Numbers Study

Praise for the Torah Class Series
The Journey Through the Torah Class series by Tom Bradford is a real achievement. With each lesson, you will be introduced to new Scripture-based revelations. Tom Bradfords classes on the five books of Moses have formed an online institution that has attracted tens of thousands of participants from all around the nation and beyond. Toms objective is to return to the original language. His insights are biblical, relevant, and inspiring. I am excited that he has now expanded these lessons to include a personal study guide. These will be great resources for teachers or small groups, challenging you to delve more deeply into the Holy Scriptures. Davis Bunn, Best-selling author The Journey Through the Torah Class series provides a way for people of all ages to study the Old Testament, so often systematically neglected by Christians. These lessons, which began as transcripts of weekly Bible teaching by Tom Bradford, are an honest look at details of what the OT actually says, verse by verse. Unique within this curriculum are several sets of questions designed for Bible students on the middle school and high school levels that encourage thinking and discussion as well as testing for comprehension of specific information. In preparing his popular teaching, Bradford goes deep into research to indemnify history and context of the text, and to explore difficult questions that arise and are typically passed over. While being careful to avoid making the OT say things that arent intended, proper place is given to parts that foreshadow Yeshua (or Jesus) the Messiah, and underlie the faith of those who accept him as Savior and Lord. John K napp ii, phD, former professor, sunY-oswego Tom Bradford is one of the few men that I know who ponders long and hard over passages that most would never consider teaching or preaching. Why does he do so? Because he knows that every passage of Scripture is given by G-d and inspired by the Holy Spirit and has relevance as much as any other. Tom is committed to using proper hermeneutical methods, so what he teaches he gets right. His teaching shows a proper understanding of the Living Word, the Messiah Yeshua, as well as the written Word. Tom is a strong supporter of Israel, not because of some affinity through a denomination or particular tradition, but because of the clear admonition of the Word of G-d. His Torah study series will provide insight for every individual, regardless of whether they are a biblical scholar or a novice.
at the israeli
r. Baruch, phD, Director of the nicoDemus institute in Jerusalem. a DJunct instructor BiBle college. his area of expertise is comparative stuDY Between the greeK septuagint anD the heBrew pentateuch.
Numbers
Adult Textbook
Other Torah Class Study Guides Available

Genesis: The Book of Foundations Exodus: Toward Freedom and Redemption Leviticus: Learning Gods Ways Deuteronomy: The Promise Is Realized
the wilDerness experience
Numbers
Adult Textbook
seeD of aBraham ministries
tom BraDforD
LICENSE AGREEMENT This license agreement is made between the purchaser and Seed of Abraham Ministries, publisher, effective of the date of purchase and with no termination date. Purchaser agrees that purchase of this electronic book in PDF format constitutes acceptance of the terms of this License Agreement. The purchase of this electronic book constitutes the purchase of one item. The purchaser may not digitally copy this item other than one (1) digital copy for back-up/archival purposes. The purchaser is licensed to reproduce up to three (3) PrINT copies of the item for personal use only. As each electronic book purchase constitutes the purchase of one item, if more than 3 print copies are needed, an additional electronic book must be purchased and downloaded. The purchaser may not lend, sell, barter, trade, or give the digital PDF contents to another person or entity.
NUMBerS: Adult Textbook Copyright 2013 by Seed of Abraham Ministries All rights reserved under international and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing by the publisher, except by reviewers or catalogs not limited to online for purpose of promotion. Published in North America by Seed of Abraham Ministries ISBN: 978-1-937373-58-0 Unless otherwise indicated, images are copyright of the author and are also subject to the same copyright restrictions as text. Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the Complete Jewish Bible by David H. Stern. Copyright 1998. All rights reserved. Used by permission of Messianic Jewish Publishers, 6120 Day Long Lane, Clarksville, MD 21029. www.messianicjewish.net.
Contents
How to Use This Book About the Author Introduction to Numbers ix xi xiii
Numbers 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Numbers 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Numbers 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Numbers 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Numbers 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Numbers 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Numbers 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Numbers 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Numbers 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Numbers 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Numbers 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Numbers 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Numbers 13 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Numbers 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Numbers 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Numbers 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Numbers 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Numbers 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Numbers 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Numbers 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Numbers 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Numbers 22: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Numbers 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Numbers 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Numbers 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Numbers 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Numbers 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Numbers 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Numbers 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Numbers 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Numbers 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Numbers 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Numbers 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Numbers 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Numbers 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Numbers 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Numbers - The Wilderness Experience
ix
How to Use this Book

The Journey Through the Torah Class study series is a unique chapter-by-chapter commentary on the books of the Old Testament. In this study, we will go deep into the meaning of the Scriptures, at times looking at the Hebrew words of the original text. Many false assumptions about the Bible will be challenged. We will incorporate understanding of ancient Jewish culture and mind-set into this study, because without it we lose much of the context and inherent meaning of Gods Word to us. Each lesson in this book corresponds to one chapter from the book of Numbers. The chapter will feature illustrations, charts, and vocabulary. Most weeks you will study two lessons, although some weeks have fewer or more, based on the length. At the end of each week, you should complete the review Questions section. These will cement the information youve learned. Things You Should Know Now, let me set up a few ground rules as the basis on which the Torah Class series will proceed. First, I am not here to persuade anyone about the truth of the Holy Scripture. While seekers are most welcome here, this is not a seekers class whereby we attempt to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Our assumption is that the Bible is Gods Word and that it is trueall of it. If the Bible is not true, then we might as well all pack up and go home, because were wasting our time. Second, we are going to read every single word of the books of the Bible that we study in the Torah Class series. Were not going to skip anything, not a single verse. Before you start each lesson, you will be instructed to read the corresponding chapter in your Bible. This is an in-depth study that will teach you much, challenge your thinking, and build your faith. But if you skip over the Bible itself, youve missed the most important part of the lesson. Other than this book, a Bible is the only resource youll need. However, we do have additional resources available for you on our website at www.TorahClass.comincluding all the illustrations and audio files of these lessons. Third, I recommend you read out of the Complete Jewish Bible, although its not mandatory. One reason for this is that the CJB is not the official Bible translation for any denomination that Im aware of. That is intentional. This curriculum is not about teaching denominational traditions or doctrines. The Complete Jewish Bible is taken mostly from the Hebrew texts as opposed to many translations today, which are taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew written more than two centuries before Christ was born. (If you dont have a copy of the CJB translation, you can purchase one at a discounted price at www. holylandmarketplace.com.) Fourth, at times I will teach you certain words in Hebrew that will add a great deal to your understanding. Oftentimes Ive found that looking at the Hebrew is like going from a blackand-white TV to color; what you see in blackand-white is not wrong, it just doesnt give you the depth that color does. Youll soon learn that Hebrew has certain words that simply dont have nice, neat english equivalents. The word Torah is a good example of that, as is the common Hebrew expression Shalom. But those are just the tip of the iceberg. The other thing to realize is that just as many important Hebrew words in the Scriptures do not have a good english equivalent, neither do they have a good Greek equivalent. So when the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek, then from Greek to Latin, then from Latin to english, much depth and understanding were lost. Were going to do our best to try to recover some of that depth.
Fifth, my goal is that we have continuity. When studied properly, the Old Testament (OT) flows like a beautiful river. Too often the OT is presented as a series of mildly interesting but unconnected stories, and it can be hard to put it together. Actually, the OT is fascinating, colorful, and very much (though not entirely) in chronological order. A good way to look at the OT is as God presenting Himself to us through the history of Israel and the Jews. It is also Christian history, because it was out of the Hebrew Bible, culture, and religion that Christianity came. remember, Christ was a Jew. Born to Jewish parents, raised in the Holy Lands, He was an observant Jew in every way. Sixth, we need to understand that the first section of the OT, which is called the Torah, was given to us as a manual for living the life that God intended for mankind to live. The three million or so Israelites whom Moses led through the desert wilderness to the Promised Land came from four centuries of life in egypt. They were a rabble that had thoroughly opted for the ways of the egyptians. By giving Moses the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), God explained to Israel the beginning of everything: who He was, why the world had arrived at the corrupt place it had, and how to live a righteous
life. What is a righteous life? It is you living in harmony with God. These things have not changed. Seventh, the Torah Class series will not answer every question you have about God. There are many matters in the Bible that are simply left open-ended. Some matters are not addressed at all, and others are incomplete. I choose to let these mysteries remain mysteries for us. At times Ill speculate, but it will be presented as speculation or opinion, not as fact or absolute truth. Sometimes that speculation will be in the form of what the great Hebrew sages of ancient times thought about a particular subject; in fact, Ill incorporate that kind of information on a number of occasions because, if nothing else, it explains how the Hebrew mind operated during certain eras. Thank you for choosing the Journey Through the Torah Class series to guide you through your studies of the Old Testament. I assure you that if you dedicate yourself to this studyas part of a lifelong spiritual education processyou will be rewarded immensely as your knowledge and love for God increase. Blessings and Shalom! Tom Bradford
xi
About the Author

