Numbers

The Book of Numbers is the fourth book of the Bible and of the Pentateuch. It covers the period from the end of Israel's time at Mount Sinai to their arrival at the borders of the Promised Land almost 40 years later. It is, in many respects, a puzzling book.

It seems, at first glance, to be an amalgam of many disparate elements. There are long lists relating to censuses, to sacrifices, and then there's lore and narrative material. These various types of material don't seem to be carefully ordered, but all mixed up together.

The reader might well wonder whether there's any logic to it all. Most of the opening ten chapters of the book occur at Mount Sinai. From Mount Sinai, the people then go to Kadesh, and then they later go from Kadesh to the plains of Moab.

The Book of Exodus ended shortly after the beginning of the second year after the Exodus from Egypt. The laws given in the Book of Leviticus are given around that same time, overlapping with the final chapters of the Book of Exodus. Gordon Wenham argues that there are key parallels to be observed between the three great journeys of Israel.

From the Red Sea to Sinai, Sinai to Kadesh, and Kadesh to the plains of Moab. These parallels suggest that we need to think in terms of three cycles, and part of the first cycle, along with the second and third cycles, feature in the Book of Numbers. Wenham lists some of the events that occur in two or more of these cycles.

They're led by a cloud. They win a victory over Egypt. There's a victory song.

Miriam appears at a key point. The people complain. Moses intercedes for the people.

There's an important well. There's manna and quail. There's water from the rock.

There's a victory over Amalek. And then Jethro appears. Along with these three parallel journeys, there are three parallel stops.

At Mount Sinai, at Kadesh, and on the plains of Moab, prior to entering the Promised Land. There are further parallel events at these parallel stops. Wenham lists them as follows.

There are divine promises given. There is a 40-day period. There's rebellion.

Moses intercedes for the people. There is judgment. There is plague.

There are laws given concerning sacrifice. An important legal case occurs. There's rebellion against the priests.

There's atonement through the priests or the Levites. There are priestly prerogatives laid out. Impurity rules are given.

And a census is taken. The Book of Numbers begins with the taking of a census. This is the first of two great censuses recorded in the book.

Together, they are the reason why the book has the name that it does. The taking of the census prepares the people for entry into the land. It is a numbering of the people for military service.

The census that takes place at the beginning of Numbers chapter 1 seems to be the same as that which occurred in Exodus chapter 38. This prepared the people for war, but it also provided material for the building of the tabernacle. It connected the company of the people with the tabernacle structure.

The end of the Book of Exodus focused upon the construction of the tabernacle. The Book of Leviticus could be seen as a filling of what had been formed in the tabernacle. The tabernacle structure was filled with priests and with sacrifices.

Its order was also upheld through principles of holiness. Towards the end of the book, we saw the focus moving outward to include the wider body of the people. The people making vows, for instance, to offer to the Lord.

Not merely the priests offering ascension offerings as we had at the very beginning of the book. We might see the Book of Numbers as a further phase in this development. More attention is now given to the larger body of the nation and how they are going to be ordered with the tabernacle in their midst.

As Rabbi David Forman has argued, the importance of this book, in part, is the counting of the people. Not just counting in the sense of numbering, but the mattering of the people. They are an important part of the picture too.

They are not just trailing after the tabernacle and the priests in a long procession, but they are a part of the larger picture being ordered around it. Within these chapters, we get a sense of the larger structure of Israel as a people. There is the congregation, later becoming the assembly.

It's the larger representative body of the people. On some occasions, this constitutes the entire nation, every single person included, for instance, in certain events of covenant renewal. On other occasions, it's all of the adult males.

On yet other occasions, the congregation might be the leaders of the people who act on the nation's behalf. Jacob Milgram argues that, for the most part, the congregation seems to be an ad hoc emergency council assembled to deal with trans-tribal crises, rather than a standing body. The nation, as it appears in these chapters, has a number of levels of organisation to it.

At the highest level, there are national leaders, like Moses and Aaron. On the level below that, there are the tribes. Tribes like Levi, Simeon, Gad, Asher.

Below the level of the tribes, there are the patriarchal houses. So in the case of Levi, that would be Gershon, Kohath, Morari. Beneath those patriarchal houses, there can be clans.

So the Marlites and Mushites are clans of Morari. Chiefs could be within a tribe, or the chief of an entire tribe, a tribal representative. So in the case of the former, Zuriel, the son of Abahel, is the chief of the father's house of the clans of Morari.

So he would represent the Marlites and the Mushites. This level of tribal organisation did not seem to persist in the long term. Although Milgram notes its use in the case of Reuben, Simeon and Asher in the books of Chronicles, he suggests that this sort of clan structure might have persisted in some of the less settled tribes.

Each tribe counted itself and reported back to Moses, enabling the census to be finished fairly quickly. Also, as they are not spread out, as they would be within the land, it could proceed much more swiftly. The numbering includes all of the adult males from 20 years and up, everyone suitable for war.

Reasoning from the analogy of the Levites, Milgram argues that no exemptions seem to have been granted. To assist Moses and Aaron in conducting the census, a chief from each of the ancestral tribes was chosen. The names of these figures are given to us in verses 5 to 15.

We can presume that this pattern of delegation continued all of the way down. Although they were being mustered for war, the numbering of the people also later had to do with the size of their possession in the land. The repeated expression, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from 20 years old and upward, all who were able to go to war, probably gives us some sort of indication of the pattern of the numbering process.

The numbers all seem to be rounded to the nearest hundred, save in the case of Gad, which has 45,650. The great size of the numbers has often perplexed commentators, who wonder how such a great company could have been sustained for so long in the wilderness. Besides this, there is the question of why so few could be mustered for battles in places like Judges chapter 4, in the fight against Sisera.

If the tribes had so many men of fighting age at this point in their history, where did they all disappear? There is also the question of the ratio of the first-born males that we find later on to the number of fighting males, a ratio of about 27 to 1, which is mind-boggling. While the number of adult males in the tribes remains fairly constant from chapter 1 to chapter 26 with the second census, there are some dramatic changes. For instance, the tribe of Simeon goes from 59,300 down to 22,200.

Meanwhile, Manasseh jumps from 32,200 to 52,700. Some have speculated that the text has become corrupted, or that a scribe mistook a number that could serve double purpose, either for the number thousand or for a family, for instance. As Wenham notes, this position was advanced by Flinders Petrie.

Understanding the text this way would lead to a different sort of translation. Summarizing this position, Wenham observes that the confusion of the two meanings for thousand and family would have produced a misunderstanding where the textual statement the tribe of Reuben consisted of 46 families containing 500 men was misunderstood as the statement that it had 46,500 men. A very different claim indeed.

Applied to the numbers of the whole nation, it would give us approximately 600 families with around 5,500 men. There are several variations upon Petrie's suggestion, some of them with numbers for the entire company that are considerably higher. There are, however, as Wenham observes, complicating factors.

For instance, in Exodus 38:25-26 we read, the silver from those of the congregation who were recorded was 100 talents and 1,775 shekels by the shekel of the sanctuary. A beaker a head, that is half a shekel by the shekel of the sanctuary, for everyone who was listed in the records from 20 years old and upward, for 603,550 men. If we're going to change the number of the people in the census, we also have to change the sum of the mustering money.

The number 600,000 is mentioned on several occasions, for instance in Exodus 12:37, and the people of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth, about 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children. And then again in Numbers 11:21, but Moses said, the people among whom I am number 600,000 on foot, and you have said I will give them meat that they may eat a whole month. The numbering of the Levites, as it is broken down differently, is also difficult to square with the claim that there has been some misapprehension of the meaning of the word thousand.

Taking everything into account, it seems most likely that we're supposed to take the numbers as they are, and to take them literally. Of course, this still leaves us with many questions. A further set of questions that we must ask, concerns their possible symbolic import.

We should begin by observing that the number 600,000 can be broken down into 12 times 50 times 10 cubed, 12 of course is associated with the tribes of Israel, 10 cubed or a thousand is associated with a full company, and 50 is a military numbering. In Exodus 13:18 and Joshua 1:14, the text literally refers to the people entering into the promised land and leaving the land of Egypt in fifties or possibly in fives. 600,000 then is a very felicitous number to represent the full company of Israel in military array.

In Numbers 3:46, we're given the number of the firstborn that exceeded the number of the Levites, 273, the number of the Levites being 22,000. A scholar named Barnouin made the intriguing suggestion that there is a connection between the numbers of the census and important astronomical numbers. Before we even entertain such a proposal, we need to ask why we might expect to find such a connection to begin with.

The first thing to note is that there is a symbolic connection between Israel and the heavenly host. They will be arranged around the tabernacle, which is elsewhere compared to the sun and arranged at 12 different points. There is a parallel between the heavens above and the heavens beneath the order of the tabernacle.

Abraham was promised that his descendants will be like the stars in the heaven, not merely in the sense of their number, but also in the sense of their rule. Besides this, we should consider the great calendrical focus that we find within the Pentateuch and also the great significance given to astronomical phenomena within the ancient world. The elaborate marking out of time by the stars in the heavens is something that's introduced on the fourth day of creation.

Genesis 1:14, and God said, In their attention to the heavens, the ancients were trying to find more elaborate and extended structures of time within them. Besides all of this, there is the odd character of the numbers within the text itself. The way that they are given to us invites closer examination.

We have the number 600,000 and then the additional amount of 3,550 in the first case, and then 1,730 in the second. We have already noted the possible significance of the rounded number of Israel. Perhaps we're supposed to pay attention to the remainder too.

We're used to thinking in terms of a solar calendar. When we think in terms of a lunar calendar, it's measured differently. The synodical lunar month, the period of the moon's orbit with respect to the line joining the sun and the earth, is around 29 1⁄2 days.

The sidereal lunar month, on the other hand, is the time of the moon's sidereal revolution relative to apparently fixed stars, and that's around 27.3 days. 27.3 might ring a few bells if we've read a bit further ahead. In chapter 3, we have 273, or 27.3 times 10, more firstborn males of Israel beyond the number of the Levites.

Perhaps notable is the fact that they're from a month old and upward. When we remove the 600,000 from Israel's census, we get 3,550. Divide that by 10 again, we get 355.

The sidereal lunar calendar is 13 months in length, and it has 355 days. The 273, the remainder of the firstborn of Israel in chapter 3, is the number of the month. The 3,550, the remainder when the rounded number of Israel is removed from the total census, gives us the number of the year.

Besides this, we might consider the way that there are 12 or 13 tribes of Israel, depending upon our numbering. Do we include Levi? Do we include the double tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh under Joseph? This difference between 12 or 13 might remind us of the difference between the 12 months of a synodical year and the 13 months in a sidereal lunar year. Besides this, when we divide the number of Israel, 600,000, by the number of the Levites, 22,000, we get approximately 27.3, again, the number of days in a sidereal month.

All of this is highly speculative, but it would not at all surprise me if there were lunar astronomical and calendrical symbolism at play here. The tribe of Levi is the only tribe not numbered in this chapter. They're going to be appointed for a different task to manage the items of the tabernacle.

They will also be camping directly around the tabernacle. A question to consider, in verse 49, they're told not to list or count the tribe of Levi, and in verse 50, there's a play upon the same root, as we're told that they should be appointed over the tabernacle of the testimony. Might this play upon verbal roots between counting and appointing help us to understand something of a deeper connection here?

Having been numbered in Numbers chapter 1, in Numbers chapter 2 the tribes of Israel are arrayed around the tabernacle. We have already considered the possibility of astral or heavenly symbolism in the Numbers of Numbers chapter 1. And when we consider the order of the tabernacle, it could be likened to the sun with constellations around it. In the tabernacle and the gathering of Israel around it, we have a correspondence with the heavenly temple.

In being arrayed around the tabernacle in such a way, Israel is being brought up to participate in this higher order. It is not just the tabernacle in their midst that is of great significance, it's the whole camp. Around the 13th century BC, the Egyptian army under Ramses II adopted the formation of the military camp around the king's tent.

Gordon Wenham notes the similarity between this formation and the formation of the camp of Israel. The camp here is divided into four groups. The first group consists of Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.

These are all tribes of Leah. The second group, Reuben, Simeon and Gad, are descended from Leah and Zilpah. The third group, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, are all Rachel tribes.

The fourth group, Dan, Asher and Naphtali, are from Bilhah and Zilpah. There are the same clusters of three in 1:20-42, but the order there is South, East, West, North, rather than East, South, West, North, as we have in this chapter. This isn't the only time in scripture where we have attention paid to the ordering of gates and the ordering of the tribes.

Such attention is especially noteworthy in symbolic passages, where it seems likely that there is some import to the order in which the tribes are listed. We have such a list in Ezekiel 48:30-35. The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits, and the name of the city from that time on shall be The Lord is There.

Once again we see some sort of loose maternal clustering of the tribes. The northern tribes, Reuben, Judah and Levi, are tribes of Leah. Joseph, Benjamin and Dan in the East are tribes of Rachel and her handmaid Bilhah.

Simeon, Issachar and Zebulun in the South are of Leah. And Gad, Asher and Naphtali in the West are tribes of the handmaids Zilpah and Bilhah. David Chilton suggests that we have an implicit ordering of the tribes in the book of Revelation as well on the gates.

Revelation 7:4-8 gives the order of the tribes in the 144,000 sealed persons. In Revelation 21:12-13 we are told that the city had a great high wall with 12 gates and at the gates 12 angels. And on the gates the names of the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed.

On the East 3 gates, on the North 3 gates, on the South 3 gates and on the West 3 gates. If we put these passages together we can order the tribes around the city in the order that their names are given in Revelation chapter 7. From the East to the North, from the North to the West, from the East to the South and from the South to the West. This yields an order in which Judah, Reuben, Simeon are together.

The senior Leah tribes, Gad, Asher and Naphtali are together. The handmaid tribes, Levi, Issachar and Zebulun, junior Leah tribes are together. And then Manasseh, Joseph and Benjamin are together.

All tribes of Rachel. James Jordan and others have seen connection between the tribes and the signs of the Zodiac. Judah is connected of course to the lion.

He is described as a lion's cub in Genesis 49:9. That would be Leo. Reuben corresponds with the water carrying man. He is described as a man who is unstable as water in Genesis 49:4. That would be Aquarius.

Ephraim with his brother is spoken of as the first born bull in Deuteronomy 33:17. That would connect with the bull and with Taurus. Dan is spoken of as the serpent.

A serpent in the way in Genesis 49:17. That would connect him with Scorpio. Which can be seen as an eagle, a serpent or a scorpion.

More interestingly this also reminds us of Ezekiel 1:4-10. Where we have the description of the chariot vision of Ezekiel. As I looked behold a stormy wind came out of the north.

And a great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continually. And in the midst of the fire as it were gleaming metal. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures.

And this was their appearance. They had a human likeness but each had four faces. And each of them had four wings.

Their legs were straight and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands.

And the four had their faces and their wings thus. Their wings touched one another. Each of them went straight forward without turning as they went.

As for the likeness of their faces each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side. The four had the face of an ox on the left side.

And the four had the face of an eagle. The throne chariot and the living creatures seemed to come from the north. And the face that's facing the prophet seems to be that of the human being.

This would make the man's face the south facing countenance of the cherubim. The lion on the right side would be facing east. The ox would be facing towards the west.

And then the eagle would be facing back towards the north. If we rightly identified the tribes with the zodiacal signs and their symbols. Judah with the lion, Reuben with the man, Ephraim with the bull and Dan with the serpent or eagle.

Then the order of the faces in the four cardinal directions in the desert camp. Corresponds with the order of the cherubim or living creatures. In the vision that Ezekiel has of the lord's chariot throne.

Once again this would underline the fact that the earthly tabernacle. Mirrors in some sense the heavenly temple. As we have already seen possible connections between the numbering of Israel and calendrical symbolism.

Perhaps the possibility of such a connection should not so surprise us. We should however note that the association of the tribes with these particular zodiacal signs. One that many have argued for.

Does not actually yield the typical ordering of the signs of the zodiac around the camp. A question to consider. Where else in scripture might we have allusions to the signs of the zodiac? How can we understand such references without falling prey to the superstitions of astrology?

Numbers chapter 3 begins with an expression that might surprise us. These are the generations of Aaron and Moses at the time when the Lord spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai. The expression is surprising for a number of reasons.

First of all, while this is a common expression that structures the book of Genesis, it's hardly ever found outside of it, only on a couple of occasions, the end of Ruth being another instance. Second, it seems strange to refer to the generations of Aaron and Moses when none of Moses' descendants are actually mentioned. Third, why relate this to the time when the Lord spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai? Perhaps we are supposed to see Moses as becoming like a spiritual father to the sons of Aaron.

Previously, Moses was told that he would be like God to Aaron. The Lord commands Moses, and then Moses commands Aaron. In the ordination ritual recorded in Leviticus chapters 8 and 9, Moses is the one who officiates, and through his officiation, Aaron and his sons become priests.

Perhaps we could understand this ordination ceremony as a sort of coming to birth, with Moses, who first plays the role of the priest, becoming like their father. Unfortunately, the two elder sons of Aaron offered strange fire to the Lord, and fire came out from the Lord's presence and consumed them. Eliezer and Ithamar will later take the place of Nadab and Abihu.

The priesthood may have been born, but the priests need people to assist them. It's not good that they should be alone, and so in an action somewhat analogous to the way that the Lord brought the woman to the man in the original creation, so that he would not be alone in his task in the garden, the Lord brings the Levites to Aaron and his sons. The Levites will assist Aaron and his sons in their task.

Levi was a tribe known for zeal. We first witness the zeal of Levi as he joins Simeon, his brother, to avenge the abduction of Dinah by Shechem. We read of his bloody actions in Genesis chapter 34, events recalled in chapter 49, where Jacob declares judgment upon Levi and Simeon on account of their actions.

Later, however, the zeal of Levi is expressed in a far more positive way. At the time of Israel's sin with the golden calf, we read in Exodus 32:25-29, And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose, for Aaron had let them break loose to the derision of their enemies, Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, Who is on the Lord's side? Come to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.

And he said to them, Thus says the Lord God of Israel, Put your sword on your side, each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp. And each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor. And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses.

And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. And Moses said, Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day. In the final plague upon Egypt in the Exodus and in the Passover, the Lord had consecrated the firstborn of Israel to himself.

In Exodus 4:22-23, the Lord declares, Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son. Themes of birth pervade the story of the Exodus.

The story begins with Israel groaning for deliverance in the womb of Egypt. There are stories of women giving birth, of the midwives, of Jochebed and Moses and his deliverance as an infant. When Israel leaves Egypt, they leave through bloody doors.

Laws concerning the first child to open the womb are given in chapter 13 of the book. Right at the moment they're leaving Egypt, and then in chapter 14, waters are broken apart. They pass through a narrow passage from darkness to light and become a new people on the other side.

At the time of the Exodus, the Lord had dedicated the firstborn sons of Israel to himself as the firstborn sons of Israel represented the nation's status before him. Israel was his firstborn son, and so the firstborn sons of Israel had to be dedicated to him. Immanuel Shalev helpfully discusses what the firstborn son is supposed to do.

The firstborn son, among other things, is supposed to mediate between the two generations, between the parents and the children. The firstborn then needs to be seen as a transitional figure. At the moment of crisis, where Moses needed some part of the nation to stand on his side and to call the rest of the nation to faithfulness, who had stood up? Not the firstborn more generally, but the Levites.

Through their actions, they mark themselves out as those most fitting for the spiritual task of the firstborn, mediating between the Lord and his servants Moses and Aaron, and the rest of the people. From that point on, they would be the chief teachers of the people. We should consider the different stages of mediation here.

The Lord speaks to Moses, Moses speaks to Aaron, Aaron directs his sons, the sons direct the Levites, and the Levites direct the rest of the people. We could consider this also in terms of the structure of the camp. The tabernacle stands at the center, where the Lord is enthroned above the cherubim.

Only the high priests can go into the Holy of Holies, and only once a year. The priests more generally can go into the holy place. The Levites surround the tabernacle, and they assist the priests in their tasks.

Then beyond them, the whole of the rest of the tribes of Israel surround them. They are ordered in four larger groups, in each of the four cardinal directions. Each one of those groups has a leading tribe.

Each one of the tribes has leading persons. There is then a glorious structure and order to the entire camp, and all lines ultimately converge upon the tabernacle, and the Lord's presence at its heart. Another way to see this, is that the order that is at the heart of the tabernacle, flows out from it, and is expressed in every single part of the camp.

No person within the camp of Israel, is detached from this divinely established glorious order. Like stars and great constellations, every person in Israel has their place within the heavenly camp. The larger camp of Israel was numbered in chapters 1 and 2, and in chapter 2 they were arrayed around the tabernacle, in the four cardinal directions.

Judah is the leading tribe, facing towards the east to the sunrise. The Levites were exempt from that particular ordering. They were not going to be part of the military numbering.

They were, as it were, palace guards and household stewards, for the Lord's tent at the heart of the nation. The tribe of Levi has three great father's houses, Gershon, Kohath and Morarai. Perhaps the most important of these is Kohath.

The rebel Korah, who we meet in chapter 16, comes from the clan of the Isharites within Kohath. Each of these groups of Levites has its own responsibilities. The Gershonites are especially responsible for the fabrics of the tabernacle, the tent and its covering, the screens, the hangings and the cords.

The Kohathites are especially responsible for the furniture of the tabernacle, the ark, table, lampstand, altars and the vessels of the sanctuary. Morarai's responsibilities chiefly have to do with the structure of the tabernacle, its frames, pillars, bars and bases and accessories. Like the rest of the tribes of Israel, each of these father's houses of the Levites were assigned to a camp in one of the cardinal directions of the camp of Israel.

There was the need for one more group of Levites to take the camp towards the east and this position was taken by Moses, Aaron and his sons, as the leading tribe was Judah facing towards the east. The leading Levites were the priests. The individual families of the Levites are summed up and then the total is given to us.

However, the numbers that we are given do not add up to 22,000, rather they add up to 22,300. Even if we were to argue that the numbers were rounded up to the nearest hundred, that would still give us at the very least 22,150. Timothy Ashley suggests that a consonant dropped out in the transmission of the text and that the number of the Kohathites is actually 8,300.

The total number of the Levites comes to 22,000. 22,000 and numbers related to it are quite common within the biblical text. The menorah, as James Berjan observes, has 22 flowers.

In 1 Chronicles chapter 6, the genealogies of the Levites seems to be ordered around the number 22 in a number of different ways, numbers of generations, numbers of figures and in further ways besides. The Levites are going to be substituted for the firstborn among the people of Israel. But here we hit another numerical problem.

The firstborn males of Israel are supposedly 22,273. However, of the males over 20 years of age, there are over 600,000. Surely we would expect a great many more of them to be firstborns.

How do we account for this? It seems to me that the answer is found in the redemption price for the firstborn, which is 1,365 shekels, 5 shekels for each of the persons. In verse 43, we are told that the firstborn males are from a month old and upward. Once we've considered the amount of the redemption price, we can go to Leviticus 27:6 and find the piece that will make everything fall into place.

If the person is from a month old up to 5 years old, the valuation shall be for a male 5 shekels of silver and for a female the valuation shall be 3 shekels of silver. Although it isn't mentioned here, it seems that it is only the firstborn from a month to 5 years of age that are being numbered. None of the older males of Israel have to be substituted for.

In treating chapter 1, I noted the way that the number 273 might be a significant one. Besides the fact that it is three quarters of solar year, it is 10 times the length of a sidereal lunar month. The excess of the number of Israel over the round number of 600,000 is 10 times the number of days in the sidereal lunar year, a year that has 13 months.

Divide 600,000 by 22,000 and you also get something approximate to the length of time of sidereal lunar month. We might then think of the Levites as representing months relative to the regular Israelites days. The camp ordering is 12 tribes facing in the four cardinal directions, four Levite groups facing in the four cardinal directions, and the tabernacle in the center.

In chapter 1, we are told that the tribes were ordered by their signs. It's the same word used in Genesis 1:14 when the stars are given for signs and for seasons. Judah is Leo, the lion.

Reuben is Aquarius, the water carrying man. Ephraim is Taurus, the bull. And Dan is Scorpio, the serpent or eagle.

The ordering corresponds to the ordering of the faces of the living creatures in Ezekiel chapter 1. The tribes can be seen as months. Levi has four seasons and at the center of it all is the tabernacle which is akin to the glory of the sun, the Lord in his majestic presence. The camp of Israel then is a microcosm, a representation of the larger cosmos, the heavens, and also the higher heavens where the Lord's throne is.

The tribes of Israel are like great constellations of stars, all surrounding the sun of God's presence. The description of the ordering of the camp should also draw our attention back to the original sanctuary of the Garden of Eden. For instance, in verse 38, those who were to camp before the tabernacle on the east before the tent of meeting toward the sunrise were Moses and Aaron and his sons guarding the sanctuary itself to protect the people of Israel and any outsider who came near was to be put to death.

After the Lord expelled Adam and Eve from the garden, we read in verse 24 of chapter 3 of Genesis, he drove out the man and at the east of the Garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. The camp of Israel is as it were a new Eden with the tabernacle at its heart chiefly guarded by Moses and Aaron and their sons who have been appointed to play a role like that of the cherubim. A question to consider, what are some of the other ways in which we might relate the tabernacle and the order that surrounds it to the Garden of Eden?

In Numbers chapter 3, a census was taken of the clans of the Levites, of all the males from one month and older. In Numbers chapter 4, a second census is taken of the clans of the Levites, this time of those who are of suitable age for service in the things related to the tabernacle, males between the age of 30 and 50. Besides the numbering of those suitable for active service in the things related to the tabernacle, this chapter gives us the specific duties of each clan.

The Levites were ordered around the tabernacle with the Kohathites at the south, the Merarites at the north, the Gershonites on the west, and Moses and the sons of Aaron on the east. Besides the priests, it seems to be the Kohathites who perform the most important roles within this chapter. They are responsible for and they bear the holiest of the items.

In contrast to the other clans, they also bear the items for which they are responsible. The items of the tabernacle for which the other clans are responsible are borne by oxen. While placed differently around the tabernacle, Moses and Aaron were also descended from Kohath, as we see in 1 Chronicles 6, verses 2 and 3. The Levites were like the roadies for the tabernacle, responsible for packing, transporting, and reassembling the tabernacle.

As the sons of Kohath were responsible for the most holy things, they had to take a special care and much of the actual packing was performed by the priests. Were the Kohathites to touch the most holy things, they would die. Such warnings concerning the sons of Kohath should be borne in mind when we read about the rebellion of Korah later on in the Book of Numbers.

Careful instruction is given for the covering of each of the items of furniture for the tabernacle. We should recognize the similarity between the coverings for these items and the tabernacle itself. Each of the items of furniture of the tabernacle has its own miniature tabernacle.

There are certain ways in which items within the tabernacle are related as microcosms to the macrocosm of the tabernacle itself. We might, for instance, think about the Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place. The base of that, the Ark itself, represents the land.

That's covered by the mercy seat, the firmament, and then above the mercy seat, the Lord is enthroned above the cherubim. That is, as it were, the Most Holy Place upon the Ark of the Covenant itself, a sort of sanctuary and miniature within the greater sanctuary, like a smaller Russian doll hidden within a larger one. The order of the duties for the packing up and transporting of the tabernacle move from the priests, to the sons of Kohath, to the sons of Gershon, to the sons of Morari, from east to south to west to north of the camps of the Levites.

Eleazar, the son of Aaron, has particular responsibility for oversight of the house of Kohath, whereas Ithamar, the son of Aaron, has particular responsibility for oversight of the clans of Morari and Gershon. The Kohathites are responsible for the Ark of the Covenant, for the veil to the Most Holy Place, for the table of Shobret, for the lampstand, for the golden altar, and for the bronze altar in the courtyard. Perhaps we should assume that the bronze labour was included with the bronze altar, but it's not explicitly mentioned here.

The Gershonites are responsible for the various screens and hangings that surround the tabernacle, the actual tent and the hangings surrounding its courtyard, while they carry the screens for the entrance to the tabernacle courtyard and for the entrance to the Holy Place, the veil to the Most Holy Place is carried by the sons of Kohath. Finally, the clan of Morari is responsible for the frames, pillars, and bases, the structures that would bear all the fabrics and hangings, along with the pegs and cords and other things associated with them. In Exodus chapter 26, verses 31 to 33, instructions were given for the construction of the veil for the Most Holy Place.

And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it, and you shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold, with hooks of gold on four bases of silver. And you shall hang the veil from the clasps and bring the Ark of the Testimony in there within the veil.

And the veil shall separate for you the Holy Place from the Most Holy. While attention is given in Exodus to the various fabrics of which the tabernacle should be constructed, in Numbers chapter 4, even more attention seems to be given to this aspect of the tabernacle, with different colours stipulated for the covering of different items. This suggests that the colours used for the covering of different items is not just a manifestation of glory as such, but has more specific symbolic significance.

For some reason it is appropriate the bronze altar be covered with a purple rather than a blue cloth, while the dishes and other items associated with the Table of the Presence should be covered with a cloth of scarlet. The instructions are as follows. The Ark of the Covenant needs to be covered with the veil of the screen, with the blue, purple, scarlet and linen veil to the Most Holy Place.

After that it should be covered with a goatskin covering and then a blue cloth. The Table of the Presence is covered with a cloth of blue. Upon that the incense dishes, drink offering, flagons and showbread is placed.

And then upon that a cloth of scarlet. On top of all of those items there is a further covering, the covering of goatskin. The lampstand comes next with its tongs, trays and oil vessels, all covered with a cloth of blue and then put with its utensils in a goatskin covering on a carrying frame.

The golden altar is covered in a cloth of blue and then covered with goatskin. The vessels of the service of the Sanctuary are covered with a cloth of blue and goatskin. Finally the bronze altar is covered with a purple cloth, its utensils are then placed upon it and all of that is covered with goatskin.

The items of the Holy Place are generally covered with a blue cloth and then a goatskin covering. The Ark of the Covenant is unique in being covered with the veil of the screen, then with a blue cloth on top of the goatskin covering. The other two items that stand out are the bronze altar, which is covered by a purple cloth beneath its goatskin covering, and then the incense dishes, drink offering, flagons and showbread, which are placed upon the Table of the Presence with its covering of a cloth of blue and then covered in their turn with a cloth of scarlet.

When fully packed up, the distinctive item would be the Ark of the Covenant. While the external covering of all the other items was goatskin, its final layer was blue. The Ark of the Covenant would then stand out from the other items.

This was fitting because it was that which led them upon their way, as we see in Numbers 10:33-36. So they set out from the Mount of the Lord three days' journey, and the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord went before them three days' journey to seek out a resting place for them. And the cloud of the Lord was over them by day, whenever they set out from the camp.

And whenever the Ark set out, Moses said, Arise, O Lord, and let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you. And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, to the ten thousand thousands of Israel. The Ark of the Covenant was unique in having for its inner covering the veil to the Most Holy Place.

This again was fitting because it was the one item of furniture being carried from the Most Holy Place. All the items of the Holy Place have a blue covering and then a goatskin covering. And then the bronze altar, the one item of the furniture of the courtyard that's mentioned, has a purple covering beneath the goatskin.

This suggests that the covering of the items corresponds in some way to their location within the tabernacle itself. The Most Holy Item, the Ark of the Covenant, is covered with the veil to the Most Holy Place. The items of the Holy Place are covered with blue, and then the bronze altar of the courtyard is covered with purple.

The one exception this leaves are the incense dishes, drink-offering flagons, and showbread of the Table of the Presence. These items are placed upon the Table of the Presence, which has itself already been covered with a cloth of blue. However, they are covered with a cloth of scarlet.

Perhaps there are exceptions in that they represent those things that are brought into the Holy Place from without the drink offerings, the showbread, and the incense. They do not represent fixed items of the Holy Place, but items that are brought near. Hence their covering is one of scarlet, perhaps representing the covering of blood.

Here we need to consider the symbolism of these colors more generally. We have already noted a correspondence with the situation or location within the tabernacle and the covering that an item has. We can also consider the costliness of these coverings.

Scarlet, blue, and purple were all expensive dyes. These were fitting colors for the coverings of a royal tent, which is one way to consider the tabernacle. Besides more conventional or arbitrary associations with specific levels of holiness relative to the tabernacle, should we seek for further symbolic connections to these colors, we could consider some natural possibilities.

First, the colors seem to have some sort of order or priority. Linen connected with white, then scarlet, purple, and blue. White has connotations of purity and cleansing, being without blemish.

Scarlet is connected with blood. Here we might think more generally of the way that blood covers things within the order of the tabernacle. Purple is connected with royalty and also possibly with smoke, as James Jordan suggests.

Then blue is connected with the sky, with the heavens, and with the firmament more generally. Perhaps we should see a sort of ascension through colors here. The greatest item of all is covered with a covering that has interwoven blue, purple, scarlet, and linen.

A sort of rainbow covering that incorporates within itself all of these different levels of covering. Perhaps there's some connection between the covering of the Ark of the Covenant here, and the way that the throne of the Lord is described as being surrounded by a rainbow in places like Revelation 4, verse 3. Besides the duties of the sons of Kohath, Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has particular responsibility for the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the regular grain offering, and the anointing oil. Most of these are items that are described in the instructions for the construction of the tabernacle back in Exodus chapter 25 to 31.

As Eleazar also has oversight for the whole tabernacle and all within it, he would be the one particularly responsible for overseeing the Kohathites. In Numbers chapter 7, verses 1 to 9, we read that the chiefs of Israel dedicated to the Lord six wagons and twelve oxen. Of those, two wagons and four oxen were given to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen to the sons of Morari.

The sons of Kohath received none. They were responsible to carry the most holy things upon their own shoulders. The special status of these items was seen then in part in the fact that they had human bearers, not just animals.

This also underlines the fact that the heaviest items of the tabernacle, the primary structural elements, were the responsibility of Morari. In association with the tasks of Morari, the instruction is also given that the objects should be listed by name. Of the three clans, Morari was the one that faced the greatest danger of leaving some item behind or failing to account for it, as so many of the items committed to their charge would have been similar or identical to each other.

We can imagine that each one of the members of this clan would have a very specific item that they had to pay attention to. Such a detail is suggested by the final verse of the chapter. According to the commandment of the Lord through Moses, they were listed, each one with his task of serving or carrying.

A question to consider, where in scripture do we see a failure to observe these instructions in carrying holy items, leading to tragic consequences?

Numbers chapter 5 contains laws relating to three different issues, to maintaining the cleanness of the camp, to addressing debts in situations where there had been a breach of faith, and to potential cases of adultery. The first of these matters, dealt with in verses 1 to 4, concerns the removal of those who are leprous, those who have discharges, and those who are unclean on account of contact with the dead. As we see in Leviticus chapters 13 and 14, lepers would have been excluded from the camp for a considerable length of time until their process of cleansing had been performed.

Those who had discharges of an abnormal kind would have been excluded from the camp for seven days until they were cleansed. Those with more typical omissions would only have been unclean until evening. Finally, those who had had contact with the dead would have gone through the process described in Numbers chapter 19, being removed from the camp for seven days.

