gad who had reported that the land was unable to be possessed: Shammua son of Zaccur (of Reuben) and Geuel son of Machi (of Gad) (<em><a href='B:40 13:4'>Num 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 13:15'>Num 13:15</a></em>). The sin of those two men appears the worse when we see it twice mentioned here that their attitude had influenced a whole generation of their tribal descendants. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To augment yet the fierce anger of Yahweh</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God's anger had been kindled 38 years ago over this matter of not having faith to enter the Kingdom He had prepared. By not learning the lesson of our fathers' failures, and repeating in essence their sin, we provoke that anger yet more. Failure to learn from history is therefore highly significant before God; and this is where the historical record which is the Bible becomes of such supreme importance. There are degrees of sin. Paul seems to reason that sexual sin involving the body of God’s creation is especially culpable. And here <em><a href='B:40 32:14'>Num 32:14</a></em> speaks of ‘augmenting yet the fierce anger of the Lord’ by premeditated sin, as&nbsp; if there is a scale of offence to God.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<em>For if you turn away from after Him</em>-They would have argued that all they were doing was asking for what seemed a logical, practical concession. But because of the attitudes underlying it, they are spoken of as having actually done the most awful things in practice. See on :14. Turning away from behind God is the language of :11- not wholly following God into the promised land. He is leading us into His Kingdom- it is wilful pulling out of that program which will provoke His anger. And if we remain within the path lead by Him, we shall surely get there. He is not passive. He has not merely enabled a future Kingdom and remained willing to give it to whoever makes the journey. He is leading us there, going before us, dragging us there... <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will yet again leave them in the wilderness</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet God had earlier implied that after that previous generation had died, then the next generation, their children, would enter the land. He had apparently limited the time that Israel would remain in the wilderness- to 40 years (<em><a href='B:40 14:33-34'>Num 14:33-34</a></em>). But here we see that once again, God's purpose is conditional and can change; even if there are no hints of the conditions at earlier points. The forty year time period had the possibility of becoming longer. This reflects God's sensitivity to human behaviour. We who pray so half-heartedly for victory against temptation, who so easily assume that God will understand that we can't fully change... need to realize that extreme sensitivity which He has to our choices and thoughts. Let's get it clear: the whole people of Israel would have been left in the wilderness and not allowed to enter the land, if Gad and Reuben refused to cross the Jordan river (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). But this would have broken the Divine promise of <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> that all those under 20 would enter the land. Even that promise, therefore, had unstated conditions attached to it. And yet God had yet another option- if they refused to go over Jordan, then they would forfeit their land and receive a different inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 32:30'>Num 32:30</a></em>). The complexities of these conditions are of course beyond us, because we are seeing only a part of the working of God’s infinite mind. The point is, there are conditions attached to God’s promises which aren’t always made apparent to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Yet again" may refer to God's temporary desire to leave Israel in the wilderness and make of Moses a new nation, at the time of the golden calf apostasy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you will destroy all this people</em>- </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may sound extreme language, but this is the theme of the chapter: internal attitudes have huge affect upon others. We must again remember that the area they wished to possess was still part of the land promised to Abraham, although not strictly part of the land of Canaan which God wished to take His people to. They had a quasi-Biblical justification for their attitude. At first sight this may appear unreasonable- that the whole community would be punished for the sake of the sin and short-termist thinking of two tribes. But the eternal wellbeing of others is in our hands in that our example can discourage others from entering the Kingdom, and God may not compensate for our causing them to stumble.</p>


text:
<em>They came near to him, and said, We will build sheepfolds here for our livestock, and cities for our little ones-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We shouldn't seek isolation from our brothers and sisters; we should seek to be with them and interact with them. Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh didn't want to go over Jordan and be with their brethren; they chose the good pasturelands East of Jordan to live in because it was good cattle country. But in later Scripture, every reference to the towns they settled in records those towns (Dibon, Ataroth, Heshbon etc.) as being in Gentile hands (<em><a href='B:40 32:33-38'>Num 32:33-38</a></em>); and it would seem from the 1 Chronicles 5 genealogies that they went off into Assyria and assimilated into the tribes there. By choosing separation from God's people, they drifted off with the world. See on :24.</p>


text:
<em>but we ourselves will be ready armed to go before the children of Israel, until we have brought them to their place, and our little ones shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>This contrasts favourably with their attitude that <em>they</em> were being <em>brought</em> to Canaan (:5). It could be argued from the positive attitude of the Gaddites and Reubenites (and the way in which things were resolved in Joshua 22) that actually they were brought around to a more spiritual attitude by Moses' challenge. Such spiritual success and response to challenge is rare, but perhaps at least that generation did positively respond. But their misjudgment still had a terrible effect upon future generations, because it's clear that the Israelite population soon effectively died out of the areas they were so keen to inherit.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They thought that their human strength would give Israel their inheritance, whereas God had promised that <em>He</em> and not they (“<em>we</em>”) would give the inheritance. Moses therefore corrects them by saying that <em>God</em> will drive out “His enemies from before Him” (:21). It was exactly because they failed to believe that <em>God</em> would do this that they preferred to stay the other side of Jordan and not enter Canaan; and they wished to share that attitude with others.</p>


text:
<em>We will not return to our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "houses" probably refer to their families. We too cannot enjoy our own "house" if we have paid no attention to the inheritance of others in God's Kingdom. Yet all too often, family is elevated to a status which means that the needs and inheritance of others is ignored. </p>


text:
<em>For we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan, and forward, because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastward-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was how they wanted it, but God confirmed it. We to some extent can choose out our eternal inheritance, and yet in another sense God chooses it for us. This is the playful yet constructive tension which there is between freewill and predestination. </p>


text:
<em>Moses said to them, If you will do this thing, if you will arm yourselves to go before Yahweh to the war,-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had told the Reubenites and Gadites that they could return to their possessions when “the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, and they also possess the land” (<em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em>). But Joshua tells them to go to their possessions simply because their brethren were now at “rest” (<em><a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a></em>). He significantly omits the proviso that their brethren must also possess the land- because much of the land wasn’t possessed. Was this Joshua getting slack, thinking that the main thing was that people were living in peace, even though they weren’t possessing the Kingdom? Or is it a loving concession to human weakness? Indeed, the conditions of <em><a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a></em> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <em><a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses stresses four times (:20,21,27,29) that they should go over armed "before the Lord". The Hebrew translated "before" doesn't have to mean 'in front of', because :11 and :15 (see notes there) have spoken of the need to <em>follow</em> Yahweh into Canaan. The idea is rather of 'before the face of', i.e. 'in the presence of' (this is how it is used in :22 "a possession before Yahweh"). God was going to drive out His enemies from before Him, i.e. from His presence (:21), and if Israel were in God's presence, this meant that the tribes would be driven out from before them. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<em>and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before Yahweh, until He has driven out His enemies from before Him,-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew means 'prepared' rather than referring to men literally carrying military equipment. The tension is between them being armed / prepared, and then the later part of the verse which states that <em>God</em> would do the driving out of the Canaanite tribes. But what was required was a preparedness and willingness to be used in whatever capacity.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But not "every armed man of you" passed over. The offer they made was fulfilled but far from all their men went with the rest of Israel. The census of Numbers 26 shows that the tribe of Reuben had 43,730 men of military age; Gad, 40,500; Manasseh, 52,700; the half of whichis 26,350, making 110,580. But only 40,000 went with the Israelites (<em><a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a></em>), and the land was never fully subjugated, so they were released to return by grace alone.</p>