Tom Bradford is the founder of Seed of Abraham Ministries and is the teacher and pastor of Torah Class, a nondenominational congregation of Gentile and Jewish believers in Christ located in Merritt Island, Florida. Tom was educated at the University of California at Northridge, where he first studied Egyptology and archaeology before settling on urban development and business management. Later he accomplished advanced course work at Harvard. A lifelong Christian, Tom studied the Hebrew Bible under Jewish rabbis and scholars, both in Israel and in the United States of America. As the director of adult Sunday school at a Baptist megachurch, Tom began to hone his teaching skills and developed the technique of a multidiscipline approach to exegetical Bible study that he continues to use today. Before his transition into the ministry, Tom was a senior executive for an S&P 500 corporation, running several high-tech companies in the United States and europe. After leaving the business world, Tom spent years studying countless volumes of the great works of Christian and Jewish scholars and historians, learning biblical Hebrew, writing seminars on Bible history, and teaching on the Middle East and Jewish/Christian history at a local college. It finally became clear that his new path was to devote himself full-time to teaching the Holy Scriptures, focusing on the Old Testament and the forgotten Hebrew nature and culture from which it came. He has traveled extensively, including in the Middle east and egypt. Seed of Abraham Ministries 925 N. Courtenay Parkway Merritt Island, FL 32953 (321) 459-9887 www.torahclass.com
About the Author
xiii
Introduction to Numbers
Out of the frying pan and into the fire we go, just as the Israelites were about to do. As we lay down the book of Leviticus and begin an exploration of Numbers, lets back up for a moment and see the current condition of Israel. As we ended Leviticus, the Israelites had been gone from egypt for approximately one year. So much had happened to these people so fast! Israel had progressed from little more than a clan of seventy-five to a large nation of around three million souls during the four centuries they spent in egypt. Its hard to wrap our minds around just how long a period of time four hundred years is. Not many more than two hundred years agoonly half the amount of time Israel was in egypt George Washington became the first president of the newly formed United States of America. And yet even with all the papers and books and essays and documents written about the incredible events that led to the founding of this great nation, what actually happened isnt fully known; history is constantly being questioned and revised. We have legends that abound from the revolutionary War era: Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Paul reveres ride, the Boston Tea Party, the first shot fired at Concord, and so many more. Almost all of these stories are based on actual events, but most have likely been scrubbed clean, molded, and exaggerated to make the characters larger than life and to express a viewpoint that conforms to a certain political agenda. For us postmodernists, the events of the American revolution are fuzzy at best and bound up in dusty history books. There is no one alive to defend or deny the most accepted accounts from those days, and those happenings of a mere 250 years ago are barely considered
relevant to many of us. even though the revolution occurred in an era when printing presses abounded throughout the colonies, newspapers were in full swing, journalism was a well-established profession, libraries were stocked and growing, and the speed of communication was quite rapid, our current knowledge of that era is limited. And despite the substantial volume of actual revolutionary War records, there is little consensus among scholars of exactly what occurred during the formative years of America. That shouldnt be too hard to understand, as we have a Supreme Court that regularly cannot agree on the intent of the men who penned our Constitution barely two hundred years ago. With the analogy of contemporary Americas view of the revolutionary War period in mind, put yourself in the sandals of the Israelites, in egypt, in the years leading up to the arrival of Moses. How they had arrived in egypt those several centuries earlier was probably not terribly important to the bulk of the Hebrews. A score of generations had passed since Jacob brought his sons and their families from the land of Canaan down into egypt to be cared for through a horrible famine that gripped the region. Their sponsor and caretaker was none other than the grand vizier of egypt: Jacobs very own son Joseph. Joseph (obviously Jacobs favorite son), whom he thought had been killed by wild animals so many years earlier, was the savior not just of Israel but of egypt as well. Just as God had a purpose for Israel, He had a purpose for egypt. egypt was to be the womb in which Israel would gestate until it was Gods appointed time to birth them as a full-blown nation, set apart for service to Him. By the time Yehoveh was readying Israel for Moses arrival, Jacob and Joseph were but
xiv
distant memories. It would be difficult to assess how much the current batch of Israelites knew of them that was actually true versus how much was hyperbole and legend. Like us, the Israelites were just people trying to live life, and the day-to-day challenges they faced were enough to worry about without thinking of themselves as some important piece of an unfolding cosmic prophetic puzzle. In reality, the Israelites were now more Egyptian in their thinking and beliefs than they were Hebrew. I doubt Abraham would have recognized them. And yet they did not entirely forget who they were and where they originated. They had leaders and elders whom God had raised up for a purpose. These leaders wouldnt let them forget, even though a goodly portion of the Hebrew population thought these leaders to be senile and hangers-on to a lost hope and an ancient myth. Like many of us, they may have wondered what events from centuries past really had to do with them. So after four centuries, how much did the average Hebrew really think about the promise
made to Abraham, Isaac, and then Jacob that their God would give them a land of their own, a land flowing with milk and honey? Or that it would be a very specific land they were to receive, the land that those same three patriarchs roamed throughout for the bulk of their lives: the land of Canaan? Was Israel still waiting expectantly or had they largely given up and adjusted to their new circumstances? Had they put the four-centuryold hope of a homeland so far back in their minds that it was but a distant memory? How often do we today think about the birth of our nation, the revolutionary War, the minutemen at Concord, Benjamin Franklin, and our ancestors giving their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today? So there were the Israelites, just living life (albeit a miserable one, as they had become the slave labor force of a nationalist egyptian government that had empire-building in mind), when suddenly a man named Moses showed up and said that God had sent him. The Hebrews sighed a collective yeah, right and went about their business. After all those years of mere existence, hundreds of years of sitting on the sidelines, suddenly the prophetic dominoes began to fall at a breathtaking rate. Moses informed the elders of Israel of his mission, then he immediately went to Pharaoh with his message from God to let His people go. Pharaoh refused, and God set about to change the prince of egypts mind through devastating plagues. Finally, after Pharaoh remained hardened to the Lords warnings and disciplines, el Shaddais judgment was poured out on the land of egypt, and all firstborn Egyptian humans and animals died. The Hebrews had been instructed in advance to paint the doorposts of their mud-brick huts with the blood of a yearling ram, in a sign to God that they were in submission to Him. Many egyptians and sojourners from other farflung nations had seen the power of the God of the Hebrews in that series of nine otherworldly plagues and infestations and so they followed
xv
suit. Those who obeyedHebrew, egyptian, Canaanite, Hittite, Bedouin, Africanwere all spared death at the hand of the Creator. Within twenty-four hours after that horrific judgment, the Israelites were packed and on their way out of Egypt. Within a few weeks they arrived at Mount Sinai, and their leader, Moses, began to receive a long series of commands and ordinances directly from the mouth of Yehoveh. Moses was receiving the constitution of Israel, and it was unlike anything man had ever seen because it was not of a man. Although they were called a nation of priests, a separate priesthood was established by means of the family of Moses brother, Aaron. Gods principles were made visual and physical and understandable by humans, by means of rituals and celebrations and holy days and the construction of the all-important earthly dwelling place of God Almighty, the wilderness tabernacle. This grand portable tent was a physical, earthly model of Gods heavenly throne room. Moses met with God on a regular basis, faceto-face, inside the holiest place in that tent, and received counsel and instruction. But now, by the end of the book of Leviticus, the redemption of Gods people had been accomplished, the laws, ordinances and princi-
ples for the new nation of Israel had been established, and a means for God to be in the midst of His cherished people had been completed. The time that evolved from the night of the great death in egypt (which we today call the Passover) to the end of the book of Leviticus was but one mere year. Imagine if you were one of those ordinary Hebrews, how your head must have been swimming. everything Yehoveh had instructed through His mediator, Moses, was at odds with everything you had ever known. All that you thought was of great value, God said was worthless. All that you thought was worthless, God said was priceless. Could you or I, in one year, be completely remolded? Could you or I, in twelve or thirteen cycles of the moon, go from being thoroughly pagan to being thoroughly godly? Could you or I in a short time forget our customs and traditions that were real and unquestionedthose thoughts and kneejerk reactions that defined our lives and our ancestors livesin favor of a whole new set of rules that at this point were simply theoretical ideals? Thats the point in the development of Israel where we enter the book of Numbers. And of course all that Israel had been through up until then was but the beginning. All that had hap-
xvi
pened and all they had been instructed to do up to that point was not an end in itself; it was only to prepare them for what lay ahead. While divine idealism was at the core of the Torah and the teachings that the Lord gave to Moses and Moses passed on to his charges, these commands were also practical. These priestly laws of Leviticus in some ways envisioned a kind of utopia on the one hand, but on the other they were the framework for a new and holy lifestyle that the Israelites were to live and enjoy as Gods people. We must grasp that these laws were saturated by a realism that fully reflected the social and political conditions of ancient Israel and the ancient Middle east in general. How Israeli society operated appeared, from the outside, fairly typical for a people of that era. Even more, these laws worked. It is common and correct for the believer to say that the Law was a shadow and a type and it pointed forward to the work and mission of Messiah. Yet to infer that the laws didnt actually have a real and tangible and immediate purpose and benefit for Israel, or that they werent meant to operate and perform as they were designed in everyday practical ways, is a mistake. The God-ordained laws and rituals that set out a means for atonement provided actual atonement for sin. The laws and rituals that set out a means to become clean again after contracting ritual impurity provided actual cleansing. This was not a pretend or inferior atonement and cleansing, as is too often erroneously taught. Thus in the book of
Numbers well see these rituals in full operation as people sin and become ritually impure, and then the priests perform the proper ritual in the proper manner (with the full participation of the worshipper) and the situation is remedied. I doubt many Christians have willingly ventured into the book of Numbers. What a dullsounding book to our ears. But as youre about to discover, the book of Numbers is one of the most vibrant and informative of all the books in the Bible. For us in our day, the word numbers is associated with accounting and record keeping, math, income tax returns, balancing checkbooks, using computers and the Internet, dealing with budgets and debt. Numbers are impersonal and cold, and in some ways even feel like a threat to our culture; in other ways numbers represent a kind of self-imposed bondage we are forced to deal with, like it or not. But long ago, numbers were magical. They were mysterious and portended good things and bad. They were symbolic and thought to be the very key to unlocking the minds and wills of the gods. Numbers were desired, exciting, and thoroughly studied and discussed. Numbers were awesome, welcome, and at times fearsome. Numbers were intensely important to the Hebrew people as well, right on through Jesus era and into today. The Apostle Paul made abundant use of the book of Numbers in one of his greatest teachings, as found in 1Corinthians 10.
Assignment: read 1 Corinthians 10:111.
All these events that Paul listed are found written down in the Torahin the book of Numbers, to be specific. Paul saw what we would see: that the book of Numbers, while a record of history, is also prophetic. We will see the Messiah in the book of Numbers, and we will see Him operating before He became a man.
xvii
Numbers is not actually the Hebrew name for this fourth of the five books of Torah. Numbers is merely the english translation of the Greek name given to this bookArithmoi from which we also get the word arithmetic. The Greeks gave this name to the book because in the early chapters the Lord orders a census taken of the Israelites, and the results are recorded. In Hebrew the name for this book is Bmidbar ; it means in the wilderness. It is in the book of Bmidbar where we find the story of the forty years that Israel spent wandering in the wilderness of the Negev, the Sinai, and probably for a short time the Arabian Peninsula. Numbers is really a misnomer and the quantity of actual numbers and lists is quite small. The vast bulk of this book consists of stories and narratives of those formative forty years that our Lord apparently thought important for us to know about (as Paul forcefully pointed out to his readers). Bmidbar has all sorts of interesting nuances; not the least of which is that the first ten chapters covers a time period of only twenty days. Thats right, the first ten chapters record the events of less than a three-week time span. Everett Fox, the editor and commentator for the scholarly Schocken Bible, sees a structure of Bmidbar that can be broken into thirds. The first section covers chapters 110, and he calls it In the Wilderness of Sinai: The Camp. These chapters cover the census of the Israelites and the duties assigned to the Levites, as well as explain the ordering of the Camp, the rites of the Nazirites, matters of Gods presence in the wilderness tabernacle, and the beginning of the journey toward the land of Canaan. The second section covers chapters 1125, and Fox calls it The Rebellious Folks: Narratives of Challenge. It deals with the fate of the generation of exiles that came out of egypt, the first three of their rebellions, the account of the twelve spies sent into Canaan, then more rebellions, encounters with various other peoples, and then the famous story of Balaam the pagan prophet.
Biblical Rituals As a general rule, modern-day Christians (particularly evangelical Christians) dont particularly like rituals. In fact this distaste for ritual is not new. Most post-enlightenment-era Christian scholars make no bones about disliking ritual,
The third section includes chapters 2636. Our commentator entitles it In the Plains of Moab: Preparation for the Conquest of Canaan. It includes another census, talks about certain holy day sacrifices, adds some rules about making vows, tells of some battles the exiles had with people they ran across and discusses the upcoming conquest of the Promised Land. It also lays out laws about the sanctuary cities, or cities of refuge, which were to be operated by a special group of Levites as a safe place for those who committed manslaughter to reside under protection from the kinsman-redeemers who wanted revenge. Since this is a fairly large book, it helps to know in advance that from a thirty-thousandfoot view, Bmidbar, or Numbers, plays out according to a pattern of three, and so we find three important cycles of revelation and instruction from the Lord laid out in its pages. The first takes place at Sinai; the second at Kadesh (also called Kadesh-Barnea); and the third in Moab, as Israel gets ready to enter Canaan. Most likely Numbers would not be the first book that one who is intent on studying the Scriptures would want to start with, because it is based entirely on the foundation laid by Genesis and Exodus. If one doesnt know or understand the foundational context for Bmidbar, then one will invariably misunderstand what goes on (particularly regarding the many God-ordained rituals). Yes, Bmidbar has (of course) much ritual woven into the narrative. After all, the prescribed rituals of Leviticus had just been introduced weeks before the events of Numbers, and so the time to put them into practice was just beginning.
xviii
even if you do not see the value in your involvement in biblical ritual, I can assure you that understanding the Torah rituals is key to understanding the Torah as well as Gods plan for mankind. Anthropologists have for a long time known that if they are going to understand a society (modern or ancient), they must begin with that societys rituals; for rituals are the foremost statements of any societys values. Listen to what Monica Wilson, a noted anthropologist, said, a half-century ago about the importance of rituals in defining a culture: Rituals reveal values at their deepest level. . . . Men express in ritual what moves them the most, and since the form of expression is conventionalized and obligatory, ritual reveals the values of the group. I see in the study of rituals the key to an understanding of the essential constitution of human societies. (Quoted in The ritual Process by Victor Witter Turner, pg. 6) I dont think there is a more ignored or disliked (and therefore more misunderstood) subject in the Bible than the rituals associated with sacrificing. Yet there is rarely a pastor or Bible teacher who would not regularly point out that Yeshua fulfilled the very sacrificial system they both dislike and know nothing about. As Gordon Wenham points out, the sacrificial system is at the very heart of biblical worship; it is unavoidable. So while it may not be entirely comfortable for us, we need to study and understand the rituals of the Torah, because the entire purpose of these rituals revolves around communication between God and man. They explain the very essence of our relationship with the God of the Bible. These rituals for the ancients were like our going to the movies today: the visual element is a needed and desired thing for understanding, and it is very powerful for men. The church today has few rituals that actively involve the worshipper: mainly baptism and Communion. The problem with this is that our understanding of ritual has become onesided: somebody else performs, and we watch
and it shows up in their backhanded swipes at the Torah commands and their superficial study and investigation into the roles of the Levite priests, especially. Since many seminaries teach according to the values and conclusions of these same scholars, the aversion to either doing ritual or even seeing value in the ancient Hebrew ritual practices has carried over to the church in general. Further, as we have discussed before, the church has essentially discarded any sense of communal responsibility and in its place adopted individualism as the platform for action and expression of our faith. This disdain for ritual has a comfortable companion in individual-oriented denominational theologies, and so the lens through which the Torah is now viewed (and most especially the Christian attitude toward the priestly rituals) is this: personal freedom and spontaneity are good; organized ritual is bad. I have to confess that having been raised in the Protestant branch of the church, and being mostly a product of the Jesus movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, I have had a terribly hard time adjusting to accept celebrating the biblical festivals, Sabbath, and so on. Its not that I dont think it is good for me and my family, nor do I even argue that it is Gods command; rather, its simply not what Ive known all my life, and so it is work to set aside what is comfortable and usual in exchange for what is biblically prescribed.
xix
and somehow or another, our mere presence counts as worship. That was not the essence of biblical ritual, Old Testament or New. As Ive made clear, except for sacrifices that were on behalf of the priests or the community of Israel as a whole, the worshipper was an active participant, and it was he who killed the sacrificial animal. The worshipper was required on three occasions each year to make a pilgrimage to the temple. The worshipper was required to set aside his normal work, cease almost all productive activity, and rest on the Shabbat. He was required to build and live in a sukkah during Sukkoth. Active participation in ritual was the norm. How easy it is for us to sing the old hymn, Just as I am without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me. How much more would those words mean to us if we had to take a half-ton bull (that we had raised and/or purchased) and drag it up to the altar, tie it to one of the four altar horns, and then ritually slit the animals neck artery, watching its life drain away in a few seconds. The point is that these biblical rituals should not be lost on us. As we revisit them in the book of Numbers, they are no longer simply the idealism and theory of Leviticus, so pay close attention to them, for their underlying principles are what the unchanging Lord God is trying to teach us. The Nazirites Watch as we explore Bmidbar for even more emerging God patterns because these patterns will show themselves mightily in the New Testament. One of the most interesting patterns is that of the Nazirite. Do not confuse Nazirite with Nazarene or Nazareth, Yeshuas home. A Nazirite was a non-Levite and non-priest who had been set apart for service to God by means of a vow, and thus had an elevated holy status as compared to the other Israelites. In modernday terms, while a Levite priest was clergy, a Nazirite was a layman. Put another way, taking
the vow of a Nazirite was a way for a person who was not a natural member of the priestly tribe of Levi to be declared holy and fit for service to God, generally on par with a priest. The similarity between a priest and a Nazirite becomes obvious when we study the rituals prescribed for a Nazirite, which were almost identical to those of a priest. Well look at these rituals, which contain the essence of the spiritual meaning of each rituals purpose, at the appropriate point in our study of Numbers; but for now, just understand that a priest was a priest by birth. He had a birthright to be a priest because he was born into the proper tribe. A Nazirite, on the other hand, was an ordinary Israelite; he was a person who had no right to be a priest because he wasnt born into the right tribe. Yet God made a provision for those who were non-Levites but still wanted to serve Him to be able to do so. By faith and trust in God and by Gods declaration, the Nazirite, who was foreign to the priesthood, was allowed to take on a special holiness virtually equal to a priest; again, the only difference was that the Nazirite could not perform sanctuary duties. A Gentile, who was a foreigner to Israel, could if he so desired be brought by the declaration of God into the service of God under the covenants of Israel. In other words, the Nazirite was a model and pattern of how a
xx
Gentile could become a believer and worship the God of Israel. Physically speaking, a Jew and a Gentile were different; a Jew had an advantage in that he was born into the covenants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while a Gentile was not. Physically, a priest and a Nazirite were different (a priest was of the tribe of Levi, a Nazirite was not). Spiritually, a Jew and a Gentile who trusted God were made equal in status before the Lord. Spiritually, a priest and a Nazirite were made equal in status before the Lord. They each merely had different roles. One was born into his role, while the other had to be grafted in. But in both cases, they were under the same covenants. We are going to see these patterns and principles appear in the New Testament. Paul spoke on them and used the incidents recorded in Numbers, especially, to make his point that Yeshua fulfilled the patterns and principles of the Torah. Butand this is so essential to grasp in these days and the days just ahead of usPaul also made the point that if the already redeemed Israelites rebelled and were punished by God in ancient times (as told in the book of Numbers), why would a believer redeemed by the blood of Yeshua think he could be rebellious and escape Gods harsh hand of discipline? I would like to close this preparation for our study of Bmidbar, Numbers, with the words of a man whose works I greatly admire and find myself usually in lockstep with: Gordon Wenham, a wonderful Christian scholar who teaches at Gloucester College of Higher education in england. Wenham says this about the importance of understanding and accepting the value of biblical ritual for the modern Christian:
The sacrificial offerings of animals, flour, oil and wine prescribed in Numbers (7;15; 2829) are no longer valid expressions of Christian worship, because they point beyond themselves to the one atoning sacrifice of Christ which has made them obsolete (Heb. 10). Yet Christians are still reminded: let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God (Heb. 13:1516). The principle of whole-hearted dedication to the worship of God links Old and New Testaments, even if our mode of devotion has altered. Similarly, if the tithe (Nu. 18) remains a norm for Christian giving (Mt. 23:23), it may be noted that some believers evidently gave much more (Lk. 19:8; Acts 2:45; 2 Cor. 8). If much of the biblical legislations cannot be applied today, its thoroughness and attention to detail should challenge the modern church to ask whether our more casual attitudes may not be a cloak for indifference. (emphasis added) Gordon Wenham is certainly not calling to start sacrificial procedures anew. It is simply a reminder to us that so many of the biblical rituals that take their form in the biblical feasts, for instance, while in no way needed for atonement or salvation, are indeed needed to teach and to remind. They teach and remind us of Gods principles, of His laws and commands, of how it is better to live our lives in rhythm with, rather than out of tune with, the universe He created. The book of Numbers is historic, worshipful, instructive, and at times poetic. And having studied the first three books of Torah, youre now prepared to drink in and grasp the awesome revelations that will provide so many connecting links to the work of Yeshua HaMashiach, the saving attribute or person of the Lord God.
Numbers 1
Israel prepared to leave Mount Sinai circa 1350 BC. After spending four hundred years in egypt, the last two centuries of that time as Egypts slave labor force, God had finally rescued them from their plight. The Bible word used for this rescue is redemption; what occurred in their exodus from egypt entailed much more than a massive jailbreak. redemption is at its core a spiritual issue, and therefore redemption is an important theme for the remainder of Torah. It also establishes a key God principle for our understanding of the New Testament: first comes redemption, and then come understanding and relationship. Ill reiterate this somewhat controversial statement that Ive alluded to at other times: the laws and commands of Torah, and of all the Bible for that matter (OT or New), is not for nonbelievers to follow. It is only for the already redeemed. Once we are redeemed, then we can begin to develop our relationship with God, which involves not only trust in Him, but obedience to His commands as well. The error comes when we think we can follow the laws of God like a recipe or a check-off list in order to become a child of God. In fact, perhaps the greatest untold lesson
of the Word of God is that the laws of God are only for those who trust Him. Dont let the words redeem or redemption throw you; both mean essentially the same as the church word salvation. So when we study the Torah and other books of the Bible, we can freely interchange the words redemption and salvation to a great degree. The only real difference is that salvation has taken on a meaning of including the belief that it is Yeshua the Messiah who has redeemed us from our sins, but from a generic and purely literary standpoint, redemption and salvation mean basically the same thing. And notice, the Law of Moses did not redeem Israel; God redeemed them, and then sometime afterward He gave them the Law. Lets follow this God-pattern that is established in the Torah. recall that upon Israels being rescued, or redeemed, the very first thing God did was to remove them from all that they had been familiar with: egypt. Slavery to a cruel and evil taskmaster was over, but that didnt mean difficulty and challenge ended. Already in the earliest stages of their exodus, the fears and insecurities of the unknown had caused some of the Hebrews to want to turn back. They were
Numbers 1
willing to discard their newly found freedom and reconnect themselves to the awful slavery they knew but were at some level comfortable with, rather than to fully submit themselves to God and be remolded and remade into His image (which, in itself, is a long and sometimes fearful process under the best of circumstances). Once the Lord had put some distance between the Israelites and their past, the next thing He did was to teach them about His holiness. This was accomplished by means of the same Torah we are now studying. Upon the summit of Mount Sinai, God gave Moses many laws and commands to give to the people of Israel; how else would a people who didnt know God learn about who He is and what He expects of His worshippers? Though modern Christians tend to think about those 613 laws of the Torah as being about us things were to do and not to doin reality the laws inform us all about Him. They tell us how immeasurably holy and just is the God of the Bible. They tell us what holiness amounts to and what it looks like; they tell us who God is and that He fully expects those He has bought and paid for to strive throughout the duration of their lives toward His definition of holiness and justice. This exact pattern that was established thirty-three hundred years ago is still today what the believers walk is supposed to look like. Israel wasnt redeemed by a knowledge of God; they were redeemed by a work of God. We also cant be intellectually persuaded to turn to
Messiah. We do so as the result of a work of the Holy Spirit upon us. Yet once that work of the Spirit of God has occurred, and once the Ruach HaKodesh has indwelled us, what comes nextat least what is intendedis our quest for knowledge. The church has implied that upon our salvation experience, whatever knowledge of God we are to have will come by some mystical means. That we can just sit in our armchairs watching TV, and somehow in our subconscious the Holy Spirit will implant in us an understanding of Gods holiness and what that entails. The idea that as Christians, nothing outside our salvation experience matters one whit and that striving to learn Gods ways, and to experience them by our deeds and works, is even something to be avoided. Yet that is not the example we are given in Scripture, Old or New Testament. The fact remains that we can no more intellectualize our way to a relationship with Christ than we can sleep our way to knowledge of holiness. The Israelites didnt learn about Gods righteousness and His laws and then as a result strategize and organize and rise up against Pharaoh and free themselves . . . the Lord did it all. Yet, after their redemption, they were expected to learn about holiness and the ways of light first by knowledge, and then by the acting out of what theyd learned in every facet of their lives. While Leviticus was all about the announcing and teaching of Gods holiness, Numbers is all about putting that knowledge to work. Leviticus was all about the imparting of Gods laws and commands to His people. Numbers tells us the historical story of His peoples forty years of wandering in the wilderness after they had gained that knowledge (after they had received the Law). The Names of the Lord and Jesus There is difficulty in knowing with absolute certainty how to pronounce the Lords formal name, which is spelled in Yud-heh-vav-heh in
Numbers 1
Hebrew, because the Jews stopped pronouncing it well over two thousand ago, so in some sense the sound of His name has been lost. When we attempt to pronounce the name in english, we are trying to mimic the sounds of Hebrew letters with english alphabet sounds. This process of converting Hebrew words to english words is called transliteration. The problem with all transliterations from the original language is that there are letters and vowel sounds and grammar rules that dont have direct equivalents from language to language. There are also words, phrases, idioms and even entire concepts that dont have direct equivalents between Hebrew and other languages. Grammatically speaking, there are letters in Hebrew that dont have direct Greek, Latin, or english equivalents. Hebrew doesnt have past or future tenses as were used to dealing with. In English and Greek, tenses are used to place the action being referred to in relation to time, such as was (past), is (present), and will be (future). Instead, Hebrew employs what are called perfect and imperfect tenses. These indicate whether an action is complete or incomplete. And often when translating those Hebrew tenses to Greek or English, we automatically equate complete with past and incomplete with future, which is incorrect. So it is the context of what one reads in Hebrew, plus the tense, that tells us whether an action is past, present, or future. And of course this is all just the tip of the iceberg in transliteration and translation issues. How can we reasonably and honestly and (most importantly) reverently deal with the matter of Gods name and our Saviors name? After studying the very best Hebrew and Gentile sources available, I can tell you that regardless of how we might precisely verbalize the Lords name, it cannot be anything but a three-syllable word. It is simply a matter of basic Hebrew grammar. When a Hebrew word begins with a Yud, and then follows with three more standard consonants, generally each consonant requires a vowel sound. So we must have three
vowel sounds in the Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh the name of God. The pronunciation Yah-weh, therefore, is less likely because it is two syllables and employs but two vowel sounds; more correct is probably Yeh-ho-veh. So where did the idea of calling God Yah-weh come from? It is unclear, actually. Some think Yahweh is simply a contraction of the word Yeh-ho-veh. As you know, a contraction is when we take a word or a phrase and shorten itfor example, instead of saying do not (two syllables), we say dont, which is one syllable. Some contractions have occurred not because of how the word is spelled, but because of how the word is pronounced. To the Greek- or English-speaking person, the word Yeh-ho-veh spoken rapidly might sound like a two-syllable word. Saying Yah-weh may also represent a kind of rebellion against using the english three-syllable word Jehovah; but, in the end, saying Yah-weh is likely nothing more than a misconception by well-meaning Gentile scholars who simply didnt understand standard Hebrew grammar rules or didnt hear the very subtle o sound in the middle of the word. The word Jehovah that is standard in Western Christianity is born out of a German way of spelling Yeh-ho-veh, which was then centuries ago anglicized into our common Jehovah. So Jehovah is a pretty reasonable english languagebased pronunciation of Gods name, as long as we understand that saying Jehovah is the equivalent of calling a Russian person Mike who was named Mikhail, which we wouldnt normally do. Now, as concerns Messiahs name: the name Yeshua suffers from the same problem as God the Fathers name. Scholars have long known that Jesus Hebrew name is identical to the name of Moses protg, Joshua, who conquered Canaan. And in Hebrew, Joshua is Yhoshua. There we see the middle o added that effectively adds one more syllable to the name that has been contracted to Yeshua. As for the name Jesus, there have been many false stories circulated about how this name came to be. The most common is that
Numbers 1
Jesus is taken from the spelling of the Greek god Zeus name. This is not true. To begin with, Zeus is spelled with a Zeta, while there is no Zeta in Jesus Greek name (rather the s sound is from the Greek letter Sigma). We have the form Jesus in english due to a standard transliteration process that began with the original Hebrew Yhoshua, which became contracted to Yeshua, which was transliterated to Greek, then into Latin, and finally into English. Using the name Jesus is not pagan or wrong, but the name is a long way from anything He would ever have heard Himself referred to when He walked this earth! That said, Gentile Christians must understand that for us to use the word Jesus when speaking to Jewish believers indicates to them a complete insensitivity to the fact that even though we know and can easily pronounce Messiahs true, historical, given Hebrew name (Yeshua), we choose to distance Him from His Jewishness and to make Him more Gentile-like by insisting on using a thoroughly Gentile name for Him Jesus. Ive even had misinformed people tell me that to say Yeshua is blasphemy because His original given name is Jesus. Personally, I much prefer Yeshua because that was His given name in His own Hebrew culture. When I travel to a foreign nation and speak to people there, naturally I use their name in their language. But equally when a foreigner comes here, I use their name in their language as well. If a person moves to America and decides he wants to alter his name to reflect Western language traditions, thats fine. It is yet another matter as to whether or not we should pronounce Gods name at all. I personally see no scriptural prohibition against doing so, except if we use the name irreverently; but I do understand why some see it differently. So when Im in Israel or in a predominately Jewish group, out of respect to them I use their connotations for God by saying HaShem, or the Lord. But where we have a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, as with the readers of this book, and we have some people who are more familiar
with Hebrew and the Old Testament and others who are just beginning, it is necessary to use and equate a number of forms of Gods and Messiahs names. At times I will use the various forms that modern Jews uselike HaShem or Lord or Adonai and a couple of othersboth out of deference to our Jewish members and as a way of learning for Gentiles. I will also switch back and forth between using the names Jesus and Yeshua. My personal preference is Yeshua because it is an easily pronounced name that is the proven correct historical given name of our Jewish Messiah, but saying Jesus is certainly not wrong.
Assignment: read Numbers 1.
The events of this first chapter occurred in the month after the wilderness tabernacle was completed and the priesthood was ordained into existence. The Israelites had been gone from egypt for thirteen months, which means they had been camping at the foot of Mount Sinai for a bit less than one year and had yet to move on. The First Census On this day Yehoveh ordered a census of all the people, and that is the focus of this chapter. In fact, it was the census of Israelites that led to the English title for this book, Numbers. This title is misleading and leads the uninitiated into thinking that this book is about lists and minute bookkeeping details, when nothing could be further from reality. The Hebrew name for this book is BMidbar, which means in the wilderness. That is exactly what this book is about: the many stories of Israels wilderness journey. Although the book begins with census results, there is a lot of information here that is useful for us to know besides the population of each tribe. For instance, in the ancient world the first day of each month was usually a holiday
Numbers 1
(rosh Hodesh, the New Moon), as well as the regular day that the tribal elders would meet. After the meeting, instructions or decisions regarding the community would be communicated throughout the general population. The logical question is, why did God want a census of the Israelites to be taken? Did He not know how many Israelites there were? The point of this census was to organize an army; this was all about preparing for war. Just as the meeting of leadership on the first day of the month (the new moon) was customary among all known societies for that era, so was the taking of a census prior to going to war. Typically, the census was repeated immediately after the battle as well so as to tally the loss of life and determine what remained of the armys strength. Therefore, we get the instruction in verse 3 that all Israelites were to be counted and that every male from the age of twenty upward was to be recorded according to his tribe. In other words, there was not to be merely a sum total; the statistics were to broken down tribe by tribe. Just as every nation today has a minimum age for military service, generally speaking it was the same back then, and that age was twenty years. By way of comparison, the roman age of military con-
scription some centuries into the future would be seventeen years of age. During the Vietnam era in modern times, the age was eighteen in America. In some european nations, not even 150 years ago, the age for military service was as young as twelve or thirteen, depending on how dire the situation was. Interestingly, there was no upper age limit set for this census. When we look at other societies from that era, we find that when there was a particularly important war coming, the usual deferment for the elderly was set aside, and the aged were expected to contribute to the war effort in whatever way they could, even if it was not fighting. Further, this census was accomplished by means of separating people according to their family units within the tribes. The book of Numbers (BMidbar) is going to show us the typical Hebrew societal structure, and thus we are going to encounter several Hebrew words
Numbers 1
used to describe the various family and social units. One of the most used Hebrew terms, which well usually find translated as family in the english Bible, is Mishpachah. And probably a better alternative translation than family is clan. The best way to think of a clan is as a kind of intermediate-size social unit, somewhere in between a single family and the entire tribe. In verse 4, Moses is instructed that the tribal chieftains (sometimes translated as princes), who are the headmen of each of the twelve tribes, are to assist him. The idea was that Moses and Aaron were to delegate this job of censustaking to the leader of each tribe, and then Numbers proceeds to give us the name of the current nasi for each tribe. Nasi is the Hebrew word usually used to indicate the chieftain or princethe top dogof a tribe. So that we can better understand Israelite social structure, and also get a good grip on the typical biblical way a person was identified, lets look at the first name in the group in verse 5. The verse begins by identifying one of the twelve tribes, the first level of division of Israel. The tribe was called reuben. The current chieftain of that tribe was someone named elizur; and elizur came from the family, or clan, of Shedeur. In general, tribes were divided up into clans, and clan units were powerful. The easiest way to understand this process is to begin with the person who first formed the tribe, and then see how the lineage proceeds. reuben, the first son born to Jacob, was the founder of the tribe of reuben. reuben had several children. each of his male children would have started their own family. Within two or three more generations, there would have been enough people that each of those sons of reuben would now have been considered the head of a clan of people. So now there would have been several heads of clans that together formed the tribe of reuben. Yet the fact remains that when reuben (the head of the tribe) died, one of his sons (one of those clan leaders) would have to assume his place. Usually, but not always, it was the head of
the tribes designated firstborn who would take over; and when he died, his firstborn would assume control over the whole tribe, and so on and so on. However, there were glitches and exceptions in this procedure. After several generations, perhaps a firstborn and his family were wiped out with disease or in battle, or another clan grew greater than the others in power. So it fell to one of the other clan leaders to assume the role of head of the entire tribe. How this was determined varied, but usually the selection was according to which clan was the most powerful. And as you can imagine, there was much intrigue and politicking (and sometimes murder) when the usual and customary line of succession was interrupted. So the structure for identifying just who the head of each tribe was, here in Numbers, to first state the tribe, then to state the name of the current tribal ruler, then to state which of the several clans that formed the tribe this particular tribal ruler was from. Therefore, we must be cautious in this kind of listing not to assume, for instance, that elizur was literally the son of a man named Shedeur; likely, Shedeur was the name of a large clan and elizur was simply from the clan of Shedeur.
Numbers 1
Therefore, the listing of the tribal chieftain doubles as the list of census supervisors; in verse 17 were told that Moses and Aaron led the chieftains into doing what Yehoveh had instructed. Before we go any further, notice that one significant tribe is missing from the list of tribes that are to take part in the census, the tribe of Levi. Well soon find out why that is. Verse 20 begins to announce the results of the census, which cover twenty-two more verses. And the numbers are substantial. remember that these numbers are not the total population of Israel; rather, they represent only the male population, twenty years of age and older. The largest tribe at this moment in history was apparently that of Judah, and his tribe totaled 74,600 warriors. The next largest was actually Josephs. We dont technically have a named tribe of Joseph at this point in Israelite history; instead, Joseph was represented by his two sons, ephraim and Manasseh. We thus arrive at the total population of Josephs tribe by adding ephraims and Manassehs census numbers together, which brings us a total of 72,700. As we study Torah and all the other books of the Bible that deal with latter-day prophecies, well often be reminded that ephraim and Manasseh were essentially temporary (though long-term) placeholders for Joseph; that for special divine purposes the authority and rights given to Joseph were transferred to ephraim and Manasseh for a time. Because these issues of the twelve tribes of Israel are so central in understanding the past, present, and future of not just Israel but of all mankind, we need to constantly be making a mental note that ephraim and Manasseh must often be looked at as a conglomerate representing their father, Joseph. The total tally of military eligible men came to 603,550. This exactly matches the number recorded back in Exodus 38, when a census was taken for the purposes of collecting a halfshekel tax on all military-age men. And there certainly shouldnt have been much difference between the two counts, because the first census had been taken only a few months earlier
than this new one. But apparently it had been conducted in a different manner than the one were looking at here in Numbers. The earlier one had to do with atonement for the nation of Israel as a whole, not forming an army for holy war. Therefore, in the exodus census there was no breakdown by tribe, nor was there a recording of each male according to which clan he belonged to; rather, all males twenty years and older were lumped together (it mattered not which tribe or clan or family each belonged to). In this BMidbar census, however, a different purpose was the point: to establish battle order. Therefore, clan and tribe mattered, because the tribe one came from indicated the most basic battle unit one belonged to and fought beside. For a more recent example, during the American Civil War, each state that joined in the war was expected to contribute a certain number of troops to the war effort. These battle units were usually named according to the state or the county they came from, as they were composed primarily of men hailing from that particular area. If this were happening today, we might have the Santa Monica regiment composed of men from Santa Monica, or the Los Angeles regiment formed from men living in the Los Angeles area. The reasons for this are obvious: men who knew one another or were family would be more loyal to one another and stick together. They would feel that they were fighting for a land they were
Numbers 1
attached to and had a stake in, rather than some ideological or philosophical thing like a hoped-for nation or confederation that may or may not have resulted from their potential sacrifice of life and limb. The same idea is taking place here in Numbers, whereby the clan and the tribe one belonged to automatically determined which battle unit one belonged to. It would be pretty much unthinkable that a member of the tribe of Judah, for example, would be under the control of a commander from the tribe of Dan. So each tribe was going to be in a sense its own army unit. As Israel readied for its conquest of the land of Canaan, they were more like allied NATO troops than different units of the same army fighting under one flag and one commander for one nation. It wouldnt be until the reign of King David that the idea of Israel being one singled unified nation would come about. Until then, each of the Israelite tribes looked more like a separate nation, and they behaved more as allies than as a united nation. Without doubt, this enormous tally of 603,550 fighting men presents problems for historians and Bible scholars. Depending on ones guesstimate of what the total population of Israel must have been when including the tribe of Levi (who were not included in this census), women, and children, the number would likely have been somewhere upward of two million, likely approaching three million people. There has been all manner of speculation, and downright disbelief, that this was possible. Many attempts at justifying a supposed error in the reporting of these numbers have been made, ranging from saying that the Hebrew word elep, which has been translated as thousand, should have been translated as hundred or even family, all the way to saying that these numbers were redacted in a much later period to reflect the population of Israel at the time of the redaction and not at the time of Moses. Others say the figure must simply be legend, that there is no way the Sinai could have supported 2 to 3 million people for forty
years because the Sinai was just as much a desert wasteland in Moses day as it is now. Yet most scholarly arguments against the large population suggested in Numbers stem from looking at this issue from a purely secular and pragmatic point of view, employing the same methods used in looking at all biblical events in which a miracle of God is the only possible answer. That is, the assumption is that there is no such thing as a miracle of God, and therefore all proofs must be rational or lie in natural occurrences (even if rare) and in verifiable and testable scientific findings. From that viewpoint these scholars are correct; there is utterly no earthly way that twenty thousand, let alone 2 million or more Israelites could have camped and survived for forty years in the wilderness of Sinai. Like all matters concerning the Bible, faith is at the core. If we cannot believe in miracles of God, then we cannot possibly have trust in Him. When edicts and actions of God defy human logic and sensibilities, we have a choice: believe Yehoveh, or believe our intellect. even though we may be scoffed at and laughed at, the idea that a few million Israelites lived in the Sinai for forty years is actually easier to believe, for me, than the concept that God Himself came down from His heavenly throne, put on a skin suit, and made Himself vulnerable to humans. Or that He came to earth as Yeshua the Messiah and gave up His own life to pay the price for our iniquities, so important are we to Him that He would do such a thing. If you are one who has made the decision to trust Yeshua, then that is what you believe. And if you can believe that, believing all the rest is a piece of cake. You can trust the Word of God. But be cautious, because sometimes the various translations are littered with ancient and modern agendas of their translators. Once we have learned the Torah, however, those agendas are going to be much easier to spot and to reckon with. We know that a large portion of the folks who left egypt with Israel were not Hebrews; they were egyptians and various groups of
Numbers 1
Semites and other combinations of nationalities that had been in egypt at the time of the plagues. These people had been so impressed with the power of the God of Israel that they wanted to join Israel, enjoy the benefits of worshipping such a God, and participate in the exodus from egypt to a Promised Land. So the question is, where and how did these non-Hebrews fit into the mix? Were they counted in the census as being part of one tribe or another? The short answer is that we dont know. For sure it was a mixed bag, though. Some of these foreigners had married Israelite men or women and therefore were easily associated with one or the other of the twelve tribes, so they would have figured into the final census totals. But the foreigners who were not genealogically connected with Israel, or married into Israel, would have had to make a choice: declare allegiance to one of the twelve tribes or tag along as nonmembers of Israel. As nonmembers of Israel, they would not have been counted in the census and they would not have been allowed to live within the camp of Israel; rather, they would have had to set up their tents beyond the Israelite camp limits. We have no way of knowing how many would have fallen into that category. But understand: these foreigners were welcomed to tag along and they were not considered enemies. Without doubt, these same foreigners helped to contribute to the delinquency of Israel pertaining to idol worship (not that Israel needed much help in that area!).
Assignment: reread Numbers 1:4754.
This section of Numbers states specifically that the Levites were not to be counted for the purpose of a military conscription. Well find later that the Levites were indeed counted, but the
Numbers 1
Exemption of the Levites
count had nothing to do with being part of the war effort, and that is the gist of what is being said here. Further, from this time forward (which is essentially indefinitely), the Levites were not to be counted as a regular part of Israel. Instead, they were put in charge of the newly constructed wilderness tabernacle, the glorious tent shrine that would be central to the worship and lives of Israel for the next several centuries. Additionally, the Levites were to disassemble the tabernacle when it was time to move on, carry it during the journey, and then reassemble it upon arrival at the next destination. The Levites were in charge of everything that pertained to the tabernacle, including its furnishings and such things as the bronze altar for burnt offerings. They also had another important duty: they were to guard the sanctuary from those who would encroach upon it. So starting in verse 52 and moving on into chapter 2, we find a very specific order in which each of the twelve tribes was to camp around the tabernacle; further, the Levites were to camp between the twelve tribes and the sanctuaryacting as a defensive barrierin order to fulfill their new roll as guardians of Gods earthly dwelling place. And why were the Levites set apart to guard the sanctuary? Verse 53 says this was so that wrath may not strike the Israelite community ( Jps).
10
Historically and scripturally, the Levites were adopted away from Israel (no longer to be counted as Israelites); they were adopted away en masse from Israel by God. This very much corresponds to the pattern of an earlier surprise adoption that we studied back in Genesis 48. Lets review.
Assignment: read Genesis 48:16.
Here, for some reason that were not told, Jacob (called Israel) adopted Josephs two sons away from Joseph (recall that Joseph was Jacobs most favored son). Jacob made ephraim and Manasseh, Josephs two sons, his own sons. In other words, the status of these two grandchildren of Jacob was changed to being Jacobs sons. A strange thing indeed, and were left to ponder its meaning. But here in Numbers we find Yehoveh doing precisely the same thing to Israel: He adopted away from Israel the entire tribe of Levi to be His own special servants. So ephraim and Manasseh should have been clans from the tribe of Joseph. Instead, because they were adopted, they were elevated from being potential clans to being their own tribes: two tribes of Jacob (Israel). Levi, on the other hand, was no longer to be counted as a tribe of Israel; rather, Levi was removed as a tribe of Israel and became the tribe of God, so to speak. Its important in deciphering all that happens from here forward in the Bible that we recognize and understand the impact of this separateness of Levi from Israel. And here we get an all-important spiritual principle that completely flies in the face of the modern world. This principle, if most even understood it, would be denounced as the most intolerant and arrogant position a person might harbor. God separates His servants away from everyone else, elevates them, has higher expectations of them, and gives them special attention. They are different. It is Yehoveh who gives
them different status, not because of anything theyve done to merit such favor but because God has declared it so. His servants (Levi) were so special that they were not even to be counted as among everyone else of His special setapart nation, Israel. This is all connected to the first and most important God principle: God divides, elects, and separates. He makes distinctions. This is not a God who says were all one big happy family. He does not view everyone the same, and He is not tolerant or politically correct in order to suit our ever-changing vanities and preferences. Are you a true believer and disciple of Yeshua? Then you, by the blood of Jesus, have been separated away from all other humans. The Lord has given you elevated status and favor. You are the modern spiritual equivalent of the Levites (no, you have not become a physical Levite). What did you ever do to merit this favor? Nothing. You simply accepted the reality of what Yeshua HaMashiach did for you. Therefore you are not to be counted as others on this planet. You are not to behave as others among this planet. In fact, you have been assigned the duty of guardian of Gods holiness here on earth. For you are Gods earthly tabernacle, and some mysterious element of His holiness, which we call the Holy Spirit, the ruach HaKodesh, actually dwells inside you. Everywhere you are, He is. everything you experience, you subject Him to and cause Him to react accordingly. Therefore, as Gods servant you are not to join yourself willingly to anyone or anything who is not also set apart for God. And if you have any control over the matter, you are not to allow anyone or anything who is not set apart for Yehoveh to join themselves to you. The Levites were set apart for holiness, and now youre set apart for holiness. Period. Thats the deal, and your only real choice if you dont accept this role and duty is to renounce your allegiance to Jesus. Now, just as the Levites didnt go off and live entirely separate from the Israelites, were not to live entirely separate from the world. Yet the Levites were given their own
Numbers 1
11
cities among the other tribes of Israel so they could be near and serve their divine function in helping to shepherd Israel and in helping to keep Israel in proper relationship with God. In fact, the Levites not only served God directly at the tabernacle via officiating the required sacrifices and other rituals, they served Him indirectly by serving Israel. As believers we are to serve God directly. But as Christ said, were also to serve Him indirectly. How do we do that? The righteous will answer Him, Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? The King will answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. (Matt. 25:3740 nasb) We serve Him by serving others (especially our brothers and sisters of the faith) at His direction. The parallels between the Levites and disciples of Yeshua, whether Jew or Gentile, are so thorough and far-reaching that we cannot ignore them and still claim to have real knowledge of membership in the kingdom of God. So as we continue our study of Torah, pay very close attention to what God expected of the Levites; most of those principles apply to you. One of the reasons that Yehoveh separated the Levites from all else on this earth and made them His own had to do with the principle that all firstborns automatically belong to Him. God set down a principle in exodus that the lives of the firstborn of everything were His. When He took the lives of all those people and livestock in Egypt, He killed only the firstborn; He was simply taking what was already His. But now, with the taking of the Levites away from their biological father, Jacob, the Lord was substituting the Levites as a ransom for all the firstborn of all the other tribes of Israel. Instead of God owning the lives of all the firstborn of
Israel, He exchanged them for the Levites. Just accept that for the moment, even though Ive not fully explained it, and in the next few lessons well look at this principle in much greater depth. Let me finish out that thought with another parallel between the Levites and believers. The Levites were to protect Gods holiness from encroachers, because if an unauthorized person (someone God deemed as unfit) encroached on Gods holiness, the entire community would feel His wrath. And who were those deemed as the unfit? All whom did God not deem as holy. In protecting Gods holiness, the Levites at the same time protected the common people of Israel from Gods wrath by keeping those who were not sufficiently holy away from Him. If the nonholy were able to get near Gods holiness, His wrath would fall upon the entire community in divine retribution. Likewise, one of the purposes of believers is to delay Gods wrath upon the unholy, the world. The day will come when all believers will be whisked away from this earth in an event evangelicals call the rapture, and then Gods wrath will pour out upon this planet. A major part of your purpose as a walking, talking, living, breathing tabernacle of God is to protect this world from Gods wrath by protecting Gods holiness from the uncleanness and unholiness of the world. As long as were here, Hes here. When were gone, Hes gone. If that responsibility doesnt make your knees quake and your mouth go dry, then either you dont believe me or you dont get it. All that stood between the total annihilation of Israel and God was the Levites. All that stands today between the total annihilation of the world and God is you. I dont want to leave this too quickly. Let me explain something to you: the Levites werent like pacifist monks who would plead with an encroacher to stay back, and then if the encroacher paid no heed, the Levites would behave as Gandhi or as silent sacrificial lambs. The Levites were armed and dangerous; they were aggressive and immediately killed anyone
Numbers 1
12
who encroached too near the holy grounds. This was not about justice as we think of it. Sympathy was irrelevant. Simple error brought death as quickly as stubborn determination and malicious intent. remember in Genesis the word picture of the cherubim with the flaming sword that guarded the path to the Garden of eden? And that any unauthorized person foolish enough to venture too close was immediately destroyed by those cherubim? The Levites were to behave as those cherubim behaved. The Levites didnt ask permission from a supervisor to kill the trespasser, they were expected to do it without hesitation; they didnt arrest an encroacher and take him or her to a priest for a hearing, the Levite was obligated to kill that person on the spot or lose his own life for not doing so. Gods holiness is that serious a matter.
God indeed places high value on human life, but He also places the ultimate value on His own holiness. And the Scriptures make it clear that He would sacrifice all human life to maintain His holiness. As believers we need to do our job, just as the Levites did theirs; and it was for the benefit of both the worshipper and the pagan. This job cant be done while sitting on the sidelines. Obviously were not in the business of killing unholy people, but as guardians of Gods holiness, we are to be active and watchful and strike at the true enemy, Satan, whenever he comes near. We do this by standing on Gods Word and by following Him, no matter the cost. This must never be a frivolous or rash action on our part, nor something we act upon without much prayer and counsel.
Numbers 1
13
Numbers 2
Camp Arr angements In chapter 2, the organizing of the nation of Israel for the coming holy war continues. The Israelites were given instructions on how they were to set up camp and deploy when they were at rest. Lets remember that out in the wilderness the Israelites didnt move all that often. They stayed in one location for many months at a time (years in some cases) before they were led by the Shekinah of the fire cloud to move again. So when they set up an encampment, it wasnt for a weekend of recreational tent camping. rather than have some type of disorganized mess, it was necessary to have order. The claimed enormity of two to three million people meant that the organization and structure had to be precise and codified. Not surprisingly, a fairly rigid hierarchy was laid out for the Israelites. Of utmost importance is that they were to set up their vast tent village around the holy sanctuary. A kind of square formation would be set up with each side formed by a division; each division consisted of three tribes assigned to a particular place. And that place was designated by the compass directionseast, west, north, and south. Why a square? Why position the wilderness tabernacle in the center? Despite the obvious reasons that by means of the people surrounding the tabernacle it was better protected, we also find that historically, Rameses II used this exact formation during his battle campaigns. The royal tent of Pharaoh was placed in the
protected middle, and certain battalions were assigned in a kind of pecking order around the tent. These Israelites who had spent generations in egypt were completely familiar with this method. I bring this up to make the point that, generally speaking, God deals with us using manners and ways that we are familiar with in our culture. Most of the rituals God gave to Israel, and the form in which the laws and ordinances were presented (even in the use of the menorah, burnt offerings, burning incense, circumcision, and so on) had some parallel already long existent in the Middle eastern societies. We mustnt think that Yehoveh kept up some steady barrage of instructing the Israelites in ways that were completely foreign to them and totally new to the world. No. There was no need for this. Centuries of civil customs had been developed, and God used many of those imperfect customs for His purposes. For Israel, some of the customs He changed, some He outlawed, and some He gave a profoundly different meaning. The point is that most of what Israel did, they did because it was already well known to them. That said, over the centuries of following Gods ways and better understanding Gods purposes for them, Israels customs did begin to look very different from other folks. Their ways became stranger and stranger to the rest of the world, and indeed, that does appear to have been Gods plan for His people. Yeshuas disciples are to operate in the same way. When we are redeemed (saved), we still live in houses. We wake up in the morning and go to jobs. We put on shoes and wear clothes. We drive cars. We still read newspapers. The speed limits remain the same for us; we still have to pay our taxes; we vote and continue using electricity. We
Numbers 2
14
eat with a knife and a fork and we read books. externally, we were saved inside the environment and culture we were familiar with. And usually well make our kingdom journey with Yehoveh inside the culture we were familiar with before we submitted to Him. God will also likely send us to do His bidding inside the same society we knew before we were redeemed. When were first redeemed, usually all the change is internal. Over time (in the case of my life, long periods of time) the internal changes begin to show up externally. So eventually we start looking pretty strange to the world, and the world looks even stranger to us. We may start appearing to the world as a threat to their hopes and aspirations as we move from being perceived as merely obnoxious to being perceived as an enemy. That was how it was for Israel then and (if you dont recognize it) how it is for us now. Verse 2 makes it explicit that the twelve tribes were to camp around the Tent of Meeting at a distance. It was dangerous to be too near. And using common phrases of that day, the verse next says that each Israelite was to camp with his unit (that is, within his battle group), not the badly mistranslated with his standard, as we usually see written. So each Israelite was to camp with the battle unit he belonged to as determined by the census, and above his unit was to fly a banner representing his unit. This banner was some kind of colored cloth with the insignia of the group emblazoned upon it. Most of the Targums and the Talmud agree that each of the twelve tribes had a distinctive banner incorporating a specific color, and that the color of each banner coincided with one of the twelve semiprecious stones that adorned the high priests breastplate. Just what the insignia on each banner amounted to is anyones guess; nothing has been preserved that tells us with any certainty. Therefore whatever set of symbols for each tribe of Israel that you might see in a book, they are but guesswork and tradition. The order of the tribes (or, more literally, as theyre called here, troops) specified that Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were to encamp together as a unit on the east side (the front) of the wil-
derness tabernacle. This was the prime position of honor. Judah was the leader of this threetribe division. Judah obtained this right to lead upon replacing reuben (who was the natural firstborn of Jacob [Israel]) after an indiscretion by reuben against Jacob. Although reuben no longer held the preeminent position as firstborn and therefore supreme leader of Israel, he was still a leader and was apparently second in command to Judah. Therefore, he was instructed to camp in the next most prestigious area, the south side of the tabernacle. When I call a tribe by name and say he, that is not to say that the man reuben, for instance, was still living. According to the census records, reuben had died long ago and elizur was currently head of the reuben tribe. The only thing that remained of the original sons of Jacob by this late date was their descendants and their names that continued on as the names of the tribes they fathered. So the leader of the tribe of Judah held the highest status, with the leader of the tribe of reuben as the second-highest. reuben camped with Simeon and Gad, and together those three formed the southern division. Next, to the west, was ephraim as the head of that division, camped together with Manasseh and Benjamin. Last, in the least prestigious position, was the northern division, led by Dan. With him were Asher and Naftali.
Numbers 2
15
These camping positions (arranged according to compass directions) also dictated marching order; that is, who marched in the lead, who followed next, and so on down to who brought up the rear. The division of Judah would lead the column, followed by reuben. Verse 17 tells us that the wilderness tabernacle was to be carried after the division of reuben, but before the next division,ephraim. In other words, the Levites would carry and protect the all-important tent shrine in the middle of the marching column. Can we ascertain just why certain tribes were designated to camp together in a particular division? Yes, there is some rationale and pattern to it. To the east were the Leah tribes. That is, the biological mother of Judah and the other two tribes he camped with was Leah. To the south, we would find three more Leah tribes; however, there was a slight difference. The leader of the southern division, reuben, was the biological son of Leah, as was Simeon. But Gad was not a biological son of Leah; rather, he was the son of Leahs handmaiden Zilpah. However, by law, Zilpah, as a servant, was but a surrogate mother
for Leah, so Gad was counted as among the sons of Leah. To the west were the rachel tribes, led by ephraim; these were all sons produced by Jacobs most beloved wife, rachel. Again I have some explaining to do, because although Benjamins biological mother was indeed rachel, ephraim and Manesseh, the other two tribes making up this division, did not have Rachel as a biological mother. So why were they called rachel tribes? rachel was the biological mother of Joseph, who was the biological father of ephraim and Manasseh; as Josephs sons they were carrying the authority of Joseph, something that had been ordained by that amazing cross-handed blessing of Genesis 48. In the way we would think of it, biologically speaking, ephraim and Manasseh were grandsons of rachel. Nonetheless, due to the customs of that era, Benjamin was considered a son of rachel, and in the cross-handed blessing Jacob (rachels husband) had adopted ephraim and Manasseh. To the north (representing the lowest spot in the tribal pecking order) were the remaining three tribes, led by Dan. What made them
Numbers 2
16
the lowest was that they were all sons of Jacobs concubines (Leahs and rachels handmaidens). Dan and Naftali were sons of Bilah, and Asher was the son of Zilpah. What is important to see in all this is that Judah was the lead tribe and therefore had the highest status, and Dan was the lowest. Regardless of what we may view as fair, tribalism was brutal in its absolute determination of rank and power, and it was no different with Israel. The only hope for a lower-ranking tribe was to somehow become more powerful than a tribe of higher rank and either to absorb that higher tribe or simply to become dominant over it. Keep this in mind as we watch the progress and development of Israel in the Old Testament, because this was the context in which the ebb and flow of power was determined. In fact, this is generally how tribal societies work to this day.
Directions and R ank Heres one other piece of information youll find helpful in understanding the Bible: east was the preeminent direction, just as the right side was the preeminent side. So to understand why the compass directions the various divisions camped at denoted rank, we begin at the east and move clockwise. Therefore East is ranked #1, South #2, West #3, and North #4. This same protocol is used throughout the Bible. Always begin with east and work clockwise to understand the rank and order of compass directions, as each of these directions also symbolizes rank and order of power and authority.
Numbers 2
17
Numbers 3
Priesthood of Levites This chapter revolves around the census taken of the tribe of Levi. It is important to understand that this all took place on Mount Sinai. Verse 14, however, switches to a time during the Israelites wilderness travels after they loaded up and left Mount Sinai. Lets read Numbers 3.
ernacle and carrying it around, filling the water basins, cleaning up, stoking the fires, playing music, singing psalms, and so on. So somewhat as the Levites were removed for service to God from the regular family of Israel (all the other tribes), the family of Aaron was removed from the regular family of Levi and given elevated status for the most special service to God. As for the high priest (and there was only one high priest at a time), he was to come only from one specific son of Aaron, Eleazar. So the tribe of Levi was removed from Israel for tabernacle service; the family of Aaron was removed
Sons of A aron Biblically speaking, genealogy is always important. And so the first verses of chapter 3 serve to elaborate on the genealogies of Moses and Aaron (but mainly Aaron). Actually, other than the fact that Moses is Aarons brother, none of the genealogy posted here applies directly to Moses. Let me reiterate a principle that can get a little confusing but is essential to our understanding of the social structure of Israel: Aaron and his family were but one of several major clans that composed the tribe of Levi. even though there were several Levite clans, Yehoveh assigned Aarons clan with a holy status that was a notch above that of other members of the Levi tribe. Specifically, only members of Aarons clan could be the actual priests of Israel. All the other Levites were there to be servants and helpers to the priests, or, perhaps more accurately, servants to the priesthood. Priests were the only ones who could conduct the rituals and ceremonies. The other Levite families had different duties, such as guarding the tab-
Numbers 3
18
from the Levites for priestly service; and from the family of Aaron one specific son was to provide the ongoing line of high priests. Dividing, electing, and separating. In verse 2 we get the names of Aarons sons and a sad reminder of the fate of two of them. The four sons were Nadav, Avihu, eleazar, and Ithamar. Nadav was the firstborn of Aaron. He would, under normal circumstances, have been the next high priest after his father, Aaron, died; then Nadav would have produced the line from which all future high priests would have come. But Yehoveh killed Nadav and his brother Avihu in direct retaliation for their offering of strange or alien fire to the Lord. That is, they were performing their priestly duties but ignored direct instructions about some ritual procedures and so the Lord engulfed them in flames and burned them up right before their father Aarons eyes. Since Aarons firstborn, Nadav, was dead and the secondborn, Avihu, was also dead, it fell to eleazar to be next in line as the future father of the high priests. Further, it is clear that Nadavs and Avihus bloodlines died with them because they had no sons at the time of their deaths. Their family trees were cut down and their lines ended. Levite Duties The next few verses, beginning with 5, define the duties of the Levites (meaning the nonpriests). If you read this in English it is kind of hazy as to exactly what they were supposed to do. Most texts say something to the effect that they shall perform duties . . . do the work of the tabernacle . . . a duty on behalf of the Israelites, and so on. In fact, the Hebrew makes the duties quite specific. In verse 7, what is usually translated simply as perform duties is, in Hebrew, shamar mishmereth, which means keep guard. So verse 7 should read, They (the Levites) shall keep guard for him and for the whole community before the Tent of Meeting. As we discussed earlier, one of the primary assignments of the
Levites was to guard Gods holiness and His dwelling place. Later on in that same verse, where most translations say, doing the work of the tabernacle (or something similar), the Hebrew used for doing the work is abad bodah, which actually means doing heavy work. So the first duties assigned to the Levites were to shamar mishmereth, keep guard; and then to abad bodah, do the heavy work of the tabernacle. Verses 9 and 10 essentially put across the idea that the Levites were dedicated to do the blue-collar tasks associated with the tabernacle, and that they were to follow the directions of the priests. Verse 11 begins a fascinating divine instruction that is almost lost to both Christianity and Judaism. I stated to you a bit earlier that wed get into this instruction a little more later . . . so here we are. The instruction, given in verses 1113, is that the Levites were to replace the firstborn of the other tribes of Israel. That is, God regarded all the firstborn males of the tribes of Israel as special and set apart for Hima kind of ownership or adoption by God. Now He had taken the Levites, in total, as His own in substitute for all the firstborn of Israel. That special status of the Israelite firstborn as over and above the firstborn of other nations came about in Exodus 11, when the firstborn of Israel were commemorated to God as a remembrance of their Passover salvation. Duties of the Firstborn Last lesson we discussed the biblical principle that all firstborns (or better, firstlings, which applies to humans, animals, and plants), the first of everything, belong to God. This does not apply only to Israel but to everybody worships the God of Israel. We saw this principle applied in Egypt when Yehoveh killed all the firstborn of humans and animals among households that didnt protect those firstborns by painting the blood of a yearling ram on the doorposts of their homes (the first Passover).
Numbers 3
19
Thereafter, the firstborn was to take oil, food, and even water to the gravesite for the use of his deceased parents spirits. During these rituals the names of the parents were recited, because in some undefined way keeping the memory of the individual alive kept that individuals spirit alive. If the firstborn son conducted the ancestor worship rituals properly, then the spirits of his dead ancestors were to intercede on his behalf with the gods. If the worship was done improperly, then no intercession was possible, and the spirits of his dead ancestors might even turn on him and make trouble for him, including anything from causing disease to crop failure to making his wife barren. Ancestr al Worship I tell you about all this ancestor worship because it was prevalent throughout the known world in ancient times, even well before Abraham. And it was in full swing at the time of Moses. So we see traces of ancestral worship practices in the vocabulary Israel used as well as in the rituals of Israel (though of course they were used for a similar, but different, purpose because Yehoveh in no way tolerated ancestor worship among His people). In fact, there is little doubt that the reason we see the phrase he died and went to be with his fathers in several places in the Bible (in referring to death), but mostly in the older parts of the Old Testament, is that it was a common phrase used at funerals that reflected the general custom of ancestor worship. I also have no doubt that the Israelites coming up out of egypt believed in ancestor worship because it was almost universal in that era. Let me remind you that the subject of what happens after death is very hazy and not directly addressed anywhere in the Old Testament. This tells us that those who wrote the Old Testament werent sure what happened after death; different eras had different traditions about it all, which also undoubtedly varied among the various Middle eastern cultures.
Yet just as Israel as a whole was Gods setapart people, so all the firstborn of Israel held a special status above the firstborn of Gentiles. In fact, the implication is quite heavya near certainty, reallythat before the establishment of the priesthood, the firstborn held a sacred status before the Lord. Before there was a priesthood (and remember, the priesthood of Israel didnt exist until Moses and Mount Sinai), the duty of the firstborn male of each family was to perform sacrifices and other rituals on behalf of the family. The firstborn was a kind of pre-priesthood family priest. And as we have discussed on a number of occasions, this custom (as were many others) was neither unique nor new to Israel. Well find documents dating back a thousand years before this time (from Mesopotamian cultures) that specify certain religious and spiritual duties for the firstborn son of the family. Chief among these duties was to carry on all the customs involved with ancestor worship and ritual. This duty began with the responsibility of the firstborn to properly bury his parents.
Numbers 3
20
Since ancestor worship was believed to have much to do with how ones own life played out (full of good things or bad things), it was central to each cultures overall worship practices. There is little doubt in the minds of the learned rabbis (and I agree with their conclusions) that the firstborn of Israelup until the moment the Levitical priesthood was establishedwere the family priests. Not in any organized way but simply as a long-held custom. So with all that in mind, we can begin to see that much would change for Israel (rather drastically, I might add) when Yehoveh established a divinely ordained, set-apart group of priests where the authority lay in one particular tribe. The ritual duties were transferred from being the charge of each separate family, as each family saw fit, to a specified group of priests under a common set of laws and ordinances (the Law), and under centralized control (that of the high priest). The firstborn son, now being relieved of the duties he had formerly performed as kind of a family priest, had his status changed. This change was, no doubt, seen as a demotion of sorts and would not have been well received. Therefore, we see that Levites assumed the status and responsibilities and many of the duties formerly held by the firstborn. In verse 12 we have the Lord saying, I hereby take the Levites from among the Israelites in place of all the first-born ( Jps). The transference of duty from the firstborn to the priestly tribe was complete. I hope this little detour has made the proper impact upon you, because it does mark a momentous sea change in how Israel would operate as opposed to how it had in the past; perhaps even more, it made Israel appear quite different and odd over and against how all other cultures they interacted with would operate. The replacement of the firstborn was to be exactly as ordered by Yehoveh and not only general or symbolic. It would be done on a one-toone basis; each male Levite was to be a substitute for one currently living firstborn of Israel. Well see this fascinating scenario fleshed out very shortly. I tell you this before we encounter
it in Scripture again because this was one of the primary purposes of the Yehoveh-commanded census taken of the Levitesand only the Levites beginning in verse 14. That is, it was necessary to determine just how many male Levites there were, because that determined just how many of the regular male Israelite (non-Levite) firstborn would be covered, and for those not covered, special arrangements were required. Levite Census Yehoveh ordered the census of the Israelites as apart from the census of the tribe of Levi because He set apart the Levites as His servants. One could reasonably say that God adopted the tribe of Levi away from Jacob, making them His own. From here forward, then, the Levites were considered separate from Israel. The census taken of the Levites was similar to the one ordered of all Israel in chapter 1. One major difference, however, was that in the census of all Israelwhich, by the way, was only of male Israelitesa male had to be twenty years of age or older in order to be counted. The purpose of that census was military conscription. Let me make clear that the term firstborn applies only to males. Firstborn daughter there is no such thing. This is because the status of firstborn was more of an office conferred upon a male child than a simple order of birth. That is, the first son born to a man didnt necessarily hold the office and perform the duties of the firstborn, though in general he did. Those duties and rights and privileges could be given to another son, for any number of reasons, and it was not unheard of for that to happen. In fact, that exact thing occurred in the lives of the first three patriarchs: Abraham sired Ishmael, who was born first, and then along came Isaac and Abraham gave the firstborn office to Isaac. Isaac sired Esau, who was born first but Isaac gave the firstborn office to Jacob, Esaus twin brother. (although it was through trickery, as it was not Isaacs intention to do so). Jacob sired several sons, with Reuben being the first son
Numbers 3
21
born, but Jacob gave the office of firstborn to Judah, the fourth son born to him, at least partially as punishment upon Reuben for defiling one of Jacobs concubines. In the census of the Levites, the age of the males to be counted began at only one month, so even the tiniest infant boys were included. Why one month? Two reasons: First, circumcision didnt take place until the boy was eight days old. Circumcision was that moment when a boy child officially became a member of Israel, meaning that the young boy then operated under the covenant of Abraham. He became an Israelite upon his circumcision. Until his circumcision he was not officially a member of Israel. The second reason for the one-month age requirement was that a child had to be one month old to be redeemed. So only a redeemed person (a Levite) could be substituted for another redeemed person (an Israelite firstborn). In Jewish law, an infant less than thirty days old was not considered a person. Im not saying he was not considered human. Its just that at thirty days there was a status change in which an infant gained more value. This undoubtedly came about because of the high infant mortality rate in that era, which of course is different now, but by strict Jewish Law the usual rites of mourning today are suspended if a baby less
than one month old dies. This law had other effects as well. If someone accidentally killed an infant of less than one month of age, the compensation due the parents would be very small. But once that child reached one month of age, the compensation jumped drastically because that child had reached the status of a person. In discussing Moses dealing with the Levite census in verse 16, most Bible translations say something similar to this: Moses numbered (or counted) them at the command (or the word) of God. But this misses the mark. The Hebrew word typically translated numbered or counted is paqad, which has a wide range of meanings. In this context, probably a better modern english word than number or count would be record. Further, the Hebrew word usually translated as word or command of God in this verse is al pi. More precisely, al pi means (from a modern english language standpoint) oracle. In other words, the results of the census were divinely related to Moses, directly from God; this was an oracle from God, a very special announcement made for a monumental purpose. Neither Moses nor Aaron, nor the Levite tribal chieftains, nor any human for that matter, was involved in the counting of the Levites. This was much too important a matter because redemption was at the heart of it. Instead, Yehoveh Himself conducted the census, and Moses was simply told the results by means of an oracle from Yehoveh, and then what God said was written down (recorded). Principles of Redemption I could spend a long time talking about all the principles of redemption that are touched upon in these verses; the same principles that were manifest in the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua. But Ill mention just one for now, and I hope this goes deep into your soul. It would do no good for leaders and elders of all the churches and synagogues of the world to conduct a census in order to determine how many people are actually redeemed (or in evangeli-
Numbers 3
22
Numbers 3
cal Christianese, saved). The Holy Scriptures make it clear that the Lord, and the Lord alone, makes that determination. The census of saved people that will be performed in an instant before the rapture of believers will not be done according to church or synagogue records as determined by the calculation of men; it will be done by God Himself. That baptism certificate, or your name on a church or synagogue membership role, or the fact that you were voted or appointed an elder or a deacon; or even if you are a pastor or rabbi with a Certificate of Ordinationall of those are nice and meaningful things in mans religious activities, but they will count for exactly nothing when God takes His final census. The consequences of the census of those who are redeemed (and by default who are not) are too important and eternal to be left in the hands of a pope, or a bishop, or a pastor, or a rabbi, or a church board or a synagogue committee, or any man for that matter. Our Lord will ensure that not one believer is accidentally overlooked and left behind. Yet as joyful and reassuring as that prospect is, we must also realize that not one person who should not be included will be allowed to accidentally slip on in. God will make that determination based on His intimate and perfect knowledge of each individuals heart, and whether that individual has fully accepted the saving provision God has made for mankind, Yeshua our Savior. All the special religious status and honors and titles that men confer upon men wont matter. Our attendance records, how nice we are, saying all the right things and sincerely believing doctrines that sound godly but arent, and the many things that impress men, will not be part of the determination. Here, just as in Leviticus, Yehoveh did the counting of the Levites Himself. Only God will take the census of believers and record them in His heavenly Book of Life, because only God can see the heart and the soul as they really are. In the next few verses we get a slew of genealogy because the Levites were going to be
divided up according to their clans, and then assigned different duties regarding the priesthood (which could come only from Aarons clan) and duties regarding the tabernacle. These duties would only be temporary, however, as once the Israelites reached the Promised Land after forty years in the wilderness, the duties would be shuffled around a bit because circumstances changed rather significantly as they shifted from being wanderers to a settled people. So much of what we read here technically applies only to the time of the forty years of wandering. Were not going to get bogged down in this long list of family names today; however, there are a few pertinent things to be taken from it. First and foremost, note that the priests and Levites were to station themselves between the wilderness tabernacle and the twelve tribes of Israel, acting like a fence or a protective barrier between holy ground and the people of Israel (or anyone else for that matter). This further defines the role of a mediator or an intercessor or even an appointed servant of God. That is, the priests and Levites duties and position were not just a matter of carrying messages from people to God (as in intercessory prayer), and from God to people (as in being a teacher or pronouncing the gospel), but also about protecting God from having His holiness threatened, and protecting people from being destroyed by God for trespassingwhether intentionally or accidentallyupon His holiness. Add that to the mix when trying to comprehend the role of Jesus, and to some degree to our responsibilities as His disciples. Although rarely thought of or discussed, this is probably one of the most important roles that every modern-day believer carries upon his or her shoulders. We see that the immediate sons of the founder of the tribe of LeviLevi, son of Jacobare appropriately listed first: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. There is one name left off this list, though, that is quite important, but it is not recorded because the name belongs to a woman: Jochobed. Jochobed was
23
the sister of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, but we are more aware of Jochobed as Moses and Aarons mother. What is interesting is that Amram (Moses and Aarons father) was a son of Kohath. That means Amram married his fathers sister, his aunt Jochobed . . . and therefore, Kohath formed the biological line of both parents of Moses and Aaron. Of course, Amram and Jochobed were married while Israel was still in egypt. This could not have occurred after Mount Sinai, because the law given to Moses on the subject of marriage would not have permitted this type of close familial intermarriage. The Gershonites Starting in verse 22, we begin to see the makeup of the Levites according to the census taken by God and then recorded by Moses. The family line of Gershon was further divided into two lines, representing his two sons, Libni and Shimei. The total number of descendants of Gershon, son of Levi, amounted to 7,500 males one month of age and older. They were assigned to camp at the rear of the Tent of Meeting, to the west, the third-most-prestigious camping spot.
Numbers 3
Their tabernacle duties consisted of caring for certain parts of the tabernacle structure; though when we read this passage in english it seems to be repeating itself because most renderings say something to the effect of the tabernacle, the tent, its covering and the screen. Whats the difference between the tabernacle and the tentarent they the same thing? In fact, these words are referring to the various layers of cloth and skins that together formed the tent sanctuary. So more accurately, the word tabernacle is referring to the cloth inner lining; the word tent is referring to the middle layer of goats hair; and the word covering points to the outer covering of tanned ram skins and also possibly to the waterproof top covering probably made out of porpoise skins. The word screen indicates the outer entrance into the tent, the veil that hung in the entryway from the courtyard into the holy place (this was not the inner veil, the parokhet, that separated the holy place from the holy of holies). The Gershonites were also responsible for the altar of burnt offering and the cords used to hang the outer curtain from its pole.
24
The Kohathites The line of Kohath (another son of Levi) was divided into four lines, or clans, each representing one of the four sons of Kohath, one of them being the line from which Moses and Aaron came (the Amramites). The combined number of males from this family group was 8,300. They were to camp to the south side of the tabernaclethe second-most-prestigious place to camp. Their duties were to care for the ark of the covenant, the table of shewbread, the menorah, the golden altar of incense, and all the various ritual utensils like the fire pan, the golden pitchers, the bowls used to catch the blood of the animal sacrifices, and so on. Notice that these duties were the highest duties of the nonpriests, the group that the Bible typically calls just the Levites. The Kohathites cared for the things inside the tent. The first group we discussed, Gershon, cared for things that were either barriers between the inside and the outside of the tent or the things that were located fully outside the tent (such as the altar of burnt offering). Things inside the tent were generally considered more sacred and prestigious than things placed outside the tent. Let me remind you, because it can get confusing: once God set up the priesthood (an event that occurred at Mount Sinai), He divided the tribe of Levi into two main divisions: priests and nonpriests. The priests (in Hebrew, cohanim) performed the rituals and the teaching of the Law. The nonpriests (the remainder of the tribe of Levi), who went by the title the Levites, did the blue-collar work around the tabernacle and later the temple. Biologically and genealogically speaking, the priests and the Levites were all part of the tribe of Levi; but God elevated the descendants of Aaron, the priests, to a higher status than the remainder of the tribe of Levi. From this point forward in the Bible, nine out of ten times that the Scripture refers to Levites are referring only to those Levite blue-color workers and not the priests. And references in Scripture
to priests never include those blue-collar worker Levites. We will see the phrase Levite priests quite often, but dont be confused. The purpose for this terminology is to remind the reader that the priesthood comes from the tribe of Levi and only the tribe of Levi; no other tribe can participate in the priesthood. Sadly, most Christian commentators make Levites and priests to be but two words for the same thing, and so we get a very inaccurate picture of what went on around the tabernacle and later the temple. The Mer arites The third son of Levi was Merari. The line of Merari became divided into two clans because he had two sons. The total number of males from the line of Merari was 6,200. They were instructed to camp on the least prestigious side of the tabernacle, the north. They were to care for and transport the planks that formed the framework of the sacred tent, as well as all the poles and sockets and ropes used to form the cloth wall that surrounded the outer courtyard. The most prestigious camping place went to Moses and Aaron and Aarons sons, the priests. They camped to the east, or front, of the tabernacle. They didnt assemble or disassemble the tabernacle; they didnt transport any part of it or its furnishings. That was the job of the Levites. And as verse 38 makes clear, the priests purpose was attending to the duties of the sanctuary ( Jps), that is, performing the rituals. And this duty was done not on their own behalf, but on behalf of all the Israelites. It was for the sake of all the Israelite tribes that the Levites and the priests performed their duties. The end of verse 38 emphasizes, yet again, that any nonauthorized person who came too near the tabernacle or attempted to perform a priestly function was to be killed. One wonders why this is mentioned so many times. Did God think these Israelite people were stupid? Besides the fact that Yehoveh is making it so very clear that nearness to Him brings danger as
Numbers 3
25
well as blessing (something few but the most daring missionaries in the modern church seem to grasp), I have no doubt that in this era this was a warning to primarily the firstborn of Israel. remember, we are discussing a point in time whereby the special status of all Israeli firstborns was in the process of being removed from them and turned over to the Levites. These Israeli firstborn had, for centuries, been the ones with the unique honor and duty to perform priestlike functions for their own families. You can bet that while some firstborns were relieved not to have to do this anymore, others had their pride pricked and were not at all happy about this change. They surely had no intention of giving it all up so easily and wanted to continue to involve themselves in the rituals and ceremonies God had decreed to Moses. Gods answer: Dont even think about it. Come near and die. By the way, notice that no count of the males that formed the priestly families is given, but only the total number of the three nonpriest families. For those whose Bibles have not already included an assumed correction, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we have indicate that the total of those three nonpriest families added together (22,300) is not the same as the total number usually given (22,000). It is generally acknowledged that this was due to a rather common scribal error somewhere along the line. The problem is that the number three in Hebrew is very similar to the number six. Three is sheen-lamed-sheen, while six is just sheen-sheen. Redemption of the Firstborn At this point yet another kind of census was ordered; the first census of the tribes of Israel counted only males starting at age twenty. A new count was to take place of the Israelite firstborn males starting at age one month; that is, this new count used the same criteria used to count the Levites. And what was discovered was that there were 273 more Israelite firstborns than there were Levite males to substitute for them. Interestingly, even the firstborn cattle
of the Israelites (in Hebrew, behemah, which denotes domestic field animals used for food; this included goats, sheep, and cows) were to be redeemed by means of being replaced by animals belonging to the Levites. In case its not clear: the Levites who were being used for redemption consisted of all Levite males, not just Levite firstborn. But among the secular Israelites (the twelve tribes), only the firstborn were being redeemed, not all Israelite males. Understand? One regular Levite male of any birth order redeemed one firstborn Israelite male. So what to do about the problem that there were not enough Levite males to redeem every Israelite firstborn? A redemption price of five shekels was set. At this point in history, a shekel was not a coin as it is now (and was during Jesus time). Rather a shekel at that time was just a unit of weight, like an ounce or a gram. The 273 Israelite firstborns that were to be redeemed with money were chosen by lot. And those who were chosen had to come up with five shekels of silver each and present it to Moses, who then gave it to Aaron. So 22,000 Israelite firstborns were redeemed in a one-to-one swap with 22,000 Levite males; and the remaining 273 Israelite males were redeemed with five shekels of silver each, which was given to the priesthood. In this way every Israelite firstborn was redeemed and thus no longer automatically devoted to the service of the Lord. The transfer was complete. The Levites now belonged to God in place of the Israelite firstborn, and the Israelite firstborn lost their special status to the Levites. Let me comment that this was, for the most part, a spiritual status that the firstborn lost and the Levites gained. Other such typical firstborn traditions and customs about family authority and wealth and leadership still fully applied. So what was the status of all Israelite firstborn from this time forward? The Hebrews felt that it was still necessary to redeem each Hebrew firstborn. It was less a matter that God still automatically owned all the firstborn than that it was done in commemoration of the exo-
Numbers 3
26