Contact with an animal corpse, as described in Leviticus chapter 11, would only have led to uncleanness until evening. The cleanness of the camp needs to be maintained because the law dwells in the midst of the people and in the midst of their camp. This law is not recorded in an abstract legal context.

Immediately after the law is given, we are told that the people observed it, putting unclean persons outside of the camp as the Lord had commanded them. The second section of this chapter, in verses 5 to 10, deals with cases of restitution where someone had committed a breach of faith with the Lord. The breach of faith had been committed against the Lord, but here the focus is upon restitution to the wronged human party.

Full restitution plus an added 20% had to be made. If the person who had been wronged was not alive or no longer accessible and had no living next of kin, the sum for the restitution had to be given to the Lord for the priest. This was in addition to the ram of the reparation offering.

Such cases are described from a slightly different perspective in Leviticus chapter 6, verses 1 to 7. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "...has realized his guilt, and will restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by oppression, or the deposit that was committed to him, or the lost thing that he found, or anything about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore it in full, and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt. And he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering.

And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do, and thereby become guilty." While the special focus of Leviticus is upon what is due to the Lord in such an instance, in numbers it is the wronged human party that is in the foreground. While verse 6 spoke of a situation of breaking faith with the Lord, in verse 12, the beginning of the final section of the chapter, there is a law addressing a situation where a breaks faith with her husband. We should perhaps notice a parallel here.

The ritual of jealousy seems very strange to the modern reader. It seems like a mixture between a superstitious magical ceremony, a medieval trial by ordeal, and a paternity test on a tasteless talk show. What's it doing on the pages of scripture? Readers might also be troubled by the seeming misogyny of such a law.

A wife can be made subject to an ordeal for which no corresponding right exists for husbands, and if the woman is found guilty, she faces serious consequences, though nothing is said of any consequences faced by the man with whom she has committed adultery. As we try to understand this law, there are a number of things that we should recognize at the outset. First, the primary cause for the performance of the right is jealousy.

It is easy to presume that since the jealousy is the husband's, the right exists principally for the sake of him as the accusing party. However, we should be cautious here. One doesn't have to envisage the extremes illustrated by a character such as Othello to recognize that a husband's jealousy can be a profoundly destructive and vengeful force, as we see in places like Proverbs 6:34, for jealousy makes a man furious, and he will not spare when he takes revenge.

The ritual of jealousy served to arrest the cycle of jealousy before it could be expressed in a husband's violent abuse or the violence of the lynch mob. The jealous party had to surrender judgment into God's hands, thus preventing the escalation of jealousy into violence or the utter and final annihilation of all marital trust. The ritual of jealousy, by preventing the unhalted rise of jealousy, protected vulnerable parties from violence, took judgment out of human hands, and served to exonerate the innocent.

The falsely suspected party could call the jealous party to put up or shut up, receiving divine vindication through the right, and being delivered from any stain on their character. For anyone who has been falsely accused or suspected, the benefit of such a right should be immediately apparent. In such a manner, the jealousy rite served both parties by providing a way to avoid the destructive cycles of jealousy.

Such a ritual held the potential of possibly salvaging marriages that might found her on the rocks of suspicion. Second, the efficacy of the rite of jealousy depended upon the divine deliverance of a decisive verdict. By itself, drinking the bitter water, while unpleasant, could not produce the terrible effects associated with the guilty verdict.

The rite involved no human judgment whatsoever, put everything into God's hands, and would only operate through divine action. Our ability to accept the rite is closely related to our preparedness to accept that God might provide decisive judgment in such a manner. The law more generally, as we see in places like Deuteronomy chapter 27, was backed up by divine sanctions, with divine judgment coming directly upon persons who were not caught by human authorities, or committed wrongs that were not subject to human laws.

The ritual of jealousy is unusual in the way that such judgment is delivered directly and openly. Third, speaking strictly, it was not an ordeal. Typically, trial by ordeal involves undergoing a dangerous and or painful trial, such as plunging one's hand into boiling water, or carrying a heated iron across a room.

On the basis of one's survival and or condition after such an ordeal, a human court would judge you to be innocent or guilty. Such ordeals were often at a high risk of producing false positives. The ritual of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5, however, involved little risk of false positives.

The rite itself, while not a pleasant experience, was not inherently dangerous or painful. It also, we should remember, involved no human judgment at all subsequent to the ordeal, but placed the judgment and punishment entirely in God's hands. In all of this, then, we should recognize ways in which the rite of jealousy served to address a crisis situation in the law, where a lack of knowledge could lead to the breakdown of all trust in a marriage, and a vulnerable party could suffer under a false accusation.

The ritual promised divine vindication or judgment in a way that arrested these negative processes. As I've already noted, the Mosaic law is underpinned by divine sanction for both individual and nation. No one can escape divine justice, even though they may escape human justice.

Evil doers can be directly punished by the Lord, and this judgment is typically presumed to come in this life. Even though it might be delayed, the person who bore their iniquity was liable to receive direct punishment from God. Secret sinners were subjected to a terrible series of curses, and were not presumed to escape judgment for their sin, merely because they evaded human detection.

The entire law was underwritten by this assurance. It seems to me the question that we should be asking is why the case of the woman suspected of adultery was treated differently from other cases, where punishment of unknown guilty parties could be left in God's hands and waited for patiently. It seems to me that the three key reasons for this are, first, the destructive force of unchecked jealousy within marriage, a force that makes it much harder to go on than suspicions in any other context.

Second, the vulnerability of the suspected party to the violence of her husband or the mob. Third, the fact that the unfaithfulness of the wife was a greater threat to the order of the family than that of the husband, as it threw the legitimacy of the children into question, in a society where that really mattered. The right of jealousy was a petition for immediate divine judgment that would bring matters to a head in a situation where continued unresolved suspicion could prove deeply destructive.

It could assure a man that children were his, and grant both the children and the mother the security that comes with that clearly defined status. Considering all of these things, we should not be surprised if such a voluntary right was nonetheless a welcome one. Looking at the right itself, we can see that it's precipitated by a situation where the wife has committed a trespass or committed a breach of faith against her husband.

This is language that's more typically used in man's relationship with God. The analogy between spiritual unfaithfulness to the Lord and unfaithfulness to a human husband is an important one. The husband is to bring his wife to the priest along with an offering.

The offering seems to be a sort of standalone tribute offering, similar to those described in Leviticus chapter 2. However, in contrast to those offerings, it is not offered with oil and with frankincense, items that are added because the offering is supposed to be a pleasing aroma to the Lord. This offering is for the purpose of memorializing possible sin, so naturally elements that make an offering pleasing to the Lord would not be added. The priest takes holy water in an earthen vessel, this is presumably drawn from the labor of cleansing, and then holy dust from the ground of the tabernacle and places this in the water.

The strange character of this ritual invites symbolic interpretation. Perhaps the earthen vessel, as we see in places like 2 Corinthians 4:7, is an image of the human being formed of dust and water. The reproductive capacity of a human being, particularly a woman, is connected with images of water in scripture.

The woman is described as having a fountain or is associated with a well. Perhaps the image here is of waters made bitter through pollution. If she is unfaithful, the woman has become like those waters that she is given to drink.

However, if she is faithful, those waters find no root in her. There also seem to be various ways in which this particular ritual alludes to events within the biblical histories, strengthening a case for symbolic interpretation. The woman's head is uncovered in the Lord's presence, her hair is let loose.

Perhaps in such a manner she's symbolically removed from the representation and protection of her husband, standing alone before the Lord. Perhaps the purpose is to remove her from the symbolic sphere of her husband's household and to place her before the Lord for immediate personal judgment apart from her husband's representation. The memorial offering is placed in her hands and when it's later offered it will bring her to God's mind and judgment will be cast in her case.

The connection of the memorial offering with the meals of communion is important to notice in this context. There may also be a connection here with vocational rites where offerings were placed in people's hands in places like Leviticus 8:25-27 and in the next chapter of Numbers in verse 19. In all of these cases the worshipper is offering up their labor or work for divine approval or judgment.

The woman is placed under a self-maladictory oath. She calls down judgment upon herself if she has been unfaithful. Her cooperation is expected as her preparedness to undergo the rite is an act of pleading innocence before the divine court and petitioning God for public vindication.

The priest writes up the self-maladictory curses in a book and then wipes or blots them out into the bitter water. Perhaps we're supposed to see this as the water bearing the two chief prosecutors of the divine order, the law, the word of God from heaven, and the land, the dust that mediates God's curse upon mankind. The law condemns the guilty and the land spits them out.

In drinking the bitter water the woman will take these two witnesses into her insides and their effect will determine her case one way or another. The woman must drink the water and the priest offers the wave offering and burns its memorial portion. If she is guilty the bitter water shall become bitter inside her and its curses shall make her a curse.

If she is not guilty it will have no effect. The efficacy of the rite arises from the memorial bread offering which invokes God's judgment upon the one who offered it. The bitter water is the means of the punishment or vindication.

If the woman is guilty there will be a marked and visible effect presumably accompanied by considerable pain or discomfort. Her belly will swell and her thigh will rot. As in the case of the laws concerning leprosy people speculate about the exact character of this judgment.

Perhaps it is a prolapsed uterus. The most significant outcome of the judgment will be her subsequent inability to bear children. This would have been a devastating judgment in Israelite society.

The guilty woman will bear her iniquity through the rite but her husband would be free from iniquity as we see in verse 31. This strikes me as a significant detail. It suggests that the husband is also being exposed to judgment in some way even though he is not being publicly vindicated or condemned in the rite in quite the same way as his wife.

The jealousy of the husband who has also been unfaithful will presumably not be vindicated in the rite of jealousy even though they would both bear their guilt in such a case. God will punish unfaithful husbands in his own time but the openness of his judgment on adulteresses frees faithful wives from unjust suspicion or accusation. Like much of the rest of the Old Testament law the purpose and meaning of the rite of jealousy greatly exceeds the limited and immediate use it proposes.

This is a law that ought to be read against the backdrop of various biblical narratives to which it seems to have important analogies. We might think of the images from prophecies like Jeremiah chapter 25 in verse 15 and 16. Thus the Lord the God of Israel said to me take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it.

They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I'm sending among them. A similar image is used in the book of Revelation. The Lord tests unfaithful people by giving them the cup of his judgment to drink.

As unfaithful people drink that cup they are brought to ruin. We have already noted the significant fact that this law is introduced by the discussion of a breach of faith, language that is typically used of unfaithfulness to the Lord. There is both a connection and an analogy between faithfulness to the Lord and faithfulness to one's spouse.

By teaching the testing of the unfaithful wife at the instigation of the jealous husband this passage highlights a prominent biblical theme. That of the Lord is the jealous husband of his people testing the faithfulness of his bride. I am not the first to see a connection between the ritual of jealousy and the events of Exodus chapter 32.

In that passage where Moses was with the Lord on Mount Sinai the children of Israel committed spiritual adultery against the Lord who brought them up out of Egypt. They worshipped a golden calf and ate communion meals with Egyptian idols. Moses came down the mountain with the stone tablets of the testimony to see the Israelites sinning in this manner.

He responded by breaking the tablets of stone, burning and grinding the calf to powder, scattering it on the water and forcing the Israelites to drink it. The Levites were then instructed to kill 3,000 of their Israelite brethren after which Moses interceded for the nation and the people were plagued. The ritual of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5 could be seen as closely related to the rite of jealousy that the Lord performed upon his adulterous bride Israel by the hand of Moses.

The relationship between the two events becomes even clearer if as we might suspect the broken stone tablets of the testimony in Exodus 32:19 are added to the powdered calf that is scattered on the waters in the following verses. The curses of the law represented by the broken tablets of stone and the prosecution of the land or dust represented by the powdered calf would correspond to the dust from the tabernacle floor and the blotted out writing of the curses in Numbers chapter 5. A further possible connection between the two passages can be found in the use of the expression blotted out. In the ritual of jealousy in Numbers chapter 5 the words of the curse were blotted out and placed into the water which was then drunk by the woman.

If she had sinned the curses would take their full effect and she would be blotted out herself as she was rendered barren and a byword. If she had not sinned the curse would have no effect and there would no longer be any handwritten curses standing against her. She would have a completely clean slate relative to the accusation of the law.

The idea of blotting out occurs in various contexts in scripture, most notably contexts of judgment. Judged nations or people are blotted off the face of the earth or the land. The land is like a palimpsest, a manuscript from which a former text has been scraped or washed off so that a new one can be written.

The curse being washed or blotted out into the water and drunk precipitates its taking effect leading to the blotting out of the person who has rebelled against God. The logic of this can be seen very clearly in somewhere like Deuteronomy 29:20. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy will smoke against that man and the curses written in this book will settle upon him and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven.

What happens to the unfaithful woman in the ritual of jealousy is an image of what happens to unfaithful people more generally. The reference to a root bearing poisonous or bitter fruit in verse 18 of Deuteronomy chapter 29 could also be considered in the light of the ritual of jealousy. Rabbi David Foreman suggests a connection between the ritual of jealousy and the story of the flood.

The Lord speaks about a raising man or blotting man out from the surface of the earth in Genesis 6:7. The Lord is jealous on account of the unfaithfulness of humanity, particularly manifested in sexual relations. He strikes the earth with the waters of a curse. However one man is vindicated and exonerated through all of this.

The Lord remembers Noah. Numbers chapter 5 speaks of the spirit or wind of jealousy coming over a man but in Genesis chapter 8 when the Lord has judged mankind a different wind comes over the surface of the waters and things are changed. Once mankind is delivered through Noah from the waters of the flood the Lord promises never again to curse the ground and calls them to come out and to have children.

A further related passage can be seen at the end of Exodus chapter 15 in verses 22 to 26. Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water.

When they came to Marah they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter. Therefore it was named Marah and the people grumbled against Moses saying what shall we drink and he cried to the Lord and the Lord showed him a log and he threw it into the water and the water became sweet. There the Lord made for them a statute and a rule and there he tested them saying if you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your God and do that which is right in his eyes and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians for I am the Lord your healer.

In the story of Marah we have a sort of rehearsal of the test of jealousy. The Lord walks his people through a test of jealousy, testing them, showing them the ways in which they could enjoy all of his blessings as they were faithful to him and did not commit a breach of faith. If they look to him as their faithful husband they will find that the bitter waters of testing become for them a sweet drink that is pleasant to them.

A sort of ritual of jealousy continues to have a place within the life of the church. As the church we are called to be a chaste virgin to Christ and godly ministers are called to guard us with a godly jealousy as we see in 2nd Corinthians 11:2. In 1st Corinthians 11:27-24 in the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper we see a rite that precipitates future judgment leading to people suffering illness or even dying if they are unfaithful as they participate in it. Those who take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner eat and drink judgment to themselves.

The Lord's Supper can be a means of precipitating the judgment upon spiritual adultery. It invokes divine remembrance and action. Considering the sacrificial system we can see a connection between the Lord's Supper and the tribute offerings.

Those offerings memorialize the past sacrifice and call for divine action on the basis of it. The meaning of Jesus' words in remembrance of me has been dulled in many people's consciousness to a mere subjective reminder of Christ's death. However biblically speaking the meal offering was a memorializing offering invoking divine attention.

The memorializing meal offering could also play a vocational purpose as the offering called for divine approbation or condemnation of the person and their labors. In worship we are performing a sort of jealousy ritual. The divine testimony with all of its blessings and curses is declared to us.

We give our amen and then in conjunction with the memorializing tribute offering the testimony is taken inside of us to discern our faithfulness. We drink the cup of testing, the cup of Christ's blood, which testifies against or for each heart with all of the blessings and curses of the new covenant. While all spiritual adulterers call for the most bitter of consequences, the rich blessing is given to all of those who are depending upon the faithfulness and forgiveness of Christ, the cup draining bridegroom.

Manuel notes the way that Numbers chapter 5 connects with previous commandments that we have encountered in the book of Leviticus. Numbers 5:2-3 connects with Leviticus 15:31. Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.

There the focus is upon the tabernacle. In Numbers 5:2 and 3 the focus is upon the camp. The principle of holiness addressed to the tabernacle in Leviticus chapter 15 is concerned with the camp more broadly in Numbers chapter 5. In the book of Numbers, commandments that related to the most holy realm in the book of Leviticus are now related to more general realms.

What was once focused on not defiling God's place now speaks about the danger of defiling man's place. We saw something similar in the second section of this chapter when read in parallel with Leviticus 6:1-7. In those verses in Leviticus the focus is upon the action done towards the Lord and in Numbers the focus is upon the manward character of that fault. Something similar is going on in the rite of jealousy.

The language of a breach of faith focuses upon sins against the Lord yet here it concerns a woman's unfaithfulness to her husband. Once again principles that first applied in relationship with the Lord are now being applied in relationship with other human beings. Further similarities can be seen in the character of the Nazarite who is someone who's dedicated to the Lord in ways that have many parallels with the high priest as we see in the chapter that follows.

A question to consider, can you see any parallels to the ritual of jealousy within episodes within the gospel of John?

Numbers chapter 6 describes a special vow, not entirely dissimilar to becoming a temporary monk or nun perhaps. The person taking a Nazarite vow would be offering themselves and their service to the Lord in a voluntary vow. Vows were common in the life of Israel. Someone for instance could vow something to the Lord often in response to or in hope of a blessing. And the Nazarite vow is more of a special vow. The nation is holy to the Lord, set apart from the other nations, but the greatest weight of holiness falls upon the shoulders of the priests.

But the Nazarite is someone who takes involuntarily a greater degree of holiness, commits themselves to a life of separateness in a more special way. One could imagine persons who had taken such a vow, forming model communities or being examples within their specific communities of a more dedicated form of life. The earlier part of the book of numbers is concerned with a number of these sorts of dedicated persons, particularly with the Levites. But also in the beginning of Numbers chapter 5 we see the concern that everyone maintain a certain degree of cleanness within the camp.

Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. You shall put out both male and female putting them outside the camp that they may not defile their camp in the midst of which I dwell. In the case of people who are presenting a vow to the Lord, if they were presenting a person in a special vow in this Nazarite vow for instance some ransom or tribute would have to be offered as Leviticus chapter 27 dictates.

Coming before the Lord brought the person to the Lord's attention and required a ransom or tribute to ensure that that attention was not for judgment. Now in many ways Nazarites are temporary priests and we'll see many of the similarities between the Nazarite and the priests and even the High Priest as we go through this. You can also see other characters that were temporarily set apart in a more holy way. People going to war seem to have to pay some sort of must attacks for the census and also to have a temporary holy status as we see in the way that David talks about the men who are with him in 1 Samuel chapter 21 or the way that your eye the Hittite will not go back to his home and sleep with his wife in 2 Samuel 11:6-13.

Priests and Levites were a sort of standing army but the army when it was mustered and going out to war had to keep a certain degree of holiness. Deuteronomy 23:9-14 describes this. When you are in camp against your enemies then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing. If any man among you becomes unclean because of an external omission then he shall go outside the camp. He shall not come inside the camp but when evening comes he shall bathe himself in water and as the sun sets he may come inside the camp.

You shall have a place outside the camp and you shall go out to it and you shall have a trowel with your tools and when you sit down outside you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your extravagant because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you therefore your camp must be holy so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you. The firstborn sons of Israel also needed to be deconsecrated.

They were set apart the Lord and they had to be redeemed. All of these aspects of consecration and deconsecration are seen in places like Leviticus chapter 27. We see the firstborn in Exodus chapter 13 and here we see the character of the Nazarite who follows many of these patterns. The Nazarite is one dedicated or consecrated to the Lord. In Leviticus 25:5 and 11 untrimmed vines are referred to as your Nazarites. There's an analogy between untrimmed hair and unpruned vegetation. Vegetation is the hair of the earth and in both of these cases there's something dedicated to the Lord.

The hair is associated with glory. We also see such terminology applied to the consecrated head, to the royal crown or to the high priest Diadem. Women could also become Nazarites. The Nazarites didn't perform priestly functions, they didn't get to eat of the priestly food but they were similarly dedicated to the Lord and they had a closeness and a holiness to the Lord that was similar to the priests. Some of the requirements that they had to observe are similar to those that are placed upon the priests. Leviticus 10:9 for instance referring to the priests drink no wine or strong drink.

You or your sons with you when you go into the tenter meeting lest you die it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. Now the restrictions on the Nazarites seem to go even further. They're not just avoiding wine, they're avoiding all the fruit of the vine and all products from vine and they're also avoiding it not just when they go into the house, they're not serving in the temple. They're avoiding it all the time for the period of the duration of their vow. In Leviticus 21:10-12 the requirements of the high priest are interesting here.

The priest who is chief among his brothers on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor tear his clothes. He shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean even for his father or for his mother. He shall not go out of the sanctuary lest he profane the sanctuary of his God for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am the Lord. The same requirement to avoid all dead bodies is expected of the Nazarite and indeed if the Nazarite ends up accidentally having contact with a dead body his whole vow to that point is nullified and he has to start over again and the sacrifice that he has to perform at this point with the guilt offering is described within this chapter.

We have a number of examples of Nazarites in Scripture. Nazarite vows typically that lasted for the entirety of a person's life. Although these weren't normal these are the examples that we have most prominently in Scripture. In 1 Samuel 1:11 of Samuel and she vowed a vow and said oh Lord of hosts if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant but will give to your servant his son then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life and no razor shall touch his head.

Of Samson in Judges 13:3-5 and the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her behold your barren and have not born children but you shall conceive and bear a son therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink and eat nothing unclean for behold you shall conceive and bear a son no razor shall come upon his head for the child should be a Nazarite to God from the womb and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.

Luke 1:13-15 of John the Baptist but the angel said to him do not be afraid Zachariah for your prayer has been heard and your wife Elizabeth will bear your son and you shall call his name John and you will have joy and gladness and many will rejoice at his birth for he will be great before the Lord and he must not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. We see Paul taking a vow in the book of Acts that may be a Nazarite vow it certainly seems to have similar features.

Acts 18 verse 18. After this Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Sankria he had cut his hair but he was under a vow. The Nazarite would have to offer a sacrifice for deconsecration to return to normal life and as he sacrificed that he was also offering up the token of his service the time that he had been dedicated in offering up his hair. If his vow were broken partway through touching a dead body for instance the hair would not be offered and he would have to start again at the beginning.

To complete the vow the Nazarite had to bring a burnt offering loaves grain and drink offerings sin offering a peace offering. It was very costly. May a lamb a year old, a you-lam a year old and a ram. This is quite a significant sum of money that it would cost to get all of these elements but we should notice the parallels with the sacrifices of Leviticus chapter 8 where the high priest and his sons are being dedicated for their service. Particularly in Leviticus 8:22-29 then he presented the other Ram the Ram of ordination and we've seen that this is similar to the peace offering and although it's a variation on it for the ordination right.

And Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the Ram and he killed it and Moses took some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron's right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot then he presented Aaron's sons and Moses put some of the blood on the lobes of their right ears and on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet and Moses drew the blood against the sides of the altar then he took the fat and the fat tail and all the fat that was on the entrails and the long lobe of the liver and the two kidneys with their fat and the right thigh and out of the basket unleavened bread that was before the Lord he took one unleavened loaf and one loaf of bread with oil and one wafer and placed them on the pieces of fat and on the right thigh and he put all of these in the hands of Aaron and in the hands of his sons and waved them as a wave offering before the Lord then Moses took them from their hands and burned them on the altar with the burnt offering this was an ordination offering with a pleasing aroma a food offering to the Lord and Moses took the breast and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord it was Moses's portion of the ram of ordination as the Lord commanded Moses the priest also gets to eat the shoulder of the ram of the peace offering for the Nazarite it's a greater degree of the peace offering that's received by the Lord and his servants from the normal peace offering so suggestion that there's a higher degree of consecration of the offeror here and so more of their offering is being eaten by the Lord and his servants the main difference is the substitution of a U-lam for the bull of the sin offering and Leviticus chapter 4 says that a common person had to offer a U-lam but the priest offered a bull the hair of the consecrated head is shaved off and put on the fire of the sacrifice of the peace offering the glory of the head has grown during that period of dedication to the Lord is being offered to him as a sign of the fulfillment of all of that and this was one of the ways in which a commoner could draw nearer to the Lord you didn't have to be a priest to do this this could be something that anyone could take up with the presence of Nazarites among the people people taking either temporary vows or longer-term vows and maybe living in communities of those who had taken such vows there would be a testimony to the status of Israel as holy to the Lord not just the priests but something that was more common to the general people this chapter ends with the threefold blessing of Aaron God desires to bless his people and especially significantly he wants his people to bear his name this was one of the great tasks of the Aaronic priesthood in 1st Chronicles 23:13 we read the sons of Amram Aaron and Moses Aaron was set apart to dedicate the most holy things that he and his sons forever should make offerings before the Lord and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name forever this blessing has a poetic form there are three then five then seven words in each line and there are 15 20 and 25 letters in these words this blessing was a particularly significant one in Israel's history a particularly prominent one and we see it being alluded to in places like Psalm 67 and Psalm 121 it calls for the Lord to bless to make the person prosper while preserving them from evil maybe preserving them from the temptations that can come with blessing the Lord make you know the warmth of his presence and kindness his face shining upon you and be gracious to you you feel the goodness of God and you feel the warmth of his favor the Lord turn his attention to you and grant you wholeness and rest the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace it's as if God gives you eye contact that God looks at your particular situation he's not just giving you the warmth of his general benevolence to his people he's giving you more particular favor and attention and the importance of all of this is that God wants to put his name upon his people he wants his people to bear his name to be identified as his people and for him to be identified as their God when we talk about bearing the name of the Lord this is part of what we have in mind that we are people who are blessed by the name of the Lord we are people who have the name of the Lord placed upon us we are identified with him and he is identified with us and we should never act in a way that treats that as an empty or a light thing that would be bearing the name of the Lord in vain a question to consider what are some of the ways in which we could learn from the institution of the Nazarite today

The events of Exodus, Leviticus, and the opening chapters of Numbers overlap in time. However, the books have different yet complementary emphases, and so record events contemporaneous with, yet unrecorded among, the events found within the others. The result is a fuller sense of what was taking place in the establishment of the Covenant, the tabernacle, the priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the nation at Sinai, as each book presents different facets of what occurred.

The events of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are not in chronological order, neither in the sequence of the three books, nor within the books themselves. While the ordering within the books is broadly chronological, like several other biblical books, events are occasionally presented out of historical sequence, generally for thematic or literary purposes. In the case of Numbers chapter 7, its dating is given to us at the beginning.

It's dated to the conclusion of the establishment of the tabernacle structure and the dedication of the altar. It's contemporaneous with the final events recorded in the book of Exodus in chapter 40, and with the ordination of the priests recorded in Leviticus chapters 8-10. However, whereas Exodus chapter 40 focused upon Moses and the establishment of the tabernacle structure, and Leviticus focused upon the ordaining of the priests for their service at the beginning of the sacrificial system, Numbers focuses upon the actions of the wider body of Israel relative to these things.

This focus is in keeping with the broader accent of the book of Numbers upon the way that the wider nation is implicated in the tabernacle, the priesthood, and its order. While only the sons of Aaron are appointed as priests, and the clans of the Levites are distinct in their service of the tabernacle, the rest of Israel is also placed within the firmament of the new order, their vast constellations arrayed around the tabernacle in their respective camps. In the preceding chapters, we observed the ways in which principles that were initially applied directly to relations to God, to the tabernacle, and to the priesthood are extended out into the more general relations and life of the nation.

In this chapter, the connection between the tabernacle and its service at the heart of the camp and the tribes that surround it is being further highlighted. The chiefs of Israel's tribes, the heads of the fathers' houses, donate six wagons, one for every two of them, and an ox each. The correlation between the givers and the gifts perhaps suggests that we ought to see the wagons and oxen as representing those who donated them.

The oxen and their wagons represent the tribal chiefs' share in the bearing of the tabernacle. In chapter 4, when the instructions were given to the three clans of the Levites concerning the bearing of the tabernacle, the clan of Kohath was to bear their items upon their shoulders on poles, while the way that the clans of Gershon and Moraro would bear their items was left unclear. The weight of their items would have been considerably greater than that of the furniture of the tabernacle committed to the charge of Kohath, so they presumably needed some sort of assistance in their task of transportation.

In chapter 7, we discover the means by which they would bear their items. Two wagons and their oxen were given to Gershon, charged with bearing the hangings, screens and curtains of the tabernacle, and four wagons and their oxen were given to Moraro, charged with transporting the frames, pillars and bases of the tabernacle. Moraro's items were clearly the heaviest of all, so they needed the greatest number of animals to assist them.

The holy status of the items committed to Kohath's charge can be seen in the distinctive ways in which they were handled and transported. They had to be packed up by the priests, covered over with their own tabernacle-like coverings, and carried upon the shoulders of the Kohathites. In 2 Samuel chapter 6, Israel under David made the error of carrying the Ark of the Covenant upon an ox cart, and Uzzah died when he touched the Ark to steady it when the oxen stumbled.

Perhaps we are also to understand in that passage that the Ark was not properly covered either. With Psalm 119 and Deuteronomy chapter 28, Numbers chapter 7 is one of the three longest chapters in the whole Bible. However, its great length is almost entirely due to its seemingly redundant repetition.

The information within it could seemingly have been communicated in a fraction of the space that it takes. What reason could there be for such extensive repetition in the listing of all of the gifts brought by the chiefs or princes of the various tribes? Every single one of the chiefs brings an identical gift. A silver plate of 130 shekels, a silver basin of 70 shekels, both full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, a golden dish of 10 shekels full of incense, one bull from the herd, one ram, one male lamb a year old for a burnt offering, one male goat for a sin offering, and two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old for peace offerings.

Each individual gift is recorded, and then the total of the identical gifts is recorded. As Gordon Wenham notes, the purpose of the repetitiveness is likely to underline the fact that each tribe of Israel is fully and equally committed to the worship of the tabernacle and has the same stake within it. The rhetorical effect of the repetition is to drive the importance of the tribe's investment in the worship of the tabernacle home to the hearer, and to leave us with no doubt that the establishment of the tabernacle occurred exactly as it was supposed to occur.

The gifts of the tribal chiefs occurred over a period of 12 days. The tribal chiefs were the same men who assisted Moses and Aaron in the numbering of the people in chapters 1 and 2. They would also be the men who would lead the tribes as the people set out in chapter 10. We should keep in mind that the organization of the camp and the people that is occurring at this stage is largely in preparation for the rapidly approaching time when they will move on from Sinai.

The tribes, in the order of the days that they give their gifts, is as follows. Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Reuben, Simeon, Gad, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Dan, Asher, Naphtali. The ordering of the tribes in their offerings moves clockwise around the face of the camp, as described in chapter 2, east, south, west, and then north.

This follows the same order as the order of the Levites' clan's duties in chapter 4. Given the numerological and structural ways in which the camp of Israel might be related to calendrical and astronomical realities, perhaps there is significance to be found in the ordering of the tribes here. The fact that they give their gifts in sequence, on twelve successive days, rather than all at once, might add weight to such speculations. Their gifts involve every one of the principal forms of offering, save for the reparation offering, which would not be required.

Tribute offering, offerings of incense, burnt offerings from the herd and the flock, the purification offerings required of rulers, a male goat, oxen, rams, male goats, and male lambs as peace offerings. Peace offerings were more voluntary than the other sacrifices, and not public sacrifices to the same degree. The law of the peace offering also allowed for male and female animals.

However, all of the animals given for the peace offering by the chiefs were males, and the ages of several of them is made clear, suggesting that it was not without significance. The peace offerings would have allowed for the celebration of greater inaugural feasts at the time of the foundation of the tabernacle. The chapter ends with Moses going into the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord.

While only the high priest was able to enter the most holy place, and only once a year, on the day of atonement, Moses was over the high priest, and seems to have had special level of access to the Lord's presence. Once again, we should recall the way that the tabernacle corresponds with Mount Sinai. At Mount Sinai, Moses alone ascended to the top of the mountain to meet with the Lord.

The Lord's presence is especially focused on the Ark of the Covenant, and more particularly with the mercy seat that is above it. The Ark of the Covenant is like a throne, the chest part of it is like the footstool, as we see in places like 1 Chronicles 28.2, when King David rose to his feet and said, Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building.

The footstool, as in various thrones of the ancient Near East, would have been richly decorated and an important item in its own right. The worshippers of the Lord come to his footstool on account of his exalted status. We see this in Psalm 99 verse 5, for instance.

Exalt the Lord our God, worship at his footstool, holy is he. Above the footstool is the mercy seat with the cherubim. The Lord is understood to be enthroned above the cherubim, a claim that is often encountered in various parts of the scriptures, and as the last verse of this chapter suggests, the Lord speaks from above the mercy seat and between the cherubim.

The Ark of the Covenant itself could be seen as a sort of cosmic symbol, as suggested in Isaiah 66:1. Thus says the Lord, Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. What is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? The footstool represents the earth, and the Lord is enthroned above it in the heavens. The Ark is thus itself a model in miniature of the wider cosmos of Mount Sinai and of the greater tabernacle that surrounds it.

A question to consider, how might Moses going into the tabernacle to speak with the Lord enrich our understanding of the tabernacle and the temple more generally?

Numbers chapter 8 begins with the Lord instructing Moses concerning Aaron's service of the lamps. The book of Numbers intersperses narrative with law and the law and the narrative are often mutually illuminating but it's not always clear why they are placed together. It can require a bit of puzzling out on occasions.

The previous chapter lists the offerings at the consecration of the tabernacle. After the tabernacle has been consecrated, the setting up of the lampstand and the rules concerning it follow fairly naturally. In Exodus 25:31-40 we read the rules concerning the lampstand when the instructions for the tabernacle are first given.

You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work. Its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it.

And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it, three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower on the other branch. So for the six branches going out of the lampstand. And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms, with their calyxes and flowers, and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand.

their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole work of it, a single piece of hammered work of pure gold. You shall make seven lamps for it, and the lamp shall be set up, so as to give light on the space in front of it. Its tongs and their trays shall be of pure gold.

It shall be made with all these utensils, out of a talent of pure gold. And see that you make them after the pattern for them which is being shown you on the mountain." Further instructions can be found in Exodus 40:24-25. He put the lampstand in the tent of meeting, opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle, and set up the lamps before the Lord as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Presumably this suggests that the light of the lamps was supposed to be casting light onto the table. In Exodus we saw parallels between the lampstand and the priests as anointed ministers in the tabernacle. Aaron's entry into the service of the tabernacle would perhaps connect naturally with the service of the lamp in the holy place, which would have been among his chief duties.

The Levites were appointed to replace the firstborn of Israel in Numbers 3:11-13 and 40 to 51. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel, instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, for all the firstborn are mine.

On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine. I am the Lord.

The Levites then seemed to have been set apart to replace the firstborn of the Israelites in Exodus chapter 32, in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, when they stood beside Moses and judged the Israelites on account of their sin. And the Lord said to Moses, List all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking the number of their names. And you shall take the Levites for me.

I am the Lord, instead of all of the firstborn among the people of Israel. And the cattle of the Levites, instead of all the firstborn among the cattle of the people of Israel. So Moses listed all the firstborn among the people of Israel, as the Lord commanded him.