text:
<em>and the land is subdued before Yahweh; then afterward you shall return, and be guiltless towards Yahweh, and towards Israel; and this land shall be to you for a possession before Yahweh-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words are found in <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>, where the land / earth was to be "subdued" before man. It's as if it was God's intention to re-establish Eden in Israel; indeed, a case can be made that Eden <em>was</em> the geographical land promised to Abraham, or Canaan, although the flood changed the location of the rivers mentioned in early GenesIsa. The later casting of sinful Israel out of the land is likewise replete with reference to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. Joshua 22 says that the deal was kept, and the men from these tribes were allowed to return. And yet the land was hardly subdued; "I will give you rest", the Angel had said (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:14'>Exo 33:14</a></em>). But they did not enter that rest- <em><a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>. "Rest" was defined as the land being subdued before God with all the tribes driven out (<em><a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 22:18'>1Ch 22:18</a></em>). This being conditional on Israel's faithfulness, we conclude that when the Angel said "I will give thee rest" He was speaking of what was possible in prospect; or perhaps He over-estimated Israel's obedience, or was unaware of the degree to which their entering the rest was conditional on their obedience. Or perhaps simply by grace, the land was counted as being subdued and at rest when it was not.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Adam and Eve failed to "subdue" the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Israel failed to fully "subdue" (s.w.) the tribes of the land (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>). They subdued a few local to them; but they never really rose up to the reality of being able to have the whole land area promised to Abraham subjected to them. And so Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promised a curse to come upon the land (of Eden / Israel) for their failure within it, just as happened to Adam and Eve; and of course ultimately they were driven out of the land just as Israel's very first parents had been. As the <em>eretz</em> / earth / land was initially "without form and void", so the same term is used of the land of Israel after the people had been driven out of it (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>). As thorns and thistles came up in the land (and those plants are unknown in some parts of the planet), so they did again when Israel were driven from their land (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>). As Adam was punished by returning to dust, so Israel would be destroyed by dust (<em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against Yahweh; and be sure your sin will find you out-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sense is more that you will know / find your sin. The LXX has "ye shall know your sin, when afflictions shall come upon you". We can willfully make ourselves ignorant of sin; but in suffering for it, we come to realize it. Therefore, Moses is saying, there's no point in pretending we don't see a problem with our behaviour. We will know it, when we suffer for it. We shall not be left ignorant of our sin, and so we shouldn't allow our own deceitful flesh to kid us that we are ignorant of it. Adam likewise confessed his sin as a result of God's questioning (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). Realization of sin will finally be elicited (<em><a href='B:330 6:9'>Eze 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, <em>then </em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins. <em>Then</em> the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected (how else to understand <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>?). Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them...they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God's grace. <em><a href='B:40 32:23'>Num 32:23</a></em> prophesied of Israel in their time of condemnation: "You will be sensible of your sin when evil overtakes you" (LXX). </p>


text:
<em>Build cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep; and do that which has proceeded out of your mouth- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>And notice how Gad asked for permission to build dwellings East of Jordan "for our cattle and for our children / little ones", but God gave them permission to build such dwellings "for your little ones and for your cattle" (<em><a href='B:40 32:16'>Num 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:24'>Num 32:24</a></em>). Gad and co. put cattle before kids; God put kids before cattle. And how many times have we seen this come true- those who move away from fellowship with their brethren drift off to the world, they put cattle before kids, materialism before raising a Godly seed... And of course we can go far from our brethren in many ways other than geographically moving away from them; there can be a distance within us from them which is just the same. And time and again one sees the same nexus of thought playing itself out- people put their cattle, their materialism, before their children. And God wants it the other way around. Working mothers, late working fathers, kids in day care from babyhood- all so the family can live here and not there, have this car rather than that one, holiday here rather than stay at home, have the latest toys and gadgets... all, of course, in the name of 'for the sake of the kids'; when it's actually cattle before kids. Interestingly, the names of the towns which Reuben and Gad built, the territory they so desired, only occur in later Scripture in the context of their being part of Gentile territories (<em><a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:2'>Jer 48:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:45'>Jer 48:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a></em>). So they never ultimately kept hold of that for which they sacrificed the promised inheritance of Canaan. God in His total love and grace was willing to go along with their weakness- He compromised, as it were, by saying they could have that coveted territory if they helped their brethren totally inherit their possessions West of Jordan. Ultimately this never happened, as not all the Canaanite territory was possessed; yet still God allowed Reuben and Gad to have their part of the deal which they never fully kept. And there's great grace in the way that <em><a href='B:50 3:19'>Deu 3:19</a></em> records God saying to them at this time: "I know that you have much cattle". God knew their weakness. He knew they'd never even seen the wonders of the promised land, which was far more fertile than the land East of Jordan. But He went along with them, so much did He thirst for relationship with them. And so it is with our cattle-before-kids materialism. God may not cast us off because of it in itself. His grace and love is too strong for that. But by permitting us the compromise, we find ourselves in a far harder situation and a path which long term won't lead to permanent inheritance of the promised land, just as it didn't for Reuben and Gad. See on :16.<em></em></p>


text:
<em>The children of Gad and the children of Reuben spoke to Moses, saying, Your servants will do as my lord commands-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>But as explained on :27, they didn't. And yet God kept His side of the agreement, and didn't punish them directly for their disobedience.</p>


text:
<em>Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our livestock, shall be there in the cities of Gilead- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 31:9'>Num 31:9</a></em> uses this same phrase "flocks and livestock" for the vast numbers of such animals captured from the Midianites. This material blessing of God was not responded to wisely by the two and a half tribes. They became obsessed with planning how they could keep and maintain for themselves all that huge blessing. Rather than perceiving that this was God's unexpected gift of grace, and they had received it despite the majority of them not having laboured for it. And so it often happens with God's material blessing; the recipient becomes obsessed with madly preserving it, even if as with the two and a half tribes, they make decisions to effect this which are spiritually damaging to them in the long term. One wonders why God ever grants material blessing to His children when He clearly knows that it usually leads to their spiritual declension. We can only conclude that He does so because He simply loves us as a doting Father.<em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p>


text:
<em>but your servants will pass over, every man who is armed for war, before Yahweh to battle, as my lord says- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>But not "every armed man of you" passed over. The offer they made was fulfilled but far from all their men went with the rest of Israel. The census of Numbers 26 shows that the tribe of Reuben had 43,730 men of military age; Gad, 40,500; Manasseh, 52,700; the half of whichis 26,350, making 110,580. But only 40,000 went with the Israelites (<em><a href='B:60 4:13'>Jos 4:13</a></em>), and the land was never fully subjugated, so they were released to return by grace alone.</p>


text:
<em>So Moses commanded concerning them to Eleazar the priest, and to Joshua the son of Nun, and to the heads of the fathers’ households of the tribes of the children of Israel- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was aware that he would not be alive once Israel were in Canaan. Instead of getting bitter about this, in characteristic humility he accepts it. He asks them to ensure that indeed "every man who is armed" from these tribes would pass over Jordan (:29), but in reality this never happened; see on :27. The record breathes God's grace at every point. <em></em></p>


text:
<em>Moses said to them, If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass with you over the Jordan, every man who is armed to battle, before Yahweh, and the land shall be subdued before you; then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command to subject the animals in Eden (the land promised to Abraham?) corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<em>but if they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The location and nature of their possession in the Kingdom depended upon them and their choices. And the same is true with us. This is an insight into the tremendous significance of life, our attitudes and decision making. We are affecting how we shall eternally be, the nature of our eternity and inheritance.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole people of Israel would have been left in the wilderness and now allowed to enter the land, if Gad and Reuben refused to cross the Jordan river (<em><a href='B:40 32:15'>Num 32:15</a></em>). But this would have broken the Divine promise of <em><a href='B:40 14:31'>Num 14:31</a></em> that all those under 20 would enter the land. Even that promise, therefore, had unstated conditions attached to it. And yet God had yet another option- if they refused to go over Jordan, then they would forfeit their land and receive a different inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 32:30'>Num 32:30</a></em>). The complexities of these conditions are of course beyond us, because we are seeing only a part of the working of God’s infinite mind. The point is, there are conditions attached to God’s promises which aren’t always made apparent to us. </p>