dus when Yehoveh struck dead all the firstborn of Egypt, but saved all the firstborn of Israel. So the idea was that when a firstborn son was born, the parents dedicated that child to God in gratitude. Then, after thirty days, they redeemed that firstborn son back by going to the priesthood and paying the redemption price. Thirty days after the birth of a firstborn, a ceremony was held and the father took his son to the tabernacle and paid the priesthood the sum of five shekels of silver to redeem his son. By doing this, the firstborn son was no longer devoted in service to God; he was redeemed from God, the price of redemption being five shekels. Let me stress: this concerned only the firstborn. If a man had several sons, he redeemed only the firstborn, not the others, because the others were not dedicated to God, thereby essentially becoming Gods holy property. Theoretically, if that redemption did not occur, the firstborn son was obligated to lifetime service to God, or to the priesthood, or to both. In reality, there was very little that firstborn could have done for the priesthood, because it was the Levites task to be of service to the priests. And anyone who was not a
Levite but undertook a Levites task was to be executed. There were some parents who determined that they did want their firstborn son to be in service to God, and so they intentionally did not redeem him. This was true in the case of the Nazirite vow, whereby a child was offered into Gods service before he was even born. We see this in the Bible with Samson, for example. By the way, John the Baptist was also not redeemed, even though he was a firstborn. Why? Perhaps for the reason few might expect: John was not a Jew in the strictest sense; he was a Levite! His father was a priest, and his mother, elisheva (elizabeth), was of the line of Aaron. John the Baptist was not eligible for redemption. Rather, just like all the male members of the tribe of Levi we read about at the beginning of the book of Numbers, he was permanently placed in service to God and could not be redeemed from that position. In fact, even Jesus was redeemed from God by means of a price paid by his earthly father, Joseph. Well find this story in Luke 2, where we can see this entire principle were learning about in Numbers take place, with Yeshua as the focus, some thirteen hundred years after the practice was first begun.
Assignment: read Luke
2:2135.
Here is a story we all are pretty familiar with but likely dont fully understand. What were witnessing was just a standard, everyday redemption of a firstborn Jewish baby boy. In this case, it was Yeshua. The Hebrew title of this entire process is pidyon-haben. Notice that as part of the law of pidyon-haben, Yeshua was not given His name until His circumcision, which took place on the eighth day after His birth. The reason for this delay was that names held great significance, and until Jesus was eight days old and had a
Numbers 3
27
circumcision ceremony, He was not put under the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant. On the eighth day He received His Hebrew name because He officially became an Israelite. Luke 2:22 says that the redemption occurred after the time of purification according to the Law (meaning the Torah), when Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem. The purification being discussed was not about Jesus, it was about Mary; and this, too, was contained in the law of pidyon-haben. When a woman bore a child, if it was a boy, she was ritually unclean for a period of forty days. So we know that it was after forty days that this scene in Luke took place, because Mary could not have gone to the temple in an unclean condition. Further, the sacrifice that is spoken of (two turtledoves or two pigeons) again concerned Mary, not the baby Yeshua. This was the sacrifice necessary to complete her ritual purification after childbirth. Going to the temple was somewhat of an ordeal, and whenever several things could be accomplished in one trip, thats what usually was planned. So Mary was purified and Jesus was redeemed, apparently in the same visit. This passage does not mention the amount given for Jesus redemption, but the standard amount of five shekels would have
applied because it didnt matter whether the family was rich or poor, the cost of redemption was the same for every Hebrew firstborn. It is believed by some that Jesus had an older brother named James who would necessarily have been born to a different wife of Joseph. The belief James was related to Jesus has been fairly well established, but to think that James was Josephs firstborn seems to get blown out of the water by the events of this passage of Luke, for here we see Yeshua being redeemed from His firstborn status. The one caveat to that is that Joseph was not the biological father of Yeshua (and he well knew that), so possibly Joseph was ordered by the Lord (or took it upon himself) to take Yeshua to the temple for the firstborn ritual of redemption on behalf of the heavenly Father. Thus, regardless of the circumstances, even our Savior was redeemed from Yehoveh . . . though, of course, He was actually God incarnate. This demonstrates the inscrutable irony we have to deal with in that Jesus was 100 percent man, and so He was under the provisions of the Torah as was any other man; and yet He was 100 percent God and so He was the Torah, and therefore unlike any being the world had ever known.
Numbers 3
28
Numbers 4
The core story in Numbers 4 is what is typically called the second Levite census. The information is pretty straightforward, so we wont dwell here too long. The primary way this census differed from the earlier Levite census that God Himself performed, is that the age range to be counted was from thirty years old to fifty years olda narrow twentyyear age range (the first Levite census counted males from one month old and up). The reason (though not specifically stated) for specifying this particular age range was because of the heavy nature of the work involved in carrying sanctuary objects and pieces, and doing guard duty. The thought was that these men must be very responsible and emotionally mature to be able to perform their jobs with absolute dedication, and they must be physically able to lift heavy objects and defend the sanctuary in hand-to-hand combat if necessary.
because it was based on familial ties, and the bond of blood has always been instinctive, intuitive, and powerful to mankind. By medieval times, european societal structure had been transformed by a combination of religious and national identities, thus tribalism began to take a backseat in that part of the world. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, another transformation took hold in europe and the New World as guided by the leaders and philosophers of the period history now calls the enlightenment, when religious identity was brought into question and replaced by atheistic viewpoints and the desire for purely secular governments and societal structures based on economics rather than common beliefs or blood. The rub is that the enlightenment also tended to dissolve family ties (family ties are the heart of tribalism), and thus today Western societies have become collections and loose networks of small
Tribalism Tribalism was the culture of the Bible. Until we can ingest and deal with that fact, were going to miss a lot of what was happening in the many narratives that shape the Scriptures. In our Western civilization, the ways of tribalism are usually either not known to us at all or theyre terribly misunderstood. Its important to grasp that tribalism is morally neutral; it is neither good nor bad in itself. Tribalism was a very natural societal structure for an ancient world. Tribalism was the dominant societal structure worldwide until the medieval times in europe,
Numbers 4
29
family units that anthropologists call nuclear families. The concept of family has become redefined as generally consisting of a mother, a father, and their immediate children. The term nuclear family does not refer to the invention of the atom bomb. However, it does provide us with a good illustration: just as an atom in its natural state has a center called a nucleus with electrons and protons orbiting around it, the new modern Western family unit is akin to an atom that has been stripped of its electrons and protons and all that remains is that nucleus. Within this new definition of family in the West, legal family rights are usually limited to a two-generation relationship. Grandparents are considered outsiders; aunts, uncles, and cousins are now legally (and in most instances practically) distant relatives who have only the most minor tie to ones personal nuclear family. And of course we are all aware that an even further evolution of family relationship is well under way in the West that negates the need for long-term commitment or bonds among individuals, or even the need for the presence of a mother and a father as head of a family, or for the desirability of blood ties. essentially, the newest modern-era social unit that is being advocated and legislated in an ever-widening circle in the developed world is much more akin to a pack mentality, whereby mostly unrelated and uncommitted individuals choose to band together for a brief time to satisfy some immediate or intermediate needs of companionship or group protection, or perhaps a perceived economic advantage. In other words, we today are so far removed from tribalism that it is nearly impossible for our minds to comprehend it, and thus we immediately see it as a negative or backward institution. It might surprise you to know that despite the best efforts of the United Nations and the worlds more powerful governments, most of the world today is still tribal. Thus one of the many sources of clashes that we see between Islam and Judeo-Christianity concerns a tribal mentality based purely on family and faith, ver-
sus a Western society that revolves around individualism and moral relativism. The fact is, to understand the Bible, we need to understand tribal structure and mentality. And the most influential societal unit within a tribal culture is the clan; a clan being an extended family that often has its own economy and government if it has grown large enough over time. A clans identity invariably goes back to a founder that the clan was named after; loyalties of its members to the clan are inviolable and can stretch back for centuries. Further, it is usual that a few clans will become dominant within a tribe, while others become inferior, subservient, or even die out or become absorbed by the dominant ones. Thus when we hear the term tribal warfare today (and when used of ancient times), more often than not what is being described is not battling between two tribes, but rather fighting among the clans that make up a single tribe. In tribalism there is a never-ending battle for clan superiority; the status of each clan is everything. And underlying the texts of our Bible is this tribal struggle for dominance. Keep this in mind, especially as we study Torah and the books of the Older Testament. And tribal struggle shows up front and center here in Numbers. The Kohathites In Numbers 4, the first clan of the Levites to be counted in this new census is the Kohathites. This is different from the first census, in which the clan of Gershon was counted first because Gershon was the firstborn. The probable reason that the Kohathites were given priority status in this census is because this clan transported the most sacred, and therefore the most dangerous, object. Further, Aaron and Moses (as the leaders not only of Levi but of all Israel) belonged to the clan of Kohath, and this lent significant tribal status to the Kohathites. Over time, the order of preeminence among the Levite clans would change. even some duties would shift from laymen to Lev-
Numbers 4
30
ites, then from Levites to priests. This greatly bothers some Bible scholars, for they fear that information we discover in later books of the OT (that sometimes paints a different picture of the priesthood) is full of errors and discrepancies or serious revisions for a political purpose. Others, myself included, feel that this makes the Scriptures all the more believable, because even though Israel was slowly developing a different culture from the rest of the world, they didnt start out living on a different planet. Over the centuries, as a result of everything from changing weather patterns to technology advances to fluctuating societal demographics to more simple tangible things like the decommissioning of the wilderness tabernacle and replacing it with a permanent temple, even what nation might have been ruling over Israel at any given time (Assyria, Babylon, the romans, etc.), the precise way rituals and ceremonies were (or even could be) performedand by whomhad to change. Being told that these things did not change at all over a period of fourteen or fifteen centuries, from the moment they were first introduced, simply wouldnt pass the smell test because thats not real life. For instance, people today can argue all they want over proper Kosher food regulations, but in reality, no one can follow the kosher food laws exactly as laid out in the Torah because there is
no temple in which to dedicate meat portions and no priesthood to preside over the slaughter. So we do the best we can under the circumstances. There are no fields and croplands that Im aware of in America that are regulated by means of the Shabbat and Jubilee laws. Therefore, what grows on land that is not regulated that way is not scripturally kosher. In fact, very little food grown in Israel follows the Law in such a way as to be biblically kosher. We can argue over exactly how to celebrate the various required biblical festivals, but at least three of them require a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In addition, we cant do them exactly as stated no matter what, because the main point of going to Jerusalem was to worship and sacrifice at the temple, not to simply visit the city of Jerusalem. Some rituals, like the water libation ceremony, which could be performed to a degree, were required to be done atop the Great Bronze Altarwhich no longer exists. These are just a few examples of what todays Jews face (and what we face as believers) in attempting to cope with biblical regulations that, due to circumstances mostly beyond our control, cannot be accomplished as laid out in the Scriptures. The Israelites faced some of the same problems as the years rolled on after Mount Sinai. Dont let some of these changes well find throw you, even as we move from Numbers to Deuteronomy. These changes in circumstance werent a surprise to Yehoveh, and the whole point to the exact nature of the required holy rituals revolved around teaching and obediencenot some magical or mystical nature of hand movements, or the use of golden bowls over copper bowls, or the power of incense burning, or whether one kind of food was necessarily healthier than another kind, and so on. Sacred Objects and Furnishings As we move into verse 5 we find that the sacred objects and furnishings of the tabernacle were too holy to be directly handled by the Levites.
Numbers 4
31
Table of Shewbread They had to be wrapped and packed up by the priests and then transferred to the care of the Kohathites for transportso that the hands of those who were not of a high enough holy status would not accidentally touch a holy object. For example: we see that the inner veil of the sanctuary had to be taken down by the priests, and then it was used to wrap the ark of the covenant. Then a waterproof layer of (probably) porpoise skins was added over that. The final layer of the package was a special pure blue cloth, and then poles were inserted to carry the precious cargo. The priests accomplished all this preparation before giving the job over to the Kohathites, who were allowed to handle the sacred object only by means of touching the carrying poles. In fact, later in the Bible well read of a couple of different incidents when the ark was being transported and appeared about to fall over; so an unauthorized person reached out to steady it . . . and he was instantly struck dead. The table of shewbread was also to have a blue cloth laid over it, upon which the various utensils used in ritual services were to be laid upon the table, plus a fresh group of the twelve loaves of bread it was designed to hold. Then a covering of crimson (red) cloth wrapped up the whole thing, and then over that went a waterproof layer of (probably) porpoise skins. The table had rings built onto it, as did the ark of the
Menorah covenant, so poles were inserted through the rings for carrying. Then it was ready to transfer to the care of the Kohathites. The next most important item was the menorah and the various implements used to tend it; those were wrapped up in a blue cloth, and over that some porpoise skins were placed to keep it dry, and then the package was laid on a special wooden frame for transport. In verse 11, the golden altar of incense, which stood in front of the parokhet (the inner veil between the holy place and the holy of holies), also had a blue cloth spread over it, and then it was covered yet again in a more waterproof covering. Next, the remaining service vessels that were used inside the tabernacle were wrapped in blue cloth and dolphin skins for maximum protection. Once the priests had packed up all the items used inside the Tent of Meeting, the texts turn
Numbers 4
32
The Gershonites and Mer arites The clans of Gershon were to be recounted, and the count was to include only those males between thirty and fifty years of age. This particular age group was to deal with the items that have been called out once already: primarily, the various coverings of the sacred tent. These men were under the direct supervision of another son of Aaron, Ithamar. Similar orders are given in verse 29 for the clans of Merari, which also were under the supervision of Ithamar. Dividing, Electing, and Separ ating Starting in verse 34 we get the result of this latest count, and we find that the Kohathites included 2,750 men in the thirty-to-fifty age range, the Gershonites 2,630, and the Merari clans 3,200, with the total being 8,580. It is interesting to watch a foundational principle of Goddividing, electing, and separatingoccur in so many parallel ways. God divided and separated the entire population of the world into two groups: Hebrews and Gentiles. These Hebrews, now the nation of Israel, were also divided into two groups: the twelve tribes and the tribe of Levi. We recently read of the tribe of Levi being divided into two groups, the priests and the nonpriests (the Levites). In this process of dividing, electing, and separating, absolutely no merit was stated as the reason for why one certain line of people was to be of a higher holy status than another. There was nothing inherently special about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. There was nothing inherently special about the tribe of Levi, and there was nothing particularly special about Aarons descendants (who were the priests of Israel) compared with any of the other sons of Levi. God simply, for His own good reasons, elected them. In each case, the person or group that was divided away from the others and assigned a special level of holiness accepted the offer. That is
Golden Altar of Incense their attention to things outside of the tent that resided in the courtyard, beginning with the altar of burnt offering. After the ashes were removed from the altar, a purple cloth was placed over it. Upon that all the items used to service and care for the altar, such as fire tongs and blood basins, were placed. Over the top of that more dolphin skins were laid. All the sacred items, having been covered and prepared by the priests, were then turned over to the clan of Kohath for transport. None of these itemsnot even their coveringswere to be touched by the Kohathites; the penalty for that infraction was instant death. rather, most of the larger objects had iron rings through which poles were inserted, and the smaller objects were carried atop some kind of wooden frame. Verse 16 tells us that the priest eleazar was the supervisor over the Levites regarding the transporting of all the sacred objects. Further, the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, telling them that the supervision over the Kohathites must be total, because their job was so dangerous that nothing could be left to chance. One glance at an uncovered piece of holy furniture could prove fatal to an unauthorized onlooker. We begin to see, now, why God insisted that only men from age thirty to fifty be allowed to do this task; younger men might be too cavalier in their duties and find themselves dead, and Gods holiness assaulted.
Numbers 4
33
the pattern for those who are today set apart as saved believers. We are no better than anyone else. We havent done something to earn or merit such favor. We havent lived a better life. By Gods grace we were offered this salvation that came upon the back of Messiah Yeshua, and when presented the offer we simply accepted it. By accepting, we were assigned a special level of righteousness and holiness above all others on our planet. Our salvation in Yeshua is as much a mystery as to why me? as it was to why Abraham and not somebody else . . . why Isaac and not Ishmael . . . why Jacob and not esau . . . why the tribe of Levi and not one of the other tribes . . . why the line of Aaron instead of one of his brothers? The answer is, because it was Gods will. Israel is a completely set-apart nation for God, and the rest of the world is not. As such, Israelites (today we would say Jews) are born into a special, higher status than Gentiles are born into. The tribe of Levi was given a holy status a notch above the rest of Israel. The priestly line of Aaron was given a yet higher holy status than the other families and clans that made up the remainder of the Levites, and the clan of eleazar (a son of Aaron) was given the highest holy status as the line of high priests. The Levite clan of Khat was also given a slightly higher status above the other clans of the regular nonpriest Levites. Therefore, the members were assigned the honor of transporting the holiest items of the tabernacle. There are a couple of additional principles woven into Numbers that Paul expounded upon in the New Testament, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13. One is that Yehoveh demands order and not chaos, and thus He creates hierarchies of authority. Why? Because it is a Godpattern. We learn in the Bible that even heaven itself is built on hierarchies, so naturally the physical world follows suit to the level that the physical is able. All human life has worth; but God gives higher and lower worth to various humans for His purposes, just as He gives lower and higher status to His spiritual servants, the
angels and the cherubim. There is a variety of service to the Lord available to be done (plenty to go around), but it is all for the purpose of serving the same God. Listen to Paul, briefly, in 1 Corinthians 12:47: There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (nasb) Just as Israel is a congregation with Godordained structure, so is the believing body of disciples of Yeshua to be a divinely ordered structure. Listen to Paul again: God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? (1 Cor. 12:2830 nasb) This second principle, which sort of interlaces with the first, is that it takes different skills and different jobs, working together, to perform the different functions that form an entire and complete community. Naturally we find this principle addressed by Paul in the NT, because it is but Torah carried forward in light of the advent of Messiah Jesus. God spoke to Moses, who took those instructions to Aaron, who took them to the priests, who took them to the people. As there was a variety of tasks to be done, there was also a variety of offices established to see to them. The priests were created to be the keepers and teachers of the Law; the Levites were the police and the servants to the priests. even among the priests and Levites, jobs were carefully broken down into finite units: some tended to certain parts of the sacred furniture, others carried plants and tent pegs, others performed guard
Numbers 4
34
duty, and so on. Yes, some held higher status than others, but each had a critical role to play, and no role was menial except in the minds of humans. This is true in the body of Christ today. No one is set aside and no one is given a pass; everyone has his or her duty. Not one believer was passed over for a spiritual gift. That one chooses to ignore his assignment and sit on the sidelines doesnt mean he doesnt have a purpose awaiting him. We can complain all we want that the church is perhaps broken and malfunctioning and point to what others do wrong. But at
least they do; at least they stand at the plate and take their swings. The system that God set up for His people to follow is not about 10 percent doing and 90 percent observing. Worship and walking with God is a contact sport; its dangerous and you can get hurt. If youre not battered and bruised to some degree, then youve probably been sitting it out too long. This kind of passivity was not tolerated in Moses day, or in King Davids day, or in Yeshuas day. We should not think that Yehoveh would allow us to get away with it now, expecting no repercussions.
Numbers 4
35
Numbers 5
Numbers 5 is another of those ventures into Scripture that, at first glance, seem as though repetition is at work and therefore there is nothing additional to gain. Let me say before we even read this Torah portion that this is far less repetition than it is progressive revelation. There is so much to gain from even the first couple of paragraphs that we could spend a month in this chapter and barely scratch its surface. We assuredly will not spend that much time in chapter 5, but I want you to be aware of its significance. Defilement If we were to give a name to this chapter, Cleansing the Camp of the Unclean might be appropriate. Now that the tabernacle was part of the Israelites daily life and therefore Gods presence among them was assured, it was necessary that the sacredness of the entire tabernacle areathe tent and its courtyardbe kept free from impurity or defilement. Weve discussed the subject of clean and unclean, and of holy and common, in past lessons. But since its been awhile, we will review those terms in due time. Just be aware that clean and unclean, holy and common, are not two different ways of the saying the same thing; they each denote something a bit different. Its always best to read the entire chapter as a whole so that the context is clearly established. Lets do that, and then we might reread some portions as we go through our lesson.
Yehoveh said that the following were not welcome to reside among His people, and then He divided the unwelcome into three categories. In Hebrew, those categories included persons who (1) were tzara, suffering from tzaraat, a skin disease; (2) had zav, a discharge from the genital organs; and (3) were tamei nefesh, unclean due to having touched a human corpse. Basically, these were three very serious kinds of ritual impurity, and each demanded a period of seven days of ritual cleansing after it was determined that the condition that caused of the impurity was no longer present. And whether male or female, these ritually unclean people must be removed from the congregation of Israel and set outside the camp. Understand what this meant: either temporary or permanent excommunication. Once the ritual impurity was cleansedif it ever wasthat person was allowed to resume his or her life among the community. But until then, that person was separated from everyone else. Usually the excommunicated lived in caves or tents just outside the village or city. Verse 3 states the reasons for this severe method of dealing with these unfortunate folks: (a) so that their unclean state didnt defile others in the camp of Israel, and (b) because God dwelled in the midst of the camp of Israel; thus no impure thing could be near to Him. And verse 4 says Israel obeyed Yehoveh in this instruction. Of all the subjects weve discussed in Torah Class, clean and uncleanwhich also includes dealing with matter of kosher dietis the most difficult to grasp for the twenty-first-century Western Gentile mind; and particularly for a person schooled in a traditional church setting where pastors and teachers have done a poor
Numbers 5
36
job in explaining what it all means and what it might have to do with modern believers. Typically, as most of you are aware, the entire concept is dismissed as utterly irrelevant to modern Christians and therefore a waste of breath to even address it. ritual uncleanness (which is the same thing as ritual impurity) was and remains a very serious issue for those who worship the God of Israel. This is discussed in detail in the Old Testament as opposed to in the New Testament. Why is this? Let me answer that question with a question: Why would Yeshua or the apostles repeat everything that was already long established as the foundation for proper worship and obedience to Yehoveh? Yeshua was the Word; He didnt have to revalidate His own Word. He didnt come to defend what was already settled, or even to modify it (Matt.5:1720). What made ritual impurity so serious was that it was contagiousspiritually contagious. When someone was put outside the camp with tzaraat (a skin disease usually mistranslated as leprosy, which didnt even exist among the Israelites until after Babylon), it was not so that someone else didnt contract that disease per se. rather, the reason was that a person with tzaraat threatened to defile others in a spiritual way, thus denying them access to God. So to the Israelites a skin disease, a genital discharge, or coming into contact with a dead body (among other things) all amounted to approximately the same thing: separation from God and from the community of God for anywhere from a few days to forever. And frankly, that was exactly what it was meant to demonstrate. The problem was that a ritually unclean person presented a danger to himself or herself because if they came too near to God in that condition, that person would be destroyed. They were also a danger to the entire community because uncleanness was transmittable. A clean person touching an unclean person might become unclean themselves (not ill, but unclean).
An unclean person could transmit their uncleanness to objects like dishes and pots, or even to a chair that they had sat on or a bed they had lain in. That object, once it became unclean, could then transmit uncleanness to a clean person who, unawares, came along and sat on that chair, lay in that bed, or used that pot to cook in. Many of you might feel that such talk about becoming unclean from touching someone or something ought to be about some deep-jungle backward tribe in New Guinea or Australia, not the people of Yehoveh. On the surface this sounds like magic and sorcery and superstition at its worst. This is a good time to remind you that while every one of these laws was real and absolute, and God fully intended that they be scrupulously obeyed, they were also simultaneously a physical demonstration and a learning tool designed to progressively reveal the deepest and most critical spiritual truths. I once had a wonderful discussion with Dr. robert McGee, the author of The Search for Significance, about the nature of spiritual truths and how to express them in words. We agreed that at their absolute best, words or word pictures, or even drawings and illustrations, fall far short of communicating to humans the infinite depths or heavenly heights of Gods principles and laws. The reason for this is so simple, yet profound: Yehoveh is spirit, while we are flesh. The spirit world may have boundaries, but whatever those boundaries might be, they are so enormous compared to our severe physical limitations that its probably best to oversimplify and say that the spiritual world has no limits. regardless of whether we are saved or unsaved, as humans we live in a four-dimensional universe of length, width, height, and time. A human wordwhether it be thought, spoken, or writtenis confined to aptly describe only things that operate in the same four dimensions we live in. Spirit is a fifth or other dimension, if you would. Its a thing outside our ability to fully grasp or accurately define. Spirit is not the first four dimensions plus another one. Spirit is a dimension entirely separate from the four
Numbers 5
37
we are aware of. Nothing made of four-dimensional material (you, me, the chair you sit on, the building youre in, the Bibles we read and the words on those pages: the physical) can fully describe or even reasonably contemplate that which is of the fifth dimension: spirit. So we do the best we can. We have some understanding of God, but comparatively little, really. He doesnt answer our every question because we have no capacity to ask the proper question or to grasp the full answer. Therefore, when it comes to the tabernacle and the various rituals and procedures performed there, the priesthood and the biblical feasts that are all only extremely limited facsimiles of spiritual principles. We must not think that the physical model is all there is or that it is fully adequate to completely flesh out these principles. Yet neither must we think that the physical model is incorrect or it is so inadequate as not worth observing it; it is just incomplete as compared to the original heavenly spiritual object or principle it is demonstrating or foreshadowing. Concerning the principle of ritual uncleanness and the camp of the Israelites, the ultimate danger and concern was that the constant uncleanness of the people would defile the camp, and the camp would become so defiled that God would determine to no longer live there among His people. There was a very definite quid pro quo present: God would remain among His people only so long as His people were scrupulous in keeping the camp ritually clean. Let that sink in a minute: the Israelite people, Gods people, had definite obligations to God if they wanted Him to dwell in their midst. I will tell you unequivocally that this divine pattern of obligation to Yehoveh by His worshippers remains, as do all His heavenly patterns; we have obligations to God if we want Him to dwell with us. Those obligations may not be so much about ritual as they are about faith and trust, especially since the advent of Yeshua. Yet, as James said, a faith without works is a dead faith. Allow me to paraphrase that in modern terms: a so-called faith that does not
produce tangible obedience and service to God, by whatever means He directs, is a faith that doesnt actually exist; it is but a mirage. Since nearness to God was an inherently dangerous proposition, many preventive measures were taken. This began with the establishment of a scrupulously purified priesthood who were the only ones allowed to get anywhere near Yehoveh. Levite guards were deployed to keep the unauthorized people away and execute those who insisted on trying to come near. A system of dealing with ritual impurity was enforced that involved removing the unclean people from the area and then, in most cases, making the unclean clean again so they could enjoy Gods presence in their lives. This is another principle that of course has never become obsolete. Believers have always been required to take preventive measures so as not bring immorality, which is unclean behavior, into nearness to God. Since Yehoveh dwells with us (His modern-day tabernacles), we must not allow impurity to enter us because that brings impurity near to Him. We must not join ourselves to prostitutes or engage in any kind of immoral sex. We must not defile ourselves with wanton drunkenness. We must not worship false gods or idols or worthless symbols. We are to have the attitude of the Levites as we stay alert and chase away every danger to the holiness of the God who has graced us with His presence. Yet humans cannot avoid impurity, and this reality traces back to the fall of Adam and Eve. Perhaps the primary reason for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was so that the high priest could remove all the uncleanness from the sanctuary (Gods earthly dwelling place) that had built up during the previous year. The mere fact that humans, regular Israelites and the priests, were constantly present in and around the sanctuary meant that imperfection and therefore sin and uncleanness were present, which defiled the place. even the high priest was not seen as perfect; he was merely declared the holder of the highest priestly office and authorized to
Numbers 5
38
perform certain vital functions to the service of the Lord. ritual uncleanness still exists in our day. Yeshua did not somehow universally do away with all uncleanness in this world. However, He did make all of His disciples clean. We are told when Christ was crucified that two fluids flowed out of His corpse: blood and water. His blood atoned for our sin; His living water made us clean. Both fluids were necessary on our behalf. As we find out in the Torah, atonement is not the same thing as ritual purification. Atonement is the price paid for our sin; purification is the removal of the uncleanness caused by that sin or some kind of contact with impurity. Further, uncleanness will continue to exist in this world even until the new heaven and the new earth replace the current ones. The only place on this planet that uncleanness doesnt exist is in the spirit of a believer. Yet uncleanness can be reintroduced: I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any socalled brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. (1 Cor. 5:913 nasb) Here we have believers who have decided they can continue with unclean evils, and somehow it doesnt matter because theyve accepted Yeshua. So, you argue, but this passage speaks of immorality and wickedness . . . where does it say unclean? I have a question in return: Do you think that Yeshua removed the uncleanness from wickedness and immorality?! In other words, would you advocate that with the crucifixion of Jesus He took the impurity out of sin? Yet, in an odd way, that is the implication of
the traditional church teaching on the subject (although I think that is mainly because they dont know that there is a distinct biblical difference between uncleanness and sin). Hopefully by now you have learned in the Torah that all wickedness is inherently unclean. All immorality is inherently unclean. Not because I say so, but because Gods Word says so. Listen to this passage describing the very last hours of mans history, as we know it, in revelation. In other words, this is a time still well in the future of our age: I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them. (Rev. 21:13 nasb) We know we are talking about the time of which Revelation 21 is speaking after the current time, when the earth and the heaven are being reformed like at Creation. Lets read a little more, understanding that the end of mans history has come and the kingdom of God is fully established: In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lambs book of life. (Rev. 21:2527 nasb) Nothing unclean . . . shall ever come into it. If unclean stopped existing about AD 30, when Yeshua died, then why is it that sixty years later the revelator, John, wrote about uncleanness as still continuing to exist far into the future, even existing right up until the new heaven and the new earth were being created, and the new Jerusalem had just descended?
Numbers 5
39
Only Gentile Bible scholars and teachers, uninterested in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Torah, or Bible history, or Hebrew culture, want to put forward the scripturally unsound idea that Jesus did away with uncleanness in this world. If He did, then whats the difference between the world and us, as believers? Jesus also came to save the world, didnt He? But is everyone saved? No, because salvation is in a certain sense a two-way street; because the only part of the world that can be saved is the part that will give itself over to Him. The rest is not saved; the rest is marked for destruction. Same with uncleanness. He cleansed us, His believers, from uncleanness. He didnt make clean the worlds uncleanness. He atoned for our sins; He didnt do away with the worlds sinyet. If He did, why do evil men fly jet airplanes into tall buildings? Why do violent men kidnap Christian missionaries and saw off their heads? Why do some believers cheat on their spouses? Why do disciples of Yeshua still occasionally tell a lie, or say something hurtful, or behave in our own self-interests, or get angry because we dont get our way, or constantly seek to be served instead of serving? The Bible defines every one of those things as sin and every sin as unclean. A sin is not clean just because the sin occurred in a believer. Or did Christ take the uncleanness out of sin? Get it? When we sin, we automatically introduce uncleanness into our lives. And uncleanness is incompatible with holinessthe holiness that lives within us, Yehoveh. Oh yes, Jesus can and did cleanse us, His followers. He can cleanse anyone who trusts in Him. But dont think for a minute we can wallow in and participate in uncleanness and not have our relationship with God negatively affected. Listen to Paul speaking to Gentiles in this passage: You will say then, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the
kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, Gods kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. (Rom. 11:1922 nasb) This is a direct quid pro quo, with a threat. If you continue in faith to God, then you will revel in His kindness. But if you fall away, then you will be cut off. Many NT passages echo this exact sentiment because this is just a basic restatement of the Torah with the newness of faith in Yeshuathe long-promised Messiah added. Why would there be such a threat if that possibility didnt even exist? Does God make hollow threats? Well develop this more a little later. The point is that uncleanness still exists, and you can be polluted by it if you seek after it and do not protect yourself, and the Lord who lives in your midst, from it. And should you become tainted by uncleanness it will, at the least, severely harm your relationship with Yehoveh. As we encounter the issues of uncleanness throughout the remainder Numbers 56, as well as the rest of the OT, please dont turn your minds and hearts off to it. Understand that uncleanness is not only an issue of ancient historical interest; it is speaking to us today. A well-known saying applies here: What foolish general would not want to know the tactics of his enemy? We are being very blind and foolish when we think that we are utterly immune to the effects of uncleanness, and so we have no fear of it because we think it honestly no longer exists. Many inside and outside of the church now preach that even evil doesnt exist. Our enemy, Satan, has convinced many to not fear God and His laws, and to not think it necessary to strive to remain pure, despite Pauls, Peters, and even Yeshuas admonition never to think that way. In fact, Paul calls such thinking conceit. This is not a call to return to following the Law in the sense that it is a laundry list of things to do to gain a saving righteousness before God. rather, this is a call to remind us of Gods principles and recognize that danger remains, that
Numbers 5
40
the Torah gives us practices that when adhered to add blessing to our lives, and that sin and uncleanness remain and are an ever-present hazard to the believer.
We are about to see some progressive revelation, revelation that begins to introduce a principle that might have seemed, before we began to study Torah, to be an innovation of the New Testament. As it turns out, though, it is not a NT concept at all. In Numbers 5:510 we read the hypothetical case of a person who had committed some kind of crime or fraud against another person. The implication is that this person lied about it and then swore an oath to God that he had not done this thing (broke faith). Up until this point in the Torah, lying to God was classified as an intentional sin, for which atonement was either very expensive or not available at all. But now, a momentous new dynamic is introduced: confession. What exactly is confession? It is declaring that you did indeed sin against God, and that it was wrong, and that you are repentant about it. In fact, the word used in verse 7 that is almost always translated as confess is in Hebrew ve-hitvadu, which literally means declare. So what occurs here is that the straw man harms his fellow man, tries to deceive God about it by swearing that he is innocent, and then later declares the wrong he has done. Confess is not a mistranslation, but by using something closer to the original meaning, such as declare, we see just what the act of confession consists of. Heres the dynamic God-principle of confession: every sin is essentially unforgivable if it is not confessed, because to not confess is (in the Torah way of thinking) to lie to God. Lying to God is an intentional and high-handed sin for which there is no atonement. By confessing, you are no longer lying to God but instead agreeing
with Him that you have trespassed. Now the sin can be atoned for. The thing is this: the condition of the heart is a priority even in the sacrificial system. An unrepentant man who offered a sacrifice was not forgiven. The sacrificial system was not a forgiveness vending machine. It was efficacious only for the one who confessed and repented in a contrite spirit. The specific type of sacrifice dealt with here is the asham: the reparation offering. It was designed for when a person broke the law or injured another person (either bodily or materially) and then must pay a price. The price was complete reparation to the individual harmed, plus 20 percent. The sinner was required to take a prescribed sacrifice to the priest for atonement. So when a crime was committed against another person, the usual procedure was reparation to the injured party, plus a penalty to the injured party, plus a sacrifice of atonementan expensive lesson. Wouldnt it be nice if that were possible in our society today? A person vandalizes a school, theyre caught, and then they must restore the school to its original state and pay an additional penalty to the school. If they refuse, they become the property of the school. Of course Im not advocating slavery, but is that really any worse than having your life and liberty removed and being put into a prison cage for months or years? Who benefits from that? Actually, the innocent pay for the criminals livelihoods while behind bars. Wouldnt it be
Numbers 5
41
better for the criminal to have to put his life on hold, focus every hour of the day on making the victim whole plus a penalty, and then be freed of his obligation? As it is now, we put a criminal in jail and he typically comes out worse than when he went in, and all the victim usually gets is the satisfaction of knowing that the criminal was punished. On the occasion whereby the injured party was killed as a result, or time had passed and the person died of nonrelated causes, the criminal still had to pay all the reparation to the injured partys kin. If there was no living kin to pay, the reparation went to the priesthood. This was another innovation quite unique to the Hebrews. In other cultures and societies, unclaimed property resulting from lawbreaking, or reparations for which there was no living kin, all went to the statethe king. Here, by Gods definition, He received the reparation by means of the priesthood. About six hundred thousand men had been organized into an army, the Israeli army. From a purely practical standpoint, if there was constant bickering, using Gods name in vain and no clear way to make peace with God and have harmony among themselves, the army would disintegrate. That is why this same principle is brought forward in the NT and used to explain how the disciples of Yeshua were going to be able to function as a community for the kingdom of God: If you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. (Matt. 5:2324 nasb)
A Test for Adultery This passage covers the issue of a man who suspected his wife of adultery. In a very rare (for the Bible) narrative, we find the precise words to be spoken in a ritual to determine if the wife was guilty. While this sort of thing is quite normal in most Middle eastern cultures, it is almost nonexistent in the Holy Scriptures. Usually, just a broad outline for the ritual procedure is provided, and the exact words of the oaths and prayers that might be used are left undefined. The lack of detail in the Torah of some of the ritual procedures is what the earliest Hebrew traditions sought to remedy. We must not assume that all Hebrew tradition is necessarily in error or in opposition to the Scriptures. Often, tradition is absolutely necessary as a practical matter in order to fill in missing pieces of how to conduct a worship service, or celebrate a biblical festival, or perform a circumcision ceremony, and so on.
Numbers 5
42
Just like the matter of what to do when a person committed a criminal act against someone and then lied to God about it, this matter of a man suspecting his wife of adultery must have been a reasonably common occurrence. Otherwise, its prominent place in Numbers makes no sense. As highly idealistic as the regulations and principles of Torah are, they were also needed and practical. Suddenly thrusting two or three million people together in such extreme circumstances as they would have faced in the wilderness, and into what must have been a densely packed tent city with little privacy, in a culture where modesty was required but now was difficult to maintain, would have made the likelihood of men and women coming into human contact in ways that they shouldnt all the more tempting and probable. All that to say, methods of dealing with adultery had to be established. Verse 12 says, If any mans wife has gone astray and broken faith with him . . . ( Jps). Notice the parallel use of the term breaking faith regarding lying to God just a few verses earlier, and then here in relation to suspected adultery between a man and his wife. Just as the wilderness tabernacle was the best possible (albeit limited) earthly and physical representation of the spiritual dwelling place of God, so is the primary purpose of marriage to serve as the best possible earthly and physical representation of our spiritual relationship with God. This OT principle is again brought forward to the NT when we learn that we, as believers, are the bride of Christ: Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready (rev. 19:7 nasB). Believers, of course, are often referred to as Gods, the Messiahs, bride. Adultery is a topic that is covered at several points in the Bible, because marriage is such an important model of Gods relationship with mankind. Adultery was a common problem that began just a few generations after Adam and Havah (eve); those adulterous people were wiped out with the Great Flood, but then within a few generations of Noach, adultery was once
again all too common. Therefore, all the ancient law codes that weve been fortunate to uncover (some going back to a time well before Abraham) contain laws and procedures regarding dealing with adultery, because even pagans recognized the danger that it presented to a society. When we examine the Mari letters and the Code of Hammurabi and a few others of these ancient law codes, we find that adultery was dealt with off the books, not as a matter of crime and punishment, but as a religious/ personal matter. It might surprise you to know that despite all the cavorting and fraternizing of the gods themselves, and all the infamous orgies between the gods and goddesses, adultery among humans was still considered wrong and a very serious matter. In fact, most of these cultures viewed adultery as an affront against the gods perhaps as much or more as an indiscretion of a husband against a wife or vice versa. Most of the time it was the wife being accused, because these Middle eastern cultures were male dominated. And most of the time the husband had the legal right to kill his wife if she were caught in the act and the husband chose to kill her. But apparently that didnt happen often; most times the husband did not kill his wife, but merely divorced her or lowered her status among his other wives and concubines. With Israel, however, adultery was a crime, and it was as much a part of the Torah law code as murder or theft. The law code of Leviticus made death the only viable penalty for adultery. There was no option of mercy or a lesser sentence. Which is why these verses in Numbers are all the more difficult to deal with; the woman in this case would not be put to death even if she were found guilty. I will tell you bluntly that most mainstream Jewish and Christian OT scholars say that Numbers 5 has undergone quite a bit of redaction; in fact, this thinking is practically unanimous. Yet most will also say that in the main, what we read here in the Torah does fall in line with the rest of Numbers, and so this is not a chapter that was added later or modified to an
Numbers 5
43
extreme. Lets deal with the problem of the fact that while Leviticus is uncompromising in the command that the adulterous wife be executed, here in Numbers the exact opposite occurred: the adulterous wife was not to be killed. In Leviticus it was assumed that the wife had been caught in the act or the evidence against her was so overwhelming that there was no doubt whatsoever, and so she confessed. The key here is that men witnessed it and the wife admitted to it, so this was just a matter of men carrying out the law. There was no trial per se; there were not two sides to the story. Determining the truth was not at issue. It was a slam dunk. But in Numbers 5 we are told four different times that the husband was merely suspicious or jealous and that the wife claimed innocence. So what was to be done? Since in the custom of the era adultery was a religious/personal matter and a husband could kill his wife if he was convinced that she had cheated on him, and the law would not prosecute him if he did, that likely happened often enough to be a concern. Numbers 5 put a stop to that practice because these verses call for a trial by God. Since God was the only witness, God had to decide. But how was the case to be presented to God, and how would He make His decision known to men? This was accomplished by submitting the woman to a carefully defined water ordeal. The womans physical reaction to the ritual over time indicated Gods decision. This is where things get pretty sticky theologically. even in the most advanced cultures, standard pagan practice was to determine guilt or innocence by seeing what happened after the accused drank magic or sacred water. Not only did our own American Indians practiced this ritual, but water was also was the basis of early American witch-hunts, whereby a suspected witch was placed on a dunking stool and plunged into water. If she drowned she was guilty, and if she survived she was innocent. No doubt this same mind-set and belief system played a role in the golden calf incident,
where the gold of the idol was ground up and placed in water, which the suspected participants in constructing the idol were then forced to drink. The water ordeal procedure found here in Numbers is almost identical with procedures found in law texts of other ancient cultures of that era. A law in a Middle Assyrian text reads, They will draw water, drink, swear, and be pure. And in a Mari document: The dirt under the jamb of the gate of Mari they took and dissolved in water and then drank. Thus spoke Ea: swear to the gods. This is awfully similar to what we read here in Numbers. Further, the basic framework for the Mari and Hammurabi codes involved the combination of a water ordeal and an oath to be sworn. Basically the concept was that the accused person who drank the magic water swore an oath to the gods, and if they had done what they were accused of, certain terrible things would spontaneously happen to their bodies as a result. And if those bad things did not happen, it was proof of innocence.
Assignment: read John 8:111.
Numbers 5
44
Notice that something very different has occurred here concerning adultery. rightly so, the Pharisees said the Torah demanded death for this woman because she was subject to the Levitical law about a woman caught in the act of adultery. That is why the statement in verse 3 that she was caught in the act is so key; otherwise, the law in Numbers 5 would have applieda law that did not allow a suspected, but unproven, act of adultery to be punished. But Yeshua said, I do not condemn you. . . . Go. From now on sin no more (John 8:11 nasB). Condemn doesnt only mean to find guilty; it also means to set out the punishment. Being condemned didnt mean, like in our modern society, the need to declare before the whole world that what you did was wrong; to stand and have the world shake its collective finger at you and humiliate you. The word condemn here really means being assigned the death penalty. The curse of the Law was condemnation for disobedience; the curse was condemnation. The curse of the Law wasnt the Law itself; it was the death penalty that came
from violating the Law. Jesus was saying to the woman, I hereby do not apply the death penalty to you, even though you deserve it. I often go out of my way to explain what pagan cultures did and how they thought, because I dont want to do what too many flustered Bible scholars and pastors do when they run into difficult territory like this water ordeal for the accused woman in the Bible: turn it into allegory and make the problem vanish in a truckload of nice-sounding Christian terms and phrases, which, in the end, have nothing in the world to do with what was actually going on. In Numbers 5, we are seeing the echoes of ancient and pagan practices among the Hebrews; in this case, trying to determine guilt or innocence of a woman suspected of adultery. Ive told you on several occasions that if were going to understand what is happening in the Bible, then we have to consider the context of the people, culture, and times in which it was written. These Israelite people, while being declared holy by Yehoveh, and being set apart by Yehoveh for service to Him, were thoroughly pagan in their ways and customs and thinking. This revelation may upset Jews and Christians alike, but such is the case; the Bible constantly speaks to paganism and the prophets were constantly warning Israel to stop it! I want to remind you that God Himself made it clear that He didnt choose Israel because they were a more faithful people (they werent), or because they shunned other gods (they didnt), or because they behaved in more civilized ways, or because they were inherently kinder than most (none of which would aptly describe Israel). He chose Israel for His own good reasons (which He has not shared with mankind), not because of any merit on their part. And, if were honest about it, the fact is that Yehoveh typically chose people who were the least likely to succeed, not those with the greatest fortitude or inner strength. Its the same thing for believers in Yeshua; we were just as pagan and weak and prone to evil as anybody else, but He allowed us into the kingdom and into service to
Numbers 5
45
Him anyway, because we agreed with Him on one issue: the faithfulness of Christ. Most of the ancient Hebrews continued to behave in as pagan a way as their neighbors even though they had personally witnessed the incredible miracles and presence of God and had agreed to follow Torah. In the same way, a lot of Christians accept Christ, but other than showing up for church on Sundays generally continue in their same lifestyles, making the same kinds of decisions, and look exactly like the world the remaining six days and twentythree hours each week. This is why we need to take the Scriptures in total and accept them as they are. They tell the truth, the unvarnished truth, and sometimes the truth isnt nice and neat or pretty or what we had hoped it might be. Just as God used the extreme and evil decadence of the roman empire as a tool to spread the gospel after Yeshuas death and resurrectionand just as He currently uses Americas wicked out-ofcontrol infatuation with wealth and materialism and self to fund missionaries and do other works for the good of His kingdomHe also used the ancient Hebrews complicity and closeness to paganism to achieve His purposes. God has always used mens evil for good. After all, Yehoveh has only ever had one perfect tool to work with on planet EarthYeshua. All the rest of us are defective and probably ought to be returned for refund. Lets rapidly review this water ordeal for the woman suspected of adultery. The ritual went like this: 1. The womans jealous husband took her to a priest, along with an offering of barley. 2. The priest placed the woman in front of the tabernacle, which is what is meant by bringing her before the lorD (Num. 5:16 nasB). 3. The priest put holy water into a special container, and dust from the tabernacle floor was mixed in with it.
4. The priest handed the woman the barley and unbound her hair. 5. The priest then stood before the woman while holding the holy water vessel and recited an oath, and the woman agreed to the provisions of the oath by saying, Amen, amen. 6. The priest next wrote down the oath he had just pronounced, and then washed the freshly inked letters off the surface into the same vessel that held the holy water and dust. 7. The barley the woman had been holding was taken back from the woman by the priest and presented to Yehoveh as a burnt offering on the altar. 8. The woman then drank the mixture of holy water, dust, and ink. 9. Certain things would happen to the woman if she was guilty. Nothing happened if she was innocent. The certain things that were to happen to a guilty woman are a little bit masked because Hebrew idioms are used. The Scripture says that if she is guilty, her belly shall distend and her thigh shall sag (5:27 Jps). Our CJB has the meaning a little better in focus: her private parts, or reproductive organs, would shrivel up. Thigh is a Hebrew idiom for genitals . . . male or female. Actually, this makes all kinds of sense. In an act of adultery, by using her genitals the woman sinned; therefore, it was her genitals that would bear the punishment. What this amounted to was that if she was pregnant from the affair, the baby would die; and if she was not pregnant, she would become barren for the rest of her life. Let me be clear: no human was doing anything physically to this woman to cause her to abort her child or to become sterile. This mixture of
Numbers 5
46
water, dust, and ink was not poisonous, and it did not cause harm (although it probably didnt taste very good). rather, the end result was a supernatural judgment of God, the elements of which were wrapped up in the ritual and the water concoction she drank. What can be difficult for people of our era to understand is the devastation a woman of that era felt by becoming barren. It was the female equivalent of a male becoming emasculated . . . being made a eunuch. A barren woman lost her value as a human being because bearing children had everything to do with the spirit or essence of the father continuing on in his son (in some mysterious and undefined way) after the father died. Children were even a means to, and a measure of, wealth, because the more children one had, the more work could be done to the benefit of the family. And since the work was usually tending either crops or animals, more children usually meant more land could be cultivated and more
animals could be cared for. A son was essential to passing forward the authority and name of the clan. For a woman to fail in her duty to bring new life into the world was the ultimate humiliation and an open rebuke from Godnot simply a sad episode to her life that in time she would deal with. In the end, because it was assumed that a woman was barren because God cursed her, she was often of lower status than other women, and socially shunned. So for God to pronounce guilt on the woman suspected of adultery by making her reproductive organs unusable was perhaps second in magnitude only to death for her. This was an entirely different situation from that of the woman who was caught in the act by her husband; there were witnesses and the woman did not proclaim innocence. In the second case, the procedure was simple: after the witnesses testified she was taken outside the camp and stoned to death. But in the first case, a trial had to be held to determine guilt or innocence since the facts were in doubt. But in the first case, since there was only suspicion and no witnesses, how did one go about determining if this woman was telling the truth and that she had remained faithful to her husband? The answer the law of Numbers 5 prescribes is trial by God. The elements of the trial were these: The womans suspicious husband took her to the tab ernacle, where a Levite priest conducted a special ritual as part of the procedure. The ritual consisted of the priest writing an oath on a scroll and then washing it off into a cup of water. The water was called holy water in many translations, but in fact, holy water is the same thing as living water. That is, living water is but water from a moving source like a river, stream, or artesian fountain. Living water was required for all holy priestly rituals, and thus it was called holy water. Then some dust was gathered from the tabernacle floor and put into the cup of water along with the ink of the letters of the oath. Understand that the key to the letters of the oath was Gods
Numbers 5
47
name. An oath was not an oath if Gods name was not invoked. The woman drank the water, and then only the passing of time would give the results. If the woman was never able to bear children, she was guilty and this was her punishment. If she was able to have children, she was innocent and the children were her reward. We read a well-known NT story about a group of men who brought to Jesus a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery; the men wanted to know what Jesus would do about it. Lets review that story, because its underlying meaning has a firm connection to Numbers 5. In fact, were going to spend considerable time on the New Testament passageas a means of demonstrating the necessity of knowing Torah before we do serious study of the New Testament.
This story in the NT book of John must be taken in the context of the Torah, as should all stories and observations and commentaries that form the New Testament. If we try to separate this event from our understanding that Yeshua was a Torah-observant Jew, and was Himself the author of the Torah, then were going to miss the point on many of the things written about Him and in many of His recorded sayings. The dragging of this woman accused of adultery before Jesus was simply a test (or a trap) by these rabbis and scribes to see if they could get Him to say something against the Law of Moses; and thus Jesus would be automatically discredited. It was a political ploy in a time of great political upheaval, temple corruption, and intrigue in Judea. There are some things that need to be carefully explored about this story if we are to grasp its meaning. First, I well understand that this is one of the most beloved stories in the New Testament, and so I am likely to tread on some folks feelings about it. I apologize in advance for chal-
lenging the conventional wisdom on this matter. This passage is most typically used to demonstrate a couple of things: (1) that Jesus is all-merciful, and (2) that sinners have no right to judge anyone else. Those conclusions have become doctrines and mainstays of Christian institutions. We can debate on another occasion as to whether one or both or neither or those conclusions ought to be proper Christian doctrine. Today I am going to suggest to you that the point of this particular story in John 8 probably had nothing to do with Yeshuas mercy, or His requirement that only sinless people ought to be witnesses against another person, or who could rightfully carry out judicial punishments on others. Lets look at what happened here, because there are some oddities about this story that have perplexed and upset many scholars and Bible translators. This unnamed woman was brought before Yeshua, and He was told that she had committed adultery. Since her guilt was apparently not the issue, the only question these men had for Yeshua concerned what He thought her punishment ought to be. In the most accepted Christian interpretations of this passage, the outcome essentially had Yeshua telling the men that unless they had lived a sin-free life, they had no right to accuse her or to carry out any kind judicial punishment on this women (in this case, stoning). Further, after these men skulked away from the area in shame, Jesus determined in His mercy to ignore the crime the woman had committed (which, according to the Law, was among the worst of sins that could be committed), let her off the hook, and told her to be on her way and to not sin anymore. There were to be no repercussions, because . . . well . . . Jesus determined there shouldnt be any. This story is explained as a great demonstration of His limitless mercy. While I believe in a merciful Savior and am deeply grateful for that indispensable attribute of His, I see the application of mercy as an improbable interpretation of this rather problematic story. Let me tell you something that most folks dont realize: this particular story
Numbers 5
48
about Yeshua has so troubled Bible councils and Bible interpreters that to this day youll find this narrative in some Bible translations, but others will not even include it. This controversial narrative has been removed and added back in to the New Testament canon many times over the centuries. Why? Because what is stated simply doesnt add up; it doesnt seem to follow the pattern of Christs life, His pronouncements, or His other actions; and it even calls into question His compliance to the very Torah that He and all the apostles claimed He followed perfectly. Heres the basic problem: absolutely no element of trust or faith in Yeshua is involved in this narrative; belief in Yeshua was never asked of this woman. It is not even implied that this woman had any idea who Yeshua was. There was no acknowledgment of His status as the Messiah or as being of divine origin. She didnt ask for forgiveness, nor was it offered per se. The second problem is that adultery was indeed a God-ordained capital offense as found in the Torah. It was so serious that it was made part of the foundational principles for the entire Bible, the Ten Commandments: Do not commit adultery (exod. 20:13). Adultery was so heinous in Gods eyes that it was put on the same level as murder: If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, that is, with the wife of a fellow countryman, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death (Lev. 20:10). No ifs, ands, or buts; a woman who committed adultery must be executed. Now, was Yeshua familiar with this law? Did He agree with it? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being. (John 1:13 nasb)
Jesus is the Word of God, and He wrote the Torah, so its hard to imagine that He would disavow its contents. Heres the thing: we will find no other story about Yeshua that even remotely implies
He simply dismissed those who broke civil and criminal laws from the responsibility of their crimes. Rather, He rescued folks from the spiritual consequences of their trespasses. But there was always a caveat: faith in Him as Gods Messiah. No trust in Jesus, no forgiveness and redemption. Yet, by most interpretations, that was exactly what happened here. For some reason, it is concluded that Yeshua simply waved His hand, dismissed the crime, and said not to do it again. Unlikely, if not impossible. There is also a second aspect to consider, and it involves the Let he who is without sin cast the first stone comment. The standard interpretation would have it that as sinners, we have no business pointing out the sin in someone else. Some have gone so far as to say that in the strictest sense Jesus was teaching that only a completely sinless person could be a reliable witness to a crime, or that only a completely sinless person could order judicial punishment, or that only a completely sinless person could execute capital punishment. Such an idea is simply unworkable and it would bring any kind of justice system to a standstill. By that standard, no one could be accused, tried, convicted, or punished, because there is no such thing as a sinless person (believer or otherwise) to prosecute criminals. Therefore, this common interpretation cannot be correct, as many scholars have complained for literally hundreds of years. I do not think the story should be removed, because I think it happened and was correctly recorded. I believe that the problem lies in trying to make it fit predisposed agendas rather than interpreting it in its natural Jewish cultural context. Notice the circumstances. The accusers said that she was caught in the act of adultery. But was she? Were these upright and honorable men who brought this woman to Yeshua? No, these were representatives of a notorious and corrupt temple system that sought to rid itself of this upstart young rabbi named Yeshua who was making their lives a lot harder.
Numbers 5
49
There is no way to know for sure whether the accusation of this group was true; I suspect that these men likely did not make a truthful statement, or certainly the womans husband would have been there to make the accusation. In fact, by the Law the presence of her husband at such a trial was required. Add to this that there was no admission of guilt by the woman recorded here; she was simply silent. Further, Christ told her to go and sin no more . . . not to go and not commit adultery anymore. But, assuming the unlikely, that the statement that she had actually been caught in the act was truthful, the Torah required that there be at least two witnesses (including her husband in this case) who had to testify against a person accused of a capital crimeand adultery was a capital crime. even more, the witnesses in a capital case were required to begin the execution process. If this were applied to the modern day, it would be the equivalent of witnesses being required to pull the lever for the gas chamber. The standard Jewish method of execution was stoning; and it was a requirement of Torah that the witnesses not only be present at the execution but that they be the first to throw stones at the condemned person. There was a reason for this: it was a deterrent to false testimony. If a witness lied and it led to the death of an innocent person, then by their being part of the execution process they would have blood on their hands; they became murderers and would themselves be subject to execution. Thats a pretty big incentive not to give false or frivolous testimony in a capital case. Thus we have Jesus saying, The one of you who is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (v. 7). The issue is execution (being condemned). Who threw the first stones in a Jewish execution? The witnesses. It is my opinion that when Yeshua said the one of you who is without sin, He was not referring to sin in general but rather to the sin of bearing false witness, and maybe to some degree these mens impure motives for making this accusa-
tion in the first place. In this instance, the purpose of the false witness against the woman was to entrap Jesus (as the story itself makes clear). Yeshua called their bluff in a maneuver that would make Perry Mason proud. He told them that the witnesses should just go ahead and pick up their execution stones and throw them at her now, unless they were participating in a sin; that is, unless they werent telling the truth. Because if they were lying, or just going along with an assumption of this womans guilt without actually knowing, and got caught, then they would be open to capital punishment. It appears that there is nothing here but a false accusation using a helpless woman in order to try to discredit a rivalJesus of Nazareth. Justice wasnt the issue; getting rid of Yeshua was the issue. We need to understand just how rampant adultery was in Christs day, and that only women needed to fear the accusation. The charge of adultery had become a joke; everybody was doing it. The usual consequence for a woman accused of adultery was divorce, not her death. No proof of adultery was necessary for a man to divorce his wife, just the suspicion. But by Yeshuas day, only a husband could be the aggrieved person. Men were simply no longer brought up on charges of adultery, even though Leviticus clearly states that both men and women caught in adultery were to be executed. The concept of a woman being accused of adultery and being divorced instead of being executed, was Hebrew tradition, not Torah law. Men had decided that execution was much too harsh a response to this all-too-common crime. This is but one small example of what Judaism had become. Since there is no hint that this woman had confessed to her supposed crime, the Law says she should have been taken to the priests, who would have performed the Numbers 5 water ordeal upon her. If Im correct that the story of John 8 is more about the law of Numbers 5 than anything else, a good question surrounding the story of Jesus and the woman accused of adultery would be: Was the water ordeal still being
Numbers 5
50
practiced in the NT era, thirteen hundred years after it was first enacted? And the answer is yes, it was. We find proof of this in the Mishnah, in Sotah 9, where Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zakkai eventually outlawed the water ordeal sometime just before the romans destroyed the temple in AD 70. Since Jesus died around forty years earlier, we know that the water ordeal was still in use in His day. And Rabbi Ben Zakkai outlawed it because it had become misused and abused by husbands who simply wanted to be rid of their wives. They would accuse the wives of adultery, the wives would go through the water ordeal, and no matter what the outcome they would still divorce them, because it could be years before it was known if a woman might become barren (which was the supernatural indication of guilt), and the husband didnt want to wait. I have heard some of the most amazing and, I might add, inventivesuggestions on just what Jesus was writing in the dust with His finger, as described in verse 6 of John 8. Even though nothing more is ever said about Jesus writing in the dust in the NT, it has for some reason captured the imaginations of Christian teachers and pastors. So lets address that. In Numbers 5 we find that the focal point of the water ordeal ritual was a special drink; and we find that there were three ingredients to the water concoction the woman was supposed to swallow: holy water, dust, and the ink from the letters of a vow the priest had written as to her punishment if it turned out that she had done what she was accused of. What, exactly, was holy water? It is just a synonym for living water. Holy water only indicates that the water had been drawn from a running spring or river, and was designated for use in the temple. From a practical standpoint, holy water was but the water that filled the copper laver at the temple; the same water the priests used to dip from to wash their feet and hands during temple rituals. Holy water and living water were two terms for the same thing. Added to this flask of living water was dust gathered from the temple floor. Why
did it need to be dust from the temple floor? Because the dust had to be holy. The temple was Gods dwelling place. Anywhere God dwelled contracted His holiness. In exodus, as Moses approached the burning bush, what was it that Hod instructed him to do, and why? Moses was ordered to remove his sandals from his feet because he was about to stand on holy groundliterally, stand on holy dust. Why was this dust holy, but dust just a little farther away wasnt? Because God was present there at the bush. So the dirt beneath Gods feet, so to speak (the dirt that formed the floor of His dwelling place, the tabernacle, later the temple), was automatically made holy; therefore, it was that holy dust which was required to be put into the drink. As for the ink of the letters that was the last part to go into the concoction: Gods name Yud-heh-vah-heh was required to be written on a sheepskin scroll as part of the oath the woman swore to. It doesnt matter that we dont read directly in the Torah that the letters of Gods name were written, because its a given. A biblical oath, by definition, always included Gods name; without Gods name, there was no oath. When we write a letter to someone today, we write our name on that letter. When we say to someone, I wrote so-and-so a letter, we dont have to say, and I signed my name, because without our name, it wouldnt be a completed letter. Same thing with an oath: a biblical oath was not merely the making of a statement; a biblical oath was the invoking of Gods name as a validation and witness of the statement. It was calling upon God to be the guarantor of ones promise. Therefore, when the ink of that written oath was immediately washed off into the holy water, Gods name flowed in as an ingredient. This is not allegory; this is accurate historical fact well attested to in many ancient Jewish writings. Certainly this ritual water mix is symbolic, as there was no magical quality about the water, ink, or dust. What Im telling you is not conjecture but what was actually recorded in
Numbers 5
51
those times about the procedure and the meaning of each step. So the drink that a woman accused of adultery swallowed consisted of living water (the kind of water required for all holy rituals), dust made holy by Gods presence (dust from the temple floor), and the letters of Gods holy name. Heres the thing: What in the world does dust (and Yeshua writing in the dust with His finger) have to do with this story of Yeshua and the accused woman? everything, if we know the Torah; in Numbers 5, when a woman was brought before the priest and God to be judged as to whether she had actually committed adultery or not, dust and writing were important parts of the ritual. We see every element of the Torah law of Numbers 5 in the John 8 story of Jesus and the woman accused of adultery. We have the Living Water (Yeshua), a priest and God present (again Yeshua), holy dust (Jesus was currently in the temple and were told there was dust on the floor), and writing (Jesus was inexplicably and mysteriously writing in the dust with His finger). The woman was indeed brought before Godthe requirement of Numbers 5when she was brought before Yeshua, though those bringing her didnt know it. Jesus was writing in holy dust, because as God, He made the very ground He sat upon holy. What was He writing? I cant be sure, but I suspect it may have been Yud-Heh-vav-heh, the letters that form Gods namethat would have been the most consistent with the pattern set down in Numbers 5. Yeshua was simply displaying the real and original Torahthe Torah as given to Moses on Mount Sinaithe Torah we are studying together. And as Jesus so eloquently stated in the Sermon on the Mount, He was on earth to but act out the highest meaning of the Torah. Yeshua, who was the Living Water, who was also Priest and God, was writing on holy dust with a woman accused of adultery standing before Him. This story is in many ways an irony. In John 8 these corrupt men had brought this woman
before God for judgment, and they didnt even recognize what they were doing. Before them was every ingredient of the God-ordained ritual of the water ordeal upon a woman accused of adulterypriest, God, holy water, holy dust, and holy writings, all occuring at the required location: the temple. Do you see this? Those Pharisees and rabbis who had dragged that poor woman before Yeshua couldnt see what was actually occurring because they were blind to their own Messiah and equally blind to the laws and commands of the Torah that they had largely replaced with their manmade traditions. read again the last three verses of Numbers 5. But as you read, picture, if you would, this woman standing before Yeshua in the story of John 8. This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt. (Num. 5:2931 nasb) Indeed, the Torah was followed: she was stood before the Lord, and the priestour High Priest in this caseapplied all the law to her. Jesus, seeing no witnesses against her, no one to condemn her, which was the requirement of the law of proven adultery in Leviticus, then moved to the law of suspected adultery of Numbers 5, the test of the water ordeal, and each and every element of itwater, dust, and writingwas used. Of course, as He was God on earth, there was less need that she drink a holy water mixture and wait for the results as the sign of Gods judgment in the matter. When Jesus told the men who had brought the woman to Him, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone (John 8:7 nasB), remember it was the witnesses who threw the first stones of execution; this was Law, not tradition. Deuteronomy 17:57 reads:
Numbers 5
52
Then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (nasb, emphasis added) Almost everything that happened with Jesus in the New Testament was completely explainable by means of the Torah and the Prophets. We dont need to resort to allegory and fanciful stories with dubious conclusions to defend the Bible. We just need to study the Wordthe whole Wordand make the connections. Since Numbers chapter 5 and John chapter 8 are largely about the subject of adultery, there is one final aspect to this that Id like to bring out: the law of adultery assumes that one partner in the relationship is faithful, while the other is not. Let me quote Joseph Milgrom, who says that the rabbis read the laws concerning adultery in precisely this way: If the man is clear of sin, then the woman (the woman convicted of adultery) shall suffer her guilt. And that view is based largely on Hosea 4, the idea being that if the man was being unfaithful to his wife, then the wifes unfaithfulness merited no punishment. Lets read Hosea 4:14: Your daughters behave like whores, and your daughters-in-law commit adultery. I wont punish your daughters when they act like whores, or your daughtersin-law when they commit adultery; because the men are themselves going off with whores and sacrificing with prostitutes. Yes, a people without understanding will come to ruin. (nasb)
Marriage is the institution that God designed as a way to explain and demonstrate the relationship between Himself and mankind. The definition of what adultery amounts to, along with what the effects and consequences
are for adultery, is placed in the Torah to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage. But these same effects and consequences (caused by adultery) upon a human marriage between a man and a woman also paint a picture of what happens when we commit adultery against God. The biblical term we see used in Numbers 5 (and elsewhere in the Bible) is breaking faith. Adultery in a human marriage is the breaking of faith between the husband and the wife. Again and again we are told in the Bible that we break faith with God when we worship other gods, when we choose the way of the world over the way of the Lord, when we violate His laws and commands, and when we decide to dedicate ourselves to religious doctrines and manmade traditions instead of to the actual Word of God as laid down in Scripture. Again and again we are told in the Word that God is faithful. He never breaks faith with us. He never changes; He always is just and loving. Gods being unfaithful toward us would basically invalidate the entire biblical concept of adultery and breaking faith; without the faithfulness of one of the partners, adultery has no meaning. If God were unfaithful to us, then it would not be possible for us to be unfaithful to Him. Let me repeat that: if God ever became unfaithful to us, then the entire premise of our relationship with Him would go down the drain. Fortunately, we will never have to worry about that, for God is not a man that He might change or be tempted. From the rabbis point of viewand I think they are dead-on in their thinkingadultery in a marriage has any meaning at all only if while one party remains faithful, the other becomes unfaithful. If both are unfaithful, then adultery becomes an oxymoron. This is why, not long before the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai abolished the water ordeal of the suspected adulteress of Numbers 5: men had long ago excused themselves from having to be faithful to their wives. The Jewish men saw adultery as a oneway street. Only women could be unfaith-
Numbers 5
53
ful, men had no obligation to remain pure in their marriage. In effect, there was no adultery because there was no real faithfulness anyway. This is reflected in the New Testament statement of Yeshua, who said in Matthew 5:3132: It was said, Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (nasb)
Here Yeshua makes cleardespite what you may think the remainder of this instruction concerning divorce is indicatingthat unfaithfulness basically destroys the whole marriage dynamic. When Christ was addressing the crowds and talking about adultery, it wasnt because it was a rarity in Jewish society; rather, adultery had become the norm, just as it has become so again, or still, in our time.
Numbers 5
54
Numbers 6
The first twenty-one verses of Numbers 6 establish the office of the Nazirite, and five of the last six verses give us what has come to be called the Aaronic blessing. Both subjects are worthy of being given sufficient time. Nazirite Laws This is the only place in the Torah where the Nazirite is referred to; however, we will encounter the Nazirite in a number of places in the Old Testament outside the Torah. Well also see that the Nazirite office is still in operation in the New Testament era. Paul himself participated in Nazirite ritual at the suggestion of James (brother of Jesus), the leader of the messianic Jews, as proof to other Jews that Paul approved of, honored, and obeyed the Torah, even though he believed Yeshua was the Messiah.
Nazirites figure into several important Bible stories: Samson (of the tribe of Dan), Samuel (alternately described as an ephramite and a Levite), and some say John the Baptist (which I have some doubts about because he was a Levite, but it could well have been so). Some claim Jesus was a Nazirite, but I see no evidence to support that notion and every reason to say He was not. The main reason Christ is sometimes called a Nazirite is faulty Christian tradition born of the still-prevalent error that a Nazirite and a Nazarene were the same thing. Yeshua was called a Nazarene, because thats what people who lived in Nazareth, his hometown, were called. But Nazareth had nothing directly to do with Nazirites.
In the beginning verses we discover the first important qualification of being a Nazirite: one became a Nazirite by taking a vow. The second important guideline was that both men and women could become Nazirites. But as often happens in the Bible, these qualifications and guidelines changed over the years. The office of the Nazirite, who could become a Nazirite, how long a person could remain a Nazirite, what the Nazirites obligations and duties were, and so on, evolved over the centuries. Let me use that comment as a reminder that while what we read in the Bible is the truth, everything we read about was not necessarily God-approved. For instance, we read of the Israelites building a golden calf and then worshipping it. The story is true. But did God approve
Numbers 6
55
of this? Of course not. It wasnt a godly thing being dealt with in the golden calf fiasco. Now, that particular apostasy was spoken of in the Scripture as wrong, and terrible consequences were meted out to those who participated in the making and worshipping of the bull idol, so its not tough for any reader to know that evil was occurring. At other times in the Word, however, well read about some event, but little or no mention is given as to whether this was necessarily a good thing or a bad thing that went on. Were left to discern whether it was good or bad according to our understanding of the Torah an understanding that were supposed to already possess. In other words, it is assumed from our knowing God and His commandments, and from our reading the context of the story, that well discern whether the point of the story was to commend a good act or to decry a bad one. So what a Nazirite was and what a Nazarite did were not the same a few hundred years after the Law was given to Moses; what we read here in Numbers doesnt really match the way a Nazirite operated in Samsons day, nor later in Samuels day, nor later still in Saint Pauls day. That was not because God changed things, but because men changed things. In Numbers 5, where we dealt with the water ordeal of the suspected adulterous wife a God-ordained commandI told you that shortly after the death of Christ, a very influential rabbi declared that the practice of this law of God was to be abolished. Was this rabbinical decision a reflection that Yehoveh was changing something, abolishing one of His own laws, and using a man to do it? No, this was a man changing something that he thought ought to be changed because of certain circumstances of the times that greatly troubled him. Did the rabbi do this with evil intent? No. In fact, from an earthly perspectiveand maybe even in a sense from a heavenly perspectivehe did the right thing. For the whole matter of dealing with adultery had become twisted and perverse. Men skated and women were persecuted for no other reason than that men just got tired of
their current wives. By declaring that they suspected their wives were unfaithful, they could get a quickie divorce and be congratulated for their piety by the Jewish religious authority to boot. In other words, the laws of adultery had become a legitimized fraud. A similar line of evolution of practice and custom occurred with the office of the Nazirite. There were two basic kinds of Nazirites: perpetual and lifelong. Perpetual, despite the name, referred to a Nazirite who took a vow for a specified period of time, and then was a Nazirite no more after the time limit was up. A man who was a Nazirite for life meant just that: he was born as a Nazirite and would die as a Nazirite, meaning that it was his mother who made him a Nazirite while still in the womb. The thing is, there is no such commandment of God in the Scriptures that establishes the office of a Nazirite for life. Well read about it, but that just means that the practice existed as a custom, not that it was a God-ordained practice. What is established here in Numbers 6 is the law of the perpetual Nazirite, which means that this person was a Nazirite only for a time and usually for a specific purpose. Ill not be using the term perpetual any further because it is confusing; for to meand I suspect to you perpetual means never ending. Why some scholars coined the term perpetual Nazirite to indicate a temporary Nazirite is beyond me. The Nazirite referred to in Numbers 6 is temporary. There appears to be no biblical contemplation at all of a Nazirite for life. One good question might be, why would someone want to become a Nazirite in the first place? The answer is generally that someone would swear an oath to God that if God would grant some kind of special favor, such as to cure them of a disease, or restore their wealth, or (if a woman) give a woman a son, or save them from an enemy, then in return they would turn their lives over to God for service to Him, for a time. Now, it didnt take long before a persons offering to become a Nazirite became as casual as making it part of a bet. For instance, If that
Numbers 6
56
guy over there isnt at least seven feet tall, Ill be a Nazirite. We learn from Jewish records that so many people were becoming Nazirites that sometimes priests would preside over the sacrificial offerings of hundreds of Nazirites at a time. We see Paul, in the NT book of Acts, joining with four men who must have in some way violated their Nazirite vows, and so had to be purified.
Assignment: read Acts 21:2028.
This passage is obviously about four Nazirites, and equally as obvious to the person who knows Torah (which the NT assumes its readers do), this specifically concerns four men who were defiled during the period of their Nazirite vow. We see them entering a seven-day period of purification that involves purchasing the proper sacrifices and having their heads shaved. While shaving ones head was also the procedure at the end of the vow period, a sevenday period of purification was not required as far as we know. Were told that Paul also had his head shaved and went through the purification procedures right along with these men. This can mean only one thing: Paul had undertaken the vow of a Nazirite. It was not contemplated, let alone permitted, that someone should join others in purification rituals just to show sympathy or as some act of unity. This was deadly serious business and not some act or show that Paul was putting on. Part of the reason James the Just had Paul do this was because Paul was going to be walking around Jerusalem bald-headed; a sure sign that he had undergone a Nazirite ritual. everyone knew what that bald head meant, and so hed be a walking billboard to the effect that Paul followed the Law of Moses. We even see another time in which Paul, unmistakably, is at the end of a Nazirite vow
he has personally undertaken: Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow (nasB). We can know that a good many details were left out in the account of Paul having his hair cut. A Nazirite vow was supposed to end at the temple, and the hair itself was to be offered as a sacrifice and burned. He had his hair cut in Cenchrea, not Jerusalem. Possibly he only had his hair trimmed a bit, and then later went to Jerusalem and had his head shaved. Or perhaps in this era, rabbinic law allowed those Jews who had taken a Nazirite vow and were dispersed throughout the roman empire to cut their hair or shave their heads at some other location, perhaps even saving the hair and later taking it to the temple. Its hard to know for sure. Probably a good analogy as to what a Nazirite amounted to is that they were the monks and nuns, so to speak, of the Hebrew religion. Unlike the Levite priests, who were born into lifelong service to God, a Nazirite was just any ordinary Israelite who made a personal
Numbers 6
57
choice; he or she volunteered to dedicate themselves wholly to God and unto His service for a specified time period. Biblically speaking, a person set apart for service to God was a priest. So did becoming a Nazirite mean that person had become a priest? Generally, no. A priest had to come from a very specific bloodline that descended from Aaron. By all appearances, it seems intended that the God-ordained establishment of the office of the Nazirite actually excluded Levites from taking the Nazirite vow. This is implied by the opening statement, which is Tell the people of Israel . . . (Num. 6:1). Levites were no longer counted as among the people of Israel. They had been set aside, they had just gone through an entirely separate census, and later well find they didnt
even get their own territory in the Promised Land. As of now, if the Levites were to be a part of this Nazirite office, God should have said, Tell the people of Israel, and tell the sons of Aaron . . . or something like that. We will find implications later on in the Bibleoutside of the Torahthat some Levites did take on the Nazirite vow. Why they would do that is mysterious. This was probably another of those non-God-ordained changes we discussed that occurred spontaneously in Hebrew society; or it was that some tribes observed the Law and others didnt; or it was that nonpriest Levites (ordinary Levites who werent allowed to be priests) were allowed to make Nazirite vows to be more priest-like. Verses 3 through 6 give us the main qualifications of a Nazirite, whether male or female: (1) They were not only to abstain from strong drink, they also could not drink wine; in fact, they were not to even eat grapes or partake of any kind of grape product. Grapes, in any form, were off-limits. Well talk more about that. (2) They were not to cut their hair during the time of their vow. And (3), they were prohibited from touching a dead body. What we find in essence is that the Nazirite, by means of his vow and his following these three basic and straightforward requirements, was given a status equal to that of the priests, though a Nazirite was not a priest. Of course over time, as tradition started to play a more and more prominent role in Judaism, rules started piling up on rules about the requirements of being a Nazirite. And as one expects of manmade rules and doctrines, the rules changed over time. So in various parts of the Bible well see some Nazirite prohibitions lifted and others added; but these were not God things, they were man things. Two of the three expectations listed in Numbers 6:38 are very similar to what was required of a priest. If we look more closely, the Nazirite requirement was actually somewhat more stringent than the requirement for the priest. A priest most certainly could drink wine, and in fact did
Numbers 6
58
during some of the rituals, although he was prohibited from drinking wine as a beverage during the period just before he went on duty or as he approached the sanctuary. A Nazirite was not to drink wine at all, nor even to sample the source of wine, grapes. Priests could not touch dead bodies, but they could tend to their deceased parents, grandparents, spouses, and children. Nazirites were not to touch a corpse under any circumstance, and this included close family. So in some ways, the requirements upon the Nazirite even approached those of the high priest. Yet in one way the Nazirite was required to do things in an opposite fashion to the priests: priests were not allowed to have long hair, while Nazirites were not allowed to ever trim their hair. So the office of Nazirite was quite unique among the Israelites. Why the prohibition against eating grapes? As usual, were not directly told. But some Jewish scholars think they know why, and I must admit, their reasoning seems credible and fits the God patterns weve discussed in the past: Israel is often symbolized by the grapevine. The idea was that in every Sabbath year (every seventh year), the land of Israel was consecrated to the Lord. Fields were not to be harvested. Land was not to be tilled or weeded. And, as concerns our study, vineyards were not to be tended. Not only were grapes to be left on the vines to rot, even the much necessary twice-yearly pruning of the grapevines was suspended during the sabbatical yearthe year that the land was set apart and set aside for God. So during the certain time the Nazirite was set apart and set aside for God, he or she symbolized the quintessential purpose of Israel: holy and set apart for Yehoveh. The purpose of the Sabbath year was to symbolize Israels holiness and condition of being set apart. Therefore, just as the grapevines were not to be touched and no grapes harvested during the sabbatical year, so Nazirites were not to touch or eat grapes during the term of their vow (however long or short a period of
time that was), which in essence was a sort of specialized sabbatical year for the Nazirite. In fact, the word nazir (from which we get the word Nazirite) came to be used as the term for pruning grapevines. So you see the close connection between the requirement for the Nazirites and the treatment of grapes and grapevines. Lets clear up some mistaken impressions about Nazirites. Nazirites were not weird hermits who went off to eat locusts and honey and live in the desert, as John the Baptist did. If the Baptist were a Nazirite, the locusts and honey he ate, and the generally solitary life he led, were no part of it. Nazirites had no special food prohibitions apart from not eating grapes or grape products, and they still had to eat kosher, as did all Hebrews. Further, they could marry, so celibacy was not a part of it. They wore normal clothing. They generally held normal jobs and worked at everyday crafts. The thing that marked them as different, more than anything else, was the wild hair that came with time. Otherwise, they remained fully part of normal Israeli society. I have some serious doubts that John the Baptist was a Nazirite, and the Bible never calls him a Nazirite. The assumption that he was a Nazirite comes from his mother, elisheva, who vowed that she would not drink wine while John was in her womb, and that she would insist that Yochanon (Johns real Hebrew name) would never drink wine or strong drink ( yayin or shekar). The assumption that he was a Nazirite also arose from his long hair. Nazirites werent the only Jews in that era to have wild or long hair, or to abstain from wine or strong drink. One well-known group who did the same things was the Rechabites. We find mention of them in the book of Jeremiah, as Jeremiah took some rechabites to the temple and offered them wine to drink, but they declined on account of their family tradition that they supposedly descended from Yitro, Moses father-in-law. Part of their tradition included not growing
Numbers 6
59
grapes or even planting seeds of any kind; also, they were required to live in tents. So their abstaining from grapes was simply family tradition stemming from an apparently unknown reason. Essentially they determined to live like the Bedouin, and extrabiblical records indicate that they allowed their hair to grow long. By John the Baptists day, many traditions had erupted. Many groups and individuals were railing at the corrupt priesthood and the spiritless hollow faith that many were now practicing, which led to all kinds of strange cults and reactions. Asceticism was on the rise, meaning that many Jews were forsaking the comforts of life and community and attempting to get closer to God by means of self-denial. The essenes of Dead Sea Scrolls fame were but one of these many groups, and there is ample evidence that John the Baptist at the very least had much contact with them, and quite possibly was himself a formal member of the essene community. John, by all accounts, was an ascetic. He lived out in the wilderness and was apparently quite a strange individual. He ate a very restricted diet, wore sackcloth, and never cut his hair. We would have found hundreds of individuals (and likely thousands) who were like John in their appearance, for such was the persona of many of those who chose the ascetic lifestyle. Another reason to doubt that Yochanon the Immerser was a Nazirite is that he was already a Levite by ancestry. And by the Law of Moses, the office of Nazirite was not open to Levites. This was not a disadvantage, though. rather, the law was simply to avoid needless duplication. Levites were already set apart for lifetime service to God, whether they were priests or just regular blue-collar temple workers. John would have been a set-apart Levite no matter the circumstances under which he was born. The vow of John not drinking wine may have been more prophetic of Yeshuas announcing that He would not drink wine after His fateful Passover until He drank new wine with His disciples than an indication of being a Nazirite.
It may well be that portions of a kind of modified Nazirite vow were employed in different eras according to different practices and not always for the purpose as set out in Numbers 6. When we look in the Talmud and the Mishna, we find all sorts of differing rulings, coming from different rabbis living in different times, about being a Nazirite. even Samson (in the book of Judges), who is described forthrightly as a Nazirite for life from birth, didnt seem to pay much attention to the Nazirite restrictions of Numbers 6other than as concerned his hair. And he certainly did everything possible not to serve God until the last few moments of his life. So we must be careful in assigning the title of Naziritein the sense spoken of here in the Torahto various biblical characters who would come centuries after the law of Numbers 6. Abstaining from wine or strong drink was not the sure sign of a Nazirite, nor was growing long hair.
Nezer , Nazir , and Nazar