And all the firstborn males, according to the number of names, from a month old and upward, as listed, were 22,273. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Take the Levites instead of all of the firstborn among the people of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle. The Levites shall be mine.

I am the Lord. And as the redemption prize for the 273 of the firstborn of the people of Israel, over and above the number of the male Levites, you shall take five shekels per head. You shall take them according to the shekel of the sanctuary, the shekel of 20 geras, and give the money to Aaron and his sons, the redemption prize for those who are over.

So Moses took the redemption money for those who were over and above those redeemed by the Levites. From the firstborn of the people of Israel he took the money, 1,365 shekels, by the shekel of the sanctuary. And Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his sons according to the word of the Lord as the Lord commanded Moses.

The Levites weren't like the priests. They did not perform the service of the altar and were not permitted to enter into the tabernacle. They were appointed to guard and to serve.

These were duties of the priests and high priests as well, but in a different realm and to a greater degree. All of these things look back to the Garden of Eden, where Adam was placed in the garden to keep and to serve the garden, to guard it and to serve it and minister within it. In Numbers 3:5-10 we have a description of their dedication.

And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Bring the tribe of Levi-nea and set them before Aaron the priest that they may minister to him. They shall keep guard over him and over the whole congregation before the tent of meeting as they minister at the tabernacle. They shall guard all the furnishings of the tent of meeting and keep guard over the people of Israel as they minister at the tabernacle.

And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons. They are wholly given to him from among the people of Israel. And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons and they shall guard their priesthood.

But if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death. We should remember the way that the Levites functioned as zealous military guardians of Israel's holiness. in Exodus chapter 32.

They are now appointed for this purpose more generally. The firstborn is the firstfruits of strength and the Levites are, as it were, the standing army of the Lord around his palace tent, while the rest of the Lord's host, the other tribes, are arrayed around it by their tribes. They were purified and appointed for service if they were in the age range of those who would work, 25 to 50 as we see at the end of the chapter.

However, they weren't ordained like the priests, nor were they holy in the same way as the priests. After the initial setting apart of the Levites for a covering of the people of Israel, there wouldn't be any ceremony, so much as a ritual process that all of the Levites would have to undergo. The water of purification here is presumably the water described in chapter 19.

The Levites aren't merely being appointed for this service. They are also taking the place of the firstborn. They are offered as a wave offering, with representatives of the whole congregation presenting them as their substitutes.

The firstborn had to be sacrificed to the Lord, as we see in Exodus chapter 13, but the Levites take their place, making covering or atonement for them. And we can see that the sacrifices make covering and atonement for the Levites themselves. They protect the people from the plague, as we saw in the census tax of Exodus 30:11-16.

When people come before the Lord, are brought to his attention, then there is the threat of the plague if they do not bring some sort of ransom or redemption or some covering for themselves. And so there is a need for covering and the Levites provide that for the rest of Israel. They are offered by the Israelites and they are also offered by the Lord to Aaron.

Maybe we can see some sort of similarity here with Eve being brought near to Adam to help him in the realm of the garden. Now there are obviously many dissimilarities between these two things, but a similarity is quite possible. This is just before the second Passover, so the dedication of the Levites as the replacement for the firstborn is very fitting and timely in this particular context.

A question to consider, what about the tribe of Levi sets it apart from the other tribes to this point? Why might they be particularly apt for this particular calling?

In Numbers chapter 9, Israel's stay at Mount Sinai is nearing its end. They will soon be leaving the place and moving on. However, before they do so, they are instructed to celebrate the Passover.

The Passover was first instituted in Egypt, back in Exodus chapter 12. In commemoration of the Exodus, the first month of Israel's year was the month of their departure from Egypt, although the celebration of the Passover didn't occur until the 14th day at twilight. We might perhaps connect the delay in the beginning of the year with the various 14 day or year periods of cleansing or preparation or of testing that we find in scripture.

For instance, the 14 days prior to leaving the ark, the 14 days in the testing for leprosy, or the 14 days of cleansing for the woman who gives birth to a daughter. The feast of Passover occurs in the very middle of the first month, starting at the very end of the 14th day at twilight and continuing into the 15th day. The events described in this chapter occur around the same time as the events of the final chapter of Exodus and chapters 8 to 10 of Leviticus, where the priests were ordained.

On the first eight days of the month, the tabernacle was consecrated for service and the priests were ordained. By the 12th day, the offerings of the chiefs of the tribes had been offered. Around the same time, the Levites were set apart and devoted to the service of the tabernacle.

The book of Numbers begins with the census, which is dated to the first day of the second month of the second year after the Exodus. The events recorded in this chapter then, at the time of the Passover of the first month, precede the events with which the book begins. The Passover that occurred in this chapter was the first Passover after the initial one, the first Passover to memorialize the deliverance from Egypt.

Consequently, it would have had a distinct character for the Israelites. What was initially a feast celebrated in the uncertain midst of the process of the Lord's deliverance now recalls that deliverance and anticipates its full outworking in the future. The Passover, while given in the context of the Exodus, is arguably chiefly concerned with ongoing practice and commemoration, something that might be hinted at in the way that Exodus chapter 12 breaks with the immediacy of the narrative progression to present a retrospective vantage point upon the Passover's institution.

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, we already knew that they were in the land of Egypt. Why mention that unless we're, as it were, looking back into the land of Egypt from a situation outside of it? Much of the book of Exodus focuses upon the institutions that will perpetuate the import of the deliverance from Egypt within the ongoing life of the people. At this point in the book of Numbers, the outliving of the institutionalized meaning of Israel's deliverance is developing in momentum.

From the foundational encounter with the Lord at Sinai, the continuing worship of the tabernacle is getting underway. Recalling the great deliverance of the first Passover in Egypt, the continuing annual practice of the Passover is now beginning. Israel will again celebrate a great national Passover in Joshua chapter 5 after they enter into the promised land.

The people are here instructed to keep the Passover at its appointed time according to all its statutes and rules. These statutes and rules are given for us in Exodus 12:1-11. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, this month shall be for you the beginning of months.

It shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the 10th day of this month, every man shall take a lamb according to their father's houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons according to what each can eat.

You shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male, a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the 14th day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.

Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roast it, its head with its legs and its inner parts.

And you shall let none of it remain until the morning. Anything that remains until the morning, you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it, with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.

And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. It is not clear whether the Israelites would have placed blood on their doorposts in this celebration, presumably on the entrance to their tents.

Later in Israel's history, as they were settled in the land, would celebrate Passover as a pilgrimage feast, this placing of blood on the doorposts would not have been possible to practice for most, as they would have been far from their homes. Whether statutes and rules of the Passover are spelled out in relation to the alternative Passover celebration in the second month, the statutes do not include the blood on the doorposts, or the eating with the belt fastened and sandals upon one's feet. Most of the people face a problem on this occasion.

This is one of a few examples of a difficult case faced by the leaders of the people, which needs to be referred to the Lord for his judgment. Whereas the celebration of the Passover in Egypt occurred in a context without extensive purity laws, after all of the legislation of Leviticus and Numbers concerning purity and defilement, the people now need to address situations where people are not able to celebrate the Passover on account of uncleanness, here on account of touching a dead body. The existence of such uncleanness for some of the people would be practically unavoidable.

Even if not a case of accidental defilement, such as that described in the case of the Nazarite in Numbers chapter 6, someone had to bury the bodies of the dead. The Lord makes an allowance for persons who, for good cause, were not able to celebrate the Passover in the first month. They would have the opportunity to do so in the second month, upon the same middle day of the month.

However, if they failed to celebrate the Passover on that occasion, or did not celebrate on the regular occasion without justifiable cause, they would be held guilty before the Lord. Here we see an example of a concession to circumstance and necessity in the law. It can be consistent with the law to make allowances for certain exceptional circumstances and situations, yet such exceptions do not negate the rules.

The Lord here also allows for sojourners to celebrate the Passover with the people, provided that they are prepared to do so according to its rule. One aspect of this rule, as we see in Exodus 12:43-49, would be the circumcision of them and their household. And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, This is the statute of the Passover.

No foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that has bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house.

You shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All of the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it.

He shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native, and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

To this point, the Book of Numbers has devoted many chapters to discussion of the numbering and ordering of the camp of Israel, to the arrangement of the twelve tribes, each with their signs and leading tribes around the tabernacle, and the placement of the Levite clans and the priests at the four cardinal directions immediately around the tabernacle in their midst. Chapter 9 concludes with an account of the manner of Israel's movements and the way in which they were orchestrated by the glory cloud of the Lord's presence in their midst. We have a similar yet shorter description of this at the end of Exodus in 40:34-38.

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Throughout all their journeys, whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the people of Israel would set out.

But if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all of the house of Israel throughout all their journeys. In their movements, the people followed the Lord's leading.

With chapter 10, the end of chapter 9 describes the manner of the people's departure and movement on from Sinai. Their actual departure is recounted in the chapter that follows. The responsiveness to the Lord's initiative and guidance described here is presented in a very positive manner.

A question to consider, can you think of examples where we might apply the principle of accommodation to necessity and circumstance in relationship to the worship of the Lord that is here applied to the celebration of the Passover?

James Jordan observes the similarities between the silver trumpets with which Numbers chapter 10 begins and the Lord's glory cloud with which Numbers chapter 9 ends. The silver trumpets seem to serve a similar purpose to that of the cloud. In Exodus 19:12-13, Moses instructed the children of Israel concerning the arrival of the Lord in his glory cloud at Sinai, and you shall set limits for the people all around saying take care not to go up into the mountain or to touch the edge of it.

Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death. No hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shot. Whether beast or man, he shall not live.

When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain. In Exodus chapter 19, a long blast of the divine trumpet summons the people together to the mountain. In Numbers chapter 10, a comparable long blast of the silver trumpets summons the people to the entrance of the tent meeting.

As we've noted on various other occasions, the tabernacle is analogous to Sinai, with the entrance to the tabernacle and its courtyard being akin to the base of the mountain around which the camp of Israel gathered. We read more about the divine trumpet in Exodus 19:16-20. On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast so that all the people in the camp trembled.

Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly.

And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder. The Lord came down on Mount Sinai to the top of the mountain, and the Lord called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. Throughout the book of Numbers we see the earthly mirroring the heavenly.

The camp of Israel in its vast and ordered array surrounding the tabernacle within which the Lord is enthroned above the cherubim is an image of the heavenly camp surrounding the Lord's glorious heavenly throne. Now the divine trumpet that accompanies the glory cloud is mirrored in glorious silver trumpets which serve a similar function to the cloud. In the immediately preceding verses, it is the glory cloud that directs their journeys, and here it is the silver trumpets made as part of its earthly representation that do the same thing.

The tabernacle itself and the ark within it are also earthly representations of the glory cloud. There are different words used for trumpets and horns of various kinds in the Pentateuch. Most commonly the trumpet is the shofar or the yobel, made of ram's horn.

Both of these two words are used in relation to the trumpet of the Lord in Exodus chapter 19. As Jacob Milgram observes, the shofar is employed on several different sorts of occasions in scripture, being used to muster armies, declare victory, brighten enemies, sound an alarm, end a battle, announce a coronation, or initiate a rebellion. In the Septuagint of Psalm 98 verse 6, the distinction is made between trumpets of metal, the same word as that used for the silver trumpets in this chapter, and trumpets of horn, the shofar.

However, the term shofar appears to be used in a more general manner to refer to both types of instruments in scripture. The distinction between the two, as Milgram argues, is mostly to be found in the different persons who sounded them. The silver trumpets were priestly instruments.

The distinction between the instruments used by the people more generally and the instruments used by the priests can also be discerned, perhaps, by the attentive reader in the account of the blowing of the trumpets at the battle of Jericho. In scripture, trumpets are associated with the Feast of Trumpets and also with the start of the year of Jubilee. The Arch of Titus, upon which items taken from Jerusalem's temple in A.D. 70 are depicted, might give us a sense of the appearance of the silver trumpets, having a long and thin tube with a flared end, not too dissimilar to a horn like the vuvuzela that one might see at a South African sporting event.

In verse 11, at the time of the conclusion of the alternative Passover for those who were unclean for the Passover of the first month, the cloud finally lifted from over the tabernacle and the people had to follow it out. The manner in which the camp moved out is described in verses 13-28, all occurring according to the command of the Lord and under the direction of Moses. Judah, led by Nashon, the son of Amminadab, one of the ancestors of King David, led the way, with the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun also situated on the east side of the tabernacle, accompanying him.

Then the clans of Gershon and Morarai, to the north and west of the tabernacle at the centre of the camp, responsible for dismantling and transporting the structure of the tabernacle, followed. Next Reuben, Simeon and Gad, on the southern side of the tabernacle. The Kohathites, on the southern side of the tabernacle, followed after them.

Despite being the most prominent clan of the Levites, they followed later because the tabernacle was to be assembled by the Morarites and the Gershonites prior to their arrival with its furniture. Afterwards Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, the western tribes, followed. The tribes of Dan, Asher and Naphtali, on the northern side of the camp, were the rearguard.

The place of the priests within the procession of the camp is not mentioned, although as they were the ones who blew the trumpets, and as presumably some of them were also bearers of the Ark, perhaps we are to assume that many of them were situated at the very front. As they leave Mount Sinai, Moses asks Hobab, Moses' brother-in-law, or possibly his father-in-law, to accompany them on their journey. We are not told whether or not he accompanied them here.

However, in Judges 4:11, we learn that Hobab did indeed join Israel. Jael was married to a Kenite, and likely a Kenite herself, the Kenites being descended from that line of the Midianites. In 1 Samuel 15:6, King Saul warned the Kenites to separate themselves from the Amalekites so that they could be spared on account of the kindness that they showed to the Israelites as they first left Egypt, in stark contrast to the Amalekites among whom they dwelt.

While not Israelites, Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, and the other Midianites of his house had been of great aid to Moses and the people. They had given Moses a home when he first fled Egypt, and then given counsel and guidance to him at Sinai, as we see in chapter 18 of Exodus. Hobab knew the wilderness of that region well, and if he would accompany Israel on its ongoing journey, he could be an invaluable guide.

Moses seemingly persuaded him to throw in his lot with Israel. He would be blessed with the rest of the people. We read in Judges 1:16, And the descendants of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, went up with the people of Judah from the city of Palms into the of Judah, which lies in the Negev near Arad, and they went and settled with the people.

It seems that the Ark of the Covenant was set apart from the other holy items of the Tabernacle, leading the people on their journey with the cloud to which it corresponded, while the other holy items borne by the Kohathites were further back in the procession. The Ark was, we should recall, distinguished from those other items in being covered with the cloth of blue, while all of the holy items had external coverings of goatskin. The priests were also sons of Kohath, yet distinguished from the rest of that clan.

When we read of the Ark being carried, it seems to be the priests, not merely regular Levites, that seem to be doing it. It is a Kohathite task, yet performed only by the chief among the sons of Kohath, the priests. The Ark was especially connected with the Lord's presence.

The Lord was seen to be enthroned above the cherubim, and the pillar of cloud and fire seems to have been especially connected with the Ark, the Ark being the earthly shadow, as it were, of the glory cloud above it. At the end of chapter 9, the cloud led the people on their journeys, and at the end of chapter 10, the Ark seems to play a similar role, along with the silver trumpets with which the chapter begins. As in the case of the trumpets, the heavenly is being mirrored within and mapped onto the earthly.

This mirroring and mapping can also be seen in the declarations of Moses at the rising and the resting of the Ark with which this chapter concludes. We might see an allusion to Moses' declaration at the rising of the Ark in Psalm 68 verses 1-4. God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered, and those who hate him shall flee before him.

As smoke is driven away, so you shall drive them away. As wax melts before fire, so the wicked shall perish before God. But the righteous shall be glad, they shall exult before God, they shall be jubilant with joy.

Sing to God, sing praises to his name, lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts. His name is the Lord, exult before him. The Lord is the one who rides through the deserts in his throne chariot, born aloft on the shoulders of his priests and people.

A question to consider, where in scripture might we find examples of processions of the people of Israel upon which this passage can shed some light?

Numbers chapter 11 is set just after Israel has left Sinai. They are uprooted from a long-term camp where they were beginning to feel a bit settled and the struggles of life in the wilderness were somewhat alleviated. But now they are on the move again and they feel their presence in the wilderness much more keenly.

These chapters of Numbers are a litany of complaints and or rebellions involving just about every single group of the nation of Israel. It begins with this complaint concerning the food. They missed the sort of food that they ate in Egypt and their inclination is not to look forward to the promised land and the great food that they'll enjoy there but to look back to the food of slavery yearning for what they left behind in Egypt.

The rabble, presumably the mixed multitude of non-Israelites accompanying them, had a craving and then the Israelites join in too and they're complaining. Now this occurs after the events of Taborah where they had complained and the fire of the Lord had come and burnt certain parts of the camp. Moses had to intercede for them on that occasion in order for it to die down.

But even Moses starts to complain to the Lord at this point in the story. He feels caught between what the Lord requires of him and the complaints of the people. He's the man in the middle between these two parties who aren't pleased with each other.

The provision of quail is reminiscent of the earlier provision of quail in Exodus chapter 16, once again in response to the grumbling of the people. In Exodus 16:8-13 we read, This happens at the same time of the year. Exodus 16:1, They set out from Elim and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt.

And then in Numbers 10:11, In the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, the cloud lifted from over the tabernacle of the testimony. Once again the manna is part of the story and it's described once more. We've already just had a new setting apart of firstborn in the Levites, replacing the firstborn of Israel and a second celebration of the Passover.

So we're retreading the same story. However, all of the events of Sinai have intervened. What might have been more understandable prior to Sinai is less so now.

As a result of the unfaithfulness and the complaints of the people, the Lord is angry and Moses is displeased. Moses is feeling the burden that the Lord has placed upon him. It's far too weighty a responsibility.

He thinks that the people are like an infant that the Lord has deposited with him, expecting him to play the part of a nurse. Yet Moses didn't bring the people to birth. Israel was born through the Passover in the Red Sea as the Lord's firstborn son and this was done at the Lord's instigation.

Like Elijah later does, Moses sees his life as wretched and wishes for death if the situation continues as it is currently. God addresses both the despair of Moses and the desire of the people for meat and he addresses these two things together. They are associated requests and the response to them is supposed to set up a contrast.

The Lord instructs Moses to take 70 elders of the people with him to the Tent of Meeting or the Tabernacle. Once again, we're retreading ground from the journey to Sinai where under his father-in-law Jethro's counsel, Moses had appointed elders to assist him in this judging of Israel. One presumes that it's most likely that the 70 elders of the people are the same as the elders that participated in the covenant meal in Exodus chapter 24.

These elders would be equipped to assist Moses not just in his work of judgment as in chapter 18 of Exodus, but also in his spiritual leadership of the people, that they would support him in that regard. The Lord also declares that he will provide quail even though Moses finds this hard to believe. Moses' questioning is similar to the questions that the disciples asked to Jesus concerning the provision of food for the crowds on the occasions when Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fish.

Some of the spirit of Moses is placed upon the 70 elders. The spirit is given around the Tent of Meeting or the Tabernacle at the very heart of the camp. It's similar to what happens with Saul in 1st Samuel 10:6-12.

Then the spirit of the Lord will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. Now when these signs meet you do what your hand finds to do for God is with you. Then go down before me to Gilgal and behold I am coming down to you to offer burnt offerings and to sacrifice peace offerings.

Seven days you shall wait until I come to you and show you what you shall do. When he turned his back to leave Samuel God gave him another heart and all these signs came to pass that day. When they came to Gibeah behold a group of prophets met him and the spirit of God rushed upon him and he prophesied among them.

When all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets the people said to one another What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? And a man of the place answered And who is their father? Therefore it became of proverb Is Saul also among the prophets? There are two of the elders who are not with the others around the tent meeting Eldad and Medad and they prophesy in the camp. This is a concern to Joshua and others who think that they may be usurping the authority that's proper to Moses. But Moses is not troubled at all.

This is the spirit of the Lord and he's happy to see the spirit of the Lord spread as widely as possible. He would love to see all of the people of God have the spirit of God and his desire here anticipates the future that God has intended for his people. In Joel 2:28-29 this desire is expressed in the form of a prophecy that will come to pass Then a wind from the Lord this is connected with the spirit wind and spirit are the same word blows the quail from the sea and it falls outside of the camp about a day's journey outside on either side.

You should note the difference between this and Exodus chapter 16 where the quail covered the camp itself. Here the quail are outside of the camp quite a distance away and they'll have to leave the camp and go outside to get it. The quail are presented as a judgment upon the people.

They're given what they want but they're going to get it until they're sick of it. To get it they had to leave the camp and they get their fill of quail and huge quantities of quail but they're struck with a very great plague and we should contrast God's fulfillment of these two requests. One leads people much closer to him and another allows them to be led away from him by their appetites.

They go out into the wilderness and they get the quail and they're struck down by a plague whereas those who are brought round the tabernacle receive the spirit and prophesy and are nearer to God as a result of that. A question to consider how does the gift of Moses' spirit to the 70 elders help us in our understanding of the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2?

Numbers chapter 12 is a short but a strange passage, relating an odd incident in the cycle of rebellions that Numbers describes. It's an event of sibling rivalry. We should consider that in Exodus chapter 15 Miriam is described as Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron.

Notably, she isn't mentioned as the sister of Moses. The bonds of the family of Moses, Aaron and Miriam are fragile at the moment. Moses hasn't been with his family for many, many years.

He grew up outside of his family and he's not really someone who's connected with his family fully yet. While Aaron is connected with Moses more now, Moses still stands apart from him in many ways and Miriam probably still hasn't truly connected with him. She was present at his deliverance as an infant but she probably didn't see a great deal of him after he was weaned.

Now he's come back into her life almost 80 years later and you can imagine that Aaron and Miriam would struggle to know how to relate to this brother of theirs, who's now leading their people, while still feeling like something was strange to them. There are a number of questions that this passage raises. What is it about Moses' cush-eyed wife? Who is she for starters? Is this someone different from Zipporah? And also, why does this lead to the second complaint? The question, has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? What is this event doing here in the first place? Why is it recalled later on in Deuteronomy 24 verses 8-9? It seems to be Miriam in particular who speaks against Moses.

The verb used to describe the speaking in verse 1 is third person feminine singular. Aaron may be party to the speech, primarily in willingly hearing it. But the Lord heard it.

There's no indication that Moses heard it, but God heard it and he acted in the situation. There are some similarities between this situation and the situation in Numbers 11:1, where there's a general grumbling among the people and God hears it and acts. Who is Moses' wife then in this situation, the cush-eyed woman? Is it Zipporah? Has Moses taken a second wife? Now, one of the questions here is the location of Cush.

Many people have identified Cush with Ethiopia, but in Habakkuk 3:7 there's a suggestion that it might be something else as well. I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction. The curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.

So in the parallelism here, Cushan and Midian seem to be associated, Cush and Midian, and if she's a Cushite in that sense, a Midianite, it would explain what is going on here, that she is in fact Zipporah. This isn't another woman that we've not been told about. Now why would they complain about someone that Moses had married almost 40 years earlier? Well, because they had only just met her for the first time, perhaps only a month or so previously.

In Exodus 18:2-7 we read, And when he sent word to Moses, As I've argued elsewhere, Exodus 18 is probably not in its chronological place, but it's moved forward for reasons of the thematic unity of the text. It most likely happened later on during their period at Sinai. Now what was the objection to the Cushite woman? Presumably that she was a Gentile and a foreigner.

She was not an Israelite, she was an outsider from a nation that is quite distant from Egypt or from Israel. Miriam is not too keen on having this outsider as her sister-in-law, and there seems to be some sort of rivalry or opposition there perhaps. The opposition to Moses' wife Zipporah seems to move into something of a more general opposition to Moses himself and his leadership.

Now this is quite striking a development. There's no need to presume that it happened immediately. Rather, there might have been quite a lot of intervening conversation between this initial complaining against Zipporah and then the complaining against Moses' leadership.

However, what the text does is it shows the connection between the two things. That the later complaint against Moses' leadership grew out of this very petty opposition to Zipporah, the sister-in-law. If we just had that second statement by itself, it may seem that there was some grand theological impulse there, some challenge to the implicit theology of leadership that led to the prophetic primacy of Moses.

But the first claim deflates the second, revealing it to be based upon nothing but petty personal squabbles and rivalries. And prejudice against this outsider. How many of our grand theological debates would be deflated in a similar manner if the petty impulses that provoked them were revealed? At this point we encounter another question, which is why the humility of Moses is mentioned.

It seems to be a strange detail, maybe something extraneous to the narrative at this point. It seems to intrude upon the movement of the text. Miriam and Aaron's objections to Moses seem to insinuate that Moses' leadership is somehow ego-driven.

It's about him vaunting his authority over others, putting himself over others. And this statement about Moses' humility clearly declares that that impression is quite mistaken. God brings them all together and speaks to them.

And there's a challenge here that is a premonition of the later rebellion of Korah. They are rebelling against the divinely appointed leadership, suggesting that a wider body of people should enjoy this authority, a democratised, or at least more widely shared, spiritual authority and leadership. God gives a poetic response, and this poetic response describes the different ways that God reveals himself to different persons.

And Moses, however, is the one to whom God reveals himself most fully. He speaks mouth-to-mouth with Moses. Moses sees the form of the Lord.

Moses is the faithful servant, the most trusted servant. He's the one who's faithful in all of God's house. Here, I think, we see another reason why the humility of Moses is highlighted.

Moses' humility may be related to the intensity of the revelation that God gave to him, and the intimacy that he enjoys with the Lord. Extensive revelation, power, or authority are all huge liabilities and can easily corrupt people. Moses' extreme humility is that which fits him to be the recipient of a unique level of revelation.

If, for a moment, Moses thought that the exceptional degree of revelation and authority that he received was about him, he would be in extreme peril of pride. It's not about him. It's about the Lord.

And he is the humble servant of the Lord, who must be faithful and recognize that he's not being set apart by reason of his own personal merit. We could perhaps think of the Apostle Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 12, verses 7-9. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me.

But he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. That connection between humility and divine grace and revelation and power is one that's found elsewhere in Scripture.

These are important connections. What is the meaning of Miriam's leprosy? Leprosy is spoken of as a sort of plague in Leviticus 13-14, a touch by the Lord. It's considered as a punishment for violating God's holiness.

Miriam has violated God's holiness by speaking against his beloved servant. She is the chief culprit as well. And we should also remember that Aaron has just been touched by the Lord in being appointed as priest.

And if Aaron were cut off as a result of judgment, the whole people would suffer because they would not have a high priest. Moses has to intercede for Miriam, as Abraham had to intercede for Abimelech and Job for his friends. This underlines the Lord's claim that Moses has an intimacy with him, that Miriam and Aaron and other of the prophets of Israel do not.

Miriam is shamed on account of her action. If an earthly father had publicly shamed her, she would bear that shame for at least seven days. And her heavenly father should not shame her for anything less.

Note that one of the things underlying this story is a conflict between two women, Miriam and Zipporah. Miriam's opposition to Zipporah leads to her being excluded for seven days. Miriam is made completely white with leprosy.

If there was some racial element to her objection to Zipporah, this would be especially fitting. That Miriam's punishment was one of shame and exclusion should make us consider what it was that she sought to do to Zipporah. Was it not that she wanted Zipporah to be excluded? Zipporah to be shamed and to be without honour? Furthermore, the sin against Moses had a similar character.

It was a grasping for honour in a way that impugned the honour of someone who was the most meek of all men on the earth. And so she is shamed as a result of that dishonourable way of treating an honourable servant of the Lord. Her exclusion from the camp doesn't seem to be the regular treatment of leprosy, which would have required at least 14 days in Leviticus 13:5. If she was healed at once, maybe it is the seven day purification period discussed in Leviticus 14.

Another possibility is that Miriam has complete leprosy, Leviticus 13:13 and 17, in which case a person was white all over but clean. And so the exclusion was for the sake of ostracisation and shame. It wasn't for the case of the leprosy itself.

Miriam may be seen as an image of the people. She's a leader of the people, she's a prophetess, she leads the people in song. And in her treatment of Moses, we're seeing something of the more general way in which the people treat Moses and his leadership.

And the defence of God against Miriam and her challenge to Moses' leadership is also a defence of Moses' leadership more generally, which has been under assault by the people and will be under assault from a number of further fronts in the chapters that follow. A question to consider. What does this passage have to teach us about the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God?

In Numbers chapter 13, less than two years after leaving Egypt, Israel is near the borders of the promised land and spies are sent in to spy it out. This is perhaps the crisis moment in the wider story of the exodus, maybe even more significant than that of the golden calf. Will the people take hold of the promise of the land or will they shrink back in unbelief? The spies are chosen and they're all lead men standing for each of the tribes.

This is a representative task, not just a function that any group of men could perform. The men chosen to be the spies however are a rather different set of men from the leaders of the tribes mentioned earlier in chapters one to two and chapter seven. Perhaps the earlier lists are generally older men while the spies need to be younger and more energetic leaders.

We encounter Caleb here for the first time. Caleb is an important character from the tribe of Judah. He's a Kenizzite and the Kenizzites seem to have descended from Edom, yet there might be indications that as a group of people they were incorporated into the tribe of Judah.

Caleb seems to have been some sort of prince among the tribe of Judah and as the tribe that would later become the source of the kings, this is a significant position that he's occupying. We're also told in this list that Joshua was originally called Hosea. He was renamed Joshua by Moses.

Joshua was the right-hand man of Moses in many ways. He's the one who ascended with Moses up the mountain. Presumably not all the way but he was privy to a lot more than any of the other leaders of the people.

The fact that Moses renamed him suggests some sort of father-son type relationship between the two. The task of the spies is to report on the quality of the land, its inhabitants, its wealth and the character and fortification of their settlements. They are to go up into the Negev, the southern desert region, and from there all the way up into the hill country in the north and the region of Galilee.

In Judges chapter 18 we have another account of spying out a land as the Danites go up into the north and that is a description of what people want to see when they spy out a land. It's a land that is free for the taking, a land where people are not fortified, they're not prepared for enemies, but here it seems to be quite the opposite. The spying out of the land occurs at the time of the first ripe grapes, around mid-July, about two months after they had left Sinai.

Deuteronomy 1:2 speaks of an 11-day journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea from where they spied out the land. They spy out the entire land from the wilderness of Sin in the south to Rehob in the north around the northern border described in 34:8. The length of the land is about 250 miles and they took 40 days to explore it all. At Hebron, about halfway up the length of the land, they encountered giants, the descendants of Anak.

After Abraham had spied out the entirety of the land in Genesis chapter 13, he had settled in Hebron. It was in the Hebron area that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had all sojourned and it was near there that the patriarchs were buried, so it was naturally a very significant site for them. The spies bring back word of the land and fruit from the land, grapes and pomegranates and figs.

They confirm the words of the Lord's promise insofar as the land is indeed flowing with milk and honey. However, they bring back a bad report concerning the people of the land who are powerful and live in well-fortified cities. There are several different groups of people entrenched in the land, each seemingly mastering their own region, so the Anakim, the Malachites, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites and the Canaanites.

It's a land where no single people group has been able to gain mastery as it has quite varied terrain and several powerful groups, each controlling a specific tract of land within it. While the land may be fruitful, getting and retaining a foothold within the land, where there are so many warlike and fortified groups, none of which have been able to achieve dominance, seems near impossible. God had originally determined to take Israel the longer way to avoid such a response, recognising that it would be understandable for them to retreat when faced with the prospect of war.

Exodus 13:17. When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although it was near. For God said, lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.

However, many events had intervened between this and the point that we're at now, and by this point the people should have known enough to trust the Lord. What was lacking was the faith and the courage to grasp at the possibility of the full realisation of their liberation. As long as they were in the wilderness, the job was only half done and their position was precarious.

Caleb, at this point, tries to persuade the people that they can indeed take the land, yet is immediately opposed by the other spies, who claim that they cannot take the land and give a bad report of the land itself, claiming that it devours its inhabitants. They also speak of the giants of the land, of the sons of Anak, who are associated with the Nephilim, a group mentioned in Genesis 6:4. As a consequence of their bad report, their claim that the land devoured its inhabitants, they would end up being devoured by the wilderness. Joshua 14:6-15 relates an interesting epilogue to this account, highlighting the way that Caleb is blessed because of his faithfulness at this point, at a later point in history.

Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, you know what the Lord said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh Barnea concerning you and me. I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land, and I brought him word again as it was in my heart. But my brothers who went up with me made the heart of the people melt, yet I wholly followed the Lord my God.

And Moses swore on that day, saying, surely the land on which your foot has trodden shall be an inheritance for you and your children forever, because you have wholly followed the Lord my God. And now, behold, the years since the time that the Lord spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. And now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old.

I am still as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me, my strength now as my strength was then, for war and for going and coming. So now give me this hill country of which the Lord spoke on that day, for you heard on that day how the Anakim were there with great fortified cities. It may be that the Lord will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the Lord said.

Then Joshua blessed him, and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance. Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day, because he wholly followed the Lord the God of Israel. Now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath Arba.

Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim, and the land had rest from war. Here we see that the courageous faith of Caleb leads him to claim the land that was seen to be the greatest cause for turning back. He has the faith to go in and take the land of the Anakim for himself.

There may be another part of Scripture in the background here as well. In Genesis chapter 37 we have another account in Scripture of a bad report. It's the only other time that we find it within the Pentateuch, and it's Joseph bringing back a bad report of his brothers to their father.

Then later on in that chapter Joseph is sent on another mission of reconnaissance. Israel said to Joseph, Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them. And he said to him, Here I am.

So he said to him, Go now, see if it is well with your brothers and with the flock, and bring me word. So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. A number of things that might remind us of the story we've just read.

The valley of Hebron, the sending and bringing word, as in the story of Numbers chapter 13. The story of Genesis chapter 37 ends in tragedy. There's weeping, tearing of clothes, just as we see as a result of the spying out of the land and the bad report that's brought back in the following chapter.

And there might be something more going on here. There are 10 brothers who are bad, and there are 10 spies who are bad, and there are two good brothers, and there are two good spies. In the story of Genesis chapter 37, Joseph is the one who's betrayed by his brothers, and the ringleader is Judah.

Reuben tries to prevent things but fails. Here in Numbers chapter 13 we see some of these events playing out again, and I wonder whether it's significant that Judah and a descendant of Joseph stand side by side in appealing to the people and seeking to prevent what's about to take place. Even in the midst of a national tragedy in the making, there may be some small healing of an event in the past taking place.

A question to consider. In what way might the grapes of Eshcol give us a helpful way of seeing some aspect of the meaning of the Lord's

In Numbers chapter 14 everything melts down. The bad report of the ten spies is received by the people of Israel while the good report of Caleb and Joshua is rejected so fiercely that they would have stoned them had the Lord not intervened. The people believe it would be preferable for them to have died in Egypt or even to die in the wilderness than to die at the hands of the warlike inhabitants of the land leaving their wives and children as defenseless prey.

The rebellion with the golden calf came after Moses' ascension of the mountain of the Lord for 40 days and this rebellion comes after the spies ascended into the promised land of the Lord for 40 days. Perhaps there's some connection to be developed there. The chapter begins with the people raising a loud cry, weeping, grumbling against Moses and Aaron, accusing them and then moves to outright mutiny as they determine to choose a leader and return to Egypt.