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


text:
<em>We will pass over armed before Yahweh into the land of Canaan, and the possession of our inheritance shall remain with us beyond the Jordan-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is (see AV) 'so that the possession...'. Our receipt of the inheritance is related to others receiving their inheritance; just as in Paul's shipwreck, all had to remain in the ship if all were to be saved. This apparently strange condition of salvation is surely to emphasize that whilst salvation is in one sense individual, it is in another sense collective. And that collective dimension to it cannot be simply ignored.</p>


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


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


text:
<em>and Atrothshophan, and Jazer, and Jogbehah- </em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is often not appreciated that the extent of the area given to the two and a half tribes on the east of Jordan, as defined in <em><a href='B:60 13:10-12'>Jos 13:10-12</a></em>, was roughly the same as the entire territory given to the nine and a half tribes on the west of Jordan. The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants (see on <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>)- which they probably didn't realize at the time.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<em>and Beth Nimrah, and Beth Haran: fortified cities, and folds for sheep-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>Beth Haran means 'house of the high places' and clearly has reference to idolatrous high places. Beth Nimrah, house of the leopard, likely has similar reference; for "house" probably referred to an idol shrine. But although the Israelites changed some names, e.g. in :42, they often left the names connected with idolatry. They at best allowed the subliminal associations with idolatry to remain, and likely in practice they used these idol shrines. See on :38.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


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


text:
<em>and Nebo, and Baal Meon, (their names being changed), and Sibmah; and they gave other names to the cities which they built-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <em><a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a></em>, by the time of <em><a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a></em> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nebo and Baal were the names of Canaanite gods, and Yahweh forbad His people to even mention their names (<em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 2:17'>Hos 2:17</a></em>). The principle for us is that we shouldn’t surround ourselves with things which even suggest or stimulate the idea of being anything other than totally dedicated to the one true God, or which may trigger the idea of idolatry. </p>