The Hebrew word that we translate as Nazirite is nazir. Since Hebrew is what is called a rootword languagethat is, by changing the vowel sounds in a word, and sometimes adding or subtracting a consonant, the meaning of the word is broadened or narrowedwell see several Hebrew word offshoots from nazir, and they are quite interesting in their use in the Bible. The root word, nazir, most literally means set apart or pruned. So literally translated, the person who took the vow was not called a Nazirite, but rather a set-apart person or a pruned-away person. Whereas nazir is a positive term that indicates being specially consecrated for service to God, the Nazirites must also nazar, be separated, from grapesseparated in the negative sense of being prohibited from grapes. Further, the Hebrew word nezer, which literally means shoot or branch, is the term used for the unpruned grapevine. The term is also used to denote the high priests glorious
Numbers 6
60
headpiece (the one with the golden band around it), as well as the long hair of the Nazirite. So when reading these passages in Hebrew, we see the obvious parallel between the high priests head covering (his special hat) and the Nazirites head covering (his or her long hair). Nezer, nazir, and nazar . . . you see how these Hebrew words all work together to help us understand the relationships between priests, grapevines, and Nazirites; and of the Nazirites being consecratedset apartfor God. Verses 912 talk at length about the Nazirite, male or female, being made ritually unclean by coming near a corpse. Actually, contacting the body of a dead person was not necessary to defile a Nazirite; simply being in the same room with a dead person was sufficient to contaminate and therefore terminate the period of the Nazirites vow. This means that after a seven-day period of purification (like what those four men and Paul went through in Acts 21), the time frame of the Nazirites vow started all over again. So you can imagine how fastidiously a Nazirite avoided the dead. But, over the years, the rabbis came up with several new defilements that a person could contract, causing them to have to repeat the period of their vow. To give you an example of this, sometime just after Christ died there was a person named Queen Helena, who was the wife of a king who ruled over a city-state in Mesopotamia. Helena was a Gentile who had converted to Judaism. Her son (the prince of her kingdom) was about to go off to war, so she made a vow that if her son returned safely, she would become a Nazirite for seven years (an unusually long period of time in that era). He came back safe and sound, so she followed through and took the vow of a Nazirite. After the seven-year period was completed, she went to Jerusalem for the typical rituals to mark the successful ending of the vow. There some rabbis instructed her that she had not properly observed the Nazirite requirements and told her she had to start all over again (which she did). But near the end of the second
seven-year period, she became impure (there is no record of the cause of the impurity) and so she had to complete yet another seven years. So all told, this woman was a Nazirite for almost twenty-one years, but fourteen of those years were due to her fouling up . . . at least according to the rabbis. The phrase at the end of verse 12 is quite interesting. Almost all Bibles read, as does our CJB, The previous days will not be counted, because his consecration became defiled. This translation is not correct. What the Hebrew says is that the previous days of the Nazirite vow will not be counted because his nezer became defiled. His nezer, recall, refers to the hair of the Nazirite. The sign of the consecration of a Nazirite was his or her hair, just as the sign of the high priests consecration was his unique headdress, his special hat. Among the Hebrews and other Middle Eastern cultures, the liver and the kidneys were thought of in the same way as we, today, think of the heart and the brain. In other words, love was not of the heart but of the kidneys. Thought processes took place not in the brain but the heart. The liver had a lot to do with where the deepest passions were spawned, such as anger and jealousy. A persons hair was seen as very important to the ancient Middle eastern cultures. Hair was considered to be the seat of a mans vitality and life force. Hair, in the pagan world, was often given as a burnt sacrifice to the gods and goddesses. Therefore, as the hair was thought to be the seat of life, the hair carried the defilement that a Nazirite might incur. In the same way, the hair carried the purity of a persons life force. When the Nazirite properly completed the vow period, his or her hair was shaved off and burned as an offering, because it was a pure and clean and holy thing to offer to God. The hair of a defiled Nazirite was not offered to God; depending on the era, the hair was either burned up in a common fire or buried in the ground. We get the full ritual of the Nazirite who had completed his vows in verses 1320. In a
Numbers 6
61
nutshell, the Nazirite presented the four main kinds of sacrifices: a burnt offering, a grain offering, a peace offering, and a reparation offering. It cost the Nazirite three lambs, in total, to end his vow a reminder of just how costly it is to set oneself apart for the Lord. After shaving his hair off, the ritual was ended with the words After that the Nazirite may drink wine (v. 20 nKJv). The point was that he was released from his vow.
The A aronic Blessing That this awesome blessing immediately follows the law concerning the Nazirite has always been a puzzle to scholars. What is clear, though, is that while the laws of the Nazirite were speaking to but a few, the Aaronic blessing was conferred upon Israel collectively. This blessing was spoken each day immediately following the morning sacrificial offering. Actually, the blessing is a very early Hebrew poem. One of the primary duties of the priests was to bless Israel; yet this blessing lets all involved (the people and the priests) know that the priests were but conduits of the divine; they had no inherent power to bless or curse. They could but speak and remind the people of what God promises and does. every place in our Bibles that this benediction reads Lord or Adonai, the original Hebrew word is Yehoveh. Yehoveh bless you, Yehoveh shine His face upon you, Yehoveh give you shalom. Blessing, in our language and in Christianity, is a very broad and inclusive term; but thats really only because of our ignorance. Biblically speaking, blessing is very specific in its meaning: God bestowing upon His people the things He counts as important and good for us. When we
Numbers 6
look through Scripture, we find that blessings generally consisted of good health, land, safety, sufficient food, and children. Blessing is a verb as well as a noun. It involves action. Gods feeling kindly toward us isnt the same as His blessing us. We certainly want Him to have favor toward us, but that is not what blessing means. In the same way, love is also a verb as well as a noun. Love may be the most misunderstood and misappropriated word in the entire Bible. For in the Hebrew, love was not an emotion, it was an action. Its only in the Gentile dominated, Hellenistic influenced, church that love has become a romantic, warm, internal mushy feeling. Certainly, love has an emotional component, but just as James has told us that faith without action is no faith at all, so love that has no tangible action is not love at all. Would you want God to feel all fuzzy and warm for you, but not to give to you, tangibly, what you need? Well, were all in luck, for the act of blessing is the act of giving. And what is it that He gives us? It says here in the Aaronic blessing that He blesses us with (meaning He actively gives to us) protection, grace, and peace. In the Hebrew it is protection, grace, and shalom. Shalom does not mean only peace; it means well-being in every sense. It means that God is near to you, it means His salvation has been made available to you, and it means His sufficiency for you in material things, as well as a lack of war. I love this blessing. It sums up Gods intention, attitude, and character. But notice whom this blessing is specifically aimed at: Israel. This is not a blessing for the whole world. It is only for those who make up the set-apart group that He calls My peopleIsraeland those joined to Israel. That has never changed. Now, though, instead of joining Israel by means of pledges and oaths and circumcision, one joins Israel by means of faith in Yeshua HaMashiach. And that has been the provision, since about AD 30, if a man wants to partake in Gods active blessing.
62
Numbers 7
Numbers 7
Numbers 7 is not only one of the longest chapters in the Torahsome eighty-nine verses; it is also one of the most repetitive chapters in the Torah, which youll see as we read it together. So well move through this chapter pretty quickly. As a frame of reference, we know from dates given in the Torah itself that everything that happened starting in exodus 40, through all of Leviticus, and up to where we are right now in Numbers 7, happened in a very short period of time. These events all occurred in a timeframe beginning on the first day of the first month of the second year after the Israelites left egypt, and ending on the twentieth day of the second month of the second yearonly about fifty days. In other words, these activities commenced in the thirteenth month after they left egypt and concluded before the end of the following month. We know that the building of the tabernacle was completed on the first day of the first month of the second year. We know that the ordination of the priests was completed by the eighth day of the first month. And we know that the census of the Israelites, and then yet another census that was of only the Levites, began on the second day of the second month of the second year. We also know that the cloud moved, and so the camp was struck and Israel began their journey from Mount Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month. exactly where the events of Numbers 7 fell within that fifty-day period, we cant pinpoint, although there are a handful of rabbinical opinions about it that we dont need to get into.
The Leaders Offerings From a thirty-thousand-foot view, we are witnessing some of the final preparations necessary to make complete the operation of the priesthood and Gods earthly dwelling place. From a little narrower view, what we are seeing is the leaders of each of the twelve tribes of Israel bringing their offerings, in turn, to the Lord. Beginning with the tribe of Judah, the headman of each tribe brought their tribes gift to the tabernacleone tribe per day, for a total of twelve days. The first gift discussed (before we read of what each tribe brought) was a communal gift; that is, it was given to the tabernacle as a common gift from the entire congregation of Israels leaders. The gift consisted of six large wagons, or carts, each with two oxen for pulling it. These carts were to be given to the specific Levite clans that were in charge of transporting the various pieces of the tabernacle.
63
The clan of Merari was given four of the wagons, and the clan of Gershon received two. It was Meraris duty to transport the heavy wooden planks that formed the load-bearing structure of the sacred tent, so they needed more carts than did Gershon, who was to move the thick curtains that formed the door into the tent. Verse 9 explains why the highest ranked of the clans, Kohath, did not receive any carts: they were to carry the most precious ark of the covenant; and the ark of the covenant was to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites, not laid in the back of a wagon. This regulation of the Levites carrying the ark on their shoulders and not putting it in an oxcart was apparently (as were so many of the laws given on Mount Sinai) not long afterwards ignored by Israels leadership, which brought with it the promised consequences. We see an incident in 1 Chronicles 13 when King David called for the ark of the covenant to be brought to him, and a fellow named Uzzah was given the task. Lets read about that incident, because theres a little more to it than meets the eye.
Assignment: read 1 Chronicles 13:112.
Okay, back to the book of Numbers. Hidden in verse 10 is something else that is informative:
Numbers 7
What is interesting is that we read of the Hebrews transporting the ark in an oxcart, and not on the shoulders of Levites. Great Jewish sages have said for ages that Uzzah was killed not for one infraction, touching the ark, but rather for two: touching the ark and transporting it in a cart. That is why this passage speaks of the Lords anger burning so greatly. And, in fact, this whole thing was Davids fault for his personal negligence in allowing such a thing to occur.
the tribal chieftains brought their dedication offerings for the altar. What makes this interesting is that the Hebrew word used here in Numbers 7, the word that is usually translated dedication offering, is Hanukkah. Yes, the same word used for the holiday we celebrate in the fall, Hanukkah, was used to recognize the rededication of the temple to Yehoveh after having been taken over by the Syrians and made into a temple to Zeus for a three-year period. It is quite interesting that the first use of Hanukkah is to initiate the dwelling place of God into operation, here in Numbers. The second use of Hanukkah in Scripture was to reinitiate the dwelling place of God into operation after the governor of Syria, Antiochus epiphanes, had made the priesthood defunct for a few years. This makes it all the more appropriate that we should make good and proper use of Hanukkah as an occasion to celebrate the birth of the One who made Yeshuas followers to be the new operational dwelling place of God. What is also interesting is that the way Hanukkah is used in Numbers 7 puts a little finer point on what the word actually means; it is really more an offering of initiation than dedication. The Hanukkah offering was meant to be the catalystthe ribbon-cutting ceremony that said, Open for business. On the other
64
hand, when we see a true dedication offering, in which something is consecrated (meaning ceremonially set apart) for God, the ritual always involves anointing with oil. We dont find an anointing of oil with the bringing of this Hanukkah offering here in Numbers, nor do we find it in the Hanukkah ceremony initiating the use of the temple, once again, for worshipping Yehoveh during the Maccabee rebellion. And, of course, in initializing our walk with Yeshua, there is but an offering of ourselves, usually symbolized by baptism, but there is no call for a new follower to be anointed with oil in order to begin his or her service to Yehoveh. So, like much else in the NT, we find that the entire concept and purpose and use of Hanukkah began in the OT, and was just brought forward into the NT in a yet higher and fuller meaning, and personified in Yeshua. The other thing we should not overlook is that the tribe of Judah, from whom came Christ, was the first to present their Hanukkah offering. We also find that the gifts presented by all twelve tribes were identical. every tribe gave the same things, even the same amount and the same quality. We read for twelve consecutive passages that each tribes Hanukkah offering consisted of: 1 silver bowl and 1 silver basin, each filled with a mixture of semolina flour and oil (a minchah offering); 1 golden spoon or ladle filled with incense; 1 bull, 1 mature ram and 1 yearling lamb (for an olah offering); 1 male goat (for the hataat offering); and 2 oxen, 5 rams, 5 male goats, and 5 yearling lambs for the shelamim offering. If the Hebrew names of the various types of offerings are unfamiliar to you, you need to go back and review our study of Leviticus, where we explored each of these extensively. The point is that this list was what each tribal leader presented to the sanctuary. One tribe per day, for twelve consecutive days, brought this specified offering. There is great significance in this, because just as anyone who comes to the Lord for atonement and salvation must offer the same thing
himself, nothing less, and nothing moreso it was with this Hanukkah offering. The twelve tribes were not at all equal in population, authority, status, or wealth, but that didnt matter: the offering to the Lord had to be the same for all. The Hebrew sages say that something else rather provocative occurred here, and though I am not entirely certain whether theyre correct or not, I do want to pass it on to you. The fact is that at least one Sabbath had to occur within the twelve-day span of Hanukkah offerings; and, mathematically, there could have been two. The rabbis say that the offering of the chieftain of the tribe of Judahthe first offering given was given on the first day of the week. On the second day, Issachar gave the offering, and the third day it was Zevulun, and so on until we get to the seventh day, the Shabbat, and guess which tribe gave their offering on Shabbat: ephraim. The honor of being first went to Judah; the honor of giving their offering on the Shabbat went to ephraim. And it was these two tribes who eventually became the two surviving supertribes who absorbed all the other tribes, and even formed the two kingdoms called Ephraim and Judah, after the death of King Solomon. It is Judah and ephraim who are also called the two houses of Israel in Ezekiel and elsewhere in the Bible. Whether it was the Sabbath or not, Ill leave up to you. But I can tell you that it would have been logical and customary for this to have begun on the first day of the week rather than on a random day. And no matter how you look at it, the first to give their Hanukkah offering was Judah (Messiahs tribe), and the seventh to give theirs was ephraim. This was not coincidence. Were going to find Judah and Ephraim slowly and surely elevated above the other ten tribes as the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets that form the Old Testament proceed. This chapter ends, appropriately, with an important piece of information: it was from above the mercy seatthe kapporet, in Hebrew; that is, the golden lid of the ark of the covenantand within the winged forms of the two
Numbers 7
65
cherubs that were attached to the kapporet, that the presence of God spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting. And, just so we fully understand: the phrase speak with Him, when referring to God speaking to Moses, in Hebrew is dibber, which means a conversationtwo-way communicationas opposed to an oracle, which is simply an edict pronounced by God. Although Im sure that often God would call Moses to the tent and simply issue an instruction, at least as often God would call Moses and there was a fullblown conversationa dialoguebetween the two of them. Moses had an honor that few other men in history had: tangible, audible conversation with the Lord God Almighty. Although we have that privilege to a degree as believers in the form of prayer, I cannot say that it is the same thing. How often I have wished I could ask God a question, and get a direct audible answer. Let me point out one other important thing that Christians tend to get wrong: Moses did not stand before the ark of the covenant in the sense that he was inside the holy of holies. This is an understanding that has only recently become clear. Nowhere does the Torah explain that Moses stood within the holy of holies; that is an assumption (an incorrect one) that comes from a common misconception of such biblical phrases as Moses stood before the Lord. While to us that sounds like it must indicate Moses actual presence in the holy of holies, standing right next to the ark of the covenant, in fact what we have is Moses standing in the holy place next
to the inner veil, called the parokhet, and merely facing toward the ark. Standing before the Lord is a common idiomatic Hebrew expression in the Bible; we find it applied to private individuals (such as the woman suspected of adultery), and it merely means to come near to Gods sanctuary, not inside of it, and certainly not inside the holy of holies. Hebrew sages and rabbis have always seen Moses as standing outside the veil; its only Gentile Christians who have misunderstood and pictured him as standing directly before the ark of the covenant. After all, despite Moses lofty and unique position as mediator, he was still only a man. And by the way, despite the lovely song that says we as believers now stand in the holy in holies, that is theologically and scripturally not sound. It is Jesus, the God-man Messiah, who stands in the holy of holies as our High Priest and Mediator. Israel needed a mediator, and we still need a mediator. That is why we are taught to pray to the Father in Christs name. We, as Messiahs army of priests, indeed stand within the holy place, which is the lesser chamber inside the sanctuary (a great honor indeed); but we are in no way perfected enough in these corrupted bodies to stand in that holiest place. We find Moses so terribly anxious to actually see God that he asks the Lord if this might be possible, and the Lord complies to a small degree by hiding Moses in the cleft of a rock as He merely passes by. Point being that if Moses saw the Lord nearly daily in the holy of holies, there would hardly be a need for him to see the Lord in yet another setting. It could not be more clear in the Torah that no one, not even the high priest, was permitted to enter the holy of holies and stand before the ark except once per year on Yom Kippur. So great was the Lords holiness, there had to be a veil between Moses and the Lord. Thus when the high priest was permitted entry on that one special day each year, he had to carry burning incense so that the incense acted as a sort of veil, so that the high priest would not die from such close proximity to the extreme holiness of Yehoveh.
Numbers 7
66
Numbers 8
Chapter 8 is going to deal with two things: (1) the practical operation of the menorah, that great golden seven-branched lampstand that stood by the southern wall of the holy place, what was the first (and lesser) compartment as one entered the Tent of Meeting; and (2) the consecration and initiation into service of the Levites. Lets be clear: when I say Levites, I am not referring to the priests. By now the tribe of Levi had been divided into two distinct groups: the priests (who all come from Aarons clan); and the Levites, who represented the remainder of the Levite clans. The Levites were in essence the blue-collar workers who reported to the priests.
What was the purpose of speaking about making the light face forward? Apparently the shape of the oil lamps allowed the light to be directed more toward one direction than another. The importance of the light going forward was so it would shine upon the table of shewbread on the opposite wall of the tent. The menorah was symbolic of the light, the owr, of God. The table of shewbread, with its twelve loaves of bread symbolizing the twelve tribes of Israel, was to operate only under Gods light and presence. Cleansing of the Levites Verse 5 begins to recall that the Levites were separated from the other tribes of Israel; they had replaced the status and purpose of the firstborn of Israel. This is something we must drill into our minds so we can understand all that will happen in the Bible from this point forward, especially as concerns prophecy. The Levites were no longer a normal part of Israel. They were no longer counted as among the other Israelites. The purpose of the earlier census of the Levites (as apart from the census of the other Israelites) was to demonstrate this important God principle. Certainly the Levites remained racial/ethnic Hebrews, and they operated to the welfare of Israel; but they would no longer call themselves Israelites, nor would God consider them as such. What we see happening here is that the Levites were to be cleansedpurifiedto initiate them as a set-apart group of Hebrews assigned the duty of serving God by means of serving Gods priesthood. Notice that Moses was directed to perform this ritual and not a priest. Once the priests were consecrated, Moses wouldnt be performing any more of these rituals.
Seven Lamps The altar of burnt offering and the menorah had to be serviced twice per day by the priests. And the common element between both of these was that a fire had to be kept continually burning. But note that the menorah was lit only during hours of darknessit did not burn twenty-four hours a day. Neither did the altar have a flaming fire burning twenty-four hours a day; after the days worth of sacrifices ended, the coals were banked so that there would be hot coals remaining to kindle the following mornings fire. An interesting instruction here is that the light of the menorah was to face forward. First, recall that the menorah was a lampstand that held seven oil lampsit didnt use candles.
Numbers 8
67
As was standard for purification rituals, water was used. I dont mean to parse words, but this was not the same as the ordination of the priests. As I mentioned in an earlier lesson, a dedication or ritual of consecration to God always involved being anointed with oil. This ritual upon the Levites was merely to cleanse and purify them sufficiently to operate around and near the sanctuary area. However, Levites were not permitted inside any of the sacred areas, and they were not permitted to conduct any of the sacred rituals, so they did not have to be granted the highest level of holiness, as was bestowed upon the priests. The water of purification used on the Levites was the same kind of water used to purify a person who had touched a dead body, the same kind of water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which means a red heifer ceremony had to have already occurred. So this was not the same thing as holy water. In our last lesson we discussed that when the term holy water is used, it is actually synonymous with living water (mayim chayim in Hebrew). Living water was water from a running
spring, or a spring-fed pond, or a river. Holy water generally indicates that the living water had been put into the giant copper laver that resided in the tabernacle courtyard; this was what the priests drew from to wash their hands and feet before, during, and after rituals. Holy water, then, was only one of the two required ingredients of this special water of purification, the other being the ashes of the red heifer. In verse 7, one of the requirements was that a razor must have been used over the body. This instruction is widely misunderstood. First, remember that this applies only to malesfor only male Levites could be in service to God. Second, razor is just a term that means a sharp object used to cut hair. The person using the razor was not shaving hair per se, they were cutting hair. Shaving as we think of it today (which means to remove hair to the point that only the skin beneath it shows) was not part of Hebrew society. Third, the call to take a razor to the whole body was a euphemism that simply meant the hair of their heads was to be cut, because the hair of the head sits atop the whole body like a crown or a covering. The Levites were also to wash their clothing. To be clear, in addition to all this, they were to fully bathe in water, as that was standard purification procedure in every case. Sprinkling or Immersion It is interesting that the sectarian argument among Christians about baptism is whether sprinkling is acceptable or full immersion is necessary. The argument generally stems from these verses, for we read that the Levites were to be sprinkled. Again, the sprinkling was only the standard procedure for applying the water of purification, which was water mixed with ashes of the red heifer. It was not intended to take the place of immersion in a river or a mikvah (ritual bathing), which was but immersion in living water with no ashes in it. Sprinkling was used only when a person was being purified from a severely unclean
Numbers 8
68
state, usually brought about by touching a dead body. ritual bathing, on the other hand, was always the final step in being brought back to a clean state from any kind of uncleanness. But immersion was also about restoration and renewal, while being sprinkled with the waterand-ashes concoction was not. In other words, the argument between sprinkling and immersion is utterly groundless, because from a scriptural standpoint, they are two entirely different procedures for two entirely different purposes. Next, after two bulls were offered on behalf of the entire community of Levites, verse 10 tells us that the Israelites were to lay hands on the Levites. And this was to be done before the lorD (nasB). As we discussed earlier in this lesson, before the Lord simply means the action was to take place in front of (or near) the tabernacle, the dwelling place of the Lord, not inside the tent itself, and certainly not inside the holy of holies chamber. Obviously two million or so Israelites didnt lay hands on the Levites; it was the elders, the lay leaders from each tribe, who laid hands on the Levites. Why did the Israelites do this? This was the typical act that indicated a substitutionary sacrifice. The Levites were being offered to God as a substitution forin place ofall Israelite firstborns. Rather than all Israelor, more accurately, all the firstborn of Israelbeing in direct service to God, they were replaced with the Levites. This laying on of hands indicated both that the Levites were the sacrifice for the redemption of the Israelite firstborn, and a transfer of responsibility from the twelve tribes to this set-apart tribe of Levi. The Hebrew word applied to this laying on of hands and substitution function of the Levites is kippur. In its broadest sense, kippur means atonement. The form of the word kippur used in these passages adds the preposition al; thus the best translation of al kippur into the way modern english is used is on behalf of. Just as the bulls are the kippur (the atonement) on behalf of the Levites, so are the Levites the kippur (the
atonement) on behalf of the Israelites. Yet we can take that analogy only so far because certainly the Levites were not going to become an altar sacrifice, were they? Thus, since in the strictest since God does not ask for or tolerate actual human sacrifice, verse 12 has the Levites turning around and laying their hands upon the heads of the two bulls (again, not every Levite, but probably just the chiefs of the clans). So now that the Levites had taken the sacrificial responsibility laid upon them by all Israel, and transferred that responsibility to the bulls, the bulls would be slaughtered and burned. This means that while the biblical sense of the word kippur partially means atonement, that is not all it means. Kippur also carries with it the sense of payment or ransom, which is expressed in the word kapparah, an offshoot of kippur. As with most of Christendom, many years ago when I ventured into the OT and ran across things like this, I just sort of rolled my eyes at such primitive behaviors. I feel quite differently about it now, of course. We can scoff all we want at this procedure where the Israelites made the Levites their substitute/payment/atonement, and then the Levites made the bulls their substitute/payment/atonement, but we really ought to be thankful. For this is a picture and demonstration of Gods justice system at work. It was this precise systembased on substitution, payment, and atonementthat made Yeshua legally able to be everything that was needed to satisfy God as concerned our sin and iniquity before Him. Of all the many misunderstood or misconceived principles that we find in the Bible (especially by Christians and modern Judaism), at the top must be the idea of atonement that is expressed in the Hebrew root word of kippur. We discussed this term and two of its offshoots, kofer and kapparah. I would like to resurrect that thought briefly because as we have learned, what was in the minds of the writers of the Bible and true of the culture they lived
Numbers 8
69
in (an ancient Hebrew culture) is so distant from modern thought that it can be challenging to apprehend, let alone comprehend. However, our comprehension is oh so important if we are to get the true understanding that the Lord wants us to have regarding His laws and His plans. The notion of ransoming a person from the wrath of a god (including the God of Israel) for a price was prevalent in ancient culture and equally prevalent in the Bible; dont ever think otherwise. The church especially (but Judaism also) has tried all sorts of allegorical tricks to reconcile our twenty-first-century minds to the words of Scripture on this subject, and thus has effectively blunted the impact this subject ought to have had upon us. We typically find the literal concept as much too primitive for our modern sensibilities, so we twist it and remold it until it is comfortable for us. I promise you that if we were to enter a time machine and go back King Davids era, our modern understanding of the meanings of atonement and redemption would be unrecognizable to the people of that time. Proverbs is but one of many books where we get this thought about the fundamental God principle of ransom and its irreplaceable purpose: The wicked serve as a ransom for the righteous, and likewise the perfidious for the upright (21:18). This is an excellent biblical statement to help make my point. This passage literally says that the termination of the lives of wicked people (meaning those who deny the God of Israel) is an acceptable payment to Yehoveh to appease Him in order that the righteous people (meaning those who are devoted to the God of Israel) receive forgiveness for their sins. It is an exchange that God has decided will satisfy Him. Please note, we are not speaking of the righteous killing the wicked and then offering them to God, but rather of God taking out His wrath upon the wicked in whatever manner He determines. Let me say that another way: this is not an act of men upon men, but rather an act of God upon men.
Despite standard teaching to the contrary, there is no principle of God that has ceased to exist or has materially changed. Thus the central place of ransom as a way to satisfy the justice that God inherently requires cannot be overlooked or made to be some kind of obsolete divine protocol that was only for more primitive times. The life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life. (Lev. 17:11) It is Gods very nature that He cannot accept that what He has created can be killed without the killer being subjected to His righteous wrath. Please hear me: just as we like to say that God cannot tell a lie, neither can He not be angered by the death of one of His creatures. When I say He cannot, I mean He cannot. Just as God is not capable of lying, so He is incapable of not being angered at the spilling of blood. It is not a matter of a limitation of God or a choice of God that I am referring to; rather, it is His essence and His character that make Him who He is. Thus we have the God principle that one of His creatures must pay for the death of another of His creatures. Always. This is reflected in a number of ways. For instance, when it comes to sinning (trespassing against the Lord), the guilty partys transgression must be paid for by an innocent party if it is to be forgiven. Otherwise, the guilty partys blood is on his own head and Gods anger is satisfied only when that guilty partys life is taken (and forgiveness is not granted). Thus in the sacrificial system, an innocent animal was slaughtered as a ransom that was paid so that the guilty persons own life was spared by God. Why was this necessary in every case without exception? Because God is so holy and so perfect that He cannot let even one instance slide; otherwise, His righteous anger will not be appeased and His holiness will be defiled. And such a thing is simply not possible.
Numbers 8
70
When it comes to killing and butchering an animal for food, the animals blood must be given back to God as a payment of ransom for the death of that animal at the hands of a human; it is an act of appeasement for the anger of the Lord at the killing of one of His creatures, whether it be a lawful or an unlawful killing. Thus it is imperative for us to see that the word atonement, which is woven throughout the Bible and used so commonly within JudeoChristianity, encompasses a huge range of meaning; not different meanings for different situations, but a cosmically complex meaning that has many facets integrated into it. An atonement in its simplest form means a payment, a ransom, a substitute, a just requirement of a holy God for which none other will do. Who does this payment go to? God. Why does it go to Him? Because His righteous anger must be appeased and He has determined that this will satisfy Him. There is simply no other choice or possibility. Who benefits? His worshippers. Lets see this same God principle of kippur in action in yet another setting: redemption.
redeemed from slavery. However, even though all firstborn then belonged to God and were marked to be a sacrifice of atonement, He would not sacrifice those firstborn who trusted Him enough to follow His provision that every home was to slaughter a lamb and then paint the blood of that lamb on the doorposts of their homes. In other words, that lamb was to be the payment for all the firstborn who were rightfully to be slaughtered as a sacrifice. Of course, we know of this event as the Passover. The result was that the vast majority of Israel believed God, and so the Israelite firstborn were saved, but the vast majority of the egyptians did not believe God, and so the Egyptian firstborn were slaughtered as a ransom. As said in Proverbs 21, the wicked were the ransom for the righteous (an inalterable requirement of God). Now that Israel had escaped egypt, the firstborn of Israel werent out of the woods,
This is a great opportunity to look back and review for a few minutes. In this passage Yehoveh reminds us that redemption is a costly thing; it can occur only with a price a ransombeing paid. When He determined to redeem Israel out of the hand of egypt, the redemption price was that all the firstborn were to become His holy property. Not just all firstborn of Israel, but all firstborn of Egypt as well. These firstborn were designated to be a sacrifice for all the other people. So when it came time for Israel to leave Egypt, God would call in His marker. All firstborn (of people and cattle, of Egypt and Israel) would be literally sacrificedslaughtered, killedto pay the price for Israel being
Numbers 8
71
Numbers 8
though: they were still Gods holy property. They owed God a lifetime of service. Therefore, Yehoveh, in His mercy, decided that the Levites would become the substitute (a ransom) for all these Israelite firstborn. Rather than all the Israelite firstborn being Gods holy property, subject to service to God, the Levites would be Gods holy property in their place, and the firstborn would be relieved of their responsibility to Him. That is why the census we read of earlier in Numbers was so carefully conducted. recall that the number of Levite males available to substitute on a one-to-one basis for each Israelite firstborn fell short of the needed amount. Therefore, those Israelite firstborn who had no Levite to redeem them instead had to pay money to the priesthood for their redemption. redemption had a tangible cost. But since God demanded a blood sacrifice (which the firstborn of Egypt paid for Israels redemption), this requirement still lay upon the firstborn of Israel, who then passed that burden off of their shoulders and (according to Gods instructions) onto the Levites, who then passed the blood sacrifice part of the requirement onto
the bulls who were sacrificed. So we see this long chain of substitution being established; kind of a kick the can on down the road process. eventually, it all fell on Yeshuas shoulders. He was the final and best substitute for atonement. He could either have accepted being the blood atonement sacrifice (as He did), or He could have laid it on an animalas men had always doneand the cycle would simply have continued. The Torah carefully established Gods requirements for redemption by means of blood sacrifice, and it also established that His justice could be satisfied with an authorized substitute as a ransom to pay for what each of us rightly owes Him. The final few verses of chapter 8 only reiterate that those Levites who did heavy work were to be retired from that heavy work at age fifty. That does not mean they were excused from service. They became temple guards and watchmen and did other sorts of labor that would not overly tax an older person. Next well examine the second Passover, the first Passover having occurred the night before Israel left egypt.
72
Numbers 9
Chapters 9 and 10 join together to record all the final preparations for the journey of Israel now released and redeemed from egypt, outfitted with Gods sanctuary, and prepared with Gods laws and commandsas they set out for the Promised Land. Six hundred years after Yehoveh made His covenant with Abraham, a place had been set aside for the set-apart people to live; and that place, which at the time was called the land of Canaan, would in the near future be renamed Israel.
The Second Passover The first thing spoken of in chapter 9 is the Passover (Pesach in Hebrew). This was the second Passover celebrated by Israel, and there was a distinct difference in the way this Passover would be observed as compared to the very first Passover. Lets remember that the first Passover took place in egypt. It was that great and terrible night that the Lord killed all the unprotected firstborn in Egypt. The only firstborn exempted were those who followed Moses instructions that they were to kill a yearling male lamb, eat it, and spread its blood on the doorposts of their mud-brick homes. It is a key God principle to understand that while this instruction was primarily aimed at Israel, any family living in egyptno matter their nationalitywho worshipped Yehoveh and obeyed and followed this command was passed over by death. Any
family led by a circumcised male as a sign of joining Israel (no matter their nationality) could participate, and many did. As a result, we see in exodus that a mixed multitude left egypt and traveled with Israel. Some who went along officially joined Israel, while others traveled as hitchhikers who never joined Israel (they had probably lost their firstborn, were awed by this Gods power, and wanted to live among Israel and enjoy the benefits of such a God). So three categories of people left egypt: (1) natural-born Israelites (Hebrews); (2) those of other nationalities who wished to officially become Israelites; and (3) those who had no intention of becoming Israelites but simply wanted to live among Israel (for various reasons) while retaining their respective national identities. The Bible usually refers to those who were not naturalborn Israelites but wished to become Israelites as sojourners; and this is apart and distinct from those hitchhikers who are referred to as strangers or resident aliens. This second Passover (which we see here in Numbers 9) was, if you would, the first commemoration of the egyptian Passover. And all Passovers from here forward would be commemorations of the first Passover in Egypt. In other words, the first Passover was the actual historical event, and then every Passover after that was simply a remembrance of it. The main difference between the first Passover (as occurred in egypt) and the second Passover (out in the wilderness) was that in between the two, the Torah, the Law, was given to Israel on Mount Sinai early in their exodus. Further, a place for God to dwell among Israelthe tabernaclehad been constructed. As a result, the character and nature of the Passover lamb also changed somewhat.
Numbers 9
73
In the first Passover, each individual family slaughtered their own lamb in their own home, as there was no common place to do so, or priesthood to officiate. Also, while that first Passover lamb was sacrificed, or killed for a divine purpose, the sacrifice was not formal as in the new mold that would be ordained in Leviticus. With the giving of the Law, all sacrifices were to be supervised by the priests of Israel. I have no doubt that it was those firstborn of Israel (who were going to be passed over for death by means of blood painted on the doorposts of their homes) who did the slaughtering of the lamb in that first Passover but would not be allowed to do so in the future. And we discussed (rather recently) that until the Levitical priesthood was established at Mount Sinai, which happened about one year after the first Passover, the tradition was that the firstborn acted sort of like priests within each of the Israelite families. So since the slaughtering of the lamb was a divinely ordained thing, it would have fallen to the firstborn to kill the lamb. Theres a lot of symbolism here, isnt there? It was the lives of the firstborn who were threatened by God, so it was the firstborn who killed the lamb and did the smearing of the blood. Sometimes we get a wrong impression about the first Passover. It was not to save the physical lives of all the Israelites from death. Women and non-firstborn were not subject to Gods death threat. His wrath was going to be poured out only on the firstborn because it was the firstborn that He declared as now belonging to Him, and He was willing to sacrifice them (so to speak) in order to save His people. The killing of those firstborn was the redemption price for Israel, thereby satisfying His justice. each person who was subject to condemnation (in Egypt that meant the firstborn) had to slaughter the lamb and appropriate those saving qualities of its blood. Do you see this? The firstborn who slaughtered the lamb was appropriating it for himself. In the end, this led to his family escaping the slavery of egypt; but this was not about saving the physical lives of the other fam-
ily members because their physical lives were not actually in danger. This is still exactly the case for mankind today. each person subject to condemnation (which is every human) must appropriate the blood of the sacrifice for himself or herself. As much as I might prefer it, I cannot appropriate Yeshuas blood for my brother or sister, mother or father, children or grandchildren. each person must be redeemed one by one, by his or her own freewill choice and action. Yet a person within a household who does appropriate Yeshuas sacrificial blood does open a door for his family to escape by showing them the way. Still, each family member must then go and obtain the saving power of Jesus for himself or herself. In this second Passover, the Pesach lamb was to be selected and taken to the tabernacle (later the temple), where the priests were to officiate over its slaughter. Part of the lamb (every lamb) was to be offered on the official altar of burnt offering to God. Then some of the blood was to be taken and smeared on the entryway into the home. It didnt happen this way in the first Passover because there was no formal Torah, there was no official priesthood, and there was no tabernacle. As ordained in Leviticus, the Passover was to occur on the fourteenth day. This rule is repeated here in Numbers 9:3, along with the regulation that the sacrifice of the lamb at the tabernacle should occur at bein haarbayim (in Hebrew). This means literally between the two evenings. So exactly when was that? Well, most ancient rabbis determined it was between sunset and complete darkness. Later it was determined that it meant the time between what we would call about three in the afternoon and the time of total darkness. remember, the Hebrew day began and ended in the evening, not in the morning like it is among Gentiles today. More specifically, the day did not end at dark, but when that final edge of the sun disappeared over the horizon. even more specifically, the current day ended and the
Numbers 9
74
new one began when three stars could be seen in the sky. Obviously it was humanly impossible for the priests to officiate over the slaughtering of thousands of lambs in the few-minute interval between the sun setting and complete darkness. So one can understand the reason for declaring that the slaughter of the lambs should commence at 3 p.m. What is interesting is that there is no mention of the Feast of Matza here, that is, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. That feast was to begin the day after Passover. And from the timing of these passages, we can know that the Passover occurred on the fourteenth, and Israel left on their journey from Mount Sinai into the wilderness on the twentieth. There is no way the people would leave in the middle of the Feast of Matza. The reason I point this out is that just as God ordained in Leviticus, Passover and Matza (although connected) were two distinct observances. Only in later times were they so intimately connected that they became looked at as one combined feast. even today it is common to call the period of time that includes the first Passover and then the Feast of Unleavened Bread, simply Passover. Some prefer to call the combined two feast events only Matza. Many Jews today treat Passover as but the first day of Matza, although that is not correct by the commands of Torah. There is a very important reason that Passover had to be celebrated before the Israelites packed up and left: it involved the sacrificing of an animal. Matza did not have a sacrificial element. The only requirement was to clean out ones dwelling of all leaven, or yeast, and to eat unleavened bread, matza, during the seven-day period of the feast. Therefore, while the tabernacle was essential (starting at Mount Sinai) for proper observance of Pesach (because a lamb had to be sacrificed with priests in attendance), the tabernacle was not necessary to observe the seven-day Feast of Matza. In fact, one did not even have to be ritually pure to celebrate
the Feast of Matza because no sacrifice was ordained. Verse 6 brings forward a circumstance in which some Israelites came to Moses and said essentially, We have a problem. And the problem was that some number of Israelites had become defiled because they had touched a dead body; in Hebrew, they were tamei le-nefesh. Since the focal point of the second Passover was the sacrifice of a lamb at the tabernacle, and because the Law did not allow anyone who was severely unclean to approach the sanctuary of God with their sacrifice, what about those who were currently unclean? Were they going to be allowed to participate in the Passover? Those who brought the question to Moses were certainly hoping so. Moses went into conference with God over this matter, and God issued His edict: No, they would not be allowed to participate. However, on the fourteenth of the following month (assuming one was no longer in a state of ritual uncleanness), they would be allowed to celebrate Pesach. And verse 11 says they were to eat the Passover lamb along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. But they were to leave none of it until morning (no leftovers for a snack), and they were not to break a bone of the lamb. There is another element to this whole procedure that is quite interesting. In addition to those who were not ritually clean being afforded a makeup date to celebrate Passover, the fourteenth of the following month (the second month of the religious calendar year), those who were on a long journey were also allowed to postpone the ordained Nissan 14 of Passover by one month. But this exception was strictly for those two conditions only. Verse 13 states that if a person did not celebrate Passover when, where, and how it had been ordained, and did not meet those two special conditions, that person was subject to being cut off from his kin. In other words, that person was subject to being separated from his community and from God. Further, verse 14 continues to reinforce a principle set down in Genesis: that among
Numbers 9
75
Israel there was one law for everyone, whether Hebrew or foreign-born. In other words, those of other nationalities who had thrown their allegiance to Israelthereby becoming Israeliteswere in the same boat with the natural Israelites. All the Torah applied to them as well, and they were under the same requirements and the same blessings and the same curses. Naturally this is true, because all who want to be followers of the God of Israel must operate under the same covenant. Further, even the resident aliens who were not Israelites and didnt want to be Israelites (but who wished to live with Israel) were required to follow the observance of Pesach, Passover. Its not very hard to imagine that there eventually came to be quite an argument over exactly what God meant when He said that a person on a long journey could postpone celebrating Passover, and presenting his sacrifice at the tabernacle, for thirty days: Just how long was long? In essence, the answer boiled down to just how far one was from the tabernacle when Nissan 14 arrived, and therefore how far from his home one was required to travel to get to the tabernaclelater the templefor Pesach. And of course, various rabbis came up with various answers. Of what is written and recorded two main views arose: (1) that anyone who did not
Now lets approach a more difficult subject. Ive already touched on the matter of Yeshua and the Passover. And the more we learn about
Numbers 9
have the physical capacity to reach the temple threshold was exempt; and (2) that anyone who lived farther than eighteen miles from the temple was exempt. This issue and its various solutions undoubtedly played a role in the Gospel accounts of Yeshuas death at Passover time. We know that the Judeans (that is, those Jews living in Judah), who were in close proximity to the temple, followed one set of rules, while Jews from the Galilee, where Jesus and His disciples were from, followed another tradition. This was due to the long distance that the Galileans would have to travel to and from Jerusalem. The Galileans even held their Passover meal on Passover eve, the day before Passover, due to the logistics involved. They would have started clearing their houses of leaven earlier than their Judean brothers to the south as well. So some of the problems that we find in the Gospel accounts of that Passover when Jesus was crucified (and of the Lords Supper) can be traced to this definition of what a long journey amounted to, just how strictly one had to observe the timing of Pesach, and what various groups of Jews did to solve the dilemma.
76
Torah, the more we see the precise parallels between the slaughter of the paschal lamb and the crucifixion of Christ; and between the Lords Supper and the Passover Seder meal, from which comes the custom of Communion. But there is another issue of commonality as well: the issue of clean and unclean and the people who should not participate as a result of being unclean. Here in Numbers 9 a person who was unclean could not participate in the Passover at all; their participation must be put off until a later date. We see a very similar kind of warning developed in the New Testament. First, the link between the Passover and Jesus was established: Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:5356 nasb) After the invitation was established and the reason for participation was laid down, next we have a warning; in fact, its a death threat: Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. (1 Cor. 11:2730 nasb) I have heard any number of guesses and allegorical statements about what drinking and eating in an unworthy matter means. And of course these various fanciful explanations are usually anything but in the context of Israel, Torah, and the Jews, which is the only proper context within which to view any part of the Bible. remembering that everything about the Passover meal and the Lords Supper was a
Torah-ordained event (in other words, this was not man-made tradition), there is but one clearly stated condition that makes a person unworthy to participate: being unclean. And of course the punishment in Torah for partaking of Passover in an unclean state was being cut off, and being cut off is biblically defined as divine punishment up to (and at times including) death. Naturally, as a parallel to the Torah command, rabbi Paul warned that those who were unworthy (and I say that this means, generally, unclean) and who drank the cup and ate the bread anyway would become sick and weak and fall asleep. Fall asleep is a common biblical euphemism that means to die. And just as obviously, the context makes it clear that this was divine retribution; you wouldnt become ill because something about the wine and bread was toxic. Do you see this hard and tight connection between the ordinance of Numbers 9 and the NT version of the same thing? The NT simply adds to the context by making Yeshua the paschal Lamb. The Fire and the Cloud Lets move on to verse 15. This begins a section of Numbers 9 that explains the fire cloud (the glory of the Lord) and what Israels response to it was to be. really this was but a resumption of something that had started earlier in exodus; Israel had followed the fire cloud all the way from egypt to Mount Sinai. Since the Israelites had been stationary for about thirteen months (at the base of Mount Sinai), the fire cloud had not been needed to direct their movement, but that was about to change. This sequence of events can be inferred from the circumstances: the fire cloud led the people from egypt to Sinai, then it rose up and rested, for some time, at the top of the mountain where Moses went to receive the Torah. Upon its completion, the tabernacle (a pattern of Gods heavenly throne and the new and latest earthly place where God dwelled among men) replaced Mount
Numbers 9
77
Numbers 9
Sinai as Gods earthly dwelling place, which itself had replaced the Garden of eden. So naturally the fire cloud that we often read about Moses ascending to at the top of Mount Sinai came down and rested upon the tabernacle. During the day the sunlight more or less hid the brilliance of the fire cloud so that only the cloud itself was seen; but when it grew dark, the fire within the cloud lit up the night sky. Wouldnt you have loved to be there to witness that? What a sight it must have been, and how reassuring to Gods people, who must have been awfully apprehensive about their future. Beginning in verse 17 we get the drill: when the cloud lifted, the Israelites were to strike the camp, take down the tabernacle, and move, following the fire cloud. When the cloud stopped, they stopped; whether it was overnight, for a week, for a month, or for a year. And by the way, this is not saying that the maximum time they stopped and camped at any one place was a year, just that whether for a long or a short time, the people followed the fire cloud. The final verse says that on a signal from the Lord, the Israelites either made camp or
broke camp. Dont be confused; this sign was the movement or the stopping of the fire cloud. There was not an additional sign. What we must not overlook is that Gods presence, as associated with the fire cloud, was real and tangible for the Israelites. This was because the people of Israel obeyed God; they built for Him this complex sanctuary at His command. It is also interesting to note that we had never read of the fire cloud in the Bible before the first Passover. It was not until after God redeemed His people, Israel, that He appeared to them to lead them in such an intimate and visible manner. And once He had redeemed them, and made Himself so real and tangible to them, they were expected to respond by obedience. God led, they followed. Where God went, they went. Where He did not go, they did not go. When He stopped, they stopped; and when God indicated it was time to move on, they moved on. This is a beautiful and appropriate pattern and demonstration of our walk with God. All this fire-cloud imagery, and of Israel living in tents, or temporary dwelling places, is poignantly brought forward into the NT so that we dont ever doubt that Gods patterns are not abolished or obsolete. Well find the transfiguration of Jesus occurring in a cloud, and then later, when He arose and ascended, it was into a cloud. Hell be coming back in a cloud. Two of the leading apostles, Paul and Peter, constantly made use of the metaphor of a human body being likened to a tenta temporary dwelling placewhich will be replaced with incorruptible and permanent housing when we have reached our Promised Land, heaven. All of these examples and patterns and metaphors that we see Yeshua and the Apostles use in the NT arent new and made up, random or arbitrary; theyre used because they directly refer to the Torah, the Word of God. And the purpose was to make that iron-clad connection between the newest covenant in Christ and the earlier covenants revealed in Torah.
78
Numbers 10
The preparations by God, made through Moses, for establishing Israel as a nation of people under the banner of Yehoveh were nearly complete. In Numbers 9, we saw Israel celebrate the first memorial Passover. That is, the Passover in egypt was not an observance; it was the actual event itself. It was that dreadful and wonderful night that God delivered the Hebrews from Egypt. The Passover of Numbers 9 was looking back, as a remembrance, of that event that had taken place one year earlier. So for the next thirteen hundred years or so Pesach, Passover, was observed by Israel as a day to celebrate their exodus. That is why on Passover of about AD 30 Yeshua transformed the celebration from being not only a remembrance of Israels redemption from egyptian slavery, but also a remembrance of Yeshua and the unmatched redemption that He offered. He even used the word remembrance: Do this [the Passover Seder with unleavened bread and wine representing His body and blood] in remembrance of Me (Luke 22:19 nasB). And this was because indeed His followers were being redeemed from the bondage to sin, and the wages of sin. And with all this talk of remembrance, let me remind you that the wages of sin equate to the curse of the Lawits two ways of saying essentially the same thing. The curse of the Law is not the existence of the Law; the curse of the Law is the consequence of breaking the Law. And that consequence is death. The curse of sinning is not the existence of sin: the curse of sinning is the consequence (or wages) of sinning: death. What defines sin? What tells us which behaviors and attitudes are in line with His will and which are not? God says it is His Law . . . the legal part of His Torah. We must do
all we can to educate an unenlightened church about a terrible false and unscriptural doctrine that the Law is itself a curse. For the Giver of the Law is God, the Law is good, and God does not change. The Lord does not give us what is bad and then tell us to be obedient to it, only to turn around later and say that it was actually bad and that to obey it is wrong. If He would do that, why might He not abolish what He has done in the NT, via Yeshua, declare it bad and wrong, and then give us something else?
Silver Trumpets This was the last preparation before Israels march into the wilderness would begin. And that last preparation involved the use of trumpets. The idea was basic: the silver trumpets were used to signal to the people that an instruction from God had come; and the trumpets then signaled how the people were to respond in a general sense. The trumpets were like air-raid sirens or a weather alert radio.
Numbers 10
79
The trumpets were to be made of hammered silver. The Bible doesnt give us much information about how they looked. But Josephus does, and we have ancient coins from Israel that picture the trumpets. There is even an engraving of the silver trumpets on the Arch of Titus (the roman who destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 and looted the temple of its gold and silver objects), which is located in rome. The trumpets were straight tubes, flared at the end. They were something less than eighteen inches in length. And verse 2 tells us exactly what the trumpets were to be used for: to summon the community of Israel and to set the divisions in motion. In other words, they were blown when it was necessary for Moses to tell the people something; or they were used to tell the four divisions of Israel to get up and move. recall that Israels twelve tribes had been grouped into divisions of three tribes each, and each threetribe division was assigned a specific place of encampment around the wilderness tabernacle. Beginning in verse 3, the actual calls of the trumpets (the different ways they were played) were defined so everyone would know what they meant. Obviously this system of directing the actions and movements of people by means of sounding a horn or beating a drum was neither new nor invented by Israel. This system had been in use for centuries before in almost all known cultures; and then, as here
for Israel, the main use was militarydirecting an army. Lets talk about these trumpets for a couple of minutes. First, these silver trumpets were not the same thing as shofars. We know that by their description and their specific names. In Hebrew, these silver trumpets were called hatsotserah, while shofar is the Hebrew word for an animal horn or antler. A shofar was not an earlier or more ancient and primitive version of a hatsotserah, a metal trumpet, as some have supposed. And their uses were different not so much in what they were used for, but rather who used them. In the Bible, the common people used a shofar, but the silver trumpets were blown only by priests. As some examples, we find that shofars were used to frighten an enemy (Judg. 7), to warn that an enemy was coming (Hos. 5), to call an army to battle (Judg. 6), to call for an army to stop fighting (2 Sam.), and to call people to rebel against injustice (2 Sam.). A shofar was even blown to declare the coronation of a king (2 Kings 9) and to bring down the walls of Jericho. Yet in the same story of the walls of Jericho, well find that silver trumpets were also blown. We see in Hosea 5 and 2 Kings 9 the use of trumpets for basically the same reasons as blowing the shofar. In fact, we often find that both shofars and silver trumpets were blown at the same time for similar purposes. That has led to many Bible versions completely mixing up shofars and trumpets and using the terms interchangeably (an error to be sure). Its also important to know that priests were always an integral part of an army. Today we have chaplains. In ancient cultures, war priests were almost universal among all civilizations and societies. It was no different for Israel; whenever Israel went to war some priests were involved, and one of their duties was to sound the trumpets. Im not going to delve deeply into all the different horn blasts and signals, but recognize that the various alarms could be played on either a shofar or a trumpet. What was not variable, how-
Numbers 10
80
ever, was that only priests could blow trumpets. In general, it could be said the longer blasts were either for calling the leaders of Israel together or for assembling all the people of Israel. The shorter and more staccato sounds were used in battle for directing troops. In Hebrew, the longer blasts were called taka or takia, and the shorter blasts were called teruah. In battle, the military commander would tell the priests what signals to blow, and the priests would use the silver trumpets to blow those signals to the army from the most strategic points available. Then the field commanders and leaders of divisions and units would repeat those calls on shofars, the horn of the nonpriests, throughout the battlefield. Verse 5 tells us that when the silver trumpets were used to signal the divisions of Israel to move, the first time the trumpets were sounded using teruah, or short blasts, which meant that the division led by Judah, which camped to the superior or east side of the tabernacle, was to spring into action. The second round of teruah signaled that those camped on the south side (the second-most-prestigious camping position), led by reuben, were to move.
Verse 9 states that one of the key purposes of the horn blasts was that when the horns were blown during battle, the Lord would remember and Israel would be delivered. In essence, the silver trumpet blasts were like a prayer; a prayer to remind God that even the blowing of the trumpets was itself His command to Israel, and so His Law was being obeyed. Interestingly, the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls had much to say about the use of trumpets as a device of worship and war. They spoke of trumpets of remembrance and of the use of trumpets for the vengeful remembrance at the appointed time of God. At a later time Ill speak to you in depth about phrases well find Jesus using that are uniquely essene word structures; phrases that well find almost word-for-word in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These phrases that dont necessarily identify Messiah with the essenes (Yeshua was not an essene), but phrases and terms He used often referred to the essenes. In fact, the essenes were big on end-time doctrines and teachings, and were discovering more and more about their influence on the people of Judah at
Numbers 10
81
the time of Jesus and before, as well as on the writings of the New Testament. The point being that the essenes teaching on the holy use of trumpets (remember, the trumpets were to be used only by priests) is echoed in the New Testament comments of Christ and others as they described end-time happenings. I gave you one prominent phrase found in the Dead Sea Scrolls about trumpets being blown for the vengeful remembrance at the appointed time of God. And what better terms could we find to describe the wrath that Yehoveh will pour out on the world as the coming of Christ nears. Let me list for you just a few places in the NT where well find the blowing of trumpets signaling this vengeful remembrance: He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Matt. 24:31 nasb) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Cor. 15:52 nasb) The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thess. 4:16 nasb) I looked, and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound! (Rev. 8:13 nasb) The sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, one saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates. (Rev. 9:1314 nasb) The thing is that trumpets were used to call the congregation together for a message, for
worship, for warning, for action, and for war. Further, they were to be used only by priests, or, put another way, only by those anointed to special high-holy status. Therefore, that is why well see trumpets being blown in heaven by angels, because they are certainly beings of a special high-holy status. even more, the use of trumpets in the NT is but a precise extension of the God pattern laid down in the Torah (always a good thing to recognize). In verse 10 we see something else about the silver trumpets: they were to be blown on joyous occasionsthose occasions being the seven biblical feasts and new moons (meaning the start of each new month). And during those festivals and new moons (and there seems to be some interpretive room for sounding them during other joyous occasions in honor of Yehoveh), the trumpets were also to be blown during the sacrifice of the burnt offering and the offering of well-being (in Hebrew, the olah and the shelamim).
Numbers 10
82
By the way, this was not about playing music or songs on a trumpet. This was about sounding the detailed blasts as defined in the earlier verses. The trumpet was not a musical instrument. The Levites had dedicated musical instruments, and they played them, usually accompanying the singing of psalms. Silver trumpets, however, were Torah-ordained communication devices. The Tribes Departure Verse 11 begins a momentous time in the Torah, the journey into the wilderness, which began on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites left egypt (that is, thirteen months and twenty days). There is some minor disagreement over whether the people had been gone from egypt at this time for eleven months or thirteen months. The disagreement has to do with some ambiguity over whether the references to months and years were based on the date they left egypt or on a preexisting calendar. My opinion is that it was based on the amount of time after they left egypt. The first period of time surrounding Israels exodus (from the leaving of egypt to the arrival at Mount Sinai, the receiving of the Law, the building of the tabernacle and ordination of the priesthood, and the census and now the construction of the two silver trumpets) was boot camp. It was preparation for what would begin on this, the twentieth day of the second month of the second year. As had been ordained, the trumpets were blown and the first division to move (verse 13) was Judah; this meant not only the tribe of Judah moved, but also the other two tribes associated with it, Issachar and Zebulun. In the procedure of striking camp, the next step was the disassembly of the tabernacle. The clans of Gershon and Merari would load up the portion of the sanctuary they were responsible for in wagons. They would go ahead of the clan of Kohath, who would be carrying the
ark of the covenant and other sacred furniture, because this way the tabernacle could be reassembled at their stopping point, ready and waiting to receive the sacred tabernacle objects and the ark when they arrived. After the Gershonites and the Merarites (remember, these were all clans of Levi), then the three tribes of the division of reuben would be mustered. After them came the division of ephraim, and then at the rear of the column would be the division of Dan. The proper way to think of this (if youve been in the military, this will be more understandable) is that they set out in battle order. Let us never forget that the way the camp and the march were organized was to create a cohesive and enormous army. They were going to have to take the land of Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, by force. All the prayer and worship and ritual and observance they engaged in was but preparation and obedience; it was what preceded action and it was what came before doing battle. This is something Christians need to rethink. Somehow or another, because Christ is (correctly) referred to as the Prince of Peace, Christians have reached a point of absolute passivity. It has been implied (if not outright taught) that with the advent of Yeshua our Savior, were supposed to pray and then sit and wait for God to do everything. Not true. Were supposed to wait to be called to action by God, and then before we go into action, prepare through learning and prayer. Today most Western Christians find it easier to outsource the action part. Better to pray and write a check and hire somebody than to get up and (yourself) be in service to God. Learning and prayer are never a substitute for action, and action without the direction of the Lord is futile. We are going to get our hands dirty; were going to get battered and bruised in the process. That is the intended Christian walk; thats how it works. Verse 29 shifts gears on us a little. We have this sudden insertion about Moses appealing to a fellow named Hobab, son of reuel the Midianite, to go along with Israel on their journey.
Numbers 10
83
And Hobab was reluctant to go. He said hed rather return to his native land of Midian. Who was this Hobab fellow? Well, that question has always created some controversy. He is identified in Numbers as Moses fatherin-law. Yet in an earlier book (Exodus), Moses father-in-law is identified alternately as Reuel and Yitro (Jethro). There are a number of solutions to explain what was happening here, and in general they revolve around the way families are spoken of in the Bible; that is, usually arranged by tribe and clan. We in the West are used to dealing with first and last names, which can be pretty useful in identifying a person and their family tree. The Hebrews, as most ancient cultures, did not use such a system. reuel was probably the name of one of many Midianite clans. Jethro was but a member of that clan. Hobab was either just another name for Yitro (in another language); or, it is also possible that Hobab was a brother-in-law to Moses, and therefore of the same clan of reuel. In other words, dont think in terms of error or inconsistency. Rather, think in terms of trying to understand the way ancient cultures operated. In fact, the term father could be applied equally to a persons biological father or grandfather in the Bible. I believe the location of Mount Sinai was not on the Sinai Peninsula (at the traditional location where St. Catherines Monastery is located), but rather on the Arabian Peninsula. I wont go over all the reasons again today, but Paul stated that Mount Sinai was in Arabia, as did Josephus and Philo. And the Bible also makes it clear that
Moses was called to the burning bush in Midian. And the mountain of the burning bush was exactly where Moses was to lead Israel when they left egypt. In other words, Mount Sinai and the mountain of the burning bush were one and the same. Frankly, that part is the usual teaching; but what is not usual is the actual location of that mountain, which I say was in Midian. Here in Numbers 10 is more evidence of this. Hobab, a man whose home was Midian, was currently staying with Israel. Verse 30 says he wanted to go home. Moses said, Please dont leave us. Why did Moses want Hobab to come along? Look at verse 31. It was because Hobab would know where they should camp and would be their eyes. We find out in Joshua that Hobab the Midianite was also called a Kenite. Is this a conflict? No. Midianite identifies the tribe, and Kenite was the place or location. You can be a Smith or a Jones and also be a Floridian, right? One denotes the family, the other the location. The Kenites operated primarily on the Arabian Peninsula just north of Midian, and then also off to the west a bit, onto the upper Sinai and into Canaan, just past where the red Sea ended. Kenite is but a wordplay on Canaanite, with Canaanite used not necessarily in the sense of bloodlines but rather in the sense of location. A Kenite was a person primarily of the tribe of Midian, who lived near the land of Canaan. Where Im heading with this is that Moses wanted Hobab to guide them because Hobab was obviously well familiar with where they were and how to get where they were going (at least for part of the journey). Israel was on the Arabian Peninsula, immediately east of the Gulf of Aqaba (a finger of the Red Sea), home to the Midianites and Kenites. This makes a whole lot more sense than thinking that Hobab was somehow familiar with the Sinai Peninsula wasteland, which really was inhabited by only a few egyptian military outposts and a handful of Bedouins who wandered through it. As we near the end of chapter 10 we see that the first leg of the Israelites trek was a three-day
Numbers 10
84
journey, which means that at most they traveled about thirty miles, but more likely twenty-five. However, saying that it was a three-day journey does not mean that they traveled for three days. The vernacular of the time didnt express distance in miles or kilometers or anything like that. rather, distance was expressed in time. In the modern day of the automobile, we often unthinkingly do the same thing. If someone asks, How far is it from Los Angeles to San Diego? the answer will be something like About 3 hours. A three-day journey was like saying thirty miles. So they may well have taken more time than three days to cover that three-day journey distance, due to the fact that they werent used to striking camp, they werent seasoned travelers, and they were an enormous and unwieldy population that included children and the elderly. Israel followed the fire cloud. Though the Scripture doesnt say they stopped and camped each evening, certainly they would have. There was no hurry, no reason to hasten. Understand that each time they stopped and camped overnight, they did not set up the wilderness tabernacle. It was only when the fire cloud restedmeaning that it had come to the place where they were supposed to sojourn for a timethat they went through the arduous process of reassembling the sacred tent. Verse 33 presents us with a problem in stating that the ark of the covenant led the column of Israelites. earlier in this chapter, we read that the ark traveled in the midst of Israel, with Judah leading. rabbis have tried to hash this out over the years to resolve this obvious conflict. Some rabbis think that at times the ark led, and at other times it did not. Still others think there could have been two arks, which is a real stretch for me. That the ark may have led at some times and not at others could make sense, depending on the situation. We do know, for instance, that after forty years, when Israel made ready to cross the Jordan, the ark did lead, because were told that the moment the feet of those carrying
the ark touched the water on the eastern bank of the Jordon, the water was dammed upstream and created a nearly dry riverbed for Israel to cross. This could just as easily mean led in a more general sense, in that it was always the presence of God that went before Israel when they journeyed. Before we depart this chapter, lets talk about the ark of the covenant for a little while. In this portion of Numbers it is clear that the ark was seen as serving a definite military function for Israel. It served as a guide, a protector, and it was also the sign of the God of Israels presence among them. What that ark meant to the people of Israel, and what it meant to their enemies, is rather well demonstrated in 1 Samuel 4, where we have this interesting little tidbit: When they learned that the Ark of the Lord had come to the camp, the Philistines were frightened; for they said, [YHWH] has come to the camp. . . . Woe to us! Who will save us from the power of this mighty God [Elohim]? (vv. 68 jps)
Numbers 10
85
The Philistines brought with them images and banners of their own gods when they went to war (as was standard procedure in most armies). The Philistines obviously recognized the ark of the covenant as representative of the God of Israel. What is equally interesting is that they knew the God of Israels name (something that is masked by practically all Bible translations). Verse 7 of 1 Samuel 4 does not say that God had come to camp, it actually says that Yud-HehVav-Heh had come to camp. And the Philistines (as did every nation within a thousand miles of Egypt) knew full well that YHWH, this powerful god of the Hebrews, had devastated egypt, and it scared the wits out of them. This also demonstrates something that adds to our understanding of the Hebrew mind-set in that era, and the Lords willingness to permit that mind-set to continue for a time, and even that the Lord Himself gave Israel a way to understand Him that was quite in harmony with the way that all the peoples of the earth understood their gods. If the Lord had not instructed Israel to make that ark, and to carry it into battle with them, then Israel naturally would have assumed that their God preferred not to be with them in battle (a definite disadvantage for Israel). Of course that wasnt the reality of Gods essence or nature that He was somehow inhabiting the ark or limited to having power only where the ark was presently. But that was not something the Hebrews were prepared to fully comprehend. Also, seeing that they had no representation of their god with them would have emboldened Israels enemies and given them courage and a hefty morale boost, because to their minds that would have meant Israel had no god to help them in battle. We can look at this and chuckle a little at the silliness of it, but it was quite real to all peoples of the earth at that time and just as much so to the Hebrews. You dont completely change mens minds about centuries of what seemed as self-evident fact and custom just by demanding it, even if you are the God of the universe.
Therefore, the Lord seems to have graciously given to Israel what it needed: a golden ark that symbolized His presence with Israel and served as both an encouragement to Israel and a warning to those who would confront Israel. Let me amend that a little, however, by saying that even though the Philistines and others would see the ark as an image or representation of the deity of Israel (as they understood their own gods with their images), that is not precisely how Israel saw it. rather, they understood that the ark was Gods footstool, and even though it was a very dangerous footstool when approached by the unauthorized, it was not God Himself. So in some ways the difference between how the Philistines and the other nations saw their god images and how Israel saw hers was a matter of degree. One other important difference worth mentioning is that the Israelites recognized that the ark was not Yehovehs permanent residence (but the other nations did think that the images of their gods and the gods themselves were one and the same). The idea for Israel was that when the Lord deemed that He wanted to communicate with Israel or make His will and presence known, it was above the ark where He would come. This chapter closes with a poem that actually embodies the understanding of just how the ark operated and the Lord God in relation to
Numbers 10
86
it. Many Bible translations begin the poem with the word advance, which in Hebrew is kam. Kam is used here as a verb, and it means to move into position to attack. So advance isnt wrong, but arise gives us a better picture of the words sense. Moses well understood that the divine rules as given in the Torah stated that the Lord would manifest His presence above the ark, but the ark was to be within the tent sanctuary when that occurred. Therefore, the Lord did not (insofar as Moses was aware) become present above the ark when the ark was traveling. Further, since the Lord God promised Moses that the Lord would defeat Israels enemies ahead of Israel, the word picture expressed in this poem is that the Lord rose away from the ark and went out to do battle ahead of Israel.
Thus, in verse 36, when the battle was over and the camp of Israel came to a rest (and therefore the ark came to a rest), the tabernacle was reerected, the ark was set in its proper guarded place, and then Moses beseeched the Lord to return. This beautiful and joyous hymn that glorifies the God of Israel was placed here for emphasis and to display some irony; because after all this praising of Yehoveh, and His invincibility, and His perfection, and the fear produced in Israels enemies simply by the sight of the ark, complaining and rebellion almost immediately began anew among the Hebrews. This attitude of reluctance and rebellion is what were going to see emerge starting in Numbers 11.
Numbers 10
87
Numbers 11
Weve just concluded some chapters in Numbers that gave us a lot of detailed information that was a bit hard to slog through but was needed, just as learning multiplication tables is needed if were going to be able to use math in our lives. Numbers 11, however, begins a section of Torah that is one of the most fascinating and informative. This chapter tells the story of Israels thirty-eight years of wandering in the wilderness. And the next several chapters have as their theme complaining, lack of faith, and outright rebellion. even more, they record the severe punishments that Yehoveh responded with for these outrages against Him. This section of the Torah also seemed to fascinate the Apostle Paul. He referred extensively to the book of Numbers in his writings, particularly when he was writing and speaking to the Corinthians. Apparently he saw great parallels between the behavior and condition of those Corinthians, Jew and Gentile, who had come to belief in Christ, and those Israelites who trekked around the wilderness of the desert reaches of the Middle east, mostly south of Beer-Sheva, thirteen centuries before his day. Lets prepare for this section of Numbers by reading a bit of what Saint Paul had to say when he compared the Christians of Corinth to the Israelites of the exodus.
Assignment: read 1 Corinthians 10:112.
The Torah issues many sober warnings to those who would follow the God of Israel; Paul, a well-educated Jewish rabbi, completely understood this and realized that, of course,
the advent of Christ did not change that situation. even with redemption accomplished, a believer was not somehow immunized against the possibility of divine punishment for disobedience toward God. Paul wrote in romans 15:4 what is perhaps the foundation of all his teachings: Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction (rsv). Whatever was written in former days refers to the Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, what we call the Old Testament. Or, in a more general sense, to whatever was written before the advent of Yeshua. Pauls point of what we just read in 1 Corinthians 10 was this: if God dealt severely with His set-apart and chosen people, Israel, why would we think He would not deal severely with His set-apart and chosen people in union with Messiah Yeshua? Are those whom we commonly call the church no longer subject to Gods righteous anger? The first few verses of 1 Corinthians 10 set up the parallel situation: those who traversed the wilderness were all immersed in Moses (which is shorthand for the covenant of Moses). In other words, they were all redeemed, and they were all under Gods covenant. They all received the same Spirit; they all were filled up with the Living Water of the Rock. Then Paul threw in this shocking reminder: despite their redemption and personal relationship with God, many of them did not survive when God strewed their rebellious bodies across the desert. His conclusion as to what this meant to followers of Jesus Christ is in verse 11: These things happened to them as prefigurative historical events, and they were written down as a warning to us who are living in the acharithayamim.
Numbers 11
88
Frankly, the majority of Christian denominations allegorize this away by explaining that its a warning about things that could not possibly happen to true believers. A common theme among Christians today is that the God of the OT is no more; or more accurately that He has fundamentally changed such that there is no more severity (even though Paul said so in romans 11); there is no more punishment of sins and rebellion for the believer (even though Yeshua said so in Matthew 7). Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord! will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. On that Day, many will say to me, Lord, Lord! Didnt we prophesy in your name? Didnt we expel demons in your name? Didnt we perform many miracles in your name? Then I will tell them to their faces, I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness! (Matt. 7:2123) No, said Paul and Yeshua, this was not a hollow warning, a toothless threat. This is another of those Christian doctrines that please us to hear because they seem to remove all repercussions for our decisions and our behavior, but in reality they have no scriptural basis. rather, what we are protected from is what the Bible alternately calls the wages of sin (spiritual death) and the curse of the Law (which is also spiritual death), two phrases meaning the same thing. They are one and the same, only the former is stated in New Testament terms and the latter in Old Testament terms. Do you still believe that God no longer has a severe side? Or that being in Christ somehow pardons you from being disciplined or punished (in the sense of receiving divine or natural consequences) for your sinning? Of course you are pardoned from the eternal death, provided you do not renounce your allegiance to Yeshua by your own free will. But to be immune from Gods mortal justice is nowhere known in the NTany more than in the OT.
Assignment: read romans 11:1322.
Paul taught that (as has always been) God is severe and He is kind. He is kind to those who trust and obey, and He is severe to those who fall away and rebel. Gods essential nature has not changed. Remember, Paul was talking to Gentile believers specifically and Jewish folks generally. He was talking to you and me as well, so we cannot pretend this is not for us. What we are going to study in Numbers over the next several weeks sets down the fundamental principles that guided Paul in his life and are reflected in his Epistles that are the basis for what should be church doctrine, yet often is not. Complaining and Rebellion In Numbers we see that virtually the first thing Israel did upon leaving Mount Sinai was to rebel. even Moses became a grumbler. Over the next fifteen chapters, six identifiable rebellions will be detailed for us, and every one of them was real and represented a type of rebelling against Yehoveh. Some of the rebellions were by the people in general, some by the tribal leaders, some by the Levites, and even some by Moses. In essence, just as the seven churches of revelation were both real and types, so did the rebellions of the people of Israel in Numbers present us with a pattern that we can expect to occur within the church. And when I say church, dont start thinking in terms of Baptists and Methodists and Catholics. That is, dont picture denominations and institutions and buildings. Rather, think of individual believers and then various groups of believers. In a larger view, we are about to spend several weeks looking at matters of human relationships, human leadership, the limitations of men, the expectations and demands of God, and the divine consequences for our failures.
Numbers 11
89
Chapter 10 ended with this optimistic, prayerful, joyful poem, which expressed the mental and emotional state of the people of Israel as they began to strike camp for their journey to the Promised Land: It came about when the ark set out that Moses said, Rise up, O Lord! And let Your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate You flee before You. When it came to rest, he said, Return, O Lord, to the myriad thousands of Israel. (vv. 3536 nasb) The very next sentence of Torah, verse 1 of Numbers 11, says this: The people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the Lord; and when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. (nasb) How much time passed between Numbers 10:36 and Numbers 11:1? How long did it take for the Israelites attitude and behavior to change rather radically? Three days! How often weve fallen on our knees or raised our hands to the Lord in praise and adoration, and then in a matter of hours wound up flat on our faces in defeat. Should we be depressed about this and just give up? No. In some ways, we should expect it. Not in the sense of expecting to be defeated before we ever start our journey, but in the sense that while we do have Gods Spirit within us, we still carry around these fleshly tents and the evil inclination that is inherent to our natures. So some amount of failure is inevitable. That said, the amount of failure is largely connected to our will. Just how much are we willing to believe God, and put our time and energies into knowing God? How much are we willing to resist the devil and our own desires in
favor of obedience to the Lord? There is a direct quid pro quo set up in both the OT and the NT in that regard. Walk with the Lord and fail less. Walk away from the Lord, take your own path, and fail more. You see, of all the myriad reasons we must have Yeshua is that humanness and failure before God go hand in hand. When we studied Leviticus, we saw just how multifaceted and inescapable sin is. How insidious uncleanness is. How hopeless is our condition . . . without our Savior. We will sin. We will fail. But we can minimize the depth of our sin and failure if we commit ourselves to the commands of God, the power of the Spirit, and the salvation of our Messiah. Verse 1 says that the people became a group of complainers. Were not told exactly what they were complaining about, but we can infer that it had to do with the difficult marching they were currently enduring because the verses just preceding 11:1 (that is, the last several verses of chapter 10) are all about their marching and following the fire cloud. In all fairness, the degree of difficulty they were facing was formidable. Can you imagine the amount of choking dust kicked into the air by two to three million people and hundreds of thousands of animals? They were not on some nicely groomed highway, although they would have been following a known trail. The area where I believe they were (north of Midian in the hilly and rocky desert terrain) was very challenging to walk over. Every family had small children. Every family had elderly and infirm. In the winter the nighttime temperatures often dropped below freezing; every day during the extended summer season, the temperature was well over 100 degrees. This was not, under the best of circumstances, a pleasant time. Worse, they took their complaints directly to the Lord. And the text says it was bitter complaining. Actually, the word for bitter complaint in Hebrew is al ra, with al meaning complaint and ra literally meaning evil. So while bitter is correct, we need to understand
Numbers 11
90
that the essence of the word bitter is rooted in evil. The idea of this phrase is that the Israelites responded to Gods tov His kindness, His goodwith ra, or evil and bitterness. The result of this unbelievably brazen act was that God punished them with fire. What was this fire? Well, first and foremost it was divine and supernatural. It may have been lightning. It may have been similar to what Yehoveh rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Whatever it was, it did not come from the wilderness tabernacle that was in their midst; and we know this because the Bible says the fire broke out on the outskirts of the encampment. Moses interceded (which was his job), and God stopped the punishment. The place where this happened was named Taberah; in Hebrew, taberah means burning. It was usual among the ancients (and especially so among the Hebrews) to name places after incidents that occurred there. And so we have rebellion number one, along with its consequences. Verse 4 elucidates the next rebellion, which concerned food. At the outset let me point out that there is some minor disagreement over the location of this second rebellion. Some scholars say the Israelites broke camp at Taberah and moved, and then this second rebellion happened. Others say that they stayed at Taberah for a while and that Taberah was where this second rebellion also occurred. Due to the plain reading of the text, it appears they were still at Taberah. That they would add another name (Kibroth-Hataavah) to the same place is not unusual. We see a parallel beginning to shape up between the travel from egypt to Mount Sinai and the travel from Mount Sinai to Kadesh. The cry for meat is an example. We saw this back in exodus, and the Lord responded by sending the people quail to eat. The first words of verse 4 indicate that it was a certain group of people who began the complaint for meat, and then the complaining spread throughout the camp. That group of complainers was called, in Hebrew, asafsuf, which means
rabble, riffraff. This term is constructed very similarly to another unique Hebrew word that was used back in Exodus: erev rav, which means mixed multitude. Scholars are fairly unanimous that asafsuf as used here is referring to that mixed multitude; the thousands of nonIsraelites that followed along from egypt and were required to camp on the outskirts of the Israelite encampment. In other words, these complainers were resident aliens. They were not Hebrews; they were foreigners who wished to remain foreign. No doubt the reference to the fire breaking out on the outskirts of the camp in the first rebellion is connected with the use of the word asafsuf to describe just who it was that started all the complaining for more variety in their diets. These first two rebellions began due to the pagans who had attached themselves to Israel but who did not share Israels faith or mission. They wanted whatever benefit they could glean from being near this favored people, but they wanted to avoid the difficulties. The next verse adds an interesting twist. Why were the people complaining about meat? They had herds and flocks. The meat they wanted was fish! Why fish? Because that was their main diet for protein when they were slaves in egypt. A fascinating series of finds around Avaris, at the foot of the pyramids of Giza, and near the fabulous underground tombs in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, all confirm that the staple food for the laborers and the construction workers, whether Hebrew or Egyptian,
Numbers 11
91
was fish. Enormous quantities of fish bones were found everywhere, scattered in what were obviously well-equipped eating areas that could feed hundreds at a time. And that makes sense. The Nile was a great source of fish. It was a very long river that stretched the length of egypt. So pretty much anywhere one was in Egypt, fish were abundant and available. And fish could easily be dried, preserved and transported. Cattle could be raised only in certain areas of Egypt where there was sufficient pastureland, and beef spoiled in hours. So beef was more expensive and less available except to the wealthier of society. Of course, out in the wilderness the people could not have a garden unless they stopped for extended periods of time, which they occasionally did. So in verse 5 they also complained that they werent getting fresh fruit or vegetables. The staple food since leaving egypt had been manna. And they were already sick to death of it. Fried manna, boiled manna, roasted manna, baked manna . . . raw manna. It apparently tasted quite good, as verses 7 and 8 explain. But this was not a diet that the Israelites were used to, nor did it provide a whole spectrum of tastes like what they had become used to back in the land of Goshen. As sick as the people were of manna, Moses was equally sick of the people. He was exhausted and disgusted and beaten down. It would be funny if it werent so sad, because verse 10 says: The lorD was very angry, and Moses was distressed ( Jps). What a mess. The completely demoralized Moses went to the angry Lord and basically said: Id rather be dead than deal with these people anymore. Moses went on to say, What did I ever do to deserve this? I didnt create this people. I didnt think up this grand plan. This wasnt my covenant that was made that Your people should have their own land. So why are they my burden? Moses wondered where he was supposed to get the variety of food that the people were complaining about. And how was he supposed to please everyone at the same time?
Numbers 11
One wanted this; the other wanted that. On second thought, he probably wanted to say, just shoot me. I mean, Moses was really in a mood. Interestingly, after Moses blew up at God, God didnt chastise him for it. rather, God went about addressing the requests. I recall my dear departed father telling me so many years ago that it was okay to get mad at God and to tell Him just how I felt. He could take it. And you know, in reality, the closer a relationship we have with someone, the more were free to communicate and share our fears and disappointments and concerns. And that was actually what Moses was doing. Moses had an honest relationship with God. He told God of his frustrations. He told God what was going on inside him. And God didnt punish Moses or say, Dont you ever talk to Me like that again. See, Yehoveh isnt insecure; He knows who He is and who you are. Were told to approach God and pray, in spirit and in truth. Well, Moses approached God in truth, even if it wasnt in a particularly edifying spirit. We should follow that example.
92
The Seventy Elders Gods solution to the gripes was to take seventy elders (lay leaders of Israel) to the front of the tabernacle. In other words, present them to God, so they could be authorized to share the burden. (remember that God called for seventy elders to come partway up the side of Mount Sinai with Moses way back in Genesis.) Understand: this was not a council designed to give Moses more advice (he already had more advice and suggestions than he could handle). rather, these men were to take on part of the burden. They were to do, not merely suggest. Yehovehs Ruach The next several verses speak of something to which we ought to pay close attention: Gods ruach, His Spirit. Im not sure that within the body of believers there is any more controversial aspect of the Godhead than the work of the Holy Spirit. And here is an opportunity to gain some understanding of the Spirit. In verse 17 God said that He was going to anoint these seventy elders as leader-assistants for Moses. But in order for those seventy to be not just ordinary run-of-the-mill supervisors and accountants and judges, God was going to put upon these men the same Spirit that was upon Moses. This was the only way these men would carry the authority of God, which was absolutely necessary for them to perform their new duties. Actually, God says in the verse that He will draw upon the spirit that is on you [Moses] and put it upon them [the seventy] ( Jps). The Hebrew is ve-atsalti min, and it literally means to reserve or to withdraw. So is what we have here a Spirit transplant from Moses to the seventy? Does the thought of a Spirit transplant sound a little odd or strange to you? Well, this sort of thing would happen again thirteen or so centuries later on Pentecost. During the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost in Greek) immediately after Christs death, the same Spirit that empowered Yeshua was then
to be shared and bestowed among men. It is interesting that Yeshua said the Spirit could not come until He was gone. Why not? Well this matter requires some speculation. Was it possibly that since Yeshuas baptism and the Spirit of God descending upon Him, Yeshua was the sole container of the Holy Spirit on earth for a time? Was this, perhaps, all patterned after Moses, whereby for a time Moses seemed to be the only human upon whom God had endowed His Spirit? Therefore, when it came time for Moses authority and duties to be shared, the Spirit had to drawn from Moses (the sole earthly container of it) onto the seventy men. I believe thats what was happeningin a way almost impossible to verbalize. Our Messiah instructed us that it was the job of every spirit-filled believer to feed the flock; to care for the body of disciples; to take His message to the world and make new disciples. It is the job of certain Spirit-filled believers to lead other believers. But were not to do any of this in our own power, though we might succeed (at least outwardly) to some level if we did. And we were to start doing this after Jesus left, and in the same power and authority that He had: the Ruach HaKodeshthe Holy Spirit. When Jesus was with us in person, He bore the burden Himself. Now we are to share the burden with Him. This is what is meant by picking up our own cross and following Him. Its all about burden sharing. Frankly, this whole teaching makes our general Christian passivity look pretty irresponsible, doesnt it? Lets be clear: Its not that there is some finite amount to the Holy Spirit. But there is only one Spirit of God. There is not a better word picture of how the ruach, the Holy Spirit, works, than right here in Numbers with Moses and the seventy. This also shows how the NT version of this pattern, first in Christ and then from Christ to the believing community, would be manifest. By the way, notice that the seventy were required to be brought before the Lordbrought to the wilderness tabernacle. Why? Because
Numbers 11
93
God was doing the Spirit transplant, not Moses. And by doing this at the sanctuary of God, it was clear to all that it was not by the power of Moses but by the power of God that the miracle of the Spirit would be attributed. Its the same with us. We can witness to folks, and we can say we brought people to the Lord. True enough. But like Moses, who led those seventy elders to the tabernacle, the dwelling place of God, thats as far as we can take them. In a certain sense we can persuade and get them to agree to come before the Lord, but from that point forward it is strictly a miracle and work of God that the Holy Spirit is transplanted into each new believer. What exactly does it mean that God was going to draw upon the Spiritor take some of the Spiritfrom Moses and put it on these seventy elders? At the least, this means that Moses and these seventy were going to share the same Spiritthe same Holy Spirit. This concept should be familiar to us, because possessing the same spirit is precisely what the NT tells us is the point of unity among all believers: I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:16 nasb) So this gives us yet another example that the NT is simply the Torah brought forward with the context of Yeshua as Messiah added to the mix. Yet we cannot get around the fact that the words of Torah, in their Hebrew context, point out that whatever the nature of this Spirit was that was going to be laid upon the seventy men, apparently it was going to have to be taken from Moses; even the rabbis and sages of old see that Moses was some kind of container of the Holy
Spirit, on earth, at this moment in history. And the Spirit was going to have to be drawn from Moses so that it could be shared among those seventy. As strange as that may seem in some ways, upon closer examination we have this concept of the Spirit, the Ruach HaKodesh, being drawn from somebody for the purpose of being placed into others, brought forward in none other than Jesus Christ.
If we were studying the NT and not Torah, wed probably camp in John 16 for a couple of weeks, because so much theology is presented here. But what Id like to draw your attention to here is the comment that until Christ leaves, the Comforter cannot come to the disciples of Yeshua. And the Comforter is clearly identified as the Spirit. So Jesus was saying that until He had gone, the Holy Spirit could not be made available to others. But that leaves a rather major question hanging in the air: Why wouldnt the Spirit be available to others until Yeshua was no longer on the earth? Well, if we accept that Gods principles and patterns and methods of operation never change, the solution is that as it was with Moses in Torah, so it was for Christ. It appears that Moses was the sole person upon whom the Holy Spirit rested for a time in the Torah era, and so Yeshua was the sole repository of
Numbers 11
94
the Holy Spirit during His era of ministry. A difference that seems to be so, but is very hazy and difficult to actually ferret out of the holy texts and then draw a contrast between them, is the matter of the Holy Spirit being upon Moses, but apparently within Yeshua. That difference is spoken of at length in the modern church as a demonstration of the difference in the function of the Spirit in the Old Testament versus the New Testament; but in an honest reading there is nothing that actually says, The Spirit used to be upon us but now it is in us, or anything quite that definitive. It could well be that there is very little difference intended and it is only a matter of semantics between the OT Hebrew culture of several hundred years BC and the NT Hebrew culture of Pauls day, or it could be all the difference in the world as is traditional in Christianity. But, in both cases, a time came when Yehoveh determined it was necessary to share the Spirit among more than only His mediators. The verses of Numbers 11 say that the Spirit had to be drawn from Moses; how that occurred were not told. For Jesus, it was less a matter that the Spirit be drawn from Him than that He had to give it up in order that it be shared. Were told that when He died, He shouted and yielded up His spirit. He died. His Spirit the Holy Spiritleft Him. Which of course is what Messiah said in John 16 was the necessary step toward ordinary men (albeit only His believers) being able to share in that same Spirit that was first given to Yeshua when He was baptized by His cousin Johnthe Spirit that was seen descending upon Him like a dove. The thing is, we find here in Numbers 11 that even though Moses would have that Holy Spirit that was upon him, and him alone, for a time, now drawn upon and shared among seventy others, that Spirit was not somehow divided up; its substance and wholeness were not diminished or depleted in any way just because many would have it. Im pretty sure none of you have a problem with that concept, because thats generally how the church views
the Holy Spirit; that although we all share it, we dont each hold a small piece a diminished pieceof the Spirit within us. Im pointing this out to you because of a very basic teaching of the church that is misguided and simply erroneousthat the Spirit of God was not shared among men until Christ came and then went. We find right here in Numbers that the Spirit of God was shared among seventy-one individuals thirteen hundred years before Yeshua was born. Therefore, the entire premise of the Holy Spirit being shared among many men simultaneously is a Torah principle, not some brand-new NT principle. And, part and parcel with the matter of the sharing of the Holy Spirit among men is the erroneous Christian belief that at the beginning of the Gospel of John, mankind is given a whole new revelation that was never before known to men. In fact, John 1 is often considered the basis for a whole new religion, or theology at least, called Christianity. Lets read the first five verses of John 1; they will be familiar to you: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (nasb) The idea that the Word (made incarnate in Yeshua) was with God, and was God, did not begin with the Apostle John. John was simply stating a well-worn Jewish principle that, though not accepted by all Jews, was mainstream and widespread among the Jews. The idea of an entity called the Word that was in existence from the beginning did not begin with the advent of Christ on earth and the subsequent inspired writings of the Apostle John. When we go back and look at ancient Hebrew writings well before the time of Yeshua, we find rabbis and sages who debated and scratched their heads over the very same things we still
Numbers 11
95
question: Is God one, or is He two? Is the Word God, or is the Word another God? Is the Word an attribute of God, or is He a separate person who is subservient to God? eventually, several hundred years after Christs death, Gentile Christians decided that God wasnt only two, He was threethe doctrine of the Trinity Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Im not here to dispute or debate any of those doctrines. Im here to tell you that the concept was not a new invention; long before Jesus, the Jews identified a divine being or attribute of God known as the Word. In Hebrew, the Word is called Memra. In Greek, the Logos. So, Logos and Memra are the same thing, just different languages, and it is what we today translate into english as the Word. The important point is this: The many doctrines that the Gentile church has attempted to put forward to present belief in Yeshua as totally different and apart from true biblical Judaism with the historically well-documented intent of separating Jews from Christiansare simply not true. The main thing that separates Christianity and Judaism is who the Word is, not if He exists. The differences between us are about who the Messiah is, and whether He has already come, not if there is to be a Messiah. The Jews also believed in the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit could be laid upon men and shared among men, and they believed this long before Joseph and Mary came onto the scene. We read of it here in Numbers. The Hebrews of old hotly debated the problem of how to think about a God that is One, Echad, yet He is manifested in more than one way, with the Word, the Memra, being one of those ways; and the Holy Spirit, the ruach, another. even another manifestation of Yehoveh that is mostly absent from the Western church, and so rarely discussed (though alive and well in many eastern Christian denominations), is the manifestation of Wisdom, called Sophia. Yes, this is biblical. These topics about who God was, and if He was one or many, and what His essence amounted to, were not the source of new arguments set
Numbers 11
forth by this new Christian religion. It was treated as new only because the Gentiles who quickly became the ruling elite of this new religion, Christianity, distanced themselves from the Jewish people and from long-established Jewish scholarship. Goodness, they even distanced themselves from those scores of thousands of Jewish brothers who did accept Yeshua as the Messiah. If I can accomplish anything in this Journey Through the Torah Class series, I hope it is to demonstrate that the man-made designations and divisions of the Old and the New Testaments are a terrible, artificial thing that has served to do nothing but divide Gods people. The Old Testament for the Jews, the New Testament for the Gentiles. In reality, the book of Matthew should have been simply the next book following ezra, in the same way that exodus is but the next book after Genesis; unfortunately, Matthew is virtually seen by Jews and Christians alike as the first book of a whole new Bible, separate from the previous. The Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, what we call the Old Testament, is like the blueprints for a house. What we have labeled the New Testament is like the house itself. No doubt we can move into that house, and enjoy it as is. But if we want to understand what materials were used to build the house, where the electrical wires run, where the pipes are located, how the foundation was built, and whats inside the walls, we have to have the blueprints. As believers, were called to be much more than occupiers of the house. Were to strive to understand all there is that can be known about the house. Once we can understand and accept that the Bible is an undivided whole, then we can apply the patterns and principles of Torah to the Gospels and the epistlesas it was meant to be and have a much better understanding of their meaning and how to apply them to our lives.
96
The first of the two gripes that the people brought to Moses, and then Moses brought to God, was solved. It wasnt solved the way Moses thought it should have been, but it was solved nonetheless. Moses thought that God Himself should take on the burden of these ill-tempered Israelites, but God said, I have a better idea. Im going to give the same Spirit I gave to you, to seventy other men, and you, Moses, together with them, shall carry the burden. The second gripe was that the people wanted meat. They were tired of eating manna. And the Lord, righteously provoked, responded, You want meat? Ill give you meat. So much meat itll make you vomit. In fact, the unbelievable amount of meat that the Lord was somehow going to provide them would not be the blessing they had hoped for, but a curse. However, as a preparation for receiving the meat, the people were told to sanctify themselves. Being sanctified was a necessary requirement to get prepared for, and be in, Yehovehs presence. The Hebrew word used is hitkaddesh, and it is the physical act of both bathing ones body and washing ones clothing. Once this was accomplished, all the rules of ritual purity applied, meaning that if one touched a dead body they lost that necessary purity. No sexual intercourse was allowed until after the event for which the sanctification process was ordered was complete; otherwise, the purity was defiled. Were going to find this phrase sanctify yourself in a number of forms in the Old Testament. One very memorable example is when the Israelites were camping on the eastern bank of the Jordan and they were told to hitkaddesh in preparation for being led by the Lord into the Promised Land. Another interesting fact is that this term applied only to laypeople. This was not the term used when priests performed ritual bathing; that term was either rahats (wash) or taher (purify). Heres what we need to take from this: this hitkaddesh form of sanctification (while a holy endeavor) was not officiated by a priest or performed by a priest. It was quite literally self-sanctification. The thing to notice, though, is that this sanctifica-
tion involved a purely physical act, the washing of body and garments. Of course it was done in devotion to God. I think we can equate this to the concept of the difference between following the Law for self-sanctification that attains a kind of self-righteousness, versus putting on the blood of Yeshua for a spiritual divine sanctification that attains a kind of God-righteousness that is not physical, nor able to be attained by man for himself under any circumstance. The thing is that modern evangelical Christianity says that the latter has replaced the former. That is incorrect; these two types of sanctification (self-provided and God-provided) are for two different purposes. Obedience to the Law brings a kind of righteousness that is definitely demanded by God and pleasing to Him; but at the same time it cannot and does not bring with it an internal spiritual sanctification that has been performed by the Lord, which we call salvation. The spiritual sanctification that can be apprehended only by trust in Yeshua (a work of God) is the only kind of sanctification that saves. Yet, that does not negate the need for a sanctification of our behavior (obedience to the Law), which by definition is a physical matter. It seems to me that this hitkaddesh is a demonstration of this God principle. In response to the Lords concession of providing meat, Moses (skeptical as always) responded: How are You going to provide meat, out here in the middle of nowhere, for six hundred thousand men? remember, the six hundred thousand number was simply the size of the Israelite armymen of fighting age. Add to that women and children and the feeble and the lame and the elderly, and the total would have likely been near three million people. And it wasnt meat for just a day or two, but God said He was going to provide meat for one full month! Now that the Lord had stated how the two problems were going to be resolved, He set about to accomplish it. The seventy elders were brought to the wilderness tabernacle. And then, Yehoveh descended in a cloud, and He drew upon the spirit that was on [Moses] and put it upon the sev-
Numbers 11
97
enty elders (Num. 11:25 Jps). even more, when it happened, the seventy began speaking in ecstasy (v. 25 Jps). Your Bible may read prophesied instead of speaking. My only qualm with using the word prophesied is that for us, today, and really for the remainder of the Bible, prophesied communicates something different than went on here. Here they were not teaching the Word of the Lord, which is one meaning of the verb prophesy, nor did they speak of the future, another meaning of the same verb. Rather, it was some kind of very excited speech; what it was we dont know. What we do know is that these seventy did not become prophets, and we have no indication of these elders ever being involved with this experience again. In fact, it is specifically stated in verse 25 that whatever ability or meaning there was to this short period of ecstatic speech did not continue ( Jps) in these men. The idea of all this is that their strange, excitable speech validated that they had indeed received the Spirit of God. Does any of this sound the least bit familiar to you? Was there another time when the Holy Spirit descended upon people and they began speaking in a special way? Sure there was, and most children who have attended Sunday school for any length of time know about it. How about at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended, and those Jewish believers who received the Spirit started speaking in other tongues? When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven
a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. (Acts 2:14 nasb) Once again it seems that the entire concept of the Spirit of God descending upon men, with the result being some special kind of speech as proof, was not a brand-new NT revelation after all; but rather the repeat of a pattern set down thirteen hundred years earlier, told of in the Torah, here in Numbers 11. Suddenly, in verse 26, the scene shifts. Two men, eldad and Medad, who were nowhere near the tabernacle, nor apparently part of the seventy who had been selected, had the Spirit of God rest upon them! There is no explanation for this at all. But what is interesting is that the verse says they remained in the camp (nasB). When camping in a place for only short periods of time, perhaps for just a few days, the wilderness tabernacle was often set up outside the camp, rather than at the center of it, and that is what is implied here. Perhaps it took too long for this enormously long column of people which would have spread out for many miles as they traveledto finally become a formal camp around the tabernacle. So the tabernacle was simply set up at some convenient place within the column of Israelites. It is easily imaginable that the beginning of the column was at least
Numbers 11
98
Suddenly, a wind started to blow. It is described in verse 31 as a wind coming from the lorD (nasB). And quail, coming from the direction of the Red Sea, began falling from the sky, widespread, all over the camp. Note that the Bible says they fell a days journey on this side and a days journey on the other side (v. 31 nasB). The idea being that the marching column of the three million Israelites probably stretched a distance of two days journey; or, in more modern terms, the column of people was some twenty miles in length. The Lord willed those quail to fall all over that long, spread-out column of weary and grumbling Israelites, so that all could partake if they chose. The amazing thing wasnt merely that a sufficient amount of quail fell over this journey distance of two days; it was that they fell over First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, this vast area in quantities of something on the petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, order of three feet deep! Hundreds of thousands for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we of cubic yards of quailhundreds of tons of may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and quailwere there for the taking. Verse 32 tells us dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our the people began to gather the quail, and the least Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the amount a person gathered was ten homers (about knowledge of the truth. (2:14 nasb) fifty bushels) of quail. Several psalms recall this astounding event, Moses, the savior of Israel, desired that all so great was its impact on the Hebrew psyche. would receive the Spirit; Yeshua, God our Savior, Listen to Psalm 78:2632: desires all to receive the Spirit (to be saved).
one days journey, and possible two days journey, in front of the people who marched at the end of the column. Here we get this picture of the Holy Spirit descending upon people (in this case, two men) inside the camp of Israel and upon seventy men outside the camp of Israel. The obvious symbolism is that the Holy Spirit was not intended for just the higher classes, or dignitaries. rather, the Holy Spirit could be bestowed on someone of any class, those who were within the camp of Israel, or even others who were outside the camp. God would cross boundaries to give the Holy Spirit to those He deemed as His. There could be no clearer pattern or message of what Yehoveh intended to do in times future, with Yeshua as the means and the messenger of this plan that the Holy Spirit would be available to all. And, fittingly, when it was noticed by the Israelites that eldad and Medad had received the Spirit, some people started yelling, Moses, some people got Gods Spirit who shouldnt have. Joshua, who would eventually take over for Moses, even pleaded with Moses to tell eldad and Medad to stop speaking their ecstatic language, because he just couldnt fathom how this could be possible let alone appropriate. Moses, in the same attitude that our Lord and Master Yeshua would display, said, I wish all of the Lords people were prophets. . . . I wish Yehoveh would put His Spirit in all of them! Lets not miss a chance to connect the dots again between this Torah experience and the New Testament. Listen to Paul in 1Timothy:
Moses, despite his flaws, was an exceptional human being. Joshua was concerned that these two men, eldad and Medad, who received the Spirit completely apart from Moses being in charge of the process, might show up Moses. In fact, they were far away from Moses and the seventy at the tabernacle when it happened. Moses had no interest in personal power or in being seen as special. Nor did it matter to him that others were given gifts from the Lord that rivaled even his own. He simply wanted what the Lord wanted for the people, whether he understood it or not. Now that is the thinking of a godly leader. Is it any wonder that Moses is so greatly revered by the Jewish people to this very day? Quail and Plague
Numbers 11
99
He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens and by His power He directed the south wind. When He rained meat upon them like the dust, even winged fowl like the sand of the seas, then He let them fall in the midst of their camp, round about their dwellings. So they ate and were well filled, and their desire He gave to them. Before they had satisfied their desire, while their food was in their mouths, the anger of God rose against them and killed some of their stoutest ones, and subdued the choice men of Israel. In spite of all this they still sinned and did not believe in His wonderful works. (nasb)
That God would have caused this natural thing to happen on a supernatural scale fits within His pattern of operation as we saw in the various plagues He set upon egypt to liberate His people from Pharaoh. But even more, verse 32 attests to the accuracy of this event when it says the Israelites spread them out for themselves all around the camp (nasB). This does not mean that they laid the quail all over the place. rather, spread them out means they plucked them, split them, and spread them open to dry. Could this event have actually happened? Is The common egyptian method of preserving there enough quail on all the earth for this to meat was to dry it. This method was used with even be a possibility? fish, beef, and fowl. In fact, the meat was rarely Here is what Josephus said, not about that cooked before or after it was dried. Once dried event, but about the migration of quail as a regu- and cured, they simply ate the meat just as it was. lar and normal thing across the Arabian and Sinai These Israelites would naturally have followed Peninsulas: the egyptian way, for they had been egyptian for four hundred years and knew nothing else. In March and April they cross the Mediterranean Then, while the Israelites were still eating coming from the south in large bands, and returning south- the quailthat is, they had yet to run out of this wards from Europe in even more enormous flights towards enormous supplythe Lord struck them with a the end of September. On both migrations they are netted plague for their great offense of testing Him in for the market; the flesh of the birds caught in the spring such a disrespectful and ungrateful manner. What is commonly dry and indifferent, but that of those taken in the plague was, exactly, we dont know, but many the autumn is excellent. Though they rise rapidly on the died. The place where this happenedand so the wing, they seldom fly far except on their migrations, and place where these many Israelites were buried then they are often overtaxed and simply drop, exhausted, was named Kibroth-Hataavah, which means the into the sea or even onto passing ships. place of craving.
Numbers 11
100
rabbis have done a brilliant job of assessing the overall nature of this calamity of Gods judgment, and their consensus of opinion is fascinating: the people craved flesh. Let me say it another way: they lusted after the flesh. They gorged themselves on flesh. They wanted the flesh so badly, God gave them all they wanted. Yehoveh turned them over to the flesh. They preferred flesh to heavenly food, so God gave it to them. This is neither allegory nor metaphor. This is but the physical demonstration of the spiritual principle that is laid out before us in the person of Yeshua. Do we want to eat of the Bread of Life, or do we want to gorge ourselves on the ways of the flesh, which leads only to death? God will not
force us one way or the other. It is our choice, just as it was the Israelites choice to reject the manna in favor of the flesh of dead birds. Once the Israelites buried their dead, they moved on to a place called Hazeroth. The best guess as to the location of Hazeroth is that it sat at the top of the finger of the Red Sea called the Gulf of Aqaba; a place that today is called Ain el Hadra. This is further indication that almost certainly the Israelites were at this time traveling along the western end of the Arabian Peninsula until they reached the tip of the red Sea (the Gulf of Aqaba, where the Arabian and Sinai Peninsulas merge). From Hazeroth, their next move would have been west and somewhat north.
Numbers 11
101
Numbers 12
In Numbers chapter 11, we heard of the general rebellions of the people of Israel and of the resident aliens (those who were traveling with Israel but did not wish to be Israelites), who lived on the outskirts of the camp and were accused of instigating at least some of the rebellions. Now, in Numbers 12, we are saddened to find that those closest to Moses also grumbled and rebelled: Aaron, the high priest (Moses brother); and Miriam (Moses sister), who was the leader of the women of Israel. Watch closely as we read Numbers 12, for we will see some important patterns develop around Moses that will in time be transposed to Jesus Christ. Moses is a mediator for God our Father and for mankind, as will be Yeshua. The word mediator has a very specific meaning. Sometimes youll hear or see the word intermediary used as a synonym for mediator. Not only is that quite incorrect from a technical standpoint, but it also has the greatest of theological and spiritual ramifications such that we must decide whether Yeshua was an intermediary or a mediator. This is one of those words that one must pay attention to when the doctrines of a denomination or religion are being discussed, for there is a vast and critical gulf that separates a mediator and an intermediary.
Let me point out that this is an ancient issue, one hotly discussed and debated long before Yeshua entered the world. And this issue centered around the nature of the Word of God called Logos in Greek and known as Memra in Hebrewand what the essence of the Word amounted to. Was Yeshua a mediator or was He an intermediary? Or, in fact, was the name the Word nothing but another way of speaking of the godly attribute of Wisdom (thats a matter, however, for another discussion)? The difference is essentially this: an intermediary is a being who is halfway between God and man. In other words, the intermediary is not God, but he is also not a man. He is something else altogether. Angels might be seen as examples of intermediaries: they are not men, but they are also not Godthey are something else entirely. Angels, in my opinion, are indeed intermediaries. And in fact, well see several mentions of some ill-defined spiritual essence or being in the Bible called the angel of the
Numbers 12
102
Lord. The arguments are varied among scholars as to whether angel of the Lord refers to simply a regular angel with a special assignment, or perhaps this angel of the Lord was but another of the several manifestations of God Himself; or even simply another name for the Word, the Logos, the Memra. However, a mediator is not an intermediate being; a mediator is not some other kind of creature with a status or station that is between two others. Therefore, angels are not mediators. Biblically, a mediator could be a man or He could be Godbut he could not be some kind of in-between creature (neither man nor God). He was an agent or someone who carried out instructions, yet as a being, he was on par with either God or man. Being a mediator was an assignment or even a characteristic or attribute of someone or something. In the book of Numbers, Aaron, the high priest of Israel, was a mediator. So was Moses. And since the NT makes it clear that Jesus is our High Priest and the Mediator of the newer covenant, just as Moses was mediator of the earlier covenant (at Mount Sinai), we can use the pattern and example of Moses to help us better understand the role of Yeshua our Messiah. You can see why it is important to distinguish (especially as it comes to Yeshua) whether He was an intermediary or a mediator. Was Yeshua God, or was He man, or was He some type of intermediate being? Moses was a mediator. He wasnt a specially designed creature, halfway between a god and a man. Therefore, neither was Jesus an intermediate being, halfway between a god and a man. Lets read Numbers 12, and learn a little more about Gods special agent, Moses the mediator.
A aron and Miriam The high priest Aaron and his sister, the prophetess Miriam, challenged Moses position and authority. Verse 1 tells us that the catalyst for their rebellion was Moses wife. Moses wife is referred to here by many Bibles (including the CJB) as the ethiopian woman. Some versions will say the Cushite woman. Which is correct, and what is the difference? The disagreement comes from whether one believes that ethiopia in North Africa was indeed the territory founded by Cush, or that Cushs territory was actually the area that included Midian. In fact, the original Hebrew is Kuwshith, which literally means Cushite. So what did Aaron and Miriam have against Moses wife, the Cushite woman? Were not told. If we take this verse at face value, it may have been a racial issue. Theres been a lot of
Numbers 12
103
speculation by rabbis and sages and scholars over just what was meant by Cushite as the word is used in this verse. For sure, it refers to the family tree of Cush, who was a member of the linage of Ham. And we know that Cushites were black-skinned people, usually (but not by all scholars) identified with early Ethiopia. However, this all presents a problem, because in exodus were told that Moses was married to Tzippora, a Midianite woman. Midianites and Cushites were two separate tribes, and Midianites were not a race of black people. There are a couple of general lines of thought on the matter: First is that perhaps the Cushites occupied Midian at this point in history, and not yet Ethiopia. Second is that the woman spoken of here was another wife of Moses, not Tzippora, Moses first wife. Both of these theories are speculation and plausible to one degree or another. However, since this single illusion to a Cushite wife is all there is in Scripture to even hint that Moses possibly had more than one wife, that case is not convincing. What is becoming clearer over time is that at some very early point in history, the term Cushite became more of a racial identification than tribal. In other words, while we recognize that black skinned humans in general come from Africa, the scientific anthropologic term for them, Negro, does not identify a specific tribe but a race with skin color as the primary characteristic. That said, DNA study shows that all black-skinned folks did have an ancient common ancestral line, and while the first black person has not been pinpointed by the scientific community, the Bible indicates that it was probably Cush (or perhaps Ham, his father). Thus it is not unreasonable to speculate that Moses wife Tzippora was indeed a dark-skinned person who on one hand would have been racially described as a Cushite, but tribally, on the other hand, as a Midianite. Midianites were typically dark-skinned, but other physical features were different enough from the African people so as not to be identified as a tribe of racially black people. However, as we ought to have learned by now, racial and tribal inter-