The raising of a loud cry and weeping is a response of despair. It's the way that Esau responds to his loss of the blessing or Hagar responds to the prospect of Ishmael and herself perishing in the wilderness. It's utter desolation and hopelessness.

David Forman observes the way that the place of Egypt shifts in the course of the Israelites statement. First the prospect of death in Egypt is held alongside the prospect of death in the wilderness as fairly equal. Next however they are wondering whether returning to Egypt wouldn't be the best option in the circumstances and shortly afterwards they're putting that plan in motion.

They had started out by recognising that Egypt and the wilderness were places of death but before long they are wanting to go back there, convinced that it is a good option. They might think themselves realist but their plan is delusional. Also we've moved far beyond mere grumbling at this point.

The people have determined to reverse the exodus. Moses and Aaron fall on their faces before the congregation, imploring them not to proceed with such a disastrous course of action. In Numbers this act of falling upon the face is taken in anticipation of God's devastating judgment upon the people's rebellion.

We see the same thing in 16:4, 22 and 45 and then in 20:6. Caleb and Joshua tear their clothes. They express how devastated and appalled they are by the turn of events and they desperately seek to dissuade the people, presenting a stirring exhortation of courageous faith. Joshua now raises his voice alongside that of Caleb.

Had he spoken up earlier his association with Moses might have decreased the power of his witness but now the situation is desperate and something has to be done. The people are being given a chance to repent, one last chance to receive by faith the encouragement of the faithful spies. For Caleb and Joshua it's absolutely imperative that the people fear God enough that they overcome the fear of all the people of the land that stands between them and the fulfillment of the Lord's promise to them.

Far from being devoured by the people of the land they will be bred for the Israelites, easily consumed by the people of the Lord. Caleb and Joshua don't deny the details reported by the other spies. What they oppose is the faithlessness of their counsel, their failure to trust in the Lord's power to bring them in.

However the response of the people is to seek to stone them. Gordon Wenham remarks that this probably wasn't merely mob violence, rather the congregation had judicial authority and was using this to condemn Caleb and Joshua for a capital crime, in the process perverting the law also. The rebelliousness of the people has been gathering steam over the last few chapters, started with judgments upon outlying parts of the camp, then the rabble complained, and then the people more generally, then Miriam and Aaron, and now the 10 spies who represent 10 of the tribes and the congregation as a whole.

At this point the Lord intervenes to prevent their lives from being taken, the lives of Joshua and Caleb. The Lord speaks to Moses and declares that the people despise him, they fail to believe in him despite all of the signs that he has performed for them, the plagues in Egypt, the Red Sea crossing, the provision in the wilderness, the victory of the Amalekites, the appearances at Sinai, all these things. The people are probably not so much questioning the Lord's power as his character, suggesting that he is a malicious deity who seeks to destroy them.

They are seeking to undo his great act of deliverance, the deliverance by which his name would be made great among the nations. This is apostasy of the highest order. As at Sinai after the Golden Calf, Moses responds by interceding for the people, and he presents a threefold argument.

First of all in verses 13 to 16, the Lord's reputation among the nations. Then in verses 17 to 18, the Lord's promises to Israel and his revealed character and name. He refers back to the theophany of the Lord in Exodus chapter 34, and then the Lord's steadfast love, his track record of constancy with his people in verse 19.

Once again there's nothing on Israel's side of the covenant to put forward as an argument in their favor. They've utterly broken it. They've shown nothing but faithlessness.

And so Moses must appeal to the Lord's purpose in the Exodus, to his revealed character, to his promises, and to his consistent course of action to that point. Notice the way that Moses appeals to the self-manifestation of his character in Exodus 34 at the very heart of his argument. That statement in Exodus 34 verses 6 to 7 reads, The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation.

Dennis Olson remarks upon the subtle differences that there are between this statement and the earlier statement of the Lord's character in Exodus 20 verses 5 to 6. I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. In the statement of chapter 34 of Exodus to which Moses makes his appeal, it's God's mercy and his love that are foregrounded rather than his jealousy. God's steadfast love is extensively unpacked within it.

Merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. God's steadfast love is presented as more generally expressed, not just limited to the obedient. God forgives iniquity, transgression and sin and he's not just defined by his justice.

God's judgment has to be added as a sort of qualifier in Exodus chapter 34 because the emphasis upon mercy, steadfast love and forgiveness is so prominent, whereas in Exodus chapter 20 it's steadfast love that is more the qualifier. The arguments that Moses makes here are similar to those he uses in Exodus chapter 32 to 34, but now the reputation among the nations isn't merely about the Egyptians. It's about the nations of the land as well.

The promise given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob isn't prominent here as it was in the Exodus account again. Rather, God's direct revelation of himself to Moses in chapter 34 of Exodus takes its place. Moses also now appeals to God's constancy with Israel in a way that wasn't as possible in Exodus chapter 34, where there wasn't that same track record of God's dealing with his people in the wilderness in the way that he has dealt with them by that point.

The Lord's response to Moses' intercession is according to the revelation of his name. He forgives but he does not clear the guilty and the judgment is poetic. They shall not see the land that they refuse to enter.

They said that they would be better off dying in the wilderness and that would be their fate. They presented the well-being of their children as reason against entering but they would be the ones preventing their children's well-being as their children had to remain in the wilderness for decades on account of their father's sins. The spying out of the land that led to this apostasy had taken 40 days.

They would remain in the wilderness for a year for each one of those days. They're instructed to set out for the wilderness by way to the Red Sea which, while it isn't the same place as they crossed earlier, literarily suggests a turn back towards Egypt. They're going in the direction they want but they're going to be wandering in the wilderness.

The false spies are then judged and killed by plague before the Lord while Caleb and Joshua are told that they will enter the land. They'll be blessed for their faithfulness and later on we see that they take the land with the same courageous faithfulness that they've demonstrated in these chapters. The chapter ends with the people compounding their sin by attempting to go into the land without the Lord's blessing or presence and they're soundly defeated.

The liberation from slavery will now be the work of two generations. The first generation was not ready for freedom. They lacked the courage and the faith and the faithfulness to grasp hold of it when it was set before them and they would not as a result enjoy it.

However, their children would and there's an element of comfort to be found here. The tragedy of the Exodus generation does not ultimately doom their descendants who can learn from the sins of their fathers and enter in. Nevertheless, the events of this chapter cast a very long shadow and are often referred to in later scripture.

For instance, in Hebrews chapter 4, Today, if you will hear his voice, do not harden your heart. There is a challenge to us as there is to all generations following the wilderness generation that we learn from their negative example and do not harden our hearts at the promise of God that we enter in that we grasp hold by faith and that we persevere and receive the promises. A question to consider, how can Moses' intercession in this chapter inform our own prayers?

Numbers chapter 15, coming immediately after numbers 13 to 14, with the spy's bad report and the condemnation of the people to 40 years of wandering, would be expected to lie deep in the dark shadow of its predecessors. However, it betrays few indications of what went before it. Rather, it's largely a set of laws about sacrifices and other seemingly miscellaneous things.

One of the things that these laws do is to firmly reassert the mission and the intent of Exodus. It begins with a statement that refers to when you come into the land you are to inhabit. By not directly mentioning what has gone before, it suggests that the mission is not going to be finally blown off course.

It will carry out its intended object. Once more, it foregrounds sacrifice and the relationship of the people with the Lord. It recalls the fact of the deliverance from Egypt and the fact that the Lord's purpose is to settle them in the promised land, something mentioned in verses 2 and 18.

The laws concerning sacrifice here also anticipate that settlement in the land, when they will have the plentiful quantities of wine, oil and flour that are enjoyed in a settled agricultural society. It also reaffirms the fact that they have access and approach to God through sacrifice, even after all their rebellion. This section of numbers outlines the cereal and drink offerings that accompany a food offering.

A food offering is one of those sacrifices that is consumed in part by the Lord on his altar as a pleasing aroma, so it would be an ascension or whole burnt offering, or a peace offering. These were to be accompanied by the stipulated cereal and drink offerings, those stipulated offerings increasing with the size of the sacrificed animal. The drink offering would await the entry into the promised land, unless they were offering some drink made from the grapes of Eshcol.

Wine is a drink of celebration and rest and enjoying it had to wait for their settlement in the land. Also the drink offering was presumably entirely poured out on the altar and not participated in by the worshippers or the priests. The priests were forbidden to drink in the tabernacle and as sacrificial food it would have to be eaten within the tabernacle precincts.

The cereal offerings are described in more detail in Leviticus chapter 2. The cereal and the drink offerings seem to, among other things, be offerings of people's work to the Lord. They also seem to function as memorials that bring the offerer and their work to mind on the basis of the sacrificed animal that they accompanied, a sacrifice that represented the person of the worshipper. One interesting use of a cereal offering is found in the Law of Jealousy in Numbers chapter 5, where barley flour instead of the typical semolina wheat was used and was not adorned with oil or frankincense nor accompanied by a sacrificial animal.

There it seems to function to bring the works of the possible adulterous woman to the Lord for judgment. The apostle Paul also speaks of himself being poured out as a drink offering in Philippians chapter 2.17 and 2nd Timothy 4:6. As the wine was poured out with the blood at the base of the altar there was presumably some sort of symbolic connection or association between the two, an association that would be worth exploring perhaps to understand the relationship between Christ's blood and wine in the New Covenant. When they entered the land they had to present the first of their dough as a contribution, an offering of the first fruits of their own creative labour.

The apostle Paul again refers to this in Romans 11:16. If the dough offered as first fruits is holy so is the whole lump and if the root is holy so are the branches. It might be worth considering the fact that all of the offerings just mentioned elaborate the existing sacrifices with extra offerings that would occur when they entered the land.

This might help us better to understand the positioning of this material immediately after the failure to enter into Canaan. It underlines the promise and suggests a greater communion with God that will follow as they enter into the land and they can offer the fruits of the land with their existing sacrifices to the Lord. The next section concerns offerings for unintentional sins.

If the whole congregation sins unintentionally there needs to be a purification offering of a male goat, an ascension offering of a bull. However if an individual sins unintentionally he must only offer a female goat. Presumably he is included in the congregational sacrifice of the bull.

There is however no sacrifice for high-handed presumptuous premeditated sin and it seems that sin could be downgraded by repentance but if someone intends purposefully and defiantly to go against the word of God that is not something that there is a sacrifice for in that particular state. The account of the sabbath breaker that follows then seems to be an example of such high-handed sin. Numbers intersperses law and narrative and the narrative and the law need to be read alongside each other because they are mutually interpretative lots of the time.

The man gathering the sticks is to be presumed to be a high-handed sabbath breaker. This is reminiscent of the story of the punishment for blasphemy in Leviticus 24:10-16. Now an Israelite woman's son whose father was an Egyptian went out among the people of Israel and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought in the camp and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the name and cursed then they brought him to Moses his mother's name was Shalometh the daughter of Deborah of the tribe of Dan and they put him in custody till the will of the Lord should be clear to them then the Lord spoke to Moses saying bring out of the camp the one who cursed and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head and let all the congregation stone him and speak to the people of Israel saying whoever curses his God shall be put to death whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death all the congregation shall stone him the sojourner as well as the native when he blasphemes the name shall be put to death.

The action of the man then seems to be treated as tantamount to blasphemy. Why is his sin so serious? Exodus 35:1-3 would seem to be part of the reason why. Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them these are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do six days work shall be done but on the seventh day you shall have a sabbath of solemn rest holy to the Lord whoever does any work on it shall be put to death you shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the sabbath day.

The sabbath is the central sign of the covenant and a desecration of it is to be taken with the utmost seriousness. The man seems to be engaged in a premeditated act to break the law concerning building up a fire on the sabbath day. This is an intentional and a defiant sin.

The people are uncertain of how to judge presumably on account of the fact that he hasn't yet built the fire however the premeditation is enough to condemn him it's clear enough what he was intending to do. This is followed by another strange law concerning tassels on the corners of garments. What on earth is that doing here? Once again however this is an incredibly important law in the context.

It points back to the previous chapters and it anticipates the drama of the chapters that follow in the rebellion of Korah as we'll see as we go through the narrative. Jonathan Sacks observes that there are a number of key words used here which are also key words in the story of the spies. Not to follow after your own heart could be translated not to spy out after your own heart.

The form of the verb translated for you to look at in verse 39 is also found in 13:18 in the instructions to the spies and see what the land is. Finally the reference to the people's inclination to whoring recalls the reference to their whoredoms in 14:32-33. The stipulated blue thread in the tassels recalls the blue of key elements of the priestly garments in Exodus 28:28-29 and 36 to 38.

And they shall bind breastplate by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue so that it may lie on the skillfully woven band of the ephod so that the breast piece shall not come loose from the ephod. So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breast piece of judgment on his heart when he goes into the holy place to bring them to regular remembrance before the Lord. And then in verses 36 to 38 you shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it like the engraving of a signet holy to the Lord and you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue.

It shall be on the front of the turban it shall be on Aaron's forehead and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord. This also recalls the handling of the most holy furniture from inside the tabernacle in Numbers 4:5-12.

When the camp is to set out Aaron and his son shall go in and take down the veil of the screen and cover the ark of the testimony with it. Then they shall put on it a covering of goatskin and spread on top of that a cloth all of blue and shall put in its poles. And over the table of the bread of the presence they shall spread a cloth of blue and put on it the plates the dishes for incense the bowls and the flagons for the drink offering.

The regular showbread also shall be on it. Then they shall spread over them a cloth of scarlet and cover the same with a covering of goatskin and shall put in its poles. And they shall take a cloth of blue and cover the lampstand for the light with its lamps its tongues its trays and all the vessels for oil with which it is supplied.

And they shall put it with all its utensils in a covering of goatskin and put it on the carrying frame. And over the golden altar they shall spread a cloth of blue and cover it with a covering of goatskin and shall put in its poles. And they shall take all the vessels of the service that are used in the sanctuary and put them in a cloth of blue and cover them with a covering of goatskin and put them on the carrying frame.

So as we see here the most holy things are associated with cloths and threads of blue. Rather than spying out of their own hearts and eyes then as we saw in the story of the spies in the previous chapters the tassels were there to alert them to their holiness as a people as their garments had something in them that connected them with the garments of the high priest and the most holy furniture of the tabernacle. A question to consider.

What are some of the cues that we can use to recall ourselves to our true identity as the people of God and to faithfulness to the Lord as the tassels called Israel to such faithfulness?

Numbers 16 relates the rebellion of Korah. Korah is from the tribe of Levi, Dathan and Abiram and Arna from Reuben. Korah's rebellion starts with the claim that Moses and Aaron are wrongfully exalting themselves over the people, that all of the people are equally holy to the Lord. Note the way that this helps us to understand further the positioning of the law concerning the tassels, which does not only look back to the story of the spies, but also looks forward to the story of Korah. Numbers 15:37-41.

The Lord said to Moses, speak to the people of Israel and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. So you shall remember and do all my commandments and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God.

I am the Lord your God. Now at first blush, Korah and his companions seem to be taking the meaning of this and running with it. All of the people are holy. You shall be holy to the Lord your God. They're taking that statement with the utmost seriousness and making a religious argument on its basis. They also sound a bit like democratic egalitarians of a sort. Surely we should all be on the same level. God views all people the same way. The idea that Moses and Aaron are set apart above the people just seems wrong.

Now, Korah is from a family that we already know some things about. And these things are important for reading his story in chapter 16 in Numbers 4:1-15. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying, Take a census of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi by their clans and by their fathers' houses from 30 years old up to 50 years old all who can come on duty to do the work in the tent of meeting. This is the service of the sons of Kohath in the tent of meeting the most holy things.

When the camp is to set out Aaron and his son shall go in and take down the veil of the screen and cover the ark of the testimony with it. Then they shall put on it a covering of goat skin and spread on top of that a cloth of all blue and shall put in its poles. And over the table of the bread of the presence they shall spread a cloth of blue and put on it the plates, the dishes for incense, the bowls and the flagans for the drink offering.

The regular showbread shall also be on it. Then they shall spread over them a cloth of scarlet and cover the same with a covering of goat skin and shall put in its poles. And then towards the end of that section and when Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the sanctuary as the camp sets out after that the sons of Kohath shall come to carry these, but they must not touch the holy things lest they die. These are the things of the tent of meeting that the sons of Kohath are to carry.

So here we learn that Korah's family carried around the tabernacle when it travelled. They had a proximity to the most holy things of all, but were also restricted from them. They got as near as you could get without touching. In such a position, recognizing gradations and cleanness and holiness could not be more important. Yet Korah, who gets so close but never gets to touch, might be feeling the injustice and seeming arbitrariness of it all. It is precisely the boundaries that we see in chapter 4 of Numbers that keep him, Korah, out while allowing Moses and Aaron in, and that just strikes him as unjust.

You can see the same thing in Sinai. Some people get to go up Sinai. Only Moses could go to the top, but the general people of Israel could not even touch the mountain. Such boundaries of holiness allowed some people greater access to God than others. This suggests that Korah's rebellion is not so much driven by a principled egalitarianism, as it is by envy and resentment at those who have more access. Like many other supposed egalitarian rebellions, it is driven not by a general concern for the well-being of the people, but by the selfish resentment of someone who refuses to be in second place any longer.

This is the rebellion of someone who's bitter that he gets so close but can never touch. Should pay attention to Korah's claim, for all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Go back to Exodus 29:44-46 we read, I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar. Aaron also and his sons, I will consecrate to serve me as priests. I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their God, and they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them.

I am the Lord their God. Korah is essentially claiming that the tabernacle that his family has to serve is meaningless, that people are the real tabernacle, and to all the restrictions placed upon him and his family in Numbers chapter 4 are really about Moses and Aaron wanting supremacy over the people. They're not really about God at all, God is dwelling in his people, and for Moses and Aaron to claim a special status is to go against the Lord. Moses' response recognises the real issue. This isn't about the people. Korah has been greatly exalted by God, but that isn't enough for him.

He wants more. He wants the priesthood too. Moses makes clear that Korah's beef is with the Lord, not with Aaron. The Lord exalted Aaron, not for Aaron's personal sake. What is Aaron? But for the sake of the entire people. Aaron is but a minister of the Lord to the people. It's not Aaron himself who's being privileged, it's the people that are being blessed through the ministry of Aaron that God has given. Dathan and Abiram are summoned and they refuse to come up. They accuse Moses and Aaron of having taken them from a land flowing with milk and honey, rather than bringing them to them.

They're reversing the logic of the Exodus. Moses and Aaron brought them from a land of milk and honey, Egypt, and yet they're bringing them to a place to die in the wilderness. Of course, this is completely backwards. Egypt was the place of death, and the Promised Land is the place that is flowing with milk and honey. Yet in their anger and the rebellion, their imagination has completely distorted things. Manuel Shalev observes that the people had previously treated Moses and Aaron as sorts of demigods. The false God of the Golden Carp was a replacement for Moses, not for the Lord.

Moses was the demigod that the people could deal with and accuse and grumble against, while the Lord was the shadowy and fearsome deity behind him. But after the failure to enter into the land, Moses and Aaron are knocked down to the size of men in the eyes of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the other men with them. Now they are being accused of raising themselves up unjustly over the people, without recognizing that they are servants of the Lord. They've never been demigods. They've never exalted themselves over others. They are just the humble and obedient servants of God.

The vindication of Moses and Aaron against the rebels occurs in a way that demonstrates the ministry of Moses and Aaron as one that serves and protects the people. And the rebels are brought forward. They have to bring their senses. The people are separated from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and they're swallowed up as a proof that Moses has been called by God, that he ministers at God's will, not as one who has set himself up. The separation of the people from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram is important. It's something that occurs as a result of Moses' intercession for the people.

Moses is one who covers for the people, who protects the people. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are swallowed up by the earth. Now it seems a very strange way for them to be judged. Why are they judged in this particular way? I think there's a clue if we look back at Numbers 4:17-20, which continues the instructions given for the family of the Kohathites. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying, Let not the tribe of the clans of the Kohathites be destroyed from among the Levites, but deal thus with them, that they may live and not die when they come near to the most holy things.

Aaron and his son shall go in and appoint them each to his task and to his burden, but they shall not go in to look on the holy things even for a moment, lest they die. There's the threat of death here, but there's also something else. The final verse has some very striking wording, something that's captured better in other translations. For instance, Jung's literal translation renders it, and they go not in to see when the holy thing is swallowed, that they have died. The covering up of the tabernacle and its furniture then, in preparation for the Kohathites' task in moving it, is described as a swallowing up of the holy things.

And this helps us to think better about the judgment upon Korah and his companions in Numbers 16. They claim to be holy and are swallowed up, the same verb, by the ground. Fire then proceeds from the Lord and burns up the 250 men with their sensors, much in the same way as Nadab and Abihu had died, when they sought to come near to the Lord on their own terms, and transgress the boundaries of holiness. The sensors of the 250 men are then taken and beaten into something as a covering for the altar.

In being consumed by the Lord's fire, they were claimed as holy. This can also help us to understand the fate of Dathan, Abiram, Korah, and the 250 men. Holiness is a dangerous thing. Being in the very presence of God, a consuming fire, is a dangerous thing. And the presumptuousness of Korah, seeing proximity to God, of getting near to God, as a matter of personal status, puts them in the most terrible jeopardy. The people's response to this in some ways is to treat Moses and Aaron as demigods again. They are the ones who have consumed the people, not the Lord, and the people assemble against Moses and Aaron, perhaps to kill them.

God intervenes at this point, and there's a great plague upon the people. And it's the ministry of Aaron taking his sensor and going through the people that leads to them being saved, and delivered from the plague. The sensor is a symbol of true and faithful worship, and the wicked are saved by the presence of the righteous. Notice that Moses doesn't do what God says here. The Lord tells them to get away from the people so that the people might be destroyed, but Aaron goes into the midst of the people, to stand with them, to protect them from the Lord's judgment.

Can think back to the story of Abraham interceding for Sodom, perhaps. The presence of a certain number of righteous among the wicked can deliver them. David Foreman suggests a curious possible connection to the story of Korah in the Law of Deuteronomy 14:1-2. That reads, You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves, or make any boldness on your foreheads for the dead. For You are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

He observes that the word for boldness here is related to the name of Korah, and the references to the Lord setting Israel apart as a holy and treasured possession relate to the central themes of the story of Korah, what might be meant by this. The response of mourning described is one of self-mutilation and of attacking one's head, and something similar is going on in the story of Numbers chapter 16. The people, as a result of their mourning for not entering into the land, are attacking their head, their leaders, Moses and Aaron.

Now Moses and Aaron aren't special merely for their own sakes. The meekness of Moses was so important because Moses needed to recognize that it was not about him. Rather the prominence of the offices of Moses and Aaron were for the sake of the entire people, existing so that all would benefit from their service. Moses was not possessive of his position. We see that in chapter 11, when Joshua says should he rebuke El-Ded and Medad because they're prophesying in the camp, and Moses says don't prevent them. Don't be jealous for my sake.

He wants all the people to participate in the goodness of the Spirit of the Lord to prophesy, and he's not possessive of his role of leadership over them. It's not about him, it's about the Lord, he's just a minister of the Lord. What Aaron and Miriam failed to recognize in chapter 12, and Korah fails to recognize in chapter 16, is that Moses, and the leadership of Israel more generally, is called to be one of service. The servants of the Lord, they have an exalted status, but not for their personal sake, for the sake of the people that God might minister his grace and goodness to them.

In the story of Numbers 16 we see Moses and Aaron both playing this part. Moses intercedes for the people and saves them from destruction, and Aaron symbolically does the same thing, bringing the sensor that represents prayer and worship into the heart of the people so that they might be delivered. A question to consider. How does the story of the rebellion of Korah help us better to understand how to relate to those in authority over us, both in the church and in society more generally?

Numbers chapter 17 continues to deal with the fallout of the rebellion of Korah. The Lord vindicates the authority of Aaron the High Priest against all potential challenges with a great sign, the sign of the budding and blossoming rod. Gordon Wenham observes that it is a symbolic reenactment of the Korah scene of the previous chapter.

The twelve chieftains of the tribes, there's one chief for each tribe, put their names on the staffs and it's worth noting that staff and tribe are the same word in Hebrew. The rod symbolizes Aaron and also the tribe of Levi and it's placed among the other rods, the rods of all the other tribes of Israel. The rod is placed before the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies by Moses and Moses returns the next day and Aaron's rod has budded and blossomed and borne almonds.

Aaron's rod, representing Aaron himself, the head of the Levites, is then placed back before the Ark of the Covenant as a sign to all potential rebels that God has chosen Levi and of Levi he's chosen Aaron as the one to be High Priest over his people. The people's response at this point is to fear. In the previous chapter they've seen the destruction of Korah, Dathan and Abiram and the 250 chiefs and now God has decisively vindicated Aaron, the one that they were speaking against.

Learning the lessons of these chapters they realize that they cannot come near to the Holy Tabernacle of the Lord or they will perish, they need someone else to do that for them. This is a very short chapter but there are a number of details within it that we should be curious about. Why the rods? Well we've seen the rods are connected with the tribes.

Staff and tribe is the same word. Why then have the blossoms and why have almonds? Why almonds in particular? What are we to make of this detail? I think one clue can be found in Exodus chapter 25 where we're given the instructions for the lampstand. Exodus 25:31-39.

You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work. Its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes and its flowers shall be of one piece with it and there shall be six branches going out of its sides.

Three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it. Three cups made like almond blossoms each with calyx and flower on one branch and three cups made like almond blossoms each with calyx and flower on the other branch. So for the six branches going out of the lampstand and on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms with their calyxes and flowers and the calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand.

Their calyxes and their branches shall be a one piece with it. The whole of it a single piece of hammered work of pure gold. You shall make seven lamps for it and the lamp shall be set up so as to give light on the space in front of it.

Its tongs and trays shall be of pure gold. It shall be made with all these utensils out of a talent of pure gold. The lampstand then is connected with almonds.

It's also something that gives light and keeps a watch over the table of the presence representing Israel and so the connection of the lampstand with the almond and the connection of Aaron's rod with the almond suggests that there's associations between the two. Both of them are to be present in the holy place. Both of them are to give light to Israel and to watch over Israel as a nation.

The lampstand over the bread of the presence which represents Israel and Aaron over Israel itself. Now the almond is also the watcher tree. The word itself is the word for watchman or watcher.

Jeremiah 1:11-12 highlights this particular pun. And the word of the Lord came to me saying, Jeremiah what do you see? And I said, I see an almond branch. Then the Lord said to me, you have seen well for I am watching over my word to perform it.

That play on words is the same play on words that I think is going on here. The blossoming of Aaron's rod with almond blossoms, the connection of Aaron with almonds is the connection of Aaron with the task of the watcher. It's the connection of Aaron with the task of the lampstand.

Such symbolism of the lampstand can be elaborated even further in Zechariah 4:1-4 and 10 to 14. And the angel who talked with me came again and woke me like a man who was awakened out of his sleep and he said to me, what do you see? I said, I see and behold a lampstand all of gold with a bowl on the top of it and seven lamps on it with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on top of it. And there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.

And I said to the angel who talked with me, what are these my Lord? These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range through the whole earth. Then I said to him, what are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand? And the second time I answered and said to him, what are these two branches of the olive trees which are beside the two golden pipes from which the golden oil is poured out? He said to me, do you not know what these are? I said, no my Lord. Then he said, these are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

So what we see here is an association between the anointed ones, the ones that are established by God to rule over his people and the lampstand. We also see an association of the lampstand with watching, with the eyes. And I think that can help us further to understand what's going on with the establishment of Aaron's rod as a blossoming almond and then the connection of that with the lampstand in the holy place.

There's more to be observed here though. In Exodus 28:36-38 we're told, you shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it like the engraving of a signet, holy to the Lord. And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue.

It shall be on the front of the turban. It shall be on Aaron's forehead. And Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts.

It shall regularly be on his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord. Now this may seem to have no connection whatsoever with what we've just read but there is a connection and the connection is found in the fact that the word for plate is the word flower. It's the same word that we have here for the blossoms of Aaron's rod.

And in the Pentateuch it's the word that is only ever used either in this chapter of the blossoms of Aaron's rod or elsewhere of the plate that is on Aaron's forehead. There's a connection it seems to me. The blossom of the rod and the blossom on his forehead, they're both statements of his holiness to the Lord.

Both statements that God has set him apart as a minister. And so the blossoming of his rod is connected with the plate of gold. Now there's one other thing that could be observed here.

The description of that plate of gold and the way that it's held on to the turban is held on in a way that reminds us of something we've read about just a couple of chapters earlier. It reminds us of the tassels, the cords of blue. Cords of blue that associate Israel with holiness to the Lord.

They associate Israel with the status that the high priest has in some sense. Now those cords of blue are called the tzitzit. And here we have the tzitz.

The connection between these two words I believe explains even further why the rod blossoms. As we recognize such connections we should also appreciate that the book of Numbers, which for many readers is just an assortment of random material that's not held together very strongly, is actually a coherent argument that there are deep connections leading us all the way through. And as we see these connections we'll be able to trace the way in which later events answer to earlier ones and the ways in which law responds and corresponds to narrative.

A question to consider. Where in the New Testament do we see a reference to Aaron's budding rod?

To understand the placing of Numbers 18, we should remind ourselves of the end of chapter 17 in verses 12-13. And the people of Israel said to Moses, Behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone. Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of the Lord shall die.

Are we all to perish? Once again, appreciating the interplay between law and narrative in Numbers illuminates a passage like this. It helps us to understand why it is where it is. The law here grows out of the narrative, and the narrative also helps us to understand the law's rationale and purpose.

The whole chapter also settles issues raised in the rebellion of Korah, as the Lord explicitly states the various duties and prerogatives of the priests and Levites. At the start of this passage, God directly addresses Aaron, which is very unusual. God almost invariably addresses either Moses alone, or occasionally Moses and Aaron together.

Leviticus 10:8, after the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, is the only other case outside of this chapter where the Lord addresses Aaron by himself alone. The Lord is giving Aaron a sense of his more particular office and privileges here, which I think explains why he is addressed in such a manner. The provision of Aaron and his sons and the Levites ensured that the tabernacle could be in the midst of the camp, without the people being destroyed.

Aaron and his sons would serve on behalf of the people in the tent of meeting, while the Levites would guard Aaron and his sons and the tabernacle. By guarding the tabernacle, the Levites would ensure that no unauthorized person entered it and brought wrath upon Israel. If they transgressed by coming near to the vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar, both they and Aaron would be judged.

So there are restrictions upon the more general Israelites, but also restrictions upon the Levites. This is elaborated further. Aaron and his sons keep guard over the sanctuary and over the altar and serve in those matters, while the Levites are given by God to Aaron to guard and to do the more general service of the tent of meeting.

Now we should observe that the two key verbs here, describing the tasks of Aaron, his sons and the Levites, guard and serve, are the same verbs that we find in Genesis 2:15. The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. Recognising that connection we can see that Eden was a sanctuary and also that the tabernacle is a new Eden.

If the sanctuary is violated, the judgment will fall upon Aaron and the Levites. As Gordon Wenham remarks, they act as spiritual lightning conductors. They address the concern of the Israelites that's expressed at the end of chapter 17 in this way.

They are a hedge of protection given by the Lord to the Israelites. And this also helps us better to understand that the priests aren't being exalted for their own personal sakes, as Korah had suggested. Rather, it's for the sake of all the people.

All the people are benefiting from having the Levites and the priests in this position. Aaron and the priests do not have the regular inheritance in the land that the other tribes enjoy. Rather, the Lord is their inheritance.

They are the palace servants of the divine king. They receive as their portion food from the Lord's table. They receive Jews from the holy things, from the parts of the grain offerings, the purification offerings, and the trespass offerings that are not offered on the altar itself.

These can be eaten by clean males of Aaron's house in a most holy place. The wave offerings and the contributions from the peace offerings, all devoted things such as things dedicated to God in vows, the firstfruits and the flesh of firstborn clean animals, and the redemption money for unclean animals and firstborn children would be Aaron's and his family's. And this would be a covenant of salt.

Why salt? Because salt endures and preserves. So it's an everlasting covenant between the Lord and Aaron's household. The Levites, as their inheritance, receive all of the tithes of Israel for their service of the Tent of Meeting and for serving to protect the rest of Israel from the threat of divine judgment.

The final section of this chapter is addressed not to Aaron but to Moses, which is fitting because it's concerning what the Levites had to give to Aaron. And had that been given to Aaron as an instruction, it would seem that he was putting himself over the Levites rather than God instructing this. The Levites themselves have to present a tenth of the tenth that they receive, the first and the best part to the priests.

After they have done that, the rest is theirs to consume as they wish. The Levites' portion is a very large one. However, it depended upon the people's faithfulness in paying it, which was a very real problem as we see in places like Malachi 3 verses 8 to 10.

Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, How have we robbed you? In your tithes and contributions you are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.

And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. The chapter ends with a warning that the Levites don't profane the holy things of Israel lest they die. And this, I think, draws our attention once more back to the story of the rebellion of Korah.

The judgement that fell upon Korah and the rebels was precisely for their failure to observe this commandment. This chapter then serves to formalise and gather in one place the prerogatives of the priests and the Levites. It addresses the presenting issue of the rebellion of Korah.

And by doing all of this after the people's recognition of their great danger and their need for protection from the glorious presence of God in their midst, it gives the rationale for the priesthood and the Levites. In so doing, the interplay of law and narrative in chapters 16 to 18 gives us a sense of the necessity, the importance and the nature of the Levitical and priestly offices and roles. A question to consider.

In 1 Corinthians 9 verses 11 to 14, the Apostle Paul writes, If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. How, considering this passage and others in the New Testament, might the Old Testament teaching concerning the Levites and the priests inform us and our practice in the new covenant? What significance, for instance, can be seen in the dependence of ministers upon the gifts of the people of God?

In Numbers chapter 19 the ritual of the red heifer is instituted. This is easily one of the strangest of all of the rituals of the law. Besides several strange features of the rite itself, the hearer might well wonder what it is doing in its current position.

One of the questions that is presented to us by this ritual is whether it should be understood as a sacrifice. While Gordon Wenham argues that it is not a sacrifice, Jacob Milgram argues that it is. In verse 9 it is described as a purification offering.

Yet in contrast to typical purification offerings, none of the animal seems to be burnt up upon the altar. The part that is burned is incinerated outside of the camp in a clean place. Nevertheless, there are important similarities with the logic of the purification offering.

We find the relevant law of the purification offering in Leviticus 4:4-12. The purified priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the tent of meeting. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary.

And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the Lord that is in the tent of meeting. And all the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And all the fat of the bull of the sin offering he shall remove from it, the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them at the loins and the long lobe of the liver that he shall remove with the kidneys, just as these are taken from the ox of the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

And the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering, but the skin of the bull and all its flesh with its head, its legs, its entrails and its dung, all the rest of the bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, to the ash heap, and shall burn it up on a fire of wood. On the ash heap it shall be burned up. In the case of the regular sin offerings for the people, the priest can consume the sacrifice.