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


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


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


text:
<em>Nobah went and took Kenath, and its villages, and called it Nobah, after his own name-</em><em></em><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Nobah changed the name of this town- although "Kenath" simply means "possession". This thereby throws into a worse light the way that the Israelites often didn't change the names of areas which had associations with idols, even though changing the names was within their power. See on :36,38. We ought to do all within our power to remove even subliminal reminders of sin and temptation. And that principle has a huge practical moment in our lives in this world. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the journeys of the children of Israel, when they went forth out of the land of Egypt by their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel moved only 33 times in the first 39 years of wandering, meaning that they stayed on average for over a year in each of their resting places. Yet in the fortieth, final year, Israel moved nine times- and at least eight of those moves were in the last seven months of the fortieth year (:38). The tempo of God's activity increases towards the end of our lives and in the final entry period into God's Kingdom during the tribulation. The temp is also strong at the start of our journey- the first nine stops on the journey were relatively soon after leaving Egypt, within the first year. </p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled from Rameses, and encamped in Succoth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The distance was about 120 miles. It would appear there was no stopping place. The longest segment of their journey was immediately after they left Egypt and had started upon the salvation journey. It's tempting to imagine that Rameses was the city which they were employed building by slave labour, and it was named after the Pharaoh called Rameses. But Egyptology and Egyptian chronology is hopelessly confused. But we note the similarity between "Rameses" and "Meses", the Egyptian name for Moses. And thus we perceive how the two men were set up in antithesis to each other- Moses / Meses, the one drawn out by Yahweh, and Ra-Meses, the man drawn out to Ra, the Egyptian sun god.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that Etham is a form of Khetam, fortress, which was part of the great wall of Egypt. In this case, there was another deliverance or miracle involved in that the people were allowed through it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Etham, and turned back to Pihahiroth, which is before Baal Zephon: and they encamped before Migdol-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "turning back" is typical of how our path towards the Kingdom makes no sense in secular terms. There are points at which we turn back upon ourselves, and wonder why we weren't led more directly to the destination. We shall never be able to fully attach meaning to event in this life, and only in the Kingdom will we realize how there could have been no other way.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Marah, and came to Elim. In Elim were twelve springs of water, and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were twelve wells- one for each of the tribes. The lesson was that God had foreseen Israel's need for water long ago, and arranged those wells for them. As for us in our wilderness journeys. Yet 70 is the number of the Gentile nations in Genesis 10. They were being shown that God's intention was to combine Israelites and Gentiles within a new multiethnic people of God. Perhaps this arrangement of 12 springs and 70 palms was to help Israel to better incorporate the "mixed multitude" amongst them, as being equally God's people. Hence "Elim" implies "holy trees", or "trees of God", as if to remind Israel that He accepted the mixed multitude of Gentiles as equally His redeemed people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Elim, and encamped by the Red Sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This stop next to the Red Sea was perhaps to help them reflect further upon the wonder of their deliverance through that sea. And God arranges our wanderings likewise.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dophkah means to knock, beat or hit hard. Clearly enough a message that the school of hard knocks is required to lead us to the Kingdom. Through much tribulation we shall enter the kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>). <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Alush, and encamped in Rephidim, where there was no water for the people to drink- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The events of Exodus 17 are the basis for Psalms 95. This is largely a Psalm of praise for what God did for Israel in the wilderness, whilst also commenting on the way they tragically put God to the test, and complained about His care for them. Now the words of <em><a href='B:230 95:7-11'>Psa 95:7-11</a></em> are directly quoted in <em><a href='B:650 3:7-11'>Heb 3:7-11</a></em> concerning the experience of the new Israel. The simple conclusion from this is that we are really intended to see the events of Exodus 17 as directly relevant for us.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped in Kibroth Hattaavah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>No mention is made of the giving of the law and entry into covenant with Yahweh. We could conclude that this itinerary actually focuses upon their weaknesses, building up the impression that this is an account of God's patience and grace which had led them all the way to the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kibroth Hattaavah, and encamped in Hazeroth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The graves of lust". It is a theme of the Bible that in essence, God gives men their own desires, just as the prodigal son was given what he wrongfully demanded. Here, Israel lusted (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 78:29'>Psa 78:29</a></em>) and God gave them what they lusted after. Those who lusted for meat were given it; yet “they were not estranged from their lust” (<em><a href='B:230 78:30'>Psa 78:30</a></em> AV). Sin never satisfies. Giving in to temptation will not lead to the craving being permanently resolved. This is to point up the huge importance of our innermost desires, our heart, our dominant passions- being upon the things of God and His Kingdom. David could say that all his desire was for the things of God (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 38:9'>Psa 38:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:8'>Isa 26:8</a></em>). More than anything else we should desire to please Him and be in His Kingdom. And all who thus love the Lord's appearing will be eternally with Him (<em><a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hazeroth, and encamped in Rithmah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 33:18'>Num 33:18</a></em> says that "They departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah", whilst <em><a href='B:40 12:16'>Num 12:16</a></em> has "the people travelled from Hazeroth, and encamped in the wilderness of Paran". Rithmah was in the wilderness of Paran, which covered a large area. The intellectual desperation of Bible critics in raising this kind of supposed "contradiction" speaks more about them than anything else. Such intellectual desperation is symptomatic of a struggling, uneasy conscience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rithmah, and encamped in Rimmon Perez- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rithmah is identified by some with Kadesh Barnea, to where the spies returned with their evil report of the land. "Rithmah" means "juniper", a symbol of bitterness and hard words (<em><a href='B:220 30:4'>Job 30:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 120:4'>Psa 120:4</a></em>). Perhaps because this itinerary focuses upon their sins, it is given this name rather than Kadesh Barnea, which means 'the sanctuary of the wandering son'. See on :20. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rimmon Perez, and encamped in Libnah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Libnah is perhaps that of <em><a href='B:60 10:29'>Jos 10:29</a></em>, between Kadesh-Barnea and Gaza. This confirms the idea that Rithmah is Kadesh Barnea (:19).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Libnah, and encamped in Rissah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continued stress upon the word "encamped" is perhaps alluded to in the later comment that believers are like the patriarchs and always on the move, having "no continuing city" in this life (<em><a href='B:650 13:14'>Heb 13:14</a></em>)- even if we lived all our days in the same house in which we were born.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Rissah, and encamped in Kehelathah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Kehelathah is 'place of gathering / assembly', and is the word commonly used for how the congregation gathered themselves together before the tent of meeting. Perhaps there was some significant gathering held at this place. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kehelathah, and encamped in Mount Shepher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 42 stopping places were not necessarily the only places they stopped at. In Revelation, the faithful are to be 42 months or three and a half years in the wilderness (Revelation 11-13), and 42 is 12 (the number of tribes, God's people) times three and a half. And 42 months are three and a half years. This is clearly a period associated with testing and tribulation. And so Israel's 42 stopping places in the wilderness are likely selected in order to develop the number 42. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Mount Shepher, and encamped in Haradah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Haradah" is 'place of fear / trembling'<em>.</em> As the theme seems to be the failures of Israel, this may refer to some place where they greatly feared / trembled before God. Perhaps this is one of the many scenes of failure the details of which aren't recorded in the other records.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Haradah, and encamped in Makheloth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Makheloth' is a form of 'Kehelathah' (:22). It could mean that that they returned to this point, having travelled in a circle. Just as our wilderness journeys feature an element of going in circles. Although the word means 'assembly / gathering', so perhaps these place names were both memorializing some significant gathering of the people. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Tahath, and encamped in Terah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Terah" could mean 'wild goat', and goats are associated with rejection. Again we have the impression that this itinerary reflects the guidance of God of His people, even through the history of their failures and rejection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Terah, and encamped in Mithkah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Mithkah" is 'place of sweetness', as if God was giving them some respite in the otherwise harsh environment. In wrath with His people (for their wanderings were a result of His judgment), He still remembered mercy. We see here His essentially kind and gracious nature. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Mithkah, and encamped in Hashmonah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Hashmonah' can mean pleasant or fertile place; see on :28. It was a sign of God's grace to them even in their experience of condemnation. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hashmonah, and encamped in Moseroth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Moseroth' is 'place of correction'. As if it was God's intention that the condemned generation would still be corrected, so that ultimately they could be resurrected to eternal inheritance of the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Moseroth, and encamped in Bene Jaakan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 10:6'>Deu 10:6</a></em> comments about Moseroth that "There Aaron died and there he was buried". "Moserah" means 'place of chastisement / correction'. Aaron and Moses will be in the Kingdom despite their sin, but it needed Aaron's death for them to be corrected. The punishment was therefore their correction, and was not the angry lashing out of an offended Deity. Moses only mentions this place name at the end of his life, indicating how he looked back and perceived that indeed he had been corrected and learned his lesson, even if it cost him his life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Bene Jaakan, and encamped in Hor Haggidgad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Haggidgad' is literally 'water holes', and is called "Gudgodah" in <em><a href='B:50 10:7'>Deu 10:7</a></em>. "A land of brooks of water" is precisely the phrase used of Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>). They were constantly given foretastes of the Kingdom before entering it, just as we are on our wilderness journey</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Hor Haggidgad, and encamped in Jotbathah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 10:8'>Deu 10:8</a></em> comments about Jotbathah that "At that time Yahweh set apart the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day". Although the Levites had been set apart for Divine service immediately after God's meeting with Israel at Sinai, as outlined in Leviticus and Numbers, it seems that not until Aaron died at the end of the 40 years wandering did they actually in practice begin to serve as intended. This might imply that Jotbathah was visited near to the end of the wanderings. Another option is that Jotbathah was visited twice, because their condemnation involved wandering in circles. It could be that the reason was that the Levites were ever slow to accept their responsibilities. And they generally failed in their calling over Israel's history, climaxing in the priests arranging the murder of God's own Son.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Jotbathah, and encamped in Abronah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They went from "Jotbathah, a land of brooks of water (<em><a href='B:50 10:7'>Deu 10:7</a></em>) to "Abronah", which is from the root for word for 'Hebrew', 'the place of crossing over'. So perhaps there was here some incident of crossing over water, to prepare them for the later miraculous crossing of Jordan. God continually works to prepare us for future stages in our wilderness walk.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Abronah, and encamped in Ezion Geber- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was on the Red Sea. This was to remind them of the great work God had done in bringing them across the Red Sea. Constantly God sought to remind them of their spiritual history and beginnings, which were all of His grace. He does the same with us.