marriage were completely usual and normal, so it would not have surprised anyone of that era that a very dark-skinned woman belonged to the Midianite tribe. Discounting the possibility that Moses had a second wife, a Cushite woman, some have wondered why, at that specific time, Aaron and Miriam would express such shock over Moses choice of Tzippora as a wife (if thats who is being referred to here), since he had married her quite some time earlier, before the exodus from egypt. But that question is easily answered in that were explicitly told that Tzippora did not accompany Moses to egypt, but rather went to rejoin him on Israels march out in the wilderness. Therefore, it could well be that Aaron and Miriam had just met the woman, and found her to be obviously not Hebrewnot even Semiticand so unacceptable to them. I lean in that direction. After all, the rebellion of the non-Hebrews, the resident aliens (Numbers 11), had just occurred and caused much death and destruction within Israels camp. So for Moses to show up with a non-Hebrew wifeeven non-Semiticwould have been a sensitive issue then. But the real reason for Miriams and Aarons lashing out was probably not Moses wife at all;
Numbers 12
104
it was that they were jealous of Moses close relationship with God. As they said in verse 2, Has [God] not spoken through us as well? (nasB). The great rabbis have stated that Moses did not overhear this grumbling of his siblings because it was not addressed to him; but God did hear. That is why we dont see any reference to Moses going to God with the problem and complaint of Aaron and Miriam, as he had with the earlier complaints from the general population of Israel. The text immediately follows up, in verse 3, by letting us know that the charges implicit in their grumbling were false; that Moses was doing nothing wrong, and did not hold himself up as special or aloof, and in fact was very humble, more so than anyone on earth. Where the CJB Bible says humble, your Bible may say meek. The Hebrew word, anav, is often translated as meek, especially in the KJV and some other older versions based on Latin texts. Meek is not necessarily wrong. However, it is a word that is anachronistic within our modern-day english, and so we have trouble discerning just what meek means. Humble is the best word in our modern vocabulary to express what this verse is getting at. Being described is the kind of humbleness one would find in a very poor person, one who knew they had no power and very limited ability to control life. And yes, even in the Greek-based NT, where we see Christ say that the meek shall inherit the earth, you could substitute humble and be closer to the mark: The humble shall inherit the earth. The idea being that its not the leaders of the world, with their great plans, huge egos, and even larger armies, who will eventually rule the planet and the people (although they certainly think they will). Rather, the regular folk, who dont have any power or delusions of grandeur, will rule with Messiah. Later Ill show you that in Christs day, the term meek or humble tended to point to an even more specific group of people, as identified in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Lord called Aaron and Miriam on the carpet. He summoned them, and Moses, to the
tent, because this matter must be dealt with in a legal way. But a question that raises some interesting issues arises here: Which tent is being spoken of? They were both at times called the ohel moed, which means Tent of Meeting. The tent (or two tents) was where God would meet with man. There was a tent on the outskirts of the camp that was spoken of earlier: Adonai answered Moshe, Has Adonais arm grown short? Now you will see whether what I said will happen or not! Moshe went out and told the people what Adonai had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people and placed them all around the tent. Adonai came down in the cloud, spoke to him, took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders. When the Spirit came to rest on them, they prophesiedthen but not afterwards. There were two men who stayed in the camp, one named Eldad and the other Medad, and the Spirit came to rest on them. They were among those listed to go out to the tent, but they hadnt done so, and they prophesied in the camp. (Num. 11:2326, emphasis added) There was also a tent located at the center of the encampment where the priesthood operated: adonai said to Moshe and Aharon, The people of Israel are to set up camp by clans, each man with his own banner and under his clans symbol; they are to camp around the tent of meeting, but at a distance. Those camping on the east side toward the sunrise are to be under the banner of the camp of Yhudah; they are to camp according to companies; by tribe and leader they are as follows: Tribe Chief Number Yhudah Nachshon the son of Amminadav 74,600 Yissakhar Ntanel the son of Tzuar 54,400 Zvulun Eliav the son of Helon 57,400 Total 186,400 This group is to set out first. (Num. 2:13, emphasis added) Most Gentile Christian scholars say it was the same tent, only at some point the tent on the outskirts was moved to the center of the encampment. Ancient rabbinical sources say it was indeed two separate tents used for two separate purposes.
Numbers 12
105
We are clearly told that the wilderness tabernacle was the tent at the center, with the Levites immediately surrounding it and then the other tribes forming an outer circle. When we look very closely at Holy Scripture, we find some distinct differences in how the meeting between God and man occurred, depending on which tent it took place in. In the priestly tent, the wilderness tabernacle proper, only Moses could hear Gods voice (while Moses was inside the holy place). On occasion Aaron could hear Gods voice, but only when Aaron was in the courtyard and not inside the tent. However, anyone (not just Moses and Aaron) could seek an oracle from God at the tent located on the outskirts of the camp: Moshe would take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far away from the camp. He called it the tent of meeting. Everyone who wanted to consult adonai would go out to the tent of meeting, outside the camp. (Exod. 33:7) The real $64,000 question in all this is: Where was the ark located? Was it in the outer tent, or the one at the center of the camp? The typical argument is that it had to be located at the wilderness tabernacle in the center of the camp. Yet we find that Joshua was stationed permanently inside the outer tent (probably as a guard), and we find the same thing with Samuel hundreds of years later. The presence of God was always within a tent, and, as far as we know,
always above the ark; but there is much doubt as to whether or not there was only one authorized tent for the ark. For sure the ark always required a shelter to be far from the gaze of any humans, including Moses and the high priest (except once per year on Yom Kippur). Moses, by the way, did not enter the holiest place to communicate with God; he remained on the outside of the parokhet, the inner veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies. I suspect that the ark was moved back and forth at Gods or Moses command, although no such thing is specifically mentioned. One thing seems clear, though: the tabernacle was not necessarily the only divinely authorized place for the ark of the covenant. Apparently the Lord, on somewhat of a case-by-case basis, determined where the ark was to reside. Thus, a long time into the future, we find King David calling for the ark to be brought to him in Jerusalem. The ark was first taken to the personal home of a Levite named Obededom, and then in time it was housed in a tent that David had erected in Jerusalem especially for it. This tent for sure was not the wilderness tabernacle, and we are specifically told that as a result of the ark being in Obed-Edoms home, his whole household was blessed; and there is no consequence or negative statement about David later housing it in a tent that he built for it. So there is a lot of mystery about this, and we must also be careful to not be too rigid on the subject. God was thoroughly upset with Moses sister and brother for openly questioning Moses station with the Lord and God was going to handle it His way. Moses was the accused and Aaron and Miriam the accusers, so all must be present before the Great Judge of the universe, Yehoveh. In the next four verses God directly spoke to Miriam and Aaron. In fact, they came forward, and He told them, Hear now My words (v. 6 nasB). That is, the accusers, the rebels, were separated from Moses; some Hebrew commentaries even suggest that Moses did not
Numbers 12
106
hear what Yehoveh said to Aaron and Miriam because it was a private conversation. What Yehoveh said to Aaron and Miriam was kind of a combination of high praise and vindication for Moses, along with brutally frank chastisement toward Miriam and Aaron. God said that Moses was in a class all by himself; that among all men on the face of the earth, Moses was unique. In other words: Aaron and Miriam, you simply dont rank with Moses. Actually, no other individual alive breathed the rarefied air that Moses breathed. That is the meaning of the discourse in verses 6 and 7, where God explained that when He decided to make a man (or woman) His prophet, He did so by making Himself known to that person by means of a vision. God spoke to the person in a dream. But when it came to Moses, Yehoveh dealt with him in an entirely different manner; God dealt with Him face-toface, in audible conversation and not in riddles. Further, God showed more of Himself to Moses than He did to any other man.
Actually, where our CJB and most other Bibles say that God spoke to Moses face-toface, the Hebrew really says that God spoke to Moses pe el pe, which literally means mouth to mouth. In Hebrew, the use of the term for face means presence. So, even though it is true that God and Moses spoke presence to presence, this verse is getting at something more: that the communication amounted to direct revelation while Moses was fully conscious; and the verse represents the concept that a two-way conversation was occurring. Lets dissect this a bit more. Moses had been given an unprecedented position among men; he served almighty God in a direct manner, and therefore almighty God dealt with Moses in a direct manner. God established prophets (such as Miriam) and high priests (such as Aaron) in an indirect manner. He made laws and ordinances that were to be carried out by men to establish the line of high priests, and to put each succeeding high priest into power. The Lord consecrated prophets in a kind of clairvoyant way, by somehow putting visions of Himself, along with the declaration that He had declared that person to be His prophet, within the unconscious mind of the chosen person. Then He gave that prophet the messages He wanted passed along to mankind, but He did this by means of dealing with the prophets mysteriously in visions and dreams. But with Moses, it was different. With Moses, the contact with God was as close as it gets between the fleshly and the spiritual. God had conversation with Moses just as you and I would think of conversation. A dialogue. I say something, and you respond. You offer a suggestion, and I reply. I ask a question, and you give me the answer. I say I dont understand, and so you elaborate. A give-and-take, an exchange of information occurs. This is what went on between Moses and God. Of course God was supreme and Moses submissive, but the whole concept was that God could be swayed by Moses and that, as accorded His will, God would at times give in to Moses.
Numbers 12
107
even more, Yehoveh made it clear that He had put Moses in charge of all [Yehovehs] household (v. 7 nasB). Let us be clear what God meant by this. The Lords household, at least on earth, is Israel. The Lord established His household with the creation of Israel as a people set apart for Himself. Yehoveh put Moses in charge of that household by means of declaration. In other words, Moses was just an ordinary flesh-and-blood man. He was no better or worse than any other man. But God divided, elected, and separated Moses away from all other men for His own good reasons, and then declared Moses to be the master of His household, just as Pharaoh declared Joseph to be master of all his householdegypt. Moses bore Gods authority and power just as Joseph bore the power and authority of Pharaoh back in Egypt. Yet, Moses wasnt God Almighty, and neither was Joseph the pharaoh of egypt. Aaron and Miriam came to understand that unlike for a high priest, there was no preestablished line of succession, there was no vote or approval of the Hebrew people to decide who was to be in charge of Gods householdIsrael. There was no democracy set up here. God voiced His anger against those who would dare to speak against such a God-appointed mediator as Moses, and made clear that there was a price to pay for rebelling against him. The price, the wages of this rebellion, was that Miriam was stricken with what most Bibles call leprosy. Wrong. She was stricken with tzaraat. Indeed, tzaraat was a skin disease, but it was not leprosy. Leprosy wasnt even known in that part of the world until hundreds of years into the future. Besides, the Hebrew word used here, tzaraat, doesnt indicate a specific disease. There were several different levels and kinds of tzaraat that ranged from minor to very serious. But key to understanding the term tzaraat is that it was a spiritually based infliction. It was the outward manifestation of an inward and hidden condition. It was a God thing, whereby tzaraat was a punishment or a disciplinary action upon an individual, divinely caused.
There is no mention of a punishment upon Aaron. I have no idea why. This is not the first time weve seen Aaron easily led into sin; when the people cried to him to build a golden calf, he complied (although reluctantly). This is a good reminder to us all that even though Aaron was a high priest, he was still just a man. He wasnt any less sinful or more sinful in nature than those beneath him. His evil inclinations had not been removed. Temptations were still placed in his way just as for us modern believers. And he failed from time to time (again just like us modern believers), no matter his intent not to. In brief, look at the pattern set up here in Moses of how the Messiah would be established: 1. The Messiah would be declared, or spoken, into existence. 2. even though He was, on the one hand, human, the position of Messiah had no human equivalent. 3. The Messiah was to be Gods trusted master over His entire household. And, who was Gods household? Israel . . . and all who would be joined to Israel by means of the covenants given to Israel. Jesus was given all of the Fathers authority over men. 4. Men would come against the Messiah and declare that this Man had nothing they didnt havethat they were just as close to God, that they heard from God, and that they had just as much standing with God as did Yeshua. 5. As great as Gods appointed prophets were, and as superior and important as the high priest was, this Mediator was above them all. 6. The Great Mediator would have Gods own Spirit in him, and if others were to have Gods Spirit, it would have to be drawn from Moses, and later Yeshuas, body.
Numbers 12
108
7. The Messiah would be humble, meek. He would not come as a great world leader, seeking to rule all in His own power. Rather, He would be a reluctant leader, but always willing to bow to the will of the Father. 8. The Messiah would not be an intermediary being; He would be a Mediator and an Intercessor. He was not some other kind of being; He was fully a man. And yet He was fully God. Not a hybrid of the two, and not something halfway between a man and a god, like an angel. Let me emphatically state that while the Mediator/Intercessor attribute of Moses was fully carried out in Yeshua, the aspect of Christs being fully God and fully man was totally unique to Jesus. This was something that Moses was not, because there could have ever been only one with that mysterious, inscrutable characteristic . . . and that One was Messiah Yeshua. In verse 11 were introduced to yet another piece of the pattern that would be established in Moses and followed in Messiah: even though Gods presence was right there with Aaron, he pleaded to Moses for forgiveness of his sin! Aaron said to his brother, Moses: O my lord, account not to us the sin which we committed in our folly ( Jps). Wow! What was Aaron thinking? He called Moses my lord, and asked Moses not to count their rebellion as sin. This was not like you or I asking someone we had offended to forgive us. This was not Aaron asking Moses, as a brother, to accept his apology. We offend people, but we sin against God. Is this not exactly how we are to approach Yeshua? Are we not to entreat Yeshua, My Lord, please do not count against us the offenses that we have committed against the Father? Aaron finally got it. He understood the lofty position of Moses. He understood that Moses was Gods appointed mediator and intercessor. And while it was not Moses per se who did the forgiving (it was Abba, the Father), there was no approaching God except through Moses. What-
ever Moses decided on a matter, and spoke to the people as his decision, was done with the power and authority of the almighty Father. We pray by means of our Mediator, Yeshua, to the Father. We do not pray to the Mediator as the source of the power and authority. Jesus said all power and authority were given to Him. Who gave Jesus that power and authority? Yehoveh, the Father. When Jesus was asked just how we should prayand this occurred after He made it clear that He was GodHe said we should pray Our Father. And Jesus Himself prayed Our Father. Yeshua was God. He wielded the power and authority of the Father, Yehoveh yet, He was not the Father. Rather, He was Yeshua, the Word, who was God the Son. Dont ask me to make this any easier to understand, because I cant. This leaves us all with a gigantic mystery. We should just accept this as an amazing mystery, because if it was fully comprehensible to our mindsfully rational and logical and scientificwhere would be the need for faith? Mankind has tried to draw up all kinds of models and use all kinds of human words and phrases to describe the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (and perhaps some other manifestations of God like the angel of the Lord), and these attempts have fallen so short that they seem to inevitably send us off on wild-goose chases and result in strange doctrines. Lets just observe the Messiah patterns of Joseph and Moses, accept what Yeshua said about His relationship to the Holy Spirit and to the Father, get all we can from that, and leave the rest alone. So in verse 13, Mosesas mediatortakes Aarons request to heal his sister, Miriam, from the divinely wrought tzaraat that was now upon her to the Lord. I can tell you with full confidence that Miriam was healed right on the spot even though it is not specifically detailed. Right then. How do I know this was the case? Because of the Levitical laws concerning impurity and the rituals of purification. Yehoveh answered Moses by saying, Let her be shut out of camp for seven
Numbers 12
109
Numbers 12
days (v. 14 Jps). Dont let the part about if her father spat in her face (v. 14 Jps) send you up a rabbit trail. This simply means that if a womans father found fault in her, and humiliated her for her indiscretion, he would send her away from him for a time. Notice the comparison made between a stillborn baby (in verse 12)one who died in the womb for whatever reasonand the tzaraat that afflicted Miriam. This tzaraat was a kind of death, just as the death of the unborn child. However, Miriams condition was not compared to the death of a baby because she was in danger of physically dying from her tzaraat. In general, tzaraat (despite the many Hollywood movies to the contrary) was not a deadly disease, although it was often disfiguring. The comparison was made because biblically, true deatheternal deathis separation from God. And the Levitical Laws separated a person who was ritually unclean from God. The person was, in essence, in a state of spiritual death. His soul, or spirit, was as dead and rotting away as the body of a stillborn infant. The skin condition called tzaraat was merely an outward manifestation of that inner death and rotting away. So Miriam faced the standard procedure for anyone who contracted tzaraat : the afflicted person had to be put outside the camp because he or she was ritually impure; they were separated from Gods people because they were separated from God. Miriam was put outside the camp for seven days. And here is how I know that she was immediately healed by God: the normal ritual period of cleansing for a person who had tzaraat (seven days) did not start until that person was free of any signs of tzaraat. In other words, until that person no longer had tzaraat, the clock that counted down that seven-day period didnt begin ticking. This principle
actually, Torah lawapplied to virtually all of the purification rituals. The cause of the ritual impurity had to be gone before the prescribed period of cleansing could begin. Further, this whole scene is eerily similar to a time when Moses first met God and he wanted proof of who God was and what the extent of Gods power amounted to. recall that Yehoveh told Moses to put his arm inside his cloak, and when he pulled it out, his arm was white with tzaraat. But when God instructed him to put his diseased arm back into his cloak, the healing was instantaneous and complete. In essence, the same thing was afforded Moses sister, the prophetess Miriam. She was struck with tzaraat to reveal the inner sinful condition that led to her preposterous accusation toward Moses, but then the Lord instantly healed her once the point was made. Because of Miriams great standing within the community of Israel, all Israel remained at Hazerothwhere they were campeduntil Miriams seven-day period of purification ended. This was no small thing; all Israel paid the price of Miriams sin and rebellion by having their journey to the Promised Land delayed by a week. Those of us who are leaders, teachers, pastors, or prophets need to understand that when we exhibit sin, we can harm those we lead and teach and are appointed to care for. When we get full of ourselves and teach speculation as fact, or mens doctrines as Gods truth, or make predictions that are of our own minds and not of Gods, then we not only commit sin, we impede those to whom were responsible to minister. And we will be held accountable. The chapter ends by telling us that after the week passed, Israel moved on from Hazeroth to Parana desert wilderness. Likely the location where the Israelites next camped for an extended stay was Kadesh.
110
Numbers 13
Numbers 13 and 14 are really just one long story. Lets remember that chapter 12 ended with the incident of Aaron and Miriam complaining against Moses; the result being that Miriam was afflicted with tzaraat, a skin disease that was caused as a direct divine judgment upon her by God. And out of respect for Miriam, the entire camp of Israel decided to wait (rather than move on) during the seven-day purification period from her tzaraat, during which she was put outside the camp and could not come into contact with anyone. Once the purification period passed, the Israelites moved on to the area of the Paran desert. It is widely assumed that all that occurred in Numbers 13 and 14 happened while they were camped at Kadesh, which was also called Kadesh-Barnea as well as Ein-Mishpat. This was an enormous and lush oasis on the deserts edge, on the southern border of the land of Canaan.
The enormity of the rebellion against the Lord and the catastrophe described here is difficult to understand. As we get into chapter 14, well see the consequences begin to unfold. Like the story of Joseph, a pattern and type is set up here that is at once true and historical with meaning and poignancy all to itself; as well as being prophetic and a metaphor, this type will (in so many ways) be repeated, not just by the Israelites in later eras but by the church. What we witness here is nothing less than an event we could logically title The First Fall
of Israel. What should have been a wonderful story about triumph and prosperitya tale of Israel inheriting the land and all the goodness that the Lord had prepared for theminstead turned into a tragic narrative about disbelief, failure, weakness, and a direct repudiation of Gods grace. In its effect this story is not completely unlike that of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man. Adam and eve had no sooner been created by the Master Potter than they succumbed to their evil inclinations and fell from grace. In our story, Israel had only days and weeks earlier been consecrated by the Lord, given His Torah, and were basking in the constant presence of Yehoveh; but then they threw it all away to obey their own fears and desires. So please grasp that we are reading of one of those history-changing moments in the story of mankind. Israel had trekked right up to the edge of fulfilling centuries of promise, and then they quit. Just as victory was in their grasp they drew back in fear. They turned back and refused to enter into that promise. Oh, how on a razors edge we all had lived until that moment we accepted Gods Messiah; and we had no idea of the danger we were in.
Numbers 13
111
Scouts Sent to Canaan Our account opens with Yehoveh instructing Moses to send a group of men to scout out the land of Canaan. And that group was to consist of but one man from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Immediately, however, we run into a bit of a scriptural dilemma, because later, in Deuteronomy were told this: All of you approached me and said, Let us send men before us, that they may search out the land for us, and bring back to us word of the way by which we should go up and the cities which we shall enter. The thing pleased me and I took twelve of your men, one man for each tribe. (1:2223 nasb) Do you see the dilemma? Numbers 13 says God told Moses to send spies, yet Deuteronomy 1 says that the people of Israel approached Moses and said that they wanted to send spies, and Moses thought it was a good idea so he handpicked the twelve men. What are we to make of this? The answer according to a rabbinical writing is contained in a key Hebrew word used in Numbers 13 verse 1: the Hebrew word for send. The word is Shelah-lekha, which literally means send for yourself. In other words, God was telling Moses, If you want to send some spies, you have My permission. What we see in verse 1 is not God, on His own impetus, just suddenly saying, Hey, Moses, come here a minute . . . I want you to send out some scouts. rather, God was responding to a request from Moses, and Moses was responding to a request of the people by taking the matter to the Lord; so Yehoveh told Moses to go ahead and satisfy himself (and the peoples request) by sending out the scouts. After all, God knew what was there in the land of Canaan. It was the people of Israel who were unsure. Lets be clear on something: there is a difference between spying and scouting. Some Bible versions say the twelve were scouting; others say they were spying. Its a little like the difference
between shoplifting and shopping. What was instructed in Numbers was to go scout out and see the land in order to reassure the people. The journey was like searching for a new community to buy a house, not like the preliminary to a military operation. And if it had been a military operation, most certainly the leaders of the tribes would not have gone, and they wouldnt have sent twelve; two or three would have been more appropriate because stealth would have been key. Later in the Bible when we do see actual military spying, the number of men sent out will indeed usually be two or three at most. The leaders chosen for this mission were very high leaders, but not necessarily the prince, or chief, of each tribe. Notice that there was one tribe left completely out of the mix: Levi. This is but further confirmation that the split between the priestly tribe of Levi and the other tribes of Israel was complete; complete enough that Levi wasnt referred to as a normal part of Israel anymore. In verse 16 we find an interesting little aside, that one of the tribal leaders eventually had his name changed by Moses: Hoshea, son of Nun. Hoshea became known as Joshua, or, more accurately in the Hebrew, Yehoshua. So whats the difference between Hoshea and Yehoshua? Well, in some ways the difference is quite astounding. Hoshea means God saves. Yehoshua means Yehoveh saves. Part of the reason for the name change was that Hoshea was born in egypt, obviously well before the Exodus. What we learned back in the book of exodus was that God did not reveal His own personal nameYHWH . . . Yehovehuntil later, when He gave it to Moses on Mount Sinai. Therefore, the name Joshua, or Yehoshua, could not have existed when Israel was in egypt . . . because Gods name wasnt even known yet. And of course our Saviors given Hebrew name was Yeshua, which is just a contraction of Yehoshua, Yehoveh saves. Jesus, Joshua, Yehoshua, and Yeshua are all the same name, just in different dialects and languages, from different eras. And looking ahead to the book
Numbers 13
112
of Joshua, it would be Yehoshua (Joshua) and not Moses who would lead the people into the Promised Land. Moses led them up to it, but not into it. In a direct parallel, the Torah of Moses led people to the ultimate Promised Land, but not into itthat required Yeshua, Jesus the Christ. Moses instructed the group of twelve to go up through the Negev (a barren desert) into the hill country. In essence they werent really scouting out the Negev, as it was simply a place they had to go through to reach their goal, the hill country. The Negev is really indicating the general area surrounding Hebron. The groups mission was to determine several things as referenced in verses 1820.
The scouts were to check out the people, check out the land, check out the towns, see if there were wooded areas, and see how well things grew in the soil. Most of the great Hebrew sages agree that this was all about things like climate, fertility of the soil, and the availability of natural resources. Whether the people of Canaan were fierce warriors was not really the issue as far as Moses was concerned, though certainly it was important to know. After all, under no circumstances were the Canaanites going to be thrilled when three million Hebrews showed up with an eviction notice. Were given the season in which this scouting mission happened: the time of the first grape ripening, which means it was in the summer, in the July-August time frame. It was going to be hot going through the Negev. In verse 21 off they go; they looked the place over, and it was a big place. They began by taking a route through the low-lying desert and then on up into Hebron, and then eventually
they traveled all the way to a place called Lebohamath. There is some disagreement over the exact location of that place, but for sure it was well north, even into what would eventually be called Syria and Lebanonan area that would, under Kings David and Solomon, be an official part of Israel. It was probably a distance of about 250 miles from Kadesh to Lebo-hamath. Its no wonder it took forty days for them to go there and back. Why was Hebron a destination? Simple. Abraham was buried there. It was in Hebron that Abraham was first promised the land. Hebron was where Abraham first settled to any degree in the land of Canaan, and it was the stomping grounds of all the patriarchs to one degree or another. It was beautiful and fertile; good for pasture and good for crops. Hebron would be the unnamed capital of Israel for the first few years of their living there; and because of the Hebrew history of the place, it was also a sacred place for the Israelites. The verses say that along the way the scout party ran into three men called Anakites. Exactly who or what the Anakites were is uncertain.
Numbers 13
113
The one thing we do know is that they were a race of tall people, and they were compared to the Nephilim and Rephaim spoken of in Genesis, pre-Flood. Recall that the Nephilim and rephaim were of a race that Scripture says was caused when sons of heaven had intercourse with daughters of men. In other words, angellike creatures had relations with human women, and the result was a line of big, strong, fierce, evil people. Were the Anakites the latest version of the Nephilim, or were they just being compared to the Nephilim in a rhetorical way? Hard to know. Goliath (the giant warrior slain by David) was an Anakite (or, in Hebrew, Anakim). In any case, these Anakites made quite an impression on the twelve scouts. Then, for some reason, Scripture pauses to inform us that Hebron was founded seven years earlier than Zoan. There is nothing but speculation as to why this was even brought up. But the one thing that is now known is that Zoan would later be called Tanis, of egypt. And Tanis was made the capital of egypt at about the same
time that King David made Jerusalem capital of Israel. Next the scouts went to a place called eschcol and found grapes of enormous size. They were so large that a single cluster has to be strung between two poles to be carried. This was not real, but a metaphor for explaining the extreme fertileness of the land. This was no different from our saying that we found a watermelon the size of a house. No one in our culture would take that to mean the watermelon was thirty feet around; it is just a modern way of saying the watermelon was unusually large. The same thing was happening here. It is also interesting to note that the word Eschcol means cluster, like a cluster of grapes. This was a grape-growing region, so things were given grape-associated names. So you see how in the Bible the place-names and the stories can all intertwine, and sometimes its hard to know which came first: the story or the name of the place. In other words, was the place named after something that happened there, or was a story developed around the name of the place? remember, all of what we are reading was handed down by word of mouth for centuries, and many literary and phonetic devices were used to make stories easier to remember and to recite. If we knew Hebrew better, wed see that many of the verses of the Bible rhyme again, because these were originally created in a way to be handed down orally. Just as children are taught songs as memory devices for certain facts, so the ancients used rhyming, and poems, and unusual word structures in the telling of tales. The Scouts Reports These tribal leaders returned almost six weeks later, and they went straight to Moses and Aaron and reported what they had encountered. They first told Moses what they saw, and then they told the entire community of Israel. This does not mean all of the Israelites. It just means the elders and leaders of Israel. And we dont
Numbers 13
114
have to read too far before we get a little hint of the bent of these scouts reports, because they said, We went in to the land where you sent us (v. 27 nasB, emphasis added). Not the land the Lord promised or the land that was sworn to Abraham. In other words, they dissociated themselves from the promise, from the covenant, and from God. For them this was simply a political/economic matter. In the first part of their report, the group of scouts offered a very positive view. Oh, yes, they said, it is a land flowing with milk and honey. And this was in response to Moses instruction as they were readying to go on their mission to determine if the land was fertile. They also showed Moses the fruit they brought back; this was in response to the question of whether the land was wooded, meaning, did it support larger plants and not just underbrush. But in answering the question about the strength of the people of Canaan, the scouts answered that they were powerful; as for the cities, they were large and well defended. And, by the way, that was not an exaggeration. Most
of the excavated walls of Canaanite cities have been found to be on average 30 to 50 feet high, and 10 to 15 feet thick. The scouts also said that the tall people, the Anakites, were present there. And the Amalekites, thought to be the dominant people (wanderers) of the desert regions of Canaan and the Sinai, were also there in great number. The area also included Hittites, a highly advanced civilization whose center was modern-day Turkey; Jebusites, the original builders of the city of Jerusalem; and Amorites, probably Abrahams original tribe, a very fierce group who sought power and dominance and was always a bother to their neighbors. The Canaanites, a conglomerate of many of the offspring of Noahs grandson Canaan, tended to live along the coastal plains of the land. All of these groups were there, and well entrenched. And they undoubtedly had no interest in turning their city-states over to these Hebrews. Understand that the scouts assessment was well balanced and not exaggerated. They were telling the truth, and the truth was scaring the daylights out of the leaders and elders of Israel who had gathered around to hear the scouting report. We can easily imagine the rising clatter of the people expressing anxiety and fear; a growing din of complaint and rebellion. Verse 30 says, Caleb hushed the people ( Jps, emphasis added). Caleb told them to quiet down and settle down. And then Caleb said, Okay, enough reality. We know what were up against; now lets go and take the land because surely well overcome all of these obstacles.
Numbers 13
115
Numbers 13
This is not the same conclusion that those within earshot had already come to. The other scouts, and the elders, had decided that it would be suicide to take on these formidable people of Canaan. To make their point, they abandoned their balanced report and said that the Anakites were so big, the scouts looked like grasshoppers next to them! In their estimation, it was a hopeless situation. But heres the problem. The scouts and the elders were in rebellion not against Moses, but against Yehoveh. Their refusal to take God at His word was the greatest affront to His holiness and there would be grave repercussions. Often we think that the main thing were to listen to the Lord about is to not do something that we shouldnt. But equally as oftenand as was the case in point with the twelve scoutsour rebellion against God is that we dont do things that we clearly should do. Instead, we focus on the obstacles and look away from Him and grow afraid and impatient. We think, Well, if its difficult and dangerous, certainly it cant be from the Lord. If God has set this deal up, its going to be easy and without problems. If we encounter problems and difficulties and things dont go as we envisioned, we must be going against Gods will. That kind of thinking has probably snatched more blessings and victories away from individual believers and groups of Christians than any other. It is all false assumption. I would like to draw for you a parallel about this story of the twelve scouts that perhaps you havent thought about. It is a very contemporary parallel and one that is going to have a deep and lasting effect on the church. God had led His people, Israel, to the Promised Land; but ten mentrusted and respected leadersdecided to stand in the way of Gods people entering that land of promise. These men did what any good leaders would do: investigated, evaluated, and then came to an
honest and pragmatic conclusion without emotion. Ten leaders who lacked faith and trust but who had authority denied three million Israelites (who looked to them for leadership) their God-ordained inheritance. Many within the church today are doing the same thing by working so diligently and effectively to introduce us to the Messiah but then denying His (and thus our) connection with His own people, the Jews, and His own land, Israel. Who can look at the Bible and find one word that abrogates Gods often-stated covenant that the land of Canaan belongs to His people Israel? Where do we find a single statement that says for the sake of world peace and humanity, Israel should be pushed to give up partif not allof their sacred land inheritance? Yet much of the church today sides with Israels enemies on the matter of land. entire denominations have openly denounced Israels right to the very land spelled out in detail as theirs in the Word of God. Some of the pro-Israel half believe its only fair to divvy up at least some of that land and give it to those poor Palestinians. After all, isnt that just simple love and justice like Jesus taught us? And if we love the Palestinians, the only possible response is to carve off some of the Promised Land and force Israel to give it to them for their own nation. The consequences are severe for those who seek to thwart Gods plan for His people, Israel, to claim their land inheritance. Ten of those twelve scouts were about to find out just how seriously God took His covenants, His commands, and the rights and duties of His people to assume their place in the land of promise. The church today is also about to find out that the Lord God does not change, and He does not make idle threats, and He has not gone back on His promise to the set-apart nation He created through Abraham.
116
Numbers 14
Beginning in Numbers 13 and moving on into chapter 14, we began to look at the rebellion of the people of Israel, and what the consequences would be. The rebellion centered on the scouts of the twelve tribes, who went to Canaan to gather intelligence and took it back to the decision makers (by the way, these scouts themselves were leaders, so their reports were given with authority). Ten of the twelve scouts advised that to try to take the land from the various peoples who occupied it would be suicide. As word of the scouts report circulated around the camp, the people began to panic. And, as happens when we let our guard down, the truth came out: the people openly expressed
their feelings that they wished the Lord had never redeemed them from Egypt in the first place. They preferred to stay in slavery to a cruel taskmaster in Egypt, rather than have the opportunity to claim the inheritance God had set aside for them. Why? Because the task ahead seemed dangerous, and daunting, and unfamiliar. What was required of them was outside their comfort zone. In the leaders deciding not to enter the land, and the peoples agreeing with them, God saw this as a rebellion against Him of the worst sort.
Verse 1 sums it all up well: the whole community broke into loud cries, and the people wept that night. That is, the elders and the leaders started yelling and screaming and bickering, and the people, seeing what was happening, broke down into one giant panic attack. Though it doesnt say so, it was simply culturally understood that they would have been crying out to God. Middle eastern culture is so different from Western. Western culture tends to be more reserved, and emotions are outwardly limited to what is acceptable in our society. When the Western church wants to feel especially pious before God, well attend services a little more often, maybe volunteer, talk about the Lord more, or go before our congregation and ask for prayer (not a thing wrong with any of that, by the way). In the Middle eastern culture, loud and public wailing and tears and flinging oneself on the ground are more the norm. When we see news about tragic events
Numbers 14
117
in Iraq and Israel and Afghanistan and we see people upset or in mourning, we see all of what I just described and more going on. However, culture is culture and sincerity is sincerity and they arent necessarily connected; whether its the actions of a Western or an eastern culture. Thus, the people of Israel were wailing and crying out to God all night long, and at the very same moment they were grumbling and threatening rebellion against Gods handpicked leader and ordained mediator, Moses. And to boot they accused God of not having their best interests at heart; rather, this whole exodus thing was just some cruel hoax being played on helpless folk. The community of Israel was united against Moses and Aaron, and therefore against God. Note to the wise: You cant be against Gods mediator on the one hand and on the other hand say youre for God. Then the blasphemy that was in their hearts came pouring out of their mouths: If only we had stayed in egypt. Translation: We prefer slavery to our
former evil taskmasters than redemption from the Lord, because the slavery was more comfortable and familiar and did seem to have its perks. Why, God, they asked, did You bring us here to be slaughtered by the Canaanites? Do You hate us? Now, as much as we all might have a tendency to listen to this and shake our heads side to side in disgust at these Israelites, have we not all done the same thing from time to time in our walk with the Lord? Have we not all, during a challenging moment, looked up and said, Why, God? Why are You doing this to me? And the elders solution to the problem was what one might expect: Lets appoint a [different] leader and return to Egypt! (Num. 14:4). They were probably thinking, Lets go back to slavery and captivity. At least we ate better. At least we had houses to live in and we werent required to fight and put our lives at risk. Arent humans funny creatures? How quickly we forget the pain and anguish of our past lives, our lives before God, and well go back for more even after weve escaped it for a time. This truth is so prevalent among men that there are proverbs written to warn and remind us of our self-destructive human tendencies. Many years ago when I married my wife, she owned a nice house in California. And when a friend of hers heard that she would be moving out of that house, he asked if she would consider renting it to him so it could used as a home for abused girls . . . and so it was, for more than fifteen years. Scores of abused girls and many runaways picked up by the local police, many taken from their abusive parents by social services, lived there over that time. And in some of our conversations with our friend and overseer of this program over the years, he told us of his greatest disappointment and frustration: that several of these girls, many of whom had permanent injuries and scars from the abuse, would run away from this safe house, and an opportunity for a better life, to go back to an abusive environment. He said it was always to go back to
Numbers 14
118
what they knew and were used to. It was to shun what was new and better for what was familiar and comfortable. This is what we do as believers when we accept our salvation, and then go right on living as though it never happened. God brought us up to the promised land, and then we get cold feet and run right back to the world. And, usually, we think were taking God with us when we choose to go back to the world. But is that really the case? Well discuss the answer to that question next. I think we can say this much for the first four verses of Numbers 14: if you have a problem, or a worry, or even a bone to pick with God, these passages show precisely the wrong thing to do! And Gods reaction to all this was going to be predictable. Verse 5 of Numbers 14 says that Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before the congregation. No, they werent worshipping the elders; they hit the dirt because they were expecting a very severe reaction from God. That, and they were in utter disbelief at what was happening before their eyes, such that their knees grew weak and they fell to the ground in utter despair. But then entered Joshua and Caleb. It is interesting that up to then, Joshua apparently had been silent. It was actually a sign of mature leadership that he had let the others have their say, because he was already Moses assistant and protg, so the people knew where he stood. Caleb had stated his position well, and Joshua had no reason to simply repeat it. But, now, as a team, Joshua and Caleb exhorted the people to reconsider. They reminded them of how wonderful the land was; that if Israel would but obey God and
trust Him, He would deliver the land over to them. The pair turned the conclusions of the elders inside out; the elders feared the people of Canaan, but Joshua and Caleb said they should not fear. The elders told them to disobey God and stay out of the land; Joshua and Caleb told them to not rebel against the Lord, but to go forward and take the land. In fact, they said that because the Lord had removed the protection from the Canaanites, they would be our prey (14:9 nasB). Pretty bold. This is the attitude that our Father is seeking from us. Not foolish chutzpah based on a false sense of self-importance, or delusions of grandeur about our own abilities and strengths. rather, absolute trust that when the Lord says, I will, He will. That when the Lord says, Dont worry; the game is fixed, the outcome is determined, nothing can change that decree. However, the victorious outcome can, at times, be postponed because of the fear and disbelief of Gods followers; the Lord might use other people or later generations to achieve His will, when the current people could have been blessed if only they had been obedient. There have been some interesting midrashim by the rabbis of old about what was meant by Joshuas statement that the Canaanites protection had departed from them. Was this just an expression? Or did it reflect part of an ancient belief system? The Hebrew word usually rendered protection here is tsel; and it literally means shade, like sitting under the shade of a tree. It indeed does give the impression of an umbrella of protectionin this case over Canaan. But because the sentence in its plain Hebrew meaning would read Their protection (meaning Canaans) is gone, and
Numbers 14
119
instead the Lord is with us, the obvious intention was to indicate that the former protection over Canaan was of divine nature. That divine protection had been lifted, however, and so Canaan became vulnerable and ripe for the taking. This is where the rabbis go off into discussions of guardian angels of nations. This in and of itself is a fascinating subject, because, in actuality, the Bible says very little about the nature of angels. We get hints of spiritual beingsgodly spiritual beingswho were assigned by the Lord to watch over a nation, or carry a message to a nation, or even fight for a nation, but no details whatsoever. So most of what we observe today and think today about angels and demons comes not from Scripture, but from the writings of rabbis and the doctrines of the early roman Church. The point being that what Joshua was getting at was that God was on the side of Israel, and that there was no longer any kind of spiritual protection over Canaanwhether evil or goodthat could prevent Israel from succeeding. Is there a good scriptural basis for making this the proper interpretation? That indeed Joshua meant that the protection of a real and existing spiritual being over Canaan had been withdrawn? Yes. Turn in your Bibles to Daniel 10.
Assignment: Read Daniel 10:114.
Therefore, when in Numbers 14 Joshua said that there was no more spiritual protection over the people of Canaan, he indeed meant that literally. Joshuas response to the people, and his siding with Moses and Aaron, brought the peoples anxieties and rage to the boiling point. They threatened to stone Joshua and Caleb, and presumably Moses and Aaron as well. The people had made up their minds, and they really didnt want to hear any more sermons to the contrary. Moses Intercession for the People The Lord Himself then came to the rescue by His presence coming down upon the Tent of Meeting, so that all Israel could see it. This seems to have put a stop to the mobs murderous intentions. And the Lord in essence said to Moses: That does it. Im going to wipe them all out, and start all over again with you. From you, Moses, Ill create a people of faith. In fact, the nation I make out of you will be even larger
Ill let this stand alone. Here we see Daniel directly told of a confrontation between a prince of Persia, meaning a spiritual force (apparently one in opposition to God) that had hold of Persia, and an angel of God, who received the help of the mighty archangel Michael to overcome the evil prince. So, the idea that there were angels assigned to watch over people and nations of peoplenot just Gods people but other people as wellis directly spoken of in Scripture.
Numbers 14
120
than the three million Israelites now alive . . . but about to be dead at My hand.
There are a couple of fundamental God principles contained within these few short verses, and well discuss them both. The first one is contained in Moses plea to God not to destroy so many people. Moses pleaded with Yehoveh not to annihilate the guilty adults of Israel. And he used the same basic argument to talk God out of destroying essentially the entire Hebrew race as he used back in the golden calf incident when God determined to do the same thing. The argument was that when all the people of the Gentile nations heard about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob destroying the very people He had raised up, the nations of the world would determine it was because God was not able to do what He had promisedto give Israel the land
of Canaan. Therefore, they would think that the God of Israel was a rather impotent God. God responded to Moses plea in verse 20 by saying that He would relent and pardon the people of Israel as Moses had asked. What were dealing with here is the matter of the repentance of Gods people: how to obtain it, and Gods reaction to it. This is certainly something that ought to interest every believer in the God of Israel, and especially those who call upon the name of His Son, Messiah Yeshua. Unlike the religions of their neighbors, the rituals of Israel were not operative and effective merely by observing them. While the desired ritual could be carried out precisely by a priest, that did not equal automatic forgiveness. rather, forgiveness was another step, if you would. Worshipper and priest carried out the ritual as ordained, but God then took the definitive action of accepting the ritual and granting pardon or rejecting the ritual and any chance of pardon. This is something that has become lost time and time again within Judaism, yet at the same time, if you asked a Jew if by merely performing a ritual he was forgiven, usually he would answer no. Forgiveness is a divine decision and is not brought about merely by observance of a ritual. equally so, it is not enough to only hope and pray for forgiveness; man must submit himself before God, agree that he has wronged the Almighty, and then present an honest and sincere inner resolve to avoid that sin from here forward. The Psalms especially show us that confession and true repentance must be part and parcel with any advance toward God (usually by means of prayer) asking for pardon. If the heart is not involved, if the conscience is left out, then no level of sacrifices, wailing, bitter tears, being prayed over by others, pleading, monetary payments, tithing, fasting, or any other physical or material act will matter before God. There must be both inner change and outer behavioral modification; remorse must always be followed with deeds. And the works and
Numbers 14
121
Numbers 14
actions must be observed on two levels: the ceasing of evil works and the doing of good works. Let me say that another way: when it comes to repentance and forgiveness, man has his part and God has His. Mans part consists of far more than private prayer or walking an aisle for public recognition. Gods part is to observe the man and make a judgment: Is this man sincere enough to diligently exert effort to change his actions and have his heart changed? If the answer in Gods perspective is yes, that forgiveness is granted; otherwise, forgiveness is not granted, and the mans status before God as being out of favor remains. Note this as well: Moses could sway the Father. This is a great and awesome principle for the people of God to grasp. Intercessors and mediators can curb divine retribution. The implications of this are larger than we have the time to explore here today. But note: this means that God is interactive with those whom He has set in charge of things. All things are not necessarily decided in advance. God may know all things in advance, but His plans and intents can be altered and moved when certain righteous men approach Him and ask for mercy and grace. The greatest Mediator who ever lived once said while in the throes of death on the cross: Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34 nasB). One has to assume that Yeshua knew full well that Yehoveh was about to condemn those who had put His Son to death, and so He asked for mercy for them. Your intercessory prayer counts. You can influence God . . . provided of course that what you ask is within His will. The good news is that we are not hapless marionettes being manipulated by the Creator, simply dancing to a long-ago-predetermined tune. Otherwise, where is the relationship? When one is a robot and the other its operator, there is no relationship. There must be a give-and-take, a meaningful communication between the two parties, in order for there to be a true relationship.
Vertical Retribution There is a second rather significant theological principle that is revealed and demonstrated here in this dialogue between Moses and Yehoveh, one that is rarely discussed in a modern church setting. The rabbis call this the principle of vertical retribution. The concept is this: God may, in His will, move the punishment a father is due to his offspring. Or He may take mercy due a father and give it to his offspring. We find this principle in play in Numbers 14 when we read in verse 18 that Moses said to God: a Donai is slow to anger, rich in grace, forgiving offenses and crimes; yet not exonerating the guilty, but causing the negative effects of the parents offenses to be experienced by their children and even by the third and fourth generations. In case it hasnt yet struck you as to what Moses was asking, he was asking God to transfer some or all of the retribution due the adult Israelites for their rebellion to their children and their childrens children. What a befuddling request! This vertical retribution concept was around long before Israel and Moses. We find mention of it in ancient Hittite documents, where King Mursilis is quoted as saying: And so it is, the sins of the father have come upon the son; and so my fathers sins have come upon me. The idea is that an innocent party bears the divine punishment in place of the guilty party; but the parties are of the same family, just different generations. We cannot get away from this principle in the Bible. Noach declared a curse upon his grandson Canaan for what Canaans father, Ham, didvertical retribution. Ahijah the prophet said that the sins of Jeroboam would be placed upon the head of his son, Abijah (1Kings 14)vertical retribution. Were told that the sins of Baasha would be visited upon his son Elah (1Kings 16)vertical retribution. There are many more places in the Holy Scriptures that quote this same idea that the sins of the father will be visited upon his children, down to the third and fourth generations.
122
In addition to punishment, though, mercy can also be passed forward. Listen to Psalm 103:1718: The lorDs steadfast love is for all eternity toward those who fear Him, and His beneficence is for the childrens children of those who keep His covenant and remember to observe His precepts ( Jps). Part of this principle of vertical retribution was that under certain circumstances, punishment due someone was essentially postponed to a later time. In Bible terms, it was postponed to a later generation. And the certain circumstance that legally allowed God to postpone the punishment was the repentance and contrition of the one who had committed the sin. So if a father committed a sin, and then repented, acknowledged his wrongdoing, and asked for mercy, then God might, in His mercy, pass that punishment forward to a later generation. Listen to the case of Ahab in 1 Kings 21:29: Because [Ahab] has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the disaster in his lifetime; I will bring the disaster upon his house in his sons time ( Jps). Moses was asking God to show mercy toward the adult parents who rebelled against Him by postponing the punishment due the guilty parties. God met Moses halfway; He said that He would not summarily destroy those guilty parents, but in a postponed retribution He also would not permit those who committed this great sin against Him to ever enter the Promised Land. Because their sin was great and they had shown no remorse or contrition they would have to bear at least some of the punishment. So they would die natural deaths, in time, out in the desert wilderness, with the punishment being that they would never personally inherit the Promised Land. In verses 3233, however, there is mention of another penalty to be paid. The offspring of these guilty adults would also pay a price for their parents rebellion: But you [you adult Israelites], your carcasses will fall in the desert; and your children will wander about in the desert for forty years bearing the consequences of your prosti-
tutions until the desert eats up your carcasses (emphasis added). So the punishment upon the guilty was both postponed and at least partially realized, and the remainder placed upon the innocent children of Israel. Lets talk about one other interesting aspect of this principle and then well move on. We find the word pardon, or forgive, in verse 19, where Moses says to God: Please! Forgive [pardon] the offense of this people according to the greatness of your grace, just as you have borne with this people from egypt until now. Pardon, or forgive, misses the full richness and impact of the original Hebrew word used here: salach. Moses requested salach from the Lord. And though the word generally does mean pardon or forgive, salach is a divine kind of pardon or forgiveness that is not available from a human. That is, we would never hear of a man pleading for salach from another man. Salach, by definition, is an act of God. Further, the word salach carries with it the idea that what is pardoned is only the punishment for the sin, but the offense itself is not pardoned. Further, there is an element of healing and reconciliation involved in the meaning of the word salach. So when Moses asked Yehoveh for salach, and God said okay, I give you salach, God was saying that He would pardon the punishment for the rebellions (by means of postponing it), and He would allow a continued relationship between those people who committed the rebellion and Himself. even more, the reconciliation contained within the essence of the word salach points to the continuation of the covenant made on Mount Sinai. What a great mercy is hidden in the meaning of all this! Further, in verse 19, when Moses asks that God would grant salach according to Your great kindness ( Jps). The english word kindness really misses the mark. In Hebrew, Moses said, according to your great chesed. The significance is that chesed does not refer here to kindness, but rather to Gods steadfast commitment to the covenants
Numbers 14
123
and promises He has made to Israel. In fact, the Hebrew word chesed, as used here, is almost a direct synonym for the word brit, which means covenant. Therefore, Moses was actually beseeching Gods mercy according to [His] great covenant. The sum total of what Moses pleaded with God for (on behalf of rebellious Israel), and what God granted, was that God would divinely pardon the punishment that was due the Israelite adults for their rebellion, that God would allow reconciliation with the people of Israel, and even more, that God would continue to honor the covenants He had made with Israel and allow Israel to maintain their relationship with Him. It was understood, however, that the sin, the iniquity of the people for what they had done, would remain against them. Israel would remain a guilty people, and that guilt would never leave them. They would always have to answer for this offense before God. Understand, the deal between God and Moses as regarded this particular rebellion is but an example of the principle of vertical retribution. And the principles behind this example are demonstrated in several other Bible stories. I went through all that as a means to point out the difference between the kind of forgiveness or pardon available to mankind before the advent of Christ as opposed to after. This long explanation was intended to demonstrate the difference between the type of salach (pardon, forgiveness) that comes from the Father through our Mediator, Yeshua HaMashiach; and the type of salach (pardon, forgiveness) that came to Israel by means of their mediator, Moses. Under Moses, the relationship with God could continue, and God would postpone the punishment and not destroy the guilty; but the sin itself, and all the guilt associated with it, remained forever. Under Christ, punishment is still due the guilty party, but that punishment is borne instead by Jesus; more importantly, the sin itself is also pardoned. The iniquity and the guilt of the sin are forgotten and dissolved. This is one of
the reasons that Paul, who understood well this principle of vertical retribution, called the new covenant a better covenant. The new covenant did things the earlier covenant was not designed to do. No earlier covenant saved, because they werent designed to save; they were designed for other purposes. And one of the great features of the new covenant was the forgiveness of both the punishment and the sin itself. In verse 34 the Lord explains why Israel will wander a total of forty years in the wilderness: forty years represented one year of wandering for each day the scouts were gone checking out the land (they were gone for forty days). What was being demonstrated here was the principle of measure for measure: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Proportional and symbolic justice. Yehoveh had a special punishment for those scouts who came back with the bad report and convinced the people of Israel to go with their way of thinking and to rebel against God: they died immediately from a divine plague. exactly what that plague was, were not told. You would think that the enormity of the tragedy of this situationalong with all its consequenceswould have convinced the people of Israel that God is almighty, He is sovereign, and He means what He says. Lets reread the last few verses of this chapter, which show just how the people reacted to Gods judgment upon them.
Amazing. The peoples response to all this was to continue to ignore what God had determined, and to go ahead and do what they should have done before: march on Canaan. But there was a problem. God didnt give them a choice of A, B, or C. God didnt give them the possibility of realizing their mistake, and being able to get out of the consequences
Numbers 14
124
He had pronounced, by finally going ahead and marching into the Promised Land. Moses knew full well this was not to be and told the people not to do this. And, he said, youre certainly not taking the ark of the covenant with you, and neither am I going with you. The effect of neither the ark nor Moses leading them meant that neither Gods presence nor His mediator would be with those who planned to march on Canaan. The people basically said, Who cares? They then ignored Moses, and they ignored Yehoveh, and they lit out for Canaan on their own. The result was that the Amalekites and the Canaanites attacked this ill-prepared group of Israelites, crushing them. Wow, what a lesson. If our parents, or our bosses, or others in authority pronounce a punishment upon us for our offenses against them, we just might sweet-talk our way around it. After we find out how uncomfortable the consequences are going to be, we might agree to go ahead and do what we should have done in
the first place, and then everything will be fine. In fact, within families, organizations, even our justice system, we see that very thing happen. But it doesnt work that way with God. He is not a man that He should change. Its one thing to go forward with Gods blessing, in His timing, to attack a worthy task. Its quite another to approach that same task when God has deemed that its time has passed and He no longer is behind itor has turned the task over to someone elsefor whatever reason. God gives us windows of opportunity, and then they close. The timing is always His, not ours. How often we say, Yes, God, but not right now. . . . How about later? right now really isnt good for me. It is foolishness to try to pry that window open at a later date, even though we might achieve what appears to be some small measure of success. More than likely, though, we will be utterly defeated, as were these Israelites who would not submit to God. Israelites who still had not learned to take God seriously. And they paid a terrible price for it.
Numbers 14
125
Numbers 15
We discussed the great rebellion of the Israelites against Yehoveh when they refused to trust Him and balked at entering the Promised Land that had been set aside and prepared for them. More, we examined the consequences of this rebellionwandering for forty years in the desert, with none of those at the age of accountability being allowed to ever enter the Promised Land except for Joshua and Caleb. We also talked about a foundational God principle that scholars have dubbed vertical retribution. In a nutshell, the principle was that the divine punishment due the father for a sin against God could be postponed, and later experienced by his children or even subsequent generations. And the same principle also applied to mercy; that is, the mercy due a father could be postponed and given to his descendants. Now were going to continue in examining more of the important God principles that are fleshed out in this chapter. I want to reiterate that the New Testament that is so invaluable to us all is basically only two things: First, it tells us who the Messiah that was prophesied in the OT turned out to be, along with the high points of the things He did and why He did them; and second, it is a commentary on the OT that takes into account the coming of Yeshua and how it brings so much of the meaning of the Torah commands and the prophets oracles into better focus. That is why more than half of the phrases and sentences that form the NT are merely direct quotes from OT Scripture. We also need to grasp that commentary (any commentary) by definition comes after the foundational material. That is, all any preacher should do today (and most do so) is to comment on what has been previously written (spe-
cifically, Holy Scripture). The Torah and the Prophets are the foundational material, and so the NT comments on it (Paul especially). In Hebrew, this commentary is traditionally called midrash. So if all we read is the commentary but not the foundational material, were going to get some things right and some things wrong. It is in the Torah where well find all of the foundational God principles explained in detail. The NT fully expects its readers to already have completed Bible 101, which is the Torah. To not first understand the Torah is like attempting algebra without ever having studied basic math. One may well get something out of the algebra classes, but the meat will be go undiscovered and the reasons that underlie the algebraic formulas will go unknown and therefore will at times be misused. Well spend only a short time with this, but there is an important feature of this vertical retribution principle that I would like to make a little clearer. Generally speaking, if a person who committed an offense against Yehoveh was repentant and contrite, salach (pardon) of the punishment was postponed and transferred to the next generation of the family. Note: The punishment was pardoned in the form of having it passed forward. But the sin and the guilt of committing that sin remained permanently. However, if the next generation accepted and acknowledged that they rightfully bore the iniquities of their fathersthat they accepted and honored Gods principle of vertical retributionand then they repented for it and themselves asked for salach, then the punishment would be moved onto the next generation, and so on and so forth. In our modern political era, we call this act of passing the problem forward kicking the can
Numbers 15
126
on down the road. That is, rather than a political leader facing a knotty problem and doing the right thing, because it is politically explosive he finds a way to put a Band-Aid over it and lets the next leader who replaces him inherit the problem. Of course, typically, when the next leader is handed this can of worms, his goal becomes to kick that same canand as many others as he is abledown the road a little further, to his replacement. Let me emphasize that this is not some ancient superstition. This is a foundational biblical principle ordained by the Creator. It is woven into the entire Word, and it has everything to do with why we need a Savior. You see, God is not a man that He should change. When justice is due God because someone has broken His commands, justice must be extracted. Otherwise, God would be simply fickle and arbitrary, and could not be taken at His word. However, the postponement of justice, and that someone who is innocent can bear the just punishment in place of the guilty party, legally allows God to do what He really wants to do: show mercy to His creatures. Point being, as thousands of families kicked the can of retribution and punishment on down the road through all the generations of mankind, the buck had to end somewhere; it all eventually had to fall on somebody. It was not an endless road. It didnt just keep going forward into eternity and then God just forgot about it. But what human could bear all the retribution and guilt that had built up over the centuries within his own family, let alone for a world full of families? That can of postponed retribution, which had been kicked down the road for so long, stopped rolling when it reached the feet of Yeshua. When we read of how our Messiah paid for our iniquities, we find that it was not just for the iniquities of the generation in which Jesus lived, nor was it only for future generations. It was for the iniquities of the fathers. The iniquities that had occurred in hundreds of previous generations. And it was Gods principle of verti-
cal retribution that played a key role in allowing those destructive divine retributions to be postponed until we had a Savior to bear them for all past generations. We may have escaped the divine punishment that we rightfully should have experienced: a punishment that was ours not only by our own actions, but ours due to the sins of our fathers that had been passed down to us. even if we were oblivious to it, that punishment indeed was extracted. It was laid upon Jesus Christ. In that way, Gods justice was literally fulfilled, as it must be. Punishment was postponed for a long time, but it was eventually meted out, in full, to Yeshua on the cross. Yeshua, in many ways, transformed the dynamic of vertical retribution. In John 9:2, when a man asked Jesus why a certain man was born blind, he wanted to know if it was the sins of the mans father or the mans own sins that caused the blindness. What this fellow was referring to was the well-understood principle of vertical retribution. Jesus responded that neither the blind mans own sins nor the sins of his father were the issue; rather, he was blind so that the works of God could be manifested in him. And Jesus proceeded to heal him.
Numbers 15
127
Christ was showing, and later said, that a man would bear only his own sins; but that meant from that time forward. From the advent of Yeshua forward, this was the case. Not because the principle of vertical retribution changed or was canceled, but because from that time forward, when God granted salach to a man who had sinned against Hima man who had asked God for salach in the name of Yeshuathe divine punishment was postponed against that man and transferred to Yeshua. When a man in our era sins, believer or nonbeliever, that man you, me, anybodyis due divine retribution. A nonbeliever will bear that punishment himself; spiritually speaking, it will be after his physical death when he receives eternal death. But for the believer, the remedy is to trust in Christ, repent and be contrite, and ask God for salach in His nameand Jesus will bear the divine retribution that was due to us. The God-established principle of vertical retribution, which we find here in Numbers, is the foundation of enabling Christs atonement for mankind to be a viable substitution for what should have been our own personal eternal destruction.
had been explained some time before the rebellion. So the content of chapter 15 not only fits, it was necessary so that the people of Israel would understand that God would bring His people into Canaan. Therefore, among the first few words of chapter 15, in verse 2, God says, When you enter the land that I am giving you to settle in . . . God said when, not if. So we see that Gods salach His pardonof the rebellion is sufficient that He simply wants to get on with His plan: settling the land Canaan with the Israelites. From there the Lord gives further instructions, modified from earlier ones to a degree, concerning sacrificing. Laws of Offerings What is key for us to notice is that the rules and laws He was about to command to Israel were to take effect after they entered the land of Canaan, some thirty-eight years into the future. These laws were not to take effect immediately. In fact, there was precious little way they could practically be carried out, because the resources of grain and wine, and a sufficient number of animals suitable for sacrifice under the more stringent and larger sacrificial requirements
This chapter has caused many a biblical scholar a lot of heartburn because for some, this chapter seems out of place. Therefore, they conclude that someone inserted all, or parts, of this chapter at a later date, perhaps as late as 200 BC. I dont agree with that premise; I can easily see the relationship with the previous two chapters and the need to follow them immediately with the contents of chapter 15. As the previous two chapters concerned the most serious sort of rebellion against Yehoveh, Moses and others had the greatest concern whether or not the Lord would honor His covenants with them, and whether or not He would allow Israel to enter the land on the same, or a similar, basis as
Numbers 15
128
now being prescribed, would be available only in a settled society with well-organized agriculture and ranching. Therefore, this chapter shows clearly that God did not reject His people Israel because of their rebellion, and that their unfaithfulness had not nullified Gods faithfulness to them and to His covenants. It also demonstrates that repentance plus the offering of proper sacrificeswhich in the larger sense indicated Israels return to respect, and obedience to Gods commandscould bring restoration and reconciliation with Yehoveh. As we enter verse 3, we find that all the animal sacrifices that were considered an isheh type of offering were to be accompanied by an offering of grain, oil, and some kind of libation (liquid) offering. What was an isheh sacrifice? Well, this has stumped rabbis and Christian scholars alike. The word is often translated as burnt offering, but that is off the mark because the Hebrew word for the specific type of sacrifice called a burnt offering is olah. Others translate this as an offering by fire. This is probably a little closer to the idea. Some think isheh should be translated as food offering. In reality, we cant be sure of the original intent; but rabbis from before the time of Christ have treated this term more as meaning a gift. Or, in the context of how it was actually practiced, a gift of food that was burned up by fire. Any animal sacrifice that was a type in which either the priests, or the worshipper, or both could keep a portion of the sacrifice as food for themselves had to include a sacrificial offering of grain, oil, and often wine. We need to get used to the fact that there were several precise types of sacrifices, each for different purposes, just as we find several different covenants, each with different purposes. One sacrifice did not abolish the others, and neither did each new covenant God made with Israel abolish the others. We covered most of these sacrifices in Leviticus, so we wont go over them again. I am convinced that the reason for the several variations of sacrifices was to teach us the multifaceted nature of sin and its con-
Numbers 15
sequences. Modern Christianity has wanted to make sin a very simple matter: a sin is a sin is a sin; implying that whether you commit genocide on a people, or steal a car, or lie to your mother, its all the same thing to God. That is decidedly not true, and the Torah methodically and explicitly shows us that some sins and some evils are worse than others in Gods eyes. This is explained to us by means of the reasons and rituals for each of the various kinds of sacrifices. Lets not let that statement in verse 3 of producing an odor pleasing to the lorD ( Jps) slide by us. Ive talked about this before and asked you to be on the lookout for it. It was an ancient beliefway before the Israelites were ever aroundthat at least part of the purpose for the burning up of animals on an altar was to create a smoke that rose upward into the nostrils of whatever god or goddess was being worshipped. While in retrospect we can take this as a metaphor for the Lord being pleased over the obedience to His sacrificial laws, I can assure you that the Israelites were thinking precisely what their pagan neighbors were thinking: that YHWH was getting pleasure from the actual smell of the smoke. This is important; we must not think that just because Yehoveh declared Israel a holy people, they automatically thought or behaved in a holy or obedient manner. They operated from the general beliefs of the world of which they were part in that era. God was only in the beginning phase of a long-term reeducation process of His people. In verse 5 we see wine being designated as the libation, that is, the liquid portion of the offering. It seems quite appropriate that after the rebellion in which the scouts brought back the large cluster of grapes so symbolic of the idyllic fertileness of the land of Canaan, God would choose to emphasize the need for wine as part of the sacrificial ritual. Str angers and Foreigners I want to skip now to verse 14, because it opens an issue that is of importance to all students of
129
the Bible, especially to those who already know Yeshua as Savior. If you want to know more details about the various kinds of sacrifices spoken of here in the first several verses of Numbers 15, go back and review teachings on the subject in the Journey Through the Torah Class series on Leviticus. The issue in verse 14 concerns what our english translations call strangers or foreigners within Israel, and centers on what obligations these strangers or foreigners living within Israel had regarding sacrificial ritual and worship of Yehoveh. First, in our modern world, the term that gives a clearer mental picture of what is meant by strangers or foreigners in the Bible is resident aliens. In other words, these were legal immigrants from another race of people, another nation; non-Hebrews who continued living as non-Hebrews, but among the Hebrews. In the biblical Hebrew the word is ger. Before we look more closely at what Numbers has to say about the obligations of a ger, lets look more closely at just what a ger was in ancient Bible times. First, the concept of a ger was, as so much else we find in the Scriptures about very early Israelite culture, common in the Middle eastern region. So the concept was neither new to the Israelites nor a scriptural invention with a new meaning to the Israelites simply because it was included in the Torah. In english there is no satisfactory word to translate ger. In its simplest biblical sense, ger means a protected stranger. This concept of a protected stranger is sacrosanct in the Middle
eastern cultural idea of what constitutes hospitality. In other words, a guest in ones home, even a complete stranger who only happened upon ones house in his journey, was not only welcomed and given food and shelter, but also given protection and sanctuary; this protection was guaranteed by the very lives of the hosts. But that concept could also carry one step further if the stranger wanted to remain in the village or family. The idea was that in return for being protected, a person not of that tribe would be cared for, provided that he was loyal to the tribe who agreed to care for him. The reason we need to understand the many nuances of a ger is that the NT writings explain that Gentiles who came to faith in Yeshua were both compared to gerim and contrasted to gerim ( gerim is the plural of ger). In other words, those of us who are Gentile believers have biblical similarities to a ger, but also some important differences. So if were to better comprehend this mysterious and complex relationship that we have as Gentile Christians to Israel, we need to better grasp the concept of a ger as it was intended. A man named W. r. Smith wrote what was perhaps the most concise description of a biblical ger well over a century ago: The word ger goes back to a nomadic life, and it denotes a man of another tribe or district who, coming to sojourn in a place where he was not strengthened by the presence of his own kin, put himself under the protection of a clan or a powerful tribal chief. During their time in Egypt and their flight from egypt, many strangersmany gerim attached themselves to Israel. The same thing happened when the Israelites conquered Canaanmany Canaanites attached themselves to one Israelite tribe or another as gerim. The rights and limitations of a ger were common knowledge in the ancient world, so the Bible doesnt go to any length at all to explain them to us. Because it is so difficult to define the word precisely, it is better to discuss the attributes of a ger a foreigner, a stranger, a resident alien.
Numbers 15
130
First, Israel regarded itself as a ger, both before it moved to egypt (while the patriarchs were living in Canaan) and during its time in egypt. That is, they were protected strangers and resident aliens in Canaan and in egypt, because it wasnt their land. In fact, even after they possessed the Promised Land, theologically they still saw themselves as gerim; God made it clear that while Israel would possess the land, they didnt own it. It was Yehovehs land, and the Israelites were essentially leaseholders. Where did they get that idea? Listen to Leviticus 25:23: The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me (nasB). What the original Hebrew saysis that the land was Gods, and the Israelites were but gerim on Gods land. By ancient tradition, gerim could not own property. So the Israelites well understood what God meant: they would never be able to sell their property, because they could never own it in the first place. Therefore, gerim had to be employed either as workers on someone elses land or as craftsmen with trades. Often they were wards of the state; that is, they were under the authority of the tribe, but they also received a kind of welfare to survive. Just as, theologically speaking, the Israelites themselves were gerim to the Lord even after they possessed Canaan, so were the Levites gerim to the Israelites. The Levites could possess no land, and they were under the protection of the tribes of Israel. Twice in the book of Judges (17:7 and 19:1), the Levites are specifically referred to as gerim among the Israelites. So a kind of pecking order was established. There was not full equality between the ger and the tribe or nation he was sojourning among. A ger was, in some respects, a second-class citizen. Among Israel, the ger the person of another race who came to live among Israelhad equal protection under the law, but didnt always have the same privileges as an Israelite. Where was the difference? If we divide Israels laws into civil and religious categories, this is where we
see the distinctions. When civil laws such as murder, rape, adultery, and theft came into play, the ger and the Israelite were on equal footing, and both were obligated to obey the civil law, be punished according to the civil law, and to live under the terms of the civil law. Let me be clear: this law would not be separate from Torah. Torah contains both civil and religious law, and this is what Im referring to. However, obedience to the religious laws was another matter. Just as the whole law can be seen as divided into two basic groups (civil and religious), so Hebrews had always seen the religious law divided into two basic groups: the type that prohibited and the type that commanded something to be performed. Sometimes these two types were called negative commandments (those that prohibited something), and positive commandments (those that demanded something be performed). In general, a ger was required to obey the negative religious commandments, but was not always required to obey the positive religious commandments. As an example of this, the ger was not required to observe any of the biblical feasts (although he was perfectly welcome to join in). However, if he did decide to join in, he must do so properly. He could not do it in his own way. An example of how a ger was required to obey a negative religious commandment can be found in Leviticus 17:1516: When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his guilt. (nasb) Where the verse says that this applies to a native or an alien, the Hebrew is native or ger. This also gives me an opportunity to mention something else: often in the Torah we will see a statement something on the order of There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger . . . Or, using our Hebrew,
Numbers 15
131
There shall be one law for you (Israelite) and for the ger . . . I have gone wrong in the past by assuming this to be a general statement and principle about the laws of Torah in total. In fact, this is not a general principle. It refers to only the law, regulation, or command that is within the context of that statement. So when a commandment is given, and just before or after the commandment is the statement that there shall be one law for the Israelite or the ger, the statement is referring to that particular law and not all the laws in general. This is fully validated by many rabbis, and especially Ibn ezra. An important thing to understand, indeed. Now that you understand just what a ger wasthat the word is usually translated (though not particularly thoroughly) as the english word stranger or foreigner ; and that indeed a ger was a second-class citizen, even though gerim were required to obey the negative commandments just as all Israelites wereI have a question for you: Are you, Gentile Christian, a ger among Israel? Or are you something else?
Assignment: read ephesians 2:822.
Here is the proof we need. Gentiles were at one time foreigners, gerim, to the covenants of Israel. We were strangers, aliens, gerim who were excluded, as gerim are, to the national life of Israel, but faith in Yeshua has brought us near. In fact, we are made fellow citizens; therefore, we are not gerim, but we are now part of that entity called true Israel by Paul in romans, and here in ephesians called the household of God (v. 19 rsv). We dont become fleshly citizens of earthly Israel, we along with our fellow Jewish believers become spiritual citizens, in spiritual Israel. And this is all by means of the covenants God created with Israel. The Lord, through Paul, made it supremely clear that at one time Gentiles were really even
further away from Israel than were gerim. We were as nothing. At least a ger who came to Israel was somewhat connected to Israel, but Gentiles who had not chosen to become attached to Israel as gerim were completely apart from the national life of Israel and therefore apart from Israels covenants. However, through trusting Yeshua, Gentile believers have been brought near and are now full-fledged members of true Israel, of the divine ideal of Israel as a pure and holy kingdom of God. Not as gerim, but as firstclass citizens. Notice something: just as an immigrant to the United States must go through a swearing-in ceremony to vow allegiance to the United States Constitution and to abide by its tenants, so was a foreigner to Israel required to vow allegiance to the constitution of Israel, which consisted of the biblical covenants God made with Israel. When I say constitution of Israel, Im not speaking of the political constitution of the modern State of Israel as drawn up by a human government after World War II. Im talking primarily about the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants because thats what Paul was referring to. These contained within them the basis for the establishment of Gods kingdom on earth, with Israel as the core group of people who were to bring it about; as well as the membership requirements, the rules and regulations, and who was eligible for membership. Paul constantly warned Gentiles who wished to trust Yeshua and worship Him that it was not only unnecessary to convert and become a Jew to worship Christ, but that doing so was essentially counterproductive. Paul usually phrased it in terms of putting yourself under the law or not putting yourself under the law, and thus advised a Gentile to not put himself under the law. Understand that in every case of Paul talking about how Gentiles should not put themselves under the law, Paul was not talking about whether or not to obey the Torah commands. He was addressing the issue of whether
Numbers 15
132
or not the requirement to gain membership to the body of believersto become a disciple and worshipper of Jesus and thus become part of the family of Godwas to first become a Jew, which by definition meant accepting the Law, and which of course included male circumcision. That is, obedience to the Law was step one in how one gained membership to the body of believers. And to this, Paul emphatically said no. However, when one has been saved by means of faith in Yeshua, obedience to the Law as a way of proper behavior for one who has been saved is another matter. With that understanding, and the many ramifications of what being a ger meant, part of the reason that Paul did not want Gentiles to accept the Law, meaning to become a Jew and to start practicing traditional Judaism, was (1) because that was not the means to salvation, and (2) if a Gentile did accept the law as even part of an attempt to achieve salvation, this former Gentile (now a Jew) would have just put himself in a very strange position with God. You see, as we discussed last week, God Himself classified Israelites as gerim living with Him (even though, on the one hand, Yehoveh called Israel My people; and on the other hand, He still saw those Israelites as gerim to Him). That is why from the time of Moses onward, Hebrews did not speak of owning the Promised Land. God says, in other words, I own the land; you are just leaseholders and possessors. You Israelites are as much gerim with Me, the Lord, as the foreigners who live among you are gerim with you. You gerim have rights, and you are under My protection, but you are not on an equal footing with Me, nor have you attained the status of first-class citizens in the kingdom of God. Yet, several hundred years into the future, we find in Ephesians 2 Paul saying that a Gentile who becomes a believer in Yeshua is not a ger to God, but a full-fledged citizen of the true Israel, which is defined as the spiritual kingdom of God. So, the dilemma Paul was trying to explain to his mostly Gentile audience was this: a Gentile who, misguided, put himself under
the Law (as a means to salvation) effectively wound up making himself a ger to God. That Gentile gained the same status as Israel always hada status every Jew was born intothat of being a ger with God. But a Gentile who trusted Messiah as the only legitimate means to salvation became a full-fledged citizen of the kingdom of God, with all the associated rights and privileges. In essence, a Gentile, who was as nothing, leapfrogged over the status of a fleshly (nonbelieving) Hebrew, and instantly (along with the Jews who accepted their Messiah) became a first-class citizen in Gods divine kingdom. The question Paul asked was: Why, Gentile, would you want the second-class status of a ger when you could have the first-class status of a citizen of heaven? And, in effect, Paul offered the same argument in other of his writings to the Jewish people. That is, Paul said, Hey, Jews, why not accept Yeshua as Messiah, and be elevated from your current legal status (the legal status most of you were born into) as gerim to God, to become first-class citizens with God, in the kingdom of God? Understand, all of this is contained in the rules and ordinances of the covenants God made with Israel. For a Jew to have his status elevated from ger to first-class citizen of the kingdom of God, and for a Gentile to have his status elevated from basically nothing to a firstclass citizen of the kingdom of God, is possible only under the terms of Israels covenants. A Gentile became a member of the kingdom of God only by means of Israels covenants with God. And of course those covenants all speak of and point to the Messiah. Paul was not addressing whether or not it was good to be obedient to the Torah, the Law (he addressed that issue head-on in other epistles, where he said that it was good and preferable for a believer to obey Torah). It might be beneficial for you to examine romans 2; for instance, in 2:13 Paul said It is the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in Gods sight. And in 2:14: Gentiles who do what the law requires will be held innocent
Numbers 15
133
(authors translation). And in 2:2528: Those who keep the law will condemn those who do not (authors translation). Paul was talking about behavior and response to God, not how one became saved. Paul was speaking not about how a Gentile became a member of the kingdom of God, but about how one was to live his life afterward. Paul also said obedience to the Torah (the Law) was the proper response for a person who had been saved by the Jewish Messiah. Now that weve affirmed once again why the Old Testament in general, and the Torah specifically, is still critically important to Christians, lets move on a little further in Numbers 15.
Firstfruit Offerings This section, about setting aside for God some of the bread that was made after the people enter the Promised Land, is quite interesting and instructive. remember, even though we may struggle with which of the Torah commands we are still to obey literally, and also just how we are to obey them in a practical way in our modern Western society (and of course factoring in the advent of Christ), God has set up unchangeable
patterns that we are to learn, recognize, and apply to our lives forever. Being discussed beginning in verse 17 is the first of the bread dough that was made regularly in every Israelite household. The instruction was that the first of each batch of bread was to be given to a priest; it was a holy portion. The principle this was operating from is the principle of firstlings, or in more familiar language, firstfruits. That is, the first of everything belonged to God; the first male child (called the firstborn), the first of the crops (called bikkurim), and the first of the bread dough (called challah). What is interesting is that typically only farmers could participate in the most common firstfruit offerings, because they were the ones who grew the crops, and therefore they were the ones required to offer the first of their crops as a sacrifice. What this new command did was to take the ability to offer firstfruit sacrifices out of the field and into every Hebrew household. Every Hebrew home baked breadas it was the staple daily foodand now, with the requirement of an offering of a portion of that bread dough to God, every Hebrew home could have direct participation in offering firstfruit on a regular basis. This custom of offering some of the dough from the household bread became such a deeply ingrained custom within Israel that even after the temple was destroyed, the Talmud tells us that the women would take a small piece of the bread dough and throw it into the fire as a sort of mini-sacrifice in remembrance of this commandment. Lets read a popular saying of Paul; one you have heard several times from me, but now, perhaps, you will better understand why he chose these words: If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too (rom. 11:16 nasB). Paul was simply using the common language of an every day occurrence in virtually every household in Israel as an illustration. He was referring directly to the principle of firstfruits, and to the law and custom of offering a
Numbers 15
134
bit of the bread dough as a sacrifice, which in turn sanctified the remainder of the large lump of bread dough. Inadvertent Sins When we get to verse 22 of Numbers 15, however, the entire subject changes. Here we get into the thorny area of what are called inadvertent sins. That is, someone had committed a violation of one of Gods commandments, but they didnt intend to, and often didnt even know they had. However, this section also makes a contrast between what was required of a person who committed this kind of unwitting sin, and what happened when a person committed an intentional sin. Often the Bible refers to this kind of intentional sin as high-handed, denoting that the Lord considered it shockingly brazen and without excuse. These two categories of sin (inadvertent and high-handed) are themselves each spoken of in two major contexts: as a sin being committed by the whole communitya national sin; and as a sin being committed by an individual. Let me here remind you that when the Torah speaks of the whole community or the whole congregation, nine out of ten times it is speaking of the leaders and elders of Israel, not every common person. Let that sink in for a second. Though the selection of leaders in ancient Israel was not democratically accomplished, there was an element of affirmation by the people that was required. The governmental structure of ancient Israel, though not a one-man/one-vote system, nevertheless was a representative-based system, similar in concept to our American system. The leaders and elders represented the diverse interests of the various tribes, and therefore the interests of the people of each of those tribes were addressed. An unpopular leader didnt last long. If God held the people of Israel responsible for going along with what the leaders and elders of Israel decided (in other words, that the leaders and elders were representative of the will of
the people), then I wonder how the Lord views the citizens of democratic nations, where our process of affirming leadership is much more in our hands than was ever imagined in biblical times? How often I would like to divorce myself from what our elected leadership has decided: to allow abortion on demand, to celebrate homosexuality, to demand that Israel give up some of its land inheritance to achieve a more quiet Middle east and serve our needs for an uninterrupted supply of oil. The fact remains that, biblically, I am (and each of you are) responsible to God for these affronts toward Him. Such a responsibility falls under the context of the whole congregation. Understand, the term whole congregation is not only a religious term but a national term, and theologically it applies to us just as forcefully as it did to ancient Israel. National responsibility (and subsequent national blessings or national curses) is one of the Lords fundamental principles, and we find it addressed here in Numbers 15. The requirement for dealing with an inadvertent sin of the nation (generally meaning the nations leadership but also including the guilt by association of the common citizens) was that a sacrifice of atonement must be offered when that sin became known and apparent. The offering was to consist of a bull as an olah sacrifice, accompanied by the standard minchah sacrifice (a grain offering), and also a libation offering of wine. In addition, a male goat was to be offered as a hataat offering, usually rendered as sin offering, but I believe a more accurate translation is purification offering. Please notice some key words in verse 25: The priest shall make expiation for the whole Israelite community and they shall be forgiven ( Jps, emphasis added). Forgiveness of a type was indeed available to the ancient Israelites at the will of God. In our modern english, and in our Western way of thinking, we would be much better off to take this statement about forgiveness to mean that they may be forgiven, rather than they shall be forgiven. The Lord has set down many principles concerning His
Numbers 15
135
meting out of forgiveness, and they all apply and all must be met in order for Him to show mercy. For instance, repentance and contriteness must be present. The sacrificial ritual itself did not have some type of supernatural quality that forced forgiveness out of God; rather, at issue was the sincere obedience to the sacrificial commandment. Vertical retribution was also at work. The punishment due the nation would be pardoned if God so chose, but the guilt of the sin remained, and the requirement for exacting divine retribution was often simply passed on to the next generation. Notice that verse 26 makes crystal clear that the forgiveness that may be afforded by God upon Israel applied to both Israelites and the gerim (the protected foreigners) who lived among Israel. Next, the inadvertent sins of an individual were dealt with. The individual was not required to bring olah and minchah sacrifices, but he or she was required to bring a hataat (a purification offering) sacrifice, though it was of lesser value than the hataat required for the nation as a whole. The individual was required to take a female goat to the priest for sacrifice. And, interestingly, a ger must do the same thing; if a ger sinned inadvertently, he must offer a sacrifice of atonement. Let me remind you that the sheer number of laws that a ger might be subject to advertently breaking was significantly fewer than would be the case for an Israelite. And this was because a ger was bound to obey only the prohibitive (negative) commandments of the Law. However, since a ger was also permitted to observe some of the positive commandments if he or she chose (such as observing the feast days, as one can imagine most of the gerim did), the observance had to be performed correctly. So, likely, many gerim fouled up the more strict aspects of one observance or another without intending to, and when someone informed them of this, the gerim were required to make the hataat sacrifice of a she-goat. Now the more severe requirements and consequences mentioned in this section appear.
Beginning in verse 30, the case of a person committing a sin with a high hand (rsv) is broached. And we find that this law applied equally to an Israelite or to a ger (again, the ger was required to obey fewer commandments and thus there were fewer that he could break). Notice that no sacrifice of atonement was prescribed for the one who acts defiantly ( Jps) against the Word of God. In other words, the person committing a high-handed sin wasnt excused from a sacrifice of atonement; there was no atonement available. Therefore there was no mercy, only divine retribution. And the punishment was, in Hebrew, karet. Being cut off. The idea of karet was that the punishment was not usually administered by men; the guilty party usually was not stoned, or jailed, or punished by the citizens of Israel (though if a direct revelation from Yehoveh was claimed instructing such punishment, it could be carried out). rather, God would, supernaturally, exact judgment, which could mean dying young. It could mean dying childless and thereby bringing to an end a mans family line (this was probably the most feared punishment in the biblical era). receiving Gods punishment could also mean being less prosperous, or ones health being poor, or any number of other onerous things. Only the Lord knew the timing of just when the effects of this punishment might take place. Therefore, the guilty party walked around with the judgment of divine retribution on his head at all times, with no remedy for it, and he didnt know when the eternal other shoe might fall. As one might expect, over the centuries just what karet amounted to varied among more modern Hebrews versus among the ancients. By the time of the great rabbi Maimonides (the RamBam) of the twelfth century AD, it was held that karet included the possible death of the soul, so that a spiritual afterlife became impossible. Today, karet as practiced in Judaism is usually defined as excommunication from the synagogue, or the death sentence imposed by civil authoritieslawful execution. regardless, we get the sense that karet is very serious and is
Numbers 15
136
applied as punishment in only the most highhanded, offensive acts against the Lord. Were about to get a very well-known example of a high-handed sin for which there was no possibility of atonement. Verse 32 tells the story of a man who went out to gather wood on Shabbat. The man was arrested, brought before Moses, and Moses apparently wasnt clear on how to judge the matter, because the end of verse 34 says, for it had not been specified what should be done to him ( Jps). So Moses consulted God, and God gave him His answer: execution by stoning. The man was summarily taken outside the camp and stoned to death. Wow. What really happened here? What was it that this man did wrong? Why didnt Moses know what to do? And why must the man be executed? The first question to ask concerns the law about the Sabbath, and we have to look in Exodus for the answer:
For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day. (35:23 nasb) So the issue about gathering the firewood obviously was tied to the negative commandment that a fire must not be kindled on the Sabbath. But the man was not caught kindling a fire (that is, starting a fire); he was caught only gathering the wood for a fire. This prob ably was the primary reason that Moses didnt know exactly what to do, yet he knew that the distinct possibility of a serious violation did exist. So the issue revolved around intent. Was the man merely gathering wood for another day? Did he fully intend to use the wood he gathered to start a fire on the Sabbath? Was gathering the wood work and therefore prohibited in general?
Numbers 15
137
Well, the rabbis found the answer to this interesting little dilemma in the story of the gathering of manna. They found the laws concerning the gathering and use of the manna to be a clear analogy of the matter of gathering sticks for a fire. Israel was told that whatever manna they would need on the Shabbat should be gathered, cooked, and prepared before Sabbath. And they were also told that on the Sabbath, they should not leave their place. In other words, they werent to go on a journey; they werent to exert themselves to any substantial degree. Just as gathering manna on the Sabbath was prohibited because the eating of manna that was gathered on the Sabbath was prohibited, so then gathering wood on the Sabbath was prohibited because it indicated the premeditated intention to start a fire on the Sabbath. The two actions of first gathering the wood and then kindling the fire were both required for a fire. Therefore, the two actions were inseparable, and God considered the violation of Sabbath on par with violation of the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur, those two days forming the highest of the high observances of appointed days. Yet, as we saw just a few verses earlier, the punishment for a high-handed sin such as this one was karet divine retribution. So why was the man to be stoned to death at the hands of other men? Here we find yet another very interesting principle: stoning was judicial punishment brought about by violation of civil law. Karet was divine punishment brought about by God due to violation of religious law (although of course from a spiritual standpoint, the civil and religious laws were cut from the same cloth). The man carrying the sticks became subject to both! Thus he was to be executed (stoned) by the people, causing his physical death; and afterward, he would also be cut off, karet, by God, resulting in his spiritual death. So what we find is that for the most high-handed sins against God there was a double whammy. First, the accused would face legal judicial punishment, and then
he or she would face divine punishment. Here in the Torah, in Numbers, we have the principle that the church has held so vital to our fundamental beliefs: there is a physical life and death, and there is a spiritual life and death. And what Christ saves us from is the spiritual death, not the physical death, which all men are subject to regardless of their status before God. Does this sort of double whammy still exist for the believer? Is karet a possibility for the believer today? Well, there is certainly a strong hint that under the most severe of circumstances, something like karet remains a possibility. Listen to Hebrews 10:2627: If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. (nasb) These verses in Hebrews are nothing more than the restating of the law concerning deliberate or high-handed sin. Well not get into a debate of whether or not this is possible for a
Numbers 15
138
believer to do in the first place. The wider point I wanted to make here was that the long-held concepts of deliberate versus unintentional sins and their consequences were alive and well in Christs day and in NT times, and this passage in Hebrews, which is a direct reference to those concepts, makes it clear they apply to all believers, Jew or Gentile.
Tzitzit
The final subject of this chapter is what most Bibles call fringe or tassels, and what the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, calls a hem. In Hebrew, the word is tzitzit. In the most ancient era of Hebrew culture, tzitzit more or less literally meant lock of hair; indeed, a tzitzit resembled a lock of hair. And, in modern terms, it looked much like what we would call a tassel. But of course, in ancient times, tassels began as but decorative locks of hair. As with so many of these sorts of things we find in the Torah, the concept of tzitzit was not an entirely new invention, but rather an
evolution and transformation of something that already existed. Ancient etchings and pictographs from various regions in Asia show that the wearing of tassels on garments was fairly widespread. Though, as far as anyone knows, the Hebrew purpose for the tassels (plural tzitziyot ) was unique. That stated purpose for tzitziyot is laid out in Numbers 15:39: when the Israelites looked at the tassels, they would be reminded of Gods commandments. So we see how this instruction is connected to the story of the man who gathered the firewood. The tzitziyot were intended to be a constantly worn reminder that Gods laws were to be obeyed, so that the Israelites would not commit sins against the Lord and thus be subjected to the curse of the Law. The vast majority of the details concerning exactly how a tzitzit was to be made and worn are tradition. We get the primary biblical instructions right here in Numbers 15, and there is precious little said about the subject. Today, if we are to understand the significance of the tzitzit, we must begin by understanding what the writers of the Old Testament understood: what was worn as, or on, the hem of ones garment was an indication of ones status in the community. even moreand please pay close attention to thisthe hem of ones garment was seen as an extension of ones own personality and authority. The hem was the common status symbol of the biblical era throughout the Middle east, and even of somewhat earlier times. You might scoff at the thought of the hem of a garment being a status symbol or an extension of ones personality, but the very same type of thinking applies in different ways in each culture of the world. Generally, in America we believe the car we drive or the brand of the clothing we choose says something about who we are inside. We Christians often plaster our cars with bumper stickers and various religious insignias as another means of explaining something about our beliefs. We wear crosses, or Stars of David, or the new Messianic Seal symbol, or other items that are but visible exten-
Numbers 15
139
sions of our personalities and personae. Never think that modern people arent superstitious about these emblems, including Saint Christophers medals, WWJD bracelets, and so on. The hem of the garment played a similar role in more ancient times. Ancient Akkadian documents indicate that a husband who cut the hem off his wifes garment thereby divorced her. A sorcerer might recite an incantation over a cut-off piece of hem from a demon-possessed person, so much was the hem thought to be a literal extension of that person. And, of course, we find several mentions of garment hems being involved in some of the more famous biblical stories (though Christians have had some rather odd notions of what was being indicated, such that had a person of the biblical era listened in on our views, they would have rolled in laughter). Well get to one of those stories in particular in a moment; first, we must understand that hems of garments held actual legal force thousands of years ago. They were more than mere
status symbols; they were legitimate IDs in many cases. Thus kings and high leaders might have worn an intricate hem that often included the use of the color purple. Purple was, and remains, a symbol of royalty in most Middle and Far Eastern cultures, and the practice of using purple as a royal color became practically worldwide in time. In fact, written records found in Mesopotamia indicate that a seer or a wise man in service to the king was required not only to tell the king his vision or prophetic dream, but also to write it down. Once written, the document was presented to the king along with a lock of hair from that seers own head, along with a piece from the hem of his garment. This was the equivalent of a sworn and notarized affidavit and indicated the truthfulness of what was recorded. In the tzitzit we see the blending of two ancient symbolic elements: the lock of hair and the hem of the garment. We also need to recognize that it was primarily royalty and aristocrats who had elaborate garment hems, not the common folk. The average common person had no need to display his status, nor could he afford to. So we must add to the equation that in the ancient world, hems (that at Gods direction evolved into tzitziyot ) were generally considered to be an indication of royalty and legal authority. Now, lets apply this to the Hebrew tzitzit. Basically, the tzitzit was but an extension of the hem. Notice that the tzitziyot were commanded to be worn on the corners of the garment. This is usually taken to mean an outer garment, something that was visible. However, not all Hebrew sects accepted that, and many wore them underneath their outer garments. The Hebrew word usually translated as corners (as in corners of a garment) is kanaf, which more correctly means extremity or wing, not corner. The idea was that the hem was the extremity of any garment. So it wasnt that tzitziyot directly represented the hem of the garment; rather, tzitziyot were to be attached to the hem of the garment. exactly how this was manifested, though, varied over the centuries.
Numbers 15
140
David and Saul An OT story about David and Saul demonstrates the meaning of garment hems in the ancient world, at least in the early era of the kings of Israel. Saul, the mentally unstable king of Israel, had determined that he must kill David, and David had fled with a band of about six hundred men from the northern part of Israel down to the southern desert reaches of Israel. That area, which is very near the Dead Sea, today is called ein Gedi.
Assignment: read 1 Samuel 24:18.
David and his men had been avoiding the patrols Saul sent out to find him by hiding in the many caves that laced the barren mountains surrounding ein Gedi. In rather graphic detail, the Bible tells us the Saul wandered into a cave to relieve himself; unaware that this just happened to be the very cave where David and his men were currently hiding! While King Saul was in the act, David sneaked up behind him and carefully cut off a portion of the hem of Sauls garment. Later on, David was (oddly) remorseful of doing this and told his men, The lorD forbid that I should do such a thing (1 Sam. 24:7 Jps). Later yet, when David was able to have a powwow with Saul (in one of Sauls more and more rare lucid moments), King Saul responded to Davids act of cutting off the hem of his garment by saying, I know now that you will become king (24:21 Jps). What a strange set of circumstances, and even stranger responses. The key to this story is understanding the very real issue of the authority symbol that rested in the hem of Sauls garment. even more, this was not unlike the matter when Delilah conspired to have the locks of Samsons hair cut off. To Saul, and to David, and to everyone of that era, the hem was far more than a symbol; it was an extension of Saul. It
was an extension of his persona and his royal essence. By the stealthy removal of that piece of hem by David, Saul saw it as a divinely devised transfer of kingly authority from himself to David. And, to continue with the analogy of Samson, by the removal of those locks of hairSamsons tassels, if you wouldSamson lost his connection to divine authority and power. More to the point, just as the cutting off of Samsons locks represented his being karetcut offfrom God, so it was that Saul saw his hem being cut off as his being cut off from his divine status as king of Israel. Royal Blue and Purple The tzitzit holds great meaning. It is manufactured from two different kinds of materials; linen and wool. each tzitzit was to have a single strand of wool, dyed to royal blue or royal purple, at the center and surrounded by many strands of white linen. That single woolen strand of blue, called a tekhelet, was key to the meaning of the tzitzit, for it indicated nobility.
Numbers 15
141
Why was royal blue or royal purple considered royal? Because purple was a most difficult, and therefore horrifically expensive, dye to make. As a result, only the royal and wealthy could afford it. In roman records dating to 200 BC are notations indicating payment of the modern-day equivalent of almost $100,000 for what amounted to about one pound (about 450 grams) of this purple dye. The best quality of purple dye was extracted from a tiny sea creature called the murex snail. Approximately twelve thousand of these snails were required to produce less than two grams of this purple dye. For sure, due to demand, it wasnt long before a much cheaper, though far inferior, bluish-purple dye was developed, but aristocrats and royalty would never have used it, and rabbis prohibited this inferior dyes use for making the tekhelet. Mixed Threads Lets stop and think for a minute: Rabbis said the tzitzit was to be made from a mixture of wool and linen. Does that ring any bells? Interestingly, in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy the Lord commanded the Hebrews not to wear garments made from a mixture of different kinds of thread. Linen (which comes from the flax plant) and wool (coming from a sheep) were never to be used in the same article of clothing. Yet here the tzitzit was made of that forbidden mixture, which in Hebrew was called shaatnez. Making tzitzit using shaatnez a mixture of wool and linenis not specifically called out in the Bible. But very ancient Hebrew sages (and later, rabbis) precisely called for shaatnez , claiming it was that way from Moses day forward. Not long ago, some ancient tzitziyot were found in a cave in Israel, largely intact and dating back to the era of the Bar Kochba Rebellion (around AD 135). These tzitziyot verified the use of the woolen tekhelet, along with the white linen threads. Now heres what is interesting: two reasons were given by God for not allowing the Israelites to wear garments of mixed threads: (1) Doing so symbolized tevel, confusion. And (2) only priests
were allowed to wear shaatnez , garments with mixed threads. In other words, the mixing of threads was allowed only in priestly garments. Now let me show you the value of consulting with our Jewish friends, especially Hebrew scholars, when it comes to understanding certain OT passages in their proper context. Lets read one of the most poorly translated verses in the Bible. Please turn to Deuteronomy 22:9, and be aware that different versions will give different readings: You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, or all the produce of the seed which you have sown and the increase of the vineyard will become defiled (nasB). Simple enough. except theres a problem with the last word in that verse. The word that is translated as defiled is incorrect. The Hebrew word being translated here is qadash, which has nothing to do with being defiled. In fact, its meaning is the exact opposite; qadash means consecrated, set apart, to be made holy. Of the scores and scores of times qadash is used in the Bible, this is the one and only time that some respected Christian scholars chose to make this word mean the opposite of its usual and accurate meaning: holy. Jewish scholars better understand what is going on here, and so instead of defiled, Youngs Literal Translation uses separated (which is much closer but still doesnt quite get the point across). In other words, the problem with sowing two kinds of seed together (which is carried over to the prohibition of mixing two kinds of threads together) is that doing so makes them holy, and therefore fit only for temple service, which could be performed only by priests. This is not my own derived doctrine. rashi, Ibn ezra and other great Hebrew sages fully agree on this point. Are they correct in their interpretation? Well, I dont know that we can be absolutely sure, but this view is certainly based on a literal reading of the Scripture and their unparalleled understanding of Hebrew ritual. exodus 39:2829, while describing the sash of the ordinary priests and the high priests turban, or mitre, says this:
Numbers 15
142
They made] the turban of fine linen, and the decorated caps of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twisted linen, and the sash of fine twisted linen, and blue and purple and scarlet material, the work of the weaver, just as the Lord had commanded Moses. (nasb) The key is the second half of this verse couplet, where after of fine twisted linen, the word and is inserted before blue and purple and scarlet material, separating the fine linen from the colored material. When one looks at all the wording of the Law on making the priestly garments, this is an unusual word construction that departs from the normal and from all the other descriptions of how to make the priestly garments. Therefore, the ancient rabbis said this indicated that the blue, and purple and scarlet material was not linen, but in fact another material . . . and that material had to be wool because it was the only other material commonly used by the Hebrews to make garments. We could argue against this position if we wished and could say were straining gnats. The fact remains that the oldest Targums and other known ancient Hebrew documents clearly state that the priests sashes and the high priests grand head covering were made based on this principle of using two different materials. Why did the rabbis think the priests could do this but the Israelites in general could not? Because God had separated the entire tribe of Levi away from Israel. Technically, Levites were no longer Israelites. In fact, after this separation of Levi from Israel onward, God said that just as the Israelites were gerim (protected foreigners) to Him, so were the Levites gerim (foreigners) to the Israelites. The priests were different from the general Israelite population, and this fact is completely and plainly scripturally based, as Ive demonstrated to you a number of times in recent lessons. Why go through this long explanation of the tzitzit? Because tzitziyot were an exception to the Torah prohibition against the wearing of mixed fabrics. According to the rabbis this was because the tzitziyot were modeled after the spe-
cial priestly garments that no regular Israelite was permitted to wear. Otherwise, their garments would have become holy, and that was not permitted. The tzitzit represented the reality that God had declared all Israel to be, at some level or another, holy: You shall be holy, for I the lorD your God am holy (Lev. 19:2 nasB). Gr ades of Holiness Just as the high priests special head covering was shaatnez (made of mixed material) that thus was holy, so was the sash of the regular priest and the tzitziyot to be worn on the garment hems of ordinary Israelites. As we understand what is actually being stated, look at the amazing hierarchy that was set up: The high priests head was covered with the shaatnez ; the regular priests waist, or middle of his body, was covered with the shaatnez ; and the common person wore the shaatnez , in the form of tzitziyot, between his knees and ankles. High, middle, low. This represented gradients (various levels) of holiness. And this allowance (commandment of God, actually) for common Israelites to wear tzitziyot was the epitome of the instruction that Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (exod. 19:6 nasB). We have seen this model of gradients or degrees of holiness before. One of the prime models was the temple, where we had the highest degree of holiness present in the holy of holies chamber; the middle level of holiness in the holy place chamber; and the lower (but still holy) level of holiness in the outer court, where Gods ordinary people (members of Israel) might gather. This was a pattern, and thus we can expect to see this pattern reflected and demonstrated in a number of ways in the Holy Scriptures. By adding to the tzitzit the single blue woolen thread that signified royalty (adding it to the white linen threads surrounding it that signified the priesthood), the two were combined. every Israelite donned a symbolic measure of holiness; every Israelite had a measure of priest
Numbers 15
143
in him; every Israelite had been set apart, to one measure or another, to serve God. Tallith As to the more practical matter of just how the tzitziyot were worn, there is no doubt that they were originally attached to ordinary, everyday garments at the hem level. Down low. And I suspect they got filthy, stepped on, easily yanked off, you name it. So over time a separate garment was developed that was called a tallith; it was the tallith that held the tzitziyot. The tallith was a rectangular piece of cloth with a headhole in the middle, which, when worn, generally ended just below the waist on both the back and the front. The tassels, or tzitziyot, were attached upon the four corners of this tallith. The tallith was a kind of middle garment; not fully an undergarment, yet an outer garment like a coat was usually worn over the top of it, with the hem of the tallith (along with the attached tzitziyot ) showing. Later, some Hebrews (not all) further modified the tallith until it became a separate garment that we now call a prayer shawlsomething more like a large head covering or a portable
prayer booth. Tzitziyot were attached to the four corners of the prayer shawl. Depending on the sect, tzitziyot and tallith today are some combination or another of all the above. As I mentioned earlier, some sects wear them exposed, while some wear them beneath their outer garments. So when you say the word tallith to a Jew, be aware that he may not always be thinking prayer shawl. He may be thinking of that middle garment, often worn under his coat, to which his tzitziyot are attached. In modern times this under garment is also regularly termed an ephod. This exact scenario was in full operation in Jesus day, and the NT makes it quite clear that Jesus wore tzitziyot (this is what most english New Testament translations call fringe): A woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; for she was saying to herself, If I only touch His garment, I will get well. (Matt. 9:2021 nasb) When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent word into all that surrounding district and brought to Him all who were sick; and they implored Him that they might just touch the fringe of His cloak; and as many as touched it were cured. (Matt. 14:3436 nasb) We could reasonably debate whether the fringe of Yeshuas garment (tzitziyot ) was on a prayer shawl or attached to a middle garment or located at the bottom of the skirt/robe that was the typical dress of folks in that era. But what is not arguable is that this fringe was tzitziyot. There is no record of any other kind of fringe that Hebrews wore at the hem (except perhaps for Hellenist Jews of the elite classes who had adopted roman ways). Let me also point out that this practice was not limited to men. Women did, and do, observe the wearing of tzitziyot ; although, as one would expect, the practice varies from one Jewish sect
Numbers 15
144
to another. In general, the wearing of tzitzit by women was, and remains, a personal choice. It was so in Jesus day as well, and this is well attested to in documents from that era. How might this affect Gentile Christians? Well, as with so many things that we encounter in Torah that have evolved in practice according to a mixture of Scripture and tradition, just how Christians are to deal with this command is not entirely clear. Ive already stated to you that while ordinary Israelites could not wear clothing of mixed fabrics, the priestsaccording to all known documentscould and did. And consider what John said in revelation concerning our new position as believers before the Father, whether Jew or Gentile: John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His bloodand He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Fatherto Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Rev. 1:46 nasb, emphasis added) John stated that believers are as priests to God; just how literally we are to take that statement is debatable. I lean toward a more literal interpretation, in which at its most literal, we have been given a status similar to that of the priests of Israel; at its most metaphoric, we are priestlike in the sense that we are Gods servants in Christ. The point being that priests were not prohibited from actually wearing fabrics of mixed material. Any believer, Jew or Gentile, should take that into consideration when deciding whether or not the Torah command not to mix material in our garments is for us today. How-
Numbers 15
ever, the question of whether we can or should wear tzitziyot is another matter. I say this with confidence, though: at the very least, it is not wrong. The issues to consider are intent and the principle that is embodied in the commandment. What is your intent when wearing tzitziyot? The crosses or such that many of us wear are for some just a decoration, but for others these items are indeed reminders of who we are and who He is. The stated reason for wearing tzitziyot in Numbers 15 is to remember Gods Word and to obey His commands so that we dont go astray; which tells us we need to do things that constantly remind us that obedience to Him is key to our relationship with Him. However, to think that wearing a tzitzit, or a cross, or a Star of David is required for salvation or to stay saved, or that wearing one of these items gains us greater favor with God, or that it is a magic charm, is misguided. The issue of just what in the Law is a culturally based expression of Gods principles versus what is a nonculturally based expression is not always easy to discern. Obviously the prohibitions against adultery, stealing, lying, and murder are culturally neutral. Other things, like not wearing fabrics of mixed cloth, hairstyles, whether or not to wear a beard, and such, are deeply steeped in culture. So were each going to have to carefully consider whether or not the wearing of tzitziyot was intended to be a crosscultural expression, and thus whether or not the God principle behind tzitziyot can be legitimately expressed in other ways. What we wear does not, by all I can tell, give us a status boost with Yehoveh. The stated purpose for wearing tzitziyot is summed up in the three verbs (action words) that characterize verse 39 of Numbers 15: look . . . recall . . . observe. Looking at the tzitziyot recalls Gods commands to our minds, and thus we are to observe those commands.
145
Numbers 16
We concluded Numbers 15 by studying at some length Gods remedy for the tendency of the people of Israel to ignore His laws and commands. This casual approach that many in Israel had taken toward the newly given Laws of Moses was epitomized in the story of the man gathering sticks for a fire on the Sabbath. And the tragic result was that the man was executed for his offense against the Lords command not to make a fire, or to work, on the Sabbath. It is clear that the man had not actually started a fire; he had merely gathered the wood. Therefore, this story equally highlighted the principles that disobedience to God brings death, and that intent, even if the intended action was never fully realized, played perhaps the primary role in Gods determining the severity of a sin and therefore the attached consequence. The remedy God commanded was, in essence, a memory device. A visible reminder to every Israelite that God was serious about His laws, and that the consequences for disobedi-