Their holiness trumps the uncleanness, as it were. This doesn't, however, apply in the case of the sacrifices purification for the priest themselves, which besides the portions presented on the altar and the blood, must be incinerated outside of the camp. The blood of the red heifer is not offered on the altar because it is an ongoing purification, as Milgram observes.

The purification offering can defile those who handle it, and this is similar to what we see in Leviticus chapter 16, verses 23 to 28. Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall take off the linen garments that he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there. And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people.

And the fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar. And he who lets the goat go to Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried outside the camp.

Their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned up with fire, and he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. The purification sacrifice absorbs the impurity that it purifies, and must therefore be eliminated. While these things purify, those who handle them are in danger of contracting impurity from those things that purify, because purification offerings bear the impurity that they remove from people.

Something of this logic can be seen in Leviticus chapter 6, verses 24 to 30. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron his son, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord.

It is most holy. The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In the holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.

Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in the holy place. And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken, but if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests may eat of it.

It is most holy. But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place. It shall be burned up with fire.

In consuming the sin offering, in Leviticus chapter 10, verse 17, the priests are said to bear the iniquity of the congregation. They are able to absorb, in some sense, that impurity, and to overwhelm it on account of their holiness. However, the impurity contracted by something that is used to make atonement for the holy place is too great and so cannot be consumed without contracting an overwhelming impurity.

Why is a red heifer used for this ritual? The red heifer would be the largest female animal. The ashes that it produced would be able to function for much of the population. Within the laws of the sin or purification offering, the bull represents the priest and the whole congregation.

Using a red heifer would distinguish this purification from that purification sacrifice. The redness seems to strengthen the connection with blood. However, as we shall see, the word also likely puns upon a number of other Hebrew words.

It puns upon the word for blood, for red, and also the words for man and earth. These connections are likely important, as we shall see. Before the animal is burnt, some of its blood is taken by the priest and sprinkled seven times towards the tabernacle.

For Milgram, this proves that it is some form of sacrifice, not just a strange ritual. The sevenfold sprinkling of the blood is similar to other blood rituals. For instance, the blood is sprinkled with the priest's finger seven times before the lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary in the purification offering for the priest or for the whole congregation in Leviticus chapter 4. Blood is also sprinkled seven times in a similar manner on the day of atonement and also as part of the ritual for the cleansing of lepers and for leprous houses.

The blood of the animal is not brought inside the tabernacle, perhaps because the impurity in such a case does not extend as far into the tent as it would in the case of an impure priest. The parts of the animal that are incinerated to obtain the ashes are the same parts of the animal that are burned of the purification offering in Leviticus 4:11. Nothing here is said about the parts of the animal that would typically have been offered to the lord.

To the parts of the animal that were incinerated, the priest had to add cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet yarn, elements that recall the ritual for the cleansing of lepers in Leviticus 14:3-7. Then if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop, and the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water, and he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

The leper, as we have seen elsewhere, has something of the character of a living corpse, so it should not surprise us that there are similarities between the process for the cleansing of the corpse-defiled person and the cleansing of the leper. The items added to the burning red heifer also recall that the elements of the ritual for the cleansing of the leper, the Passover, cedarwood recalls the doorposts, the scarlet yarn recalls the blood on the doorposts, and the hyssop, the hyssop with which the blood was sprinkled upon them. The account of the Passover in Exodus chapter 12, the ritual for the cleansing of the leper in Leviticus 14, and the ritual of the red heifer in Numbers chapter 19 are the only three occasions where hyssop is mentioned in the Pentateuch.

In the ritual of the red heifer, as in the ritual for the cleansing of the leper, the blood is applied not to the objects of the tabernacle, but to persons. We should bear in mind that the objects of the tabernacle often symbolize persons in some way, so the application of blood to tabernacle items could be seen as the symbolic application of the blood to persons. However, there were various exceptional occasions where blood was applied directly to individuals.

In the initial establishment of the covenant in Exodus 24:8, Moses cast blood on the people. In the priestly ordination ritual, blood was applied to the extremities of the priest's bodies. A similar application of blood occurred in the ritual for the cleansing of the leper.

The ritual of the red heifer has, as Milgram notes, similarities to the ritual of the day of atonement, which was, with the two goats, an intensified form of the purification sacrifice. It also has similarities to the ritual for the cleansing of lepers. However, in contrast to both of those rituals, there is no dispatching of one animal into the wilderness or open field.

The application of blood to the bodies of persons should also be considered in light of the different foci of impurity. Many of the purification rites are principally dealing with ways that the sanctuary and its objects have been rendered impure as a consequence of the people's behavior, not so much the impurity of the people themselves. The impurity of the leper, the corpse-defiled person, or the person with a bodily omission, is an impurity of their own bodies, not an impurity of the tabernacle caused by their actions.

Consequently, some form of purification needs to occur on their own bodies, not just on the tabernacle objects. The deep strangeness of this ritual suggests the possibility that there is deeper symbolic import to what is taking place, perhaps that like the ritual of jealousy, it relates to events in Israel's history. Animals in the sacrificial system have their particular type stipulated.

They must be of the herd or the flock, or go to a sheep. Often the sex of the animal is stipulated. It must be a male of the herd or a female of the flock.

Not infrequently, we also see the stipulation of the age of the animal, of the first year, or perhaps a mature animal. The red heifer is exceptional in being an animal whose colour is stipulated, and as we've already noted, besides the colour associated with blood, the word has connotations. Adamah connects with Adamah, the earth.

Adamah might also recall Adam, man, Edom, red, and Dam, blood. This cluster of associations might bring us back into the world of Genesis 2-4. Adam the man is created out of the Adamah, the earth.

In chapter 4, Cain's shedding of his brother's blood leads to banishment. In the ritual of the red heifer, we have allusions back to the exile of man from the realm of God, from the garden, to the defiling character of blood, as we see in chapter 4 in the story of Cain, and to the way in which man returns to the dust and to ashes. As human beings, we are but dust and ashes.

When we die, we are reduced to those elements. In this chapter, the ashes of the red heifer are referred to both as ashes and also as dust in verse 17. Recognizing such associations, Joel Heumann argues that there is an analogy between the tabernacle and the garden of Eden.

Both are sanctuaries of the Lord's dwelling. Banishment from Eden in Genesis placed man in the realm of death. Banishment from the camp or the promised land involves a similar sort of death and alienation.

The story of the beginning of Genesis might also be recalled in the emphasis upon the third and the seventh day. The third day recalls the third day of the creation, where the land is brought up out of the waters, and the seventh day recalls the Sabbath, the rest and the completion of the creation. Reflecting upon these connections further, we should consider the way that chapter 19 is situated within the larger book of Numbers.

Why is the institution of the ritual placed here? The answer to this question, as Heumann argues, will be found by considering the narrative context. He writes, It is the final liturgical law given during the era of the Sinai generation, and itself thematizes purification and separation from death and the wilderness. Considered merely as another rite of purification, it could conceivably be located almost anywhere that cultic legislation is appropriate.

In fact, Leviticus at first blush seems a more appropriate literary context. But intentional juxtaposition is the key to its placement. The Red Heifer itself thematizes the narrative at this point.

The wilderness is pre-eminently a place of death for Israel, which must die to be reborn. The heifer, as a symbol of the old generation of Israel, is reduced to dust in the wilderness. By means of the ashes of the heifer and living water, the one contaminated by death is restored to a living relationship with God, even as the new generation is transferred from the wilderness to the land of promise.

The heifer immediately foreshadows the impending final elimination of the old generation and symbolizes the promise given to the new. Future life in the land will replace the pervasiveness of death in the wilderness. Human's argument can also help us to understand this chapter as filling the great gap in the book of Numbers, a jump from the second year of the Exodus to the conclusion of the period of the wilderness wanderings.

The ritual of the Red Heifer is a symbolic representation of this entire period, the dying off of the old generation, connected with symbols of the initial Exodus and Passover, will lead to the cleansing of a new generation and the entrance into the land. In the next chapter of the book of Numbers, the deaths of the key figures of Miriam and Aaron occur, and the imminent death of Moses is also declared. After their deaths and the dissolution of the whole original Exodus generation, the people will finally be prepared to enter into the promised land.

A question to consider, can you think of other rituals and laws by which Israel was kept separate from death? What broader significance might Israel have discovered in reflecting upon these different laws?

Reading Numbers chapter 20 we may not initially appreciate that about 38 years has passed since the preceding narrative sections of the book. Almost an entire generation has perished in the wilderness in the intervening period. The first event that we read of after all this time passes then is the death of Miriam.

Miriam was present from the very beginning of the Exodus narrative when Moses was drawn from the water. She was singing after the crossing of the Red Sea and she has been a leading figure in Israel to this point and now she dies. Numbers chapter 20 comes after the law of the red heifer in chapter 19 which is one of the more perplexing chapters in the book.

It contains a law for cleansing involving the ashes of a red heifer placed in water and this water is supposed to be used to cleanse those who have had contact with a dead body. The heifer has to be clean but it is slaughtered outside of the camp. There's cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet yarn involved which may be connected with the law of the leprous person in Leviticus chapter 14 where those same elements are found.

It seems to me that these recall elements also of the Passover. The cedar wood connects with the doorpost and the lintel. The scarlet yarn with the blood.

The hyssop with the hyssop dipped into the blood. Leprous and corpse defiled persons are being brought back into the realm of life after being kept outside of the camp and there's a sort of replaying of the Exodus theme here which I think accounts for those particular elements. In being burnt up outside of the camp and reduced to its ashes the red heifer is brought down to the dust and the ashes or the dust of this red heifer are the means by which the corpse defiled persons can be let back in.

What does the red heifer itself represent? It might be connected with life. The redness connected with blood and the earth. The redness of the earth.

It may be connected with the procreative power of the female of the species. It's a heifer. It's not a bull and it might represent Israel as well which I think is one of the most important associations.

Hosea 4:16 and 10 verse 11 both make such an association. Those who administer this right are defiled by it which seems to be very strange for a purification right. All of chapter 19 seems very odd.

It seems to be an unusual law that's very arbitrary and strange but it seems to me that as with the rest of numbers law and narrative belong together and they comment upon each other and the more that you think about the relationship between the two the more that the narrative makes sense and the more that the law makes sense. So what is this law doing here? It seems to me that the law is the ritual expression of the death of the exodus generation in the wilderness. We've had all these intervening years.

38 years between the rebellion of Korah and the death of and in that period of time almost all of the old generation has died out and in this chapter Miriam dies, Aaron dies and Moses is told that he will die before he enters into the land and so I think we can start to see the connection. The death of the red heifer, the death of Israel outside of the camp in the wilderness, its ashes will be the means by which added to the living water Israel will enter into the promised land. The deaths of Miriam, Aaron and Moses then are not just the ends of their lives.

They're the beginning of something new. They affect a transition in the same way as the ashes of the red heifer allow with the water the person to be cleansed and to enter back into the camp so Israel cleansed by the death of these leaders will be able to make the transition from the realm outside of the camp being in the wilderness into the promised land. Immediately after Miriam's death there was a water crisis.

There were previously water crises in Exodus chapter 15 and 17 at Marah and then at Massah and Meribah. This place will be named Meribah too connecting it with that earlier location even though it is a different place. Miriam in her story is connected with the provision of water from Exodus chapter 2 onwards.

She's the one who's present as Moses is delivered out of the water and she is the one who provides her mother as a wet nurse for Moses, someone from whom he can have drink. Water for Israel is provided after they are delivered from the Red Sea and there are a number of plays upon Miriam's name at that point too. The way that the water is cut off immediately after Miriam's death again creates an association that many people have commented upon.

As the people complain about this crisis the Lord appears to Moses and Aaron and instructs them to take the staff and to speak to the rock and it will yield its water. However Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly and Moses says to them, hear now you rebels shall we bring water for you out of this rock. He then strikes the rock twice and plentiful water comes out for all of them and their cattle.

The Lord however judged Moses for not believing in him and not upholding him as holy in the eyes of the people and the consequence could not be more severe. He is told that he would not lead them into the land as a result. Why such a serious punishment? What did Moses do wrong? Why was it so wrong? Why was he instructed for instance to bring the rod if he wasn't supposed to use it? And I think there is some help to be found in later passages that reflect upon these events.

In Deuteronomy 3:26 where Moses pleads with the Lord to be allowed into the land we're told but the Lord was angry with me because of you and would not listen to me. In Psalm 106 verse 32 to 33 they angered him at the waters of Meribah and it went ill with Moses on their account for they made his spirit bitter and he spoke rashly with his lips. In Numbers 27 verses 12 to 14 the Lord said to Moses go up into this mountain of the Barim and see the land that I have given to the people of Israel.

When you have seen it you also shall be gathered to your people as your brother Aaron was because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin when the congregation quarreled failing to uphold me as holy at the waters before their eyes. These are the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. In Deuteronomy 32:50-51 and die on the mountain which you go up and be gathered to your people as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people because you broke faith with me in the midst of the people of Israel at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin and because you did not treat me as holy in the midst of the people of Israel.

Reading these different verses I think we can pick up a number of elements of Moses' sin. Moses' action was provoked by anger at the people and was a sin of speech. He broke faith with the Lord not believing in him.

He rebelled against the Lord's word not following his instruction. He didn't treat the Lord as holy and the Lord was also angry with him on account of the people. So breaking this down I think we can get a clearer picture.

First of all Moses lost his temper and he spoke inappropriately. This was provoked by anger with the people. Shall we bring water for you? It suggests that it was them not the Lord that was doing this and it makes it about him and Aaron versus the people.

It's not about the Lord. The Lord is removed from this picture. Second he failed to trust the Lord.

The doubt in his statement perhaps. Shall we? In Numbers 11:21-23 we see a similar note of doubt in Moses' voice. But Moses said the people among whom I am number 600,000 on foot and you have said I will give them meat that they may eat a whole month.

Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them and be enough for them or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them and be enough for them? And the Lord said to Moses is the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not. In Numbers chapter 20 Moses expressed his doubt in the Lord's word before all the people and he hit the rock twice which is perhaps an expression of his doubt. Speaking just does not seem to be enough for such a great miracle.

Hitting is more likely to work. Hitting is what worked the last time and twice just for good measure because once probably wasn't sufficient. This is an expression of his failure to believe and to follow what God had told him.

God had told him that he would bring water out of the rock. Why didn't he trust him? Third he rebelled against the Lord's word. Specifically he's told to speak to the rock not to hit it.

Why was the rod necessary if this is the case? Well the attentive reader is rewarded here because they'll realize that the rod is not Moses' rod it's the rod of Aaron. It's taken from before the Lord which is where Aaron's rod, the rod that had blossomed, was placed. Moses' rod was connected with striking the Egyptians but the rod of Aaron had become associated with his priestly office and intercession.

The rod was powerful because it was before the Lord. It represented Aaron's access to the presence of the Lord and the symbolic significance of the rod is far more important than any power that seems to be invested in the rod itself. Very easy to think of the rod of Moses or Aaron as magical rods that in themselves they have some great power but the real power is that of the Lord and speaking will be every bit as effective as striking.

They do not need some magical rod to achieve this purpose. Bringing along the rod that represents Aaron's access to the Lord is going to show where the real power lies. Not in the rod itself but in what the rod stands for.

Aaron's access to and presence with the Lord and Moses' access to and his ability to intercede with the Lord. And the difference between the events of Exodus 17 and the events of Numbers 20 are also worth noting. The rock was passive in the event of Exodus 17.

The rock was struck and water came out of it but here the rock is spoken of as giving its water freely. Striking is how slaves are treated but you speak to free persons and the two actions mean very different things. We're supposed to read these passages alongside each other and not just notice the similarities but notice the progressions and the differences.

Fourth, he failed to treat the Lord as holy. This is seen in his failure to obey also in his failure to trust but perhaps there's something more going on. The Lord in the book of Deuteronomy particularly is associated with the rock.

In Deuteronomy chapter 20 in the Song of Moses we see this on numerous occasions that the Lord is associated with the rock. He's personified as the rock. The Lord stands before Moses on the rock in Exodus chapter 17 when Moses is instructed to strike it.

The people were almost ready to stone Moses in that chapter but the Lord was struck so that the people would be given something to drink. But here however the rock just needs to be petitioned. The rock is a physical object but also stands for God's provision for his people.

The Lord had once submitted to being struck by people who reasoned as slaves with the logic of force. People who had to be struck in order to do something or people who had to strike in order to get a message across and here that logic of force is supposed to be replaced by a pattern of free address and intercession. The Lord now wishes Moses and Aaron to demonstrate that the rock as a servant and a representation of the Lord will freely give of its water to them if only they ask.

Fifth and finally the Lord is angry with Moses and Aaron on account of the people. Now why is that? To this point Moses has largely stood apart from all of the Israelites marked out by his faithfulness. On account of this he has been able to intercede for and intermediate for them when they have sinned.

By virtue of Aaron's close association with Moses Aaron has also been preserved. However here Moses himself sins in a marked way and manifests the same rot of rebellion that has been working through the whole people in the book of Numbers. He is now associated with the people in that trait for which they are being excluded from the land and he as their leader and model has much less latitude granted to him for forgiveness.

He has to model faithfulness to an unfaithful people and when he fails to do that the consequences are quite severe. What else might be going on here? Well Moses has just been bereaved. He's lost his older sister Miriam and it doesn't seem that they've had proper time to mourn her because the water crisis has immediately struck.

There's no mention of the time of mourning that we have at the end of the chapter for Aaron and the people are quarreling with him again. At this point it becomes personal for him. He's lost one of the closest people to him, the older sister who had helped to deliver him as an infant, the leader of the women who had assisted him in leading that part of the congregation alongside him.

The loss of his sister perhaps leads him to feel isolated and to neglect the presence of the Lord that is with him, feeling more keenly the opposition of the people. It's now become Moses versus the people and the Lord isn't really in the picture. And Miriam may be in this story in subtle ways.

David Foreman observes that you can vowelise the letters of Miriam's name in three different ways. Marim for bitter which is used in the story of Mara at the end of Exodus chapter 15. Merim for the participle of lifting up which is connected to Moses' action of lifting up the rod to strike the rock.

And then finally Morim, rebels, which is the way that he addresses the people of Israel. And so perhaps Miriam is playing in the background here. Her death is connected with the provision of living water that will provide for a new start for the people of Israel.

She's connected with the red heifer of the previous chapter and the death of that red heifer, the provision of its ashes and the living water are the means by which people can re-enter the camp of the Lord's presence once they've been excluded because of contact with death. All these people connected with the death of the previous generation they can enter in as a result of the death of people like Miriam and the provision of the living water here is supposed to be read against the background of that. Her association with the provision of water and her death just as the water runs out suggests that there are some deeper associations here and this is something that Jewish commentators have long recognised and commented upon.

Israel requests right of passage through Edom to go up through the king's highway not to take anything from the land but just to have a shorter journey to the destination of the promised land and Edom spoken of in the singular reminds us that Edom and Israel are the brothers Esau and Jacob. They reference the angel that brought them out of Egypt in verse 16. In Exodus 23:20 the angel is described as going ahead of them.

Israel is not a warmongering people in relation to its neighbours. They ask for peaceful travel through the land of Edom but Edom resists and presents a show of strength and they go another way. They have to go the long way round.

They're prevented from going through Edomite territory and this seems to be one of the ways in which Moses is prevented from entering into the land. This is followed by the death of Aaron going up Mount Hor and being replaced by his son Eliezer. The death of Aaron is the death of the high priest and the death of the high priest is also an event of transition.

The death of Miriam as we have seen is an event of transition and the death of the high priest also affects a transition. In Numbers 35:32 we have the description of the cities of refuge and then told what will happen to the manslayer who is in such a city of refuge. And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest.

Israel is going to be released from its wandering in the wilderness, released from its exile from the land with the death of people like Miriam, with the death of Aaron and then finally with the death of Moses. There are sacrificial themes here. The death of particular human beings cleanse the land and enable the people to enter in.

The death of these three leading characters then, read against the backdrop of the law of the red heifer, helps us to understand this transition. The transition from the generation two years after the exodus to the generation on the borders of the land about to enter in and now being cleansed so that they can enter into the land. The death of Aaron cleanses the land then, it wipes clean the slate and this can help us to understand why Eliezer is important here.

Eliezer is mentioned in the previous chapter in Numbers 19:2-4. This is the statute of the law that the Lord has commanded. Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer without defect in which there is no blemish and on which a yoke has never come and you shall give it to Eliezer the priest and it shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered before him and Eliezer the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle some of its blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times. With Eliezer the baton is handed on to the next generation.

He is part of administering this right of the red heifer. He is one who sees that old generation die. He is rendered impure because of his association with the red heifer and its ashes but he will be the one as he administers it to lead the people into the land and he and they will be cleansed.

A question to consider. How might the manner of Moses' sin be instructive and cautionary for us in our behaviour?

Numbers chapter 21 begins with Israel being attacked by the Canaanite king of Arad. Arad is a large town in the Negev, about 17 miles south of Hebron. And here we see something important.

Israel deals directly with the Lord. They vowed to the Lord that they will dedicate these cities to him. The name of the place is called Hormat and this is somewhere that we've encountered about 40 years previously in Numbers 14:44-45.

But they presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country, although neither the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord nor Moses departed out of the camp. Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and defeated them and pursued them, even to Hormat. This location was the site where they had tried to go up and take the land after they've been told that they could not go into it because of the rebellion.

And now at that site of former defeat, they are dedicating the land to the Lord. Israel vows to dedicate the cities of the Canaanite king of Arad to destruction and the place is named Hormat, destruction for this fact. But now the Israelites complain again.

They hate the food and they lack water. They complain against Moses and against the Lord. This is the very last complaint of the Israelites along such lines, but it's important to see how things play out.

The Lord lets loose fiery serpents among them. In Deuteronomy 8:14-16, we read of serpents in the wilderness. The Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrifying wilderness with its fiery serpents and scorpions, a thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock, who fed you in the wilderness with manna that your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you to do you good in the end.

Numbers 21 is the only reference to encounter with such snakes in the wilderness. Daniel Lowenstein observes that the significance of the Lord releasing the snakes is that he is removing his protection. To this point, he's been holding the snakes back.

He's had a hedge around Israel, protecting them from encounter with these fiery serpents. These serpents rule in the wilderness and God has protected them to this point. And in removing his protection for a short period of time, the people recognize their dependence upon him.

The people are complaining because the blessings of settled life are in sight. They're on the borders of Edom and they start to feel their deprivation in the wilderness keenly. They realize they're not eating the food of settled people.

They're suffering the difficulties and the hardships of the wilderness. And just over the border there in Edom, people are living the life of settled people in a land. And they realize what they've lost, what they could have gone back to in Egypt, for instance.

The Lord in removing his protection for that short period of time helps them to realize how he has assisted them. The serpents are fiery serpents. Maybe we're supposed to see them as connected with the fire of the Lord, the consuming fire of God as his anger against sin.

So fire in the form of serpents. Others have suggested an association with seraphs as celestial dragon-like creatures and these somehow represent or are associated with them. The people confess their sin and repent, asking Moses to intercede for them.

Once again, we're seeing failure and rebellion here but there is a change that they are far more tractable. They are far more prepared to repent and to turn to the Lord. Moses is required by the Lord to make a copper serpent and place it upon a standard.

Why copper? Well, partly because it plays upon the word for serpent. Also because of its fiery red color. The copper serpent is a Nahash Nahoshet.

We could perhaps call it a copper cobra to try and capture something of the play upon words here. And later on in 2 Kings chapter 18, there is a reference to this serpent called Nahushtan at that point. Again, playing upon those particular words.

Copper snakes dating from the same sort of period have been found in the region as well, which suggests further connections. When people were bitten, they were supposed to look to the serpent on the standard. Contact with the serpent was required but it was a contact through sight and faith.

A sort of turning to it in an act of appeal, in trust and dependence. Once again, we might see something new here. Israel are supposed to look to the serpent standard that the Lord has provided and find deliverance through that.

This is an act that they have to perform as they look towards something that God has given to them. It's not a matter of telling Moses to pray for them. They have to look themselves.

They have to exercise faith themselves in this particular act. Maybe God is training them as this second generation to act in a different way than the previous generation. Not just to depend upon Moses to intercede for them, but to be people who look to God's provision themselves.

The copper serpent appears once more in Israel's history in 2 Kings 18:1-4. In the third year of Posher, son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was 25 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 29 years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Avi, the daughter of Zechariah and he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord.

According to all that David, his father, had done, he removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made. For until those days, the people of Israel had made offerings to it.

It was called Nehushtan. The danger there is treating the serpent as a magical talisman rather than the provision of the Lord. They're supposed to look to the serpent.

But in looking to the serpent, what they're really looking to is the provision of God for them. The serpent is not some magical idol. The serpent rather is the standard given by the God who heals them.

And in looking to the serpent, what they are really looking to is the provision of God, the fact that God can deliver them from the lethal creatures of the wilderness. After many years of wandering in the wilderness, they are now swiftly moving towards their goal. There are nine different camps in succession mentioned here, interspersed with bits of old poetry.

The description of the defeat of Sihon king of the Amorites after this is probably something that occurred during this period. This same period of journeying is also narrated in Deuteronomy chapters 2 and 3. They are traveling around Moab to the east of the Dead Sea. And this is something we can gather from the reference to the Zered and the Anon.

These are rivers that flow into the Dead Sea from that direction. There are references to the book of the Wars of the Lord. This is the only reference we have to this particular book in scripture.

The poem that follows is difficult and obscure, extremely difficult and obscure. Perhaps one of the more interesting suggestions is that of D. L. Christensen, who interprets the consonantal text as follows. The Lord came in a whirlwind.

He came to the branch wadis of the Anon. He marched through the wadis. He marched.

He turned aside to the seat of Ar. He leaned toward the border of Moab. However, to arrive at this reading, Christensen has to tweak the text itself, not just its vowel pointing.

The point of this extract may simply be that of identifying an extra biblical witness to the details of the travelogue, without the excerpt needing to be such a statement in itself. The presence of excerpts from other bodies of material from the period in this chapter is an interesting feature of the text. Beyond the entrance into the land itself, there's perhaps a sense of an entrance into a broader network of cultural voices and literatures.

They're becoming part of a world of other peoples at this point, and the references and snatches of songs and epic poetry helps to give a sense that this is a larger world that they're entering into, and they're dealing with a number of different peoples as part of that. This is followed by the Lord's provision of water for the people at a place called Beah, meaning well. A number of the places are named after significant events or objects there, Hormer after the destruction, Meribah after the quarrelling, and here, Beah after the well.

The Israelites sing to the well, seemingly a song called Spring-Up-O-Well. This reminds us of Israel singing at the Red Sea in Exodus chapter 15. It's also similar to Isaiah chapter 27, verses 2 and 3. In Isaiah chapter 27, Israel is seemingly instructed to sing a known song to the land, and here they sing another song to the well, which provides them with water.

The song refers to the chieftains of the tribes and their ceremonial staffs. The political leaders of Israel are relating to the land. In the previous chapter, Moses was instructed to speak to the rock, and it would yield its water.

Here, the whole company of Israel speaks to the well from which the Lord is providing water for them. There was a beautiful progression to be observed here. There is a musical relationship between Israel and the land.

They sing to it, and it willingly delivers up its gifts to them. And the implicit personification of the land is important in Leviticus, and here thinking of the land as personified might also help us to see what's taking place. Israel is supposed to relate to the land in the way described here, to, as it were, sing to it, and it will deliver the gifts of the Lord to them.

They're supposed to treat the land well, to give it its rest, and as they do so, it will deliver the Lord's gifts to them. Once again, Israel requests right of passage through a land, as they did with Edom. However, as in the case of Edom, Sihon the king of the Amorites refuses.

And not only does he refuse, he also goes out to fight against Israel. Israel defeated him and dispossessed him. Finally, we are told that they are settling in cities, the cities of the Amorites in Heshbon and its villages, although this likely is referring to a later settling in that territory.

There's an old poem about Sihon's victory over the Moabites at Heshbon quoted here at length. Sihon had taken this territory from Moab, but Israel dispossessed the dispossessor. While the defeat of Sihon probably enabled the Moabites to repossess much of their original territory, Heshbon now belonged to Israel and did not revert to its former owners, who had proved unable to hold it and had lost title to it, as the Lord gave it into the hands of Israel rather than back into their hands.

Judges 11 verses 12 to 24 mentions this territory and the disputes about the possession of it later on in history. Then Jephthah sent messengers to the king of the Amorites and said, What do you have against me, that you have come to me to fight against my land? And the king of the Amorites answered the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel, on coming up from Egypt, took away my land, from the Anan, to the Jabbok, and to the Jordan, now therefore restore it peaceably. Jephthah again sent messengers to the king of the Amorites and said to him, Thus says Jephthah, Israel did not take away the land of Moab, or the land of the Amorites.

But when they came up from Egypt, Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh. Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, Please let us pass through your land. But the king of Edom would not listen.

And they sent also to the king of Moab, but he would not consent. So Israel remained at Kadesh. Then they journeyed through the wilderness, and went around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and arrived on the east side of the land of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Anan.

But they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Anan was the boundary of Moab. Israel then sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, king of Heshbon. And Israel said to him, Please let us pass through your land to our country.

But Sihon did not trust Israel to pass through his territory. So Sihon gathered all his people together and camped at Jehaz, and fought with Israel. And the Lord, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they defeated them.

So Israel took possession of all the land of the Amorites, who inhabited that country. And they took possession of all the territory of the Amorites, from the Anan to the Jabbok, and from the wilderness to the Jordan. So then the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel.

And are you to take possession of them? Will you not possess what Chemosh your God gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess. Israel now is living in the land of the Amorites, in settlements on the east side of the Jordan. This is their first possession in the land.

And after defeating Sihon the king of the Amorites, they also defeat Og king of Bashan. Finally, after all this period in the wilderness, they are starting to receive the promises. A question to consider.

In John 3:14-15, Jesus says, And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. How does the copper serpent help us to understand the meaning of the cross?

The story of Balaam which begins in Numbers chapter 22 is a very strange one. First of all we should notice that the characters of Balak and Balaam recall characters that we've met previously in scripture. Rifki Stern observes the similarities between Balak and Jethro and Pharaoh.

In Exodus 18:1-5 we read Jethro the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her home, along with her two sons. The name of the one was Gershom, for he said I have been a sojourner in a foreign land, and the name of the other Eliezer, for he said the God of my father was my help and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.

Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God. So here we can see a number of similar elements. The reference to all that God had done for Moses, all the things that Israel had done that Balak heard about.

Zipporah and the fact that Balak is the son of Zippor, the association with Midian in both cases, and the reference to the camp of the people of God. These are common elements in the story. In the story of Pharaoh we see further similarities in Exodus 1:8-12.

Now there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph and he said to his people behold the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us come let us deal shrewdly with them lest they multiply and if a war breaks out they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land. Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Python and Ramses, but the more they were oppressed the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad and the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel.

Here we can see further common details. The reference to Israel being too mighty for them and this plan to come and to design some way to bring them down. The dread of the people of Israel that has fallen upon another people and the way that they multiply and spread abroad all of these are common elements.

So we can see that the character of Balak is like Pharaoh. He also stands as someone who is in some respects like Jethro but in a way that invites us to see how he is the opposite of Jethro. Jethro is someone who sees how God is prospering his people.

He's a Gentile, he's a Midianite, but he sees that as a good thing. He's rejoicing in the blessing of the Lord upon Israel rather than perceiving it as a threat. So there are two contrasting responses to God's blessing on Israel from Gentile rulers and Balak reminds us of both these characters while clearly following the Pharaoh model.

There's also similarities between the character of Balaam and Abraham of all characters. David Foreman observes these. First of all the way that Balaam is described the power of his blessing.

Come now curse this people for me since they are too mighty for me perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them from the land for I know that he whom you bless is blessed and he whom you curse is cursed. That recalls Genesis 12:3. I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. But there's more in verses 21 to 22.

So Balaam rose in the morning and saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab. Now he was riding on the donkey and his two servants were with him. Where have we heard this before? Genesis 22:3 when Abraham goes to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac.

So Abraham rose early in the morning saddled his donkey and took two of his young men with him and his son Isaac. There's further things to observe. Numbers 22:22.

But God's anger was kindled because he went and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. And then in Genesis 22:10-12. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son but the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said Abraham Abraham and he said here I am.

He said do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him for now I know that you fear God seeing you have not withheld your son your only son from me. Genesis 12 and 22 are great passages at the beginning and the end of Abraham's life in which he and his offspring Israel are blessed. Now these blessings are starting to come into fulfillment and Balaam is called upon to curse them and so the contrast should jump out at us.

This is the fulfillment of the blessings of Abraham and now Balaam is brought in as a character who's supposed to push back against that. David Foreman again observes the contrast between the characters of Balaam and Abraham. Abraham in his preparedness to sacrifice his son is an example of extreme obedience.

This is a command that you would not want to hear. You would not want to follow through. You'd go back to God again and again.

Is this really what you want me to do? Constantly questioning perhaps if you are not a faithful person like Abraham and Balaam is an example of disobedience. But it seems strange to us. Doesn't God tell Balaam to go with them in verse 20? Balaam himself presents himself as a faithful prophet but Balak knows that he can be bought for the right price and with enough persistence.

Balaam doesn't like the Lord's initial answer in verse 12 so he inquires again rather than simply obeying. It becomes apparent that he is a mercenary prophet likely self-deluded about his faithfulness or even using that faithfulness as a cynical ploy to get more money for himself. God tells him to go because Balaam has already determined his course.

He will keep on rolling the dice as it were until he gets the result that he wants. Both Abraham and Balaam are arrested by the angel of the Lord on their path but Abraham is stopped in his demonstration of his obedience to the most difficult command imaginable whereas Balaam is stopped in his willful pursuit of material gain. What's with the donkey in the story? It's a rather comic story with the prophet carrying on a conversation with his donkey and this long episode with the donkey disobeying on these three occasions.

Why is this in the text and why on earth does the donkey speak? These are perhaps some of the most strange things that hit us immediately about this chapter. Robert Alter has some perceptive remarks upon this and first of all we need to notice there are three actions of resistance to Balaam as the rider. The donkey takes him into a field, the donkey squeezes his foot against a wall and then the donkey finally just lays down beneath him.

And there's a parallel between the first and the second half of the narrative that Alter observes. Balaam three times tries to get his donkey to cooperate without success before realising the presence of the angel of the Lord. Balak will three times try to get Balaam to curse Israel without success before again it becomes clear that the Lord is behind it all.

Balaam is the donkey relative to Balak, usually entirely cooperative but resisting on this occasion due to the Lord's intervention. And the speaking donkey also helps us to understand Balaam himself when near the end of this chapter he declares to Balak in verse 38, A question to consider. In 2nd Peter 2:12-22 we read, While they feast with you, they have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin.

They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed, accursed children, forsaking the right way they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing but was rebuked for his own transgression.

A speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. These are waterless springs, amiss driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.

For speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh, those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness, than after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them.

The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow after washing herself returns to wallow in the mire. In this long description of false prophets, Balaam is set up as a great example of the false prophet, the false teacher. How can we see Balaam as an example of the false teacher, and the ways of the false teacher, within Numbers chapter 22?