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Ezion Geber, and encamped in the wilderness of Zin (the same is Kadesh)- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They appear to have visited Kadesh several times; just as we tend to revisit the same places during our wilderness wanderings. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Kadesh, and encamped in Mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hor" and "mount" are the same word in Hebrew. <em><a href='B:40 20:20-21'>Num 20:20-21</a></em> comment: "He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with many people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him". We must put this together with <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em>: "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed the way". So when Edom "refused to give Israel passage through his border" (<em><a href='B:40 20:21'>Num 20:21</a></em>), their refusal was because they were "dismayed" and terrified, not because they had some nonchalant confidence against Israel. This is an example of where we must place scripture together to get an accurate picture. Soon after this incident, Israel were commanded not to despise an Edomite (<em><a href='B:50 23:7'>Deu 23:7</a></em>)- although this is just what Edom had done to them. We aren’t to treat others as they treat us, but leave their judgment with God. These incidents took place in the 40th year of their wanderings (<em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>), and the commands of Deuteronomy were given at the same time. Moses could have reasoned that "the elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob)" (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>) and engaged him in battle. But the way of wisdom is to always walk away from conflict with our brethren, even if they are unreasonable.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Zalmonah, and encamped in Punon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Punon" means 'perplexity'; there should have been no such perplexity as they were now approaching Canaan. Again, we are left with the impression that this list of places in Numbers 33 focuses upon incidents of their spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Punon, and encamped in Oboth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Oboth" is 'water skins'. Perhaps here too we have a hint at their problems with water, which would have been provided by God. But they used water skins perhaps to preserve what they saw as more tasty water at this place.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Iyim, and encamped in Dibon Gad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dibon was settled by Gad but this territory was lost to them in the long term (<em><a href='B:290 15:2'>Isa 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:18'>Jer 48:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 48:22'>Jer 48:22</a></em>). Their short termist desire for land other than that God planned to give them in His Kingdom didn't have long term blessing. And it will be the same for us.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They travelled from Almon Diblathaim, and encamped in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses seeing the Kingdom but being unable to enter it, nor himself lead God's people into it, points forward to how the law of Moses gave a vision of the Kingdom, but was unable to bring us into it. That required the work of Joshua / Jesus. "Abarim" means 'the regions beyond'. Moses and his law gave an insight into the Kingdom, the region beyond him. For the culture of grace and kindness, centered around the sacrificed future Messiah, the Lord Jesus, was the outcome of the law. But it was unattainable by weak men.<em></em></p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder why the command to destroy idols etc. is here defined as specifically concerning the territory on the west of Jordan. We wonder why the same commandment wasn't given regarding the territory on the east of Jordan which the two and a half tribes had claimed. It was of course implicit in earlier statements that they were to do so there too. But the lack of specific commandment and reminder was perhaps another example of where inheritance east of Jordan wasn't God's ideal intention for Israel, and so they were making their path to eternal inheritance of the land that much harder. Any short cut to the Kingdom ends up actually making the journey far more difficult. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite the very long list of places where they had failed and sinned, God urges them to inherit the Kingdom and always speaks as if they are going to make it ultimately. He is similarly positive with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their stone idols, destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must compare this command to drive out all the inhabitants of the land with the fact God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and apparently offered the local inhabitants the chance of covenant relationship with Him. Perhaps the people in view were those who had rejected that; or had refused to become tributary in the terms of <em><a href='B:50 20:10-11'>Deu 20:10-11</a></em>. Or perhaps they are peoples other than the seven nations of Canaan specifically mentioned elsewhere. Or again, maybe there were some they should slay, and others they should "drive out" beyond the borders of Canaan. Or maybe Israel and the local inhabitants were given this range of outcomes- because it was God's desire they accept covenant relationship with Him. If they refused, they were to be forced to leave the land, and if they refused that, then they were to be totally destroyed as in <em><a href='B:50 20:16'>Deu 20:16</a></em>. The Mosaic law continually assumes the presence of Gentiles within Israel on a permanent basIsa. So we have to really conclude that this driving out was of those who refused to repent and accept covenant with Yahweh. For it is mentioned along with the need to destroy idolatry.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take possession of the land and dwell therein; for I have given the land to you to possess it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were to possess the land because God had given them the land- we are to inherit the Kingdom because God has given it to us to inherit. Believing that God has really given us the Kingdom and accepting this is so hard to do. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less inheritance. Wherever the lot falls to any man, that shall be hIsa. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were not to seek to exchange or ammend the lot given them. There is an element to which our lives, our talents, our portion of intended service and inheritance is from God- and yet we so often seek to change thIsa. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those you let remain of them will be as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you dwell-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What can appear mere harmless associations with the world can in the end destroy us. Whilst we are to be in this world in the same sense as the Lord Jesus was, mixing and identifying with them to bring them too to God, the basic principle of separation from unbelievers must never be forgotten.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The definition of Canaan stresses that "this is the land" which was their intended inheritance (:2), and it excludes the area east of Jordan which the two and a half tribes chose. Clearly this was not God's ideal intention, and yet He went along with it and worked through it. For as the Father with the prodigal son, He gives us ultimately what we truly want. And then helps us through the consequences, as far as we permit Him to. Such is His grace. <em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the side of Edom, and your south border shall be from the end of the Salt Sea eastward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The borders of the land were rewritten by God in accordance with the spiritual vision and response of Israel. Initially the land was to be as in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em> "I will set your border from the Red Sea even to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River (Euphrates)". But now that is redrawn by God, especially the southern border. And when they actually inherit the land in Joshua's time, there are further redefinitions. And we note the inheritance of the two and a half tribes east of Jordan was not God's ideal intention for them, even though that territory was within that promised to Abraham. God's intentions for His people are therefore open. He desperately wants to save us, even if we turn away from the maximum extent of the great salvation He has potentially prepared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and your border shall turn about southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass along to Zin; and the goings out of it shall be southward of Kadesh Barnea; and it shall go forth to Hazar Addar, and pass along to Azmon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies a birds eye perspective, looking at lines on a map. The perspective is clearly God's heavenly one. See on :11. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall turn about from Azmon to the brook of Egypt, and the goings out of it shall be at the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is not to the Nile, but to the Wady el Arish. "Egypt" is 'Mizraim' and at that time may not have referred to Egypt as we now know it, but specifically to an area to the east of Egypt. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the western border, you shall have the great sea and its border: this shall be your west border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This simple statement was so hard for Israel to accept; because the coast line of the Mediterranean included Gaza and Ashdod, Philistine strongholds which they never really conquered until David's time. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This shall be your north border: from the great sea you shall mark out for you Mount Hor- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Most commentators on :7,8 lament that "the geographical description of the northern boundary of the land of Israel is so indefinite, that the boundary line cannot be determined with exactness" (Delitzsch, typical of many). Why the unclarity? I suggest it was because as discussed on :3, the borders were still flexible and God would define them in more detail according to Israel's vision and obedience. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>from Mount Hor you shall mark out to the entrance of Hamath; and the goings out of the border shall be at Zedad- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :7, the northern border is unclear, not least because it is not clear whether "Hamath" refers to the town on the Orontes river in Syria, or to a region called "Hamath", as in <em><a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go forth to Ziphron, and the goings out of it shall be at Hazar Enan: this shall be your north border- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies detailed geographical knowledge of the area. It is doubtful anyone from Israel knew that area, and so we have here the direct transmission of fact from God to man through His word.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall mark out your east border from Hazar Enan to Shepham-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was an intention that some kind of border fence or marker system should be put up. This was practically important, because many of the Mosaic laws were specifically intended to be obeyed within the land of promise. But there is no evidence Israel ever obeyed this command.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down, and shall reach to the side of the sea of Chinnereth eastward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, "pressed upon the shoulder of the lake of Chinnereth towards the east”. The descriptions are written as if the author has a bird's eye satellite view of the topography. And so that author was ultimately only God. See on :4.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the border shall go down to the Jordan, and the goings out of it shall be at the Salt Sea. This shall be your land according to its borders around it’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The eastern border roughly follows the river Jordan southwards from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. This is significant, because it reminds us that the two and a half tribes had chosen territory to the east of that which was not God's ideal intention to give them at that stage. We are reminded of His eagerness to work with us, despite our less than ideal decisions.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying, This is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which Yahweh has commanded to give to the nine tribes and to the half-tribe- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The land within God's ideal territory for Israel at the time was to be distributed to each family by lot. That lot would have been overruled by God (<em><a href='B:240 16:33'>Pro 16:33</a></em>). Just as we each have our specific calling and eternal place in His purpose, unique to us, so Israel had a specific inheritance for each family within the land. But those who wanted their land east of Jordan didn't have this gift of individual lots to each family to inherit. They tried to arrange the Kingdom their way, and in the end, it didn't work out well for them.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their fathers’ families and the tribe of the children of Gad according to their fathers’ families, have received, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received, their inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is often not appreciated that the extent of the area given to the two and a half tribes on the east of Jordan, as defined in <em><a href='B:60 13:10-12'>Jos 13:10-12</a></em>, was roughly the same as the entire territory given to the nine and a half tribes on the west of Jordan. The two and a half tribes saw good pasture land and wanted it there and then, as a king of short cut to the Kingdom of God. But there are no short cuts to the Kingdom. The conditions they were given demanded even more faith from them. Their men had to leave their flocks and families unprotected on the east of Jordan whilst they fought in the front line vanguard of Joshua's army to secure the territory on the west of Jordan. And the territory they were asked to possess was huge, far larger than the pasture lands they initially coveted, and inhabited by giants (see on <em><a href='B:60 13:30'>Jos 13:30</a></em>)- which they probably didn't realize at the time.