ence could be severe. The tzitzit, what the english translations usually call fringe, was to be that memory device. every Israelite male was to wear tzitziyot ; tassels made of white linen threads, wrapped around a single blue woolen strand, and then attached to the corners of ones garment. Though the Scriptures do not specifically address the issue of women in this matter, it was apparently considered optional and allowable for women to attach tzitziyot to their garments. The desired effect of the tzitziyot upon the people was not at all supernatural. The tzitziyot carried no power and had no place in ritual. rather, they played upon the most powerful of human senses, sight, to achieve the goal of reminding the Israelites of the Torah commands so that they would not risk offending God and then have to suffer divine, or civil, punishment. But the tzitziyot were also a sign; a sign of holiness. Even more specifically, they symbolized a measure of nobility and a measure of priestly service that every Israelite was both honored to have and expected to maintain. The key to understanding tzitziyot is the fact that they were an exception to the prohibition against common Israelites wearing clothing made of two different kinds of material. The law was that one could wear all wool or all linen, but the two could not be mixed. However, after the tribe of Levi was separated away from Israel and assigned a special duty as Gods designated servants and priests, the high priest and the ordinary priests had a couple of items of clothing that were made from mixing wool and linen; this mixing of materials was called, in Hebrew, shaatnez. The tzitzit was the only item common Israelites could wear that was shaatnez , and it was the
Numbers 16
146
only item of its kind that could be worn outside the tabernacle grounds. The reason for this was the law that any holy item could be used only when in the precinct of the temple (or in Moses day, the wilderness tabernacle). Sacred items of any kind had to remain within the courtyard of the tabernacle or temple, because that was the only holy ground. If any sacred item were taken, or worn, outside of the holy precinct, that item would become defiled. The reverse was also true and had to be equally guarded against: any common item that was offered to God, or used in service for God, became holy. This presented its own set of problems and consequences. As we move into the next chapters of Numbers, we will find several of these principles found in Numbers 15 brought into play. Chapters 16, 17, and 18 of Numbers are one unit. They are really but one long story that Christian scholars long ago divided into more bite-size chunks that we call chapters. To avoid breaking up the story this extensively, were going to take the unusual approach of reading all three chapters in succession, without stopping for comment or study along the way. Then, after weve read them all, well go back and begin to dissect all that occurred in these verses. Before we begin, let me give you a little introduction as to what these chapters are about to help you know what to look for. Essentially, this is all about the indispensable nature and purpose of the priesthood and the uncompro-
mising place that the priesthood was intended to hold in Israels national life. The special place of superior holiness that the tribe of Levi possessed, with the subgroup within Levi called the priesthood at the pinnacle of the holiness hierarchy, was demonstrated by means of law and the telling of a story of rebellion against the God-ordained holiness hierarchy. When Yehoveh first gave the Laws to Moses at Mount Sinai, they were but idealistic theory to the people of Israel. Not only were those laws mostly a long list of dos and donts, rituals and observances, and crimes and punishments set down for Israel to obey, but the Israelites did not understood how these laws might apply to everyday life, or (in many cases) why they had to do (or to not do) these things in the first place. Further a major portion of the laws could not even be observed without Israel being in the Promised Land (in fact, some of the laws were even prefaced with the words after you enter the land). What possible useful purpose could some of these strange regulations (at least they were strange to typical Middle eastern society) serve? Many of the commands and ordinances seemed arbitrary and capricious and much too difficult to obey. Its similar to when we were teenagers preparing for our first drivers license. We had to read an annoying little book about the traffic laws and retain it long enough to pass the test so we could get our license and be able to participate in that American rite of passage into adulthood: driving a car. But the purpose of these traffic laws was often a mystery to us. In fact, many of them seemed to be rather ridiculous, so we had no plans to obey them when we finally got our licenses and actually started driving without Mom or Dad sitting next to us. For many of us, a series of tickets, fender benders, and insurance rate hikes was necessary before we got the message that (a) the laws are real and not just theory, and (b) the consequences for violating these lawswhether we thought them wise or stupidranged from irritating to severe.
Numbers 16
147
Its only when we step out and move forward, putting into practice those godly principles, that they become real to us and we begin to see their purpose and perfection. Its our experiences that solidify our trust and affirm our faith. Moses the Mediator The story were about to read begins with another in a series of rebellions by the people of Israel against God. Oh, they dont see it as rebellion against Yehoveh; they see it as rising up against mere men: Moses and Aaron. And what a mistake that perception was, as they would soon find out. As we read this story, always keep two things in mind: Moses was Gods mediator between mankind and God and Aaron was Gods high priest and another (but slightly lower-ranking) mediator. Think of it this way: Moses was the OT equivalent of Yeshua the Messiah. Of course that analogy can be carried only so far, but their primary common trait was that both Moses and Yeshua were Gods appointed mediators. They held a special status that no other men have held or ever will hold. Just as so many tolerant people in our day speak of respect for Jesus but not belief in His special role as Mediator and Savior, so the Israelites of Moses day generally had respect for Moses as a human leader, but many still did not grasp his supreme and unapproachable status as a divinely ordained mediator. Failure to understand the superior position that Moses held would cost many an Israelite his or her life.
Assignment: read Numbers 16, 17, and 18 (all in succession).
In other words, principles have to be put into practice to move from theory to reality. If the Law had been given to Israel and then they just sat there ensconced at the foot of Mount Sinai; if the Israelites had just gathered the manna God provided each day, looked up each morning at the majestic mountaintop upon which the Law was given, and raised their flocks and herds in peace and quiet, most of the Law would have remained only theory to them. They needed to move on, experience life, deal with everyday circumstances, face difficulties and challenges, endure hardships, stumble and fall, and make difficult and less-than-clear-cut choices in order for the wisdom and purpose of these divine principles to become real and for the Israelites to learn how to apply them so that Gods commands would become a settled matter in their minds and hearts. So it is for our Christian walk with the Lord. Its a journey, not a sit. If we accept Yeshua and then never move forward, accept risks, or take paths that look a bit fearful; if we just stay in a place of nothing but warmth and provision and comfort, then most of what Messiah wants us to know will be remain as only theory. A nice thought; a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The Rebellion of Kor ah As we begin chapter 16, we read of a people who had been demoralized by the reports of ten
Numbers 16
148
scouts and were rebelling out of fear. Yehoveh consequently punished the people by turning them back into the wilderness, and many remained disillusioned and unhappy, to say the least. even more, there had been a God-ordered division of duties and also a status change and setting up of rank and order within Israel that elevated some folks and lowered others. The situation was tense and beginning to spin out of control; and those men who were supposed to be leaders and helpers to Moses became antileaders and fomented rebellion. As we have all been witness of, if not party to, people on the edge of panic or despair are easily swayed by men anxious to use those fears to bring about personal agendas and hidden desires for power. Into this growing chaos stepped Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; their goal was to assume control of the power center of Israel, the priesthood. This was a rather interesting mixture of allies; Korah was a Levite from the line of Kohath. On the other hand, Dathan and Abiram were from the tribe of Reuben. So how did this unlikely brain trust get together? They were camped together on the south side of the Israelite encampment. They lived right next to one another, and their lives were thus mingled. Certainly the Levites lived on the more inner, and therefore holier, ring of tribes and clans that surrounded and protected the tabernacle. But the close proximity obviously brought these two groups into constant contact. Yet these werent the only ones involved in the coup attempt; we are told in verse 2 that 250 other men of Israelleaders from various other tribessided with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. It is clear from the account, though, that the Levite Korah was the chief instigator. In a short while well see that Dathan and Abiram, both being reubenites, had a little different agenda than Korah. But at the moment they were united in their accusations against Moses and Aaron, who were generally seen as a team (they were brothers, after all). And their accusation was that Moses and Aaron had taken too much power for themselves and set down
too many rules that put themselves and their families over the others. They also asserted that Moses and Aaron were self-appointed. What they next claimed was a direct result of what we read at the end of chapter 15 about the tzitziyot. By now all or most of Israel was wearing tzitziyot. And for some it went to their heads. They apparently grasped (though in a rather twisted way) that the wearing of tzitziyot brought them a measure of nobility and priestly status, and they wanted to cash in on it. So they said, Hey Moses, all the community is holy, not just you and Aaron. They deduced (for self-serving reasons, of course) that with the wearing of the tzitziyot, they were of equal status with the priesthood, and with Moses. Wrong. Now we begin to see why the Levite, Korah, was the one leading the charge. As a Levite from the clan of Kohath, Korah was not eligible to be a priest. Priests carried the most authority and a higher status, and so Korah was jealous. None of his clan were eligible to be priests. Let me remind you that just as the entire tribe of Levi was divided and separated from Israel, so was the tribe of Levi divided and separated into two groups: the priests, who came only from the line of Aaron; and the remaining Levites, who worked for the priests. Those remaining Levites, which included Korah, were guards, musicians, and transporters of the tabernacle when it moved, as well as maintenance workers on the tabernacle grounds. Never could they perform rituals or wear the priestly garb or enter the sanctuary tent, since all of these activities displayed a higher status than allowed for regular Levites. So from Numbers forward, the repeated phrase Levites and priests speaks of two different groups, each with different status levels, and therefore different gradients of holiness. Moses instantly devised a test as a means to demonstrate the superior holy status of the priesthood versus the inferior holy status of the remaining Levites and the still lower holy status of common Israeliteseven with the newly authorized wearing of tzitziyot. As part of the
Numbers 16
149
test, the group united against Moses and Aaron was to bring fire pans, or censers, filled with burning coals and incense, and present them to the Lord at the door of the sanctuary tent. Moses included a warning in this by telling Korah and his henchmen that it was not Moses and Aaron who had overreached their authority, but those who had stepped forward to challenge the men Yehoveh had installed as the leaders of Israel. The way the test worked was that God would permit access (presumably inside the holy place, the front room of the tent) to those whose incense He accepted. In other words, Korah wanted him and his men to be the priests, and the chief indication of a priest was that he gained access to God by means of being able to go inside the holy tent. The Law had already made clear that only priests were allowed to present incense to the Lord, and anyone else who attempted it would do so at their own risk. In verse 9 Moses tries to remind Korah and those Levites who were following him that God had already given them a great honor in being chosen and separated from Israel as His own servants, and that their service to the priests was the same as service to Him. And those Levites, even those assigned to the lowliest tasks, were a step above in holiness and privilege from any of the members of the other Israelite tribes. Then, in verse 12, the story takes a turn. Moses sent for Korahs partners in crime, Dathan and Abiram, members of the tribe of Reuben, and naturally they were defiant. Here we see that they had a bone to pick that was more with Moses than Aaron. Korah wanted the priesthood, and he was after Aarons job as high priest. Dathan and Abiram were after Moses job. Recall that Dathans and Abirams tribal founder, Reuben, was the rightful firstborn of Jacob, and by custom should have been handed the leadership of Israel upon Jacobs death. And then in the most blasphemous response (that illustrates just how far out of touch they were with God and His plans for Israel), Dathan
and Abiram said to Moses that the land flowing with milk and honey was not Canaan, but egypt. And that the only reason Moses had brought them out of egypt was so he could lord over them (something he couldnt have done there). Their accusations were finished off with an idiom of the day: Should you gouge out those mens eyes? (Num. 16:14 Jps), which corresponded to our modern pull the wool over their eyes. That is, they were accusing Moses of deceiving the people about the prospect of a better life and homeland in Canaan. It is often said that in Christianity that the one unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and there has been heated debate for centuries over just what blaspheming the Holy Spirit amounts to. Im not sure I can tell you; however, I do believe weve just been given a pattern, if not an outright example, of what that unforgivable sin looks like in action. The Lord had already redeemed Israel. The deed was done, and Israel was no longer in the hand of the enemy, egypt, but safely in Gods hands and being led by His appointed mediator, Moses. These rebellious leaders in Israel said they wished to give back their redemption and return to the hands of the enemy. I think you see where Im going with this. As believers, after we accept our redemption, we can with our own will, as several NT passages make quite clear, give back that redemption. Not accidentally. Not by committing some unknown sin, but by deciding in our minds that we desire what the enemy can, and has in the past, provided us (more than what our Savior and God has provided us). While this may not be the sum total of all that blaspheming the Holy Spirit amounts to, it is at least a good example. Satan is always tempting us and then accusing us when we fall prey to his temptations. His goal isnt to just be a thorn in our sides; the tempting is not merely to have us failing and then reconciling with God, again and again, driving us crazy. His real goal is to get us back. His end game is to get us to make the decision to give up our allegiance to Yehoveh and go back
Numbers 16
150
to subservience to the enemy, who had us until we made that decision to accept our redemption. And that is because in the same way that by our own will we first came to Yeshua, by that same will we must surrender our redemption. That ought to make us shudder when we think about what we do when, even in the secret places of our hearts (which God knows), we at times long to go back to the ways of the world and its pleasures and comforts we were used to. Or almost as bad, to mix the ways of the world that we have so enjoyed with the ways of the kingdom of God. Korah rejected his redemption. Korah rejected the priesthood of God, which was the only means to atonement. Therefore, Korah also rejected Gods method of atonement for his sins. Dathan and Abiram also rejected their redemption, and several dozen others rejected theirs right along with them. Were about to find out just what rejection of our redemption buys us. Notice that Dathan and Abiram were of the tribe of reuben. reuben was the natural firstborn of Israel, and by all rights should have been the natural leader and authority over Israel. However, a couple of hundred years earlier, Jacob rejected reuben and bypassed him and gave the firstborn rights to Judah and Joseph, for reuben had slept with Jacobs concubine. These descendants of reuben, after all this time, still had not accepted Gods will, given through Jacob, that they would not lead Israel. More than two centuries of bitterness was boiling over. The problem for Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was that God took this personally and nothing good ever happens when thats the case. We began a three-chapter block of Scripture in Numbers that seeks to make clear to all that the priesthood was central to Israels relationship with Yehoveh. The hierarchy of holiness set up by God was unchangeable: first with Levi being separated away from Israel for special holiness as His servants; and second with the Levites themselves being divided into two
groups called Levites and priests. What the Lord establishes, man does not change. In the story that began in Numbers 16, we found a general condition of upset and unrest among the people of Israel. They were demoralized by the faithless and cowardly report from ten of the twelve scouts and Israels leaderships subsequent decision to avoid the conquest of Canaan, their Promised Land. The people were emotionally unstable and wanted change; new leadership seemed to them like a good place to start. It is one thing for men to occasionally seek to remove one set of leaders and replace them with another; its quite another for men to try to usurp Gods will, as was the case with this rebellion. Korah, a Levite, was dissatisfied that the line of Aaron (a family line that was also from the tribe of Levi, but from a different clan than his own), which was the only family line that could be appointed as highly prestigious priests. even though the entire tribe of Levi was separated from Israel for special holiness and service to YHWH, the priests had been given an even greater degree of sanctification than the other Levites, with the high priest (then Aaron) being given the highest degree of holiness possible for any Hebrew (save for Moses). Korah was jealous and disputed this; he challenged Aarons position. He wanted the position for himself and wanted the priesthood to be more evenly distributed among other Levite clans. This was typical tribal society behavior, where tribes, and clans within tribes, were in a never-ending cycle of vying among themselves for dominance, status, and power. But the majority of the tribe of Levi (those who were not of Aarons clan) were not the only ones who had a serious ax to grind; two clan leaders of the tribe of reuben were challenging Moses for his job as the ultimate leader and authority over all Israel. The founder of the tribe of reuben (reuben) had been dead for at least three hundred years, so what Numbers 16 is referring to are his descendants. reuben, the firstborn son of Jacob, expected that he
Numbers 16
151
(and therefore his future tribe) would become the dominant tribe among the twelve tribes of Israel; as he also fully expected to have been awarded the leadership role over Israel by means of his birthright as the first son born to Jacob and thus receiving the customary blessings of the firstborn from his father. But Jacob rejected Reuben and refused to give him the firstborn blessing, and therefore, the authority of the firstborn. This humiliating act would impact reubens family (and eventual tribe) in a negative way from that moment forward. Instead, Jacob split the provisions of the firstborn blessing that should have gone to reuben, giving the right of leadership of the nation of Israel to Judah, and the right to inherit the largest portion of wealth to Joseph. reubens descendants (even after all this time) had neither accepted this humiliation nor gotten over the loss of leadership status they felt should always have been theirs. As a result, in Numbers 16 we find two tribal leaders of Reuben (Dathan and Abiram) challenging Moses position as leader of Israel; they wanted the job. Along with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were 250 leaders of other Israelite tribes who also wished to remove Moses and Aaron from their God-established positions and take over the leadership of the nation of Israel. Moses solution was to let God handle the disagreement by means of a public demonstration: each of these rebel leaders was to put hot coals onto a fire pan (also called a censer), lay incense on top of it, and then take the smoking mixture to the entry of the Tent of Meeting. Then God would in some undefined way settle the matter as to who would be those privileged few (priests) who would have access to the inner
chambers of the sacred tent, and who would have control over Israel.
Assignment: read Numbers 16:1635.
Korah and the 250 leaders, and apparently some number of the others (referred to as the whole community [v. 19 Jps], those who sided with the rebels), did as instructed and showed up at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting with their fire pans. Without doubt, the location where everyone gathered was not at the door that was the entrance to the sanctuary tent itself, but rather the gate into the tabernacle courtyard. Then the presence of God (kavod, or glory) appeared before everyone, and the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron and told them to stand aside, that He was going to annihilate everyone who was involved. Only Moses and Aaron must have heard Yehoveh speak, or certainly all these men would have turned pale and run for their lives. As had happened in the past, the mediator of Israel fell on his face and begged for mercy for these very men whose goal was to do away with Moses and Aaron in a coup. Further, in verse 22, Moses asked, Would you send your wrath on an entire community because one man sinned? (authors translation). Obviously this one man was Korah, the instigator of the whole mess. At least in Moses view it was Korah who had apparently stirred up Dathan and Abiram, who then helped Korah stir up the others. But understand what is being discussed here: the topic is collective punishment. Obviously not each man was guilty in
Numbers 16
152
exactly the same way as the others, nor was the level of participation universally equal among them all. Moses was both acknowledging and questioning this principle of collective punishment, and whether God was serious about acting on that principle in this case. This can all get a little confusing; the Bible keeps using the word community, but each time the word refers to a somewhat different group of people. Its not totally unlike our pointing to a group and saying these people, and then pointing to a specific part of that same group and again saying these people. The Hebrew term ha-edah, which is being translated here as community, is a rather all-encompassing and flexible term used to refer to most any assembly of people when they are of a common race, or performing a common action, or agreeing on a common decision. So the community that showed up at the Tent of Meeting with the rebels was made up of those who sided with the rebel leaders. The presence of the Lord appeared to the whole community (in Hebrew, kol ha-edah) so that everyone in the nation of Israel could see His presence. When God told Moses to stand back from this community because He was going to destroy them, He was referring to those rebels and their backers. When Moses asked God if He would destroy the kol edah the whole communitybecause of one mans sin, the word again referred to all of Israel. When we get to verse 26, where Moses told the community to stand away from the tents of the wicked men, the reference to community was to all those who did not stand with the rebels. This was emphasized when Moses told the innocent to dissociate themselves from the rebels, not to even touch any item that belonged to them, lest they wind up being collateral damage when the guilty were punished. We find this principle of separation woven throughout the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments. Believers must be separated from nonbelievers. Clean from unclean. Sinners from the saved. Sheep from the goats. Lot had to be separated from the pagans of Sodom or he would
Numbers 16
be collateral damage. The trick was to discern how and how much Gods righteous were to be separated from the unrighteous. The essenes (writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) of Yeshuas day took that principle to one extreme and created their own separate colonies with stringent rules of membership; they even established their headquarters out in the wilderness, far away from everyone else, at a place today called Qumran. Messiah, by the way, did not approve of this extreme kind of separation and said so. On the other hand, as believers we are directly told in the Bible not to associate with murderers, thieves, and those who do not belong to the Lord. We are to be in this world, but not of this world. Notice that we find several things going on at once in this episode. First, only Korah and the 250 leaders and their cohorts showed up at the Tent of Meeting for the demonstration test involving the fire pans and incense. Recall that Dathan and Abiram refused to come to this event when Moses summoned them. And since they were in essence saying that they and not Moses should be running the show, its easy to picture why they refused to respond when Moses sent for them: they were sending a message that they did not accept Moses authority, and neither should anyone else. So if you cant bring Muhammad to the mountain, you bring the mountain to Muhammad. Verse 25 says Moses rose ( Jps) and went with the elders of Israel (elders were the official representatives of the people of Israel) to the southern side of the encampment where Dathan and Abirams tribe was camped. Its important to remember that the tribe of Levi camped adjacent to the tribe of reuben, so they formed a kind of neighborhood. When Moses showed up at the tents of Dathan and Abiram, they came out to confront him, and Moses pronounced judgment upon them, saying, By this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things; that they are not of my own
153
devising: if these men die as all men do, if their lot be the common fate of all mankind, it was not the Lord who sent me. (Num. 16:2829 jps) In other words, if God didnt do something spectacular to them, then indeed they must have been correct all along: Moses was not the legitimate leader of Israel. Moses said that on the other hand, if the ground opened up and swallowed them, then it was obvious that they were wrong and death was their punishment. Well, no sooner had Moses finished speaking the last syllable than the ground suddenly and violently split open beneath the tents of Dathan and Abiram and those who had sided with them, and they all fell into the deep crevice and perished. The dead included the family of Korah and all those among his clan who had sided with him, includ-
ing women and children. even their tents and material possessions fell into the enormous split in the earth. In other words, every last vestige of these rebels lives, every evidence that they had ever existed, was wiped out by the hand of God in a moment of His wrath. All the Israelites who saw what happened (presumably the innocent ones) fled in a panic for fear theyd fall into the gaping crevice. The last verse of the chapter then changes location; were taken back from the south side of the encampment, where Moses had walked, to the east side and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. There Korah and the 250 men who had shown up with their unauthorized fire pans to challenge Gods established hierarchymen who had no business or sufficient status to even come near to Godwere burned alive by fire coming from Gods own presence. If this isnt
Numbers 16
154
a good picture of hell, the Lake of Fire, and the ultimate punishment of the unrighteous, I dont know what is. The rebels, their families, and everything they owned were purged from Israel because they had become unclean in Gods sight. recall that a few years earlier some other men had also offered strange fire to God, and they suffered the same fate: Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron. But Nadab and Abihu held the proper status and had a right to offer incense to God; these rebellious men, just destroyed, did not. The problem was that Nadab and Abihu offered coals from something other than the altar of burnt offering, which was the only place those coals were allowed to come from. So the sin against God perpetrated by Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and the 250 men was even worse than what Nadab and Abihu had done. In the case of Nadab and Abihu, only they suffered the divine wrath, for they acted only on their own behalf; in the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, their entire immediate families, as well as anyone who even agreed with what they were doing, were destroyed. Sheol Verse 33 says that all the rebels went down to Sheol. Sheol was the place of the dead, the grave. It was seen as a place that lay below the surface of the ground. Was Sheol contemplated in that era in the same way that we currently do, as a place where Satan and his demon henchmen dwell? As hell or Hades, a place of fire and eternal torment for lost souls? No, it was not. In fact the people werent at all clear what Sheol was, other than it was the grave and in it some kind of afterlife existed. They werent clear on what happened to the physical body in Sheol, after death, other than normal decomposition. They werent clear on what happened to the breath of existence that we usually call a soul after death. Well find throughout Torah that the Israelites were very worried about what happened to them after death because Sheol was seen as
everyones destiny, not just the wickeds. One of the worst things that could happen in Sheol was that worms could eat up ones body; that is what often was thought to be a divine punishment for those who had died in an unrighteous state. Why this inordinate concern of the Israelites about what happened to their bodies after death? First, they had no concept of heaven or going to live with God. remember, they thought as the egyptians thought; and egyptians spent their entire lives getting ready for death. Their afterlife was predicated on preservation of the physical body, hence the desire for embalming and a protected place for the corpse to remain. So although Israel didnt practice the death cult or body preservation of the egyptians per se, they did have in their minds the dilemma of just what would happen to them after their deaths and what to do about it and how to prepare for it. The primary point of the punishment expressed in this story (by falling into the crevice and going down to Sheol) was that these people died at Gods hand; or to sharpen that point a bit, they died prematurely as a consequence of their behavior. Dying before ones normal life span had been spent was seen as a terrible thing and was greatly feared. Choice of Redemption Last week I told you that one of the main lessons we should take from this is that redemption can not only be rejected in the first place; it can be given back at the will of the one who received it. Just as Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and hundreds if not thousands of their followers had determined to choose their old lives in egypt rather than remain in their redemption from egypt that they had already received from God, so it is with modern-day believers. The emphasis is on the word choose. All these rebels chose to go with Israel when they left egypt; they certainly were not forced to go. These same rebels chose to make for themselves new leaders who would take them back to egypt. They chose to give up their redemption. It works the same way
Numbers 16
155
for us. No one can take our redemption away from us, and there is no place we can go where it becomes invalid. Butjust as we choose to accept our redemption, we can choose to let go of it. Tragically, some countless number of people already have chosen, and many more will choose, to go back to Egypt. even more tragic is what happens to us when we do refuse, or we give back, our redemption, which is demonstrated in full living color here in Numbers 16. The consequence is that we are utterly and completely destroyed; there is no hope, there is no future. All that we worked a lifetime to build becomes as nothing. Perhaps worse is that (particularly as male leaders of our families and congregations) we have the ability to lead others away from their redemption. We can influence the decisions of others, and they could suffer the same fate we will because of our rebellion. A sobering thought, is it not? I am the real vine, and my Father is the gardener. Every branch which is part of me but fails to bear fruit, he cuts off; and every branch that does bear fruit, he prunes, so that it may bear more fruit. Right now, because of the word which I have spoken to you, you are pruned. Stay united with me, as I will with youfor just as the branch cant put forth fruit by itself apart from the vine, so you cant bear fruit apart from me. I am the vine and you are the branches. Those who stay united with me, and I with them, are the ones who bear much fruit; because apart from me you cant do a thing. Unless a person remains united with me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. Such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, where they are burned up. (John 15:16) every branch (every believer) that is part of Jesus but fails to bear fruit is cut off. And what happens to those cut-off branches that were at one time part of Messiah? They are thrown away, dried up, and then thrown into the fire where they are burned up. Pretty clear. Let me also show you another foundational God principle that is demonstrated here: not everyone is permitted to approach God. In fact, only the redeemed are allowed to come near to
the Lord. But even more, only the redeemed who are declared holy on some greater level can come near the Lord. On many occasions I have referenced Paul, John, and others in the NT who allude to believers being priests to the Lord, which is both figurative and literal to some degree. Yehoveh declared here in Numbers that only priests could come near to His presenceeven then only to a degree and based on status. regular priests were allowed to come near to Him but only so near; only the high priest was allowed to come closest to His glory and that was limited to one day per yearYom Kippur. Those who attempted to approach God but were not deemed by God to be priests were destroyed, as were Korah and the rest of his bunch. Why? Because they were not authorized to be in His presence. One of the many things that salvation accomplishes is to give us authorized access to
Numbers 16
156
God. By means of our belief in Yeshua, Jesus our Messiah, God authorizes us to come into a place that no others are allowed under any circumstance: near to Him. Notice the dynamic and hierarchy set up in Israel: Moses was the sole mediator. There was no access to God without going through Moses, the mediator. Those who tried to replace the mediator or determined to go around Gods appointed mediator werent just rejected, they were destroyed with no further hope of reinstatement. Yeshua, our Mediator, is our only possible access to God. We must come to Yeshua before we can come near to God. (No, Im not forgetting that Yeshua is God, but thats another inscrutable matter.) It was Moses who anointed the original priests in Gods name. It is Christ who must anoint us with the Holy Spirit, which acts as our official authorization to come near to God. Although, there is a limitation as to just how near to Him we are allowed in our present condition. even though He has given us new
and clean spirits, these bodies are still made of corrupt material; our minds still have evil inclinations. Therefore, we are told of a time when we will get new bodies made of uncorrupted material and new minds that will no longer remember the former days; then well be able to get even nearer to the Father. Its not clear if the writers of the NT simply saw a direct correlation between the ability of Levite priests to come near to God, and then with the advent of Jesus the new ability for common people (Hebrew or Gentile) to come near to God by means of Christ; and therefore from this understanding drew an analogy that we disciples of Yeshua are like priests in that regard. Or it may be that God actually and literally views us as His new and transformed priesthood. All that is open to discussion. But what I can tell you is that the pattern for how one is permitted to come near to the Lord was set up a long time ago, and the details of that pattern are explained, here, in the Torah.
Numbers 16
157
Numbers 17
Under the pile of charred human remains lay more than two hundred copper fire pans belonging to those rebels who presumed to disregard Gods requirement that only priests were allowed to offer incense to Him. Although, we have a problem; just as holy items could be defiled by being removed from the sanctuary grounds, common things that were not intended for sacred purposes could contract holiness by being offered to Yehoveh. It is very much like the principles of clean and unclean, whereby uncleanness could be transmitted from one thing or person to another like a contagious virus. The Lord ordered Moses to instruct eleazar the priest to perform the rather unpleasant task of sifting through all those charred bod-
ies and removing those melted fire pans that had become holy by means of being offered to God in His presence. Notice in verse 2 that the coals used in those rebels fire pans had to be removed from the area (the area being the tabernacle courtyard) because the coals were not taken from the great altar of burnt offering (which was a requirement for offerings to the Lord that involved fire). These were common coals that each of the rebels had brought with them from the campfires of their own encampments. Therefore, these coals were to be taken away from the holy area and disposed of. But the fire pans, which had contracted a measure of holiness that they were not authorized to have, had to be dealt with in another manner. The solution was to hammer them into a lid for the fire basket of the altar. This served two purposes: (1) it served the practical purpose of keeping the banked coals of the altar hot overnight; and (2) it served as a reminder to the people of what happened when an unauthorized person encroached on the sacred area. So we see yet another pattern emerge: God often set up ordinances and regulations as reminders to His people to obey Him. Why were the people to wear tzitziyot? When the man gathered sticks for a fire on Shabbat, he failed to observe one of Gods appointed times and thus paid the ultimate price: loss of both his physical and his spiritual life. The Lord commanded the wearing of tzitziyot as a visual aid to help others avoid the same fate. As every Israelite would regularly have to visit the tabernacle with sacrificial offerings, he or she would see the lid for the altar made of the fire pans of those rebels who were burned up for thinking so little of Gods priesthood, and so remember what happened. The people would
Numbers 17
158
be reminded of what would happen when mere men presumed to declare who or what was holy outside of what God declared. More Complaining But wouldnt you just know it: even with the stench of those smoldering bodies lingering in the air, much of the community of Israel still didnt get it, and so they set up a protest rally against Moses and Aaron. This would be absolutely hilarious if it were not so dangerously, and irreverently, foolhardy. They said to Moses and Aaron, You have brought death upon Gods people. Amazing. As I have attempted to demonstrate on numerous occasions, we must grasp that the Israelite people were at this time more egyptian than Hebrew in their thinking. All the Middle East believed in sorcerers and priests whose job was less a matter of serving their gods than it was figuring out how to manipulate those gods for their own purposes. It was the same in egypt, where it was believed that a good priest or magician could cause one god or another to do his bidding. That thought also formed much of the basis of the Hebrew thinking about God in that era. So even though the people well knew that Moses and Aaron hadnt personally set fire to those 250 leading men at the gate to the tabernacle, nor had they themselves caused a great split in the earth to open and swallow up all those men and their families, the people did believe that Moses and Aaron had manipulated God to do it for them. You know, kind of like hiring a heavenly hit man. And sadly, another lesson was necessary. Once more the people rebelled, and once more the presence of God appeared and announced His intention to wipe out this large group of protesters. Was Gods plan to annihilate all Israel? No, just the rather large contingent of those who felt that it had been unjust of YHWH to destroy the 250 at the tabernacle and also those hundreds, or perhaps thousands, who fell into a great crevice in the earth. Once more Moses and Aaron fell on their faces (this indicated prayer) and pleaded with God not
to destroy what likely amounted to scores of thousands of people. And once more God told Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from these people because there would be divine retribution. The Command to Be Separ ate Why was it that God kept telling Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the community of those He planned on punishing? Would God wipe away the good people right along with the evil ones? Answer: Absolutely! Does that thought shock you or bother you a little bit? Do you believe that? Well, I certainly hope you do. We have example after example of it in the Word. This is the way it worked: if they did not separate themselves from the wicked, the righteous were affected by the same outpouring of wrath or natural disaster that destroyed or affected the wicked. In Genesis, as messed up in his thinking as Lot had become, he was still considered sufficiently righteous as to not be counted among the wicked of Sodom. Yet Lot had to be literally dragged out of the city by two angels; otherwise, he would have been destroyed when the city was destroyed by fire from heaven. Lots wife didnt separate herself sufficiently from the city (even though she was given that opportunity), and when she stopped to look back and yearn for what she left behind, she was turned into a pillar of salt. When the Lord determined to destroy the earth in a great flood, He first instructed Noah to build an ark to save his family. The Flood was completely indiscriminate; it killed everybody. Only those who chose to obey God and separate themselves from the wicked escaped. Back in Egypt, God killed all the firstborn of every man and every animal throughout Egypt. It didnt matter whether the firstborn was Hebrew, egyptian, Syrian, Arabian, or whatever. It didnt matter whether this was a good man or an evil man. If you were a firstborn, you would die. Except . . . God provided a means for those who trusted Him enough to
Numbers 17
159
separate themselves from the national disaster. They had to paint the blood of a lamb on the doorposts of their homes. The blood served as a barrier (a dividing line) between them and the others, and so they were passed over. As believers, when we stay attached to the wicked ways and wicked people of this world, we put ourselves at serious risk of being collateral damage when God judges the world. Let me be clear: by attached to, I mean identified with. That is, we identify with their ways and their thinking; we agree with it. Can you be a believer and still agree with much of the ways of world? You bet you can, and we see it every day. What the Lord was explaining here was not that were supposed to go off and create exclusive Christian communities apart from all other communities; its that any time and every time we must demonstrate with our actions whether we stand with the world or we stand with the Word. We must be willing to separate ourselves or risk the divine consequences. In case you havent noticed, that
The Need for a Mediator How many spiritual people say that there is no need for a Mediator; that they have earned
Numbers 17
is becoming harder and harder to do. The more obedient we are, the more we are labeled as fanatics and fundamentalists. Were jeered at and told were just backward and ignorant. But lately were starting to be looked at as dangerous. Were not tolerant enough. If we speak out against abortion and homosexuality, were full of hate. If we dont agree with Israel giving up their inheritance to the Palestinians, then were Zionist wackos who threaten world peace. Will you respond when God calls for you to be separate? Or will you remain identified with all the familiar and comfortable ways of the majority? I implore you to back away from any identification with that which God calls wicked, because at any moment judgment could fall on you as an innocent bystander.
160
the right to be in Gods presence. Usually they verbalize this by saying, Im a good person, or Ive lived a good life. Some years ago I went on a number of home visitations with a wonderful assistant pastor, and was given a firsthand look at this stumbling block in action. I would say that of the many homes we visited, and the many people we shared the gospel with, only a tiny fraction actually denied that there was a God. Yet when they were asked if they thought they were going to go to heaven, the majority of those who said they believed in God said yes, they did think they were going to heaven. reason: Ive done more good things than bad things. A few of these people listened to what we had to say and accepted that they needed a Savior. A Mediator. And His name is Jesus. But most insisted that they did not need a Savior, they could save themselves. This was exactly what Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and all their rebellious followers were declaring: We can do it ourselves, our way. We can declare ourselves to be holy. Divine Plague When God destroyed those rebels, many of the people of Israelfriends and relatives of the now-deceasedblamed Moses and Aaron. They decided that Moses and Aaron had caused these deaths, when in fact they had actually pleaded to God for mercy on these rebels. Moses and Aaron also were thought to have caused the fire and the earthquake by manipulating God to cause these disasters for them. Although the terrifying demonstration of divine wrath had indeed destroyed many rebels, the rebellious mind-set of Israel remained intact. God was about to spring into action yet again.
A plague of some sort broke out among the people of Israel. What it was we dont know; we do know its source was divine, however, and the people started dying immediately. Just as fire pans, censers, were the instruments used to foment this rebellion, a fire pan was the instrument used to atone for the peoples sin against God. Aaron took coals from the brazen altar and put them on his fire pan, placed incense on top it, and literally ran to the midst of the people to make atonement for their foolish rebellion. But for 14,700 Israelites, it was too late. And since biblical population counts invariably include only males, the total number including females and children was likely closer to 50,000 souls who perished in what must have been a matter of minutes. As high priest, Aaron was forbidden to come into contact with the dead; apparently he carefully avoided all those dead bodies as he worked his way to stand between the dead and the living. However, his close proximity to so much death would have meant he became defiled.
Numbers 17
161
recall that at the beginning of chapter 17, eleazar, son of Aaron, was the one chosen to sift through the human remains of those who had brought unauthorized fire to the tabernacle and presented it to the Lord, in order to retrieve the fire pans that had contracted holiness. While touching dead bodies defiled priests, they were not entirely prohibited from coming into contact with the dead; the high priest was forbidden altogether from touching a corpse. That was why eleazar had to perform the chore. The seriousness of the situation, with the community of Israel being in rebellion and under the curse of a plague, required Aaron himself, as high priest, to make atonement; where danger to life was involved, the defilement he suffered in order to save countless thousands of Hebrew lives was necessary. The end of verse 14 lays the blame for this terrible incident directly on the shoulders of Korah. Please note that Satan, while active on earth since the time of Adam and eve, was not blamed, as the modern church tends to do too much. Its not that Satan is blameless or harmless; its that we are not somehow helpless against Satans temptations. We can resist the devil. We can choose to obey the Lord, and not succumb to Lucifers direction. What Korah fell subject to was his own evil inclination; that is what most of us do, most of the time, when we sin against Yehoveh. Take note: If one man could lead thousands astray (as did Korah) how easy would it be for one man to lead another manor his wife, or his childrenaway from the Lord? Korah was the anti-mediator, the anti-Moses. What a terrible fate awaited that man who deceived and rebeled and on his account led others into rebellion, and perhaps even into eternal destruction. In verse 15 (CJB), were told that Aarons offering of incense worked, God relented, and the plague ended as quickly as it had begun. The issue that was at the heart of all this rebellion was obviously still not a settled matter: Who would be Gods set-apart servants? The Levites or some other group of Hebrews? The
people needed further persuasion, and so yet another test was devised: the test of the sticks. The Test of the Sticks The stick was a staff. The possessor of the staff was the possessor of tribal leadership. Therefore, there was only one official stick, or staff, per tribe; the tribal prince had control over it. The Hebrew word used for stick, or rod, or staff is matteh, which is also used to mean tribe. So there was great significance in the test that was to come because it would use the tribal matteh to represent each tribe. Quite literally, each tribe was going to be set before the Lord, and He would indicate which one He wanted to represent and serve Him. Of course, what we can all understand in hindsight is that what was about to occur was not a decision, but an affirmation of what had already been ordained. So each tribal prince presented his staff with the tribes name engraved upon itto Moses; then Aaron presented his staff representing the tribe of Levi. A total of thirteen staffsthirteen tribeswere represented. The Lord said He would use the staffs as a means of demonstrating once and for all just who His anointed servants were. The staffs were then placed inside the holy of holies, before the ark
Numbers 17
162
of the covenant that held the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. The reason for this location was that the Lords presence was said to dwell above the ark. The symbolism was that the twelve tribes plus Levi were presenting themselves to God for His will to be displayed. The Lord would reveal His will by causing the matteh, the tribal staff, of the tribe He chose to be His servants to sprout. Of course, this was quite a miracle, for something that was long deada dried and hardened staffwas going to be made alive. The staffs were left overnight, and the following morning Moses entered the tent sanctuary and found Aarons staff, representing the tribe of Levi, in bloom. It had not only sprouted, but it produced blossoms and even fully formed almonds. Moses took all the staffs outside the tent, asked each tribal leader to identify his own staff, and in the process verified that Aarons staff had budded. Game over.
Tsits
It is interesting to see various connections emerge between what went on with Aarons budding staff and earlier ordinances of God.
The Hebrew word for bud or blossom is tsits. It is the same root used for a word we studied only a couple of chapters earlier, tzitziyot, which indicated tassels, or fringe. even more, tsits was precisely the same Hebrew word used for the gold-plated headband that was attached to the front of the high priests mitre, his ritual headpiece. The words holy to Yehoveh were written on this gold plate, or tsits. So the buds on the staff, the high priests golden head plate, and the tassels worn on the corners of all Israelites garments were all interrelated. In varying degrees, they all represented some aspect of a divinely declared holiness. Notice that the design of the menorah, the holy candelabra of the tabernacle, also incorporated almond blossomstsits in its hammered gold construction. There has been much speculation as to why almonds and why almond blossoms. The only real answersif they are correctcome from Hebrew tradition. One possible answer is that the almond was the first tree to blossom after the winter. It was the first to come alive after a season of death or dormancy. Further, an almond bears a white blossom, and white represents purity, holiness, and even God Himself. Fearing God The tribal leaders finally recognized, and at least to some degree accepted, the position of the Levites, and so did the people. But people at times go off the deep end and make assumptions that are not true, and in verse 27 we see the Israelites do just that. They now recognized the gravity of their questioning God and of their rebellion against Moses and Aaron and the priesthood in general. Having witnessed the fire incinerate 250 of their top leaders; the earth open up and swallow entire blocks of tents, people, and all their possessions; and finally a plague erupt that killed thousands in a matter of minutes, the Israelites were too terrified to go anywhere near the wilderness taber-
Numbers 17
163
nacle. They had seen with their own eyes that any unauthorized person who dared to venture near the tent would be destroyed. Yet, how were they going to carry out Gods ordained sacrifices in order to atone for their sin, or to simply be obedient to Him, if they couldnt go to the tabernacle where the brazen altar resided?
Obviously, what was being taught here was not that the people couldnt even go to the tabernacle. But the first step of the lesson had been achieved: the people feared God and now believed it was a bad idea to challenge the authority of His earthly agents Moses and Aaron.
Numbers 17
164
Numbers 18
Levite Duties The Lords answer to the fear of the Israelite general population to go near the tabernacle was that the tribe of Levi would bear the guilt if an unauthorized person encroached on the sacred tabernacle. It was up to the tribe of Levi to guard the wilderness tabernacle and ensure that the only people who entered were those allowed to be there or allowed to perform certain ritual functions there. If someone got by them, by accident or on purpose, the responsible Levite would bear the guilt and the punishment. Further, the regular priests responsibility was to keep an eye on the regular Levites (the nonpriest part of the tribe of Levi), to make sure they did only what God had authorized them to do within the sanctuary area, and no more. If a Levite fouled up and accidentally or carelessly touched a sacred ritual object (a definite no-no), then the priests, who were the supervisors, would bear the guilt, right along with the man who did wrong. After all, the Levites ought to know better, so they were without excuse. Priests must also monitor other priests. The priesthood had a hierarchy within itself. It was not just the high priest at the top of the ladder, with all other priests as coequals. rather, there were higher and lower priests. In fact, in some of the ancient Hebrew documents, there is reference to the high priests (plural). This does not mean the high priestthere were not multiple high priests at the same time. rather, it refers to the more senior priests who were at the top end of the priest management structure.
In the end, this system was for the benefit of the people. When the people trespassed on Gods holiness, His justice demanded that the nation of Israel feel His wrath. This entire organizational structure led to the creation of an army of Levite guards to protect the tabernacle; they had authority to kill on the spot if necessary. Yet, in Gods economy, this was an act of mercy, designed to protect Israel as a whole from divine punishment. Later, in the NT, well hear of the temple guard and their involvement with the arrest of Jesus; this temple guard was composed of Levites, not roman soldiers as is sometimes erroneously portrayed. In verse 6 were reminded of the all-important principle that not only was the tribe of Levi divided and separated away from Israel, but that those common Levites were divided and separated from the priests. And the purpose of the Levites was to serve the priests, not as house slaves or personal servants, but as manual labor for the needed tabernacle maintenance, transportation, and guard duty. Sacrifices and Offerings in Support of the Priests While almost all of what follows about sacrifices and offerings has been given to us before scattered throughout Leviticusit is repeated here in a more systematic and orderly way. This information is given in response to the series of tragedies that had just occurred: the refusal of the scouts who went into Canaan to lead the people into the Promised Land; the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath being executed; Korah leading many of the Hebrew leaders in rebellion and thousands of Israelites being destroyed; and then the unnamed plague that
Numbers 18
165
was brought upon those Israelites who complained that it was unjust for Moses and Aaron to bring about judgment (several thousand more died as a result of that). All of these things came about, essentially, because the people and the leaders didnt submit to Moses and Aarons leadership, nor did they accept the special role of the priesthood and the set-apart nature of the tribe of Levi. Therefore, now that those who led that rebellion, along with those who followed, had been purged from Israel and a proper awe of God and respect of His chosen leadership and institutions had been established, the Lord would reiterate what He expected of the priesthood and what the peoples response to the authority of the priesthood should be. So we get a listing of those things offered as sacrifices and tithes from the people as pay-
ment to the priests and Levites. A lot of what was spoken here was intended to be instituted not immediately, but only after the Israelites had finally conquered Canaan and set up residence there. But the gist of the instructions was that the priests families were allowed to eat of the portion of the offerings to God that the priests were allowed to eat, if the families were ritually clean. The whole idea here was that while the regular Israelites were expected to grow crops and raise sheep, goats, and so on, the tribe of Levi was expected to serve the Lord in the form of ministering to the people. Therefore, in return, the people were to financially support the tribe of Levi. remember, when Israel entered the Promised Land, Levi was to have only forty-eight villages to live in. They didnt get sovereign territory of their own, so they really had little to no means to support themselves. The Levites Tithe We also find, interestingly enough, that priests were exempt from paying a tithe on what they received as payment. However, the regular Levites were not. Whatever the regular Levites received as their share of tithed produce and meat and money, they must return a tenth to the priesthood as their tithe. And this was because, in the end, the priests ministered to the Levites just as they ministered to the common Israelites. Further, while most of what was given to the priests in the form of food must be eaten on the tabernacle grounds because it was holy and holy items could not be removed from the holy precinct, once the Levites had given back to the priests the tenth (their tithe) of what they had received for pay, they could then remove the remaining portion from the temple area and eat it anywhere. That is, the act of tithing for the Levite removed the holiness from the remaining portion of their pay; what had been holy became the same as common food, and was given a different status than when it had been offered to the Lord. Get it? The holy sta-
Numbers 18
166
tus of the food was removed by means of tithing. Understand, this was a beneficial thing for the Levites. Because if this process didnt happen, they would have been in constant violation of removing and eating holy food outside of the holy tabernacle area; further, they would not have been able to feed their families with this food. Holiness Lets finish up by discussing holiness for a few minutes. Too often modern believers have little idea what holiness actually is. The NT asserts the idea of holiness but doesnt actually explain holiness; fortunately, the Torah does. Typically, within the church, holiness is seen primarily as some kind of pious behavior on our part: we act especially nice; we give more; or we bow our heads and clasp our hands in a certain way. We say I love you and God bless you to people. We pay our taxes honestly and give our full tithe at church. And while our behavior is important, holiness is much more about our personal condition and status. It is a status bestowed by God and God alone. He sets up the rules and boundaries. He decides who and what is holy, on His terms. Holiness and uncleanness, from the standpoint of Torah, are closely connected because although they are nearly opposite in status, they behave in a similar manner. For one thing, both holiness and uncleanness are contagious. More, both holiness and uncleanness can be dangerous. Therefore, the brazen altar, which carried a very high degree of holiness, infected with holiness whatever touched it. The meat offered on the brazen altar (itself then holy) transmitted its holiness to the vessel it was cooked in. Thus, metal pots had to be thoroughly cleaned after cooking sacrificed meat, and clay pots had to be destroyed because it was impossible to scour the holiness out of the porous clay material. The danger here was an inadvertent transfer of holiness from the holy meat to the pot, and then to whatever was next cooked in it.
After Aaron had finished his ritual duties and taken off his high priest garments, he was required to wash himself; otherwise, the holiness of the high priest garment that covered Aarons skin was liable to be transmitted to the common garment he would then wear. Holiness was dangerous if acquired by someone who was not authorized to acquire it. Priests could not perform their duties unless they were in a clean state, lest they touched a holy device and defiled it with their uncleanness. In our just-finished series of rebellion stories, we found unauthorized people (meaning people whom God had not anointed with holiness) offering unauthorized incense in a holy place to a holy God. They were destroyed because (a) they disobeyed and encroached on holy ground, and (b) they acquired holiness due to their nearness to God that they had no business acquiring. Yet priests, who were authorized holiness by Yehoveh, could offer incense in a holy place, to a holy God, safely. The principle was that whatever was holy must never be used for a common purpose, in a common place. Therefore, whatever was made holy must stay within the holy precinct of the tabernacle. Conversely, whatever was common must not be offered to God or brought into a holy place; otherwise, what was common would acquire holiness and then must be destroyed because it was not meant to be holy. Even though those fire pans of Korah and his cohorts were presented to God in an unauthorized manner, they still acquired holiness because of their nearness to the Lord. So in this case (rather than having the fire pans destroyed), God chose to have those fire pans melted down and formed into a protective lid for the altar, as a sign, a warning, to Israel; He permanently kept that holy metal inside the holy precinct. The coals used for the fire pans had also contracted holiness. The solution here, however, was that the coals had to be scattered, away from the tabernacle, and not used at all for anything. They could not be used to start a new fire; they had to be done away with. Had
Numbers 18
167
those coals been used to start a new fire, the coals from that new fire would have contracted an unauthorized holiness. Lets read what Ezekiel said about holiness: He said to me, This is the place where the priests shall boil the guilt offering and the sin offering and where they shall bake the grain offering, in order that they may not bring them out into the outer court to transmit holiness to the people. (Ezek. 46:20 nasb, emphasis added) Not everyone was created for holiness, nor was everyone created for the same degree of holiness. Also, those who were not created for holiness were not entitled to holiness. And those who were entitled to only a certain level of holiness could not be allowed to accidentally receive more. Therefore, holiness had to be protected and guarded. Heres the thing: holiness was a very serious and complex matter. There are literally scores of references to the holiness of the believer in the New Testament. Yet for some reason, we take notice of the parts that sound nice, and allegorize or spiritualize the rest. Or, just as problematic, we read the words but dont bother to inquire what they mean. If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. (Rom. 11:16 nasb, emphasis added) Paul made an assertion in the above Scripture that if a piece of a batch of dough was holy, then the entire batch was holy. And if the root of a tree was holy, then the branches attached to that treeas well as, if we read further in romans about the branches grafted onto that treewere holy. Thats all well and good, but by what God principle did the batch of dough, and the branches of the tree, become holy just because a bit of the dough, or a root of the tree, was holy? Paul didnt even bother to explain his assertion. That was because Jews made up a good portion of his audience. They
understood well the Torah principle that holiness (and uncleanness) could be transmitted by means of contact. It was an immutable spiritual law. The Lord said to him, Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (Acts 7:33 nasb, emphasis added) This NT passage recalls Moses standing before the Lord at the burning bush. Moses was told to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. Why? Because removing your shoes when standing before the Lord was a sign of respect? Perhaps, but thats not the chief concern in this passage. No, rather, Moses was required to remove his sandals because the holiness of the holy ground Moses stood upon would have been transferred to Moses sandals; and in turn, that holiness would have been transmitted to whatever those sandals contacted, wherever Moses walked. Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the Lord of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them. And there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts in that day. (Zech. 14:21 nasb, emphasis added) What in the world does that mean? Well, it all had to do with what happened when you cooked sacrificial meat in a cooking pot: the pot became holy because of the transference of holiness from the holy meat. And then the pot had to be cleaned or broken so that holiness would not be accidentally transmitted to whatever else was cooked in it. But the verse quoted above from Zechariah is speaking of a time when holiness was universal among Israel, and every Israelite who used that pot would have been entitled to holiness. Therefore, it was okay if that holiness was transmitted from that pot to other foods, and from the foods to the person who ate it, because the danger of accidental transmission of holiness no longer mattered since all were entitled to have it.
Numbers 18
168
Are you beginning to get the picture? Holiness has a wide universe of aspects that we probably had known nothing about because we hadnt studied the foundational part of Gods Word. Therefore, some skewed ideas of what seemed to be difficult NT passages have resulted. The concept of transmissible holiness (and uncleanness) was behind the reason that Paul told men not to join themselves to prostitutes. Why? Because holiness could be transmitted in the joining together of a holy male to an unholy female, or vice versa. And just as important, because the uncleanness of the prostitute could be transmitted to the holy male, that uncleanness would therefore defile Gods holiness that was in him. Plus, the joining violated the principle of shaatnez , the prohibition of illegal mixtures. This seems to have held true even for married couples to some unexplained degree. read this NT passage: A woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified [meaning separated for God, made holy] through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:1314 nasb, emphasis added) The above is an example of one of those terribly difficult sayings of Paulsayings that even the Apostle Peter said were hard to understand. Paul made yet another assertion in this passage (and again with no explanation), which leads me to believe that he was applying some underlying and understood Torah principle to this situation, but something that was also not understood outside of Hebrew society. Paul was in Corinth, a Gentile nation; and Gentiles had a very hard time ferreting out commonly known principles that were part of a Hebrew society but were unknown to Gentile society. The bottom line and end point of this passage is that whether an unbeliever married a believer, or two unbelievers married and later one became
a believer, God accepted the marriage as legal in His eyes. Thus all children born from the union would be legitimate and not unclean mamzer, or bastards. Thus there was no legal requirement from God that the marriage be ended. The problem is that it would have been awfully easy for Paul to simply say that in this situation God saw the marriage of a believer and unbeliever as legal. But he didnt. Instead, he invoked some understood principle (understood to him) as a means to explain the principle that a believing spouse united with an unbeliever conferred sanctification upon the unbeliever; for that reason the marriage was legal, and the righteous believer would not lose his righteousness before God. But what biblical principle was at play under which the unbelieving husband was made holy by means of his marriage to the believing wife? How were the unclean offspring made holy? First Paul said this was an authorized union between a man and a woman. This was marriage, a husband and a wife who became as one flesh in the manner God prescribed. While it was strongly recommended against, it was not necessarily a sin for a believer to marry an unbeliever. One possible explanation of why the sanctification of one spouse being conferred upon the other was possible in the eyes of Paula rabbi thoroughly trained in the Lawwas that he knew the holiness of the believing spouse would perhaps be transmitted to the other through natural and God-approved contact (likely, in the context of his meaning, sexual intercourse). And the resulting children, a biological product of this contact, would also contract that holiness. Paul apparently saw this kind of transmission of holiness as a blessing and not a danger. There is yet one other possibility as to why Paul believed the holiness of a believing spouse was somehow attached to the unbelieving spouse, and then further transmitted to their offspring. All your concentration will be required to understand this better explanation of the very strange and startling principle Paul was speaking about.
Numbers 18
169
We have to go back to our study of tzitzit to understand this principle. Tzitziyot were tassels that employed an exception to a rule: they were made of an otherwise illicit mixture of wool and linen, yet God commanded that His people wear tzitziyot as a reminder of Gods holy commandments. Some parts of priestly garments contained shaatnez (an illicit mixture), and this, too, was God-ordained. Interestingly, we find that wearing this mixture of fabrics in the form of a tzitzit conferred a certain measure of holiness upon the wearer. In fact, it was the new practice of wearing tzitziyot that led Korah to tell Moses that all of Israel was holy, not just Moses, Aaron, and the priesthood. essentially, the product of the mixture of illicit materials in the case of a tzitzit was the conference of holiness upon the wearer. Here we find a similar occurrence in marriage; the examples Paul gave were of the illicit
mixture of an unbeliever and a believer. But . . . this mixture was acceptable to God if it occurred within the God-ordained institution of marriage. The marriage was still shaatnez , a mixture that was not supposed to occur in Gods eyes, yet the product of the mixture was a legal union, both spouses attained a measure of holiness, and the children were accepted as clean and legitimate. Although this brief discussion on holiness may have brought as many questions as answers, at the least, I hope you can see that holiness is a far greater matter than merely outwardly pious behaviors or nice sayings. And that there are serious spiritual consequences when we misuse and abuse the holy status we have been granted as a result of our trust in Yeshua HaMashiach; therefore, we must guard and protect that holiness (which has been graciously granted to us through Yeshua) with all our mind, soul, and strength.
Numbers 18
170
Numbers 19
We have discussed holiness. It is a much more expansive and controversial issue than one might have thought, isnt it? What makes it controversial is not that the Bible doesnt give us sufficient detailed and consistent information that well defines the essence and operation of holiness, but rather that men have chosen to ignore and disregard entire sections of the Bible and take only from the remainder their definitions for most things, holiness being one of them. Therefore, the concept of holiness has been greatly watered down and made passive.
How did it strike you to learn in Numbers (and exodus and Leviticus as well) that holiness and uncleanness can be transferred from a person to an object, from an object to another object, and from a person to another person by physical contact? Or that holiness can be dangerous? Or that only some people are authorized to have holiness and that those who are not are subject to grave consequences if they go ahead and contract (or attempt to contract) holiness anyway? That is a hard teaching, but let me remind you that we are reading the Bible, not someones commentary. Its there in full living color, blunt and unequivocal. Its really a matter of whether or not we accept what it says. Be forewarned: weve not yet learned all the Bible has to say about holiness, nor does holiness stand alone as an attribute of God. Other factors, such as His omniscience, justice, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, and wrathto name just a fewplay roles and all work together. God never acts one-dimensionally; that is, only in justice or only in mercy or only in wrath. Yet there is no way to understand each of these aspects of the Lord without untangling them, and then isolating and examining them as best we can. And while holiness is simply asserted as fact in the New Testament, we find holiness explained and defined in the OT, primarily the Torah. The Perfection Process of Believers
Numbers 19
Because of the era the church has been immersed in for almost two thousand years an era that is undoubtedly drawing to a close the mission of the church has generally been to grow through evangelizing, and the job of fulfilling that mission has been accomplished,
171
overall, quite well. Unfortunately, what seems to have suffered along the way is the maturation process (what Paul called the perfecting) of the individual believer. Those who wish to move forward into deeper faith and knowledge havent had a lot of encouragement or support. Its a little like a community with a burgeoning population that focused on building excellent new elementary schools for the children; but as the children matriculated through each grade, so many resources were spent on the elementary level that the community neglected to build a high school. So at some point there was no choice but to repeat the same educational material over and over again, perhaps in slightly different form and style in what passed for deeper enlightenment. The fifteen-year-old effectively sat in the same classroom with the ten-year-old, hearing the elementary school-level curriculum yet again. The elementary material was not wrong or defective; but neither did it challenge and advance the child to the next needed natural level. As applied to believers, the perfection process is stunted. Graduating into higher education does bring its own set of anxieties and problems. When we were children, the rules were black and white, hard and fast, and instructions were basic. There is little room allowed, or tolerated (rightly so), for children to make value judgments on their own because first the foundation must be well established for determining those values. Therefore, as most of us have already learned the basics of Gods plan of salvation, who Jesus is and what He expects of us, and what seems to lie ahead in the future, it is natural for us to leave behind the comforts of knowing but the primary colors, and turn our attention to the more difficult hues and tones of our faith. The difficulty is that the simple black-andwhite boundaries we were so used to begin to blur. The answers are not always apparent and succinct. Faith is much easier in the black-andwhite stage than it is as we advance. This is why we must come to Yeshua, in the beginning, as little children; we must be willing to begin with
the basics and accept them as the truths they are, with little questioning. But later we are fully expected to embrace the struggle to advance in godly wisdom and understanding. It is this struggle that keeps us glued to God and moving forward. In consideration of our current topic, holiness, we find that it is a whole lot easier to simply look holy than to be holy. The Problem with Holiness The problem with holiness is that while it is intrinsic to Gods character, it is not intrinsic to ours. Men are truly holy only when God is near and endows us with His holiness. Its not as though some effort on our part to attain and maintain holiness is not needed; it is. Although, our effort is to be aimed at trusting God and following His plan, not making our own way or defining holiness from our perspective. Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and their followers made a supreme effort, but the effort was in opposition to Gods plan. even though a measure of holiness was indeed attained, because Gods holiness is so powerful that its mere proximity will automatically infect whatever is near it, it was not attained in accordance with His plan. Therefore, Gods attribute of His justice came into play. According to Gods justice, those rebels who attained this unauthorized holiness against His rules and ordinancesfelt His wrath and were destroyed. On the other hand, the priests, who had been set apart and authorized by God for holiness, attained their holiness legitimately and safely. Were going to veer away from the holiness topic for a time, as we find in Numbers chapter 19 an intriguing discussion about a specific type of impurity and what to do about it. recall that impure and unclean are essentially the same thing (although there is some slight nuance between the two). So as we leave the issue of holiness just keep this in mind: the holiness that is inside you is God; He put Himself there. Further, that holiness can be defiled; the advent of Yeshua did not change how holiness operates.
Numbers 19
172
It is our job, as disciples of Yeshua, to see that His holiness, which is housed within the temporary and imperfect sanctuaries of our bodies, is protected. The beginning of doing that is being open to learn about what holiness actually is, according to the Bible. The Red Heifer Because of the evangelical churchs renewed interest in prophetic happenings and the end times, most believers have at least heard of the red heifer and the constant search for a perfect specimen by a group of Jews. This special red-colored cow will be needed when the longhoped-for temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem. The purpose and details of the red heifer ritual are pronounced in Numbers 19. Although we must go through several verses of the ritual procedure before we get to its purpose, we find that it is all about decontaminating a person who had become unclean because they touched a human corpse.
Biblical Ritual So much of what we have just read in this chapter (and previous ones) about these elaborate rituals cannot help but seem to us moderns as part mumbo jumbo and part sorcery, stuff we would expect some deep-jungle tribes of the Brazilian rain forest might perform. And that is because we have set aside ritual as unimportant and unneeded and unintelligent. We dont see its value anymore; in fact, many really dont like it and arent at all comfortable talking about it. But contained within biblical ritual is the visible picture of what is going on in an invisible realm. Long before the church came into existence, Hebrew sages struggled with the words to explain just why ritual was performed, and what actually occurred during these sacred procedures, just as we do. Did the blood and body parts of sacrificed animals take on supernatural qualities? Did sacred procedures performed in exactly the right way and order create magiclike effects upon the people of Israel? Does bathing in water and saying the right words at the right time actually react with our flesh and our souls so as to remove whatever it is that has contaminated us and offended God? So as important as this chapter of Numbers and its details are, so is the need for us to take another step in understanding the biblical principles surrounding ritual impurity. Id like to begin by quoting a brief story from the Talmud about a famous rabbi who was asked to explain the very issue I just framed: A heathen questioned Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, saying: The things you Jews do appear to be a kind of sorcery. A cow is brought, it is burned, it is pounded into ash, and its ash is gathered up. Then, when one of you gets defiled by contact with a corpse, two or three drops of the ash mixed with water are sprinkled upon him, and he is told, You are cleansed. Rabban Johanan asked the heathen: Has the spirit of madness ever possessed you? He replied, No.
Numbers 19
173
The rabbi said: Have you ever seen a man whom the spirit of madness possessed? The heathen replied, Yes. The rabbi said: And what do you do for such a man? The heathen replied, Roots are brought, the smoke of their burning is made to rise about him, and the water is sprinkled upon him until the spirit of madness flees. Rabban Johanan then said: Do not your ears hear what your mouth is saying? It is the same with a man who is defiled by contact with a corpse; he, too, is possessed by a spirit, the spirit of uncleanness, and Scripture says, I will make false prophets as well as the unclean spirit vanish from the land. Now, when the heathen left, Rabban Johanans disciples said: Our master, you put off that heathen with a mere reed of an answer, but what answer will you give to us? Rabban Johanan answered: By your lives, I swear . . . the corpse does not have the power by itself to defile, nor does the mixture of ash and water have the power by itself to cleanse. The truth is that the purifying power of the red cow is a decree from the Holy One. The Holy One said: I have set it down as a statute, I have issued it a decree. You are not permitted to transgress My decree. This is the ritual law. In essence the rabbi was saying: Im not entirely sure how the whole thing works, but I know that the cow has no magical power in itself, and I know that a corpse cant inherently defile anyone. In the end, we perform this red cow purification procedure because God said to do it, and if we do so, He will count us as purified. It is not permitted to do otherwise. So the good rabbi was denying that any kind of sorcery was involved. He readily admitted that it all sure looked like a mumbo-jumbo pagan exorcismbut it wasnt. Part of the reason it wasnt lay in the fact that God said He has banished unclean spirits from the land of Israel, so it was impossible for the contaminated man to have an unclean spirit in him. But what also threw the rabbi offthough it is not easily seen in this Talmudic storywas that there is a very strange paradox in Numbers 19
about the workings of the red heifers ashes upon the defiled man who touched the corpse. Lets take a close look at what we call the red heifer sacrifice and see just where that paradox lies. Purification and the Red Heifer The first thing we notice, in verse 2, is that the animal involved was a red cow, which we usually call a red heifer. This was, of course, a female animal. It was young, but older than a yearling, and had never been used for work; that is, it had never been used for a common purpose (that is what is meant by never been yoked). This animal must also be unblemished, as were all animals destined for ritual slaughter. Next and most importantly, we are told that the red cow was to be taken outside the camp to be slaughtered. This represents the first element of the paradox. This red heifer, which was to be used as the primary ingredient in an especially important purification concoction, was going to be killed in an unclean place. recall just what outside the camp meant. The only ritually clean ground was inside the camp. Inside the camp was where the Israelites lived. In time, this area became more defined, and actual measurements (city limits, if you would) were assigned. Do not confuse ritually clean with ritually holy. The only ritually holy ground was within the temple or tabernacle courtyard, which lay at the center of the ritually clean camp. So somewhere outside the camp, in an unclean place, a special altar was erected. In point of fact, altar is probably not the correct term. This was merely a large, but common, wood fire-mound upon which the red cow was killed and burned up. The general procedure was that a priest of high order (but not the high priest, who in our example in Numbers was eleazar, son of Aaron) accompanied the red cow to the woodpile and officiated the ceremony. This priest would then cut the throat of the cow and gather some of its blood in a ceremonial vessel. He would
Numbers 19
174
then turn and face the door into the sanctuary and sprinkle some blood with his finger, seven times, in the direction of the sanctuary. Of course he was quite some distance away, so a line of sight had to be established so that he could literally see the door into the holy place, that first chamber inside the sanctuary. After this the entire cow (every part of it) was burned up whole atop a huge bonfire. While the cow was being burned up, the priest would throw cedarwood, hyssop (often called oregano), and a red-colored thread on top of it to be consumed as well. In essence the wood, hyssop, and thread were being added to the mix of resultant ashes. Upon completing his task, the priest had to remove his priestly garment and bathe in water. After putting on fresh garments, he was allowed to reenter the camp, but he remained in a ritually unclean state until the sun set, indicating the end of the current day and the beginning of the next. Whoever assisted him in this operation also had to remove and wash their garments and take a bath; and this person, too, remained in a state of impurity until the sun went down. Next, a man who had not participated in any of the ritual up to this point (and therefore was still ritually clean) was to gather up the ashes and put them in a designated place, where they would be combined with water to make the special purification liquid for use as needed. This man, in gathering the ashes, became defiled. So as with all the others involved, he had to wash his clothes and take a bath and remained in an unclean state until the sun set. Impurity experienced after contact with death (usually human death) not only defiled whoever or whatever made the contact, but whoever or whatever came in too close proximity could also defiled. However, that which actually came into contact with the dead body was contaminated with a greater degree of impurity than whatever was merely nearby. The remedy for the impurity caused by a dead body was a mixture of water and ashes from the red heifer. The mixture was sprinkled
on the home or building where the person died, as well as on whoever came into contact with that person. The sprinkling procedure occurred twice: on the third day after the defilement, and on the seventh day after the defilement. The defiled persons who had been properly sprinkled were then returned to a ritually pure status at the end of the seventh day, at which time they washed their clothes and bathed. This was no light matter. Anyone who became defiled by a corpse and did not go through this ritual procedure was to be cut off. Weve talked about this term cut off (karet in Hebrew), and if youd like, you can review previous lessons for more information. In a nutshell, generally a person who was cut off lost his relationship with the people of Israel and, more importantly, with the God of Israel. A critical question arises: Why such a severe penalty? The answer is near the end of verse 20: the person who had been defiled by a dead body and refused Gods provision to be made clean had defiled the lorDs sanctuary ( Jps). Gods holiness had been endangered, and there was nothing more high-handed than to bring defilement into the dwelling place of YHWH. Keep that at the front of your mind as we continue, because well revisit it. To end the chapter, we are next told that the clean person who did the sprinkling of the ashand-water mixture onto the defiled person then found himself in an unclean state and must, of course, wash his clothes and take a bath, but he still remained unclean until the sun went down. even more, anyone who was currently ritually clean and touched even a drop of this special purification water became unclean. And whoever or whatever touched that unclean person also became unclean. And that is the completion of the red heifer story. The Par adox of the Red Heifer Let me begin the examination of this startling and somewhat perplexing chapter at its end: notice that just as in the previous chapter con-
Numbers 19
175
cerning holiness (that holiness could be inadvertently transmitted from one thing made holy to another), so it was with impurity. Impurity could be inadvertently transmitted from one thing made unclean to another, whether objects or people. As previously mentioned, you might be uncomfortable with this (you can even not like it very much), but here it is in black and white. This is not my interpretation. This is not taken from Hebrew tradition. This is not human commentary. We are reading this directly from Gods Word, the Bible. Therefore, we are obligated to deal with it in an intellectually honest manner as it is and not simply try to wish it away or allegorize it away, as has been Christian habit for centuries. So here we go. The dictionary says that a paradox is a situation or statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd. And yet a paradox may very likely be true or factual. The paradox of the red heifer sacrifice is this: everybody that had anything to do with the red heifers preparation, death, burning, or gathering of its ashes became unclean. Did you catch that? People who were but following Gods command in this ritual law of purification began in a clean state but wound up becoming ritually impure. On the surface, that makes no sense at all. Can it be that we have Yehoveh ordering some holy and/or clean people to intentionally become ritually defiled? The person made unclean (by touching a corpse) was made clean by these ashes of the red
heiferbut the clean persons who performed the ritual and applied the ashes were made unclean. As the rabbis said about this procedure: the same ashes that purified the defiled also defiled the pure. How was this possible? This was so completely opposite from all the other sacrifices and their effects. The other sacrifices atoned and often made clean. Typically, handling a sacrifice properly automatically brought a measure of holiness with it. In fact, the average citizen was required to turn his sacrifice over to the priest to be put upon the brazen altar because only a priest was holy enough to get near the altar. even the animal was considered holy (a higher status than merely clean) the moment the worshipper determined to offer it as a sacrifice; otherwise, it wouldnt even be allowed into the holy precinct. So what gives here?
Kodesh/K adosh
One of the difficulties in grasping the red heifer sacrifice, regular sacrifices, and the temple rituals is understanding the real meaning of the term holy. The term in Hebrew is kodesh or kadosh; and it simply means to be separated away or set apart. When my wife is getting ready to do laundry she carefully separates types of material as well as light and dark loads. It is perfectly within the meaning of kadosh or kodesh to apply that Hebrew term to her separating one kind of color or cloth from another. But does she make the dark load holy and the light load something else? No. Its the context of the terms use that matters; is it used in a spiritual/religious context or in some other context? A person could be kadosh for destruction; or they could be kodesh for Satan. But both of those examples are negative. remember, holy is not a Hebrew word; it is an english word that has been used as a translation for kodesh or kadosh. Only when something is kadosh for God (separated away specifically for service to the Lord) does it carry with it the sense of holy as we think of holy. Thus the red heifer wasnt so
Numbers 19
176
much holy as it was simply kadosh, set apart; but it was set apart not for service to God (as in a standard temple sacrifice) but rather for destruction. This destruction, however, would be used by God to make His people clean again. So it would be a mistake to apply the term holy, as it is thought of in Christianity, to the red heifer. A Hattaat Sacrifice Another key to understanding the red heifer ritual is to notice that the Torah calls this sacrifice, in Hebrew, a hattaat. If you have studied the earlier books of the Journey Through the Torah Class series, this is not the first time youve heard the term hattaat. That is, the red heifer ritual belongs in the general classification of the hattaat category of sacrifice. Early in our Leviticus study we spent a lot of time with the various classifications of sacrifices and their precise God-ordained purposes; they are deep and complex, so well talk now about only the parts of the hattaat sacrifice that were pertinent to the red heifer ritual. Most Bible translators render the Hebrew term hattaat as sin offering. But that is rather ambiguous and completely misses the purpose. Hattaat is better translated as purification offering. In other words, while it may well have been a sin that eventually led to the need for this hattaat, the purpose was to decontaminate, to purify. In the standard hattaat sacrifice, the flesh of the animal was not to be eaten, and the animal was to be burned outside the campjust as with our red heifer ritual. But there were significant differences between the red heifer kind of hattaat and the standard hattaat. For instance, the blood of the red heifer was not to be splashed on the altar. rather, the blood was to remain within the cow so that it was burned up as part of the ashes. This was because a bedrock principle of the sacrificial system was the centrality of blood to the entire process. The hattaat the regular Levitical purification offeringwas a most unique sacri-
fice because one of its effects was to make its handlers and officials impure. And of course we find this exact thing also applied to the red heifer ritual we read about here in Numbers 19. What a strange thing; what could possibly be the reason that God would design a sacrifice that generated impurity? Well, here is the reason: the sacrificial animal (in this case, the red heifer) purified by means of effectively absorbing the defiled persons or objects impurities. The hattaat sacrificial animal behaved like a spiritual sponge. And since the hattaat sacrificial animal served its purpose by soaking up the certain types of contamination it was meant to absorb, the animal thus became contaminated with an enormous amount of impurity and therefore must be destroyed. It was so dangerously impure that it must be destroyed away from anything holy or clean (the camp of Israel). It could not possibly be offered on the holy altar in such a condition, and so it was destroyed far away from anything holy, on a common fire, outside the camp. In fact, technically, the hattaat sacrifice was not offered up to God. It was set apart for a purpose (it was kadosh for a purpose), but that purpose was not to be set apart for God. Only things specifically set apart (kadosh) for God were to be offered to the Lord. Set Apart The concept of set apart for common purposes versus set apart for God also comes into play with the fire used to burn up the animal. The fire of the brazen altar was a positive kind of fire that transformed and purified because it was used to offer up smoke to the Lord. The common wood fire that consumed the red heifer was meant only to destroy; the fire was meant to get rid of whatever was put on it because it was dangerous and defiled, not unlike the burning of contaminated medical waste. We recently discussed that Gods holiness is so powerful, like unsealed nuclear radiation, that everything that came near to it was irradiated with holiness and so attained a measure
Numbers 19
177
of holiness itself. It was the same kind of effect with the red cow, which became so full of the worst sort of impurity by soaking up the defilement of others that everything that came near it, every object and every human, was irradiated with uncleanness. Sanctuary Defilement Let me point out something else quite unique about the red heifer sacrifice: the one who performed the ritual sacrifice was not the one who received its benefit. In fact, any hattaat sacrifice was the same way: the blood of the animal was not used to purify the worshipper or atone for him. That is, in the regular hattaat sacrifice, the blood of the animal was splashed on the altar, and in certain instances on other sanctuary furnishings, because the animal blood was performing a purification function. In the red heifer sacrifice, the blood of the animal became part of the ashes and, when mixed with water, wound up being splashed on the person who was in need of decontamination and purification. In other words, the foundational purpose of the standard hattaat sacrifice was to use the blood of the animal for the purpose of purifying the sanctuary (the tabernacle or temple) and its sacred objects. It was not used to purify the one who brought the offering, nor was it offered up to Yehoveh. Lets put a couple of pieces together here. recall what verse 20 says: that if anyone did not purify themselves (with the red heifer ashes mixed with water) from the uncleanness of death (due to touching a dead body), they would be cut off; their relationship with the congregation of Israel would end and their relationship with God would be terminated. Why this severe penalty? Because the consequence of a persons contracting uncleanness from a corpse was the defilement of Gods sanctuary. The defilement of Gods sanctuary was the largest issue; therefore, it was the defilement of Gods sanctuary that must be remedied.
Bottom line to all this: the ashes of the red heifer (when mixed with living water) were designed to purify the sanctuary of God. It has long been understood within Judaism that the people of God are in some mysterious way also sanctuaries of God (this concept is not a new Christian invention). That was the ashes only use. No wonder the good rabbi in our story had such a hard time explaining just why ashes that were obviously meant to purify the temple of God were for some elusive reason also used in a ritual to purify a human being from the worst kind of contamination there was, contact with death. The rabbi did not understand what we now know in hindsight: eventually, once the Messiah had finished giving up His life to atone for ours, God would abandon the sanctuary that men had made for Him, and make the men themselves His new sanctuary in a fully literal way. The ritual picture that emerges here is to connect the sanctuary of God with men. Are we not told that we as believers are now the temple of God? And indeed, does not the Holy Spirit, who is God, literally live within these fragile tents we call bodies? Then these tents must be purified and cleansed to be suitable for God to dwell in. Further, just as for the ancient tabernacle and temple, simply being in proximity to people and in contact with people, simply existing in a defiled world, means that the sanctuary will constantly be under bombardment of impurity. Therefore, a regular purging of those impurities is mandatory. Blood and Water Recall Yeshuas crucifixion. When the Roman soldier wanted to determine if Jesus was actually dead or just passed out, he reached up with a spear and pierced His side. And what flowed out? Blood and water. Blood we would expect, but why water? Because blood atoned, and water purified, and both actions were needed. Blood removed sin, water removed uncleanness. Two different things, two different spiritual ele-
Numbers 19
178
ments, but Yeshua was sufficient for both. What was the purification mixture of Numbers chapter 19? Blood and water. The blood was in the ashes of the heifer, mixed with the water of purification, and applied to the person contaminated with death.
Numbers 19
179
Numbers 20
After the interlude of Numbers 18 and 19, which sought to make the point that the priesthood the Lord established was permanent and needed, and also ordained and reissued in more detail some instructions regarding holiness, purification, and the terribly serious nature of impurity caused by death, chapter 20 picks up again with the actual journey of the Israelites toward the Promised Land. What we are about to read took place about forty years after the Israelites fled Egypt, and so their time of wandering was drawing near to a close.
As they closed in on their destination, Israel arrived at the southernmost border of the region of Canaan. The place was called Kadesh, which is usually considered to have been the same as Kadesh-Barnea. This was a desert region, and were told that this place was considered to be in the wilderness of Zin. Where the wilderness of Paran left off, the wilderness of Zin began. So Israel was more or less at the boundary between the two areas. Death of Miriam With virtually no comment, and without emotion, were told that Miriam (sister to Moses and Aaron) died and was buried there. Hebrew literatureparticularly the Biblewas very different in many respects to other literature of its day and well into the future. When we read Egyptian, or Hittite, or Arabian, or later Greek
and roman historical accounts, they dwell on the circumstances surrounding deaths and battles. Just as our modern-day Hollywood films tend to focus on conflict and carnage because people find it more interesting than character development and the establishment of principles, so it has been since time immemorial. Yet, here we have a great example of how the Bible deals with these matters: the death of perhaps the central female figure of the OT, Miriam (if we discount eve as a special category), was listed as little more than a minor accounting record. We might say in a knee-jerk reaction that it was because she was a woman, in a male-dominated society, and therefore had little value; but we dont get significantly more verbiage when we come to the deaths of Moses, Aaron, or many other of the primary male biblical figures, so gender is not the issue. It is truly fascinating, or ironic, or perhaps both, that the focal female personage of both the Old and the New Testaments was named
Numbers 20
180
Miriam. For the mother of Jesus, whom Christianity tends to call Mary, was a Jew; but Mary was not a Jewish name. Her real and actual given Hebrew name was Miriam. Moses and A arons Error As we have seen often in the journey of the Israelites, once again they were in need of water. And once again they went to Moses and wanted to know what he was going to do about it. They also once again openly expressed their distress at being led out into a barren place, when what they longed for lay behind them in Egypt. Back in egypt, they said, they had plenty of food including figs, grapes, and pomegranatesand, more pertinent to this story, plenty of water. Living along the Nile meant they never thirsted for water. Not knowing what else to do, Aaron and Moses went to the wilderness tabernacle and there fell on their faces in worship, seeking the counsel of the Lord. And Yehoveh appeared to them and spoke to them. The gist of the conversation was that Aaron was to take his rod, his staff (the one that budded), and walk over to some conspicuous rock that was nearby. They were to assemble the community of Israel as witnesses to what was about to happen; then Moses was to speakor better, orderthe rock to give up water. Moses did as he was told. He took the rod, went to the rock, and then proceeded to speak very harshly to the people. Basically, he said, You always come griping to me, and expect me to handle everything for you. Somehow or another, even in a place where there is no water, Im supposed to just manufacture it for you and fix these problems as though I made them in the first place. Then he turned and whacked the rock with Aarons staff, twice, and out flowed apparently enormous volumes of water. Because for three million people and all those animals to survive, the US Army quartermaster estimated that it would take something on the order of eleven million gallons of water, every day!
The people were happy enough, but it turned out that the Lord didnt feel the same way. He informed Moses and Aaron that because they did not affirm Gods sanctity in front of the Israelite community, neither of them would enter the Promised Land. We have no record of a response or reaction from Moses or Aaron, but one can only imagine their shock and depression at this edict from God. Anyone studying this might want to ask, Why? Why such a harsh decree from the Lord to the very two men whom He had used, and to some degree used up, to achieve His purposes? What was it that Moses and Aaron did that would bring this sort of wrath from God upon them? The obvious is that Moses disobeyed God; he hit the rock that he was supposed to only verbally order to produce water. But, this seems so small a thing in comparison to the consequences. In truth, there have been many theories produced to explain this devastating retribution
Numbers 20
181
upon Moses and Aaron. Among those theories are these: that he struck the rock twice instead of once. Another theory is that his character flaws were displayed: a blazing temper caused Moses to care little for a very real need of the people (water), and thus he saw the matter as mostly a bother to him personally. Another is that Moses doubted God, and thus God told him exactly that (because you did not trust in Me). And of course the most popular is that he struck the rock instead of speaking to it as ordered by God. I think that the matter primarily came down to an attitude Moses displayed in front of Israel in which he unintentionally validated a pagan belief held by most people of that era; in doing so he failed to show God as the One who brought forth the water, not a man. We must remember that Israel was but a few months removed from egypt. They behaved and thought more as Egyptians than as Hebrews. Deep-seated in their belief system was the acceptance of magic and of sorcerers men who possessed special power that had been loaned to them by the gods. Thus sorcerers invariably made quite a show of it, using incantations accompanied by all sorts of gestures and drama when they did their magic. Naturally these magicians were greatly feared and revered for the power they claimed to possess. Moses and Aaron took credit for the water coming forth from the rock; in fact, the way they behaved implied it was by their power that this amazing thing happened. Verse 10 says: Listen here, you rebels! Are we [Moses and Aaron] supposed to bring you water from this rock? Then Moses struck the rock and water gushed forth. Some of the great Hebrew sages say that the great sin resulted from Moses saying notsi, meaning Shall we draw forth? when he should have said yotsi, meaning, Shall He draw forth? By saying notsi, Moses was giving credit to himself and Aaron, as though they had the power of sorcerers to call forth water from a rock, instead of directing all honor and glory to YHWH, who was the one with the power.
This rash public indiscretion reflected badly on God. Thus the Lord said in verse 12: Because you did not trust in me, so as to cause me to be regarded as holy by the people of Israel . . . The water being miraculously provided for the people from an inert rock should have been yet another opportunity for God to display His mercy and love and unlimited ability to care for His own, as well as His immutable uniqueness apart from men or other gods. The sanctity that should have been accorded to Yehoveh became muddled in the minds of all those who could have benefited greatly from the lesson that among the Hebrews there would be no sorcery or sorcerers. The Hebrew word used in verse 12 and translated as holy or (depending on your Bible version) sanctified is kadash. In other words, God said that He was not kadash as He should have been in the provision of the water. And from the root of the word kadash come kadosh, kodesh, and other forms that all center on the difficult concept of holiness. As I told you in an earlier lesson, in reality, the root of kadash is generic in meaning and applies only to the divine if used in that context. Kadash generally means to set apart or to separate or to make a distinction. Thus I gave the example of my wife separating material types and dark loads from light loads when doing laundry, and that the Hebrew word kadash could appropriately be used to describe her act of separating colors and types of clothing before washing them. God wanted to show that He stood alone, distinct, apart from any other being, but instead Moses and Aaron attempted to show themselves as being distinct and apart from Israel. They showed themselves as inherently possessing many of the powers of Yehoveh. Since God was denied His due in the miracle of the water from the rock, Moses and Aaron would be denied their due from being the leaders of Israel. For the remainder of verse 12 says: You will not bring this community into the land I have given to them (authors translation). What a huge warning this was and is, especially to those who hold themselves up as Gods
Numbers 20
182
representatives and leaders of His congregation of believers on earth. How many pastors and teachers and prophets claim a power and ability of their own to be used at their personal discretion, when in fact they have no inherent power at all? Or they claim personal credit for acts of God. I once heard a TV pastor who was pleading for funds for his ministry say that if people would send him $1,000, he would covenant with them and vow a threefold return on their investment in his ministry. He was proudly saying that he had the spiritual power to cause God to miraculously give back $3,000 to someone who sent $1,000 to support this particular ministry. Let me be very clear on this: for displaying such a haughty attitude and also misleading people into thinking something that was simply not the truth, Moses penalty was to never be allowed to enter the Promised Land. As was usually the case in that era, the place where this all happened was named according to what happened there; the location came to be known as the Waters of Meribah (with Meribah meaning quarreling). It is fascinating that despite Moses and Aarons high-handed sin against the Lordand despite the quarreling of the people aimed at the Lordin the end He still used it to affirm His kadash, His sanctity. It would seem that the object of the Israelite peoples anger and frustration was Moses, but as we keep being reminded, having issues with Gods mediator was no different than having that issue with God. Refused Passage Through Edom In verse 14, the scene suddenly shifts. The first time Israel attempted to enter Canaan, thirtyeight years earlier, it was from the south; in fact, it was not far from this very place they were at now, Kadesh. So Moses decided on a different approach; he would try to enter from the east. But there was a problem: the most direct route to the place where Moses wished to cross into Canaan, the Jordan river, required going
through the territory of edom. etiquette and diplomacy required that emissaries, representatives of Israel, be sent to the king of Edom to ask his permission to pass through the land of edom. So Moses sent a message to whoever was the current king, essentially stating, Please allow us to pass through; after all, we are your brothers. This was no self-serving flattery, nor was Moses calling Edom brother a figure of speech or a Middle eastern display of friendship. Indeed, Israel was edoms brother. This was not symbolism, for edom was but another name
Numbers 20
183
for esau, just as Israel was but another name for Jacob. As far as esaus descendants were concerned, attitudes had obviously changed over the five centuries since the last time the Bible spoke of some dealings between a repentant Jacob (who was returning home to Canaan from Mesopotamia) and a forgiving twin brother, esau (who had his birthright stolen by Jacob). Interestingly, all evidence (and some reliable egyptian records) indicates that edom at the time of the exodus did not have any walled cities in their territory. They even had few permanent villages, because the people of edom were nomadic, very much Bedouin-like. Yet it is obvious from those same records that they were a formidable people and didnt seem to have any problem mounting a sizable militia for their defense when the need arose. And thats exactly what happened. Despite Moses plea to the king of Edom to remember their common blood heritage, and a promise of peace and respect, the king denied
them entry into his region. Moses promised not to take any path except the Kings Highway, and not to even take any water from Edoms wells. In fact, they would hurry to cross the territory. The kings answer remained swift and stubborn: No! And the king told Moses he would be attacked if he tried to cross through. To make sure that Moses understood this was not an idle threat, the king sent a large contingent of men to block their path. Moses got the message, and Israel turned away from edom and headed toward a place called Mount Hor, which was on the edge of edom, but not in edom. exactly where Mount Hor was located is disputed. First, Mount Hor is obviously a generic name, because Hor is but a derivative of the Hebrew word Har, which means mountain. So if we take the term literally, the place they went to was called Mount Mountain. Likely, this just indicates that wherever they went, the most prominent feature was a sizable mountain.
Numbers 20
184
A arons Death Moving along quickly, the Scriptures tell us that the Lord then decided that Aarons days were completed and he would die at Mount Hor. As was the custom of this era, the words telling of Aarons pending death are Let Aaron be gathered to his kin (Num. 20:24 Jps). As we have discussed on a number of occasions (but until it is firm in our minds, this point cannot ever be made often enough), this gathered to his kin concept was related to ancestor worship. While today we might say of a departed believer, He died and went to be with the Lord, no such thought even remotely existed to the Israelites, neither those of the exodus nor those of much later times. rather, the thought and the hope were that some mysterious life essence of himself would live on with his ancestors, not with God. Why is this important for us to grasp? Because the Hebrews were always living on the edge of idolatry and had a difficult time divesting themselves of centuries of pagan beliefs that they lived under and were surrounded with. The concepts that the average Christian holds today about death and dying (and a laundry list of other principles) were not yet developed in these
ancient Israelites. The laws and commands they received from God were taken in the life context of their current beliefs and living situation, and were generally added to their lives only in small doses, in one form or another, just as we tend to do in modern times. And the Israelites beliefs in the days of Moses generally matched those practiced by egypt. Life Contexts and Prosperity Let me give you an example of what Im getting at when I speak of life context that I hope will make an impact not just in helping us to identify with those biblical Hebrews and helping us to think in the terms they thought in as we read about them in the Bible, but also to help as we deal with modern-day Christian brothers and sisters who live outside the United States in cultures that are at odds with our own. American believers (in particular) tend to think that their views and doctrines and traditions are the views and doctrines and traditions, and all else are in error or improper. For example: the American church is very prosperity-oriented. In general, the doctrine in this regard can be summed up by saying that prosperity is not only a hoped-for but (in many cases) an expected blessing from the Lord as a natural reward for belief and trust in Him. And not having material prosperity is often seen as an outward sign of a personal lack of faith or commitment to ones local congregation or to Him. In other words, American Christians generally expect prosperity blessings to include (or even be completely centered upon) material wealth. Nice cars, big houses, designer clothes, high-paying jobs, and such are indicators (at least partially) of a good standing with God. Thus, the conclusion is made that if you have little prosperity, you must have little faith and thus little standing with God. While the european and eastern churches also have their own version of a prosperity doctrine, theirs is generally about health, peace, children, and well-being. In fact, the european and eastern churches tend to be antimate-
Numbers 20
185
rial prosperity. They see the possession of personal material prosperity as crude and pagan, strictly against the teachings of Christ. A Christian who has done well financially is generally looked down upon and his or her faith is suspect. To pray for or seek material prosperity is an unthinkable thing for them; it would be the height of apostasy to their thinking. Why these enormous differences between the American church view of the place of prosperity versus almost all other churches in the other nations on this planet? The answer is: different life contexts. American society is a wealth-oriented society from top to bottom. From just a secular viewpoint alone, Americans who dont have the things they desire are seen as underprivileged and downtrodden. And the goal is generally to always strive for more, so there are expectations that say tomorrow well have more than we had yesterday. And as Christians we have a helper in God to assure we achieve the material prosperity that is so important to us. That is the American life context. In european and eastern societies, whose people are more socialist in their thinking, less is usually more. In fact, to the european Christian, less is more godly. equality is not an equal opportunity to advance; equality means literally everybody living in the same condition. A doctor should be paid the same as a custodian. A coal miner should have the same size apartment as a company CeO. There should be no rich or poor. If I have plenty of food, so should you. My prosperity, by definition, takes away from yours, because under socialism the economy is a zero-sum game; there is a finite amount of resources to go around. The goal is equal sufficiency for all. That is their life context (obviously I am generalizing, because nothing in life is quite that clean and neat). So which doctrine of prosperity is right: the American or the eastern and european? Well, we wont debate that today. The point is that the American Christian viewpoint and the eastern Christian viewpoint about prosperity were adapted to the realities of the respec-
tive societies, not the other way around. So the Hebrews took whatever God told them in the life context of their long-held beliefs, not as a complete replacement of the old beliefs. They didnt somehow just remove centuries of ideas from their minds about what seemed to be selfevident givens about life and the world of the gods; they added what they were given by Moses at Mount Sinai to the mix. Therefore, since Aaron was a good man, when he died, naturally his life essence would, as a reward, go on to live with his departed family members, his deceased ancestral kin. As Israel was on the verge of entering the Promised Land, and as Aaron and Moses were to be excluded due to their high-handed sin of striking the rock with Aarons staff and taking personal credit for the water that came forth, it was time for Aaron to be replaced. Further, the Lord ordered that Aaron was to remove his high priests garments and turn them over to eleazar, his son, who would assume the position as the new high priest. Moses did as he was told, and he led eleazar and Aaron to the summit of Mount Hor. Verse 27 makes the point that the entire congregation of Israel witnessed this event. Up on the mountain Aaron died, and eleazar became the new high priest. Please notice a couple of things: first, as with the death of Miriam, the death of Aaron was treated as simply matter-of-fact. There was no eulogy. There was no recounting of Aarons great sacrifice and service to the Lord and people of Israel. This is the standard biblical treatment of the passing of all great Bible personalities. And the second point: Aaron was a fortunate man. He lived to know that his son would succeed him as high priest. Yet, as well soon find out, Moses received no such honor. A son succeeding his father was a cherished tradition that the father hoped for. A father passing his business or mantle of leadership on to his son still means something to us in our era, but it was everything in ancient times. That Moses sons did not become the new God-appointed leaders of Israel must have been greatly disappointing to Moses.
Numbers 20
186
When Moses and Eleazar came back down the mountain without Aaron, the nation of Israel knew that Aaron was gone, and so the whole congregation of Israel mourned for thirty days. Why did Moses and the others ascend a mountain for this event? As youve probably noticed, great spiritual ventures recounted in the Old Testament took place on mountaintops. Part of this was because it was believed that the gods dwelled on mountaintops. As I mentioned previously, it is now believed that El Shaddai means God of the Mountain. For God to call
Moses, Aaron and eleazar up to the mountaintop indicated that a momentous spiritual event was about to occur in the presence of God. Yet God was not dwelling on a mountaintop then; the wilderness tabernacle was His earthly abode. Why didnt God call them to the tabernacle as a good place for Aaron to die? There was no way Aaron could die in the tabernacle area because that would have defiled Gods holiness. So it had to be up on a mountaintop, a high place that in Hebrew is called bemah, that this important changing of the guard took place.
Numbers 20
187
Numbers 21
The thirty-day period of mourning Aaron was over, and so the Israelites were once again on the move, but they didnt get far. There was simply no way to hide the movement of three million people; the word was out and all the indigenous people of Canaan and the surrounding areas were watching Israel like hawks. Every one of these nations would have sent out scouts to see just where the Israelites were going. Israels intentions to move into Canaan were no secret; it was simply a matter of the route and the strategy of conquest. Ar ad Defeated An unnamed Canaanite king of an area called Arad wasnt waiting for Israel to move on him and he made a preemptive strike. Arad is a region located in the Negev; the capital city of Arad is on the western side of the hills that separate the giant rift valley called the Arabah from the coastal plains of the Mediterranean. At first Arads forces gained the upper hand and took some of the Hebrews prisoner. The Israelites were not battle-tested yet, and so they likely did not fight very well at all. But this was going to be a turning point; in proper response to their trouble, the whole community turned to God and made a vow that if He would lead them to victory, they would offer to Him all the captured booty they took from the enemy. Take a look at verses 2 and 3. Most translations say that if the Lord would hand the Canaanite people over to them, they would destroy the enemys cities. Next the Scripture says the Lord accepted
their vow and delivered up the Canaanites. The Canaanite cities were destroyed, and therefore the place was named Hormah, which means destruction. Actually, the vow was not that Israel would necessarily destroy the cities; rather, the vow was that they would put them under ban. The Hebrew word is herem, which indicates a significant act of self-denial. The self-denial was that there would be a ban placed on the towns such that the Israelites could not loot them for themselves. The Israelite army was a militia; each man armed himself and supplied his own food. There-
Numbers 21
188
fore, whenever an enemy town was taken, typically the victorious soldiers looted the town, and whatever each man could take for himself was his reward (his pay, actually) for his service and the risk he took. But what the Israelites did was to offer God all the booty of the towns they took in exchange for His supernatural assurance of victory. And by the way, the Israelites did destroy the towns in the process, but the vow was not to destroy the towns, it was to give everything of value that was captured to the Lord for His favor. The destruction of the towns was partly the process of taking the towns, and at times partly the way of offering up the towns as a sort of burnt offering to God. The next verse, 4, tells us something interesting, but we have to look at a map to understand the matter. At this time Israel was right on the border of the land of Canaan. recall that their request to the king of Edom to allow them to pass through his land fell on deaf ears. In fact, the king sent out some troops to stand in the way (this was probably just saber rattling, because there was no battle); in the end, each side just went their own way. Next we have Aaron being escorted up to a mountaintop where he died, and his son assuming the position of high priest. And then we have this king of Arad come and make a preemptive strike on Israel. This all happened over a period of little more than a month and within the very small area of just a handful of miles in either direction, not more than twenty miles to the south and west of the Dead Sea. But verse 4 says they then turned to go by the way of the Sea of reeds (the red Sea) in order to avoid going through edom. Why after this victory over Arad did they not just continue to go straight north? Or why did they not just ignore edoms threat, especially now that Israel was flush with confidence after their recent battle victory, and take the route they had originally intended: through edom and up to the Jordan river? It is fairly well documented that going straight north would have run Israel headlong
into an enemy that seemed undefeatable: a group known as the Sea Peoples, who would eventually be called the Philistines. Apparently, very early into the journey, it was decided that they would not take that route. Recall the statement of Exodus 13:17 concerning the route that God refused to take the Israelites on to the Promised Land: When Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to egypt (nasB). God did not want Israel to go up against the Philistines, and so going north from Arad into Philistine country was out of the question. Why, then, didnt they just go through edom? There is absolutely no doubt that the edomites would not have been able to stop Israel. I wouldnt even begin to venture a guess as to how many edomites there were at this time; as a nomadic society, it could not have been very many, scores of thousands, perhaps. How could that have ever matched up to Israels 600,000man army? It couldnt. No, this had much more to do with Moses truthful plea to the king of edom, calling him a brother. Mosesand therefore, apparently the Lorddid not want the Israelites to annihilate edom. Yehoveh did not want the descendants of Jacob killing the descendants of his twin brother, esau. So, after defeating the king of Arads forces, the only reasonable route that was open to Moses was called the Way of the Sea of reeds, or Yam Suf. In modern terms, this was a welltraveled highway that skirted the western edge of edom and ended at the northernmost tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, a finger of the Red Sea. So, Moses led the Israelites south, toward the Gulf of Aqaba, which achieved the purpose of skirting the territory of Edom and avoiding conflict with the edomites. This route was among the most difficult of the entire wilderness journey. It was hot, rugged, and merciless. Those leaders who had been in the prime of their lives when they left egypt were now elderly and weary from forty
Numbers 21
189
years of living like Bedouins. Those who had been elderly when leaving egypt were dead and buried. The Israelites openly questioned Moses choice to go around edom, a journey that would add at least a month to the journey, through some of the worst terrain imaginable. The common Israelites were neither stupid nor uninformed; there seemed to be no good pragmatic reason to take this arduous route around Edom, because they well knew that the nomadic militia of edom could never have stopped the enormous 600,000-man army of Israel from passing through. The show of force that edom had made earlier was just that: a show of force and probably a bluff. They didnt attack Israel or inflict any kind of damage upon them that was recorded.
But the threat achieved its desired effect. Even more, Moses recognized the natural kinship of the Edomites and did not want to inflict grave damage on so close a relative. The Bronze Serpent A few days after turning south the people became depressed, disillusioned, and angry and spoke out against Yehoveh and Moses. If they had learned anything by now, it was that it was folly to speak against Moses and to imagine that doing so in no way involved Yehoveh. When they rebelled against Gods mediator, they rebelled against God. They openly griped not just about Moses but also about the God who had redeemed them from their egyptian oppression. The gripe was the usual argument: things were better back in Egypt. Why would you disrupt us, bring us to this horrible place, and
Numbers 21
190
then just allow us to die? This time they took one more bold step in their rebellion: they said they had come to hate the food, the manna that the Lord had provided for them during the last forty years. They said they were sick to death of the bread from heaven. In response to this utter lack of gratitude and trust, the Lord sent poisonous serpents to bite them, and many Israelites died. Here we see, despite the rebellion, a certain maturity in understanding of the people of Israel; they recognized instantly that the serpents were a divine plague upon them and that their only hope of survival was to plead with Moses, their mediator, to intercede with Yehoveh on their behalf. Finally they understood that Moses position was without equal and irreproachable. There were not multiple mediators; there was no democratic solution. even more, the people had come to realize the other vital principle of redemption and forgiveness of sin: the necessity of repentance. Heart Condition I hope you have paid close attention as weve moved through exodus, then Leviticus, and now most of the way through Numbers as the fact has been exposed that ritual without repentance was ineffectual. Again and again God said it was the condition of the heart that mattered. Again and again it was made clear that the various rituals of atonement and purification were a matter of obedience, not magic; ritual by itself accomplished nothing. ritual by itself, without the confession of wrongdoing, trust in the Most Holy One, and a contrite spirit, was indeed nothing but worthless mechanical acts of selfrighteousness. I want to make it as clear as possible (because it is hurtful to me the way Hebrew history and liturgy and the Torah itself have been so maligned and distorted): there was no general belief among the Hebrews that robotlike obedience to the Law brought a proper and good relationship with Yehoveh. This erroneous concept of a works-righteousness that is
invariably attributed to the Jewish people by the church simply was not the norm in Israelite culture. even more, there was no belief (in general), that their reward for obeying the Law was any more than simply pleasing God. Of course I cannot say that such thoughts and practices didnt exist among a minority of Hebrews, but these were not the thoughts and practices of the mainstream teachers or followers of Yehoveh. Let me say that another way: this belief (which is almost universal within Christianity)that the Old Testament was a works-based method of attaining salvation that required no faith and was later replaced with a faith-based redemption (called the new covenant) that declared works to be bad or irrelevantis simply inaccurate and nonbiblical. First, salvation didnt mean to an ancient Hebrew what it means to followers of Yeshua. Salvation for them meant that Israel would become a world power, from which the laws of the God of Israel would become the universal standard for all mankind. Salvation was similar to what happened to Israel when they left egypt: it was an escape from the oppression of an earthly oppressor in order to establish a kingdom of God on earth in Canaan. There was no thought among the people, and there remains no thought, that if they obeyed the Law they would go to live with God in heaven. The Hebrews obeyed God because they loved Him. They obeyed His laws because the best thing in life for them was to please the Lord. Any kind of eternal reward for being faithful to Yehoveh was secondary. We can look at the Hebrews historically and criticize them to one degree or another for slowly and steadily focusing on creating and following man-made traditions (what the church today calls its faith doctrines) instead of the principles and laws as written down in the Holy Scriptures ( Jesus berated His own people for this). As believers we know with certainty that despite their love of God, too many Jews have rejected His Mediator and Son, Yeshua, and this condemns them in a way that grieves my heart.
Numbers 21
191
However, because Christians have accepted and fostered this distorted view of the way Jews see Torah, tradition, and Judaism, we not only falsely accuse an entire people of religious folly and legalism, we also falsely accuse the OT itself (and thereby accuse God, the author of the Word) of establishing legalism in the first place (even if only for a time, as is the dispensationalist teaching). I unequivocally tell you today that this falsehood has eroded the heart of Messiahs church for centuries, has marginalized the very people who wrote down and protected the Holy Word of God and who produced our Savior, and has created the kind of enmity between the church and the Jewish people (where there should be brotherhood) that existed between Israel and edom (Jacob and esau). Back to our story . . . As their mediator, when Moses saw the peoples admission of their sin against God and their contrite hearts, he asked God to heal them. Thus we come upon one of the most difficult and controversial stories in the Bible: the tale of the brazen serpent hung on a pole. And we read that when the Israelites looked upon this brazen serpent, their snakebites were healed. What makes this all the more difficult is that Yeshua Himself made mention of this incident and even drew a comparison between that and His coming crucifixion. Listen to the words ascribed to Yeshua in John 3:14: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (nasB, emphasis added). So what are we to take from this wilderness event? How does this bronze serpent matter compare to the death of Christ? First lets see what Numbers says happened and why. Yehoveh told Moses to make a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole, and when anyone who had been bitten by the divinely ordered plague of poisonous snakes looked up at the fiery serpent, they would be healed. Were told that Moses complied and made the serpent out
of either copper or bronze. The act of looking upon the serpent did indeed heal those who had been bitten; and thats about all that is said. This ought to immediately be a warning to us not to read more into the story than what is here, or to heavily speculate (as has been done on a grand scale, especially by Gentile Christians).
Sar aph/Ser aphim