The story of Numbers 23 continues the farcical elements of the previous chapter and can best be understood when closely related to them. Balaam's donkey resisted him on three occasions in the previous chapter, as the way was blocked by the angel of the Lord. Balaam wished that he had a sword in his hand to kill his donkey, even while the angel of the Lord stood with a drawn sword in his hand ready to kill him.

Finally the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey and she spoke to Balaam as Balaam struck her. The donkey pointed out that she was typically compliant and asked why Balaam struck her three times. Now the humour and the irony of this story is intentional and the strangeness of the narrative is not accidental.

Why do we see a donkey speaking? Because we are supposed to see that Balaam is the donkey in chapter 23. The Lord opened the mouth of the dumb donkey. A few verses later Balaam himself says to Balaak, In chapter 23 Balaam the donkey has his mouth opened and he speaks.

However as Balaam's donkey frustrated his master, so Balaam frustrates his master Balaak, who like Balaam is oblivious to the nature of the Lord's involvement in the situation. The speaking of the donkey is exceedingly surprising. But the surprising speech of the donkey is connected to the speech of the unfaithful prophet, which should be no less surprising.

Many people read the story of Balaam's donkey and shrug and think maybe strange things just happened in Bible times. But this is to misread badly what's going on. The speaking donkey is not just a weird thing, it's a sign.

If the Lord can use a dumb, unclean beast to speak, he can also use a mercenary prophet like Balaam. Balaak drives Balaam, much as Balaam drove his donkey, until finally both were stopped by the angel of the Lord. Among other things going on in this chapter we are seeing a challenge to pagan ways of thinking about God.

Balaak approaches God as a being that he can manipulate. If Balaam just makes the right statement, accompanied by the right sacrifices, from the optimal vantage point, God will go along with his will. Like Balaam drove his donkey, oblivious to the angel of the Lord, so Balaak stubbornly drives Balaam against the will of the Lord that is stubbornly blocking his path, each time finding that Balaam goes astray from his purpose like an uncooperative beast.

Balaam is trapped between a stubborn and a blind owner and the will of God, much as his donkey was in the previous chapter. Balaak plays out the same plan three times, with worsening results. Again this is similar to what we see with the donkey.

The humour of the situation, as the same litany of events occurs three times over, drives the point home. No one can successfully resist God's will. No one can successfully manipulate God's will for their personal ends.

God is not man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind. Balaam himself had approached the Lord in a similar manner in the preceding chapter, believing that, if he went back to God enough times, he might get an answer more to his liking, when God's will had already been made amply clear to him the first time. Within this chapter Balaak approaches sacrifice as if it were a work of divination.

If he simply follows the ritual scrupulously enough, he can get his way. In such a theology, sacrifice is a sort of technology for controlling God. Sacrifice and ritual are conceived of as a sort of magic, rather than as a sort of enacted prayer to a personal God.

Balaam himself comes from such a culture of divination as we see at the beginning of chapter 24, where we're told that he generally looked for omens, a practice that's forbidden to Israel. Balaam delivers the first two of his prophetic oracles in this chapter, both of which have an ancient poetic form. The poetry can be seen in parallelisms.

So, from Aram, Balaak has brought me, the king of Moab from the eastern mountains. There's a parallelism there, and you can see the king of Moab corresponds with Balaak, from Aram with from the eastern mountains. And then again, come curse Jacob for me, and that parallels with come denounce Israel.

Balaam makes clear, speaking by the Spirit, that he cannot curse a people that God hasn't cursed. There are times when it might seem that the prophet is a sort of magician, able to bless and curse at will, able to bring the magical power of his words, to use those words to bring people low or lift them up. And this is precisely what Balaak wants from Balaam.

He wants a person who can manipulate reality with his words. However, true prophecy is the bearing of God's powerful word. The power is not the prophet's, but the power of God's Holy Spirit within him.

The false prophets were always telling people what they wanted to hear, and this is what Balaak wants. He wants a prophet who will tell him what he wants to hear, and use words to manipulate reality to his advantage. Balaam's prophecy is a remarkable one.

He speaks of the uniqueness of Israel. Israel is a people dwelling alone, not counting themselves among the nations. They've been set apart from the nations, the nations that were divided at Babel.

They are a people chosen by God and set apart, called out of the other nations to be a people special to the Lord. This, of course, reminds us of the calling of Abraham. And the uniqueness of Israel is important.

They are a specific, set-apart people, but they aren't simply one of the peoples. They are a people that dwells alone, a people that is other to all of the other nations. They are a people, but they are not one of the peoples.

They are a singular people, not a people that is simply one of many distinct individual peoples. The character of Israel's identity as a people that dwells alone is part of how they bear witness to a God who is unique, but not simply one of the gods, a God who dwells alone, high above all other rulers, powers, or thrones. They cannot be numbered for their multitude.

Again, this is a fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham. Genesis 13:16, I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. Let me die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his.

Balaam wants to be associated with the blessed nation of Israel, reminding us once again of Abraham's blessing in Genesis 12:1-3. Now the Lord said to Abraham, Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you, and I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Abraham will be made a blessing, and Balaam's statement here is a sort of invocation of the blessing of the people of God upon himself.

He wants their fate, he wants to be like them. After the utter failure of the first attempt to curse Israel, Balak tries again. Perhaps they weren't standing at a good enough vantage point and the ritual didn't work for that reason, it just didn't take.

All the rigmarole is repeated again, highlighting its comical nature. But again it fails. The prophetic poem that follows again reiterates the Lord's blessing upon his people, but underscores the theological point.

God neither lies nor changes his mind. His purpose is sure and his intent is to bless Israel. The Lord is the king in the midst of his people, dwelling in the tabernacle, in the centre of the camp.

He has brought them out of Egypt and he fights for them against their enemies. Enchantments and divination, Balaam's typical stock and trade, can't work against the will of the Lord. The Lord has bound himself to Israel by covenant and Balaam, the prophet for hire, the man of no loyalties, cannot go against this.

The nations will marvel at what the Lord will achieve through Israel, and this is something that we see coming to pass in Joshua chapter 2. Joshua 2:9-11, Rahab declares, I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. But we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted and there was no spirit left in any man because of you.

For the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. Balaam concludes the oracle with a comparison of Israel to a lioness or lion, which recalls the blessing of Judah by Jacob in Genesis 49:9. Judah is a lion's cup from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down, he crouched as a lion and a lioness.

Who dares rouse him? Balak at this point is annoyed with Balaam. Better to say nothing at all than to give such an extreme blessing. He wanted a curse and instead he gets this extravagant blessing.

Like Balaam, Balak cannot hear the word no from God. Balaam himself is a man whose no does not really mean no, it's merely the start of a negotiation. Balak and Balaam presume that the Lord is like them, that if you come to God enough and negotiate with him enough and maybe offer him enough that he will come around to your point of view.

But God is not a man who lies or like a man who would change his mind. A question to consider. In what ways can you hear the blessings of Abraham in the second oracle of Balaam along with the first? Why might the reminder of the blessings of Abraham be important at this juncture in the story?

The story of Balaam continues into chapter 24, as Balak's third attempt to get Balaam to curse Israel crashes and burns like the preceding ones. Balaam now seems to enjoy a vantage point that enables him to see all of the tribes. He's standing on Peor and the entire camp of Israel is now visible to him.

There seems to be some shift in Balaam's approach at this point. Whereas he had previously looked for omens and the Lord had placed words in his mouth, now the Spirit of God comes upon him and he goes into a different state. These words aren't placed into his mouth by the Lord so much as they seem to arise within him under the Spirit's inspiration.

His introductory lines to his two oracles here describe his visionary state. The oracle of Balaam, the son of Peor, the oracle of the man whose eye is opened, the oracle of him who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty falling down with his eyes uncovered. The oracles that follow are not merely about God's blessing of Israel as the preceding ones were, but they're about the future of the nation.

They look far beyond the current situation. Like the blessings of Jacob in Genesis chapter 49, they anticipate what will befall Israel and other nations in the future and in the latter days. Israel will defeat the Canaanites, they will settle and prosper in the land and become a great and victorious kingdom.

Israel's settlement, as Balaam looks out upon it, is beautiful. He's looking out upon Israel's camp and the way it is organised tribe by tribe around the tabernacle. Israel has a well-ordered camp described in the opening chapters of the book of Numbers, a camp with a symbolic order.

Israel will be planted in the land like great trees besides flowing water courses. The imagery is that of a lush garden setting, a new Eden. Water flowing from buckets and seed in many waters is an image of fertility, both of nature and of humanity.

And Balaam sees into the future, speaking of the rise of Israel as a kingdom and of the victory over Agag, king of the Amalekites, Israel's old enemies from Exodus chapter 17. God brought Israel out of Egypt and he will grant Israel victory over all of its enemies. Verse 9 declares, As he crouched, he lay down like a lion, and like a lioness, who will rouse him up? This recalls verse 24 of the previous chapter.

Behold the people, as a lioness it rises up, and as a lion it lifts itself. It does not lie down until it has devoured the prey and drunk the blood of the slain. As we have already noted, this recalls Genesis 49:9. Judah is a lion's cup.

From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, and as a lioness, who dares rouse him? This, first of all, is kingly language. As the lioness or lion lifting itself up, it's the lion on the hunt.

But in the third oracle, here, it is the lion that has settled itself after the hunt, and which no one dare disturb. This is Israel settled in the land, having won its victory and its spoils. Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.

This concluding statement is one that recalls once more the blessing given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. By this point, Balak is furious. He refuses to pay Balaam anything, and tells him that he must flee, presumably lest he face the king's wrath and retribution. Balaam once again points out that he is not free to declare whatever words he wishes.

He must declare the words that God gives to him, and on this occasion, he's not just had words dictated to him. These words have bubbled up from within by the inspiration of the spirit. He gives a further oracle concerning the latter days, looking further into the future.

The latter days might be a reference to the future more generally, or to events at the conclusion of the age in which they are currently in. Once again, it's introduced with the same words, talking about the state that Balaam is in, as the one whose eyes have been opened by the Lord. The prophecy of Balaam here especially seems to look forward to the reign of David, and the dominance of Israel over the nations in the region in his days.

David, about 400 years later, will fulfil these words. We might again be reminded of Genesis 49, and the blessing of Judah by Jacob in verse 10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

The language of stars and scepters is the language of kingship, and the defeat of Moab, Edom, and Amalek, and other peoples that are spoken of here, are things that, for the most part, happened in David's reign. In 2 Samuel chapter 8, verse 2, and 11 to 15, we read of some of these victories. And he defeated Moab, and he measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground, two lines he measured to be put to death, and one full line to be spared.

And the Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute. These also King David dedicated to the Lord, together with the silver and gold that he dedicated from all the nations he subdued, from Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, the Philistines, Amalek, and from the spoil of the son of Rehob, king of Zobar. And David made a name for himself when he returned from striking down 18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt.

Then he put garrisons in Edom. Throughout all Edom he put garrisons, and all the Edomites became David's servants. And the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went.

So David reigned over all Israel, and David administered justice and equity to all his people. We should remember that Balak is the king of Moab. He has summoned Balaam to curse Israel.

However, Balaam has just gone on to prophesy that Moab will be crushed at the hands of Israel in the future. This is definitely not what either Balaam or Balak wanted. This oracle is followed by three mini oracles, bringing the full number of the oracles to seven.

These oracles look beyond Moab and Edom to speak of other nations. The first declares that the tribe of Amalek, the great enemies of Exodus 17, will be decisively defeated. The second speaks of the Kenites, friends of the Israelites at this point.

Jethro was a Kenite, and Jael in Judges chapter 4, who crushed Sisera's head, is also a Kenite. However, they will face captivity to Asher, either Assyria or the Asherim, mentioned in Genesis 25:3, about which we know hardly anything else. In the concluding mini oracle, ships will come from Kittim, Cyprus, and afflict Asher and Eber.

Eber might be the Hebrews. This might refer to the invasion of the Sea Peoples in the 13th and 12th centuries BC. Read this way, these prophecies relate to the earlier years of the Kingdom of Israel and its foundational victories and the events within that region from that point on.

Yet later passages in scripture also allude to these prophecies. Jeremiah 48:45 recalls verse 17 of this chapter. In the shadow of Heshbon, fugitives stop without strength, for fire came out from Heshbon, flame from the house of Sihon.

It has destroyed the forehead of Moab, the crown of the sons of Tumalt. The forehead of Moab is also referred to in Balaam's oracle. Daniel 11:30 is another example.

For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged, and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. The oracles of Balaam seem to have an initial and most immediate reference to the rise of the Davidic dynasty.

They speak of the way that the throne of David and of Israel will be established over the other nations round about in the region. How God will establish his people through the kingdom of his servant David. But there seems to be something in these prophecies that look even further still.

Many in looking at the prophecy of the star coming out of Jacob have seen the larger story of the Davidic dynasty in Christ coming into view. This is a common feature of biblical prophecy where a prophecy can look towards an initial fulfilment and a primary fulfilment. But beyond that there can be an indication of a greater event that's down the line.

Something that is witnessed to in details of the prophecy or sometimes an event that's straining for a greater fulfilment. We will often find the New Testament writers reading the Old Testament in this sort of way recognising prophecies that are initially fulfilled in the Old Testament but which have a fuller realisation in the story of Christ. Having read this story of Balaam we might wonder what on earth it's doing here.

Why would we have this particular account of God blessing his people through this false prophet? As Jonathan Sachs observes it seems to perform a number of purposes here. First of all this is the blessing of someone who has every motive to curse them. It's a mercenary prophet who's being told by a king to go and curse the people and going to be offered a king's reward for doing so.

And he's someone who has no great honour or loyalty to the Lord. He's not a faithful prophet. He has every reason to curse them and yet he doesn't.

God uses his mouth to bless his people. This is an expression of God's power that no intent to harm them will succeed. It is also a very powerful way of expressing God's love for his people.

If you want to praise someone, as Jonathan Sachs observes, the greatest praise can be found in the lips of enemies. Enemies are those who most want to speak ill of us, who most want to malign us. And yet by using the lips of this enemy to praise Israel God has given a far more powerful demonstration of the way he relates to Israel than if these words had been born on Moses' mouth.

Finally as they're about to enter the land God reiterates in this most surprising way all the promises given to Abraham and these anticipations of the nation being established in this most glorious form with a kingly dynasty and dominance over all their enemies in the region. This is looking forward to the future and the full realization of God's purpose for his people. As they stand on the brink of entering to the promised land they are being prepared for God's blessing to them.

A question to consider, how does the Lord's relationship to Israel come into clearer focus through the story of Balaam?

In Numbers chapter 25 the men of Israel are sexually tempted by the pagan Moabite women. Pursuing these women they are invited to their idolatrous feasts and end up eating the sacrifices and bowing down to their gods. Through their pursuit of these Moabite women they end up serving their gods and not just casually participating in sacrifices but being yoked to Baal of Peor.

All of this is reminiscent of Exodus chapter 32 and the incident with the golden calf. In Exodus 32:6 and they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings and the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Many people have observed that the language of play has sexual connotations.

In the event with the golden calf then they end up in sexual promiscuity on account of their idolatry and at the end of the story of the golden calf in Exodus 34:12-16 there's a warning given. Immanuel Shalev observes that on this first occasion idolatry led to promiscuity and on the second occasion in the story of Baal of Peor promiscuity leads to idolatry. Both promiscuity or adultery and idolatry are perversions of appropriate intimacy.

Intimacy with a righteous spouse and intimacy in worship with the one true god. Most severe punishments in the law tend to be reserved for perversions of the covenant and perversions of sexual union. These are the unions at the heart of society and when these are perverted everything is affected.

The sexual promiscuity and the idolatry in this story are expressions of the same fundamental thing which is why the plague upon Israel for their idolatry can be stopped by Phineas' piercing a man and a woman in sexual congress through with a spear. As in the sin with the golden calf this is a national scale apostasy. Consequently the Lord calls for the most severe penalty.

To turn away the Lord's wrath against the people the Lord declares that all the chiefs of the people would have to be killed, impaled and their bodies left to rot in the sun. This is the judgment of the very greatest severity. It reminds us of the law's intent to destroy Israel entirely after their sin with the golden calf.

And the language of plague striking the people I think captures something of the nature of sin as it affects a people. It's not just individuals who sin but it's all the people associated with them who are complicit or who fail to deal with their sin decisively. Moses speaks to the judges of Israel but he seems to tone down the Lord's instruction saying that they must kill all of those men who yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.

Is he changing the Lord's command here or is he misrepresenting it? No I don't think he is. Rather he's working within the fundamental logic of it. If a judge puts to death such offenders he is freed from the contagion of their sin.

But if he doesn't he will not be and he will be subject to the judgment the Lord declares. We see the same sort of logic in Leviticus 20:2-5. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech and do not put him to death then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among the people. Him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.

Then however there is the most flagrant act of high-handed rebellion. In front of Moses and the entire people a Simeonite chief comes with a Midianite woman to have sexual relations with her. The Midianites appear to be a mobile group and to be associated with the Moabites in this and the previous chapter.

At this point Phineas, Aaron's grandson grabs a spear and runs it through the couple. This stops the plague that had broken out. In Numbers 18 the Levites and the priests are presented as the guardians of Israel.

They're the lightning rods for judgment. They were those who approached the holiness of the Lord for the people. God is a consuming fire and those who come into his presence need to be prepared.

And Israel felt that they would be destroyed if they came near to the Lord but the Levites and the priests both guarded them and approached the Lord for them. The Levites and the priests were also those who would intervene to cover the iniquity of the people if a crisis occurred. We saw Aaron himself doing this in 16:43-50 in a parallel event to this of Phineas.

And Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting and the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Get away from the midst of this congregation that I may consume them in a moment. And they fell on their faces. And Moses said to Aaron, Take your censer and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them.

For wrath has gone out from the Lord, the plague has begun. So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly and behold the plague had already begun among the people and he put on the incense and made atonement for the people and he stood between the dead and the living and the plague was stopped. Now those who died in the plague were 14,700 besides those who died in the affair of Korah and Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting when the plague was stopped.

Note also how similar this is to the events of Exodus chapter 32 where the Levites killed 3,000 men after the golden calf and are set apart for a blessing afterwards. The story of chapter 16 of Numbers is immediately followed by Aaron being set apart and the setting apart of the Levites and the priests more generally. And then in chapter 32 of Exodus it's the Levites being set apart and in this chapter it's Phinehas being set apart.

All of these people marked out by their zeal for the Lord. After Phinehas' action the Lord declares to Moses that he is going to give a covenant of peace to Phinehas, a perpetual priesthood. This was because Phinehas was jealous with the Lord's own jealousy for his people.

The Lord repeatedly describes himself as a jealous God demanding the undivided loyalty and faithfulness of his people to the point of even being called jealous. It seems strange that he is rewarded with a covenant of peace for such a violent act. However, Phinehas is performing the priestly duty here as the guardian of Israel.

He's protecting Israel from the wrath of the Lord. Israel is in extreme jeopardy of having all their leaders wiped out. But one priest's zealous action decisively rejects the spiritual adultery of Israel in a way that maintains its holiness.

Just as the anger of Moses and the zeal of the Levites after the golden calf saved Israel from being wiped out so Phinehas delivers them here. Phinehas made atonement or covering for the people. By his act of zeal the sins stood utterly and decisively condemned and the holiness of the people could be maintained.

The priest represents the people to God and God to the people. Like Moses, Phinehas faithfully represented the Lord's wrath to the people so that the Lord didn't have to exercise his wrath in a far more devastating and final form himself. Phinehas also represented the people to the Lord and his faithfulness was a reason for blessing.

On account of his action the high priesthood would be given to Phinehas's line in time and would remain in his line. This event is later recalled in Psalm 106 verses 28 to 31. Then they yoked themselves to Baal of Peor and eight sacrifices offered to the dead.

They provoked the Lord to anger with their deeds and a plague broke out among them. Then Phinehas stood up and intervened and the plague was stayed and that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever. The expression counted to him as righteousness is much the same as we see used of Abraham in Genesis 15:6. It seems to be referring to something more than personal justification.

Rather the counting of righteousness seems to be the same sort of thing as the giving of a perpetual covenant of peace to Phinehas and his descendants. Those things are paralleled in the original statement to Numbers 25 and then in the statement as it's represented in Psalm 106. The point I would suggest is that Phinehas on account of his zeal is exalted as a faithful covenant partner.

His righteousness having ramifications for his descendants after him. In the same way Abraham's righteousness is not just about his own personal status relative to God but on account of his faith his descendants are blessed with him. It should probably be noted at this point that we have now had key rebellions in the book of Numbers in which Reuben, Dathan and Abiram, Simeon, Zimri and Levi, Korah were all involved.

These are the three sons that were judged in Genesis chapter 49. It might also be worth reflecting upon the way in which this event and the aftermath might hearken back to the events of Genesis chapter 34 where again we see Levi and Simeon involved. Here Levi judges Simeon for his unfaithfulness and Levi is blessed.

At the end of this event Moses instructs the Israelites to judge the Midianites for their part in the affair. Numbers 25 comes after the story of Balaam and Balak and it seems to be a different story. Yet we later discover that the actions of the women here were instigated by Balaam.

In Numbers 31:16 we read Behold these on Balaam's advice caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor and so the plague came upon the congregation of the Lord. This suggests that since Balaam couldn't curse Israel directly he cunningly contrived to get Israel to bring a curse upon itself. In much the same way in our struggles with sin we can be so concerned about the work of Satan external to ourselves that we fail to appreciate the way in which the fifth column within our own flesh and its susceptibility to temptation and sin is that which really gives him his greatest power.

A question to consider in 2nd Corinthians 11:2-3 the apostle Paul declares The notion of a divine jealousy reminds us strongly of the Lord's statement that Phineas was jealous with his jealousy among Israel. What can Phineas teach us about faithful Christian leadership? How might this challenge some of our preconceptions in this area?

Numbers chapter 26 records the second census of the book, here taken before they were to enter into the promised land. This census was for the purpose of military preparation and also for the purpose of the equitable division of the land among the tribes. It occurs after the plague of chapter 25, in which 24,000 people were killed.

The number of Israel then is greatly reduced from what it would have been. In chapter 25, Phinehas had killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman. The Israelite man was Zimri, one of the sons of the chiefs of the father's houses of Simeon.

In the census of Numbers chapter 1, the number of Simeon was 59,300. In Numbers chapter 26, however, their numbers are greatly depleted. They are down to 22,200.

It seems reasonable to speculate that the 24,000 killed in the plague were mostly of the tribe of Simeon. Over the period of time between the two censuses, the tribe of Manasseh had greatly increased in number, by over 20,000. Asher, Issachar and Benjamin had also greatly increased, while Naphtali and Ephraim had seen a significant drop in their numbers.

The sum total of Israel's number is much the same as it was in Numbers chapter 1. There it was 603,550. Now it is 601,730. The difference between the two numbers is 1,820, perhaps significant because the number 182 is half the number of days in a year.

The tribes are numbered in the same order as they were back in chapter 1. Here as there, the numbering starts with the tribe of Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob. However, while senior in age, Reuben does not enjoy the preeminence among the brothers. Judah is the leading brother and tribe.

The tribes are also numbered in the clusters that they appear in their camps around the tabernacle, though here it starts with the southern camp of Reuben, Simeon and Gad, then moves to the eastern of Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, then to the west Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin, and then finally to the north Dan, Asher and Naphtali. Of the four different sections of Israel's camp, the camp to the east, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, was by far the most numerous, with 201,300 persons within it. Dan, Asher and Naphtali to the north was the second largest with 163,200, then Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin to the west with 130,800.

Finally, the least numerous part of the camp was Reuben, Simeon and Gad to the south with 106,430 men. Both the tribes of Reuben and Simeon had lost significant numbers of persons through judgments of the Lord upon them. In numbering the tribes here, the tribes are broken down into various clans.

These subdivisions would be more important for the division of the land that would later occur, enlisting the sons of Jacob, their sons, and the tribes that arose from them with their various clans within them. The text also recalls earlier parts of the story, particularly related to unfaithful acts of the people that led to judgment. The people being numbered here are the survivors and descendants of persons who have been judged on account of their unfaithfulness, and they need to learn relevant lessons from their forefathers' bad examples.

Dathan and Abiram, for instance, descended from Reuben, were leaders of the rebellion of Korah, perishing along with their company with the Lord's fire of judgment devouring 250 men. Judah had lost two sons, Ur and Onan, on account of their unfaithfulness in the land of Canaan. A fact recalled in verse 19.

The two sons of Aaron who were killed by the Lord for offering strange fire in Leviticus chapter 10, Nadab and Abihu, are mentioned in verse 61. Finally, in verses 64 and 65 of the chapter, we are told that not one of those numbered in the census had been among the people of Israel listed in the wilderness of Sinai. Like Dathan and Abiram and their company, Ur and Onan, and Nadab and Abihu, they had all died on account of their sin, save for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

Besides preparing for war, the numbering of the tribes is for the purpose of the division of the inheritance of the land. Larger tribes like Judah would be given a large inheritance, but smaller tribes like Simeon would be given a smaller one. The land itself would be divided by lot.

This does not make the manner in which the land was apportioned immediately obvious. How was it actually divided, according to lot, or according to the size of the tribe? The text says it was both, but we might struggle to understand how both could be the case. This division of the land is also described in places like Numbers 33:54.

You shall inherit the land by lot according to your clans. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance. Wherever the lot falls for anyone, that shall be his.

According to the tribes of your fathers, you shall inherit. The answer to the problem, it seems to me, is that the location of the tribe's land was determined by lot, and the size of the tribe's land was determined according to their relative population. This division of the land among the tribes can be seen later on in the book of Joshua.

The tribes in the main census are numbered according to their males from 20 years and upward. In the case of the Levites, they're numbered according to their males from a month old and upward. The number of the Levites increased by 1,000 over the period of the Exodus.

They do not receive land with the rest of the tribes, but cities will be apportioned for them, cities about which we read in chapter 35. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam are here all presented as the sons and daughter of Amram and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. It seems quite unlikely that Jochebed was the direct daughter of Levi, rather she was a descendant of Levi, perhaps of uncertain tribal genealogy.

A question to consider, what effect might the reminder of all of the unfaithful people who had died to that point have had upon Israel as they prepared to enter the promised land?

At the beginning of Numbers chapter 27, we find a situation where there is inclarity in the law that needs to be clarified by case law. We had a similar sort of situation back in chapter 9 where people were impure and so could not celebrate the Passover. On that occasion the Lord made provision for an alternative Passover celebration a month later.

Both of these situations are ones in which people are concerned about being left out of the blessings of the people, the celebration of the Passover and the enjoyment of property within the land. In both cases they come to Moses and the high priest, Aaron in the first case and Eliezer in the second, and ask for some sort of ruling in their case. On both occasions Moses turns to the Lord for judgment in the matter.

The Lord's ruling in the matter then sets a precedent for later practice. The teaching given in the books of the law is not a comprehensive legal system. It gives people the means by which they would be able to arrive at larger principles, shaping the principles by which they could exercise good jurisprudence, but leaving many elements yet to be determined and details left to be settled.

The case here was raised by the daughters of Zelophehad, mentioned in passing in the preceding chapter. Their concern was that since their father had died without male heirs, they would lose any stake within the land that they were going to inherit. This of course was a live issue at the time of the second census, as the being used in order to divide the land by lot and to apportion possessions within it by the size of the tribes.

Like the men who are concerned about being left out of the celebration of the Passover in chapter 9, the daughters of Zelophehad are concerned that their father's name will be blotted out and that their family will enjoy no portion. We might see further similarities with another one of the rare cases in which the people consulted the Lord for judgment in a difficult matter, in the case of the man who cursed the Lord in Leviticus chapter 24. His blasphemy, his cursing of the Lord, was probably occasioned by his not enjoying a possession among the people, not being considered among his mother's tribe of Dan, on account of the fact that his father was an Egyptian.

As possessions were determined by the male line, he had no portion. His response, provoked by a fight with an Israelite, was to curse the Lord. By contrast, the daughters of in a situation where it seems that the law is on the surface of it against them, do not curse the Lord, but appeal to Moses and then finally to the Lord for judgment in their case.

This act of appeal, perhaps involving a degree of chutzpah, is a manifestation of trust and confidence in the Lord's justice. As Rabbi David Foreman points out, they don't just complain that the situation is unfair, they make a case for themselves. First of all, they point out that their father, along with all the other males of his generation, died out in the wilderness on account of his sin.

He was not among those in the company of Korah who would have forfeited their property and their stake in the land. The principle that they appeal to is seen in the case of Leveret marriage, for instance. The Lord's concern that the names of people not be blotted out.

In the case of Leveret marriage, the widow of the deceased could marry his brother in order to raise up an heir after her husband's death. Looking at their father's situation, they can see that this principle should come into effect, but there's no mechanism by which it can do so. Like the faithful person performing Leveret marriage, they do not want to see their father's name be blotted out, but the Lord does not currently provide for their situation or give them means by which they can act.

Their appeal to the Lord, then, is driven by a positive impulse, by a desire to have a share within the Lord's blessings and a confidence in his justice. It should not surprise us, then, that it meets with the Lord's approval. The case of Zelophehad's daughters leads to a new set of principles for inheritance.

If a man dies without sons, his possession goes to his daughters. If he has no daughters, it goes to his brothers. Without brothers, it goes to his father's brothers.

If there are no uncles, then it goes to the nearest kinsmen of his clan. It's important to consider that the possession of such a man would go to his daughters, chiefly in order that his name might be perpetuated by their sons. Israel's possession in the land was very much a patrimony, not something in which males and females shared in the same way.

This was because the inheritance was going to be passed on through the father's side to ensure that the property of the land remained in the possession of the clan and the larger tribe. If the inheritance had been given to sons and daughters in the same way, it would easily have been lost to the original clans and tribes, and the old solidarities would have been dissolved as the possessions got divided out and separated. As Jacob Milgram observes, Israelite inheritance practices differed from those of other ancient Near Eastern societies.

In several of these other societies, daughters enjoyed more extensive inheritance rights than they did in Israel, while the allowance made for the daughters of fathers dying without sons is also found in societies long pre-existing Israel than the ancient Near East. In some of those other societies, daughters had similar inheritance rights more generally to those of sons. What should we make of this? We should begin by observing that the particular concern here is that the land not becomes separated and divided out and lost to its initial clans and tribes.

Daughters may not have enjoyed the same inheritance rights from the land, but they would have been expected to be maintained by their father's estate while they were unmarried. When they married, they could receive a substantial dowry, a large amount of property and money from their family of origin. They could also often expect a substantial bride price from their husband, which might have been given to their father's family and held in trust for them, so that if they ever needed the money they would have it at their disposal.

Hence, even if they did not receive the same inheritance as sons of the land, they could nonetheless expect to receive a substantial amount of their father's estate and wealth, along with a sum of their husband's wealth that would be held in trust for them as their independent possession. Such marriage and inheritance customs had a lot to do with the fact that Israel was an agricultural society that was ordered according to clans and tribes. Strict inheritance customs according to the male side ensured that the land would not get divided out and lost to its original clans and tribes.

It is quite possible inheritance customs and practices differed for those parts of a father's estate that were not land. The concerns that would apply in the case of land would not apply in the same way in the case of money. It should not surprise us then that more urbanized societies in the region followed different customs and practices.

The daughters of Zelophehad provide a good example of how case law developed and also of accommodations that could be made for exceptional cases. At the waters of Meribah, Moses had rebelled against the word of the Lord and as a result he was not able to enter into the promised land. We read in Numbers 20:6-13.

Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces and the glory of the Lord appeared to them and the Lord spoke to Moses saying take the staff and assemble the congregation you and Aaron your brother and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water so you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle and Moses took the staff from before the Lord as he commanded him. Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock and he said to them hear now you rebels shall we bring water for you out of this rock and Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice and water came out abundantly and the congregation drank and their livestock and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron because you did not believe in me to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them. These are the waters of Meribah where the people of Israel quarreled with the Lord and through them he showed himself holy.

At Meribah the Lord showed himself holy but the accusation made against Moses here is that he failed to uphold the Lord as holy. Moses had disobeyed the word of the Lord expressed his doubt in the Lord and his word before all of the people hitting the rock twice when he had been instructed to speak to it not to hit it. Prior to that point Moses had stood out from the rest of the people in his faithfulness.

On account of his faithfulness he had been able to intercede for the people and intermediate for them when they had sinned. However in his rebellion at Meribah he became associated with the rest of the people in that behavior that excluded them from entrance into the land. As the one who was supposed to be their leader and model this was inexcusable.

Nonetheless the Lord would allow Moses to see the land that he was bringing the people to. He would see the goodness of the land to which the Lord was bringing the people even though he himself would not enter into it. There was a need now for a new leader to take Moses's place at the head of the people.

This new leader would have a lower stature than that of Moses. The Lord would not be establishing a new covenant through him but he would be leading the people into the promised land and completing the mission that Moses had started. Of all the people around Joshua the son of Nun was the most fitting for the task.

Joshua had led the people in fighting against Amalek in Exodus chapter 17. He had accompanied Moses up onto Mount Sinai when he had met with the Lord as his assistant. He was one of the 12 spies in Numbers chapter 13 and one of the only two with Caleb who had been faithful.

With Caleb he alone remained of the original Exodus generation. He had also been renamed by Moses. Originally he'd been called Hosea and then he was called Joshua by Moses as we see in Numbers 13:16.

This suggests that he was like a son to Moses. Israel needs a new shepherd and Joshua is the man. Back in chapter 11 the Lord had taken some of the spirit of Moses and placed it upon the 70 elders.

Here a similar thing happens to Joshua in particular. The ordaining of Joshua as Moses's successor occurring by the laying on of his hands. This commission occurs before Eliezer the priest in front of all of the people.

The Lord himself reinforces Joshua's commission at the beginning of Joshua chapter 1 in verses 1 to 9 of that chapter. After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses's assistant, Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel.

Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you just as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the great sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life.

Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous for you shall cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their fathers to give them.

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left that you may have good success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth but you shall meditate on it day and night so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.

For then you will make your way prosperous and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous, do not be frightened and do not be dismayed for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go. While Moses inquired more directly of the Lord, Joshua will inquire using the Urim and Thamim through Eliezer the priest.

The Urim and the Thamim more generally seem to give yes or no answers or binary answers, yet there seem to be instances where they give more elaborate judgments. We are left only with speculations about what they actually were. Some have suggested that they were objects that enabled a binary choice, two stones, one black and white for instance.

Others have speculated that they involved all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet and that Urim and Thamim speak of the first and the last letters, including by implication all the others in between. Urim is connected with the word light and Thamim with the word for perfect. Milgram notes the possibility that Urim stands for God's first creative act, the forming of light, and Thamim for the completion of it all on the Sabbath, the perfection.

With Eliezer as the successor of Aaron and Joshua as the successor of Moses, the people would finally be brought into the promised land. A question to consider, what are some of the ways in which we can see the unity of the mission of Moses and the mission of Joshua?

Israel's worship involved a variety of kinds of sacrifice and in Numbers chapter 28 and 29, Israel is given instructions concerning appropriate sacrifices for various parts of the year. The most basic sacrifices in Israel's life were the daily sacrifices in the morning and in the evening. There were extra sacrifices added to these every Sabbath.