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The triple emphasis here that those who chose immediate inheritance east of Jordan had already received their inheritance may be behind Christ’s triple emphasis that some “have their reward” in this life rather than waiting for the future, eternal reward (<em><a href='B:470 6:2'>Mat 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:5'>Mat 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:16'>Mat 6:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We now have a list of the ten princes of the tribes who were to practically distribute the land allocations. Reuben and Gad aren't listed here as they had taken the land for themselves east of Jordan; and so were excluded from the Divine system of distributing individual inheritances by lot to each family. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men who shall divide the land to you for inheritance: Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Divided" is s.w. "inheritance" or "inherit", and also "possessed". I have noted elsewhere the difference between Joshua slaying the kings, and Israel possessing or inheriting the land- which they generally failed to do. But here we read that Joshua also 'inherited' it to them. So much was done for them. We note too the king-priest association, again looking ahead to the work and dual office of the Lord Jesus.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the names of the men: Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The order of the tribes here runs from south to north, especially if we take the tribes as being mentioned in pairs, as if this was the order in which the land was to be possessed. But the original intention to take the land from south to north wasn't followed. Israel were consistently disobedient and short termist in their approach to the conquest of Canaan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Simeon, Shemuel the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In contrast to previous lists of names from this period, we find the suffix 'El' common in this list of names. But we note that they had therefore failed to accept or appreciate the revelation of the Yahweh Name which Moses had given to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of Benjamin, Elidad the son of Chislon- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'God of love', the son of 'hopeful'. Here we see some spiritual progress. The people had complained that Yahweh sought to slay them in the wilderness, and it seems this family had rejected that terrible idea. They were no longer just hopeful for something better, but had come to appreciate the love of God. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Dan a prince, Bukki the son of Jogli- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Bukki" means 'wasteful'. Surely no mother would have named her baby that (as with Mahlon and Chilion). But the Hebrews often had several names, which were reflective of later life experience, character and achievement. So we can assume that this man became known like this, and was likely named this way because he failed to help Dan take the inheritance intended for them but rather wasted it. The name Bukki stands in sharp contrast to the spiritual meanings of the names of most of the other princes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the children of Joseph: of the tribe of the children of Manasseh a prince, Hanniel the son of Ephod- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Grace of God', son of 'shortened', perhaps slain prematurely in the wilderness for his apostasy. Here we see some spiritual progress, as in :21. Hanniel realized that the inheritance of the land was by grace alone given the people's spiritual weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Ephraim a prince, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Established by God', the same word used in <em><a href='B:20 6:4'>Exo 6:4</a></em> of how God established His covenant to give Canaan to Israel. The names of the princes are generally reflective of spirituality, but just as Joshua enabled their inheritance of the land, Israel as individuals still had to personally respond to spiritual leadership. And they generally didn't.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Zebulun a prince, Elizaphan the son of Parnach- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Hidden / treasured by God', the same word used for how Moses was hidden and preserved. Again we have the sense that this man appreciated grace, that Israel were only inheriting the land because God had preserved them to do so, despite all their catalogue of rebellions against Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Issachar a prince, Paltiel the son of Azzan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Paltiel', delivered by God, as noted on :25, is another reflection of how God alone had delivered Israel to receive the Kingdom inheritance which they didn't deserve.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Asher a prince, Ahihud the son of Shelomi- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>'</em>Ahihud' is a form of the Hebrew word often used for the glory / majesty of God. He saw the possession of the Kingdom as a manifestation of God's glory, rather than being due to Israel's obedience. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Of the tribe of the children of Naphtali a prince, Pedahel the son of Ammihud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>'Pedahel' means 'God has ransomed', using the word commonly used for His ransom of Israel from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:15'>Exo 13:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:8'>Exo 21:8</a></em> etc.). Nearly all these names reflect an awareness of God's saving grace in giving Israel the Kingdom. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are they whom Yahweh commanded to divide the inheritance to the children of Israel in the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is emphasized because it was not God's intention that the people just grabbed whatever bit of farmland appeared attractive to them. Likewise we are not to as it were decide how we would like to serve God, but to accept that we have a specific inheritance uniquely prepared for us; and to inherit that, rather than hankering for something else. For God intends only what is best for us in our latter end.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had no land inheritance, only cities. Or better, towns. As explained on <em><a href='B:30 25:29-30'>Lev 25:29-30</a></em>, God's intention therefore was that Israel lived in small settlements and not walled cities. Ideally, the only cities were to be those of the Levites. This detailed potential intention was never realized by Israel; just as the extensive&nbsp; and intricate commands about the restoration of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 never were. One of the greatest tragedies for God must be all the wasted potentials He sets up in countless lives. And His joy is when we at least begin to realize them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance of their possession some cities to dwell in, and you shall give suburbs for the cities around them to the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This meant that the Levites were divided amongst the 12 tribes of Israel, enabling them to teach God’s ways to the whole nation (<em><a href='B:30 10:11'>Lev 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9-10'>Deu 33:9-10</a></em>). In this way, the curse upon Levi that his children would be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>) turned into a blessing for all- and God so loves to work in this way, using the consequences of sin to bring about His work, purpose and glory.</p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall measure outside of the city for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the midst. This shall be to them for the suburbs of the cities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This grant of agricultural land to the Levites was really an indication of God's tacit acceptance that the whole system was not going to work as He ideally intended. If Israel were obedient to the covenant, they would be blessed with bumper harvests, of which they would tithe 10% to the Levites, and additionally the Levites received various tithes from the offerings, and also the freewill offerings. They would have no need to work the land but could dedicate themselves completely to studying and teaching God's law to the people, which would confirm them in their obedience to the covenant and continued receipt of blessing. But God foresaw this situation would break down, and so He gave them land on which to grow their own food. His law continually reflects His gracious awareness of likely human failure. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, which you shall give for the manslayer to flee to: and besides them you shall give forty-two cities- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number 42 recalls the 42 stopping places of Israel in the wilderness, just listed in Numbers 33. The idea was that the priestly cities were places of teaching which would be stages towards Israel's eternal inheritance of the Kingdom of God in its full sense. We think likewise of the 42 generations to the Lord Jesus which are listed in Matthew' genealogy of the Lord. The Levites were to teach the people and lead them towards Christ, for the law they taught was a schoolmaster which led to Christ (<em><a href='B:550 3:24'>Gal 3:24</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be forty-eight cities together with their suburbs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Suburbs" is translated by some as "cattle drives". <em><a href='B:60 21:41'>Jos 21:41</a></em> adds: "All the cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the children of Israel were forty-eight cities with their suburbs". The idea was that the Levites would live "in the midst" of the people, teaching them God's way. But Israel's apostasy is often blamed upon the failure of the priesthood; and yet that in turn was partly due to Israel not providing for the Levites. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Concerning the cities which you shall give of the possession of the children of Israel, from the many you shall take many; and from the few you shall take few. Everyone according to his inheritance which he inherits shall give of his cities to the Levites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the reality was that many of the cities the Israelites gave the Levites were in marginal areas or areas still under Canaanite domination. Thus Kedemoth was given to the Levites (<em><a href='B:60 21:37'>Jos 21:37</a></em>) but was in fact a town which had not been captured from the local population (<em><a href='B:60 13:18'>Jos 13:18</a></em>). They failed to learn the principle of <em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation assumes that the revenger of blood was free to operate. The structure of the law of Moses seemed to almost encourage the idea of serving God on different levels. After much study of it, the Rabbis concluded that there was within it “a distinction between holy and holy just as much as there is between holy and profane”. They were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so (<em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God's</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could imply that establishing the cities of refuge, of which we will now read, was to be immediately attended to. But there is no evidence Israel did thIsa. They were satisfied with a bit of farmland, and showed no real interest in the development of a system of blessing and salvation as God had potentially enabled. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person unknowingly may flee there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But as noted several times in Joshua 19, some of these cities they had not even taken from enemy hands.&nbsp; "Appoint" is the usual word for "give". The tribes were to give these cities. But several of them they had not even bothered to take from the local inhabitants. Their disobedience to these commandments made their personal salvation so much more difficult. And so we again see the upward spiral, the self reinforcing nature, of God's commandments. They were not a burden, a chain that binds, but rather an opportunity to prosper spiritually.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities shall be to you for refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word<em> go'el</em> translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", <em>elpis</em>, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The cities which you shall give shall be for you six cities of refuge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em> adds that they were to do so "for yourselves", or here "for you". The emphasis was very much upon <em>them</em> making the cities of refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in the land (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities for yourselves" (<em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em>). Yet the record in Joshua 18-20 shows that Israel didn't do this, because they didn't even capture all the cities which were to be cities of refuge. All God's laws are and were for the spiritual benefit of His people, rather than simple tests of obedience. Disobedience therefore harms us more than anyone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan and you shall give three cities in the land of Canaan. They shall be cities of refuge-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:8-9'>Deu 19:8-9</a></em> make it clear that more cities would be added if Israel were obedient and their land borders were enlarged. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of thIsa. Israel would be provided with more cities of refuge if they were obedient; the way of escape from sin would become easier, as it does for us the more we are obedient to God’s principles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the foreigner living among them, these six cities shall be for refuge; that everyone who kills any person unintentionally may flee there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are all in the position of the person who unintentionally killed another person and is therefore liable to death. We have all sinned, and yet as it were in the spirit of how Paul describes our sin in Romans 7 - committed against our better intentions. <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> speaks of us fleeing for refuge into Christ- suggesting we are the one who flees after committing manslaughter, and becoming “in Christ” by baptism is our entry into Him as our city of refuge. But we must abide in Him- for if we leave Him then we are liable to death (:26). And our final salvation from the effects of sin is guaranteed by the death of the High Priest, the Lord Jesus (:25).