Lets begin by examining the phrase about the pole and the serpent in the original language: The Hebrew says that Moses was to make a saraph. And, right there is where the difficulty begins. Because if we turn to Isaiah 6:2, we see this remarkable verse: Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew (nasB).
Saraph
Numbers 21
192
And wouldnt you just know it, the Hebrew word for the heavenly seraphim of this passage is precisely the same word and spelling as the wordsaraph used for what Moses hung up the pole, which is usually translated as fiery serpent. Heres the thing: The Hebrew word for serpent or snake is nachash, which is not used in either Numbers 21:8 or Isaiah 6:2 . . . only saraph. Is it possible that what was hung on that pole was not a snake, but something else, since the term saraph is not precisely defined? Not likely, because in 2 Kings 18:4 we find another mention of this very object, at a time perhaps five or six centuries after the wilderness incident: He [Hezekiah] removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan (nasB). The Hebrew used here in 2 Kings for bronze serpent was nechosheth nachash; nechosheth means bronze, and here we find our usual Hebrew word for serpent or snake, nachash. So this is an independent account that indeed the object placed on the pole was in the shape of a snake, or a serpent-looking thing at the least. But the entire incident is very bothersome for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that the serpent is the primary biblical figure used to represent Satan, from the first chapters of Genesis all the way through revelation. So is what we have here in Numbers 21 a Godordained symbolized representation of Satan hung on a pole (that somehow heals snakebites), which is then in the New Testament compared to the Messiahs experience on the cross by none less than Jesus Himself? And yet five centuries later, Hezekiah was praised when he destroyed the pole and the serpent? Lets peel this onion back another layer by understanding what the problem was that caused Hezekiah to take down and destroy that long-cherished bronze serpent, a virtual icon of the Israelites wilderness experience. Did Heze-
kiah do a bad thing or a good thing by taking down the serpent and the pole? Did his actions please God or was it no different than spitting on the cross of Christ? Heres why Hezekiah did what he did: It came about in the third year of Hoshea, the son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mothers name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did right in the sight of the lorD, according to all that his father David had done. (2 Kings 18:13 nasb, emphasis added) Further, as we just read in verse 18:4, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan (nasB). The pole and the serpent had become an image that the Israelites worshipped. They burned incense to it. It had become such an important object of worship that they had even given it a name: Nehushtan. But how was what the Israelites were doing in Hezekiahs day substantially different from what had happened in the wilderness, with Moses, at Gods direction? even more, since Christ equated (in some way) His crucifixion with the brazen serpent being lifted up on a pole; dont we adore the very pole, the cross that Christ was lifted up on? Whats so different about the pole that God ordained be erected with the saraph on it in Moses day, as opposed to the same pole used as an object of worship in Hezekiahs era, as opposed to the pole used to execute Jesus that is today essentially an object of worship? Tough questions. The ancient rabbis have some very interesting takes on both the brazen serpent and, separately, the seraphim that stand guarding Gods throne. And please keep in mind that the same Hebrew word (saraph) is used for the serpent on the pole here in Numbers and for the heavenly creatures that translators call seraphim. What follows is more or less a summary of the thoughts of several of these rabbis and sages, with a couple of my own peppered in.
Numbers 21
193
First, lets revisit Isaiah: In the year of King Uzziahs death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory. And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. Then I said, Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth with it and said, Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven. (6:17 nasb, emphasis added) So what can we say about seraphim (the singular in Hebrew is saraph)? They are heavenly spirit beings; they have several wings; they stand above the Lord as He sits on His throne, and they are so holy and pure that they are allowed to take the very coals from the heavenly altar. Part of the meaning of the Hebrew term saraph is burning or fiery, which comes from this association in Isaiah 6 with the fiery coals of the heavenly altar. So seraphim are seen, by definition, as fiery creatures. Remember, these are spirit beings, so all association with anything physical is figurative. From this we see that they can fly through the air (wings) as well as back and forth between heaven and earth, and they were allowed the closest access to God. They even were permitted to carry the purifying coals from the heavenly altar fire that took away iniquity and forgave sins. Seraphim were amazingly holy, powerful, and given tremendous authority. And they were associated with fire. Further, if we compare biblical descriptions of cherubim and seraphim, we find that they were generally identical. Some sages have
suggested they are but two names for the same thing. In fact it is likely that while cherubim is the proper name for a particular kind of heavenly being, saraph (or seraphim) is probably meant to be more of a description of only a particular characteristic of cherubim, fiery. Others opine that they are two beings of equally high order; that they are essentially the same type of being but have been given slightly different tasks. Be that as it may, cherubim and seraphim are a special and higher order of heavenly being than what are typically called angels. They are the guardians of Gods throne and His personal holiness. Satan the Serpent/Dr agon Heres where we have to broaden our subject matter just a bit to include Satan. We are told that Satan began as a very high-order heavenly being. That he was among the most beautiful and the most powerful of heavenly beings. There was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. That great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Apoc. 12:79) We find the above statement in one of the books of the Apocrypha, but this same statement is also found almost word for word in revelation, which well see shortly. Then we find this startling bit in Isaiah 14:1215: How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! But you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most
Numbers 21
194
High. Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit. (nasb) Here we have a statement that tells us Satan was in heaven, he was gorgeous, and he was sent down to earth because of his desire to usurp God. But he didnt go without a fight. Heres one more verse, and then were getting close to at least putting a couple of pieces together. This is a familiar verse to most of us, as it is about God dealing with Satan, the serpent, as a result of his deceiving eve into partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil: The lorD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly will you go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life (nasB). Notice that the serpent (Satan) was cursed in that from that day forward, he would crawl
on his belly. Obviously he was upright before this time, or the curse of crawling on his belly would have no meaning. And we must never think that Satan was simply the first snake on planet Earth. The Bible makes it clear that this serpent was unlike any beast of the field, or any other living thing. He was unique; in fact, he could speak! Let me throw one more small bit of information your way: another passage very familiar to most of you: There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. (Rev. 12:78 nasb) Heres the thing: in addition to being symbolized as a serpent, Satan was now symbolized as a dragon. Obviously this was Satan, and he was higher than angels because the Bible even speaks of Satans angels and his fight with Michael, as we read in the Scripture passages above. So what is a dragon? Well, first of all, the dragon is a mythical creature whose history goes back to ancient China. It does not appear to be part of Middle eastern culture or lore. There were, for sure, other god creatures of the Middle east that were part man, part beast, and had wings, but they were not dragons. Dragons were all beast; they had no human element. Since dragons also became part of Greek folklore, the Greeks invented their own word for this creature of fantasy, and thus we have the Greek word drakon in the New Testament, which we pronounce in english as dragon. What did John have in mind when he chose the word translated as dragon in revelation? Was it this mythical fire-breathing creature that any Hebrew would have taken as pure fantasy, if they were even familiar with it? There is utterly no record that Jews knew what a dragon was, let alone included the image of dragons in their literature. So it is highly unlikely that this was
Numbers 21
195
what John had in mind. I suspect John saw something more within the context of his own culture (his own Hebrew culture), of which the Chinese-style dragon was certainly not a part. The Jewish John would have envisioned something more along the lines of a biblical creature, not something Greek; something evil, fiery, a spiritual being that had wings and could fly. I see a rather interesting connection between the winged seraphim that stood erect in heaven, the earthly serpent in the Garden of eden that had been cast out of heaven (that used to be erect but was cursed to crawl on its belly), the saraph that was put on the pole and held high up into the air, and the dragon who was Satan, that was fiery, flew with wings, had the look of a serpent, and is identified in Revelation as Satan. Could it be that the heavenly being cast out of heaven was a saraph (a seraphim), and that it was a rebellious saraph who became known on earth as Satan? It is quite interesting that Jesus said this about Satan: I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning (Luke 10:18 nasB). In the Bible, lightning is but another representation of fire. It is at times called fire from heaven. In other words, Jesus was essentially saying, I saw Satan fall from heaven like a fiery streak through the sky. And we know that a seraphim was a fiery heavenly being. As Numbers 21 states, a saraph was put up on the pole of Moses and held up high. And the so-called dragon of revelation, which was identified as Satan, had all the characteristics of the fiery serpent and had the wings and flying ability of the heavenly seraphim. There are a couple of places in the Bible that say the heavenly being that was kicked out of heaven was a cherub. But, as I said earlier, when you compare the descriptions of cherubim and seraphim, they are virtually identical, with just the possibility that their duties were different, and likely saraph (indicating fiery) is but a characteristic of cherubim. Let me throw you another curveball. In the ancient era, amulets of poisonous insects or animals were commonly used to counteract the bite or sting of a poisonous creature. So if a per-
son was bitten by a scorpion, a sorcerer might perform a ritual over that person using a scorpion symbol. It is interesting that while we find this a laughable superstition, in the modern era the medical establishment injects the venom of a poisonous creature to counteract the poison in the system of a person who has been bitten or stung. It is really the same principle, only one is spiritual and the other is physical in nature. Back in Egypt, in addition to indicating royal authority, a serpent was seen as a symbol of both fertility and healing, and that is how Israel would have thought of the fiery serpent. In fact, God ordained the serpent be fashioned and put on the pole for the purpose of healing snakebites. So for the Israelites to see a serpent symbol as healing them from snakebites would have seemed about par for the course; something that would not have been strange at all. What are we to take from all this? First, the saraph symbol put on the pole did not, of itself, heal. People didnt touch it. There was no ritual performed with it. The symbol was not a magic object, but it was a familiar object. even the outward principle of its use was familiar. However, healing occurred through the simple act of looking upon it, in repentance and trust. Second, at the least, the saraph on the pole had messianic overtones because Yeshua gave it messianic attachments. And, at the least, the messianic meaning was that just as the saraph would be nailed to a pole and put up into the air, so would Yeshua, thereby predicting His own crucifixion. How much beyond the comparison of merely being nailed to a pole Jesus meant to communicate is but pure speculation that has led to much allegory. There have been some other interesting theological thoughts about this, but it is hard to assign these thoughts to more than the category of speculation. For instance, one thought is that when the serpent was put up on the pole, the purpose was not really to look at the serpent, but to look through the serpent up to heaven. They thought it was essentially the same with Christ. His body (the human part of Him) was
Numbers 21
196
not the critical object; rather, the point was to look in faith through His body toward the heavenly throne of God. Maybe. Another standard teaching is that just as men dying in sin are saved by means of a man (Yeshua) dying on a cross, so are men dying of snakebites saved (healed) by a snake held up on a pole. Perhaps. Yet another thought is that because the serpent on the pole was made of bronze or copper, it had to be red in color. And red symbolizes blood in Holy Scripture. So it was prophetic of Jesus shedding His blood on the cross years later. I suppose thats a possible intent. I could go on and on because thats the problem with allegory and speculation: any meaning can be attached to something via almost any kind of poetic similarity one can think up. The only solid connections that we see from the Bible about this strange incident are that sin was going to be dealt with by some kind of God-ordained object being nailed onto a pole and lifted up into the air. In Moses era, the God-ordained object was the saraph, and the sin that was being dealt with was the peoples rebellion. In Jesus era, the God-ordained object was His own body, and the sin being dealt with was all sin. Another solid connection was that people would look upon that object on the pole and experience some kind of healing. Again in Moses era, it was looking upon the fiery serpent that brought healing; and in Jesus era, it was looking upon Him that brought healing. In both cases, healing required repentance and a kind of deep trust. Beyond that, Im not sure we can attach much more significance. Actually, I find the more informative and concrete aspects of the story of the brazen serpent to be the biblically based connection between seraphim (heavenly saraph), the serpent of the Garden of eden (Satan), the saraph (fiery serpent) on the pole, and the dragon of revelation that was cast out of heaven. Let me end this segment on the fiery serpent with this thought: perhaps the most pointed lesson we can take from this story concerns the
all-too-often gradual, frog-in-a-kettle kind of progression from a God-ordained symbol to idol worship. Nothing could be clearer than that the fiery serpent on the pole was divinely instructed, and so it was pure and good; the only thing Moses and the people could do was obey and receive healing, due not to the metal object but to their obedience to God. Yet there is nothing to indicate that this was more than a one-time single solution to a unique and specific problem; a plague of snakebites due to rebellion. The serpent on the pole was not to become a general symbol or a talisman to be used for general healing. Weve seen God do this at other times. Moses was at one time told to hit a rock to produce water. Another time he was told to speak to a rock to produce water. That didnt mean Moses was to assume that each time Israel needed water he was, at his own volition, to look around for a promising boulder and by means of speaking to it or whacking it with Aarons staff produce water for the people. Nor was Israel supposed to be on the lookout for a rock formation that was almost identical to the one that gave up its water, nor were the people to gather and beg the rock for water, or to burn incense to it, or to begin a rock-worshipping cult. We saw that apparently the brazen or fiery Serpent on the pole was kept by the Israelites as an active icon for at least five centuries after the exodus. There is no indication that God intended Israel to do that, and no indication that there were other incidents of healing involving that pole and serpent. But people being people, Israel hoped it had found a magic charm for healing whenever they wanted it. People became ill and were injured all the time; and just like today, people will do pretty much anything to have their suffering relieved and their bodies healed and their lives extended. So the Hebrews kept the pole with the bronze image of a serpent, and eventually they began to honor and venerate the pole and the serpent in hopes that paying homage to it would bring about healing. The fault in all this was that they adored
Numbers 21
197
the object instead of the One who actually could heal, Yehoveh, who has no form at all. King Hezekiah finally realized this and destroyed what had begun as an authorized, one-use-only divine instrument of God, but through misuse became a worthless and ungodly object of false worship, sorcery, and idolatry. Tr aveling to Moab Verse 10 picks back up on Israels progress as they left Mount Hor to march by way of the Sea of Suf back to the south to avoid conflict with the inhabitants of edomwhich was now gaining momentumtoward their destination. After a forty-year journey, it must have been easy for those refugees to forget that the original goal was Canaan. They had been judged many times by Yehoveh, and countless thousands were killed as a result. They had been attacked by many nations; some who feared their approach, others simply for the sake of plunder. Their staple diet all this time was manna, and they were tiring of that. Simply obtaining water was an act of faith, and a chore. Day-today living, surviving, was first and foremost in their minds. All the challenges of life, including bumps in the road of family disagreements and fractures in relationships, were also part of their lives: marriage, divorce, death, illness, injury, and disputes with neighbors. There is an old saying that Floridians are particularly familiar with that well expresses the Israelites mind-set: When youre up to your rear end in alligators, its easy to forget that the original idea was to drain the swamp. By now, there had been an almost complete turnover of the Hebrews population led by Moses. The makeup of Israel in no way resembled the horde of city dwellers who had fled Pharaoh almost forty years earlier. Most of those over the age of twenty when they left egypt were dead and buried in the desert sand; actually, their deaths were a precondition the Lord had set for entering the Promised Land because of the Israelites refusal to go forth and
take the land (a result of the incident involving the twelve spies). The majority of Israels population was now made up of those who had never lived in egypt, and had never even lived in a town or a village, because they were born out in the wilderness, in a tent, during this arduous journey. The majority of Israel knew only the lifestyle of the Bedouins, who lived as nomads. Keep this in mind as we move forward in the story of the conquest of the Land of Canaan.
Well move through this fairly rapidly so as not to get bogged down. Basically, the story picks back up as the Israelites entered the area that is often called the Transjordan. It was really known by that name only during the twentieth century. The territory is more known in the modern day as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Well get somewhat of a recount of this in Deuteronomy, which offers additional details. The idea was that they tried quite hard to avoid conflicts with people who had some distant connection with Abraham people like the Moabites and the Ammonites, who were originally descended from Abrahams nephew Lot. So we find Israel staying to the outer edges of the territory of Moab in hopes of not stirring up a problem; however, that was really unavoidable. There were too many Israelites to simply ignore their presence. To the residents of the established territories and city-states of the Middle east, these three million Hebrews were little different than a horde of locusts descending upon them. Verse 13 finds Israel quite far north and well to the west of the Dead Sea. The Arnon was a river that flowed into the Dead Sea from the east. And the Arnon represented the southern boundary of Moab. Understand that just as in our day, geographic anomalies like rivers and
Numbers 21
198
mountain ranges tended to be the points of demarcation of where one nation stopped and another nation began. Also understand that some territories tended to be more politically stable and others in constant flux. The land of Canaan was somewhat stable; the rulers of the area of Moab were constantly changing, and therefore so were boundaries. This tended to make some areas easier to conquer than others; areas that were more stable tended to have large walled cities. Areas that were constantly changing hands tended to consist of primarily unprotected villages, because it took years and sizable resources to build a strategically defensible city wall. King Sihon For the above reasons, we find Israel willingly going to battle against the king of the Amorites, a fellow named Sihon, and summarily dis-
patching them. The Israelites didnt intend to battle the Amorites; they preferred to simply pass through their territory in order to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan. So as with the earlier story of the Israelites encounter with edom, Moses sent an emissary to Sihon asking for permission to pass, with a promise not to make war nor to disturb the Amorites field crops or take water from their wells. By the way, the agreement not to drink water from their wells is not to be taken the way you might think. The key idea is to not take the water. There was no way Israel could avoid using the water from the wells owned by the Amorites. It was just that Moses promised not to steal the water, not to take it by force or deception; rather, Israel
Numbers 21
199
would openly tap the wells and justly compensate the king for whatever water they used. This was just the way of the various desert cultures of that era. But as with Edom, the king of the Amorites said no. Israel didnt hesitate; they were not about to try to find another way into the land at this point. They were starting to feel their oats, and they knew how close they were to their final destination, Canaan; now they had plenty of incentive to place their lives on the line and do battle. The result was that Israel essentially conquered the heart of the Transjordan region. It was wonderful land that was fertile and ascetically pleasing to look at. Israel killed many Amorites, took their towns and villages, and moved in. Heshbon was King Sihons capital, and Israel took that as well. Its important here to understand a couple of things that will matter quite a bit when studying later books of the OT such as the book of Judges. First, the Amorites were not indigenous to the Transjordan. They came down from their homeland of Mesopotamia and took over the area that Moses and Israel were journeying through. Second, the Amorites essentially conquered Moab; more specifically, they established a king-vassal relationship with Moab such that Moab bowed down to Sichon of the Amorites. Thus Moab belonged to the Amorites and no longer was an independent, sovereign nation. We also find that while the nation of Ammon lay to the north and east of Moab, it was affected by the presence of the Amorites as well. Some number of the Ammonite population had created villages outside of Ammon proper, in an area near the Jordan river. The Amorites conquered that area and to a lesser degree subjugated Ammon proper. Thus when Moses and Israel defeated King Sichon of the Amorites, standard protocol of the day meant that whatever and whomever King Sichon controlled would be transferred to Israel. Bottom line: even though Israel won Moabs territory, it was seen as being won from the Amorites, who
governed over Moab, which is not the same thing as Israel conquering Moab. A good analogy would be that if some foreign power attacked and conquered the United States, the people of the US territory of Puerto rico would also come under the control of the conqueror, even though realistically the conqueror might never have attacked and conquered Puerto rico itself. It appears that up to this point, there had been no real thought by Israel of occupying land to the east of the Jordan river. This land was not Canaan and had never been Canaan. Since the land God promised to the Hebrews had been identified only as Canaan (meaning to the Israelites the land on the west side, the west bank, of the Jordan River), this seemed like an unexpected bonus. But because Sichon of the Amorites forced the issue and attacked Israel,
Numbers 21
200
Israel suddenly found itself as holders of sizeable territory on the east side of the Jordan. Later in Numbers well read of the historical dividing up of territory, tribe by tribe, with Moses overseeing the tribal territorial allotments. And well find that two Israelite tribes, and about half of another, were given territory right where we find the Israelites here in Numbers 21. Notice that verse 25 explains not that Israel simply took all these towns of the Transjordan, but that they settled in them; they made them home. And can you blame them? It must have looked awfully good to those Hebrews who were children or teens when Israel fled Egypt. It is no wonder that about a quarter of these roadweary Israelites decided not to continue on to the Promised Land but to remain in the land on the east side of the Jordanland that Israel had conquered with relative ease from the Amorites because the enemys numbers were comparatively small and their villages unwalled.
sulted with Yehoveh, and God told Moses to go ahead and conquer them; in fact, the Lord had already decided the outcome. The territory of Bashan extended all the way north to Mount Hermon, east to about the Kings Highway, west to hills on the western side of the Sea of Galilee, and south to a line a little below the Jabok River (the Jabok was the place where, around five centuries earlier, Jacob reconciled with his twin brother, esau). So before the Israelites even entered Canaan (their destination), they acquired a large area of land and settled in it. And that area was primarily what is now the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, located on the east side of the Jordan river. The current regime controlling Jordan is quite wise to try to make peace with Israel, for the Israelites occupied it long before the Ishmaelite Arabs ever did, and the Bible says that the Lord sees that land as belonging to Israel. When we look at later Bible passages, we find that the land promised to Abraham actually expands in Ezekiel to include the Transjordan. One can stand at the crossroads near Jericho, King Og coming down from Jerusalem (where the road to Next, Israel moved on a little farther, toward a Qumran and Masada intersects), and look across place called Bashan. And of course the king of the northern end of the Dead Sea and actually see Bashan, Og, hoped to avoid what had happened the land on the east side of the Jordan that Israel to his neighbors. Apparently before deciding conquered, which was also the general area where whether or not to take on Bashan, Moses con- Israel eventually crossed over into Canaan.
Numbers 21
201
Numbers 22
Assignment: read Numbers 2224 (all in succession).
Book Titles and Chapter and Verse Numbers We can all see now that the assignment of the title Numbers for this book was a poor one, because accounting records and censuses are the least of this book. Understand that all the titles we Christians use for the various books of the Bible were contrived by men in one way or another. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The titles are not false, nor were they meant to deceive or ever intended to be more than just a simple way to identify a particular group of Scriptures. But we must not be so naive nor so ignorant as to not know at this point in our Christian walk that there is nothing sacred or God-ordained about Bible book names, chapter divisions, or verse numbers. They were added well into the future from when the Scriptures were written, for no other reason than to be a tool to help us study and communicate about the Scriptures. The Hebrews tended to use the first few words of a new book as its title; the Greeks tended to use a word that they felt expressed the overall purpose of the book, or, as with the NT, the person the book was addressed to or the person to whom the authorship was ascribed. Balaam and Balak This story of Balaam and Balak has much more theological depth to it than appears on the surface. The Gentile Christian world remembers
this episode mainly because of the talking donkey, with the message that if God cant get a human to do His bidding or speak His Word, He can use even an animal. Truth be known, that is probably the least of what is being taught to us here. A reasonable first question to ask about this story is: Was this an actual event, or was it a Hebrew fable? That I would even dare to broach such a possibility might instantly bother some of you, so let me answer it in a way that I hope will relieve you. Par ables Jesus often taught by means of a literary device scholars call parable. Were the parables of Jesus true stories of actual happenings? Were there really ten virgins dressed in white carrying their oil lamps at night? How about the wheat and the tares? A parable is a truth, told using an illustration, a word picture. Yeshua didnt invent the use of parables; a parable was a standard literary device of that age and invented centuries earlier. The Bible makes liberal use of metaphors, and they are often meant to shock. The illustrations did not have to be an actual event, although something similar might have occurred so that the people who were listening got the picture because they could identify with it. Often enough the parables were so vague that even Yeshuas closest disciples thought them to be riddles. So if you find it challenging at times to understand Jesus parables and need a teacher to explain them, dont despair; the very men mentored by Yeshua found them perplexing. The fact that a parable is a story designed to embody a godly principle, but is not always the recounting of an actual event, doesnt make
Numbers 22
202
it a lie or a fantasy. Well find poetic license in the Bible, lots of it. Well find exaggerations (hyperbole) to make a point (the Apostle Paul was a real champion of exaggeration). Well find the recording of men making obviously false statements (King David, for instance) about what happened; well read of men doing terrible things; well read of men saying totally incorrect things about the Lord. This is all part of how the Bible communicates absolute truth and light to us. Taking the Bible literally does not mean that we are to take exaggeration as if it were fact, nor metaphor as if it were direct analogy; neither are we to take a poem as though it were unemotional history, nor history as though each event had deep spiritual meaning. The story of Balak and Balaam is probably an embellished story based on something that actually happeneda historical event that was expanded and fable-ized. There may have actually been a seer named Balaam, and a king named Balak. Balak might actually have been terribly concerned about this giant Israelite tsunami that was coming his way and sought divine help to counter it. The main giveaway that it is almost certainly at least part fable is the talking donkey. Secondarily, the entire story simply appears as a detour in the historical recounting of Israels approach to the Promised Land. Third, we see that this entire story was an insertion into the book of Numbers from a slightly later date, and that it was probably added in pieces. That said, just like the parables of Christ, what is being taught throughout this story is divine truth, and some of it is prophetic. really, there is probably more theological meat condensed in this storytelling than in any other single place in the Scriptures. What we have in this account of Balaam and Balak is a Bible within the Bible, or a Torah within the Torah. For that reason, were going to examine it closely. This theological legend begins with one Balak, king of Moab; Moab at this time was a vassal nation ruled by the Amorites. King Balak was worried about all the Israelites who were on
his border. It is interesting that were told Balak was the son of a fellow named Tzippor, because it harkens back to Moses wifes name, Tzippora. Yes, it is actually the same name. Tzippor is the masculine, Tzippora the feminine, and the name means bird. Now how it is that Balaks father and Moses wife would have the same name, especially since that name is found in only Midian culture? That question is pretty well answered for us in verse 7, which says that the elders of Moab got together with the elders of Midian to see what they should do with this Hebrew problem. In other words, a regional alliance occurred between Moab and Midian. And as happens right up to our day, in tribal as well as royal societies, intermarriage and the adopting of certain elements of a hoped-for allys culture and customs (particularly as concerns adopting names) is the usual route to cementing this kind of alliance. As we saw some time ago, Tzippora (Moses wife) was a Midianite; Tzippora was actually a rather common Bedouin name. So what we can readily see is that Balaks father had adopted a Midianite name, Tzippor, to show favor to his ally, Midian. The Israelite army had mowed right through the Amorites, so the people of Moab knew they likely couldnt stop them with mere force of arms, though undoubtedly they would try. The solution? Magic, to enhance their chances of vic-
Numbers 22
203
tory. They sought to hire what must have been a very well-known and highly regarded magician named Balaam. Key to understanding our story is that Balaam lived up in Mesopotamia; he was a Gentile. He was a seer, a diviner, and a sorcerer. Balaam lived near the euphrates river, only about twelve miles from Carchemish. This was an area alternately known as Aram. In a land full of pagan gods and a fully developed mystery religion system, for some reason this Balaam seemed to know (perhaps he even adopted) the God of Israel. How or why is not explained. Lets also remember that Abraham (who also began as a Gentile) was from Mesopotamia and he rather easily accepted this God Yehoveh; we get no explanation as to why Abraham had no qualms about it. It is interesting that Balaams character is alternately painted as evil and then righteous. In some ways there is a kind of neutrality or evenhandedness regarding his sentiment toward his own culture and the people of Israel. Yet the very fact that he is called a prophet and a diviner, and that his sorcery was found so impressive and useful for Balak and his government, attests to the pagan beliefs and rituals that Balaam must have practiced, and the heathen gods that he also included in his worship. For our purposes, we might as well picture him as running around with a pointy black hat and a magic wand. However, our story puts what Balaam did in quite a positive light. At the least we see that he certainly knew and respected Yehoveh, and was determined (to some degree) to obey Him. But another side of Balaam was revealed in later chapters (and in other books). In fact, Numbers 31 tells us that Balaam was killed by the Israelites. We even find the idea in Numbers 21 that Balaam fully intended to curse the Israelites in exchange for the rather large sum of money Balak and his coalition were offering him, and only Gods intervention stopped him. It wasnt that Balaam was doing the right thing by blessing instead of cursing Israel; rather, he feared for his life if he went against Yehoveh.
With all the biblical evidence in hand, we could say with some confidence that Balaam was probably just a hired gun, utterly ambivalent to right and wrong. Whatever he did was to his own benefit, even if that benefit was only self-preservation. What we have in Balaam is a Gentile who definitely (at least in our story) received inspiration from the Lord of Israel. This is such a strange thing: here we have God redeeming and then guiding His now well-established nation of Hebrews, but then Yehoveh turns around and communicates with a Gentile prophet who is not part of His set-apart people. Yet there is also no reason to assume that the Lord found special favor with Balaam; there is no reason to consider Balaam holy, or righteous before Yehoveh, nor that his allegiance was to the God of Israel. Let me repeat: keep in mind, all throughout our investigation, that Balaam was a Gentile who was hearing directly from God. So we have a lot to untangle. Let me take that one step further. We dont have to take this incident with Balaam as a biblical anomaly; that is, this story involving a pagan prophet (what we might commonly term a false prophet) who was inspired by God and for that reason accurately told the future in a particular case is not unique. The Bible confirms that a false prophet can be used of God, and even be allowed to make an accurate prediction in order for Yehoveh to achieve His own purposes. While correctly foretelling the future or speaking an inspired message from God or demonstrating some other seemingly legitimate spiritual gift might indicate a genuine interaction with the Lord, it does not necessarily indicate a right relationship with Yehoveh, nor does the Bible use inspiration as a sure-fire indicator of the holiness of that person. Deuteronomy 13 tells us that false prophets can at times accurately see the future. We find examples of this throughout the Bible: even though King Saul continued to accurately prophesy, he was condemned by the Lord and would lose his throne. Caiaphas prophesied about the death of Christ
Numbers 22
204
in John 11. Jewish sorcerers cast out demons using Yeshuas name, but they didnt trust in Him as Messiah or God. The Corinthians (perhaps the greatest examples of church behavior gone wild) were said to have had many real and validated spiritual experiences, but they came up short on holiness, love, and any sound doctrine to speak of. This sort of phenomenon was common enough in Christs time that in Matthew 7 Yeshua warned that in the end times, driving out demons and ecstatic spiritual acts and the performing of miracles would happen and would be real; these acts were not necessarily to be taken as signs proving that the persons who did these things were guaranteed a place in heaven. Rather, he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter (Matt. 7:21 nasB). So in both the OT and NT, we have demonstrations and warnings that Gods inspiration of a man to achieve a purpose is not a certain sign of that mans righteous status with Yehoveh. This in itself is good reason to always be a healthy skeptic: not skeptical of God, but of persons who purport to speak for God. Talking Animals Keep in mind that only two animals in the Bible receive a voice: the serpent in Genesis and the donkey in the book of Numbers. The two figures could not be more different in their natures. The serpent was Satan himself, not an ordinary creature or run-of-the-mill snake that had become possessed by the evil one. rather, it is made clear that this serpent of Genesis was a totally unique being, and that no creature of the field was the equal of the satanic serpent. Balaams donkey, on the other hand, had no such spiritual connection or status, nor was it the product of a special divine creation. It was simply a common donkey that is said to have spoken, and Balaam didnt seem all that impressed or surprised by it. This is one of the storys key elements that help us recognize that the actual historical events involving Balaam
and Balak and Israel became exaggerated over time and eventually succumbed to the common Middle Eastern use of talking animals in tales and traditions. In other words, this is an example of yet another type (of the many types) of literary device employed in the Bible, but one that we are to recognize as a theologically based Hebrew fable just as the Hebrews did. What Im telling you about the nature of this story is not controversial; ancient and modern Bible scholars are in general agreement on this matter. In this narrative, Balak is the current king of Moab and Balaam is a Gentile diviner and prophet who lives in western Mesopotamia, in a place that is right on the border between modern-day Syria and Turkey, along the mighty Euphrates River. King Balak had three million Israelites on the doorstep to his territory, and he was worried that his army might not be able to defend his kingdom if Israels intentions were hostile. So Balak did a usual and normal thing for that era: he hired a professional sorcerer to help him out. The key to victory (Balak believed) was to get the gods to side with Balak and Moab, and to fight against Israel. In biblical terms, Balak wanted to have someone put a curse on Israel so that they could be defeated. The kings choice for that job was a well-known seer named Balaam: a gun for hire. While this story is less historic and more Hebrew fable in style, the amount of theology and prophecy it contains is astonishing. As were going to see, the story has wondrous messianic overtones to it that are undeniable as well. False Prophets Perhaps the foremost (and very important) principle we first uncovered was that being inspired of God to prophesy for Him did not necessarily mean that one had a righteous standing before the Lord. God used pagan kings and prophets to achieve His will in the past, and He will again. Yehoveh has made direct contact
Numbers 22
205
with heathens and instructed them to say or do something, and they have obeyed. Yet they were neither redeemed (saved) nor declared to have right standing with Yehoveh. What this means is that a man who is a false prophet can, at times, be accurate. He can, at times, be given a vision of the future by God Himself in order that the Lord might achieve some inscrutable purpose known only to Him. In some ways this makes it all the more difficult for a believer to judge just who is a man of God, versus who is a man who walks apart from God yet outwardly seems to be in fellowship with Him. I wish I could give you a nice checklist of just how to make that determination, but Im in the same boat with all other believers. This means that I (and you) need to study all of Gods Word to be able to recognize Gods pure ways versus other ways that only mimic His ways to a degree. Knowledge of Gods Word will help us to recognize His divinely authored patterns versus doctrines of men that use all the right buzzwords and give us nice warm feelings. remember, were told that Satan (the most evil being in existence) can disguise himself as an angel of light. Therefore, a person can be so deceived as to honestly believe that God has anointed him or her, when in fact the person is being used as a counterfeit tool by the evil one (or more likely the person has followed their own inner evil inclination). Dont assume that a person who says all the right things is speaking for the Lord. A Test Heres the test for a person who claims to be a prophet of Yehoveh: if the person is ever wrong, he or she is not a prophet of God. When I use the word prophet in this sense, I mean someone who predicts an event that has not yet happened or foretells the future. A prophet in this sense is also someone who says that the Lord came to them and gave them a word for you. Today (and at times in the NT) the term prophet is used in the sense of simply meaning a teacher of
Holy Scripture (anyone who teaches is going to make mistakes from time to time). The biblical prophet (particularly the OT type of prophet) is a seer, one who is in right standing with the Lord, and one who sees because he or she has been given a message directly from God. Therefore, that message cannot possibly be in error.
In typical Hebrew storytelling fashion, verse 9 quotes Yehoveh as asking Balaam, the Gentile diviner, a rhetorical question: Who are these men with you and what did they ask you to do? (authors translation). God, of course, knew what was going on here, but this verse establishes a direct dialogue between the Gentile seer, Balaam, and the God of the Hebrews. Three times in the Bible Yehoveh appears to non-Hebrews to warn them off from doing what they intended to do to His chosen people: all three times are recorded in the Torah. The first warning was to King Abimelech when he was going to take Abrahams wife, Sarah, for his harem; the second warning was to Jacobs uncle on his mothers side, Laban (like Balaam he was a Mesopotamian), who was the head of a posse that was pursuing Jacob and his family as they fled Labans control. Balaam truthfully recounted what had been transpiring in the past few days of his life, including that some men had asked him to go with them to curse an army of people that had just come out of egypt; the ultimate purpose of the curse was so that King Balak could defeat these foreigners (who vastly outnumbered his army) in battle. Yehoveh countermanded the king of Moabs intention by telling Balaam that he could not curse this people (Israel), because they were blessed. Now what exactly did that meanthat they couldnt be cursed because they were blessed? This statement referred back to Genesis and the
Numbers 22
206
covenant the Lord made with Abraham, which was next handed off to Isaac, and then finally handed off to Jacob called Israel. This covenant was always termed a blessing, in which the Lord was in essence saying: (1) It is utterly impossible to curse in a spiritual sense that which He has blessed; (no one can reverse what Yehoveh has determined); and (2) to curse Gods people in an earthly physical sense by means of attempting to impede or harm His blessed people will bring divine retribution upon the one who does the cursing. Gods advice: dont do it. even though Balaams thought was that hed go with these men, perform a bunch of mumbo jumbo and pronounce a curse upon the Israelites, and then go home with a pile of money for his efforts, Balaam was never going to hang around and be part of the battle. Balaam, so far as we know, was not a violent man. Balaam had no intention of persecuting the Israelites or doing personal harm to them; Balaam had been asked to intervene by a king who pre-
sented a good story and an even better promise of money; and according to the morality of that day, Balaam would do what he was asked and then just wipe his hands clean of whatever followed because, after all, he was but a mercenary of sorts. He wasnt pro-Moab or anti-Israel, personally. He had no dog in this fight and no real interest in the outcome. He was only doing his job as a professional diviner and had no personal agenda or (as he saw it) evil intent. Balaam was trying to be morally neutral: kind of like the United Nations. The problem was that to Yehoveh there is no such thing as moral neutrality; that condition is a figment of mens fertile imaginations. Further, whatever one does to impede or harm Gods people is an offense to God, no matter what role one might play in it. In Abbas eyes a person is either for or against; as Jesus said, Youre either with me or against me. There is no middle ground. So it was with cursing Israel: to not acknowledge Israels untouchable blessing was identical in Gods eyes to actively cursing Israel. Balaam couldnt just do his job for Balak and then leave and absolve himself from responsibility. Being a spiritual man, and being aware that he had most definitely encountered a god, Balaam told the delegation sent by Balak that he could not go with them, because Yehoveh will not let me go with you (Num. 22:18, authors translation). Thats right; even though most of our Bibles will read the Lord will not let me go, or some such thing, the original Hebrew employs Gods actual name. The Lord told Balaam (a Gentile sorcerer) His personal formal name. But understand, for Balaam this didnt mean that Yehoveh was his only god, nor his family god, nor the only god in existence. It was just that this particular god, who was at least one of the gods that had an interest in the Hebrews, had made it quite clear to Balaam what he must and must not do, and that was good enough for him. Neither men with evil intentions nor Satan with his temptations give up and go away never to bother Gods people again just because of
Numbers 22
207
one rebuff. So when King Balak got the word that Balaam said no to his offer, he tried again. This time Balak sent personal representatives of higher status than those who went before, and he sent more of them, to try to persuade Balaam to come. They told Balaam that they would increase the monetary offer. Balaam explained that this was not a matter of money; he was not saying no just to get a higher fee. Then, as the story builds in tension, we find Balaam explaining in verse 18 that he is fully under the command of (and again I quote the original Hebrew) Yehoveh my elohim. Anyone hearing this story or reading it and studying it as we are right now would have to conclude that Balaam was a God-fearer and that he held some sort of allegiance to Yehoveh. Yet, as the story continues (and in other books of the Bible where more details are added), it is affirmed that Balaam is simply a spiritualist or a deist; certainly he believes in Yehoveh, just as believes in some unknown number of other gods. In fact, Balaam was actually boasting here. He was trying to impress this delegation of high government officials from Moab with his intimacy and influence in the invisible realm of the gods, and particularly with the god that most concerned Balaks immediate problem: the God of the Israelites. Balaam was a very good salesman.
Being a good salesman was important not just with his customers, but also with the gods that he dealt with in his profession. So in verse 19, Balaam (who really wants this gig and the kings ransom of a payment that goes with it) tells the second group of men to stay the night, and that hes going to consult with God about this again. He said, Let me find out what else the lorD may say to me (22:19 Jps). Balaam was used to bargaining. He was used to having gods change their minds. Why would this Yehoveh be any different? In fact, this whole procedure of negotiating with the gods was the basis of divining. Negotiations with the god in question continued until the hoped-for omen was received. The diviners motto was If at first you dont succeed, try, try again. Notice also that while in the first part of this story the Lord came to Balaam unexpectedly and in some manner during which Balaam was fully awake and conscious, now Balaam was going to try to summon God in the more usual manner of diviners: a dream or an unconscious vision. Interestingly, Yehoveh didnt disappoint. Let me point out that generally speaking, receiving something from the Lord in a dream, though not something to be looked down upon, was considered to be an inferior method of divine inspiration as compared to the type of ecstatic and fully conscious contact Yehovehs
Numbers 22
208
prophets experienced (and there were precious few prophets of that kind). As I pointed out earlier, the title of prophet can be applied in two very different ways, on two very different levels of intimacy with God: (1) the prophet who is chosen to be Gods personal mouthpiece over an extended period of time, bringing forth a direct and new oracle from the Lord; and (2) the prophet who, more along NT lines, teaches Gods Word (and to a degree interprets or provides commentary on what has already been given by the writers of the Scriptures). Loosely speaking, the latter type of prophet more closely resembles a teacher. Verse 20 says that God indeed came to Balaam in a dream and told him that it was okay to go with this contingent of men from Moab if they asked him to. Yet we quickly find that God was not pleased that Balaam wanted to go to Balak. Here we have a clear example of God operating within mens free will. Balaam was determined to go. Balaam was a diviner who knew only the way of all diviners and that meant negotiating with the particular god until he got what he sought. Lets think this through. Why was Balaam going to Balak, despite the Lords insisting that Balaam was not to do what Balak was hiring him to do? Are we to take it that Balaam simply wanted to personally deliver the bad news to Balak that he couldnt curse Israel? That Balaam would travel more than a couple of hundred miles, walking and at times riding on the back of a donkey, just to go home empty-handed because he didnt accept the job? Hardly; Balaam was not through negotiating with Yehoveh. After all, Balaam had now received permission from YHWH to at least go to Balak; certainly the next step would be the Lord allowing Balaam some leeway concerning the cursing of Israel. Tell me: Dont we sometimes tend to do that? We know full well that the Lords will is that we do or not do something, but we go ahead with our plan anyway? We inherently know that Yehoveh is unlikely to strike us dead in the middle of whatever it is we are doing. Often we are no worse for the wear,
and we achieved whatever it was we set out to do. At other times, things go horribly wrong and we realize that we should have listened to the Lord all along. This is the effect of free will, and our using it in a way that is not in harmony with Gods will. So we find Balaam riding on his female donkey, headed toward Moab, accompanied by two assistants. Suddenly God showed up in the form of an angel of Yehoveh. Amazingly, Balaam didnt see the angel of the Lord, but the donkey did. Now we learn something more about Balaam: he was utterly spiritually blind. He could not see the angel of the Lord standing in his path, blocking his way. His donkey, who saw the Lord, swerved off the road and down into the fields, afraid of this sword-wielding apparition. The supposedly super-spiritual Balaam was utterly oblivious of the reason for his donkeys actions, and so he beat the donkey to get her back onto the road. A few feet farther ahead, the Lord stationed Himself in a very narrow spot of the road with a fence (meaning a wall of piled stones) on either side. Afraid, the donkey tried to back away from the fearsome angelic apparition and in doing so caught Balaams foot between her side and the stone wall. Balaam was no longer merely irritated but in pain, so he beat the donkey some more to get her to move and release his foot. A few more feet and the path became so narrow that the donkey couldnt go around the angel of the Lord, so in self-defense her knees buckled and down she went, right on the spot. Balaam completely lost his temper and began a terrible beating of his poor frightened donkey that had done the only thing it could do under the circumstances. Animals behaving strangely were omens to even the most novice of sorcerers. That Balaam completely ignored this animals behavior is meant to show his absolute determination to do what he had set out to do: disobey the Lord and get that money by cursing Israel. I suppose I could stop and tell you a couple of cute anecdotes about all this and what it
Numbers 22
209
means to us, but I dont need to because right about now were all thinking: Wow, how many times Ive tried to go around or through the Lord, and it brought nothing but pain and grief. Theres that misuse of our free will again. Still completely blind to what was actually going on, the Lord enabled the donkey to speak, and the donkey asked Balaam why he was beating her. Saying, in other words, Hey, stupid, cant you figure out that something extraordinary is going on here? Have I ever behaved like this before? Havent I been a good, faithful servant to you? And Balaam admitted that the donkey had a point. Now that Yehoveh had Balaams attention by means of his talking donkey, Balaam suddenly was able to see the fearsome figure with the sword standing before him; Balaam dropped to the ground in panic and dread. Now the shoe was on the other foot. The Lord asked Balaam why he kept treating his donkey so badly. He pointed out that, in fact, if it werent for the donkey doing the right thing, the Lord would have used that sword not on the donkey, but on Balaam! Stop, Look, and Think Okay, husbands and wives, parents and children, did you catch what just went on? Did one of you ever want something badly and the other one said no? You just knew that taking that new job (even though it meant moving); or selling your house (even though the family was happy where you were); or buying that new car (even though there was nothing really wrong with the old one) was exactly the right thing to do, but your spouse or parent just wouldnt agree and nixed the whole thing? Im not saying that the one who behaves as a roadblock is always the one with good judgment. Im saying that when something like that happens, it might be wise to stop and take pause. Stop and look for the Lord. Maybe its merely the reaction of a spouse or a parent who just doesnt like change; or the problem is that one always wants to be in con-
trol; or maybejust maybeits the Lord using that intransigent person to stop something that He doesnt want done, but you are utterly blind to it all. He might be trying to save you from what your runaway and selfish desires just cant accept is a terrible mistake; or perhaps youre being saved from His discipline (that some of us would rather not believe He even uses). In verse 32, the Lord repeats that He finds what Balaam is doinggoing to Balakobnoxious. Balaam still didnt get it, but he replied: Oh, Lord, I was so wrong not to see You in the path! I was wrong to beat my donkey so terribly! I just dont know what came over me. And, if You still disapprove of my going to Balak, I wont go (authors translation). Still disapprove? The Lord had just told him that He found his going to Balak obnoxious. Balaam was pandering. He was doing the Texas two-step. He was groveling and trying to manipulate. Sound familiar? Gee, Lord, maybe its not that You dont want me to get a new SUV, its that You dont what me to get a new red Toyota SUV. Would blue be better? Maybe a Ford? Oh, this really starts to meddle in our lives, doesnt it? The Lord, the Creator of free will, allowed Balaam to continue to exercise his free will and told him he could continue to Moab, adding, But you shall speak only the word which I tell you (Num. 22:35 nasB). Balaam was ecstatic, and off he went to meet King Balak. Lets read a little more.
King Balak heard that Balaam was coming; he was so anxious to get him going in his task of cursing Israel that he traveled to the northern border of Moab to greet Balaam. As one of such regal importance would do, Balak chided Balaam and wanted to know why he took so long to accept his offer, asking if Balaam didnt
Numbers 22
210
believe that Balak would pay him. Balaam, being cautious because of the donkey incident, said that while he had arrived, he really couldnt do anything other than speak what God told him to speak. King Balak was undeterred; he prepared a grand feast in honor of this sorcerer who was going to help him fend off the Israelites. Let me point out that it was the ancient belief that if a seer and diviner agreed to curse someone and did so, there was no question but that the curse was efficacious. Both the one doing the cursing and the one being cursed believed it. So Balaks concern was not whether this curse would work, but rather whether Balaam would actually do it, considering his (up to this point, anyway) reluctant attitude. No doubt the Middle Eastern mind of Balak figured that this was all simply Balaams way of upping the price.
After the proper protocol of wining and dining this famous Mesopotamian magician, Balak escorted Balaam up onto a high hill, from which they could see some of the people of Israel at their encampment. This place was called Bamoth-Baal, which means the altar, or high place, of the god Baal. They didnt do this out of curiosity to get a gander at all those Hebrews: a curse was effective only when the cursed person or object was in view of the one doing the cursing. That is why it was necessary for Balaam to go to Moab in the first place. Otherwise, Balaks emissaries could simply have been loaded up with gold and silver, taken it up to Carchemish where Balaam lived, and Balaam could have performed his ritual right from home.
Numbers 22
211
Numbers 23
Number Seven The great significance of the divine number seven was neither the invention of nor the sole province of Israel. It was a commonly held and used number in ritual throughout the known world. Listen to this short excerpt of writings on a clay tablet from the Old Babylonian era (around Abrahams time): At dawn, in the presence of Ea, Shamash and Marduk (all Babylonian gods), you must set up 7 altars, place 7 incense burners of cypress, and pour out the blood of 7 sheep. Ibn ezra pointed out that the number seven was often used in the ritual calendar of the Hebrews: a seven-day week, the seventh-day Shabbat, the seventh week (Shavuot), the seventh year (sabbatical year), the seventh month for special biblical feasts, seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer toward the tabernacle, and so on and so on. And why wouldnt the number seven be a common cultic number of special significance throughout the Middle east? The Lord God set down an important pattern of using the number seven from the time He created the heavens and the earth. That mankind had perverted their worship, adopted false gods, and twisted and misused rituals did not mean they forgot everything that had been taught to Noah and then handed down; they just used it as a foundation to fashion their own religions. Therefore, the ritual we find at the beginning of Numbers chapter 23 is what would be expected of a Mesopotamian sorcerer like
Balaam: seven bulls and seven rams would be sacrificed on seven altars, much like what we just read from that ancient clay tablet. After the animals had been slaughtered and their carcasses were burning on the altars, Balaam instructed King Balak to stand beside the altars as he went to have a word with Yehoveh. Balaam told the Lord that he had sacrificed on the seven altars, and naturally the Lord didnt reply because He certainly hadnt instructed such a thing to be done. rather, the Lord ignored Balaams attempt at appeasement and instructed Balaam as to what he was to go back and say to King Balak. Balaam went back to the king standing by the burnt offerings, with his court standing dutifully alongside him, and pronounced what Balak thought he had been waiting for. In a nutshell, Balaam said that even though King Balak had brought him here to curse Israel, no man could put a supernatural curse on that which Yehoveh had blessed. As much as that must have infuriated the king of Moab, Balaam went on to prophesy a glorious future for Israel. He basically restated Gods promise to Abraham in that the Hebrews would multiply into uncountable numbers. But something else was also said that succinctly made a point that we have discussed in this class on numerous occasions: there was Israel, and then there was everybody else. Or, as verse 9 says, a people who dwells apart, and will not be reckoned among the nations (nasB). To review: what this verse says is that an ammim will dwell apart and not be reckoned as among the goyim. Here we see that an important transition has been made: Israel is henceforth referred to biblically as Gods people, His ammim; and all the other people on the planet (Gentiles)
Numbers 23
212
are called nations, goyim. Goyim is no longer a word that indicates just nations in general; the word now specifically means Gentiles or Gentile nations. It no longer includes the Hebrew people or Hebrew nation. So here was a Gentile seer who had been instructed to make it clear to all mankind that Israel was entirely different from everyone else in Yehovehs eyes; not better than Gentiles but, rather, distinct from Gentiles. even the standard vocabulary of calling Israel a nation no longer applied, so separated did the Lord see His chosen from the rest of humanity. To cap it all off, Balaam said that it would be a blessing for him (and in essence for all mankind) if they all could somehow find righteousness in the eyes of the Hebrew God, and die in that knowledge of blessing. This was not quite what Balak expected to hear. Obviously frustrated and flabbergasted, he said to Balaam: What have you done to me? Here I brought you to damn my enemies [Israel], and instead you have blessed them! (Num. 23:11 Jps). Balaam replied: I can say only what Yehoveh tells me to say; I told you that when I arrived here (v. 12, authors translation). King Balak, of course, figured that the clever Balaam was simply once again raising the ante, and so he basically said to Balaam, Okay, lets go find another hill for you to curse Israel from. Maybe you can get it right this time.
Or acles from God What we have just read is the second oracle from God in this story as presented through the mouth of Balaam. The first oraclethe one we studied last week in the first verses of Numbers 23essentially expressed Israels present situation (that is, Israel was blessed by God above all other nations, to the point that it was not even
to be considered as one of the nations in the common sense). In that first oracle, Balaam saw just how blessed and privileged Israel was and so he hoped that he could, in some undefined way, partake in Israels blessing. Balaam ended that first oracle by saying, May I die the death of the upright, may my fate be like theirs! (Num. 23:10 Jps). This blessing of Israel was but another way of restating the Abrahamic covenant. It would be quite appropriate for us to understand that what Balaam meant by this (even though he would not have fully understood it) was that he would like to be included in the blessing of Israel that was the Abrahamic covenant. Of course the $64,000 question for us is: How could a nonIsraelite (a Gentile) be included under the blessings of Israels exclusive covenant with God? This is only one of several times that Gentiles in the Bible express a desire to be put under the covering and benefits of Israels covenants. A later and perhaps the most famous example is ruth (a Gentile woman), who stated in ruth 1:16 her desire to be joined to Israels covenants with God: Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God (nasB). By the way, notice an interesting coincidence (I say coincidence tongue-in-cheek) between the Ruth story and the Balaam/Balak episode were studying: King Balak was king of Moab, and Ruth was a Moabite. In the second oracle of God (made through Balaam), a central point is made to the entire story of the Mesopotamian diviner and the king of Moab: whereas all other religions (all false) used magic and sorcery to discover the will of the gods, the God of Israel made His will
Numbers 23
213
known by means of His prophets. Yehoveh did this by direct oracle, not by means of magical omens, as was the universal practice of this era. The Hebrews were given a great resource that the rest of the world did not have: direct revelation. The rest of the world, because they had given up obedience to the Creator and were in essence worshipping the evil one, were trying by their own means to discover the will of their many gods. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has not left men who seek after Him in that position. We have the Holy Spirit within us for a direct connection to the God of the universe, and we have His Word of truth in our hands as we study today. Our job is not to determine what is truth and what is not in our Bibles, for it is all true; our job is but to accept it all as truth, and to obey. Our challenge is also to discover how to apply the truth to our lives and to our relationship with the Creator. We do not have to wonder how the world began, or where mankind came from, because we have been told. We do not have to wonder at our future, either, because we have been told. As a good friend of mine said in a recent magazine article: Men who choose to believe that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth have a foundation for understanding the origin, purpose, and consummation of life. Men who choose to reject that statement go through life like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isnt there; never knowing where they came from, where they are going, or how to live between those two termini. Gods prophets are the end of magical omens for those who trust Him. Israel was in the earliest stages of learning this reality, and the very one whom God was using at this moment to make His declaration, a Gentile named Balaam, would completely miss that point. The Urim and Thummim Let me point out here that indeed a kind of divining tool was permitted for use by Israel
for a time: the Urim and the Thummim, which the high priest of Israel carried on his ephod. The concept, however, was never for these stones to determine truth; rather, the stones were used to indicate Gods will in a matter where a godly choice was provided. I cannot tell you exactly how these two stones worked, and there is much disagreement among the great Hebrew sages about this; nor can I (with certainty) tell you why God permitted such a thing. However, my conjecture is that we will often see mention in the Bible of Israel being permitted (even instructed) by God to use a ritual or a tool that was very much like a ritual or tool used by the heathen. I surmise the reason for this was that Israel would have been utterly confused if the Lord required them to instantly unlearn every customary cultural aspect of the known world (the cultural aspects they had also generally lived by) in favor of brand-new and completely unique ones. Certainly in the Law (the Torah) handed down on Mount Sinai, a new and unique culture of the kingdom of heaven had been ordained, but there was no way Israel would immediately adopt every aspect of it, and the Lord well knew that when He gave the Law. We as modern believers are in a similar position. We can grow only so fast, and the church (consisting of so many varied cultures) can absorb only so much. Thus, God reveals to us progressively when the time is right. It astounds me that the very thing Balaam pronounced thirty-three hundred years ago, and what ruth stated a couple of hundred years or so later (this concept that if Gentiles wanted to be included in Gods blessing of mankind, it would have to be done via the Abrahamic covenant of Israel), is only now beginning to be grasped by a growing but tiny segment of Christianity. Yehoveh said that our relationship with Him is based on Israels covenants and what sprang from them; yet, within a few years after Yeshuas death and resurrection, the church created doctrines denying this very thing. Only now, today, with the return of Israel to her land, has a movement begun within
Numbers 23
214
the body to undo this errant theology. But only in the Lords timing has our blindness begun to be lifted. Second Attempt In verse 13, King Balak decided that another setting might induce Balaam to curse the Israelites. He chose a place called Sedeh-zophim, which literally means mountain of the watchmen. This was a lookout post, but its primary use was as an astronomical observation point and a place for watching the flight of birds: stars and birds both being standard signs and omens in that era. As this place was also a high place, altars were built and gods were worshipped there, because gods were usually worshipped on hilltops. This was not unlike the way cathedrals have often been built as the tallest structures throughout the ages; therefore, a cathedral also typically served as a local watchtower, a place from which worshippers were called to worship (eventually bells were placed there), and due to its architectural strength, the cathedral also often served as a place of sanctuary for a besieged town. Balak pointed out that only a portion of the enormous encampment of the Israelites could be viewed from the first hilltop location; from this second place an even smaller amount could be seen. The thought was that perhaps Balaam was intimidated, and cursing fewer people might be more to his liking. Included within all this was the hope that the God whom Balaam had been dealing with might also find the conditions more favorable to grant the king of Moab his request that Israel be cursed. The second attempt went as bad as the first for King Balak; Balaam once again followed Yehovehs instruction to blessnot curse His people, Israel. Notice as well that the Lord directed Balaams speech at King Balak and the Lord told Balak to listen up. Immediately yet another God principle was declared: the Lord is not capricious. He doesnt say things and then not follow through. Along with that, in verse 19,
God says that He is not ben adam, meaning a son of man. This is just another way of saying that the Lord is not a mere human being or a mortal who is always changing his mind. Understand, this was very strange to the ears of both Balaam and Balak. What god didnt constantly change his mind? Capriciousness was the nature of gods and goddesses. even more, this was the era when most kings were seen as the incarnation of one god or another; so for the Lord to declare that He was no ben adam threw a real curveball into the situation. Now that YHWH had clearly established some important aspects of His nature and character, through Balaam the Lord made it clear (again) that what He blessed no man could reverse. Therefore, Israel was safe, and Moab really needed to steer clear. In rapid succession another theological principle is presented in verse 23: the Lord has neither established magic, nor does He permit divination as an acceptable way of His people to deal with Him. Within Israel, it simply was not to exist. This was the Lords Law and His ideal, but unfortunately, not reality. In reality the Hebrews constantly turned to divination and idolatry, and for this abomination terrible divine disciplines were laid upon them. The second oracle from God ends with describing Israel as having the strength and ferocity of a lion (a common metaphor in that day), and poetically describes Israel destroying their enemies. The second attempt to curse Israel didnt go any better than the first time, did it? The blessing this time was even more powerful and pointed. The obviously flustered Balak blurted out to Balaam, If youre not going to curse them for me, at least dont bless them! Balaam repeated that he really had no choice in the matter. Third Attempt King Balak (not used to having people not do his bidding) still didnt give up. Lets give it another try, he said to Balaam, and the king
Numbers 23
215
volunteered to take Balaam to another place, the peak of Peor. Well find in subsequent chapters that this was, of course, another pagan high place dedicated to Baal. Just as the Lord told Balaam on a number of occasions that He did not want Balaam to go to Balak, Balak had now been told on a number of occasions that God was not going to change His mind and curse
His own people. Again we see the pagan mind of that era at work; King Balak believed that he manipulated gods and that perhaps he just needed to appease this God a little more. So off to the peak of Peor they went, and seven altars were built, upon which seven sacrifices were placed, and the whole useless effort began all over again.
Numbers 23
216
Numbers 24
Assignment: reread Numbers 24.
Balak thought that maybe the third time would be the charm, but it was not to be so, and Balaam was starting to catch on. Finally recognizing that the Lord was pleased to bless Israel, Balaam ceased his divinations and looking for omens. Wherever this exact place was that they went to, Balak and Balaam could apparently see most of the Israeli encampment; surely this was what Balak had in mind, because as everyone in those days understood, you could curse only what you could see. What happened next was a bit different than before. Up to now, we are told that the Lord God literally put words into Balaams mouth but this time, the Spirit of God rested upon Balaam. Balaam spoke not what God had told him to speak, but what Balaam now knew to be the truth and the reality. Do you see the difference? What we have occurring with the presentation of the third oracle was a little closer to what we find in the New Testament, whereby Gods Spirit came upon a man as he taught a lesson or addressed a problem in his own words. Before, it was as though the Lord was literally either controlling Balaams mouth or whispering into Balaams ear each and every sound and utterance Balaam was to make; there was no room for ad-libbing. Therefore, particularly as concerns the apostles of the New Testament, we dont get perfect words, but we do get perfect principles. each of the apostles personalities was reflected in what they said, and the words they spoke reflected their own minds. Now the Lord taught their minds, so what they spoke as theological prin-
ciple was absolute truth. But that doesnt mean they explained everything in astounding ways. Jesus Christ spoke in astounding ways. Yeshua HaMashiach spoke words that were so powerful, perfect, and poignant that men marveled and went slack-jawed upon hearing them. It was declared that never has a man spoken the way this man speaks (John 7:46 nasB). The apostles were not as articulate as Jesus because they were not God, as is our Savior. Yeshua could transcend the unexplainable and make it understandable to those who had ears to listen (a phrase He used often). I take this momentary detour because I want to underscore how incorrect it is to hang on to Pauls or Peters every word as though Messiah Yeshua were speaking. To dissect their sentences and to even pretend that their words were outside and above their context, their era and their culture is what has led to widely divergent doctrines within the church. The highly trained Rabbi Paul had the difficult job of attempting to explain to Jews that although the Torah remained fully intact, the advent of Yeshua elevated its enduring meaning to an ever higher plane. Paul tried to explain heavenly things to the Gentiles. To non-Hebrew people who did not have the benefit of growing up among Gods people, Paul spoke things that these Gentiles knew nothing of, but that any Jewish child would have known because he or she would have started studying Torah at the age of five or six. It would be like trying to teach algebra to students who had never learned basic math. Paul also attempted to define, for Jew and Gentile alike, just what the coming of Messiah meant and how the people were to apply this understanding to their lives. Paul went through difficult gyrations in trying to form thoughts
Numbers 24
217
into phrases to explain things for which mere words were often inadequate; things that we all still struggle with. Things like what actually transpires at the moment of our salvation, what is eternal security, what place our works and deeds have within our relationship with God. Yet that was Pauls difficult divine assignment. Unlike the OT prophets or Balaam (in whose case the Lord quite literally placed the precise divine words in his mouth), Pauls words were generally his own, although God inspired his thoughts. So in the saga of Balaam we see both sides of the coin: we see examples of inspiration and examples of revelation. On the one side we see the OT type of prophet who had Gods words put into his mouth by means of direct and conscious revelation from the Lord. On the other side we have the prototype of the NT prophet, the teacher of the Word; a Word (a kind of Scripture, if you would) that had already been given to man by others who came before him or that had been taught to him by the Lord; a teacher whose mind was inspired by perfect godly truth but whose words were his own and therefore not perfectly precise. That these were Balaams words from his own mind is confirmed in verse 3, which begins, This is the speech [or word] of [Balaam] . . . of the man whose eyes have been opened . . . of him who hears [Yehovehs] words. Some of our Bibles, like the CJB, say in verse 4 that these are the words of one who has fallen. That really gives us the wrong idea, because among evangelicals that means one who has sinned, when what this really is meant to indicate is one who has fallen prostrate before the Lord in worship. Later in verse 4, we harken back to a time before Moses; to a time before the Lord told us His personal formal name. The verse goes back to a time when men knew God as El Shaddai. Our CJB has it right; most versions read the Almighty or some such thing. remember, we now know (due to very recent findings) that El Shaddai means god of the mountain; that is the exact context of our story at this point. After all,
this was the third mountain peak Balaam had been escorted to so that he might put a curse on Israel. The next several verses tell of Balaam declaring how pleased the Lord was with Israel; how powerful they were in Him. Balaam said Israel would be even more abundant than they were then, and that the Lord would never cease to watch over them and bless them. In verse 9 we get the message that has often been repeated in this class and ought to be repeated every day among the church: Blessed are they who bless you, accursed they who curse you! ( Jps). Ive heard some say that it is a misuse of Scripture to apply verse 9 as a demand upon the church to care for Israel and the Jewish people, because it applied only to Abrahams immediate family, and Israel wasnt even created yet. But clearly here those words applied directly to the entire nation of Israel. There can be no doubt as to whom the protected group was (Israel), and toward whom the warning was directed (Gentiles). So write this verse number down (Num.
Numbers 24
218
24:9) somewhere to use the next time someone tries to dispute this with you. King Balak was now very angry. He glared at Balaam, slapped his hands together in disgust, and told Balaam to leave, adding that Balaam would indeed depart empty-handed because he had not cursed Israel as he was hired to do. This was a terribly serious blow to Balaks intentions. He would now have to fight Israel (if he determined to fight them at all) without the aid of Israel being weakened as a result of their being cursed and/or abandoned by their God. But just as it seemed that it couldnt get any worse for King Balak, it did. For not only did Balaam bless rather than curse Moabs enemies, he went on to describe the rather unpleasant fate that awaited the people of Moab and other Gentiles in the Transjordan and in the land of Canaan. Again, the words were Balaams, but he was inspired by God to say them. The words that Balaam spoke contained wonderful messianic hope, and concerned events that were to take place well into the future, including the prophecy of Israels soon-coming military victories. It is a key biblical principle that a prophesied event often occurred not once, but twice or even three times. The substance of the event might take place in the near future, at an intermediate time, and again in the far future. This was especially true of prophecies concerning the coming of Messiah. And so we read words that are familiar to us: A star rises from Jacob, a scepter comes forth from Israel (Num. 24:17 Jps). Kings were often referred to as stars in the ancient Middle East. This king from Jacob would inflict grave harm on the residents of Moab (today, we are speaking of the kingdom of Jordan). Edom would be taken prisoner. Amalek would be wiped out forever. Verse 17 gives us a bit of a problem in trying to identify just who Seth or Shet was in the phrase destroy all descendants of Shet. The newest scholarship translates the word as Shut. Certainly this was not referring to the immediate family of Adam and eve. rather, there are some recent findings of Egyptian
documents that speak of a people in the area of Moab around this same time frame who were called the Shutu, to whom this almost certainly referred. In verse 18, Seir and edom are identified as one place, since Seir was located within edom. Beginning in verse 20 things shift just a bit; whereas the Israeli military was the cause of the demise of edom and Moab and Shut, the demise of the other nations mentioned was not ascribed to military action by the Hebrews. Therefore, we are to take their fate as divine judgment brought about by other means, such as other nations. Most of the names of peoples and places used here are difficult to identify: Kittim is thought to be an island in the Mediterranean Sea. Ashur may or may not mean the Assyrian empire, although Ashur will be used later to definitely indicate Assyria (modern-day Iraq). Probably this was a small tribe that lived for a time in the Negev. It is currently thought that Kittim was very likely an earlier name for the Philistines; and that these same people also went by the generic name of Sea Peoples, since they came from the West by means of the Mediterranean Sea. egyptian records indicate that around 1200 BC, the Sea Peoples attacked on the coastal plain of Canaan, then moved south and attacked Eber, who lived in the upper part of the Sinai. Very likely, these verses were prophesying the coming of the ferocious Philistines, who would be a terrible bother to all of their neighbors and eventually to Israel. The saga of Balaam and Balak ends with their parting company and each heading back home. The Gentile Church and Isr ael I would like to conclude this section with a thought; one that I know many of you already accept but others arent so sure of. The saga of Balaam and Balak can be legitimately seen as a prophetic tale of the Gentile church. Balaam was a Gentile and a spiritual man. In fact, he was a God-fearer; that is, he absolutely believed
Numbers 24
219
in and paid attention to the God of Israel. He heard from the God of Israel and knew the God of Israel. Yet he could not bring himself to dismiss his long heritage of Gentile traditions and customs that were so at odds with Gods Torah and other scriptural commands of Yehoveh. Balaam was a spiritually oriented Gentile who knew Israel had a powerful God, and he was given personal instruction from this God on what his relationship was to be with Israel (a relationship of uniting with them and blessing them based on Gods covenants). God made it clear to Balaam that He had already blessed Israel (it was a done deal), and as such, it could not be overturned by any human, spiritual being or Gentile nation. God would never cease to see Israel as a blessed people. He would never permanently curse Israel, and He would oppose anyone who tried to curse His people. God told Balaam that Israel had a glorious future ahead of them because they were blessed of God. Balaam said that he wanted to die in the righteousness that the people of Israel had been given by Yehoveh. And yet we find Balaam again and again being warned off by Yehoveh as he journeyed to Moab to do a service on behalf of Gods enemy, the king of Moab. Somehow there was this intellectual disconnect (Balaam described it as a blindness that finally went away) whereby he just couldnt grasp that he could not perform a service for a Gentile nation whose intent was to weaken or harm Israel, and at the same time properly honor and be in harmony with the God of Israel. That didnt stop him from trying on numerous occasions. Balaam was an amazing model of the Gentile-dominated church. Do you see it? The mainstream institutional church says that Israel no longer has a glorious future; instead, that glorious future has been permanently transferred to the Gentile church. The most ubiquitous and accepted church doctrines say that God has abandoned Israel, rejected His people for all time, cursed them, and blessed Gentile believers in their stead. Christianity is so horribly
Numbers 24
wrong on this. It is self-destructive foolishness to think that we can do anything but work to actively bless Israel. Believers have not always had a clear-cut opportunity to do so, but do now. Israel was not reborn as a nation until 1948 of the modern era, so there was no nation of Israel to love and defend until then. Obviously, during the centuries of Jewish dispersion (especially prior to the rebirth of Israel), the churchs unequivocal duty should have been to stand with them and befriend those Jewish families when they needed it the most, but the opposite occurred. We must never assist or lend moral support and thus strengthen Israels sworn enemies (as Balaam intended to do) and call it evenhanded or loving and kind, and think that somehow this is not cursing Israel. Balaam wasnt going to personally harm Israel; he was merely going to assist Israels enemy (Moab) and then go home. God told him that if he did, Hed have to kill him. We cant send supplies and money to the Palestinians, or apply political pressure upon Israel on their behalf, and then somehow claim that the God of the Bible sanctions this as a worthy and holy cause. We must not join with the secular world to push Israel into dividing the land that was covenanted to them by the Lord; or insist that Israel deed to the Muslims as their capital the very place our Messiah will again set foot when He returns from heaven; or allow Islam to maintain a pagan shrine and worship center where the temple of God once existed and will again, and then say that because our heartfelt intent is peace, doing all these things must be right in our Lords eyes. If Balaam could wake up and see the light, then so can the church. If Balaam could finally understand that Israel is not like the Gentile nationsthat God is not a human who changes His mind, that when God makes a promise or a covenant He will fulfill it, and that the Lord Himself will curse anyone who curses His special people, Israelthen so can the worldwide Christian community finally understand that.
220
Numbers 25
As we leave behind our study of Balaam and Balak, we move on into Numbers with yet another of the many rebellions against Yehoveh and the resultant divine retributions. One would think that after nearly forty years of living in the wildernesswith the wilderness tabernacle always in view, a vibrant operating priesthood, an unbendable seventh-day Shabbat ordinance, regular festivals and remembrances, and the ever-present Moses as their leaderIsrael would have conformed to all the ordinances and rules the Lord had given them to live by. As we find out in chapter 25, that was certainly not the case.
Sin in Moab What an undulating path Israel seemed to travel: the high highs, followed by the low lows; mountaintops to valleys and back again. From holy obedience to casual irreverence, from proper worship of the Almighty to great and high-handed sins against Him. No sooner have we finished the episode of Balaam pronouncing glorious and victorious prophetic blessings over an Israel that bore no guilt in Gods eyes, and reading the affirmation of Israels unique and separate identity with the Lord from among all the nations, than we find the Hebrews cavorting with the enemy, reveling with their gods, and partying with their pagan women. We might ask ourselves at this point, Dont they ever learn? How many deaths at Gods hand must they suffer before they would fully
submit to His lordship? Well, on the one hand we see the infamous description of the Hebrews as being a stiff-necked people being developed. On the other hand, we see that its less a matter of short memories and more a matter of a different group of people having to learn the same lessons that had previously been taught to their elders. By now none of the people who came up out of egypt (who had attained an age of twenty by the time they left) were still alive save for Joshua and Caleb. So while the first exodus generation had suffered much as a result of their rebellions, this new generation was either not yet born or had failed to absorb the lessons meted out upon their elders. This may also answer the often-asked question: Why does Numbers, and later Deuteronomy, tend to repeat so much of what had already been given to Israel (and us) in the book of Exodus? The reason is really no different from how it has always been with mankind: we never seem to learn from history. It is said that a wise man learns from his mistakes, but a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others. The new generation of Israelites didnt
Numbers 25
221
take Yehoveh seriously and so were about to pay a terrible price. Verse 1 tells us that Israel was probably still at the same encampment they were at when Balaam and Balak stood on three different hilltops, gazing at this vast horde of Hebrews, with King Balak trying to convince the Gentile sorcerer Balaam to curse Israel for him. This was at a place called Shittim, which literally means Acacia tree. Lets begin by understanding that it is highly unlikely that Israel had any idea of the shenanigans that had occurred with Balaam and Balak. That is to say, the folks of Israel had no idea at the time it was happening that King Balak was working furiously to have Israel spiritually cursed. In fact, it was tradition that Balaam suggested as he was leaving to go back to Mesopotamia that as an alternative means of defeating Israel, King Balak should infiltrate Israel with his people and befriend them in an attempt to slowly turn Israel away from Yehoveh. The immediate goal would be to get Israel to worship the gods of Moab, because this was a culturally typical sign of alliance and respect. Sure enough, were told that the Hebrews (the men) started messing around with the Moabite women; almost for sure these were the younger and eligible men, but a few of the middle-aged might also have felt free to cavort with women other than their wives. Further, the beginning of verse 2 states that the setting for this whoring was a sacrifice to the gods of Moab. What was happening here was a festival to Baal, or, as he was officially called during this era in the Transjordan region, Chemosh. This whoring also likely revolved around the pagan practice of religious prostitution that was common among most of the mystery religions of this time. Chemosh, who is here called Baal -Peor (or better, the Baal of Peor), was one of several gods involved with fertility, so sacred sex was at the core of every celebration in honor of any fertility god or goddess. Therefore, we have two major violations of Gods commandments at play: Israel was coveting with gods other than Yehoveh, and they were committing
fornication (and in some cases adultery) with foreign women. This could all be lumped into the category of idolatry. I want to draw a parallel for you that I hope causes us all a little discomfort. Sometimes we get the wrong mental picture of what was happening in the Bible, and thus it can be hard for us to relate to it on a personal level. So many of the great pivotal moments in the Bible were subtle and not particularly noticeable at first. Its like that in mankinds history in general. Those first Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock was a minor blip on the radar screen. A handful of people commissioned a ship to reach the New World and start a new life there. They didnt come to claim it for another nation (which would have been noticed and significant); they just came to escape religious persecution (primarily by the institutional church in europe). Thus (in like kind) the actions of the people of Israel in interacting with the Moabites would have at first seemed welcome and natural. It would have seemed peaceful, respectful, and neighborly on both sides. Moab was not the home of savages who sought to do terrible things to all who came near to them; they were, for the most part, just regular folks. For the young men of Israel to take notice of some pretty girls from another and different (probably appealing) culture was something to be humanly expected. Moab worshipped Baal as the chief god, along with various other gods. It was not Israels calling to convert foreigners as they journeyed toward the Promised Land, and they certainly felt no obligation to attempt to do so. And people being people, Israel showed some respect for the Moabites beliefs even if they didnt agree with them; how else would they be able to get along in a civil manner? Yet never in the Holy Scriptures were Gods followers taught to show respect to false gods of other cultures, not even as a means to peaceful coexistence. The reason why is demonstrated right here in the first two verses of Numbers 25. Invariably, the respect and tolerance of pagan
Numbers 25
222
ways and other gods turn into the adopting of some of those ways and the watering-down or perversion of the ways of God Almighty. God called this whoring, because for Him idolatry practiced by His set-apart people was unfaithfulness. Whoring didnt necessarily mean that the Israelite men were going after Moabite prostitutes (though some did); rather, it meant that by having closer and closer relationships with a foreign people whose culture was all about honoring other gods, the men of Israel were automatically being unfaithful to Yehoveh. Lets fast-forward to the twenty-first century. No one is seeking a way to forge a relationship with an enormous group of people who openly worship a false god more than are Christians and Jews. Again and again Christian and Jewish leaders, and political leaders who claim Judeo-Christian beliefs, say that we must show respect for Islam (at least peaceful Islam). The thing is, that respect begins with showing respect for the god of Islam, because that is what Muslims demand as the first step toward any form of relationship with them. We recently had an American president who made his Christian faith front and center but who, not long after 9/11, stood in a mosque as hundreds of millions of viewers watched and listened. He told the whole world that the Islamic Allah was the same as the Christian God, and that Christianity and Islam must show respect for each others beliefs as the obvious route to peace and coexistence. We must compromise and make allowances for one another. The applause was thunderous and the world acclaimed him for it, as did the bulk of Christianity and Judaism. After all, didnt Jesus preach peace at any price? There in Moab, the deadly spiral of apostasy and idolatry began subtly and unnoticed, with Hebrew men forming casual acquaintanceships with Moabite women. Soon, as says verse 2, the Moabite women did what was natural: they invited their new Hebrew friends to join them at some of their national festive occasions (an honest and sincere attempt to be polite and
social). And of course, just as it was for Israel, all of Moabs festive occasions revolved around one or another of their gods. Many within Israel had no qualms with this, and saw attending some of Moabs religious celebrations as being in no conflict with their worship of Yehoveh. In their minds, they were but forging a peaceful relationship with the Moabites. We are attempting the same thing today, for the same reasons. Judaism invokes humanitarianism, and Christianity invokes the love and peace commanded by Jesus as our platform for reaching out a hand of tolerance to Islam. Gods reaction to these kinds of human efforts and misuse of His commandments is well stated in Numbers 25:3: The anger of a Donai blazed up against Israel. These acts were then, and still are, considered high-handed sins, the worst of the worst, and so the punishment was commensurate with the crime. It is clear that the Lord (and so the
Numbers 25
223
writer of these Scriptures) saw what was happening as a national rebellion of Israel against Yehoveh; all of Israel was held responsible for this apostasy. The Lords response was swift and severe: He ordered that the chiefs or heads of the people were to be punished first. Now we run into a bit of a problem with what actually was intended here because the wording in the Hebrew is ambiguous. Verse 4 says that the rosh (Hebrew for heads) of the people should be singled out for retribution. Usually this is taken to mean the tribal princes (literally the top man over each of the twelve tribes) and possibly some clan leaders as well. Further, many translations say that the Lord ordered that these tribal chiefs be executed by hanging. It is doubtful that hanging, as we think of it, was what the Lord had in mind. Strangulation was seen as most inhumane and wasnt even allowed as a method to kill animals for food; so probably this was not ordered for men no matter how terrible their sin. Therefore, the original Hebrew word was a standard term that meant to be impaled on a pole, which was fairly usual for that era. It was usual enough that in Deuteronomy 21:2223 a law was created to deal with it: If a man is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale him on a stake, you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day ( Jps). But that solves only half of our problem. Did the Lord actually order the execution of all Israels tribal chiefs? Overall, the rabbis and sages say that He did. It makes the most plain sense of the text and the context of the story, and the lesson from it is also clear: when national or corporate sin is involved, the leadership is most to blame and shall bear the worst consequences. But the Scripture takes this even a step further: the leaders execution was not only a matter of punishment for national idolatry, but also a matter of atonement for Israel, as verse 4 states that these men should die so that the lorDs wrath may turn away from Israel ( Jps). This is a principle that the modern church has done everything it can to disavow, Im sorry
to say. Weve even gone so far as to say that the God of the New Testament doesnt even punish us anymore. I defy you to find that principle anywhere in the Word. What He doesnt do is condemn the faithful Believer (meaning, eternal damnation), but to think that somehow were immune from the Lords just discipline (which can be very painful) is dangerously outside Scripture. We encountered the principle of the highhanded sin in Leviticus, and the only atonement for this sin was the blood of the person who committed it. In other words, there was a kind of sin for which God would not accept the blood of an animal (an animal sacrifice) as a substitute for the death of the sinner. The phrase his blood on his own head means no substitution was allowed. So Moses told certain other leaders to go and kill those who gave themselves over to BaalPeor, that is, the god of Moab. Lets stop here for a second. This is another of those spots where the ancient sages had some trouble, because what Moses ordered these certain leaders to do was not what the Lord had told Moses should be done. In essence, Yehoveh made all the tribal princes personally responsible for allowing their people to consort with Chemosh, the Baal of Moab, even if those princes had not themselves been directly involved. Moses, however, turned around and ordered that only people who had actually participated in the pagan rituals should be punished. This was not the first time Moses had veered away from one of the Lords commands. Why would Moses have done this? Why was he so reluctant to execute those leaders? In order not to go into great detail here, I only ask you to think about the scenes from Iraq and Afghanistan we have regularly seen play out on our televisions. Tribal members and Muslim sect members will do anything to protect their leaders. And the leaders will sacrifice any number of their people to maintain their own position and power; this is the essence of the tribal system. Its unthinkable that a Hebrew
Numbers 25
224
tribal prince, the head of an entire tribe of people, would have willingly submitted to his own execution. Its also unthinkable that the people of that tribe would have stood idly by and allowed it to happen. So from a human government sense, Moses took an easier path and one that felt better to him personally: he decided to get the tribal princes (whom God told Moses to execute) to instead execute some of the lesser leaders under them as punishment for this apostasy. Anyone whos ever spent much time in corporate management understands this principle very well. What hasnt been said yet, though, is that a plague was now raging among the Israelites as God poured out His wrath on the nation of Israel for their rebellion. So the idea was that the deaths of these leaders would satisfy Gods justice, and the plague would end before too many more Israelites died. In the midst of all this, while people were dying by the thousands and the rest were partying with the pagans, a certain Hebrew man brought a Midianite woman into the camp and introduced her to his kinsman. We discussed recently that Moab and Midian had some sort of alliance at this time; in fact, some Midianites had even been part of the official entourage sent from King Balak of Moab up to Mesopotamia to fetch the famous sorcerer Balaam. So at this moment in history the Lord put the Moabites and the Midianites in the same boat: enemies of God. That this Israelite would bring a foreigner into camp at this moment and brazenly walk her right in front of Moses, who was standing at the entrance to the wilderness tabernacle, was meant to demonstrate the perverted state of mind to which Israel had (once again) succumbed.
by, and he became incensed at their disregard for the Lords holiness. He picked up a spear (undoubtedly from the hand of one of the hundreds of his Levite guards stationed around the tabernacle area) and followed the licentious couple to this Hebrew mans tent that was so near to the sacred tent. While this couple were in the act of fornication, Phinehas ran them both through with the spear. I dont think I need to draw a picture of how he could kill this couple at one time, with one spear. And just so we understand, the Scripture says he stabbed them through the bellies. This is a Hebrew euphemism for the reproductive organs; the idea being they were in the act of sinning with those organs, and by that means they would, therefore, die. Interestingly, it was this act that stopped the plague; but not before twenty-four thousand people had died from it. Some of you might have a bit of trouble with this priest taking the law into his own hands and killing this couple.
Numbers 25
Phinehass Zeal Naturally, since the Tent of Meeting was where the priests operated, Phinehas (who was the priest in charge of the tabernacle guards) saw this Hebrew man and Midianite woman wander
225
Well, so did the ancient rabbis. They attempted all sorts of gyrations in order that Phinehas not look too good in all this. Be that as it may, in verse 10 Phinehas is honored by Yehoveh for taking the lives of these two rebels (a Hebrew and a foreigner). The gist of the situation was that Phinehas had what we Christians like to call a burst of righteous anger. It was not that Phinehas was personally offended so much as he stepped forward when no one else would to defend the Lords honor. The Lord declared that not only was what Phinehas had done not murder, it in fact was the needed act of expiation that prevented Yehoveh from wiping out Israel for their high-handed sinning. even more, the Lord said, I am giving [Phinehas] my covenant of shalom (Num. 25:12); He blessed Phinehas. Abba then went on to declare that as a reward for his decisive action, Phinehass clan of Levites would be the priests. This didnt really change anything; it just clarified something. Phinehas was eleazars son, and eleazar was Aarons son. Aaron was dead, and eleazar was now the high priest. So one of eleazars sons would, naturally, become the next high priest. The Lord just decided which son that would be: Phinehas.
We see the whole tone of chapter 25 shift after Phinehas executes the couple. The plague ended, the Lords justice was meted out, and this shocking act seemed to bring Israel to its senses. The generation that would enter the Promised Land had just received a sobering lesson on Gods kindness and His severity; His severity to destroy those who casually and callously rebelled against Him, and His kindness in providing a means of atonement for those who had not yet died from His wrath. A lesson that the Israelites parents had received on more than one occasion; but their parents were also prevented from ever entering Canaan. The chapter ends by the Lord declaring war on the Midianites, a people who seduced the rather easily led Hebrews into worshipping other gods and into unlawful sexual activity. The coming war against Midian (and naturally, their ally Moab) meant that a call to arms of Israels army would be needed; and as was always done prior to beginning a war or conquest, a census would be taken. A census would both alert the men to arm themselves and give the leader a count of his troops. This is what Numbers 26 concerns itself with.
Numbers 25
226
Numbers 26
A Census of Isr aels New Gener ation We now enter a new phase in the formation of Israel as a nation: the conquest of the land of Canaan. The final eleven chapters of the book of Numbers deal with this recurring cycle of battles, settling, and then moving on again in order to possess the Promised Land. The first census, described in the first two chapters of Numbers, was of the first generation of the exodus (a generation that essentially no longer exists). The census we just read about in Numbers chapter 26 was of the second generation, the new generation, of Israel. This census was conducted for two primary purposes: to determine how many soldiers each tribe would muster, and also to determine the amount of territory each tribe would receive when Canaan was divided up among the tribes the Israel. As with the first census (and generally all biblical censuses), only men were counted, and then only men of an age who could carry arms and fight. As a contrast, however, well see that while that first generation of the Exodus was constantly whining, rebelling, and longing for the good ol days back in Egypt, the new generation was more faithful, more passionate about their mission, and more willing to put their lives on the line to achieve what had been promised to Abraham more than six hundred years earlier: a land of his own and countless people to fill it. Israel was camping just to the east of Jericho on the eastern bank of the Jordan River. No doubt
everyone within five hundred miles in any direction knew exactly where this gigantic population of three million Hebrews was located; there were too many of them and their exploits too well known for it to be otherwise. Since Aaron was dead and buried on Mount Hor, his son eleazar, the new high priest, was spoken to directly by Yehoveh, who told him how to conduct this new census. The Lord said to take a count of the whole Israelite community, the families who came up out of Egypt. As well soon find out, the whole community of Israel no longer included the tribe of Levi, so indeed the Levites would not be part of the census (however, there would be a separate census conducted especially for them).
Numbers 26
227
We wont examine every aspect of the census, but Id like to point out some outstanding features. First, in verses 811, we see that some descendants of Reuben and Korah remained. We read in Numbers 16 of the terrible wrath of the Lord that came against the tribe of reuben and the clan of Korah when the earth opened up and swallowed them and (it appeared at that moment) their entire families. But here we see that there obviously were survivors because their clan names are listed. In fact, the clan of Korah went on to be quite an important clan of Levites, as they became the singers at the temple. At the end of the list, in Numbers 26:51, we get the final tally: 601,730 men ages twenty and older, able to be part of the military. Look at the chart of tribes above. We find that some tribes increased while others decreased. Further, we see that there were about eighteen hundred fewer men at this time than there were almost forty years earlier. This does not necessarily indicate that Israel was, overall, a smaller population. Likely, this was the result of Israels now much younger population, with many children being born and replacing the older ones who originally came out of egypt. When you factor in that were talking about a
quarter of 1 percent difference, then we can say that for all practical purposes, despite the several battles, plagues, and judgments against the Israelites, the population remained level, with only a shift occurring among the tribes as to which grew and which shrank. We can see by the chart that the Manasseh tribe had the largest population increase, amounting to more than 60 percent during those forty years. On the other end of the scale was the tribe of Simeon, which was decimated; the tribe was now, by far, the smallest of the tribes, having lost 60 percent of its population. No doubt the Lords hand guided the increases and decreases, but these changes were not supernatural per se. Likely Simeon experienced not only an inordinate number of deaths versus births, as well as the defection of many of their tribal members into other, more robust, Israelite tribes. Conversely, Manasseh had a slightly better birthrate and lower death rate as compared to the eleven other tribes; but also, since Manasseh started out in the exodus as the largest tribe and (as sons of Joseph) wielded a lot of power, it was natural that members of other lesser tribesand particularly members of little Simeonwould have found it attractive to be part of a more dominant tribe like Manasseh.
59,200
8,000 61,020
Numbers 26
Tribes 1. reuben 2. Simeon 3. Gad 4. Judah 5. Issachar 6. Zebulun 7. ephraim 8. Manasseh 9. Benjamin 10. Dan 11. Asher 12. Naphtali Total:
Census (year 2) 46,500 59,300 45,650 74,600 54,400 57,400 40,500 32,200 35,400 62,700 41,500 53,400 603,550
Census (year 40) 43,730 22,200 40,500 76,500 64,300 60,500 32,500 52,700 45,600 64,400 53,600 45,300 601,730
Increase
Decrease 2,770 37,100 5,150
1,900 9,900 3,100 8,000 20,500 10,200 1,700 11,900
228
Verses 5253 introduce one of the two primary reasons for taking the census: the division of the land. Two criteria (seemingly at odds) were to be used by Moses to divvy up Canaan: (1) the size of the territory was to be proportional to the size of the tribe, and (2) the land was to be apportioned by lot. The obvious question is: How could both criteria be applied at the same time? Was the choosing of the lots a simple game of chance, or (as the Israelites saw it) was the Lords providence going to miraculously coincide with the population of each tribe? Heres how the sages of old say it worked: the general territorial location of each tribe (in Canaan) would be assigned by lot, but actual population determined the size of the territory. There were areas of Canaan that were more fertile and others that were mostly desert. There were coastal areas that permitted shipping and fishing, just as there were hilly areas that were suitable for grazing. There were places along well-established trade routes for the merchants and other places that bordered the land of difficult enemies. So the lot would determine the region and then Moses would determine the borders of each tribe in that region, using the rule that the bigger the tribe, the more expansive its borders. The Levite Census The final section of Numbers 26 deals with the census of the Levites. The Levite clans were listed separately because (1) the Lord saw them as no longer part of Israel, and (2) as such, they were not entitled to land; the Lord Himself was their portion. The Levites were to be funded and supported by the twelve tribes (if you counted Levi as a tribe of Israel, there would be thirteen tribes), and so their needs beyond what would be provided were seen as small. rather, the Levites were given forty-eight cities scattered throughout the territories of the twelve tribes. In verse 62 we see that the Levites numbered 23,000 males. That number is deceiving, however, because the count included all males
Numbers 26
beginning at one month of age and up. The census of the twelve tribes had a lower limit of twenty years of age and an upper limit of around fifty years; so Levi was easily the smallest of all the tribes. It is fascinating that by this point in history, the second- and third-born sons of Jacob (the ones who had led the terrible and ungodly raid of revenge upon the helpless male citizens of Shechem about five hundred years earlier) were now the least of them all. Back in Genesis 49 we studied the prophetic blessings of Jacob, called Israel, upon each of his sons. Simeon and Levi were the only sons grouped together and given one common blessing by Jacob, and it was nearer a curse than a blessing: Simeon and Levi are brothers; their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their
229
council; let not my glory be united with their assembly; because in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they lamed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. (Gen. 49:57 nasb) This almost five-century-old blessing was being realized at the same moment that the six-century-old promise given to Abraham was coming about.
Numbers 26 ends with the reminder that of the males who were under age twenty when Israel fled Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb remained; six hundred thousand males had died during those forty years in the wilderness. Joshua and Caleb were the two spies (out of twelve) who did their best to convince the leaders of Israel to advance into Canaan thirty-eight years earlier.
Numbers 26
230
Numbers 27
One could say that most of what we studied last week revolved around the land inheritance Israel was about to receive. In Numbers 27 well read some laws that better define the succession of that land inheritance; that is, how the land was to be passed on when a clan or family leader died.
Laws of Inheritance When we back away and take a high-altitude view of the Law, we find that after a series of general laws in exodus and Leviticus, Numbers and later Deuteronomy tend to deal with some specific cases that dont fit well within the general rules and regulations. So while one could, in the most negative sense, say a law had been changed from Leviticus to Numbers, in fact, either a law was merely being more specifically defined, or how a law was to be carried out was being explained in more depth. In some cases, the more important laws and principles were being repeated and reinforced for the new generation of Hebrews, whose parents had first received the Law but were now buried in the desert sands. The first thing we encounter is a case whereby a family headed by a man named Zelophehad, now deceased, had a problem: Zelophehad had left no sons to inherit, so his daughters came to Moses and asked why it would be so wrong for them to inherit their fathers wealth, even though they werent males. Their reasoning, stated in verses 3 and 4, was in a nutshell
that (a) their father had not participated in the great apostasy of Korah (when a fire came out of the tabernacle and burned up many rebellious men, and an earthquake opened up a fissure that swallowed thousands of people, rebels and their families); and (b) their father had died under the same curse as all the other people who left egypt (they failed to trust the Lord and go forth into the Promised Land). Further, since all the other families whose men had committed the same sin were not being denied rights to land in Canaan, why should their fathers family be denied land merely because he had no sons to inherit his portion? Moses listened to the plea of these women and said he would take the case before the Lord for His decision. If we look closely, we see that after Mount Sinai this method of creating additional laws became normal. The same concept is used to this day in our American legal system; its called precedent. A situation would arise (without previous precedent) and it would be brought to Moses, the judge, to decide. He
Numbers 27
231
would then take it to the Lord, who would decide the matter. Moses would inform the parties of Yehovehs decision, and then the matter became law based on precedent. Generally speaking, all similar matters were to be handled in the same way in the future. Therefore, we have generally two classifications and methods of receiving laws from Yehoveh: by oracle (as on Mount Sinai), and by precedent when a situation demanded a remedy and so was taken to YHWH for His decision. As to the concept of a family leader dying and there being only daughters and no sons to inherit, the Lord said that daughters were allowed to inherit what would normally have been given to the sons. The Lord then took some additional obvious and probably quite usual cases regarding succession of inheritance and made them law as well. If a father died without a son, his wealth went to his daughters. If that man had no children at all, his wealth went to his own brothers. If he had no brothers at all, the wealth went to his uncles on his fathers side. If the man didnt even have uncles on his fathers side, then the nearest family relative, whether on the mothers or the fathers side, would inherit the family property. A little later in Numbers, and later still in Deuteronomy, we will encounter some caveats and exceptions to all this, because the basic principle that this revolved around was that land was never to leave the possession of the Hebrew family who originally possessed it. I am avoiding using the word owned (instead using the word possessed ) because God made it clear that all the land of Canaan, soon to be called Israel, was His. even the Israelites wouldnt be owning the land per se; they would just possess it. The best mental picture of this arrangement in modern terms would be the difference between buying a house and leasing it. In one case, the title of the land and dwelling belongs to the owner; in the other, a person pays something to the owner for the use of the property. Ownership has no expiration date, while leases are time-limited. God was not passing the title of the property
to Israel; He was but giving the Hebrews exclusive use of the property in perpetuity. Therefore, since one cannot sell what one does not own, the Israelites had no right to sell land in Israel, especially to foreigners; and strictly speaking, not even to one another. The laws of sabbatical years and (more directly) the laws of Jubilee facilitated this idea of using someone elses land for a time but never owning it. The Promised Land did not have a For Sale sign on it. This would be a good time to make something quite clear, given the events of our time whereby Israel is actively engaged in giving up land in hopes of peace with their enemies. From a biblical perspective, Israel is actively engaged in rebelling against the Lord by giving up possession of land that was set aside exclusively for them by Yehoveh. Those who are supporters of Israel watchhurt, angry, and frustrated the wrong-minded and foolish attempt of the Israeli government to appease their enemies by giving up Gods land to His enemies. Their hope is that by giving up that land their enemies
Numbers 27
232
will give them peace in return. Yet, inexplicably, the more land they give up, the more their enemies attack them. Only a few years ago, Israel gave up the southern seacoast portion called the Gaza Strip, and almost immediately the state came under rocket attack from Gaza. Now they are being threatened with attack from enemies of the north, who are demanding that they give up the northern portion of Israel. And why not? It worked for the Palestinians of Gaza. I suppose it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that all Israel has done by once again giving up land for peace has been to embolden their enemies to demand more. Why they cant see that, Im not sure. However, that is but the earthly reality. The spiritual heavenly reality is that the Lord is at the least allowing Israel to pay a heavy price for rebelling against Him by giving up that which they dont ownthe land of Israel. Israelis have no right (from a spiritual perspective) to hand one square inch of Israel over to anyone, especially to their enemies. Neither does our nation have the right to demand that the key to peace in the region is to do exactly that; which was precisely the centerpiece of the Bush administrations roadmap to Peace. Divide Israel and create a PalestinianPhilistinestate on the Lords land. Of all the possibilities, I cant think of a worse plan that that. Weve all gasped at one time or another when weve read of the end-time prophecy that says a new temple will be built in Jerusalem, and then the Antichrist will put an image of himself inside the holy of holies and demand that he be worshipped as God. There really is little difference between inviting Gods enemies to live on His sanctified land, and permitting Gods grand enemy to be worshipped in Gods sanctified temple; its all cut from the same cloth. So while we can empathize with Israels current plight, and we can be for our president or prime minister and loyal to our country, as Gods elect we cannot applaud or be party to a plan to divide and cede parts of Israel. In fact, we need to oppose it energetically and not by offering some geopolitical reason, or speaking
of fairness or even of international law. rather, we must stand on the covenants of God that gave the Hebrews that land for all time, which man-made government bodies dont think matters in their decision making processes. Weve taken this seeming detour because the very reason for the new procedure of establishing law by means of precedent (regarding land inheritance, in this case) was the developing God principle that land given to a certain Israelite family was to remain in that family. Whenever possible, the land was to be passed on to a son, because the son carried the family name forward. When a daughter married, she came under the authority and identity and name of the husbands family. What would happen if a daughter married a foreigner? While some can look at this as seeming sex discrimination made into law by the Lord, the reality is that daughters were provided for in a different way from sons. Daughters were given valuable dowries when they married. We have records of wealthy men even giving their daughters entire cities as wedding gifts. Of course, this all depended on how well off the father of the bride was. It was the same for the son; for the average Israelite, a couple of acres of ground and a handful of sheep were given as a wedding gift or at times. Perhaps some metal cooking containers or some tools of the fathers trade might be inherited. There was only occasionally a great transfer of land and wealth. When a daughter was married, the dowry ended any responsibility the father had for his daughter. She was now the responsibility of her new husband and his family. If a daughter of a man of the tribe of Judah married a man from the tribe of Dan, she was no longer seen as a Judahite but became a Danite. More, if a daughter of a man from the tribe of Judah married a man outside of any Israelite tribe, she made herself an outsider. So if a daughter of an Israelite man inherited her fathers land, and then (by way of example) proceeded to marry a man from the Gentile nation of Moab, a non-Israelite would take possession
Numbers 27
233
of a piece of the Holy Landa definite no-no. Yet, as of this point in the Scripture, that exact thing was a real possibility, for there was nothing to prevent it. That is why later well find laws that the daughter would retain an inheritance only if she married within her own tribe. As well, if she married another Hebrew, but not of her fathers tribe, she was subject to having her inheritance voided under certain circumstances. Moses Replacement In verse 12, the subject of chapter 27 takes a sharp turn and we are given the story of how a new leader was selected to replace Moses. This was needed because (a) Moses was a very old man and no longer capable of leading an army, and (b) the Lord had determined that Moses (due to his sin of rebelling against God) would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land. However, Moses would at least be allowed to see the land. So Moses ascended a mountain in a range that at that time was called Abarim, and from there he had an expansive view of the Promised Land, which he would never set foot upon. Later well find that this particular mountain was called Mount Nebo. The Lord said that shortly after Moses saw the land, he would die. Then in verses 1517, this mediator of Israel showed his heart for the people by asking the Lord to appoint a new leader so that the community of Israel would be cared for. And the person Yehoveh chose was Joshua, son of Nun. Joshua was well-qualified for the job because he had been Moses assistant for quite some time. He also had great merit in the Lords eyes because he was one of the two scouts who stood against the rest of Israel when they waffled and refused to trust God for victory over their enemies in the Promised Land. While it sounded as though Moses would die immediately, in fact it would be a little while before he passed. For there were yet many laws to give, and the land must be fairly allotted by Moses to each tribe. Lets notice an interesting
difference between the death of Aaron the high priest (Moses big brother) and the subsequent automatic appointment of his son eleazar as the new high priest, versus the coming death of Moses and the subsequent naming of a new leader of Israel by the Lord. First, Aaron didnt ask Yehoveh (as did Moses) for a replacement high priest because the line of succession was set and automatic. Aarons firstborn son (or another son if that firstborn were unsuitable for whatever reason) was to become the new high priest, and this was to be the pattern from that time forward for the high priestly succession. However, there was no automatic successor (no inheritor of the position) for Moses. In fact, there was to be no real successor to Moses at all. Moses most important role (as mediator for Israel)
Numbers 27
234
was not passed on. Joshua was to be the military leader of Israel, not Israels new mediator. When Moses needed answers from the Lord, or the Lord wanted to tell Moses something, Yehoveh communicated directly with Moses. This would not usually be so with Joshua. Joshua was not going to be the replacement mediator of Israel. I have mentioned before that the Lord has in all of history supplied but two mediators, and two only. That is all there ever will be. Moses was the first, and Yeshua ( Jesus Christ) was the second. Neither had a successor. Some of their duties were assigned, in that Joshua was to rule over, care for, and lead Israel. Believers are to spread the good news of salvation and demonstrate Christs sacrificial love for humanity and especially for His church and for Israel, but we are not the replacement Mediators for Jesus; we are but His disciples. So with the coming death of Moses, it would be around twelve centuries before the Father would provide a new and better mediator than Moses. Now that Yeshua is risen and living with His Father in heaven, there will never be another. When He comes again, it will not be as Mediator, but as the Kinsman-Redeemer. Further, as we see in verse 18, Joshua was to be commissioned by the high priest, while Moses was commissioned by God (this was the protocol for anointing a mediator). Actually,
it was Moses who commissioned the priesthood. Then in verse 20 we see that Joshua was to receive some of Moses authority even while Moses was still alive. So a dual leadership would go on for a short time: Moses and Joshua as a leadership team. Yet it was understood that Moses was the senior and therefore had authority over Joshua. Verse 23 tells us that Moses laid his hands on [ Joshua] and commissioned him (nasB). The Hebrew is samak, which means to lean on. The term later became formalized to samaka, which directly means the ritual of laying on of hands. Biblically, samaka indicates a transference of some kind. Sometimes this transference was authority (as here between Moses and Joshua), and at other times was the transference of guilt or sin from a man to an animal. That is why virtually every animal sacrifice employed samaka. The whole purpose of animal sacrifice revolved around transference and substitution. So this laying on of hands was ritual symbolism and painted quite a picture of what would come with the advent of Yeshua. This chapter ends with Moses and Joshua standing before eleazar, the high priest, and the whole community watching while Joshua was in essence ordained with authority. The ceremony was performed before the people so that all would recognize Joshua as Gods choice and submit to his leadership.
Numbers 27
235
Numbers 28
Chapters 28 and 29 are effectively the Hebrew calendar of public sacrifices. There are a number of kinds of calendar years in every society. For instance, the United States has the secular calendar year, the school year, the fiscal year, and others. In Israel we have the secular calendar year, the ritual calendar year, the tithing calendar year, and others. What this chapter embellishes more than establishes is the religious ritual calendar year. I say embellishes because most of what we read here has already been laid down as law in exodus and Leviticus. However, chapters 28 and 29 tailor the rituals to the imminent time when Israel would be celebrating these sacrifices and feasts in their own land; therefore, they would have all the foods and animals and wine and such available to properly perform these rituals on a regular basis. Sacrifice was at the heart of worship. Let me repeat that: Sacrifice was at the heart of all biblically based worship. The Torah sacrifices were pictures and patterns to be taken literally and performed precisely; yet they were also prophetic of a time when Messiah would come to
fulfill the purpose of those sacrifices and take them to a higher level of meaning. Modern Christians generally have no understanding of biblical sacrifice, in part because the Bible doesnt bother to explain the significance and purpose of each of the many kinds and categories of sacrifices that were so carefully laid out in the Law of Moses. Yet to the people of Moses era and for a thousand years after him, the significance was self-evident. Those worshippers who brought the sacrifices, and those priests who officiated over the sacrifices, comprehended well both the broad picture of appeasing a God who was offended by the sin of His people and the detailed nuances of the many kinds of rituals that the Lord said were indispensable in His economy. The doing of the sacrificial rituals automatically brought with it the understanding of why those rituals were needed. The followers of the Torah understood how expensive and bloody and painful atonement was. They understood that there were different levels of offending YHWH. They understood that they were some sins that could not be atoned for with a substitute. They understood that sin and holiness were organically connected and multifaceted. They understood that your life could not be separated from your faith; you could not behave one way six days of the week, and another way on Sabbath. The idea that you would have one set of morals and ethics in business, another set in your home, and yet another set at synagogue was unknown to them. Before we study chapter 28 verse-by-verse, I would like to sum up the sacrificial rituals and celebrations that the Law prescribed. Its been awhile since weve looked at them, so this is a good chance to recall them.
Numbers 28
236
Review of Sacrificial Rituals There are four main categories of sacrifices ordained in the Torah: the burnt offering, the olah; the purification offering, the hattaat ; the reparation or guilt offering, the asham; and the peace offering, the shelamim. The precise protocol of the ritual and the kinds of animals prescribed defined and differentiated these offerings from one another. There was one common cord that connected each of these categories of sacrifice: a worshipper would present the specified animal, lay hands on the animal (samaka), and then kill and butcher it according to set procedure. After that the priest would sprinkle some of the blood of that animal on the Great Bronze Altar, and then some or all of the animal would be burned up on the altar. All sacrifices were to be burned up, so all sacrifices could be said to be burnt offerings. The disposition of the flesh of the animal played a significant role in the characteristics of each kind of sacrifice. The olah required that the entire animal be burned up on the altar fire; therefore, no one was permitted to eat any part of that kind of sacrifice. The hattaat and the asham sacrifices allowed some of the animal to be used for food by the temple priests. The shelamim permitted specified parts of the animal to be burned up on the altar, other parts to be given as food to the priests, and usually the largest portion was given to the ordinary worshipper who brought the animal.
Of all the sacrifices, the olah was performed most regularly, daily and routinely. It was the king of the sacrifices and generally considered the most important. The hattaat occurred often, and was usually associated with the ending of a long term of being unclean for one reason or another. The asham was not performed nearly as often as the previous two, and was set apart as special because it was part of the atonement process for one who had committed a particularly serious sin such as blasphemy or adultery. The shelamim was performed most frequently and was often used at the completion of a vow. Sometimes this sacrifice was called a freewill sacrifice because one who simply wanted to honor the Lord for almost any reason could bring a shelamim sacrifice at his or her own volition. That the worshipper got to keep a goodly portion of the meat had much to do with the high rate of its use. By law, animals used for food were to be slaughtered at the temple. Only the wealthy enjoyed meat on a regular basis. So a common citizen who wanted meat usually waited for an occasion where a peace offering, a shelamim sacrifice, was called for so he could satisfy both the law and his own desire for meat. The wealthy tended to make many shelamim sacrifices because they wanted meat on the table almost daily. Therefore, the wealthy tended to look quite pious (and thus considered themselves more righteous than the poor) by offering all these peace offerings, even though their motive was a nice juicy lamb chop. In every one of these sacrifices, the sacrificial animal became the substitute for the owner of the animal. That is, the animal died in place of the one who brought it; the animal died as ransom payment for the sins of the worshipper. In the olam offering, the animal was completely burned up and destroyed; it presented a picture of which each and every person on earth owes to the Lord for our sin. We owe Him our physical and eternal deaths. The hattaat required that the blood of the animal be smeared around the altar. The pur-
Numbers 28
237
We began this two-chapter unit of Numbers 28 and 29 that I described as the calendar of public sacrifices. These two chapters, like
Numbers 28
pose of that smeared blood was to act as a purifying agent. The altar and all the ritual places and items became defiled because of the sins of men. Blood was the only thing that could purify. Without the constant purifying of the temple area, there would be no way that a holy God could live there. The asham offering is interesting in that it represented the payment of a debt. The blood of the animal, representing the life of the animal, was owed to God due to the sins of the worshipper. This was reparation paid to the Lord for the worshippers offense against Him. The shelamim, the peace offering, was a thank-you gift to the Lord. It was normally presented when the giver was experiencing shalom, or well-being, and wanted to acknowledge that Yehoveh was the source of this well-being. As you can see, atonement and sin were large and complex matters. It may seem simple and straightforward to a Gentile, in particular, who has no knowledge whatsoever of the Levitical sacrificial system, but the death of our Savior as a sacrifice of atonement was not a simple matter. Our Father didnt reduce the complexity of sin and atonement when His Son died and then rose from the dead. It has been mens doctrines that seem to do everything possible to prevent us from even reading about Gods laws and ordinances. mens doctrines that replace Scripture with overly simplistic statements such as A sin is a sin; it doesnt matter what it is (a common belief within the church). Or that our sacrifice today is simply answering an altar call at a revival or a church service: going forward and saying yes to the call of Yeshua. Or worse, that our deeds and works have nothing to do with our faith. Most certainly, our deeds and works can never gain us salvation; but our deeds and works are with equal certainty a measure of our commitment to our Savior and to the eternal principles of Yehoveh.
the long and complex biblical genealogical and tribal listings, can make our eyes droop and our heads bob as we try to stay awake and focused on what they say. I would suggest that the reason for our disinterested and bored reaction is that we see the subject matter as irrelevant to us, meant only for an ancient time, or perhaps practically incomprehensible to our twentyfirst-century Western minds. I emphasize the word Western because sacrifices and rituals in the service of gods are hardly a thing of bygone eras; they are current and still happen in the bulk of the world among most religions other than Judeo-Christian. The Bible makes sacrifice the center, the focal point, and the heart of proper worship practices. The church (rightly) makes Yeshuas sacrifice the believers focal point of worship; yet when it comes to the subject of our own participation in sacrifice and ritual, our eyes glaze over and we really dont even know what those words mean. Certainly Im not suggesting that we should reinstitute animal sacrifice (although the later chapters of Ezekiel make it clear that with the new temple and the return of Messiah, this will happen); however, I am suggesting that we cannot possibly begin to grasp the boundless depth of meaning contained within Gods ordained, Torah-based, authorized sacrificial system unless we acknowledge it as valid and good and worth understanding. A modern Hebrew commentator, W. G. Plaut, said this about the subject of ritual biblical sacrifice: What do moderns consider primitive about such rituals? Doubtless, the pre-biblical origins of sacrifice go back to beliefs that the gods desired the food for their consumption. But although the Torah itself gives some warrant for the continuation of such beliefs (e.g., Num. 28:2), Ps. 50:8ff. expressly disavows them, as do the great prophets. Most often, it is the public nature of the ancient slaughtering process that is repellent to current tastes. We prefer to hide the procedure behind the walls of abattoirs where the animals are killed in a fashion no less bloody, but without making it necessary for the consumer
238
to witness the life and death cycle, which goes into his pleasurable nourishment. Moreover, even when we share with others in the eating process, we do not generally experience any of the genuinely worthy emotions, which were usually engendered by the sacrifices of old. In the root meaning of the English word, we do not sacrifice (that is, we do not render holy) anything when we eat. This does not mean that our age ought to be ready for any reconsideration of cultic sacrifice. It does suggest that when seen in its own context the biblical order of animal offerings was a genuine form of worship that cannot be quickly dismissed with prejudicial contemporary judgments. Some time ago rabbi Baruch, a dear brother and teacher from Israel, said that he believes when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt (which it will be), and when the animal sacrifices begin once again (which they will), these sacrifices will be a commemoration of what Yeshua has done, unlike the fairly universal belief among
Gentile Christians that these ritual sacrifices will be viewed by Yehoveh as a slap in the face. Further, Christians need not consider these renewed sacrifices as a replacement of the Saviors atoning blood, any more than our celebration of Passover is a replacement for His death. For us to sip a teaspoon of wine or grape juice and swallow a tiny morsel of unleavened bread and think that through this act we have gained a thorough understanding of His unmatched sacrifice (a sacrifice that was prefigured in detail by the Levitical sacrificial system) is a grand and naive miscalculation on our part. Only our diligent study of Torah, led by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, will remedy that for us.
Sacrifice throughout the world
Chapter 28 begins by stating, in the strongest possible language, that the rituals and sacrifices and feasts that the Lord had ordained were not only to be followed, but they were to be accomplished with precision and fully in the manner, time, and quantities He prescribed. Options were few and almost always had to do with making allowances for the poor, who might not be able to afford one of the more expensive animals as a sacrifice. It is the norm for the modern and relaxed church to make allowance for the poor or the debtridden to give nothing as an offering of tithes to the Lord; in the pattern of the sacrificial system, the Lord prescribed that all must make an offering, even if it was (at times) necessarily small. Thus, as we find Israel standing on the threshold of centuries of promise, as they camped east of the Jordan river, impatient to enter the Promised Land, their first and most important duty was to set up this calendar of public worship to the God of Israel. This was in order to set up lines of both communication and communion between them and Yehoveh.
Numbers 28
239
Olah Burnt offering entire animal is burned up
Hataat Asham Purification offering Reparation offering Some of the animal could be Some of the animal could used for food by priests be used for food by priests
Shelamim Peace offering Most of animal is used for food, with largest portion given to worshipper
Very frequent. To complete a vow. A free will offering A thank you gift. We acknowledge that shalom is from Him.
every day, by priests
Often, usually after being unclean Blood purifies. Without the blood, God could not be among man.
Special, to atone for serious sin We owe God a debt as payment for our offenses against Him.
We owe God all for our sin. We deserve complete destruction.
In these two chapters we find a long list of occasions on which sacrifices were to be made, including the kind and number of sacrifices. Sacrifices were to be made daily and on Shabbat (the Sabbath), and in addition, thirty days in each year were marked for special ritual sacrifices. In looking at this chart Ive prepared for you, you can see a number of distinctive features concerning these occasions of sacrifice. Jacob Milgrom has done a wonderful job of summing up these distinctions: The offerings are cumulative; that is, the offerings for the Sabbaths and festivals are in addition to the daily offerings; and the offerings for rosh Hashanah, the New Year, are in addition to the daily and New Moon offerings. Hence should the New Year fall on a Sabbath there were would be offered all of the following: a) the daily offering plus, b) the Sabbath offering plus, c) the New Moon offering plus, d) the New Year offering. The organizing principle of the calendar is according to descending order of frequency: daily, then Sabbath, and then New Moon. Then the sacrifices for festivals follow in calendar order, beginning with Passover. All the sacrificial animals mentioned are male animals: bulls, rams, and lambs as burnt offerings (Olah offerings) and goats as purification offerings (Hataat offerings).
The sacrificial order is prescriptive not descriptive. In actual practice, the purification offering would be sacrificed before the additional burnt offering. The number 7 and its multiples (14 being two times 7) are very prominent in the number of animals offered. In addition to the frequency of the number 7 in what is laid out in Numbers 28 and 29, there are other occurrences of the number 7: the seven biblical festivals, the seven-day Unleavened Bread and Sukkot festivals, the preponderance of festivals that occur in the 7th month, the 7 festival days (in addition to Sabbath) on which all work is prohibited. Even more we have the bulls required for Sukkot add up to 70 (7 times 10), the number of lambs on Sukkot is 7 times 7 times 2, the number of rams is 14 (7 times 2), and the number of required goats is 7. Daily Offerings The everyday offering has always been called, in Hebrew, tamid. The animals were provided by the priesthood and sacrificed by the priests as a burnt offering. The daily offering was performed on the Great Bronze Altar at the tabernacle, and later the temple, every morning and every evening without fail, and consisted of a lamb plus a grain offering (called a minchah) and a libation offering of wine. The Israelites considered the tamid crucial to their very exis-
Numbers 28
240
Occasion each day (28:3-8) each Sabbath (28:9-10) each New Moon (28:11-15) each day of the Unleavened Bread festival (28:16-25) Feast of Weeks (28:26-31 New Year (29:1-6) Yom Kippur (29:7-11) 1st of Sukkot (29:12-16) 2nd of Sukkot (29:17-19) 3rd of Sukkot (29:20-22) 4th of Sukkot (29:23-25) 5th of Sukkot (29:26-28) 6th of Sukkot (29:29-31) 7th of Sukkot (29:32-34) 8th day, atsevet (29:35-38)
Lambs 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7
R ams 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Bulls 2 2 2 1 1 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 1
Goats 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
tence; they believed that as long as the tamid was observed, the walls of Jerusalem would stand and the Lord would protect them. Heres something that can get confusing: the most common term for a sacrifice is burnt offering, but we really need to revise that. The problem is that a lot of rather sloppy scholarship has translated the specific olah sacrifice as burnt offering, but the reality is that there were several kinds of sacrifices, each with its own divine purpose and name, even though every sacrifice was burned up on the altar. Thus it is overly simplistic to label every sacrifice as a burnt offering. The daily sacrifice, the tamid, consisted of the olah (the typically misnamed burnt offering) and the minchah (the grain offering). Food for the Gods There is no getting around the fact that virtually all Bible-era cultures sacrificed to gods, and as part of that system they sacrificed food to the gods. In the minds and purposes of these mystery religion cultures, the primary purpose of the food was to feed those gods. Thus they typically offered three daily sacrifices (essentially
Numbers 28
241
breakfast, lunch, and dinner). This was not the Hebrew view, however. In fact, the Israelite purpose was nearly opposite, in that the animals and grains (food) were offered not as sustenance for their God Yehoveh, but as an acknowledgment that He had provided them with this food. Wine In verse 7 we read an interesting instruction concerning the libation offering to Yehoveh. Too often, probably due to the modern understanding of how seriously destructive addiction to alcohol can be to the user and to the family, the church often denies that wine (which contains alcohol) was prescribed by the Lord for these sacred rituals: so biblical wine is typically said to be merely grape juice. That is not true. Yayin is the standard Hebrew word for wine; this was wine just as we think of wine. Yayin was a relatively low-alcohol wine, used not only for ritual but also for everyday drinking, particularly with meals. However, there was a stronger drink called shekhar, which was usually used in order to get tipsy or purposely drunk, but there actually was some God-authorized ritual use of shekhar. In fact, the Hebrew word shekhar is often (correctly) translated in our Bibles as strong drink. This could describe any number of alcoholic drink concoctions in which the alcohol level was significantly higher than in yayin (table wine). Sometimes the shekhar was a strong beer or ale made from grains. The biblical term old wine refers to fermented grapes; wine that has been left to ferment longer than was typical (therefore, it was older than regular wine) and so had more alcohol in it. The longer wine is allowed to ferment, in general the higher the alcohol content. Old wine was shekhar. The libation offering that was to accompany the twice-daily tamid is here specified as shekhar ; not only wine but strong wine. It was wine and not beer because nowhere in the Law was anything but grapes used as the source for this type of fermented libation offering, due to the needed symbolism of joy.
It is often stated that priests were not to drink yayin (table wine) immediately before they began their official time of temple duty, while in fact, they were not prohibited from drinking table wine, but they were prohibited from drinking shekhar, stronger intoxicating drink, during those time periods. Those Hebrew laymen who had taken the vow of a Nazirite were not allowed to drink yayin or shekhar. So for a Nazirite it was more a matter of being prohibited from partaking of any alcoholic beverage, not just wine. Sabbath Offerings In verse 9 the Sabbath day sacrificial offering is specified: two yearling rams together with the grain sacrifice. This was in addition to the daily tamid, and in addition to any other occasion that might have fallen on this particular Shabbat. Monthly Offerings Verse 11 begins discussion of the new moon, which for the Israelites marked the end of one month and the beginning of the next. It was an important monthly festival celebrated by all the families of Israel, and its importance can be seen by the large number of sacrificial rams that were offered: seven. This equaled the number offered during the most important biblical festivals. The libation offering was regular wine: yayin. Renewed Sacrificial Worship This would be a good time to point out something of great significance. Along with the advent of the coming new temple in Jerusalem there will also be renewed sacrificial worship. The sacrificial protocol for the renewed system is called out primarily in the book of Ezekiel and is generally acknowledged by Hebrews and Christians as an end-time and millennial kingdom time frame. Therefore, the question usually asked is this: Will the renewed sacrificing that is
Numbers 28
242
not too far into our future be a good thing or a bad thing, in view of the fact that the Ezekiel system begins just before the return of Messiah, and apparently continues on into His new kingdom, which Christians call the millennial kingdom? Weve already covered that to some degree, and it seems likely this renewed sacrificial system is going to be viewed by God as a good and required thing. One issue well find with Ezekiels future sacrificial protocol is that it is somewhat modified from the one we find in the Torah, as one might reasonably expect since the protocol instructed on in Torah is preChrist, while the one were being instructed on in Ezekiel is not only after Yeshuas death and resurrection but occurs at His return. So circumstances are wildly different, particularly on the spiritual side of things. This shift in details of some sacrificial system elements is something weve already seen in Torah. While in the wilderness items like wine and oxen and grain would have been difficult to come by (especially in large volume); once Israel entered the land of Canaan and settled there, these things would be readily available. Therefore, God set down pre-conquest sacrificial requirements in exodus (and to some degree in Leviticus), while Numbers tends to deal mostly with the time after Israel conquered Canaan. One of the striking differences between the future Ezekiel system and the Torah system of Moses era was that while the priesthood was to supply the daily tamid (morning and evening burnt offerings) in the Torah version of sacrificial protocol, in the Ezekiel version, the worshippers were to provide the tamid. And while in verse 15 of Numbers 28 we see that there was to be a hattaat, a purification offering, to go along with the new moon celebration as well as with all other special occasion sacrifices (except on Sabbath), we find that the hattaat is not present at all in Ezekiels future sacrificial procedures for these occasions. We wont go into all the differences between the sacrificial system in Torah and the system in Ezekiel, because that is a very deep endeavor
that could lock us up for weeks. However, one can speculate that there is significance in those differences. Some scholars say that the differences are simply error and inconsistency. More likely the differences have to do with the far lesser significance of the priesthood in Ezekiel (during the end-time, thousand-year kingdom) and the much greater and central significance of the priesthood in Torah. There is also the fact that since the advent of Messiah, no additional atonement for sin apart from His blood has been needed or is even possible. In the Torah system of sacrifice, the chief job of the priests was to sacrifice as a means of obtaining atonement for Israel. So while the priests role in Torah and right on up to Yeshuas death and resurrection was to perform the indispensable rituals needed for atonement of the peoples sins, the Ezekiel style of priesthood was probably more of an ongoing service of commemoration and thanksgiving for what God has done, particularly as references Jesus Christs sacrifice to bring salvation. Passover Offerings Next up in verse 16 are the sacrificial offerings for the Feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread, which can be quite confusing, especially for a Gentile, because it seems the two observances run together. Their becoming fused and inseparable was not prescribed early in the Torah but resulted out of practicality and tradition a few years later. Passover began as one -day festival event. Matzah, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, was to begin the day after Passover and was a continuous seven-day festival. Since Pesach (Passover) was eventually (by the time of Deuteronomy) fused with Matzah, it is often spoken of today as the eight-day Festival of Passover, or, alternately, the eight-day Festival of Matzah. Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread have become interchangeable terms, though that is technically and biblically inaccurate. In the original ordinances, Passover was to occur on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan,
Numbers 28
243
and the seven days of Matzah were to begin on the fifteenth and end on the twenty-first of Nisan. Originally, Passover was a kind of private family observance; the Passover lamb (or better, ram) was to be killed, butchered, and eaten by individual families at their own homes (it was not necessary for a priest to officiate any part of the ritual). In fact, recall that one of the requirements of the Passover was that the ram be roasted over a fire. Why was that the only approved method of cooking the ram? Probably because the method simulated a burnt offering on the altar; but while most temple altar offerings were completely burned up by fire, this private in-home Passover ram sacrifice was cooked with fire and meant to be food for the Israelites. Notice that I said private home observance in regard to the Passover; what we have been studying in chapter 28, and soon in chapter 29, were public sacrifices: sacrifices that occurred at the temple and were officiated over by the priests. On the other hand, the Feast of Matzah, as we see here in Numbers, was to include official public sacrifices performed at the temple by priests. So this meant people had to make a journey, a pilgrimage, to Jerusalem (or in earlier times, to the location of the tabernacle) in order to comply. Because the two feasts became fused into one, people brought their paschal lambs with
them to the temple to be slaughtered by a priest since they had to be there for the Feast of Matzah anyway. They killed two birds with one stone, so to speak. This was not unlike the idea that Christians (Gentiles), for hundreds of years, have usually preferred to marry in a church setting. There is utterly no Bible command regarding this, but in our way of thinking, being married in a church building adds a more solemn and spiritual element to the wedding. It was the same idea with the Passover lamb: the lamb was not required to be killed under the supervision of a priest, but doing so seemed to lend some extra sanctity to the occasion. As a result, public ovens for roasting the lambs were eventually placed all over Jerusalem, enabling those who brought their lambs there to roast them and eat them after they were ritually killed at the temple (again, not a Torah requirement but only a nicety). Notice also that the importance of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was underscored by requiring the same amount of extra sacrifices on each of the seven days of Matzah. Feast of Weeks Offerings Verse 26 lays down the sacrificial requirements for the Feast of Weeks, which is today called Shavuot among the Hebrews and Pentecost (a Greek word) among the Christians. This
Numbers 28
244
feast was to take place seven weeks plus one day (fifty days) after the Feast of Matzah. As all these festivals were agriculturally based, Shavuot was celebrated at the conclusion of the barley harvest, which was also the beginning of the wheat harvest. It was a summer festival as well as a public festival, meaning it required a journey to the temple and there were sacrifices that had to be officiated over by priests. Interestingly, this is another of those instances
where the requirement to make a pilgrimage to the temple was omitted from the Ezekiel pro tocol of sacrifice for the end-time and millennial kingdom periods, probably because of the decreased role and purpose of priests for that age and the reality that Messiah was present on earth. And just as with on new moon festivals and each day of the Feast of Matzah, the same number of sacrifices was required for Shavuot.
Numbers 28
245
Numbers 29
Were going to hit only the highlights of this chapter because weve already covered in depth all the details about the various kinds of sacrifices in our study of Leviticus. Im going to assume you already know most of this, and if you dont, you might want to go back and study the Leviticus book of the Journey Through the Torah Class series. This chapter continues the holy calendar of public sacrifices, as we now move into the sacred seventh month of the year. Basically, there were three sacred feasts scheduled in the first month of the year, three in the seventh month of the year, and one between the first month and the seventh month. Feast of Trumpets Offerings In verse 1 of chapter 29, the Lord instructed that the first day of the seventh month was to be a special occasion where the horn was sounded.
In Hebrew, it was described as a day of yom teruah (a day of blowing horns). Therefore, the day has come to be known as the Feast of Trumpets. Part of the key to understanding what this special occasion signified is embedded in the number seven. Think about how a week operates: the first day of the week is nothing special (no special observances assigned to this day), but the seventh day is very special because its the Sabbath day, an especially holy day according to the Lord. Well, the seventh month is like the Sabbath month. Not that the seventh month is an entire month of rest, but it is the seventh cycle of the moon since the beginning of the religious calendar year; it is the seventh month since the beginning of months and as such is an especially holy month. This falls right in line with Gods established pattern that the seventh of anything holds special significance. This first day of the seventh month is also called rosh Hashanah, meaning the head of the year; its the Jewish New Year. The day holds additional significance since its also the first day of a new month (or new moon). The most ancient Babylonian calendars indicate that the seventh month of the year was generally the first month of the agricultural year; even more, the fifty-year Jubilee year that God ordained was to commence on rosh Hashanah. Because this was an especially holy day, it had its own dedicated series of sacrifices, which were added to the normal new moon sacrifices. Day of Atonement Offerings Verse 7 speaks of yet another sacred occasion, another God-ordained biblical feast, that was to occur ten days later, on the tenth day of the seventh month. This was perhaps the most sober
Numbers 29
246
and yet still joyous of the seven feasts: Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This was the one day each year that the high priest was permitted by Yehoveh to enter the holy of holies in the sanctuary. The purpose of that entry was to bring blood to sprinkle on the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant, and on other areas of the temple to cleanse and purify Gods dwelling from the defilement of a years worth of human contact. The celebration was confined to the temple itself and was performed only by the high priest. The ordinary Hebrews did not go to the temple on this day. For several days leading up to Yom Kippur, much fasting and praying and contemplating of sins before Yehoveh occurred; upon Yom Kippur atonement was attained, the people were forgiven, and they could move forward into the new year without their sins hanging over their heads. This was a time of self-denial: no food, no drink, no gain from working, not even any sexual activity. The ten days that connected the first day of the seventh month, Rosh Hashanah, or the Jewish New Year, and the tenth day of the seventh month, Yom Kippur, were called the High Holy Days. And still, with both of these deeply moving and important feast days in the seventh month, there was yet another feast coming quickly: the granddaddy of all feasts. Feast of Tabernacles Offerings This feast is spoken of beginning in verse 12: the Feast of Sukkot, also known as the Feast of Tabernacles or the Feast of Booths. This was the third and last of the pilgrimage feasts, whereby a male, of the age of accountability, was required to go to the temple to celebrate and sacrifice. This agriculturally based feast marked the end of the agricultural year, when the final bits of the field harvest were gathered before waiting for planting and then rain to start the cycle all over again. The amount and kind of sacrifices required for this feast tell us just how important it was:
five times as many bulls and two times as many lambs and rams were offered for sacrifice during this eight days of Sukkot than in the days of the Feast of Matzah. On the surface, this festival was about giving thanks to the Lord for being sustained the previous year; underneath it all, this was about the final ingathering not of grain, but of all those who had given their hearts to Yeshua and their trust to God Almighty. The Pilgrims who came to America recognized this and modeled the Thanksgiving holiday after it. Yes, the American Thanksgiving is a religious holiday through and through, but this has been mostly lost and forgotten. Although we say that Sukkot was an eightday festival, technically it was only seven; seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles were immediately followed by an extra Sabbath day, which was also a day of congregating and fellowship in religious ceremony. This feast had a very unique schedule of ritual sacrifice, which began on the first day with the offering of thirteen bulls (the most expensive of all the animals), and then, over a period of seven days, the sacrifice was reduced by one bull each day. So on the first day of Sukkot thirteen bulls were sacrificed, on the second day twelve bulls were sacrificed, and by the seventh
Numbers 29
247
day of Sukkot, seven bulls were sacrificed. All the quantities of other sacrificial animals and grains and wine remained static throughout. Why thirteen bulls? Usually, sacrifices on behalf of all Israel numbered twelve. It is likely that the number thirteen signified the twelve tribes of Israel plus the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe. remember, the tribe of Levi was separated away from Israel by the Lord for special service to Him, and was not to be counted as among Israel. But here we have a reuniting of Levi with Israel, something that is probably going to occur in the millennial kingdom. Of course, when you add up the number of bulls sacrificed over the entire seven-day period, it comes to seventy: seven times ten. Theres that
number seven again. The rabbis say that seventy represents all the nations of the world. Isnt that fascinating? The rabbinical tradition says that the grandest of all feasts: the final of all feasts, included a significant element that involved the world in general and not just Hebrews. From a prophetic standpoint, the Feast of Tabernacles represented the final ingathering of believers at the end of days, that time when the Lord will gather all who are His and destroy the remainder, as we enter the thousand-year reign of Messiah that we typically call the millennial kingdom. Understanding the Lords ordained sacrifices and His ordained biblical feasts will help us make a lot more sense of what has happened and is about to happen in the near future.
Numbers 29
248
Numbers 30
Numbers 30
It is time to take up the matter of making vows and oaths to the Lord. I suppose that every believer, Jewish or Gentile, has at some time in their spiritual walk made a promise to God; some folks make vows and oaths quite regularly, and among eastern Orthodox Christianity, making vows is a regular part of worship. every religion that Ive ever studied and examined, from Hinduism to Bahaism, from Judaism to Islam and all the others, has some inherent understanding of making promises to a god in return for something important. Atheists that find themselves in life-threatening situations have been known to look upward and make a promise to any spiritual deity that might be listening, in exchange for being rescued (just in case God might actually exist). When we get married we exchange wedding vowspromises to each other invoking the name of God. When we testify in a court of law, we swear or take an oath to tell the entire truth as best we know it (so help us God). And the Bible is positively overflowing with stories of men and women making vows to the Lord. What we need to understand is that these vows and oaths were completely real and valid (they were not superstition), and the Lord expected these promises to be kept. Even so, there were rules and regulations and laws established by precedent on who could, or should, make vows and oaths; under what kind of circumstances; who could legitimately void a vow; and at times a caution was raised against making vows in the heat of the moment due to the seriousness of making promises and bargains with the Lord.
Oaths Versus Vows Before we get too deep into this chapter, let me point out that there is a distinct difference in the Bible between an oath and a vow. An oath imposed an obligation upon the one making the oath. A vow was by definition a conditional promise. That is, if Jacob returned home safely, if Israel were victorious over the Canaanites, if Jephthah defeated the Ammonites, the vow maker would respond with some predetermined action to complete the bargain. Oaths tended to come in two flavors: the kind that was a promise and the kind that made some kind of assertion (like asserting that you didnt steal that camel). A covenant, by definition, was a promissory oath. In Hebrew this kind of oath was labeled a shevuat issar. Oaths were usually made in the name of some god or another; in the case of the Hebrews, oaths were of course made in the name of YHWH. Thus we see the Hebrew term nishba be-YHWH used, which means swear by Yehoveh, when one person was making an oath to another person and invoking Gods name to seal that oath. But when an oath was made directly to God (an oath made between a person and God), the Hebrew term was nishba le-YHWH, which means, swear to YHWH. These Hebrews of ancient Bible times were no different than we are: often in moments of crisis we will plead with God and make a vow to Him, often unthinking and rash: Oh, Lord, Ill go to church (or synagogue) every week, or I promise never to use swearwords again, or Ill never ask You for anything ever again. You can probably recall some doozies that youve either heard or actually uttered yourself.
249
The problem is that verse 3 says if a person made an oath or a vow, he was not to break it; he was to carry out everything that he said he would do. Yikes. Sometimes we make so many promises to the Lord we cant even remember what weve said. The problem with that is, the Lord has a photographic memory and perfect recall. In reality, verse 3 says, If a man makes a vow . . . ( Jps, emphasis added). This is referring to a male specifically, and then verse 4 begins, If a woman makes a vow . . . ( Jps, emphasis added). So instantly we see that the Lord looks upon the vows of a woman differently than He looks upon the vows of a man. Before we examine the particulars of this interesting (and Im sure to some of you ladies, bit uncomfortable) distinction between vows of men versus vows of women, lets see exactly why this difference existed in the first place. The principles from which the laws about vows came, and how each sex was obligated to those vows or not, were already well established in the Torah. These principles stated that just as a child was to submit to his or her parent, and a man was to submit to the Lord, so a wife was to submit to her husband. Put in a way that is a little less irritating to the modern Western woman, a wife was under the covering and authority of her husband, just as a husband was under the covering and authority of God. So the idea of the ordinances set up in Numbers 30 was that neither a child nor a wife was given permission by Yehoveh to substitute self-imposed, selfcreated obligations to God in addition to or in place of standard God-ordained duties. Further, a child or a wife could not make a vow to the Lord, the keeping of which affected the parent or husband in such a way as to make that vow offensive to them. This did not necessarily speak to the nature or intent of the vow; that is, it wasnt that the vow might be an evil vow or an irresponsible vow that could not possibly be kept. Rather, the vows of a child or a woman first came under earthly authority before they were considered valid to heavenly authority, Yehoveh.
As we go about delving into the rules of vow-making in Torah, especially as concerned women, keep in mind that in the NT vows and promises to the Lord continued and were considered completely acceptable, usual, and generally a good thing. In the Gospels and the epistles, we read of believers (even apostles) making vows as a normal course of life. However, Yeshua warned about the downside of vow-making and said that a vow could not be used to abrogate or avoid an otherwise lawful expectation of a person. Jesus specifically addressed this practice of making a vow that allowed a person to evade proper care for his parents because it was a real problem in His era: [Yeshua] answered and said to them, Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death. But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God [a vow], he is not to honor his father or his mother. And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. (Matt. 15:39 nasb) This is but one example of a person selfishly or out of complete ignorance of scriptural truth making a vow to give something to God instead of doing what had already been set down as a permanent God-ordained responsibility in Torah. In this instance, a man said that the money he would have used to care for his parents he had instead vowed to the Lord; so, alas, he just could not meet his obligation as a son to care for them. In other words, he gave the money to the priesthood instead of using it to see after his aged mother and father. Yeshua blamed this incorrect mind-set primarily on the teachings of doctrines of men, which He often referred to as traditions of the elders. Understand, Jesus in essence said, You say you are
Numbers 30
250
studying the Holy Scriptures, and you claim to be doing what the Scriptures say, but in reality youre not. You probably dont even really know what the Scriptures say because you have chosen to accept a list of doctrines that men have told you is the truth, doctrines that are self-serving at times, rather than going by what the Word actually says. Because the Jews have come to call their doctrines tradition, it is typically thought that Jesus was referring to only the traditions that Jews made; in fact, He was speaking to all man-made traditions and that includes the vast trove of traditions that Christians call doctrine. Yeshua said that the result of this acceptance of doctrines over Scripture was that their heart is far away from Me. Chapter 30 basically organizes the issue of vow-making into four case studies or examples. The instruction concerning males was not one these cases. For the man (meaning a man of an age of accountability, not a boy-child), the matter was very straightforward: make a vow; keep a vow. There was no way out that did not end up being sin. No one else was held responsible
for a mans vow, and there was no winking and looking the other way by the Lord, regardless of how desperate the situation under which a man might have entered that vow. Men, Yeshua did not change this! In no way did Yeshua say that the ordinances concerning vows were abolished. He did say to be very careful of what you vow. and that its better to just make your yes, yes and your no, no. Follow the God principles long established in the Word. Jephthahs Vow Probably one of the most devastating examples in the entire Bible of rash vow-making by a man is the story of Jephthah in the book of Judges. Jephthah was an Israelite, probably of the tribe of Gad, as he was born in the territory called Gilead. Gilead was at first called Gad (one of the twelve tribes of Israel), and Gad was one of the two and one-half Hebrew tribes who chose to disavow themselves from the land that Yehoveh had set aside for His people, Canaan. The area of Gad, during the era of the Judges called Gilead, was on the east side of the Jordan river in an area generally called the Transjordan. The backdrop for the story of Jephthah was that the nation of Ammon was making trouble with Gilead, and it was necessary for Gilead to do battle with the forces of Ammon, but Gilead lacked the military leader necessary to rally its people to victory. Jephthah had been kicked out of Gilead some years earlier because his mother was a prostitute, and so Jephthah was considered illegitimate. However, Jephthah was known as a fierce and effective warrior leader, and he agreed when representatives of Gilead went to him and asked him to return and lead Gilead in battle in return for reinstatement to the tribe. Before he went to war, Jephthah approached Yehoveh and made a vow in order to seek Gods favor for the coming battle. That is, if the Lord would give Jephthah victory, he would do something specific in return; this was the typical format for making a vow.
Numbers 30
251
Assignment: read Judges 11:2940.
Imagine this man, Jephthah, having no idea that his only daughter would by chance become the object of the sacrificial vow he had made to the Lord. In the end, Jephthah followed through and sacrificed his daughter. In no way does the Lord condone or ask for or accept human sacrifice. Yet so clear was His mandate that a man who made a vow (no matter what it was) was to perform that vow, Jephthah felt he had little choice but to commit this horror upon his own child. As an aside, I have heard many Christians and Jews try to make a case that Jephthahs daughter was not offered up as a burnt offering to God (as a way around this unsavory and disgusting act that, on the surface, seemed to meet Gods approval); The Scripture is very clear that not only did Jephthah do exactly as he had vowed, but that there was a regular day of sad commemoration established for that event in Israel. Jephthah made what appeared to all around him a pious and reasonable offering to the Lord (at least at the time he made the vow it seemed that way). He never dreamed what the
result would be. Thats the problem with making vows in the first place; they are dangerous. We have no idea of all the possible outcomes and unintended consequences. I would also like to note that Jephthah could have made a different decision. He could have chosen to break his vow with the Lord and bear his own sin for his rashness, couldnt he? But he didnt. Instead, in a terribly false sense of piety and apparently not even understanding that the Lord does not want human sacrifice, Jephthah went through with the terms of the vow that he himself established and killed his own innocent child. So men, beware. Our vows have power, and they have consequences. Once a vow is made, there are only a couple of possible outcomes: that we fulfill our vow, no matter how unintentionally painful; or that we break our vow and then live in our sin. Jephthah may have fulfilled his vow to the Lord, but the Lord would not have been pleased with this. Vow-Making Case Number One We have our first of the four cases of vow-making in Numbers 30: the case of a virgin (meaning a girl who was unmarried) who was still living at home. This means she was under the authority of her parents, her father in particular. The rule was that if this young girl made a vow, and her father heard of it but did not respond, the vow would stand. However, if her father heard of the vow and disapproved of it, the vow was annulled. Further, the Lord would not consider her unfulfilled vow a sin, because it was her father who told her she could not fulfill it. In other words, in a case of two opposing wrongs (so to speak), one of making an unauthorized or rash vow, and another of not completing that vow, it was better to be obedient to the authority of her father (an authority that was a foundational God principle), than to fulfill the vow to God that the girls father disagreed with. By the way, the girl would have fully known that she had no place making a vow to Yehoveh without her fathers prior approval.
Numbers 30
252
Vow-Making Case Number Two A second case is proposed starting in verse 7, and it builds somewhat on the first case. This is the case of an unmarried girl who, while still living at home, made a vow that her father found out about but did not annul. The girl was therefore bound to the terms of that vow. Later, however, she married and her husband heard of this vow that was made prior to their marriage: a completely legitimate and in-force vow. He then had the option of allowing the terms of the vow to be brought to fruition or annulling the vow. And just as if the girls father had annulled the vow she would not be held responsible by God for not fulfilling it, the same was true for her husband: he could agree with or annul his wifes vows. Why?
Because authority over a female, now a woman, was transferred from her father to her husband when she was wed. Vow-Making Case Number Three Verse 10 begins the third case: If a woman who was widowed or divorced made a vow, since she was not under the authority of a father or a husband at the time, whatever she vowed stood and no one could annul it. In essence, in this case of a divorcee or widow, the status of her vow and her obligation was similar to that of a fullgrown male.
Numbers 30
253
Vow-Making Case Number Four In the fourth and last case, a married woman made a vow, and her husband knew of it, but he remained silent. The result was that her vow stood, and she was responsible to fulfill it. But understand, there were vows that could affect the whole family. If a husband let stand a vow by his wife that was terribly unwise, or perhaps even against the principles of God, then he bore at least some of the responsibility. Verse 14 gives us some general direction about vows, but the vow being discussed here was a somewhat different type of vow. This was a vow of self-denial: a vow in which the terms were that the woman would deny herself something in return for the Lord granting her request. We see a vow like this in the case of Samson, when his mother told God that she would deny herself the possession of her child if the Lord would allow her to become pregnant and if the child were a son. That is, she would dedicate her sons entire life to service to the Lord, and thereby deny herself all the necessary duties and honors a son might normally confer upon his mother, like caring for her in her old age.
Neder and Issar