On the first day of every month there were further sacrifices still. The first day of the seventh month, the principal festal month, on the Feast of Trumpets, had further additional sacrifices appointed. The sacrifices, as Gordon Wenham observes, were cumulative.

Every single day would have the regular daily sacrifices. The Sabbath would involve extra sacrifices on top of the daily sacrifices and then yet further sacrifices would be added for the festal days. Besides these daily, weekly and monthly rhythms of sacrifice, there were sacrifices related to the celebrations of the festal calendar.

Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Booths. The daily, weekly and monthly rhythms of sacrifice were foundational for the public worship of the tabernacle. To use liturgical terminology, this was Israel's ordinary liturgy, the set pattern that underlay everything else, the things that didn't change.

The public festal sacrifices elaborated this underlying rhythm of worship. To use liturgical language again that might be familiar to some, these were the propers, those elements that were particular to one feast or other. Upon this basis of continual, regular public sacrifice with its ordinary and proper elements, all the voluntary, private and occasional sacrifices of Israel's worship would be offered.

We should observe, for instance, the absence of peace offerings in the list of the sacrifices in Numbers chapters 28 to 9. Such offerings, even when collectively celebrated by the people on set occasions, do not appear to be considered public sacrifices of the same kind. Numbers chapters 28 and 29 are concerned with the public priestly sacrifices and not with the lay offerings, even the lay offerings of the nation as a whole. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch we find teaching concerning the various feasts of Israel's calendar in places like Exodus 23:14-19, Leviticus chapter 23 and Deuteronomy chapter 16.

The differences between the instructions in these places should be noted. Comparing and contrasting them will give us a fuller sense of what Israel's feasts meant and how they were practiced. Exodus 23:14-19 reads, for instance, three times in a year you shall keep a feast to me.

You shall keep the feast of unleavened bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abed. For in it you came out of Egypt.

None shall appear before me empty-handed. You shall keep the feast of harvest, of the first fruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the feast of ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor.

Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened, or let the fat of my feast remain until the morning. The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God.

The instructions here are sparse and focus on the feasts as gatherings of all the males of the people to the Lord, each bringing their own first fruits or voluntary offerings as the Lord has prospered them and performing common acts of worship. The instructions in Leviticus chapter 23 are far more extensive. In that passage there is still the emphasis upon common lay acts of worship, but with more of a fusion of these common acts of lay worship and public acts of worship performed by the priests in the central sanctuary on behalf of the entire nation.

As an example we might consider the laws of the feast of weeks, elsewhere referred to as the feast of harvest or Pentecost. In Leviticus 23:15-22 we read, you shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf, the wave offering. You shall count 50 days to the day after the seventh Sabbath.

Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord. You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour and they shall be baked with leaven as first fruits to the Lord.

And you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish and one bull from the herd and two rams. They shall be a burnt offering to the Lord with their grain offering and their drink offerings, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings.

And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits as a wave offering before the Lord with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest and you shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall hold a holy convocation.

You shall not do any ordinary work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.

You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner. I am the Lord your God." Much of this passage is addressed to the whole congregation of Israel, requiring each household to perform the same common lay acts of worship. However, amidst these instructions, there are also public sacrifices performed by the priests in the central sanctuary.

Wave offerings, ascension offerings, a purification offering, and peace offerings. In Deuteronomy 16:9-12, the focus is on each household performing a common act of lay celebration on the Feast of Weeks. You shall count seven weeks.

Begin to count the seven weeks from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain. Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the Lord your God blesses you, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your towns, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are among you, at the place that the Lord your God will choose to make his name dwell there. You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Deuteronomy says nothing about what occurs at the central sanctuary here besides the fact that the people are to gather to the place where the Lord chooses to make his name dwell. The focus is entirely upon the lay worship of each household. The people are expected to bring freewill offerings, but the ascension, purification, and peace offerings that are central to the celebration in Leviticus are not mentioned at all.

The focus of Numbers chapters 28 to 29 stands at the other extreme to that of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy chapter 16 emphasizes the lay worship of each household and their peace and freewill offerings. Leviticus chapter 23 brings together first fruit offerings, centralized peace offerings, and more general lay observance of the feast with the public sacrifices of the sanctuary.

In the treatment of the Feast of Weeks in Numbers chapter 28, however, the focus is firmly fixed upon the public sacrifices performed by the priests on behalf of the entire nation at the central sanctuary. We can see a similar thing in the case of the Passover, for instance. When that is mentioned, no mention is made of the Passover lamb, which would have been absolutely central to the lay celebration of the festival.

Comparing the instructions concerning the Feast of Weeks with those of Leviticus chapter 23, we might note the wave offering of the first fruits, while mentioned as the context, is not treated and no reference is made to the peace offerings that we find in Leviticus. Closer examination also reveals variation in the specifics of the other sacrifices. While the ascension offerings of Leviticus are seven lambs, one bull, and two rams, the ascension offerings of Numbers are seven lambs, two bulls, and one ram.

The numbers of bulls and rams have been switched. While some might see this difference as proof of inconsistency in the sacrificial laws, we might also consider the possibility that such changes are intentional ways in which the developments in Israel's situation and stature, especially as it moves from the wilderness into the promised land, are registered in the sacrificial system. The sacrifices in Numbers chapters 28 and 29 are listed in order of their frequency, and then in order of their occurrence within the festal calendar.

The daily sacrifices come first, then the Sabbath sacrifices, then those for the first of the month, then those for the various feasts, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and then for the Feast of Tabernacles. The lamb was the most common sacrifice. One would be offered every single morning and every single evening, with an extra two being offered on the Sabbath.

The feast days usually involved the sacrifice of seven lambs, with 14 lambs being offered on each of the days of the Feast of Tabernacles. Scholars speculate about the reason for the placing of these chapters at this point in the Book of Numbers. Daniel Olson suggests that we see these in some way as parallel to the chapters with which the Book of Numbers begin, which create a spatial order within the camp of Israel.

These chapters are concerned with creating a temporal order, as Israel's year would be structured according to the regular patterns of offerings. He writes, behind the sacrifices and appointed times of Numbers chapters 28 and 29 stands the story of God's creation of the world in Genesis chapter 1. The story of creation in Genesis is a story of God's dividing and ordering the cosmos into day and night, into a week of six days of profane work, and a seventh day of holy Sabbath rest, and into an ongoing cycle of months and seasons within a year marked by the sun and the moon. The pattern of the day established at the beginning of the story of the creation is upheld by the daily sacrifices in the morning and the evening.

The pattern of the week is upheld by the Sabbath sacrifices that set it apart as a day from the other days of the week. The months ordered according to the movements of the moon are marked out by the extra sacrifices for the first of each month. The various festivals of Israel's life would also be related to its agricultural calendar, corresponding to the natural seasonality of its life within the land.

Olson writes, in the context of the Book of Numbers, the list in Numbers chapters 28 and 29 of sacrifices and offerings as the means of maintaining order in time is analogous to the structure of the Israelite camp in Numbers chapters 2 to 4 that sought to maintain order in space. The camp and its spatial structure, which was centered on God's presence in its midst, enabled Israel to move from Egypt through the chaos of the wilderness. The new generation, poised on the doorstep of Canaan, is about to leave the wilderness.

It is about to enter a land of fertility and agricultural seasons in the settled existence of rhythms and order. The structured order of time and appointed offerings will regularly remind the Israelites of their status as God's holy people and will help sustain the order of the community's social and religious life against the forces of chaos that will continue to threaten it. A question to consider, how can the calendrical structure of Israel's public worship help to inform Christian worship?

Numbers chapter 29 continues the discussion of the sacrifices appropriate to particular days in Israel's calendar which began in the preceding chapter. Chapter 28 laid out the morning and the evening sacrifices that were the backbone of Israel's worship, on top of these the sacrifices of the Sabbath and then in addition to those the sacrifices of the first of each month. These patterns of worship, the days, the weeks, the months, would then be elaborated by the particular to specific feasts of Israel's calendar.

In contrast to Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the focus in Numbers is not upon the lay celebration of these feasts but upon the public central and priestly liturgies appropriate to them. As we saw in the preceding chapter, no mention is made of many of the sacrifices that would be proper to these feasts that would have been celebrated by lay persons. The Passover lamb is not mentioned, nor are the peace offerings, first fruits offerings or wave offerings that would be appropriate on the feast of Pentecost.

In these chapters then we see more of a public central liturgy that would have integrated all of Israel's life. Their worship was not just the gathered worship of lots of different households, but a central priestly worship performed in the tabernacle and later temple. In such a manner a collective identity of Israel as a worshiping body is emerging.

Israel is not just a gathering of different households as a collective, it is the unified corporate body of a nation. Daniel Olson observes, The year is divided into twelve months. The year is also divided into two major halves, just as the day is divided into two halves of day and night, and the week into six days of work and one day of Sabbath rest.

So the year has a bipartite structure. Significant festivals in the first month mark the first half of the year, and another set of significant festivals occur in the seventh month to mark the second half of the year. The seventh month can also be thought of as the sabbatical month.

There is a sort of symmetry between the two halves of the year. The first month has a great feast of seven days in the feast of unleavened bread from the fifteenth to the twenty-first days. The seventh month has another feast of the same kind, a seven day feast from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day of the month, the feast of booths.

The feast of unleavened bread commemorates the cutting off of the leaven of Egypt in the Exodus. The festival of booths commemorates, among other things, Israel's dwelling in tents as they left the land of Egypt. The feast of booths, or tabernacles, or sukkoth was connected with their first departure from Egypt and when they dwelt in tents for the first time with the Lord's dwelling in their midst in the pillar of cloud and fire.

We should observe the fact that these commemorate the very same day. This can be seen in Exodus 12:30-39. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians.

There was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead. Then he summoned Moses and Aaron by night and said, Up, go out from among my people, both you and the people of Israel, and go serve the Lord, as you have said. Take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone, and bless me also.

The Egyptians were urgent with the people to send them out of the land in haste, for they said, We shall all be dead. So the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls being bound up in their cloaks on their shoulders. The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing.

And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians. And the people of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.

A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestocked both flocks and herds. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had brought out of Egypt. For it was not leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves.

The fact that the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Tabernacles commemorate different aspects of the same event further accents the symmetry in Israel's festal calendar. There is also a single day of celebration preceding the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and a single day of celebration in a holy convocation after the Feast of Tabernacles. Israel's festal calendar then could be thought of as being bookended by these two celebrations of one day, both occurring on different sides of seven-day feasts.

The list of sacrifices in these two chapters has the effect of aligning the climactic character of the Feast of Tabernacles. On the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, seventy bulls, fourteen rams, and ninety-eight lambs were offered, in addition to the regular sacrifices. This quantity of animals vastly exceeded those offered at any other time of the year.

Setting the Feast of Tabernacles apart is the greatest of the public celebrations of Israel's calendar. If the Feast of Passover would have foregrounded the individual households of the nation, the Feast of Tabernacles accented their existence as a corporate entity. In the Feast of Tabernacles, Israel is seen in its full stature as a nation.

Unsurprisingly, the Feast of Tabernacles was associated with some of the greatest national events, with the dedication of the Temple by Solomon, and also with covenant renewal in Nehemiah chapters 8-10. Typical feast days involved the sacrifice of one ram as a burnt offering and seven lambs as burnt offerings. On each day of the Feast of Tabernacles, two rams and fourteen lambs were offered, twice the number.

If the weekly Sabbath doubled the number of sacrifices of the regular day, the Feast of Tabernacles is like the Sabbath of the festivals. In addition to the rams and the lambs of the burnt offering, the Feast of Tabernacles involves a great quantity of bulls, counting down from thirteen bulls offered on the first day to seven on the James Jordan suggests that the offering of 70 bulls over the course of the feast might correspond with the 70 nations of Genesis chapter 10. Over the course of the year, a vast quantity of animals will be sacrificed and other things offered to the Lord.

Gordon Wenham writes, every year in future the priests will have to sacrifice 113 bulls, 32 rams, and 1,086 lambs, offer more than a ton of flour and a thousand bottles of oil and wine. The altar, the table of the Lord, would be richly furnished and this would be an expression of the prosperity and fertility of the land more generally. A question to consider, how can we see the number seven and a sabbatical principle woven into Israel's more general sacrificial calendar?

Many readers of the Book of Numbers over the years have regarded it as a sort of dusty shed of the Pentateuch. Within it we find a miscellaneous assortment of laws and narratives that really do not fit in elsewhere, nor constitute a coherent whole among themselves. One moment we're reading about the ordering of Israel's camp, the next we're reading a ritual for a jealous husband.

Many have felt just such a jarring sense of the disorder and incoherence of the book in reading chapter 30. Chapters 28 and 29 concern the sacrifices of Israel's festal calendar, but in chapter 30, as if with a screeching of tyres, we veer into the area of women's vows. What significance might laws concerning vows, and especially women's vows, have at this juncture in the Book of Numbers? We're gearing up for entrance into the Promised Land.

Surely such arcane laws belong elsewhere? There are far more important issues to deal with at this time. Why this chapter and its contents are found at this particular point in the book is a question that must be at the forefront of our minds as we reflect upon this chapter. As we're moving through a book like this, it's important that we don't miss the forest for the trees.

If we were to narrowly focus upon the particularities of this text, we could easily be oblivious to its strangeness in its current context. A good interpretation of this passage, in addition to explaining its internal details, will give some account of its purpose and its context. Hopefully, by the conclusion of our reflections here, we'll have a clearer sense of what might be going on.

While we will return to the question later on, at the outset we might take an initial stab at addressing it. The list of required sacrifices of the public cult of the tabernacle, in Numbers chapters 28 and 29, are followed in this chapter by laws concerning vows freely taken by individuals. This is like the contrast that we see between the beginning of the Book of Leviticus and its conclusion.

Leviticus began with central sacrifices in the tabernacle in its first chapter, and concluded with laws concerning vows in its final chapter, in chapter 27. Together, these connect the extremities of Israel's religious life. Its public, mandatory and centralised sacrificial worship on the one hand, and its private, voluntary and decentralised free acts of devotion on the other.

Perhaps something similar is going on in Numbers chapter 30. The focus upon women's vows might also be considered in light of this. The public cult of the tabernacle was an overwhelmingly male place.

The priests were exclusively male, and it was the males of the people in particular who were expected to appear before the Lord on the great festal occasions. However, Numbers chapter 30 is principally about women's vows. We have moved from the extreme of the most public and most male dimensions of Israel's religious life to the most private and female dimensions.

As in Leviticus chapters 1 and 27, these two extreme poles might bookend the entire broader practice of Israel's worship that falls between them. Vows were an exceedingly solemn matter. While voluntary, a vow was something to which someone would be strictly held.

Deuteronomy chapter 23, verses 21 to 23 declares, If you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it. For the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin.

You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth. Ecclesiastes gives a great warning to those who might rashly vow in chapter 5, verses 4 to 6. When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow.

It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake. Why shall God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands? At several points in the Psalms, the psalmist speaks of making vows to the Lord in a day of trouble, and then subsequently paying his vows to the Lord upon his deliverance from his distress.

In Genesis chapter 28, verses 20 to 22, Jacob made a vow that we might perhaps see as the basis of the tithe that his descendants would pay to the Lord. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God's house. And of all that you give me, I will give a full tenth to you.

In Numbers chapter 6, we read of the Nazirite vow. The Nazirite vow was a temporary vow of special devotion to the Lord. The prophet Samuel and John the Baptist seemed to have been under lifelong Nazirite vows.

Jephthah's vow in Judges chapter 11 is an example of a rash vow, a vow for which he lost his daughter. Another famous vow is that of Hannah in 1 Samuel chapter 1. She swore to devote to the Lord the son that he gave in response to her prayer. Hannah's vow would be an example of a woman's vow, which, according to the teaching of this chapter, could have been affirmed or annulled.

The man would bear responsibility for the vows of the women of his household, his daughters and his wife, which were not performed. The husband could annul his wife's vow, but if he failed to do so when he heard of the vow, or remained silent concerning it, he would also be held responsible for its performance. Gordon Wenham observes a parallel scheme that orders this passage.

There are two groups of three paralleled cases. The unbreakable vows of men, mentioned in verse 2, are paralleled with the unbreakable vows of widows and divorcees, in verse 9. In verses 3-5, girls' vows that are voidable by their fathers are paralleled with wives' vows that are voidable by their husband. In verses 6-8, girls' vows that are voidable by their fiancé are paralleled with the wives' vows that are voidable with a penalty, in verses 13-15.

Wenham writes further, the second and third laws in each group both fall into two parts, considering first the case when the woman's husband or father says nothing, thereby confirming her vow, and second the situation where he annuls it by objecting to it. As he observes, this is not a comprehensive treatment of vows. There is nothing said here about sons or about older, unmarried women.

This might suggest that there is something more symbolic going on here as well. This returns us to our initial question. What is this passage doing here? Why deal with women's vows in this context in the Book of Numbers? We should bear in mind that there was an earlier vow, made in chapter 21, verses 2 and 3, and Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said, If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.

And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormah. However, the chapters that had followed had concerned the failure of Israel.

Balak had sent Balaam to curse them. That had failed, so Balaam had sought to compromise Israel instead, causing them to bring a curse upon themselves by their sexual and spiritual adultery with Baal of Peor and the Midianite women in chapter 25. Speaking of the women of Midian, Moses declared in verse 16 of the following chapter, Behold, these on Balaam's advice caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord.

Chapter 26, the second census, chapter 27, the assurance of the inheritance to the daughters of Zelophehad and the appointment of Joshua as Moses' successor, and chapters 28-29, which order Israel's time in a comparable way to the ordering of its space in chapters 2-4 of the book, are a reconstitution of the nation after its great breach of faith with the Lord in its idolatry and spiritual adultery. Like the test of jealousy in chapter 5 of the book, the laws concerning women's vows in chapter 30 can function on two levels. On the surface level of the text, which should not be neglected, they refer to the manner in which women's vows would be upheld or nullified in Israel's ongoing life.

However, on the symbolic level, this passage gestures towards Israel's vows in its relationship to the Lord as his bride. Israel would be expected to perform the vow that it had made back in Numbers chapter 21. This is exactly what Israel needed to do in the following chapter, as they set right what went wrong in their act of treachery back in chapter 25.

Rabbi David Forman argues that there is another subtle allusion back to this chapter in Esther chapter 4, when Mordecai speaks to Esther concerning the king's edict to kill the Jews. In Numbers chapter 30, the man has the apparent third option of making himself deaf to his wife's vow, of acting as if he is not aware of it. However, this functions as a tacit affirmation.

The husband actually accepts his wife's vow by not objecting to it. In verses 13 and 14 of chapter 4, Mordecai addresses Esther as follows. Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, Mordecai applies something of the logic of Numbers chapter 30 to Esther's situation.

If she does not object to her husband's vow, to his edict, she is implicated within it, and she shares in his sin. Behind Mordecai's argument is a sort of play with the text of chapter 30 of Numbers. The word Isha is the Hebrew word for woman.

However, with a dot in the He, the same word means her husband. Mordecai is inviting Esther to read Numbers 30 as if that dot was not present in the He. Instead of her husband, read a woman.

Esther's preparedness to speak up in relationship to her husband's vow or edict is what changes the situation for the Jews. At the suggestion of Mordecai, she creatively applies Numbers chapter 30 to herself, and through it saves her people. Within the New Testament, we have several examples of vows that the people of God take.

The apostle Paul, for instance, takes a vow in the book of Acts. In 1 Corinthians 7:4 and 5, however, we see something more of the reciprocity that should characterize vows in the relationship of husband and wife. The ideal, then, is not unilateral vows of husband or wife, but the harmony of the husband and wife's will in shared vows.

A question to consider, what place might vows have within Christian practice?

In Numbers chapters 22-24, the Moabites, seeing the initial successes of Israel in their wars in the Transjordan, had joined with the Midianites in seeking to drive them back. Balaam, the king of Moab, had sent messengers to the prophet Balaam, the son of Beel, hoping that he would curse Israel for them, undermining their rise in the region. However, this had not gone according to plan.

Balaam had initially rejected Balaam's request. Later, Balaam's answer changed and he went along with them, but the Lord frustrated Balaam, obstructing his way with the angel of the Lord and even opening the mouth of his donkey, who had seen the angel while Balaam had not. Balaam's failure to cooperate with the wishes of Balak, like Balaam's donkey's failure to cooperate with him, was most climactically expressed in the Lord's opening of the mouth of the false prophet Balaam to utter a series of blessings upon his people, rather than the curse that Balak had requested.

After the utter failure of that attempt to curse Israel, Balaam, the Moabites and the Midianites needed an alternative plan. If they were unable to curse Israel, perhaps they could cause Israel to bring a curse upon itself. In Numbers chapter 25, the people of Israel had engaged in idolatrous relations with Baal of Peor and had sexual relations with Moabite and Midianite women.

25:1-3. While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

At Sinai, after Israel's sin with the golden carp, the Lord had warned them about precisely this danger. Exodus 34:12-16. Take care lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst.

You shall tear down their altars, and break their pillars, and cut down their ashram. For you shall worship no other god. For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods, and make your sons whore after their gods. Relations with pagan women would go hand in hand with worship of foreign gods, and this is precisely what occurred in Numbers chapter 25. At that time the Levite Phinehas had acted decisively to put a halt to Israel's breach of faith, but not before 24,000 people had died.

The catastrophic effects of the plague that broke out at that time is evident from the greatly reduced numbers of the tribe of Simeon in the second census in chapter 26. The numbers of Simeon's fighting men plummeted from 59,300 to 22,200. After the second census, Israel had been placed on a new footing in preparation for the entrance into the land.

Chapter 30, which precedes this chapter, seems to be a disruption of the flow of the book concerning the voiding and validating of the vows of wives and daughters. However, in the context, the chapter reminded us of the vow that Israel had made back in 21:2-3. And Israel vowed, bowed to the Lord and said, If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.

And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel, and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormeh. Despite Israel's subsequent unfaithfulness, the Lord was going to validate Israel's vow, and they would carry it out in this chapter in their war of vengeance against the Midianites.

In chapter 31, we discover that Balaam had been behind the compromise of Israel with the daughters of Moab and Baal of Peor in chapter 25. We read in verse 16, Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. After the events of chapter 25, the Lord had commanded the people in verses 16-18.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Harass the Midianites, and strike them down, for they have harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cosbi, the daughter of the chief of Midian, their sister, who was killed on the day of the plague on account of Peor. As Daniel Olson notes, the name Cosbi has formed the consonants of the Hebrew verb for lying or deceiving. Moses and the Israelites, having been restored in their footing after the breach of faith in chapter 25 in the intervening chapters, now needed to carry out the Lord's charge.

In verse 2, we learn that this would be the last great task of Moses' life in leading the people. After it was completed, it would be Moses' time to die. The Midianites are spoken of as descendants of Abraham by Keturah in Genesis 25:2, although it is likely that the designation referred to a broader body of people, more of a shifting league of tribes than a particular land or tribal group.

They were, as Gordon Wenham notes, a large confederation operating in several different areas with various associations. In Genesis chapter 37 and Judges chapter 8, the Midianites were associated with the Ishmaelites. In Numbers chapter 22, the Midianites were associated with Moabites.

In Judges chapter 6, they were associated with the Amalekites. The Transjordanian Midianites that Moses and the Israelites attack in this chapter are different from other Midianite groups, which would have been found in the Negev, Sinai Peninsula, Edom, the Transjordan, and the northwestern Arabian Peninsula. Jacob Milgram observes that the Midianites seem to have enjoyed a protectorate within the wider region of the Transjordan.

From Genesis 36:35, it seems that the Midianites also exercised power within Edom for some time. We should recall that Moses had sojourned with the Midianites after fleeing from Egypt. He had married a Midianite called Zipporah, and Hobab, Moses' Midianite brother-in-law, accompanied them on their travels.

The war of this chapter then would not have been against the entirety of the Midianite confederacy, which appears again in the book of Judges, but particularly against the Midianites associated with Moab. The Midianites were not within the Promised Land proper, which might make us wonder at the uncompromising character of the war against them in this chapter. However, Midian, in seeking to corrupt Israel, had seduced the Lord's bride.

They had attacked the covenant itself. The religious nature of the war is quite evident. Little is said about the military leadership.

No mention is made of Joshua, for instance, but Phinehas, the son of the high priest, and the one who had faithfully executed the Lord's zeal in chapter 25, accompanies the military, along with the silver trumpets that were appointed in chapter 10. These silver trumpets, as we saw, were an earthly analogue to the trumpet sounds of the Lord's glory cloud. Phinehas also brings the vessels of the sanctuary.

The book of Numbers largely concerns the ordering and the choreography of the war camp of Israel, and now we finally see the camp in motion, like the Lord's own throne chariot and its retinue going out to do battle. The prominence of Phinehas also invites the reader to consider the ways in which this war is one in which the whole nation is being called to follow the example that Phinehas set. That each tribe is required to send 1,000 men to the war suggests that the war against Midian is not merely a military operation for immediate strategic ends.

It's a judicial act, in the execution of which each tribe in Israel must be fully and equally represented. The war against the Midianites and the Transjordan would prepare Israel for the battles that it would need to fight within the promised land itself. The record of the battle itself is slight, as recounted in verses 7 and 8. Much of the account concerns the taking of the plunder and the return to the rest of the congregation of Israel.

The war of this chapter is also mentioned in Judges chapter 13, verses 21 and 22, which describes the Transjordanian regents that would be allocated to the tribe of Reuben. Sihon king of the Amorites who reigned in Heshbon, who Moses defeated with the leaders of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zer and Her and Reba, the princes of Sihon who lived in the land. Balaam also, the son of Beor, the one who practiced divination, was killed with the sword by the people of Israel among the rest of their slain.

While the women of such a city would usually have been spared, as we see in Deuteronomy chapter 20, on this occasion they were to be judged along with the men. They had been direct participants in Balaam's attempt to subvert the people of Israel. Only the virgins among the women of Midian were to be spared.

In such a war against a people outside of the promised land proper, Israel was allowed to take plunder. However, they had to undergo the process of cleansing from corpse defilement that we read of in chapter 19 of Numbers. They would only be able to re-enter the camp on the seventh day.

The plunder from the war is divided into two halves, one half for the warriors who went out to the battle, and the other half for the entire congregation. Then a levy for the Lord is taken from each amount. The people who went out to war have to give one five hundredth of their spoil, a thousandth of the total amount.

That went to Eliezer as a contribution to the Lord. Out of Israel's portion, the other half, a fiftieth of their portion, or one hundredth of the total amount, a tithe of a tithe, had to go to the Levites who guarded the tabernacle. We see such a tithe of a tithe in Numbers 18:26.

We are given a list of the plunder that was taken. As with figures that we find elsewhere in the book of Numbers, the numbers here are astronomically large. Adding together the number of sheep, cattle, donkeys, and persons, we get a total of 840,000.

This would seem to be a significant number. It's seventy times twelve times a thousand. The numbers seventy and twelve are significant elsewhere in the book of Numbers, not least in 33:9, where we are informed that at Elim there were seventy palm trees and twelve springs.

There were of course twelve tribes of Israel and seventy elders as we see in chapter 11. By many numberings there were seventy nations of the world, and there were seventy bulls offered over the Feast of Tabernacles. The officers of the army report to Moses the remarkable news that none of their men had been lost.

In Exodus 30:11-16, Moses was instructed to take money from each of the people as a ransom for their lives. The Lord said to Moses, when you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this, half a according to the shekel of the sanctuary.

The shekel is twenty geras. Half a shekel is an offering to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering.

The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than the half shekel when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make atonement for your lives. Despite similarities between these two episodes, there are also important differences.

Michael Fishbane writes, First of all, we may observe that the gift of a census expiation was made by the chief officers alone, not those in the ranks, and that the donation was brought into the tent as a reminder. Three immediate differences thus emerge by comparison with Exodus 30:11-16. First, in that text, Moses took the census, not military men.

Second, the expiation offering prescribed was obligated upon all Israelite males as a special gift, and not just as devolving upon those who conducted the count. And third, the sacral offering was specifically used for the building of the tent of meeting, and was not a general gift. One could go further.

In Exodus 30:11-16, the offerings were to be of silver, at a fixed price, calculated to holy weights, whereas in the Midian affair, the officers gave gold according to their desire. Indeed, in this case, the mighty could exceed in generosity while the regulars could abstain. As a final point, it is most striking that the officers' donation in Numbers chapter 31 was taken from the spools of a condemned population.

Even retaining such goods at home was an abomination to the Deuteronomist. In our case, they even brought it to the tent before the Lord. A question to consider, what similarities are there between the events of this chapter and those of Judges chapter 21?

In Numbers chapter 32, an event occurs that makes us at first wonder whether Israel is going to fall at the final hurdle. Just as they are about to enter into the land, it seems like Reuben and Gad are drawing back. When Reuben and Gad tell Moses and Eliezer that they plan to stay back in the land of the Transjordan, Moses is clearly angry and also distressed.

It seems like the events of chapters 13 and 14 are playing out all over again. The people had once been discouraged from entering into the Promised Land by the bad report of the spies, and now as Gad and Reuben draw back at the last moment, they might be discouraged once more. Following Israel's victories against the Amorites and the Midianites in the land of the Transjordan, they enjoyed possessions outside of the Promised Land proper, and the land of these possessions looked very promising to Reuben and Gad, who needed extensive grazing land for their flocks.

Moses is furious, and although the people would not have forgotten, he recounts the entire history of what had happened 38 years ago. Because of the bad reports of the spies and the people's refusal to enter into the Promised Land, the Lord was angry with his people, and all except Caleb and Joshua of that generation had died out as a result. Moses, however, is misreading the intentions of Gad and Reuben.

Gad and Reuben relieve Moses' fears, and set his mind at rest by communicating their true intent. They come near to him to communicate to him. Rabbi David Foreman sees in the wording here an expression of Reuben and Gad's willingness to cross the gap.

They are not going to stand over against Moses and argue with him. They will go to whatever extent is necessary to allay his concerns. Having settled their wives and families within their territory, they offer to go ahead of the rest of the tribes to lead them into the Promised Land.

Far from avoiding the battle for the land, they commit themselves to being found in the thickest part of it. Moses accepts their request, but requires of them that they cross over before the people and do not return until the land has been conquered. If they fail to do this, the Lord will hold them accountable.

Moses gathers the people together and reports on the decision that has been made, to the terms by which Gad and Reuben had bound themselves. Moses adds the condition that if they fail to do what they have committed themselves to do, they will forfeit their title to the Transjordanian land and be given land alongside the other tribes. There is a surprising addition in verse 33.

Alongside Reuben and Gad, the half-tribe of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, will inherit land to the east of the Jordan. The tribe of Manasseh, then, will straddle the Jordan River, one half in the Promised Land proper and the other half in the Transjordan. In such a manner, the tribe of Manasseh will be a bridged tribe, connecting the two halves of the land together.

The Jordan River was a geographical seam on which the nation was always in danger of being torn apart. We see this especially in the story of Joshua chapter 22, where the distrust between the people on the different sides of the Jordan nearly led to all-out war. In that chapter, Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built an altar on their side of the Jordan, which was intended, they argued, to be a memorial, not to be a rival altar or an alternative site of worship.

The two and a half tribes explain their reasoning in verses 24 to 29 of that chapter. No, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, what have you to do with the Lord, the God of Israel? For the Lord has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you people of Reuben and people of Gad. You have no portion in the Lord, so your children might make our children cease to worship the Lord.

Therefore, we said, let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you and between our generations after us, that we do perform the service of the Lord in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings, so your children will not say to our children in time to come, you have no portion in the Lord. And we thought, if this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, behold, the copy of the altar of the Lord, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you, far be it from us that we should rebel against the Lord and turn away this day from following the Lord by building an altar for burnt offering, grain offering or sacrifice, other than the altar of the Lord, our God that stands before his tabernacle. This expression of the fears of the two and a half tribes gives a window into the tensions and anxieties that existed on that fault line.

In Deuteronomy chapter 3, Moses describes the allocation of the land to these two and a half tribes in verses 12 to 20 of that chapter. When we took possession of this land at that time, I gave to the Reubenites and the Gadites the territory beginning at Heroa, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon and half the hill country of Gilead with its cities, the rest of Gilead and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, that is, all the region of Agab, I gave to the half tribe of Manasseh. All that portion of Bashan is called the land of Rephaim.

Jair the Manassite took all the region of Agab, that is, Bashan, as far as the border of the Gesherites and the Maakithites and called the villages after his own name, Habath-Jair, as it is to this day. To Makia I gave Gilead and to the Reubenites and the Gadites I gave the territory from Gilead as far as the valley of the Arnon, with the middle of the valley as a border, as far over as the river Jabbok, the border of the Ammonites, the Araba also, with the Jordan as the border from Kinnerath as far as the sea of the Araba, the salt sea, under the slopes of Pisgah on the east. And I commanded you at that time, saying, The Lord your God has given you this land to possess.

All your men of valor shall cross over armed before your brothers, the people of Israel. Only your wives, your little ones, and your livestock, I know that you have much livestock, shall remain in the cities that I have given you until the Lord gives rest to your brothers as to you, and they also occupy the land that the Lord your God gives them beyond the Jordan. Then each of you may return to his possession which I have given you.

Moses himself would die in the Transjordan, and the fact that Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe Manasseh took their possessions there meant that Moses, even though he would die outside the promised land, would not die outside the possessions of his people. He died in the land of Reuben. Gordon Wenham writes of the land of Gilead, Gilead designates a variety of areas in the Old Testament.

His primary meaning, as here, is the hilly district south of the Jabbok, but it may also refer to the area north of the Jabbok as well, and sometimes it designates the whole of the Transjordanian territory held by Israel, for instance in Joshua 22:9 and 13 etc. These high lands, around 2,500 feet overlooking the Jordan valley, enjoy a good rainfall and are therefore very fertile. Gilead was an important site in the history of Israel.

It was to Gilead that Jacob had been pursued by Laban. At Gilead they had entered into a covenant, and Jacob, not knowing that his wife Rachel had taken his father-in-law's household gods, declared a death sentence on the person in whose possession they were found. Later, that death sentence perhaps coming back to haunt him, Ishmaelites had come from Gilead on camels and had brought his son Joseph down into Egypt.

It might be illuminating to read the end of this chapter against the background of that history. Fulman observes an unusual detail. Although Jeir is described as a Manassite here, in 1 Chronicles 2:21 and 22, he is described as a descendant of Judah.

Afterward, Hezron went in to the daughter of Makir, the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was 60 years old, and she bore him Segarb, and Segarb fathered Jeir, who had 23 cities in the land of Gilead. Surprisingly then, Jeir is truly a descendant of Judah, although he has a Manassite grandmother. That he is considered a Manassite is surprising, considering that tribal ancestry is usually reckoned on the father's side.

In Genesis chapter 37, when the camels had come down from Gilead, Judah had led the brothers against Joseph. Here, however, a man of Judah is numbered among the sons of Joseph and leads them in their conquest of the land. Together they take Gilead, this place of painful memory, the place of the dreadful curse against the matriarch Rachel.