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he struck him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em> expresses this as "you must put away the innocent blood from Israel". We would rather expect that guilty blood must be put away. AV has "the guilt of innocent blood", LXX "so shalt thou purge innocent blood". The idea was that the guilt for innocent blood must be purged by blood. The Lord's blood was the ultimate innocent blood, and so Israel were being prepared to accept that blood was to be shed for His blood. And thus it happened (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:28'>Act 5:28</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he struck him with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The purpose of the system of cities of refuge was (<em><a href='B:50 19:10'>Deu 19:10</a></em>) "so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so guilt for blood be upon you". Innocent blood would not be shed because there was a system of judging and punishing those who shed it (<em><a href='B:50 19:12'>Deu 19:12</a></em>). If Israel were indifferent to preparing the way for others’ salvation, then innocent blood would be shed and they would be responsible for it (<em><a href='B:50 19:10'>Deu 19:10</a></em>). This is powerful stuff. Indifference to providing others with a way of escape from their sin and death means we are actually guilty of their lack of salvation. And yet we tend to think that committed sin is all we have to worry about / avoid. The lesson here, however, bites far more caustically and insistently into our comfort zone. If we are indifferent to marking out the way of escape for others, their blood will be upon our heads. Our chief excuses for not witnessing enthusiastically basically amount to laziness, indifference, not getting our act together because we don’t see we have to… when actually, there is an intense urgency about our task. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if he struck him with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you" (<em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em>). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from revenge murder, after he had slain another man (<em><a href='B:100 14:8-10'>2Sa 14:8-10</a></em>). The woman pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood, even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death. When he meets him, he shall put him to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of blood vendettas, whereby a family member of the murdered has a legal right to hunt and kill the murderer, is widespread in primitive societies. Yet the Law of Moses seems to make provision for it. Seeing that God is presented as the ultimate avenger (see on <em><a href='B:40 31:2'>Num 31:2</a></em>), this may seem strange. Instead of grace and forgiveness being inculcated, revenge seems allowed. Yet the desire to repay murder with murder is so great within primitive society that it seems God made a concession to this weakness, and allowed it, whilst seeking to control it from being applied in any wrongful or doubtful context. The fact God makes concessions to human weakness doesn’t mean we should eagerly make use of them; the spirit of all God’s revelation to us in His word is that we should forgive and leave vengeance to Him.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or in enmity struck him with his hand, so that he died; he who struck him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him- </em></p><p 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? </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled on him anything without lying in wait-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :20, the essential difference between manslaughter and murder was whether or not there was "enmity" or hatred in the heart. Time and again, God's law judges matters of the heart, in a way which no human, secular law ever could. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>or with any stone, by which a man may die, not seeing him, and cast it on him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Secular law would go into questions as to whether the man had taken due reasonable precautions, and judge him accordingly. But that aspect isn't considered under Divine law. The simple division was over the question of whether or not the person had intentionally harmed another, and whether he had previously had hatred in his heart for the person (:22). Questions of 'But did you take precautions? Were you careful enough?' were totally made irrelevant by the immense value God gives to the question of the state of heart.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the congregation shall judge between the striker and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Israel were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so in some cases (see too <em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God's</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative. Rather than continually make use of God’s many concessions to human weakness, we should seek to live on a higher level.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the congregation shall deliver the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, where he was fled. He shall dwell therein until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The death of the High Priest enabled the ‘guilty’ person to be totally freed because the principle that death was required to atone for death had been thus fulfilled (:33)- as if in his death, the High Priest was taking upon himself the guilt of the sin of murder, as a total representative of the sinner. In this we see foreshadowed the representative nature of Christ’s death for us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command "You shall not kill" in <em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em> must be understood in the context of a situation where the same Law also commanded certain sinners to be put to death within the community, and at times Israel were Divinely commanded and enabled to kill others outside of the community. We have to look, therefore, for a more specific meaning for this commandment- and it seems it is speaking specifically of blood revenge, killing the person who murdered one of your relatives. According to <em><a href='B:40 35:25-28'>Num 35:25-28</a></em>, if the murder was unintentional, i.e. manslaughter rather than murder, then the person could flee to a city of refuge lest he be slain by the avenger of blood. There is no guidance for the avenger of blood in these 'cities of refuge' passages; rather is there the assumption that he might well attempt to take revenge even for manslaughter, and in this case the unintentional murderer should flee from him into a city of refuge. But clearly enough, this was not God's will- for "You shall not kill". But such is God's grace that He built into His law a recognition that His people would fail. This isn't what we would expect of a 2+2=4 God, where broken commandments are to be punished and period. In this case, we see here a tacit recognition even within the Mosaic Law that the commandments- in this case "You shall not kill"- wouldn't always be obeyed, and therefore extra legislating was added to enable this situation to be coped with. This isn't only an example of God's sensitivity to human sin and weakness of hot blood (although it is that). It's an insight into how the very structure of His law is such that He understands human weakness, and is eager to ensure that it hurts others as little as possible. No more human 'god' would have dreamed this up. This grace has the stamp of the ultimately Divine, and any attempt to understand it within the frames of literalistic, legalistic analysis are doomed to failure. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the avenger of blood find him outside of the border of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the manslayer; he shall not be guilty of blood-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This ruling was in order to point up the importance of the cities of refuge, and the need to take manslaughter seriously. Even if in fact the avenger of blood was acting in a morally deficient way. For slaying a morally innocent man out of personal anger and blood lust, not in order to cleanse the land of innocent blood, was surely far below ideal behaviour. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; but after the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return into the land of his possession- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One day, the manslayer who wandered outside the city of refuge could be slain; but the next he couldn't be, because the High Priest had died. This was to point up the huge significance of the death of the High Priest. This was clearly presented as a kind of atonement through death, and served no practical purpose apart from to point ahead to the atoning death of the great High Priest to come, the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Throughout your generations" is a kind of way of saying 'for ever', but "in your dwellings" may suggest we are to interpret it as meaning 'for as long as you live in the land'. The significance of Israel being deported from their land was therefore that effectively the law of Moses had thereby been ended. And the destruction of the temple, tabernacle furnishings, the loss of the ark and Biblical priesthood, all meant that it was obvious that the law could no longer function. It effectively ended well before the death of the Lord Jesus, so the Israelite wanting relationship with God had to return to the promises to Abraham for that basis of relationship. And those promises were the essence of the new covenant. It was the Lord's death which confirmed the new covenant.</p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ransom" is the word for atonement or covering, <em>kapher</em>. There is a position where there is no atonement possible. And yet David was at this point- there was no sacrifice or fine to get him out of his guilt over the sin with Uriah. But the 'sureness' of the command here was by grace not carried out, just as the 'sure' promise of death in the day Adam ate the fruit was not carried out. Possibly God factored in the way that David had not hated Uriah in his heart in the past; see on :20,23.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take no ransom for him who is fled to his city of refuge, that he may come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We died and rose with Christ, if we truly believe in His representation of us and our connection with Him, then His freedom from sin and sense of conquest will be ours; as the man guilty of blood was to see in the death of the High Priest a representation of his own necessary death, and thereafter was freed from the limitations of the city of refuge (<em><a href='B:40 35:32-33'>Num 35:32-33</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you shall not pollute the land in which you are: for blood, it pollutes the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet see on :31. Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (<em><a href='B:10 37:26'>Gen 37:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:19'>Num 35:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 35:33'>Num 35:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:9'>Lev 20:9</a></em>). Both the Lord's death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it. <em><a href='B:550 3:15'>Gal 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:16'>Heb 9:16</a></em> and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I, Yahweh, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that if Israel were morally defiled, then Yahweh would be unable to dwell in the midst of them. Seeing they lived in the land of Canaan, this would mean that He would have to depart from that land. And that is the significance of Ezekiel's visions of the shekinah glory of Yahweh departing from the sanctuary and forsaking the land. The idea is not that the land of Israel was defiled in some metaphysical sense.&nbsp; The defilement was clearly related to the moral defilement of the people within the land. Hence <em><a href='B:30 18:24-25'>Lev 18:24-25</a></em> Don’t defile yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled. The land was defiled; therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out her inhabitants". But there was no ritual of cleansing the physical land; rather was the land intended to bring forth great harvests in reflection of Israel's obedience to the covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The heads of the fathers’ households of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the princes, the heads of the fathers’ households of the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They raise the matter of the special agreement and interpretation of the law given in Numbers 27. They perhaps raised it again after hearing the discussion about the dividing up of the land in Numbers 35 and wished to ensure that this special clarification was going to be upheld. For as noted on :3, this was to be a departure from social norms, in allowing land to be passed on through the female line.<em></em></p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe unto which they shall belong: so will it be taken away from the lot of our inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In most societies of the time, a woman didn't get her father's inheritance, but instead was intended to marry into another family. The inheritance of land passed through the male line. But these women had been perceptive, and realize that the inheritance was going to be eternal, and so they wanted their father to have his name preserved in association with his inheritance- otherwise he would as it were lose his inheritance because he had no sons. And so they were granted their request. We see from <em><a href='B:150 2:61'>Ezr 2:61</a></em> another case of how this worked out in practice. God cannot be accused of being against women; His legislation valued every human person to a degree unseen in any contemporary legislation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong: so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not the only example of where the Mosaic law was structured so as to intentionally need further interpretation and clarification. It was designed to provoke relationship with God, rather than as a legalistic total statement of how to live in every part of life. One wonders why this statute had not been included within the Law of Moses. Perhaps God had reserved it in potential, waiting the initiative of these women? </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of Yahweh, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks right- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What was important was that the man's inheritance should pass on in his own name, or that of his family. As discussed on :10, the reasoning behind this was because it was God's intention that Israel should eternally inherit their allotments in the land, at the time of resurrection. </p>