Lets wrap up this discussion of chapter 30 and the issue of vows (mainly as concerned women and children) by examining two kinds of vows. Usually these two different kinds of vows are given different names, but sometimes they are not translated that way. One type of vow was called, in Hebrew, neder. Neder should be translated as vow; it means to do something positive such as making a sacrificial offering of some kind. The second kind was called issar. Issar would be better translated as pledge. This pledge was generally associated with fasting or some form of abstinence. This was the kind of vow (or pledge) made by a Nazirite, which involved abstinence from drinking or eating any grape product, from cutting ones hair, and from
touching a corpse even of ones mother or father. What was common among all vows and pledges was that an oath was taken to initiate these vows and pledges, and by definition an oath invoked the name of God. Even oaths were of two kinds: the first kind was a promise, and the second was the making of an assertion. An assertion type of oath was the kind a defendant on trial would make; under oath he asserted the facts of the case and thereby his innocence in the matter. A promissory type of oath stated that the person making the oath had taken an obligation upon himself to do something. A covenant was, by definition, a promissory oath; it involved one or two parties promising to do something. This is important for us to remember, because the Lord chose to put Himself under the same law of oaths under which He has put men. When the Lord made the covenants with Abraham and Moses, for instance, He was promising to do something. Yehoveh took an oath, upon His own name, to bring something about. Vows, by definition, had conditions. Jephthah said if God would give his people victory; he would sacrifice the first thing through the door of his tent when he returned home from battle. Jacob said that if God would bring him back to Canaan safely, the Lord would be his God and he would build God a sanctuary. Unfulfillable Vows Vows became so popular among ancient Israel that a system of redeeming a vow, rather than performing it, was developed. We see the basics of that system in Leviticus 27, which primarily concerns the matter of a person being given as a vow for service to the Lord. In other words, a father might have said, If thus and so happens, I will dedicate my son to the service of the Lord. However, by law, full-time service to the Lord was the sole province of the Levites. So if a parent, as a vow, dedicated their child to service to the Lord, or if a slave owner dedi-
Numbers 30
254
cated one of his slaves for service to the Lord, there was really no way for that vow to be fulfilled. There was, however, a way for the person who made the vow to redeem back that vow for a set price, paid to the priesthood. All along it was expected that the one making the vow (actually a symbolic offering) would simply pay some money to the temple.
remember this when hearing Yeshuas words about vows and pledges. The purpose of unfulfillable vows was generally to make the vowmaker look pious or godly to the public. Yeshua spoke against unfulfillable vows and pledges, because while the act of making them may have been frivolous to the worshipper, it was serious business to God.
Numbers 30
255
Numbers 31
This chapter concerns the holy war Yehoveh ordered of Israel against Midian. Why war against Midian? Because of the Midianites allegiance with Moab, and therefore their participation in leading the Hebrews into idol worship of Chemosh, the chief god of Moab. In some ways this is but an extension of the Balak and Balaam story, whereby Balak, the king of Moab, asked a Mesopotamian sorcerer name Balaam to come and put a curse on Israel so that Moab (and their ally, Midian) could fight against Moses and his forces and defeat them in battle. Why did Moab want to fight Israel? Because Israel would, with its population of three million and its 600,000-man-strong army, be the biggest dog in the kennel and therefore able to dominate any other people group in the region. Almost all kings (King Balak included) assumed the throne with the goal of expanding their territory and influence. If Israel came into their area and survived, King Balak could kiss his hopes of regional domination good-bye. After the Lord God intervened in Balaks plan and had direct contact with Balaam (and his donkey), Balaam conceded that (a) even if he did curse Israel, it would have had no effect because whatever Yehoveh blessed could not be cursed, and whatever Yehoveh cursed could not be blessed; and (b) God made it clear that if Balaam ever attempted to utter a curse to bolster Israels enemy Moab, God would summarily kill Balaam. Balaam told King Balak, therefore, that he would not and could not curse Israel and so went back home to Carchemish without being paid.
However, immediately following the Balaam and Balak story we discover that Israel remained in the area of Moab, and that Balaam suggested to Balak that Moab could infiltrate Israel and thus weaken them by getting the Midianite (and Moabite) women to sexually entice the Hebrew men, and in the process persuade Israel to worship Chemosh. It worked. And as a result, Yehoveh brought a plague upon Israel for its idolatry that killed twenty-four thousand Hebrews. The plague ended only when a priest named Phinehas speared a Hebrew man having intercourse with a Moabite woman (while they were in his tent inside the camp of Israel),
Numbers 31
256
killing them both. The Lord considered this atonement for the national sin of apostasy and idolatry Israel had committed and so the plague ceased. But as often happens in the Bible, when Israel was led astray by someone, first Israel was punished for following, and then there was retribution against those who did the leading. That is what was occurring here in Numbers 31 against Midian. Midian Before we begin studying this verse by verse, let me add some information. In reading this story it would appear that all of Midian was destroyed, brought to extinctionthat after this event a Midian would no longer have existed. As we move forward in our Torah study, and even later in the Bible, well find other encounters with Midian, and archaeology proves that Midian remained alive and well far beyond this era. So what gives? The answer is that Midian was much like Canaan in that era: there was no sovereign nation called Canaan. Canaan was just a general geographical area where several tribes resided that claimed Noahs grandson Canaan as an ancestor (as well as many other cultures that had no relation to Canaan). (recall that Midian was where Moses went when he fled Egypt; it was also where Moses met and married his Midianite wife, Tzippora; and it was where he met God at the burning bush. Therefore, I claim that Midian was actually the location of Mount Sinai.) Midian was also just a general geographical area, not a nation with defined boundaries. Midian was composed of several tribes, all descendents of a man named Midian, who was the son of Abrahams second wife, Keturah. So Midianites were Semitesdescendants of Abrahamand distant cousins to Israel. Various of the Midian tribes and clans were spread out over the western portion of the Arabian Peninsula, and ranging all the way north to Moab, and west to edom and the Negev. In
our Numbers 31 story, Moses and the Hebrews destroyed only those Midianite clans who settled in the area of Moabnot all Midianites of every tribe. Yet what Israel did was quite significant in scope. Our story begins with the Lord telling Moses that this battle with Midian would be the last major assignment He would have for him. Soon thereafter, Moses would die. An esteemed nineteenth-century Christian scholar named G. B. Gray calls Numbers 31 the extermination of the Midianites. That sounds pretty harsh and direct, but in fact thats precisely what this chapter is about. Id like to begin by addressing a concern that some dear friends of mine, and perhaps you as well, have with the OT in general, which is that it includes a tremendous amount of killing and bloodshed, much of it ordered by the God of Israel upon Israels (and therefore Gods) enemies. I know a few highly educated folks (including Jewish and Christian scholars, writers, rabbis, and pastors) who forthrightly say that they cannot square the God of the OT with the God of the New: a God who leads Israel in conquering nations versus a God who sacrifices Himself, meekly, for all nations. No one denies that we see both of these attributes of God in our Bible. Our problem, then, is not one of intelligence; it is one of faith. We want the God our human sensibilities would prefer to have, instead of the One who is. So we unilaterally declare that the God of the Old Testament has morphed into the God of the New Testament; its not because thats what the Word of God says, but because were more comfortable with that. This tendency of Christians is really both the cause and the definition of the word idolatry. An idol is the physical image of a god that comes from the minds of men, molded and shaped and ascribed attributes according to human philosophies, characteristics, and desires. When we worship those attributes and characteristics instead of the God of the Holy Scriptures as He is, that is idol worship. There
Numbers 31
257
is no way around this, and giving it some nice Christian name doesnt make it okay. Dehumanizing Mankind and Humanizing God There are a number of books with Christiansounding themes making the rounds today, and Im thinking of one very popular new book in particular that I shall not name, which goes to great lengths to attempt to degrade God by finding various ways of humanizing Him. Yes, to humanize God is to lower and defile His gloriousness. A human is a rather significantly lesser being than Yehoveh. In fact, were not even in the same cosmic ballpark. So to attempt to equate Him with us is an insult of gargantuan proportions to His matchless divine essence. This attempt to humanize God is only the next New Age step in returning to the old world of Gnosticism; the first step was to take humans down a notch (to dehumanize mankind) so as to be more equated with animals. This has been
thoroughly accomplished nearly universally by demanding that Darwinian evolutionism be taught and accepted as undisputed fact. Its simply the notion that we were not created by God, but simply evolved from animals and thus we are nothing more than another species of animal. Look at the pattern that these deceptive books try to foist upon us: According to our holy texts, God is above humans, and humans are above animals. The New Age movement makes a mockery of that by seeking to make God approximately equal to humans, and humans approximately equal to animals. Too many churches and pastors the world over have fallen for this deception from hell, thinking it is a way for their congregations to get a warmer and fuzzier feeling about God and seeing Him more as a kindly grandfather and friend, and less as the mighty Creator and King who stands above all things and demands our faithfulness and obedience to Him. This is modern-age idolatry. It is absolutely no different than molding little figurines of a god or gods and bowing down to them. It is remaking God in our image for our convenience. The idols and images we read about in the Bible were either people or animals, werent they? All the gods were ascribed human attributes; they partied, drank, had sex and procreated, worried, could be killed, needed to eat food, could be tricked, and loved to be flattered. And if youve succumbed to this hidden New Age nonsense disguised as Christian literature, then you need to think again. Put down those books and pick up your Bibles. Lay aside those novels and publications full of pithy prose and half-truths that you think will draw you closer to the Lord, when in fact they merely pull you away by flirting with your emotions and distorting truth. Many folks do this because they see the Bible as being over their heads, but the Bible was made for normal, everyday humans to understand. even more than understanding the Word of God, we are to believe and follow the Word of God. We are to take God as He is, not create something that represents how we would rather He might be.
Numbers 31
258
I find it amusing if not mind-numbingly irrational that the same people who despair and apologize over the slaughter of the Midianites here in Numbers will cheer and raise their voices in song over the coming of Armageddon and the total, grisly, merciless annihilation (by our Lord and Messiah) of the billions of people who form the nations but who will not submit to God. Here are a few things to understand: First, whether Torah or the Gospels, this is the same God with the same attributes demonstrating the same principles. Second, at all times in history Yehoveh has chosen moments to slay those who were not Hisat times for divine retribution, and at other times sacrificing them for the sake of those who were His. And third, the worst and most horrific slaughtering and bloodletting of His foes is yet to happen; its not recorded in the Old Testament because it is in our future. Milder forms of His wrath and divine vengeance were seen soon after Adam and eve, in a global scale with the Great Flood, during the era of the patriarchs, the night of Passover in egypt, and here in Numbers with the Midianites. Later on in the Bible, we will read of much God-ordained killing that took place as Israel invaded Canaan, and later still as David expanded his kingdom. We will eventually read of nearly a quarter million Assyrian soldiers dying overnight as they planned to overthrow the Holy City of Jerusalem, killed at the hand of Yehoveh. We of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have watched as nations who sought to finally bring the Jewish people to extinction were laid low as the Lord gave might to the nations who sought to stop such a thing. We read in our NT book of Revelation of the future when our mild and meek Savior will return as a ravenous lion and lead the armies of God, sword in hand, as an invincible warrior-chief, railing against the enemies of God in a final war to end all wars, in which the amount of bloodletting will be so enormous as to stagger the imagination.
We do not have a God who joyfully kills; we are told that it is His will that all would be saved. He does and will continue to destroy human beings whom He deems as wicked in order to achieve His purposes, and among those purposes is to save Israel and to protect all those who are His. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Lord always deals first with His own people, and then with those outsiders who persecute His people. In other words, the same foundational God principles governed Israel as governed all the nations of the earth, and chief of those principles was that all would perish for their sins if they did not accept the grace of God as an escape route. We have already read of thousands upon thousands of Israelites being killed by the Lord for rebelling against Him, just as we have read of thousands of Gentiles being killed by the Lord for rebelling against Him. The largescale destruction of Hebrew and Gentile sinners is not an OT principle that has somehow been abandoned with the advent of Christ. Gods justice did not end at the foot of the cross. romans 2:510, for example, goes to great length to explain that the Lord will treat Jew and Gentile the same, and subject them to the same standards, both in grace and in destruction: Because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly
Numbers 31
259
ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (nasb) So as pertains to this lesson, lets recall what weve just read in a couple of previous chapters, that the Hebrew men (Gods set-apart people) accepted the offer of the Moabite and Midianite women to mix with them to engage in immoral sex and idolatry. The crime here, however, in the eyes of the Lord was really adultery; the Lord God was Israels husband, but the bride was having an affair with another god. The Law says that the consequences of adultery are death; Gods justice demanded that more than twentyfour thousand Israelites die of a divine plague due to their adultery with Chemosh, the god of Moab. As is the God principle, after the Lord finished dealing with His own people, He then turned to those who were not His people to deal with them in like manner. That is our context for the account of Numbers 31, the extermination of Midian. The people of Midian were not Gods people, and they had intentionally drawn Gods people away from Him and into apostasy. War Against Midian The first couple of verses of chapter 31 bring to light that indeed the war against Midian was the Lords vengeance, and Israel was to carry out this vengeance on behalf of Yehoveh. Therefore, they were to accomplish this holy war precisely as He ordered it. First, the Lord ordered that the army would do battle without using all 600,000 men of Israel; rather, this group was to consist of only 12,000 handpicked soldiers; 1,000 from each of the twelve tribes. Second, the Lord ordered Phinehas, son of eleazar the high priest, to be the war priest in this campaign. In every battle of ancient cultures, each side brought priests as representa-
tives of their gods, and Israel was no different. Along with these priests went various ritual objects, including shofars for sounding the various battle instructions the way weve all seen buglers do in the movies. Phinehas was not leading the Israelite army; he was basically the chaplain, there only to do priestly service. We are intended to notice that it was Phinehas who went with the twelve thousand, because it was Phinehas who speared the Midianite woman and the Hebrew man in the act of having sex (killing them both), thus ending the plague that Yehoveh had brought upon Israel for their adultery. As is so unique with the Scriptures apart from all ancient literature, we find no detailed description of the battle, no riveting accounts of victory snatched from the jaws of defeat, and no tales of individual heroism. Numbers 31:7 simply states that the Israelites took the field against Midian and annihilated them; they slew every last Midianite man. Period. The outcome was never in doubt; the Lord went ahead of them, and it was His army, so it was a sealed victory before they ever picked up a spear or a sword, or looked a Midianite opponent in the eye. There is a principle here that is easily enough grasped, but truly hard for us to believe and internalize: when the Lord sends His armies into battle, its not actually a contest with a range of possible outcomes as it is with secular armies. results arent determined by strategies or tactics or even the size of the armies. When the Lord sends His armies into the battle, and they behave as He has ordered, the purpose is really for the sake of humans simply witnessing what Yehoveh has already decided and for His glory to be demonstrated to both sides. By no means is it a fair fight in which the other side actually has an opportunity to win.
Numbers 31
260
Let me remind you that the Israelites indeed killed every Midianite male, but only of those Midianites who resided in the northern Transjordan region. Various Midianite tribes and clans had settlements all the way from Moab down to the southwestern end of the Arabian Peninsula, and they were not one large unified nation or people group. Therefore, all the descendants of Midian were not exterminated. The kings of several of the Midianite tribes and city-states were also killed, and their names are listed for us. What is more interesting to me, however, is that Balaamthe Mesopotamian sorcerer hired by King Balak to curse Israel for him (but he didnt)was also put to death by the Israelites. An earlier chapter tells us that Balaam went back home (empty-handed) after his encounter with Yehoveh and King Balak; obviously, he came back. Big mistake. Plunder of War In verse 9 were told that the women and children of Midian, along with all their livestock, were confiscated and the towns where the Midianites lived were burned down. These practices were completely standard for that day. Allow me to comment here on something that can get lost: it was normal procedure to expand ones own tribe or nation by seizing the women and children (and in some cases, men) of a tribe or nation that one had defeated. The Israelites did the same. In fact, we see that Jacob (five hundred years before this war with Midian) grew his clan virtually overnight, when, after his sons led the misguided raid of revenge on the city of Shechem and killed all the males (sound familiar?), they took all the women and children of Shechem as slaves. We dont know just how many people were talking about here, but the number would have been substantial, and it would have increased the size of Jacobs family. The same thing was about to happen here in Numbers 31 concerning these Midianites. Most of the time when Israel conquered one king or another, some portion of that kingdoms population wound up belonging to Israel.
Therefore, Israels size increased by considerably more than just additional children being born to Hebrew women. Notice how this practice also shows that a genealogical purity within Israel was practically impossible from their very inception. The vast majority of those conquered peoples were absorbed into Israel and in a short time were no longer considered foreigners, but Israelites. That is simply the way of tribal society. The spoils of the Midianite war were brought back to where Moses and Israel were encamped, just a little east of the Jordan river, not far from Jericho. The returning soldiers were probably surprised that Moses became irate when he saw the Midianite women in tow. Why was Moses so angry? These were the women who had led (rather easily I suspect) the Hebrew men astray; as a result of the involvement of these women, twenty-four thousand Israelites were slain by Yehoveh. Verse 16 also confirms for us that it was Balaam who came up with the bright idea for these pagan women to entice the Hebrew men and in this way weaken Israel. Balaam may not have issued an official curse upon Israel, but he definitely cursed them through his hellish plan to infiltrate Israel with pagan women. Moses decreed that all virgin women were to be spared (but kept, of course, as slaves), and all women who were sexually experienced were to be executed. The reasoning was simple: only women involved in the apostasy of the Israelites against Yehoveh should die. Why should a woman who had obviously never had sexual relations with anyone, let alone a Hebrew, be killed? These women had no part in persuading the Israelite men to worship Chemosh. The killing of the boy children is a little harder to take. Yet this practice was rather typical for the era for a couple of reasons: First, it was a male childs duty, when he grew up, to avenge the death of his father. A Hebrew killed every one of these boys fathers, and so to let them live meant that in time theyd have to be dealt with as adults. Second, since the fathers name was given to his children and it was a hus-
Numbers 31
261
bands right to possess all the property of his wife, Moses did not want any male Midianites among the mix to pollute Israel or drain wealth and land away from it. Purification After War We now come upon this interesting scene beginning in verse 19 whereby a purification process must take place. Back in verse 13 we were told that Moses and eleazar the high priest left the camp of Israel to go out and greet the returning army. This was not so much to honor the victors but to keep defilement from entering the Israelite camp. The soldiers were now unclean because they had touched death; they had killed, and even if they hadnt, they undoubtedly had touched a corpse, and at the very least had stood in the middle of a field full of dead bodies. Further, the people that had been captured were unclean (because they werent Hebrews and because, by definition, they were polluted by other gods), and they couldnt be allowed to just walk into the camp. So a standard seven-day period of cleansing was ordered; the troops had to stay outside the camp and be sprinkled twice with ashes of the red heifer (the special Godordained concoction that was used especially to cleanse the defilement of death), once on the third day and once on the seventh day. Further, their clothes were to be washed, and other objects they had come into contact with were to be ritually cleansed. All this was in accordance with the Levitical laws. Verse 22 presents a list of metals confiscated from Midian that must also be purified in order to be brought into the camp. All objects taken from the Midianites must be purified, but notice there is no mention of earthenware vessels and pots (of which there must have been thousands); this was because earthenware was porous and therefore could not be cleansed so it must instead be destroyed. The purification process for the confiscated items meant passing them through fire. However, for items that would burn or too easily melt (like glass), they could just be purified with
water. This segment on the purification of various objects has since been expanded and codified by the rabbis such that any cooking vessel must be heated until it is white-hot to be purified; silverware must be scalded; but glass, which is nonporous, can generally just be soaked in cold water. Most traditional Jewish households follow this procedure to this day for Passover and the Feast of Matzah. Division of the Plunder Now that the disposition of the captives had been accomplished and the purification of people and objects had been completed, the all-important distribution of the spoils of war occurred. every soldier expected (and was entitled to) some of the spoils, but it was up to the leaders to decide just how the spoils were to be divided. And here is how it was to be done: The twelve thousand soldiers who actually did the fighting got to keep half of all the booty; the other half was given to the remaining three million Israelites. Interesting, isnt it, that the soldiers got the lions share of the spoils while the civilians received only a little something? This was by order of magnitude less than the actual combatants reward. I say interesting because in our day the soldiers are typically among the poorest paid in the government, and yet they make the biggest sacrifice. Civilians who stay safe at homeand often spend their time protesting against soldiers who are out putting their lives on the lineget the greatest benefit of the soldiers bravery, while the soldiers get the least. Go figure. But, as usual, in Israel everything gained in holy war was the Lords property and so a prescribed portion was to go to Him. With the establishment of the priesthood, that meant the priests (and in some cases the common Levites) were to be the recipients of the Lords portion. Notice that of the half of the spoils the soldiers received, they had to tithe (so to speak) only one fivehundredth of their share (a mere two-tenths of 1 percent). On the other hand, all the civilians of Israel had to tithe one-fiftieth, or 2 percent of
Numbers 31
262
what they received. Contrary to appearance, this really is not so much a penalty for the civilians (or a reward to the soldiers) as it is a well-established system based on practicality. It is well-documented that a priestly order of ten Levites was established for each priest serving at the temple (this was the norm). That is, there was a 10 to 1 ratio of Levites to priests. recall now that Levites were not all priests. Most Levites were the blue-collar workers around the temple. Only priests could officiate sacrifices and rituals, never common Levites. So notice that the Levites (as a whole) got ten times as much as the priests (the one-fiftieth tithe for the Levites, versus a one five-hundredth tithe for the priests). But since there were ten times as many Levites as priests, by the time each man got his portion, in essence every priest and every Levite received exactly the same amount. This is another interesting point in Gods economy as opposed to how men think. In Christian ministry, a salary hierarchy is always established, with the senior minister getting the most by far, and then each of the more junior ministers getting progressively less. Sometimes the difference is not too large; at
other times it is enormous. Perhaps that needs to be rethought in light of the biblical example. A long inventory of the plundered livestock is given, and the numbers are startlingly huge: large enough that most scholars say this is not possible. I cant really say if thats the case or not; but I can say that in other instances where numbers of livestock quoted were possible, the livestock was in this same geographical area. The upper Transjordan had exceedingly good pastureland. In fact, in the next chapter were going to find that a couple of the twelve tribes want to stay there and not go on into Canaan, for that very reason. For as many good and selfless leaders we all know of, there are probably at least as many out for personal fame and fortune. Here in the last seven verses of Numbers 31, we get a truly heart-tugging example of godly leadership. All the commanders of the various troop levels, from the sergeants up to the top man, gave to the Lord all the gold and silver jewelry they had taken as their spoils of war. When the fighting was over a census was taken (as was standard procedure), and miraculously, not one Israelite soldier had been killed or was missing. So thankful were these brave leaders, and recognizing the Lords hand upon them, that they turned over their entire personal portion to the priesthood in gratitude for the lives of their men. The regular foot soldier was allowed to keep his entire share. As a memorial for this day, the priests took the precious metals these commanders gave and formed all sorts of ritual objects for use in the tabernacle. I emphasized the attitude and action of the leaders of Israel because we see this growing understanding in them of what the Lord expected from them. I have no doubt that this increase in understanding was at least partially as a result of a committed and faithful Israelite leadership that would soon cross the Jordan river into Canaan, and win battle after battle, with few losses, and in lightning fashion. God expects much of human leaders; He expects even more of the human leaders who serve Him.
Numbers 31
263
Numbers 32
Reuben and Gad Settle East of the Jordan The conquest of the Promised Land had begun, yet Israel had yet to even enter Canaan. rather, they first conquered the east side of the Jordan, the area of the Transjordan. This area was not the Promised Land. So when the tribes of reuben and Gad, who owned a great deal of cattle (actually, the Hebrew word is mikneh, which means livestock in general, not a large herd of cows), came to Moses saying they would prefer to stay and settle in the land that was formerly Moab, Moses was anything but thrilled. The leaders of Gad and reuben apparently approached some type of leadership council with their request, because eleazar the high priest was present, along with the chieftains (Num. 32:2 Jps) of Israel, probably meaning the twelve tribal leaders. Moses first response was basically: So you want to stay behind in a land all the tribes worked together to conquer, and then sit on your hands while the other ten tribes fight for the land the Lord has set aside for Israel without you? Moses was as frightened as he was angry. Not frightened of the military aspect of the situation, that is, even though having a somewhat smaller army; rather, it was that almost forty years before this, some of the leadership council balked at entering Canaan and the consequences were pretty bad. He certainly didnt want to see whatever it was that the Lord would do to Israel, corporately, as a punishment for
Numbers 32
264
even just a portion of Israel not wanting to go forward again. And so Moses reminded everyone of what had happened long ago in Kadesh, and why it happened, and that this was not something to be repeated. Moses and the leadership council of Israel had agreed to the request of reuben and Gad that they be allowed to possess the land Israel had just won from the Midianites, the land of Moab. This land on the east side of the Jordan River, in what is now the modern-day Kingdom of Jordan, would become reubens and Gads territorial allotments. There is no evidence that the war with Midian (which God told Moses to prosecute) was to be in any way associated with the occupation of Moab. rather, Yehovehs goal was to destroy those who had led Israel (as a nation) into adultery by enticing them to cavort with pagan women and pagan gods. While the subject is not specifically dealt with in Numbers, it seems that what Israel should have done was to simply defeat the Midianites and their ally Moab, and then move on, leaving the former nation of Moab empty. Settling there was not on the Lords agenda. Moses was very uneasy about this proposal, and even though reuben and Gad agreed to send their very best troops to fight alongside the other ten Israelite tribes as the conquest of Canaan began, we can detect that all was not well. What reuben and Gad suggested did not fall within the covenant of Abraham; the land they wanted was not within the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet we do not read of the Lord telling them no. In essence, reuben and Gad would live outside the camp of Israel, outside the Land of Promise, because they saw more benefit in the plentiful pasturelands of Moab than living in Canaan, the provision of the Lord. Its informative to ask ourselves, Why did reuben and Gad (out of all the twelve tribes) decide to ask for this particular territory? Their immediate reason was that they possessed large flocks and herds, and Moab was near-perfect
pastureland. But if we go back a few centuries, to when Jacob was giving his deathbed blessing to his twelve sons, we find some clues, which begin with the fact that reuben was essentially disowned. Reuben, Jacobs firstborn, was not given the traditional rights of the firstborn because reuben had sexual relations with one of his fathers concubines. Jacob stated that reuben was unstable as water (Gen. 49:4) and therefore would never excel. reuben had all the physical attributes and intelligence and advantages to do well, but he lacked morality and strength of character. In time well see that reuben preferred the nomads lifestyle of being on the move over leading a more settled and sedentary life. When recalling Jacobs blessings upon his sons, though it seems implausible to our mod-
Numbers 32
265
ern minds, grasp that each prophetic blessing was not so much upon an individual son as upon that sons future descendants; the blessings were more intended as a prophetic oracle upon those thousands and thousands who would be members of the tribe named after each son. Jacob was pronouncing the destinies of the tribes each of his sons would spawn; he was pronouncing the characteristics that each of those tribes would develop, which were but extensions of the already developed and displayed characteristics of his sons. reubens characteristic of instability would be passed along and realized within his tribe over the centuries, and that was what led the tribe of reuben to unwisely choose to stay out of the Promised Land, in favor of staying in Moab, a land not set apart for Gods people. Over time, reuben became less and less prominent in Israels history. In fact, some biblical historians claim that by Sauls time, reuben was absorbed into the tribe of Gad and disappeared. Other biblical writings dont support that severe of a consequence for reuben, but rather we find that the tribe of Reuben took on the lifestyle of Bedouins and wandered around the desert fringes of the Transjordan, moving around with their flocks and herds. Technically, reuben still held territory and maintained their tribal identity, but practically they didnt govern their territory or create infrastructure within it or defend it with vigor; as a result, their territory came more and more under the influence of the tribe of Gad. As Bedouins, reuben just didnt have much interest in controlling territory. Gad had a little different destiny than reuben; Jacob gave Gad the briefest of blessings, and it was a very strange blessing indeed. The blessing was: Gad [troop]a troop will troop on him, but he will troop on their heel (Gen. 49:19). Sounds like gobbledygook, doesnt it? However, the word Gad is associated with the Hebrew root gedud (a noun meaning troop) and its associated verb yegudenu, meaning raided. This blessing by Jacob upon Gad was recorded as a play on words; it was all about Gads future as a military force and the fact that
the tribe of Gad would have to fight off enemies all their days due to their location. Jacobs pronouncement upon Gad is much better translated: Gad, a troop will raid him, but he (Gad) will raid on their heel. In other words, Gad was going to be a tribe of warriors who would have a rather hawkish attitude. They would be military-oriented out of necessity. enemies would constantly harass Gad, but in the end Gad would generally win. And true to this fivehundred-year-old blessing, Gad had become a tremendously brave and effective tribe of fighters while out in the wilderness. This was one reason Moses insisted on having soldiers from the tribe of Gad accompany Israel into Canaan. Further, Reuben and Gad (along with Simeon) formed one of the four divisions of Israel; they camped together on the south side of the tabernacle. reuben and Simeon were brothers; their mother was Leah, Jacobs first wife. Gad was the son of Leahs handmaiden Zilpah, so there existed a natural family relationship between these three. In the Lords divine providence, even though reuben and Gad were never meant to settle where they did, their new location served as a kind of defensive buffer to help protect the other tribal territories (which would be located inside the Promised Land as they were supposed to be) against the countless invaders from the east. reuben and Gad would bear the brunt of fighting many of the marauders who wanted to pass through their territory to get to the other tribes of Israel. The start of verse 16 is important, because in english the tone of the conversation gets lost. This section begins, Then they stepped up [or came up] to [Moses] and said . . . (Num. 32:16 Jps). The Hebrew for stepped up or came up is va-yiggeshu, and it means to beseech someone in a soft or intimate manner. In other words, the leaders of reuben and Gad were not demanding that they be allowed to stay or refusing to go forward. rather, they wanted to explain their reasoning for preferring the area of Moab for their homes and then make an offer that would
Numbers 32
266
satisfy the others and the Lord to show their intended continuing loyalty to Israel and to the covenants of Abraham and Moses. If allowed to settle in the Transjordan, they said, they would build a place for their animals, and they would build towns for their families. However, they would also supply a large contingent of crack military troops to go forward into Canaan and fight alongside the other tribes of Israel. The Hebrew word for the kind of special troops being offered is nechalats ; literally, it means to be picked out or to be specially selected. These were the fiercest fighters, the best of the best. Further, these elite troops from reuben and Gad would be the vanguard of the Israelite army as it fought and conquered its way through Canaan. The deal was that these nechalats would not come back to their tribal territory in the Transjordan until every Israelite tribe had possession of its own land in Canaan; they would stay and fight with their brothers as long as it took. Further, they would not ask for additional territory on the west side of the Jordan, in the Promised Land. They would be satisfied to live only east of the Jordan, because to do so was their own choice. Moses (undoubtedly with the approval of the leadership council) agreed to this proposal.
serious situation. This also meant that two men were vying for the position of top-dog head (or prince, nasi ) of the tribe of Manasseh, and undoubtedly this splitting of the tribewith part living on the east side of the Jordan and the other part living on the west bank of the Jordanwas central to a peaceful resolution of the disagreement. We are given no details about how this all came about, but from this point forward well notice that the Bible speaks of the two and a half tribes that stayed on the east side of the Jordan. This simply means that two entire tribes (meaning all the clans of reuben and Gad), plus half the tribe of Manasseh (around one-half of the many clans that formed Manasseh), made the decision to settle in the Transjordan. The remaining clans that formed the other half of the tribe of Manasseh went on with the majority of the tribes of Israel into Canaan to conquer and settle it. Reuben settled directly on the east bank of the Dead Sea, while Gad inhabited an area east of the Jordan river and generally located between the southern end of the Sea of Galilee and the northern end of the Dead Sea. The halftribe of Manasseh settled on land that began at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee and extended north to about Mount Hermon. This didnt all happen immediately; a few scores of years passed before the boundaries took form, and even then the makeup of each territory fluctuated with time and political circumstances. New Start and New Names As was customary in that era, these three Israelite tribes rebuilt some of the cities they had destroyed in the battle with Midian, changed the city names to Hebrew city names, and settled there. The reasons for rebuilding a city rather than starting fresh somewhere else are many, but included: (a) a city was invariably located near a good water source, and water was not easily available everywhere; (b) there were usually established roads and paths built
The Splitting of Manasseh Now we read that about half of the largest Israelite tribe, Manasseh, decided that they also wanted to stay in the Transjordan region (probably for the same reasons that reuben and Gad wanted to). While nothing is said of it, this would be have been a very traumatic and contentious matter. For a tribe to split itself in such a manner meant there was great disagreement among the clans that formed it, and this was a
Numbers 32
267
to each town and city where traders and merchants brought needed goods; and (c) the most obvious reason was that the building materials from the previous city were just lying there, ready to be reused to construct the new city. Since most construction was of stone, it was generally a matter of just piling the stones back up again. Those of you who have been to Israel have seen dozens of enormous earthen mounds, called tels, scattered all over the land. These tels are the remains of ancient cities that once existed there, but are now covered over with many feet of dirt and debris brought in by centuries of wind and rain. The thing is that every tel is a system of layers; and looking like a layer cake, each additional layer represents a oncethriving city, which was built directly upon the
former destroyed city, using much of its rubble and building material. Sometimes there are as many as eighteen or twenty layers in a single tel, representing eighteen or twenty cities, each one built upon the remains of the one before it. I have no doubt that the cities the army of Israel destroyed in Moab had already been built upon the ruins of yet more ancient cities. And now reuben, Gad, and Manasseh would simply repeat the process, adding yet another layer to the many tels. And after them other civilizations would do the same. Therefore, identifying these city names we see in Numbers 32 is quite difficult in our time, because a particular name existed only until that city was destroyed; the next new city built upon it usually was given a new name (though often the same name was used, just in a different language).
Numbers 32
268
Numbers 33
What we have here is a brief travelogue of the Israelites journey through the wilderness. We can learn several things from these details beyond simply their route. For instance, we find that even though earlier passages indicated that Israel left egypt on Passover, that was not technically correct. For we are told that they left egypt on Nisan 15, which was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the day following Passover). However, as I explained in a previous lesson, we will soon see that the biblical feasts of Passover and Matzah became fused such that the two were celebrated as one, which was called alternately Passover or Matzah. Allow me to restate this, because it may help in understanding the difficulties some scholars and pastors (and Bible students) have in coming to a conclusion as to what day Christ was crucified. Passover, by scriptural ordinance of God, was a one-day festival that was to occur on the
fourteenth of the Hebrew month of Nisan. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a seven-day festival that was to begin the day after Passover, on the fifteenth of Nisan. So Passover (one day) and Unleavened Bread (seven days), taken together involved eight consecutive days of feasting but were in fact two separate feasts that merely ran consecutively. Let me also point out a key piece of information: the way the original egyptian Passover was conducted was somewhat different from the way Passover was performed after leaving Egypt and in future times. For one thing, in egypt, even though the Passover lamb was killed and its blood smeared on the doorposts of homes on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Passover lamb was not eaten until a few hours later, after dark, which means it was the start of a new day, Nisan 15. recall that the biblical way of determining the end of one day and the start of the new day was sunset. So during the daytime of Nisan 14 in egypt, the lamb was slaughtered and the cooking process was begun; and then after dark (which was the next day) the lamb was eaten.
Numbers 33
269
The other thing to understand is that while, technically, Nisan 14 is called Passover, and it was on this day that the lamb was slaughtered and prepared, the Lord did not kill the Egyptian firstborn until midnight, after the Hebrews had eaten the Passover lamb. Therefore, since the day had changed at sunset (around 7 p.m.), the Egyptian firstborns were killed early on Nisan 15, which thereafter would become the first day of the seven-day biblical Festival of Unleavened Bread (Matzah). Then the following morning, while it was still the fifteenth of Nisan, the Hebrews gathered and left egypt. Thats a little different from the way we typically think of these occurrences. I have in the past taught this in more simplistic terms, using the vocabulary that the church most typically associates with the exodus; that is, the common way of describing the Passover, with first the smearing of the lambs blood on the doorposts, then the eating of the lamb, then the Lords killing of the Egyptian firstborn, and then Israel leaving Egypt. Part of the reason that the church first presented the egyptian Passover in this way (even though technically it is a bit off the mark) was likely because of confused Gentile scholars (who didnt particularly want to hear anything the Jewish rabbis had to say) who didnt understand that (a) the egyptian Passover was slightly different from all future Passovers; (b) the exodus, Leviticus, and even Numbers protocol of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread became modified in Deuteronomy and then further modified by the establishment of traditions; (c) as a result of b, the technical scriptural definitions of the Passover day versus the Feast of Matzah days are one thing, but the common Jewish way of speaking about them and how the Jews enumerated them and what they called them is something else entirely; and finally, (d) there eventually arose several different traditions about how to celebrate Passover and the Feast of Matzah, and they all were occurring simultaneously. Generally speaking, one tradition was used by the Jews living in Judea, another by the Jews
living in Samaria (who had broken away from the Jerusalem temple and built their own), yet another for Jews living in the Galilee because they had to journey so far to the Jerusalem temple, and still another for Jews living in the Diaspora (that is, Jews living outside the Holy Lands altogether), to account for their living among pagan Gentiles and the sometimes impossible travel distances necessary to get to the temple in Jerusalem for the ceremonies. Not to go off on a tangent here, but sometime well discuss the Passover as it occurred at the time Jesus was crucified, and Ill do my best to explain why there is such disagreement on which day He died, and even whether the Lords Supper was the Passover Seder (meal) or something else entirely. Along with the reality that the order in which things occurred at the egyptian Passover (and on what day) was not followed in subsequent Passovers, there were also these several competing traditions of just how to conduct Passover that existed in Jesus day. Also, common, everyday Jewish terminology is used in the Gospel accounts instead of the technical ritual terminology of the feast days (as found in the Torah). In addition, the Synoptic Gospels do not match the Gospel of John. That, however, is understandable when we take into consideration that the Synoptic Gospels were written from the viewpoint of Galilean Jews (with their own Passover traditions). It is generally agreed, however, that the Apostle John (who wrote the Gospel of John) became a Judean Jew after beginning life as a Galilean fisherman or was at the least expressing the Judean tradition (a different Passover tradition) in his Gospel. That is a long and complex lesson all in itself, though, so well take that up another time. Review of the Journey from Egypt The beginning point of the travelogue of Numbers 33 is rameses (in the land of Goshen) in Egypt. Israel left Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month of the Hebrew ritual calendar
Numbers 33
270
year (remember, the Hebrews used several different calendars for various purposes), and this month was called Nisan. Were given only one other date: that of Aaron the high priests death, which occurred on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year in the wilderness, at Mount Hor. That means very little time (probably only three or four months) elapsed from the date of Aarons death to the date of Moses death, a period during which Israel marched up to Moab and the Balaam incident occurred, followed by the Midian war (which probably lasted but a few days). We are told that Moses was instructed to write down this itinerary. What was the purpose of doing this since the Torah had been recording it along the way? All we can do is speculate because were not told. The reality is that if we
go back and check on the place-names of the locations where the Israelites camped (the ones weve encountered up to now), well find that this list in Numbers 33 does not match. Well find a few place-names missing, and others added. When we total them, we find that forty-two way stations (places where the Israelites stopped and something or another occurred) are listed in Numbers 33. Some scholars have tried to find significance in the number forty-two, but Im not convinced there is any. If we look hard enough, we can find other uses of the number forty-two in the Bible (such as the seven-year period in the end times that Christians call the Tribulation being divided into two periods of forty-two months). even the Matthew version of Yeshuas genealogy consists of forty-two generations. But it would be quite a stretch to find some common theological cord that connects all these various uses of the number forty-two. At the least, most scholars and rabbis agree that what we have is a listing of stations that Israel passed through where something of significance happened. In total, this is a reminder to future readers of Israels arduous journey of how the Lord at various points instructed Israel, punished them, provided for them, destroyed some of them, and saved most of them. It is a
Numbers 33
271
reminder of just how much the Israelites had to overcome in order to escape the grip of egypt and claim the land that the Lord set apart for them. The reminder has served its purpose, because I cannot think of an event in Israels history (an event of uplifting nature) greater than their exodus from egypt, which is seared into the mind and soul of every Jew. Only a few of these forty-two locations are known to any degree of certainty today. As a result, there are many maps indicating various routes of the exodus, but these maps basically show the Israelites wandering around the Sinai, with the hub of their travels pinpointed at the traditional Christian location of Mount Sinai, shown toward the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula. The fact is, the Sinai could never have supported a group of three thousand Israelites, let alone three million. So I dont buy it. There is not a shred of archaeological evidence supporting an exodus that followed the traditional itinerary. The long-held and intractable stance of so many Christian scholars on this issue of the route of the exodus is the primary reason we have a number of secular scholars (and even more liberal Christian scholars) doubting there even was an exodus, because they have insisted on looking for artifacts of the exodus in the wrong locations. I am reasonably certain that the real Mount Sinai is in Arabia, in an area at one time held by Midian, because thats exactly where the Bible says it is. Such notables as Philo and Josephus have said the location is in Arabia (and they ought to know better than us). Many artifacts have been found in the former area of Midian (on the southwestern Arabian Peninsula) that fit the Hebrew culture and that time period. And, there is a wealth of local Arabian folklore that supports this location as well. No such folklore or tradition exists for the Sinai Peninsula. As we arrive at verse 49, the recorded itinerary of Numbers 33 reaches its final station: Abel-shittim in the steppes of Moab. Here the Lord God gave Moses general instructions about just how the Israelites were to go about
conquering Canaan. In a nutshell, they were to drive all the people out who currently live there. Then Israel was to destroy all of their idols and idol-worshipping paraphernalia. Any altars or temples or high places that had been built to pagan gods were to be torn down. To be clear: Canaan was to be emptied of its people. The Lord did not want them there anymore. The detestable religion of the Canaanites was to be overthrown and every remnant of it done away with. The Lord had not ordered genocide; but it was understood that those who resisted the Israelite takeover (soldiers in battle), and those who refused to leave after the battle was won, were to be killed. However, also inherent in the instruction (a long-established God principle) was that any who were willing to forsake their false gods and join Israel were welcome to do so. Under no circumstance were the Israelites to allow a foreign people or tribe to remain as a separate people, apart from Israel, nor could any god but Yehoveh be worshipped in the land of Canaan. Please keep this set of instructions in mind from here forward: because deciding to modify Gods instructions in order to be more merciful or fair or loving or tolerant to our human politically correct sensibilities is rebellion, plain and simple. The result will be disaster. Next, in verse 54, instructions are given on apportioning the land among the Israelite tribes. But wait; hasnt the Lord already given these same instructions? Yes and no. In Numbers chapter 26, the land apportionment was spoken of in terms of taking a census of the tribes as a precursor to dividing up the land according to the size of each tribe. But that was when there were twelve tribes to divide the land among; now, there are but nine tribes plus half of the tribe of Manasseh. The number of tribes decreased because reuben and Gad, plus half of Manasseh, received permission to settle on the east side of the Jordan river, and by doing so offered to give up any right to territory inside the Promised Land.
Numbers 33
272
Chapter 33 ends with a dire warning (which wasnt taken seriously) from God to Israel that if they did not follow His instructions, precisely, about the method used to take Canaan, bad things would follow. Lets reread the last two verses of chapter 33: If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live. And as I plan to do to them, so I will do to you. (vv. 5556 nasb) Israel has never heeded this warning; Joshua didnt, David didnt, not even the modern Israel that has returned to its homeland after a nineteen-hundred-year exile has obeyed this divine directive. It still allows foreigners, not joined to Israel, to reside there. It allows pagan religions (particularly Islam) to exist alongside the worship of Yehoveh. Israel even gives its enemies positions in its governing body, the Knesset. Israel allows and promotes atheism. It allows and promotes homosexuality. It allows and even defends Muslims controlling the temple grounds of Yehovehs former dwelling place. even worse, it gives away portions of the Promised Land to its enemies for unfulfilled promises of peace; the Scriptures say Israel has utterly no right to dispose of because Israel doesnt own it . . . the Lord owns it. Until Israel stops these practices, secures the land as instructed, and returns to the Lord and repents, there will always be wars, and terrorists, and suicide bombings, and some group of people or another who devote their lives to making Israel miserable. However, none of us have any right to shake our heads knowingly at this and think, How dumb can Israel be? Most of the problems in our individual liveseven as members of Gods kingdom, that entity Paul refers to as the Israel of God or true Israelcome about because we do not secure our lives as instructed, we do not
obey the Lord and repent, and so our lives are made miserable. By the way, the land the Lord set apart for Israel, the land that Israel would soon conquer and possess at Joshuas leadership, is the West Bank. Does that name sound familiar? Thats right, the land that most of the Wests governments demand Israel give up to their enemies, the West Bank, is the very land that the Lord said was for Israel and Israel alone. The Israelites have paid a terrible price for thirty-three hundred years for refusing to follow the Lords explicit instructions regarding that land and who is allowed to possess and dwell in it. Do you suppose that those nations who insist that Israel continue to disregard those instructions are going to be spared Gods wrath? How about the approximately 50 percent of the church that insists Israel should give up its land, because the Jews supposedly no longer have a right to it?
Numbers 33
273
Numbers 34
We concluded Numbers 33 and discussed a kind of CliffsNotes version of the route of the exodus that enumerated forty-two stations where events of significance took place during the Israelites wilderness journeya journey that was but weeks from its conclusion. We discussed how the Lord gave Moses some tough instructions about how the Israelites were to go about invading and taking Canaan: they were to drive out all the inhabitants from every corner of the land. The only Canaanites that would be allowed to remain were those who renounced whatever tribal affiliation they had and joined Israel. This meant they also had to completely disavow their gods and rituals and obey the Torah. Naturally, there werent a whole lot who chose to do this. Those who fought against Israel and refused to let go of their land were to be killed. Moreover, the Lord told Moses that if Israel failed to do this, not only would the people who remained in the land be a constant thorn in the side of Israel, but the Lord would deal with Israel in the same manner He had intended on dealing with these pagans. Chapter 33 concluded with the instruction that the allotment of territory among the tribes of Israel should commence immediately and be done incorporating two methods: lots and proportionality. That is, lots would be cast to determine the general region of Canaan that each tribe would receive, but the size of each tribes territory would be proportional to that tribes population. As long as the road of studying the book of Numbers has been, the book is rapidly coming to a close with some laws about the boundaries of the territory that the Lord was giving to Israel and some other laws about how the land was to be protected and governed.
Starting in chapter 33 and progressing to the end of the book of Numbers, the subject is all about the imminent possession of the Promised Land. Its difficult for us in the twenty-first century to imagine and to internalize just what a momentous event the occupation of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews was. If we were to name the grandest moments of the Bible, wed probably first list the Creation, the Great Flood, the parting of the red Sea and the exodus, and the advent of Jesus Christ. But without a doubt, the realization of the six-hundred-year-old covenant of Abraham (that Abrahams descendants would be given a land of their own to possess forever) belongs on that list and right near the top at that. Just as believers wait expectantly for the return of Messiah Yeshua and the establishment of His kingdom, so did Israel await their covenantbased land inheritance to be given to them by the Lord. From the time of Abraham up until this point in the Torah, the Hebrews had always been a people without a country. From the moment the Lord told Abraham to get up and leave his native land (Mesopotamia), and to dissociate himself from his country and his family (meaning to forsake them, to disavow them), Abraham and all those Hebrews who would come from his loins would, for centuries, be nothing but resident aliens, sojourners, wherever they lived. Abraham, Isaac, and then Jacob, who wandered around in various parts of Canaan, lived there at the pleasure of those Canaanites who owned and controlled the territory. When they resided in egypt it was at the pleasure of the pharaoh. Joseph, who became the grand vizier of all egypt, didnt consider egypt his home and so ordered that his mummified body be
Numbers 34
274
taken to the land of Canaan on that marvelous day when Israel left egypt for a journey to a land that would be their own. Believers, in addition to all of this being true and real and actually happening, it is also a pattern and a picture of us and our condition. The Torah, with the central theme being the creation of Israel as a people and then as a nation, is a pattern of what the body of believers would experience in a time future to Moses: a time when the Lord would create another covenant for the purpose of refining just who would be included (and on what terms) among that setapart people of His. When Abraham accepted Yehoveh as his God (knowing Him only as El Shaddai, God of the Mountain), he left everything from the past behind, and Abraham then was presented a covenant by and with Yehoveh, a promise written in cosmic concrete. By accepting the covenant, Abraham became locked into the blessings of that covenant. When we accept Yeshua as our God and Savior, we leave the past behind as we accept the reality of the covenant as guaranteed by His blood. And by accepting this renewed covenant, we are locked into its many blessings. Yet after Abraham accepted the covenant (the primary provision being a guaranteed place to live forever that would be his own, a place where he and his descendants belonged, a permanent home), it would be a long time before
Numbers 34
that home was realized. In the meantime, his descendants would be but strangers in a foreign land. As is clear from that pattern, believers, even though we are already living under the terms of the new covenant, we have not yet realized the end result: a permanent place to live, a place where we actually belong, a place set apart just for us. That place is the kingdom of God. I have been a believer almost my entire life, but it probably has been only in the past two decades that I have begun to feel the effects of what I am: a stranger living in a foreign land. Ill remain in that condition until the Lord decides its time for me to go home. Truly, I had been quite comfortable in the world. I got along well with the world and I prospered in the world, even though I was spiritually set apart from the world by God due to my acceptance of His Son. Yet the Lord has told us emphatically that we dont belong here; in our new condition we may be in the world, but were not of the world. Israel was in egypt a long, long time; but they were never of egypt. As time wore on, they became more acutely aware that they were round pegs trying to occupy a square hole. Just as important, the Eg yptians became more acutely aware that these Hebrews werent part of egypt. These Hebrews were odd, they were different, and they didnt fit; they just served a useful purpose as slaves. At first the Hebrews were welcomed. The egyptians enjoyed what these Hebrews brought to the game and even learned from the Hebrews; they adopted some of their ways and egypt prospered. Slowly, however, decade after decade, the Hebrews separateness and differentness began to irritate the egyptians. In time that irritation turned into bitterness. Finally, during the lifetime of Moses, that bitterness overflowed into violent hatred, and to assure Israels survival there was no choice but for Israel to be taken out of Egypt and placed in the kingdom that the Lord had prepared for them. Today we sit precisely where Moses and Israel were at this point in the book of Num-
275
bers. The promise of Gods covenant to us is right there, and we can actually see it, we can almost smell it; and soon, very soon, well be able to take hold of it. Yet this life were living, and our time of wandering in the wilderness, is not to be a time of idleness. Our job is to learn the ways of the Lord and to practice them, because once were at our destination, well be living those ways more completely and eternally in the presence of Yeshua than we ever imagined. Here in Numbers the people of Israel can actually see their destination off in the distance, and they know its but days, hours, before it will be theirs. God gives them some instructions at this point about how theyre to live in the land.
The southern boundary, identified in verse 5 as the nahlah Mishrayim (often translated in semi-english as the Wadi of egypt), has been the subject of greatest controversy. I do not for a minute buy that this southern boundary is the Nile River. First, nowhere do we find the Hebrew term nahlah Mishrayim ever used to denote the Nile. Second, the meaning of the term nahlah is more a watercourse than a desert wadi, which is a riverbed that stays dry except when filled by a sudden thunderstorm. This would describe a brook or a small watercourse that is sometimes but a trickle, seasonally a stream, and occasionally a temporary torrent. That in no way describes the Mississippi-sized Nile river. Third, as these egyptian records are so explicit and nearly identical to the records here in Numbers about the boundaries of Canaan, if one took the nahlah Mishrayim to
Canaans Boundaries The first twelve verses simply present the boundaries of the Promised Land. Many of the place-names given are not known today, but several are. Certainly the easternmost part (the Jordan river) and the westernmost part (the Mediterranean Sea) are easy to identify. even the northern border is fairly easy to pinpoint, but the southern boundary is a little less so. Look at the map above, because it is by far the easiest way to understand these boundaries. There are egyptian records from approximately this same period (fourteenth century BC) that describe the boundaries of the land of Canaan as virtually identical to what we read here in Numbers, which helps to confirm that these are correct. In other words, what the Lord described here in Numbers 34 were the generally recognized territorial boundaries of the land of Canaan in those days leading up to Israels occupying of that land. Yehoveh did not redefine the boundaries of the land of Canaan; He neither added to nor subtracted from them.
Numbers 34
276
mean the Nile, that would mean that Canaan at one time included the entire Sinai Peninsula, and even extended well onto the African continent, taking in much of the land that has always been ascribed to Egypt. Fourth, as these Egyptian records are from about the same period as the exodus, had Canaan included the Sinai Peninsula (or even the eastern bank of the Nile, if the Nile were that southern boundary), the Sinai Peninsula would have been part of the Promised Land. In that case, it would have been a rather short journeymaybe a couple of daysout of egypt into Canaan, and the journey would have been over practically before it started, right? So, you can see how none of that makes much sense. There are more serious and reasonable disagreements over exactly where that nahlah Mishrayim is, but it could not have extended into the Sinai, which was always known as Egyptian territory. The next thing that can get confusing when discussing the boundary of the Promised Land is the difference between what we read here in Numbers and what is stated in Ezekiel. This difference, however, is nowhere as extreme as has been taught and that I at one time believed.
Lets turn to Ezekiel 47 and read verses 1323, and then well move right into Ezekiel 48 and read from verse 1 through verse 14.
Assignment: Read Ezekiel 47:1323 and 48:114.
Now, if youll look at the map above, youll see that the territorial allotment described here in Ezekiel is a little different. It appears to be somewhat bigger; the Levites were given territory (but they were not given any in the Numbers allotment), and the territories were stacked like a totem pole, with the boundary lines essentially starting on the west at the Mediterranean and extending a bit farther east, especially in the north. So what gives? In some earlier lessons we discussed the fact that some interesting transformations occurred at a certain point in Ezekiel; not the least of
Numbers 34
277
which was the reinstitution of sacrificial worship at a rebuilt temple, but which also included a change in the ritual procedures that seemed to reduce the role and importance of the priesthood to that of religious emcees officiating over commemorative (rather than effectual) ceremonies. In other words, just as we celebrate Passover or Resurrection Day or even Communion, these observances were not some type of ritual that brought about an ordained response from God. Sins were not forgiven as a result of those ceremonies; one didnt realize a better standing with God or become purified, and so on. These rather standard Christian and Messianic Jewish ceremonies were simply joyful commemorations of gratitude to our Lord in remembrance of the great things He has done. So it will be in the time spoken of Ezekiel, but at a time when even more works of Yeshua will have been accomplished. It is my position that the reason for the differences between these visions we read of in ezekiel versus what we read in Torah is that Ezekiel was speaking of the millennial kingdom period, also called the thousand-year reign of Messiah Yeshua, which will immediately follow the Armageddon event. As He will be literally and physically dwelling in and ruling from Jerusalem, and for a period of time evil and rebellion will not exist on planet earth, there is much that will necessarily be different. For one thing, the numbers of believers who will be clamoring to live in and around Jesus the King (even though well be able to choose to live anywhere we wish on the planet) are going to be far larger than the territorial allotment of Numbers would ever be able to accommodate. I can tell you that when that day comes, I certainly plan on living over there. We see this enormous amount of land being set aside for this purpose in Ezekiel; however the main thing that differs in the Ezekiel description of the kingdom land as opposed to the Moses description in Numbers is that land on the east side of the Jordan (more or less the land that Moses permitted reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh to settle in) is included.
In any case, one negative to all this is that Israel, in its entire history, has never controlled or even inhabited all of the territory God gave to them in Numbers, let alone what is described in Ezekiel. It is key to grasp here, however, that whether they ever occupied it or not, the Lord still reserved it exclusively for Israel. Also interesting and relevant to us is that the Promised Land boundaries of Numbers 34 include virtually all of present-day Syria and Lebanon. Is it any wonder that Syria and Lebanon are in constant war (sometimes cold, sometimes hot) with Israel? The government of the reborn nation of Israel has never laid claim to Syria or Lebanon, but all parties are well aware of what the Torah says about it. Muslims know better than most Christians and Jews what the Torah says about who owns this land, which is why they are willing to fight to the death over it as Satans proxies. More important, though, is
Numbers 34
278
that both Yehoveh and Satan know the score; the people of Syria and Lebanon are living on land promised to Abraham and his Israelite descendants. The fact that earthly governments and institutions (even the church) deny this means nothing in the heavens. Yet it cannot be denied that the land as described to Moses, and then later to ezekiel, was a little different yet from what was described to Abraham. Lets again refer to the map. Understand that what was given to Abraham was far more general in nature than what was given to Moses. Plus, since tribes moved over time and nations rose up and fell, empires came and went, boundaries changed, and people groups grew or shrank or disappeared altogether, there had been many changes in placenames and tribal locations by the time of Moses, and more changes by the time of Ezekiel.
Beginning in verse 13 we get a summation of some facts: For instance, the Promised Land was to be divided among ten tribes, not twelve as was originally set down. Actually, nine tribes plus half of the tribe of Manasseh were to receive portions. The reason, of course, for the reduction in number was that the tribes of reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh chose to stay outside of the Promised Land, and so gave up their rights to live in Canaan. The chapter concludes with a long listing of the tribes of Israel, and the names, at that moment in history, of the princes, or chieftains, of those tribes. Therefore, these ten men would be given the territorial allotments for the tribes they controlled, and then it was up to them to subdivide their territories among the various clans and families within their tribes as they saw fit.
Numbers 34
279
Numbers 35
Here the matter of living accommodations for the tribe of Levi is taken up, beginning with a reminder that (a) Moses was allotting the land, and (b) Israel was on the eastern edge of the Jordan river, in the former land of Moab, when this land allotment took place. Levite Cities In verse 2, we see that as there were to be fortyeight cities set aside for the Levites, each tribe was to decide which cities they would give to the Levites as permanent holdings. In addition to the city proper, an amount of land contingent to each city was to be used as pastureland for the Levites animals. Lets not be naive about what the Levites were given; these were not substantial cities. And they were not, generally speaking, cities that the Israelites would build from scratch. rather, these forty-eight cities would be from among the hundreds, if not thousands, of small villages and towns the Israelite army would capture from the various Canaanite tribes during the conquest. Most of these cities would consist of a handful of buildings. Its important also to understand that like the Jubilee year (an essential part of the laws concerning the prohibition against permanently transferring land to other than the original owner), a celebration that records indicate never occurred even one time, the Levites never received their full complement of fortyeight cities. They may have been assigned the forty-eight cities, but in order for the Levites to
inhabit these cities, it was critical that each tribe consistently care for those Levites assigned to live in the cities in their specific territories; in many cases this simply didnt happen. The book of Joshua speaks of several of these Levite cities by name, but only the larger ones. I have no doubt that some tribes chose to give the Levites unlivable and burned-out villages to inhabit (ones that were of little value to that tribe); so the Levites simply never moved in and instead concentrated themselves in the more substantial cities they had been given, especially the few that had walls. After all, they (like all the other Israelites) had to protect themselves from the never-ending series of attacks by marauding groups of bandits and occasionally the armies of kings intent on expanding their territory. The foreign tribes made no distinction between Israel and the Levites and the priests; all were fair game.
Numbers 35
280
Cities of Refuge Verse 6 begins to speak of the famous cities of refuge, of which there were to be a total of six. Interestingly, three of them were to be on the east side of the Jordan (for the two and a half tribes that lived over there), and the other three were to be located on the west side of the Jordan, for the nine and a half tribes that lived in the Promised Land. Were also told that just as part of the formula for deciding the territory each tribe would receive was based on that tribes relative size, so would the size of the cities given to the Levites be based on the amount of territory each tribe received. If a tribe had a large amount of territory, then the cities given to the Levites were to be larger. Since that was the case, a rather ingenious method of deciding how much pastureland was to go along with each of the forty-eight cities
was ordained: the longitudinal measurement of 1,000 cubits (about 500 yards) was to be added to the length of the town itself. The six cities of refuge (these were six of the forty-eight cities) were central to Yehovehs justice system; but even more, the laws concerning them dealt with this foundational theological principle: God is so holy that He cannot possibly be present on land that has been defiled by murder. When we think back to Leviticus, we see how key blood was to all of Gods laws. We are also shown that while blood was the only efficacious means of expiating sins (that is, only blood could bring atonement), the improper spilling of blood was an abomination to the Lord, and therefore it defiled. One of the clearest examples of this was the matter of menstrual blood, which was a defiling thing for which there must be purification. Yet the blood of a properly sacrificed animal could atone for all but a few of the most egregious (or, as the Bible calls them, high-handed) sins. Here, the issue is the killing of a human being and whether or not this killing is murder or manslaughter. So these verses define just what murder is as opposed to manslaughter and what the role of the cities of refuge were to be in the case of each. I hope you have been surprised by the amount of history, legal precedent, and establishment of Gods principles we have found in the book of Numbers; this book is anything but a bland accounting record, as the name might imply. In Numbers 35 we discussed the assignment of forty-eight cities to the Levites, which amounted to the tribe of Levis inheritance in the Promised Land. These cities were to be scattered throughout the landholdings of the twelve tribes of Israel, and their locations selected by the twelve tribal leaders. Six of those cities would be designated as sanctuary cities, with three of them located outside the Land of Promise east of the Jordan river, within the territories of reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh.
Numbers 35
281
There is a concept here that needs some discussing, and that concept is sanctuary. Another word that could be substituted for sanctuary is asylum. Where did this notion of asylum come from; this idea that there should be a place where a person who was afraid of the government (whether that government be in the form of a tribal leader, a judge, a king, etc.) could go to be protected from arrest and punishment? The punishment that the asylum seeker was usually running from was the death penalty. First (as you probably have guessed by now), the concept of asylum (or sanctuary) was not invented by the Hebrews, but was a long-established part of many Middle eastern cultures justice systems. The basic premise in its purest sense, however, is a godly one. Second, as a result of sanctuary or asylum being the norm for virtually all known Middle eastern societies of that era, it existed among the Hebrews in one form or another. Various cultures enacted it in differing ways. Usually it involved fleeing to the priests and/or standing inside the temple that was dedicated to whatever god was currently important or supreme to that nation. We find the earliest record of what the Hebrews accepted as the place of sanctuary in the book of Exodus. Where the sanctuary was located is a bit of a surprise: He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die. (Exod. 21:1214 nasb, emphasis added) In other words, as was so typical of those ancient cultures, the original place of sanctuary was the altar of burnt offering for their god. So before the Lord gave the full Law to Moses, it
was the practice for an Israelite man to run to the altar and (as we find out in later books of the Bible) to actually grab hold of the horns of the altar as a sign that he was seeking sanctuary. As long as he stayed glued to that altar, he could not be touched. Here in Numbers 35 Yehoveh ordained the way He wanted the principle of sanctuary to be carried out, which meant both that God accepted this principle and that in order for it to be valid, His people must follow His procedures of asylum. Since there were no sanctuary cities until the Israelites entered the Promised Land, what was used before that time? Its unimaginable that a regular Israelite was allowed to touch the brazen altar inside the tabernacle compound, and certainly he could not have gone inside the sacred tent. Likely, the camp of the Levites itself served that purpose; however, since the Torah doesnt tell us that, this is but my speculation. Something served as the place of sanctuary, however, because it was not possible within the cultural norms of those days to not have a place of asylum. As the centuries go by, though, we find that the Israelites never fully instituted the system the Lord gave to them. There were sanctuary
Numbers 35
282
cities, but in some eras either they were not in use or there were other means of sanctuary in addition to the asylum cities. We read that in David and Solomons era, the idea of coming to the altar for sanctuary and grasping its horns apparently still existed among Israel: The kings servants came to bless our lord King David, saying, May your God make the name of Solomon better than your name and his throne greater than your throne! And the king bowed himself on the bed. The king has also said thus, Blessed be the L ord, the God of Israel, who has granted one to sit on my throne today while my own eyes see it. Then all the guests of Adonijah were terrified; and they arose and each went on his way. And Adonijah was afraid of Solomon, and he arose, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. Now it was told Solomon, saying, Behold, Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon, for behold, he has taken hold of the horns of the altar, saying, Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword. (1 Kings 1:4751 nasb , emphasis added) Let me also point out how diminished the priesthood must have been during Davids and Solomons reigns. even though we describe this man David as being close to Gods heart, and Solomon as being a very wise man, they were far from perfect. No priest ever should have allowed a regular Israelite, let alone a criminal, to defile the altar by touching it, but apparently this episode in 1st Kings means that the practice was known and accepted by both David and the priesthood, at least for a period of time. The question becomes, then, what was it about the altar that caused heathens to use it as sanctuary, and at times in Israels history for Hebrews to do the same? It was because whatever touched a holy object became holy itself. This is a guiding biblical principle. We saw it with the fire pans that Korah and the 250 men brought before the Lord (but because these men and their fire pans were unauthorized, all were destroyed); they were made holy by being so near to God, let alone touching any holy object.
This falls within the Levitical law that holiness as well as impurity could be transmitted from person to person, object to object, or even person to object and object to person. Thus, the fire pans (which had contracted holiness) were beaten into a lid for the altar. The coals and incense ashes that were in those fire pans were taken outside the camp and destroyed. Gods ordinance did not allow human hands to touch the altar or any sacred implement; the one exception was that priests, for certain welldescribed purposes (such as transporting the objects), could at times necessarily touch these objects. But even then, because a human had touched them, a measure of defilement was passed along. That is one of the primary reasons for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when the high priest sprinkled the blood of atonement on the physical things of the tabernacle and therefore cleansed them. Otherwise, the
Numbers 35
283
The Key of Intent Beginning in Numbers 35:15, we find the laws concerning manslaying, killing, and whether
Numbers 35
building up of defilement from the nearness to humans would eventually have made the sanctuary and its ritual objects so impure that God would no longer be able to dwell there. So the use of sanctuary cities for the Israelites could occur only once they were inside the Promised Land, but like so many of Gods ordinances, the people managed to ignore and modify Gods laws in regard to asylum, and so exactly how asylum was accomplished changed to and fro over the centuries. Besides the basic importance of our understanding how the principle of sanctuary operated in Israel, I expounded on this matter also to make the point that not everything presented in the Bible (as historical fact) was automatically right or righteous before the Lord. I gave you the example of David and Solomon allowing the practice of ordinary Israelites grabbing the horns of the sacred altar (thus defiling it). We covered a couple of weeks ago the matter of vows and the story of Jephthah, who made a rash vow to the Lord that wound up in his sacrificing his own daughter (no aspect of what Jephthah did being righteous). We must be very careful when reading the Bible to distinguish between the absolute perfection of the divine laws and ordinances and principles laid out by God, and the imperfect way even great men and women of the Bible thought of these laws or carried them out. We tend to get into a mind-set that says because a special person in the Bible (like an Abraham, or a David, or a Paul) did something a certain way, these actions were automatically godly. It is our duty (it is our job) as followers of the God of Israel to study Torah and all the Scriptures to thoroughly understand His character and His principles in order that we dont completely misconstrue what we read in the Bible, Old or New Testament.
the slaying of a human is to be considered murder, manslaughter, or something else entirely. As we covered back in Leviticus, intent was the key in making this determination, just as intent was key in determining the seriousness of all sin. To make clear just what the Lord considered homicide versus accidental killing versus the justifiable taking of human life, a series of examples of each were presented. The first example revolves around the implement used that caused the death. And the principle was that if such an implement was designed for the purpose of inflicting harm (a spear, a bow and arrow, a mace, etc.), then it was a weapon; and if it was used in the killing, the act should generally be seen as murder. If an implement was not designed as a weapon, but was used improperly as a weapon (something with a handle like an ax), then the act was still murder (and the Lord unequivocally and without apology said that a person who committed murder was to be executed). Further, this person could not buy his way out of the sentence, nor was he permitted the grace of being housed and protected in a city of refuge. Executing the Murderer The act of killing the murderer has come under fire around the world. Everywhere the cry is that while it is wrong to murder, it is also murder to put the murderer to death. Or another refrain is: What good is it to take another human life, since that wont bring the dead back? Certainly executing the murderer will not bring back the life of the one who was slain, nor does it offer rehabilitation to the criminal; but in the Bible, that is not the issue. Sadly, a huge portion of the church has led this charge to rebel against Gods instructions on murder. The reality is that God said plainly that a murderer was to immediately forfeit his own life. Why? Because life is valuable, and the only atonement for the illegal and unjust taking of life is the execution of the perpetrator. The act of executing a criminal guilty of murder is a just and necessary killing because
284
the blood of the innocent defiles the land, and the only way to cleanse the land from its defilement is the atonement provided by the blood of the murderer. This is a Torah principle plainly stated in our Bibles, but it has lately been rendered as an ancient superstition, or a barbaric mindset and something that Jesus overturned. Further, the biblical view is that taking the life of a criminal is actually (from a higher level) the preservation of life. That is, a person who commits homicide is liable to do it again; and why should the next innocent victim pay the price for what the criminal has done? As we see today, why should we warehouse a murderer at a cost to the public of fifty thousand dollars per year just so he can exist to attack prison guards or fellow inmates? Sadly, as our Western societies increasingly turn their backs on what God has ordained as just punishment for violent crime, we see the criminal being released back into society, only to quickly find another victim because violence is his nature. We have tried to justify not executing murderers by saying that the section of the Bible that deals with these matters so forthrightly, the Torah, is abolished and that it no longer applies. Let me say straightaway that if we are going to even entertain the notion that the Torah is dead and gone, then so are the Ten Commandments dead and gone, because they are simply the first ten of the 613 laws of Torah. Many believers will declare that the OT isnt for them, and yet how many would attend a church that didnt have a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in some prominent place within the sanctuary? Believers are confused on these matters because we have demanded that the OT be considered invalid, even though Yeshua Himself went out of His way to tell us point-blank that we should never think such a thing (Matthew 5:17-20). He also told us that should we want to know if there ever will be a time when the Torah and the Laws and the Prophets are abolished, it certainly would not be until after the heavens and the earth passed away.
I dont want to detour too long, but a pastor said to me not long ago that when Jesus spoke those words about the Law and the Prophets not being abolished, He was talking only to the Jewish people, and so His teaching applied only to the Jewish people. I asked the pastor if he knew exactly in what passages those words were spoken. He said he didnt know off the top of his head. I then asked him what he thought the most important message was that Jesus gave to the church, and he replied that it was probably the Sermon on the Mount (which, by the way, I fully agree with). Well, to his surprise (and maybe to yours), those words of Yeshua steadfastly and plainly maintaining the validity of the Law and the Prophets appear smack-dab in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount. We throw away parts of the Bible that we dont agree with at our own peril. Weve thrown away Gods laws concerning His justice system, and now were a world in chaos, and a horribly deceived church that prefers its own image of God to who He actually is, is generally to blame. This is why Seed of Abraham Ministries and so many other congregations around the world have been formed in hopes of restoring the sanctity and authority of the entire Bible as our guide and written source of Gods general will. The Blood Avenger In verse 19, the Lord said that the person who was to be the executioner for the murderer was the blood avenger (nasB). The Hebrew term is gaal (or goel ), or better, the dam gaal. Dam means bloodand although the word gaal is usually translated as avenger, it more correctly means redeemer. So the blood redeemer, or blood avenger, was assigned to kill the murderer. Inherent in the Hebrew term gaal is that this person was a relative, a member of the victims immediate family or clan. And the dam gaal was to take action against the offender. Lets understand: this was not a tradition; it was Gods law. I am not saying that we should take out personal justice on someone who has committed a violent
Numbers 35
285
crime against a family member; nor am I saying that if we dont do this, we are disobeying Gods law. rather, the principle behind this law is that true justice is a life for a life; specifically when a life was taken on purpose and unjustly. Once Israel began to have kings, we find that those kings invariably sought to stop the practice of the dam gaal going after the criminal that had harmed his family member. This was because in a structured and settled society, with a wellorganized human government, chaos would result if every man determined anothers guilt or innocence for himself, and then sought to also be the one who carried out the sentence in the case of guilt. But understand this as well: the principle remains. The existence of mans sinful nature and our imperfect justice system doesnt mean the godly concept of the blood avenger is dead and gone. In fact, being a blood avenger was one of the primary duties of the kinsman-redeemer. Just as modern believers tend to discard those unwelcome characteristics of God such as His severity and His wrath in favor of His mercy and love, we also tend to picture the kinsmanredeemer as a very wonderful and kindly fellow, a rich uncle whose job was to run around rescuing his poor relatives whose land was about to be foreclosed on by the bank. Certainly one function of the kinsman-redeemer was to assure that land was never taken from the original family owners. And if a family member were made a slave to pay off a personal debt, the kinsmanredeemer would purchase that person back out of slavery. Another equally important role of the kinsman-redeemer was that of blood avenger. Is not Yeshua HaMashiach called our Kinsman-redeemer? Then understand: He wears the mantle of both aspects of that title, not just the kindly one we prefer. When He came the first time it was as the Kinsman-Redeemer who would selflessly buy our lives back in the only way God saw as a permanent solution: with His own life and His own blood. When Jesus comes again in the near future, it will still be as the Kinsmanredeemer; but this next time He will come in the
role of the dam gaal, the blood avenger. He has already purchased the souls of Gods people, and He did so some two thousand years ago; next He will take out Gods wrath on those who persecute His people and refuse to submit to the Father. We will see this most starkly as He becomes the fierce warrior leading the charge at the Battle of Armageddon, the formerly mild and meek Messiah taking lives at a rate of thousands every time He swings His sword, filling the Jezreel Valley deep with the blood of those against whom He is exacting the Lords justice. Unintentional Killing Yet what kind of justice would it be if a victims life were taken accidentally, even if a low degree of negligence were involved, and the perpetrator was hunted down and killed for it? Therefore, verses 2223 give an example of an accidental killing, such as someone getting angry and shoving someone, but without the intent to kill them. Perhaps a person threw something at the victim but not with the intent of severely injuring that person, and certainly not intending to kill. Provided a council decided there was no malicious intent, the perpetrator was to be given safe harbor from the blood avenger. This type of killing was what we moderns might term negligent homicide or manslaughter. If unintended killing was the judgment of the council, then the perpetrator was to be ushered to one of the six Levitical cities of sanctuary, where the blood avenger was not allowed to go after him. However, this did not relieve the perpetrator of his responsibility for the death of that victim; even more, it did not relieve the duty of the dam gaal to kill that person, but this place was off-limits to the blood avenger. So as verse 26 states, the perpetrator of manslaughter was protected if he stayed safely inside the sanctuary city limits; but if he ventured outside the city limits of the asylum city, he became fair game. If the blood avenger killed him outside the city limits of a sanctuary, the killing was considered but justice.
Numbers 35
286
Numbers 35
An interesting remark in verse 28 adds a very important caveat to this whole procedure: the perpetrator of manslaughter remained in his bloodguilt, no matter how accidental it all might have been, and therefore was exiled to the sanctuary city until the high priest died! When the current high priest died (whether that came a day or fifty years after the perpetrator was sent into protective asylum), the bloodguilt was removed and forgiven, the dam gaal was no longer allowed to take that persons life under any circumstances, and the perpetrator was allowed to return home not only free of fear of the dam gaal, but also cleared in Gods eyes of his bloodguilt. What a strange thing. What happened here? The only way a manslayers guilt could be atoned for before the Lord was for the high priest to pay for it with his own life. The death of the high priest (a natural death was envisioned) became the God-accepted atonement for the perpetrator of manslaughter. But this eventually created a problem. It didnt take long for a manslayer to see the rather large advantage of a high priests dying as soon as possible! Mothers of high priests began delivering food and gifts to the perpetrators in exile so that they would be content enough in their asylum not to become so impatient that they might actually start to pray for the high priest to die so that they could return to their families and resume their normal lives. We actually have a record of this concern in the Mishnah. Verse 30 says that a person could be declared a murderer only if there were sufficient witnesses to the act. Hearsay or only one available witness was insufficient, for the matter was too serious. Now the crux of the matter is stated in verse 33 (though I touched on it earlier): There is a spiritual reason for all this complexity concerning the loss of life. Blood spilled on the land of God polluted and defiled that land. And of
course the blood that was being spilled was assumed to be blood spilled unjustly. Further, every death was polluted and defiled, and so the impurity of spilled blood and death piled up and piled up on the land (thus causing the ritual impurity of the land to increase more and more). The inherent understanding was that the Lord, in all His holiness, could not dwell on such thoroughly defiled land. And the Lord desires with all His being to dwell with His people so much that He gave His only begotten Son, that those who will trust in that reality will dwell with the Lord for all eternity. That is the whole point of His plan for mankind.
287
Numbers 36
It is clear that (as one might expect) the unit of family the people of Israel most cared about was not their entire tribe but their immediate clan. In order that one dominant clan within a tribe not carry too much power (which in ancient times was expressed via land and livestock), God ordered that daughters with inheritance rights must marry within their own extended families. This is not the last of the instructions well see regarding the use and transfer of land within Canaan; Deuteronomy contains several more instructions established by means of precedents on this subject. We are so urbanized today that we tend to forget the importance of land. But to God, land is important, and the Promised Land is a major ingredient of His overall plan. That land the Bible calls Canaan was specifically set aside for Israel; always has been, always will be. The Lord went to great lengths in the Torah to ensure that the land would never leave the possession of His people, but it happened anyway. The cause was multifold, but primarily it was Israels apostasy against the Lord. From the moment the land was handed over to Israel, they would play fast and loose with Gods ordinances regarding the land; and the consequences are still playing out every evening on our televisions. It is amazing that all recent government administrations of the Western developed nations and also Israel are so blind to Gods laws concerning the land that their solution to the problem of violence against Israel is to continue to give the land away to the descendants of the people God ordered that it be taken from. Congratulations on completing your study of the book of Numbers. You are now prepared to continue with the fifth and final book of the Torah, Deuteronomy.
Inheritance by Marriage An earlier chapter of Numbers records Moses ruling that the daughters of Zelophehad could inherit their fathers land portion since he died having no sons. But this had the potential for catastrophe: What would happen if any of his daughters married someone outside of Israel? Since it was the husband who owned whatever his wife had inherited, the land would be lost to foreigners (theoretically) for all time. The problem that is addressed in chapter 36 was not quite that global; the concern was less about what happened if a Hebrew daughter who held land in Canaan married outside Israel than it was about what happened if the same girl married outside her Israelite tribe. A girl from the tribe of Simeon, for instance, might have married a man from the tribe of Gad. A situation would then result, whereby the territorial allotment that God assigned could be bled off into other Israelite tribes, thus upsetting both the fairness and the balance, as well as Gods will, in the territorial assignments. So here in verse 6 was the judgment of God, through Moses, on such a situation: a female with land rights could marry anyone she chose, as long as the person was from within her own clan. Notice that the term used here is explicitly clan, not tribe. The female was required to marry not only within her own tribe but within her own extended family; if she did otherwise, she would be stripped of her land inheritance. As the end of this chapter makes clear, the daughters of Zelophehad married their first cousins, obeying the Lords ruling.
Numbers 36

Numbers Study

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Numbers Study

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Praise for the Torah Class Series

Other Torah Class Study Guides Available

the wilDerness experience

seeD of aBraham ministries

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

How to Use this Book

How to Use this Book

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

How to Use this Book

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

About the Author

About the Author

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read 1 Corinthians 10:111.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Numbers 1.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: reread Numbers 1:4754.

Exemption of the Levites

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Genesis 48:16.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Numbers 2.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Numbers 3.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Luke

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Assignment: read Numbers 4.

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience

Numbers - The Wilderness Experience