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall all keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers- </em></p><p 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. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For land inheritance to pass on through the female was unheard of in contemporary legal codes. We are all somewhat in Zelophehad's position. He sinned and died for it, but he has the hope still of eternal inheritance in the Kingdom at the resurrection- in his own name. </p>


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


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


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to their father’s brothers’ sons- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The names of these women all feature the 'Yah' suffix. This is unusual as most of the names we read at this time at best have 'el' for God, or are just of secular meaning. All these women had accepted the revelation of the Name of Yahweh given by Moses. I say they accepted it because it is clear that many people didn't keep their birth names but acquired other names later in their lives, reflective of their life experience and developed beliefs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Considering the low status of women at that time, we see here a commendable spirit of initiative and spiritual ambition for these women to dare ask a male dominated society to change their rules to allow them to have an inheritance. We see too how God and Moses weren’t at all anti-women, and responded positively. Note how the women were allowed to come directly to the decision makers, without needing to appoint a male representative for their case, as was common in surrounding cultures. The value of the human person is consistently seen throughout the Pentateuch. They asked about this matter <em>before</em> the land had been possessed, reflecting their strength of faith that God would fulfil His promise of giving His people the Kingdom; they imagined what it would be like there, and acted accordingly even before they got there, as if the land was already theirs in possession- just as we should. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the commandments and the ordinances which Yahweh commanded by Moses to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Ordinances" is "judgments" (AV), perhaps referring to judgments expanding and further defining the law, as we have just read about the matter of female inheritance. The contrast may be with the similar comment in <em><a href='B:30 27:13'>Lev 27:13</a></em> concerning the laws given <em>at Sinai</em>. There was clearly some progressive revelation of God's laws and covenant, and now we will come to Deuteronomy, the second law, where again there are additions, clarifications and ammendments. This reflects how the law was not a chain upon Israel, but part of a living dialogue and real relationship between Yahweh and His people. And it is even more evident under the new covenant. </p>


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


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