There is something of the redemption of the history here. In Genesis chapter 37, Jacob was devastated when he discovered that his son Joseph was likely torn. In Numbers chapter 32, there is a sort of tearing of Joseph.

Part of Manasseh is on one side of the Jordan, and part of Manasseh is on the other side of the Jordan. However, this tearing in two serves to hold the nation more firmly together, so it would not be torn asunder. By entrusting one half of Joseph's firstborn son Manasseh to the firstborn tribe of Leah, Reuben, and Gad the firstborn tribe of Leah's handmaid, Zilpah, and the other half of Manasseh to the tribes that crossed over the Jordan, brothers that had once sold Joseph into slavery, would be bound together by a shared commitment to the tribe named after his firstborn son.

A question to consider, how does the character of Hezron, who married the daughter of Machia, the father of Gilead, resonate with the story of some other characters who had descended from Machia that we read of in the book of Numbers?

Numbers chapter 33 presents the itinerary of Israel's journeys over the 40 years of their wilderness wanderings. Israel would soon be entering into the land and so it was a fitting occasion to look back upon the way that they had come. In recounting their travels they also needed to consider the lessons that they had learned upon the way, although the 40 years in the wilderness was in part a punishment for the people's refusal to enter the Promised Land on account of their unbelief. It was also an intensive period of training that Israel had to undergo before they could graduate to life in the land.

As Moses told the people in Deuteronomy 8:2-5, and you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these 40 years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not, and he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manner which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.

Your clothing did not wear out on you and your foot did not swell these 40 years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, the Lord your God disciplines you. Their travels are recounted as a series of stages. We are told where they began a particular leg of their journey, or where they come to the end of it. Each leg begins with the location with which the preceding leg ended. Jacob Milgram and Gordon Wenham observed the similarity between the list of the stations on Israel's journey and accounts of Assyrian military campaigns.

They suggest that Numbers chapter 3 fits a broader itinerary genre. There are 42 locations mentioned in the list, beginning with Ramses, from which they first set out, and ending at the plains of Moab near the Jordan, from which they would enter the Promised Land. There are accounts of various stretches of Israel's journeys in the wilderness elsewhere in the Pentateuch, but this is by far the most comprehensive account. While there are some locations mentioned elsewhere that aren't mentioned here, it is in Numbers chapter 33 that we find the fullest list of locations.

While there is extensive overlap, there are differences between the lists of locations in Numbers chapter 33, and those mentioned elsewhere in the book, or in the book of Exodus, or in the various retrospective accounts of stages in Israel's wilderness journeys in the book of Deuteronomy. In some cases, different names are used for the same place, Deuteronomy referring consistently to Sinai's Horeb, for instance. In other cases, several stations of Israel's journey are likely subsumed under a single regional designation, such as the Wilderness of Peran, an explanation mentioned by Milgram. That there are 42 stations on the journey is interesting.

As Wenham notes, patristic commentators such as Ambrose and Jerome noted that there are the same number of generations in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew chapter 1. 42 is a number that occurs in other symbolic contexts in Scripture, not least in Revelation 11:2 and 13 verse 5. There it refers to the period of the beast's authority and the trampling of the Holy City, 42 months. 42 months corresponds with 1260 days, and with a time times and half a time, which is three and a half years, a half week of years, a broken seven.

We should also recognize the importance of possibly related numbers in the broader context. For instance, the spoil of chapter 31 is divided into two halves of 420,000 items. Considering the importance that numbers and patterns have elsewhere in the book, it is reasonable to consider whether there are any patterns to be observed in the list of this chapter. Wenham speculates that there might be. He suggests that we should subdivide the list of locations into six sets of seven, six weeks of locations as it were, and line them up against each other.

When we do so, he believes that some symmetries might emerge. He notes, for instance, the resemblances between the first and second cycles. The first location in each is associated with a miracle, the death of the firstborn and the provision of manna and quail. The fourth is associated with military victories of the Egyptians and the Amalekites. The sixth is associated with abundant water and abundant food. The seventh is associated with Miriam. He writes further, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth cycles, the sixth station, Moseroth, Moserer in Deuteronomy 10:6, Mount Hall, Mountains of Abram before Nebo, numbers 33:47, are the scenes of Aaron and Moses' death.

Mara, the site of the first water miracle, and Kadesh, site of the last provision, are both fifth in their respective cycles, Exodus 15:25 and Numbers 20:11. We might add to Wenim's list of parallels between the first and second lists. For instance, the presence of test of jealousy-related events at Mara and in the wilderness of Sinai, both fifth in their sequence. We might even take such speculations further, pondering potential connections with the days of creation. All of this said, on closer examination, several of Wenim's connections seem to be relatively weak, so while they may be suggestive, I have yet to be persuaded that they can be considered anything more than loose speculations.

With such a detailed itinerary, we might initially think that the route taken by the Israelites through the wilderness would be easy to determine. However, this is definitely not the case. Determining the location of sites mentioned in the scriptures is sometimes possible when they have been the sites of continual settlement, for instance, especially when there is some continuity in their place name. Sometimes we know topographical features of an area that might help us to narrow down the location of a site. Sometimes the name of a site itself might give clues to some of these features, suggesting the presence of a mountain, a tower, or a body of water.

In the case of Elim, we are told that there were twelve springs and seventy palms, for instance, which might help us to narrow things down somewhat. Yet, in the case of almost all of the sites mentioned within the list of Numbers 33, we have no idea where they could be. This should not surprise us, as the wilderness wasn't a place of stable and settled habitation. In others, most notably the location of the Red Sea crossing in Mount Sinai, we have multiple competing candidates. These competing candidates can be assessed relative to various criteria and how well they fit various details of the text.

The location of the Red Sea crossing, for instance, needs to be suitable for the safe crossing of a vast multitude with children, animals, and carts, so needs to be relatively wide and flat. It also needs to be suitable for the drowning of the Egyptians. It needs to be relatively near to the point of Israel's departure. Historically, this point of departure has generally been considered to be around the site of the Nile Delta in Egypt, with the crossing being situated either at the very northern tip of the Gulf of Suez, or somewhere along the present-day Suez Canal, which divides Egypt from the Sinai Peninsula.

We are not helped as much as we might think by the term Red Sea. In antiquity, the Red Sea could designate an extremely large body of water, including the modern Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean. Both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba, for instance, would be part of the Red Sea. The Hebrew designation could also arguably be translated as Reeds Sea. Many scholars, usually following such a translation, have located the Red Sea crossing at the Bitter Lakes, Timsoe Lake, or at one of the other shallow inland lakes between Egypt and Sinai.

Some conservative Christians have resisted such interpretations on account of their supposed diminishing of the miraculous character of the Red Sea crossing. However, such theories might be perfectly consistent with the biblical record and the dramatic and decisive deliverance that they describe, even if they would make for a less cinematic scene. The considerations of plausibility that inform such readings need not be driven by doubts about God's existence or power. Besides the need for a suitable crossing location for children, animals, and the people's belongings, we should also consider the need for a large enough body of water to account for the fact that the locusts were all driven into the Red Sea in Exodus 10, verse 19.

Given the number of the locusts, this might weaken the case for one of the inland lakes and strengthen the case for the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez. As Barry Bytesall notes, locating the crossing, especially if it was inland, is complicated by the extensive transformations of the region in the intervening period, most notably in the construction of the Suez Canal, and possibly also in changing sea levels, when, for instance, suggests the possibility that the bitter lakes were formally connected to the Gulf of Suez. Large canals may already have existed in the area in Moses' day, and some scholars argued that Pai Ha-Hairath could be translated as Mouth of the Canal.

We must also consider that, although the Red Sea crossing occurred between the 4th and the 5th locations, they camped by the Red Sea as the 7th location on their itinerary. Some, more recently, have argued that the crossing was of the Gulf of Acaba, between the Sinai Peninsula and modern Saudi Arabia, rather than in the Gulf of Suez. Such a position is often driven by a belief that Mount Sinai is located in modern Arabia, rather than in the Sinai Peninsula. This position is informed by the belief that Mount Sinai was in the territory of Midian, and sometimes also by the apostle Paul's reference to Mount Sinai being in Arabia.

The latter detail can be accounted for by the broader territory that Arabia could designate in antiquity, one that includes the Sinai Peninsula. While Moses' shepherded flocks near Mount Sinai during his sojourn with Jethro Midian, we are not told that Sinai was in Jethro's land. Indeed, when Jethro visited Moses at Sinai, he left to return to his own land. Shepherds and herdsmen could range over large regions, and it seems most likely to me that Sinai was near the west coast of the peninsula that later came to be named after it, a region in which it has traditionally been situated.

There are various criteria that candidates for Mount Sinai should meet. It needs to be a suitable location for the multitude of Israel to count for a year, with vegetation for their flocks and herds. It needs to be on a typical route between Midian and Egypt, as it was a meeting place of Moses and Aaron in Exodus 4, verse 27. Locations near the south of the peninsula would be much less likely for this reason. Presumably that it was the site originally intended for Israel's worship when Moses requested that Pharaoh let the people go to make a three-days journey into the wilderness, it needed to be relatively near to the borders of Egypt.

According to Deuteronomy 1, verse 2, it is also a eleven-days journey from Horeb to Kadesh-Bharnia by way of Mount Sia. These are among the considerations that lead me to favour a location in west-central Sinai. However, many people claim to be certain about radically contrary hypotheses on these questions, which should proceed with considerable caution. Besides the location of the crossing and of Mount Sinai, scholars differ over the route taken by the itinerary more generally. The task of any trying to determine the route of the Exodus will be to find the route that is most coherent and which is the most likely fit in general, since we don't know the identity of almost all of the locations, but have at most probabilistic cases for various locations for several of them.

We can't easily join the dots as it were. Rather, our identification of the dots of specific locations may often be informed by the likeliest line of the route, which will be attracted to stronger clusters of candidates. Very few events or details are mentioned in the itinerary, which perhaps serves to accent those events and details which are. Surprisingly, events such as the giving of the law and the sin with the golden calf at Sinai are not mentioned, nor are several other key occurrences. We are informed, as in Exodus 15 verse 27, that there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees in Elam.

The specificity of these numbers suggests that they might be important. We noted the importance of the numbers twelve and seventy in considering the quantity of the spoil in chapter 31, with 840,000 items, 70 times 12 times a thousand. Twelve is the number of Israel's tribes, seventy is the number of Israel's elders in chapter 11. It's also associated with the number of the nations in chapter 10 of Genesis, and with the number of the bulls sacrificed over the Feast of Tabernacles. We are informed that there was no water for the people to drink at Refidim, recalling the events of Exodus chapter 17 at Masa Ameribir, where the people tested the Lord and Moses struck the rock.

This was a great symbol of the character of the wilderness period more generally, the people's testing of the Lord and the Lord's provision for them. The other location that is singled out is Mount Hall, which is presented as a turning point. Aaron dies there at the age of 123, 40 years after the departure from Egypt. This is a sort of watershed moment, as the next thing we are told, the Canaanite King of Eirad, learns of the coming of the people of Israel. The wilderness wanderings are about to conclude, and the conquest of the land about to begin.

The event recounted here is first mentioned in Numbers 21:1-3. When the Canaanite, the King of Eirad, who lived in the Negeb, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atherim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said, If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction. And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction, so the name of the place was called Horma.

Why single out the death of Aaron? We might find something of an answer in a few chapters time, in 35:25-28. And the congregation shall rescue the man's lair from the hand of the Avenger of Blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the High Priest who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the man's lair shall at any time go beyond the boundaries of his city of refuge to which he fled, and the Avenger of Blood kills the man's lair, he shall not be guilty of blood, for he must remain in his city of refuge until the death of the High Priest, but after the death of the High Priest the man's lair may return to the land of his possession.

Israel, like the man's lair, is in the sort of exile until the Exodus generation dies out, with Aaron the High Priest being chief among the representatives of that generation, the one who memorialized them before the Lord in the tabernacle, and the one who capitulated to them in their sin with the golden calf. When he dies they will finally be free to enter. The chapter concludes with instructions for their entry into the land. The Lord instructs Moses to direct the people to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan, and to remove all traces of their false worship, dividing the land among the tribes.

In the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses charges the people concerning the entry into the land at great length. There is a very solemn warning attached, however. If Israel fails to drive out the inhabitants of the land, and to uproot their false worship, they will be afflicted by them. The warning given here is similar to that which Joshua gives in Joshua 23:11-13 at the end of his ministry. Be very careful therefore to love the Lord your God, for if you turn back and cling to the remnant of these nations remaining among you, and make marriages with them, so that you associate with them, and they with you, know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a whip on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good ground that the Lord your God has given you.

Tragically, this would come to pass, as the Lord declares in Judges 2:1-3. Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bachem, and he said, I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land. You shall break down their altars, but you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you.

Israel did not succeed in possessing all of the land, falling short of entering into its full inheritance on account of their unfaithfulness, and they were afflicted by the people of the land as they compromised with their idolatries. The question to consider, Jacob Milgram comments upon the literary symmetry to be observed within verses 50 to 56. How do verses 55 and 56 invert verses 52 and 53? What might we learn by reading them in juxtaposition with each other?

In Numbers chapter 34, Israel is preparing for entry into the Promised Land. As we saw in chapter 32, not all of the tribes would be entering into the Promised Land proper. Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh would settle in territory outside of the land, in the Transjordan, even though they would go ahead of the rest of the people in the military conquest of the land.

Ten tribes would possess land in the Promised Land itself, although Manasseh would have part of their portion in Gilead. The principles for the division of the land were given in chapter 26, verses 52-56. This was before the decision of Reuben and Gad to settle outside of the land.

The instruction was repeated at the end of the preceding chapter in chapter 33, verse 54. You shall inherit the land by lot according to your clans. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance.

Wherever the lot falls for anyone, that shall be his. According to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit. The principles, as we saw then, probably involved the determination of the region of the tribe by lot and the determination of the size of their territory in the region according to their population.

The Lord gives the boundaries of the land here. The boundaries, as Jacob Milgram and others know, do not seem to correspond with the historic boundaries of Israel at any point in its history, and not merely on account of the exclusion of the Transjordan. They do, however, closely approximate to the boundaries of the province of Canaan during the New Kingdom of Egypt.

The boundaries extend further north and further to the northeast than they did throughout almost all of the nation's history, except perhaps at the high water mark of Solomon's Kingdom and perhaps a couple of other brief periods, during which time Israel possessed substantial territory in contemporary Lebanon and Syria. On the other hand, they possessed less land in the south than they would later do. For significant periods of their history, Edom was under Judah's sway, and Israel enjoyed southern ports on the Gulf of Aqaba at various times.

The southern border of the land here is given as running from the bottom of the Dead Sea, moving southwest to Kadesh at its lowest point, and then gradually ascending to the Mediterranean. They would not possess the land of Edom, their brother. The western border of the land would be the Great Sea, the Mediterranean.

The northern border ran from the Mediterranean coast to Mount Hor, from there to Lebohemath, and then extending to Zidad, generally thought to be Sa'dad in Syria, about 60 miles northeast of Damascus, to Ziphron, and then ending at Hazar'inan. The final eastern border is clearly defined by the Dead Sea and the Jordan, up until the Sea of Kinarath, more familiarly known as the Sea of Galilee. After that, however, it bulges out to the east, incorporating land in modern-day Syria, although the precise location of its boundary is quite unclear, as key locations cannot be identified.

Dennis Olson notes the way that the boundaries of the land given in this chapter seem to correspond with the land that is spied out in chapter 13, verse 21. So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near Lebohemath. This would be an assurance to the children of Israel that their inheritance in the land had not been diminished since chapter 13.

Also, the choice of the men from each tribe to divide out the inheritance in the land in this chapter is reminiscent of the choice of the men from each tribe to spy out the land in chapter 13. Joshua and Caleb are once again involved. Joshua is now overseeing the process with Eleazar, the son of Aaron.

The boundaries of the land are also similar to those described in places like Joshua chapter 15. Ezekiel's prophetic vision of the allocation of the land in chapter 47, verses 15 to 18 of his prophecy, also seem to have the same general boundaries. This shall be the boundary of the land on the north side from the great sea by way of Hethlon to Lebohemath and on to Zedad, Berotha, Sibraim, which lies on the border between Damascus and Hemath, as far as Hazar-hattikon, which is on the border of Hauron.

So the boundary shall run from the sea to Hazar-inan, which is on the northern border of Damascus, with the border of Hemath to the north. This shall be the north side. On the east side, the boundary shall run between Hauron and Damascus, along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel, to the eastern sea and as far as Tamar.

This shall be the east side. Likewise, during Solomon's reign, the land is described as extending from Lebohemath to the brook of Egypt in 1 Kings 8, verse 65. On a few occasions, such as Genesis 15, verse 18, the land is envisaged as having potentially even more expansive boundaries, extending from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt, presumably the Nile Delta.

As Olson observes, however, the more modest extent of the land is more typically described in the expression from Dan to Beersheba, as Israel did not successfully possess all of the land originally appointed for them. The names of the men listed to assist in the division of the land are loosely ordered by their tribe's possessions in the land, from the south to the north. A question to consider, on what other occasions in the book of Numbers are persons chosen, one from each tribe, to represent their tribe in some common activity?

Israel is soon to enter the Promised Land and we are nearing the end of the Book of Numbers. In the concluding chapters of Numbers and the Book of Deuteronomy, the Lord and Moses are preparing Israel for this transition, the graduation to life in the land. Principles for the division of the land, the ordering of life within it, and the patterns of their worship are here established.

They are instructed in the import of the covenant and the law of Sinai. The land is being divided between twelve different tribes, but two of those tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, descend from a single patriarch, Joseph. The land is divided into twelve portions, or perhaps thirteen portions, if we count the Transjordanian territory of Manasseh separately from their possession in the Promised Land proper.

There are ten or nine and a half possessions in the Promised Land proper and three tribal possessions, or two and a half, in the Transjordan, where Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were settled. There is, however, one tribe that does not yet have any portion. In the Book of Numbers, there have been several occasions where the Lord addresses the people more generally before addressing the Levites more particularly.

The Levites, while being one of the tribes, are a special case. They were set apart to the ministry of the Lord, being servants, guardians, and bearers of his tabernacle and of his people. The special status of the tribe of Levi has a long and interesting backstory.

In Genesis chapter 34, avenging the rape and abduction of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi had killed the men of Shechem, bringing opposition and trouble upon their father Jacob. As a result of their actions, in Genesis 49:5-7, Jacob had cursed the anger of Simeon and Levi. Simeon and Levi are brothers.

Weapons of violence are their swords. Let my soul come not into their counsel. O my glory, be not joined to their company! For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.

Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel. I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel. However, in Exodus chapter 32, after Israel's sin with the golden calf, Levi had rallied to the side of Moses to defend the covenant against their apostate brothers.

On account of their zeal and their faithfulness to the covenant, the Levites were sanctified and ultimately set apart from the rest of the children of Israel to be a tribe dedicated to becoming the guardians of the holiness of the Lord's house and his people. They replaced the firstborn of Israel who had been dedicated to the Lord through the Passover. The firstborn of a family can act as a sort of bridge between generations, representing the parents to the rest of the children and the children to the parents.

They set the pattern that the other children follow and can instruct their younger siblings. This role of the firstborn would have been even more pronounced in the larger families that would have been common among Israel. The Levites were this within the nation more generally.

The curse upon Levi and Simeon was that they would be divided within Israel, divided from the other, and also divided among themselves. Over the course of the book of Numbers, Simeon had lost much of its population, decreasing in number from 59,300 to 22,200 men, likely largely on account of their infidelity with Baal of Peor, where a Simeonic prince was the leading apostate. Simeon would end up as an enclave of Judah.

However, on account of their later faithfulness, Levi's division took a very different form. Levi's violent character, amply demonstrated and displayed in Genesis chapter 34, had not gone away, but had been tempered and channeled into faithful zeal, precisely the characteristic that rendered them apt guardians of the people as the priests. The Levites were scattered throughout the land of Israel, given cities to dwell in by the other tribes.

In contrast to the other tribes, they were not directly given possessions, but received their portions second-hand as a gift from the possessions of those other tribes. In such a manner they were recipients of a sort of hospitality. The book of Deuteronomy frequently speaks of the Levite within the rest of the people's towns, suggesting that the Levites, while having their own cities, were more widely distributed through the towns and cities of the entire land.

There they would presumably have been teaching the people the law, performing legal functions, and officiating at cleansing rituals and the like. The Levites then received their portions in the land, in the form of offerings from the other tribes. In giving the cities to the Levites, the tribes were acknowledging the Lord himself by giving to his servants at his command.

The Levite's inheritance was the Lord in his service, as we see in Deuteronomy 10:8 and 9. At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord, to minister to him, and to bless in his name to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers. The Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him.

As the people were faithful to the Lord, giving their tithes and offerings, and living with generosity and in the land, the Levites would never be in lack. However, if the people rejected or neglected the worship of the Lord, the Levites would languish as a tribe. They enjoyed the gifts devoted to the Lord's service as their inheritance, as we see in Numbers 18:20-24.

And the Lord said to Aaron, you shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the Tent of Meeting, so that the people of Israel do not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin and die.

But the Levites shall do the service of the Tent of Meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the people of Israel they shall have no inheritance. For the tithe of the people of Israel, which they present as a contribution to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance.

Therefore I have said of them that they shall have no inheritance among the people of Israel. In some ways the Levites' place among the people anticipated something of the Jewish people's later place among the nations. They would also be dependent upon the hospitality of others, a hospitality that manifested their recognition of the Lord's claims upon them.

The Levites were to have a total of 48 cities, 4 times 12, as 4 is a number associated with the square, and with things such as the four horns of the altar, or the four winds of heaven, it can represent the land and its extent. The existence of 48 Levite cities, distributed throughout all the possessions of the twelve tribes, might be considered fitting for this reason. Besides the cities themselves, the Levites are given pasture land around their cities on all sides.

We might be confused by the description of this pasture land, as it is described as reaching out from the wall of the city 1,000 cubits in each direction. However, then we are told that the measurement is 2,000 cubits on each side. The solution is simple.

The city is conceived of as a point in the centre of a square, 1,000 cubits from each side, with the square itself being 2,000 cubits long on each side. The 1,000 cubits figure is the distance of the sides from the city in the centre, and the 2,000 cubits figure is the length of each side of the square perimeter of the city. The fact that the city is represented as a mere point in the centre of a 2,000 cubit square might lead us to wonder about why it could be seen as so small, and about what might have happened as the city expanded in size.

The first thing to recognise here is, as Gordon Wenham notes, that the cities might generally have been very small, with only a small cluster of houses at the centre. Noting the relationship between the measuring of the walk upon the Sabbath, Jacob Milgram argues that the explanation also allows for the subsequent expansion of the Levite city's possessions. As the city at the heart grew over time, what began as a square with a single point at its centre could become a rectangle, in addition to 1,000 cubit by 1,000 cubit squares of land.

From each extremity of the city's walls, the city would possess four additional tracts of land of 1,000 cubits times whatever the length of the wall was on that given site. This would allow for the realistic growth of the cities over time. The cities to be given to the Levites were determined by lot in Joshua chapter 21, as were the clans of the Levites that were to dwell in the midst of each cluster of tribes.

The Kohathites descending from Aaron, the priestly Kohathites, received their portion of 13 cities from the lands of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin. The location of the priestly Kohathites would influence the location of the temple. The rest of the Kohathites received 10 cities as portions in Ephraim Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh that lived in the promised land.

The Gershonites received their 13 cities in the lands of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and the Transjordanian half-tribe of Manasseh. The Morarites received their 12 cities in the territories of Reuben, Gad and Zebulun. One of the purposes of the cities of the Levites was to provide sanctuary for those who had committed manslaughter and needed to be tried.

Some form of sanctuary already existed, as we see in Exodus 21:12-14. Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie and wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.

But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die. We see an example of the altar as a sanctuary in 1 Kings 2:28, where Joab fled to the tabernacle and held on to the horns of the altar. The six Levite cities of refuge, divided throughout the land, are an alternative site of refuge, analogous to the horns of the altar.

If the altar represents the land as a site of offering to the Lord, and its four corners represent its extremities and overseeing authorities, the Levites, scattered throughout the land in four times twelve cities, are altar-like. Fleeing to one of the Levite cities of refuge is like fleeing to the altar. The people, as we see in Deuteronomy 4:41-43, originally had three cities of refuge in various parts of the Transjordan.

Then Moses set apart three cities in the east beyond the Jordan, that the manslayer might flee there. Anyone who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without being at enmity with him in time past, he may flee to one of these cities and save his life. These are in the land for the Reubenites, Ramoth and Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan and Bashan for the Manassites.

The people would later add further cities of refuge, evenly divided within the promised land proper, as we see in Deuteronomy 19:1-3. When the Lord your God cuts off the nations whose land the Lord your God has given you, and you dispossess them, and dwell in their cities and in their houses, you shall set apart three cities for yourself in the land that the Lord your God has given you to possess. You shall measure the distances and divide into three parts the area of the land that the Lord your God gives you as a possession, so that any manslayer can flee to them.

The cities within the promised land proper are appointed in Joshua 20:6-9. And he shall remain in that city until he has stood before the congregation for judgment, until the death of him who was high priest at the time. Then the manslayer may return to his own town and his own home, to the town from which he fled.

So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee, in the hill country of Naphtali, and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba, that is Hebron, in the hill country of Judah. And beyond the Jordan east of Jericho they appointed Beza in the wilderness on the table land, from the tribe of Reuben, and Ramath and Gilead from the tribe of Gad, and Golan and Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh. These were the cities designated for all the people of Israel and for the strangers sojourning among them, that anyone who killed a person without intent could flee there, so that he might not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stood before the congregation.

Just as they are to add three cities of refuge to the number of the Transjordanian cities of refuge when they enter the land, so instruction is given for a situation where their territory expands even further. In such an eventuality, three further cities of refuge could be added, as we see in Deuteronomy 19:8 and 9. The cities of refuge were a mechanism for dealing with situations of manslaughter in the land, as there would not have been a police force, and while the threat of private vengeance was practically needed to curb violence, it could not be allowed to operate unchecked. The underlying concern is that innocent blood not be shed polluting the land, whether that blood be the of the one who committed accidental manslaughter or the one intentionally murdered.

Such pollution of the land by unjust bloodshed would bring the Lord's judgment upon the people, so such cases of manslaughter needed to be handled carefully and appropriately. That these instructions are given near the very end of the book, shortly before they are about to enter into the land, perhaps underlines how weighty this matter is. It was essential to determine between malicious and premeditated assault, and negligence or accident leading to the death of another.

Deuteronomy 19:5 gives the example of a man accidentally killing his neighbor, with whom he had no prior quarrel, with the head of an axe that accidentally came off. Such a man might have been negligent, but that is not to be assumed. This was a very different sort of case from that of a premeditated murder for which the death penalty was applied, or the murderer was subject to private vengeance.

The avenger of blood, elsewhere called the kinsman or redeemer, would have been a close relative of the person who had lost their life, not just a bounty hunter. In other situations, such a character might redeem a relative's property, perform leverate marriage for a deceased brother, or perform some other act on behalf of their relative. Fleeing to the city of refuge would allow the person to await trial, and would encourage due process of public justice, rather than private vigilantes acting to achieve their own vengeance.

The Levites, because they were associated with the central sanctuary, and with the unified law of the people, were a centralizing force, connected with a unified governing agency. Fleeing to Levite cities centralized the management of such cases, rather than allowing each tribe or clan to handle matters in their own preferred manner. The manslayer's life could be forfeit if he went beyond the boundaries of the city of refuge, as the avenger of blood would be allowed to take his life with impunity.

If the man were found guilty of intentional murder, the avenger of blood would put him to death. Exodus 21:30, where the negligent owner of the goring ox can spare his own life by paying ransom, suggests situations where compensation was possible. However, the person who has fled to the city of refuge forfeits any right he might have to ransom his life.

The manslayer was to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, at which point he could leave and the avenger of blood would be guilty of murder if he took his life. The institution of the asylum cities is an accommodation to an imperfect situation, where the more centralized administration of justice was weak, and honor culture and its dynamics of private vengeance and violence were more operative. The cities of refuge would have encouraged people to turn to more unified and centralized administration of justice that the Levites represented, and would likely have reduced the levels of violence over time.

While the cities of refuge would have served to encourage the administration of public justice over private vengeance and reduce violence within the land, we must appreciate that the greatest concern underlying the institution concerns the people's relationship with the Lord. Injustice and the shedding of innocent blood are offenses against God, and so the proper administration of justice in cases of murder is not merely about establishing justice between persons, but about preserving the holiness of the people and ensuring that the land not spew them out on account of their bloodshed. This is perhaps most clearly seen in the ritual that needed to be performed in cases of unsolved murders in the open country, described in Deuteronomy chapter 21, verses 1-9.

If in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess someone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall come out, and they shall measure the distance to the surrounding cities. And the elders of the city that is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer that has never been worked and that has not pulled in a yoke, and the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither ploughed nor sown, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled.

And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall testify, Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed, except atonement, O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed. And do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for. So you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord.

The pollution of blood needs to be dealt with through sacrifice, atonement and expiation. The death of the high priest substitutes for the death of the manslayer, allowing the manslayer to return to his home. As we saw in chapter 33, the death of Aaron the high priest was singled out as a watershed moment for the people of Israel.

With the death of the high priest Aaron, the people are finally released from the exile imposed upon them on account of their rebellion and are able to enter into the promised land. The book of Numbers extends principles of holiness that are chiefly related to the tabernacle and the priesthood in the book of Leviticus, applying them to the people more generally and to their entire camp. At the end of Numbers, these principles of holiness are extended even further, relating them not merely to the war camp but to the entire land that Israel will inhabit.

In Leviticus 15:31, the people were warned about defiling the tabernacle in their midst in which the Lord dwelt. In Numbers 5:3, they were warned about defiling their camp in the midst of which the Lord dwells. In the final verse of this chapter, the warning has extended yet further, they shall not defile the land in which they live in the midst of which the Lord dwells.

In the book of Numbers, we see the realm in the midst of which God is seen to dwell, expanding beyond the tabernacle, beyond even the camp, to fill the borders of the whole land that have been promised. A question to consider, how might the fact that the manslayer is released from his exile in the city of refuge by the death of the high priest, help us better to understand the nature of the high priestly office?

The Book of Numbers ends in a very surprising manner, with a chapter that commentators like Jacob Milgram consider likely to be a later appendix. Back in chapter 27, the case of the daughters of Zelophehad was raised. We read in verses 1-4 of that chapter, Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepha, son of Gilead, son of Macchae, son of Manasseh, from the clans of Manasseh the son of Joseph.

The names of his daughters were Malah, Noah, Hodlah, Milcah and Terzah. And they stood before Moses and before Eliezer the priest, and before the chiefs and all the congregation, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, saying, Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin.

And he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father's brothers. The attention given to the case of Zelophehad's daughters is a curious feature of the later chapters of the book of Numbers, perhaps suggesting that it is a more significant case than it might initially appear to be.

The daughters of Zelophehad first appear in the account of the census in Numbers chapter 26. Much of chapter 27 is devoted to their case, and the entire final chapter also concerns them. For modern people reading these chapters, it is easy to be tempted to frame things in the more individualistic terms of liberalism.

This is, we might think, about gender equality, about ensuring the justice of daughters getting the same inheritance rights as sons. Yet this would be badly to misunderstand what is going on. The case of Zelophehad's daughters was an exceptional one, rather than a provision of inheritance rights for daughters more generally.

The concern was not the rights of daughters, but the protection of patrimony, about ensuring that the father's name not be blotted out. Daughters were not left without inheritance, besides often receiving both a dowry and a substantial bride price, a gift of money and property from the groom and his family. A daughter could also receive some of her father's property upon his death.

Indeed, there are historical indications that, in certain perhaps more exceptional contexts, daughters might even have ended up receiving more than their brothers generally did. The inheritance at issue for Zelophehad's daughters, however, was land, and land was subject to special considerations. To ensure that land not be lost to a family, it was kept in the paternal line.

The problem for Zelophehad's daughters was that, because their father had no sons, he might receive no portion in the land, and his name, the name of their family, might be blotted out from among their kinsmen. While this would be a continuing issue in the history of the nation, it was an especially keen one at the time of the original distribution of the land. While subsequent men who died leaving only daughters would probably only risk losing their land to their nearest living kinsmen, a man with only daughters at the first division of the land risked not having any land to leave behind at all.

Zelophehad's daughters, then, feared not truly entering the inheritance of the promised land as a family, only being able to marry into the inheritance as if they were outsiders. Their concern, then, seems to have been for their family's enjoyment of a stake among the people, not, as moderns might mistakenly think, about the place of women in a patriarchal society. The judgment that the Lord gave in their case in chapter 27, verses 6 to 11, is recorded as follows.

And the Lord said to Moses, And it shall be for the people of Israel a statute and rule, as the Lord commanded Moses. In this chapter their case is brought up again, as there is a further potential complication that must be addressed. That a man's land could be left to his daughters raised the possibility of his land being lost to his clan and tribe if his daughters were to marry men of another tribe or clan.

Such land would then be given to the tribe that they had married into at the time of the Jubilee. Milgram observes the way in which, although the concern expressed is that the land not be lost to the tribe, the original concern seems to be more specific than that, that the land not be lost to the clan within the tribe. The resolution here is that they marry within their own clan, so that their possession not be lost to their father.

The daughters of Zelophehad married paternal first cousins to ensure that their father's property be preserved. The underlying logic of all of this is similar to that of the law of leper at marriage described in Deuteronomy 25 verses 5 and 6. If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go into her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of her husband's brother to her.

And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name not be blotted out of Israel. The daughters of Zelophehad, in wanting to ensure that their father's name is preserved in the land, are performing an act similar to that of leper at marriage. They perceived in the deep logic of the law a principle that seemed to work against the surface reading of the law, and so they brought their case to the Lord, appealing for some allowance to be made for the operation of that principle in their exceptional circumstance.

In chapter 27, where their case is first raised, it is probably important to read it in the light of what immediately precedes it at the end of chapter 26, something that is also referenced within it, the death of the entire Exodus generation in the wilderness on account of their sins. The men of that generation had drawn back from entering into the promise. Seen against that background, the daughters of Zelophehad present a stark contrast where the sons of Israel drew back.

Here are five daughters pressing in, doing whatever they can to ensure that the name of their dead father reaches the promised land, or at least in the settled possession of their tribe in the Transjordan, confidently appealing to the Lord's justice on his behalf. It is interesting to note that Zelophehad's daughters came from the clan of the people of Gilead, the son of Macchae. We read of this clan in Numbers chapter 32, verses 39-41.

Rabbi David Foreman observes a curious biblical detail that only the most attentive hearer might observe. In 1 Chronicles chapter 2, verses 21-23, we read of Hezron, the grandson of Judah, and his descendant Jair. Afterward, Hezron went in to the daughter of Macchae, the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was sixty years old.

And she bore him Sagab. And Sagab fathered Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead. But Gesher and Aram took from them Havath-Jair, Kenath and its villages, sixty towns.

All these were descendants of Macchae, the father of Gilead. Jair was a descendant of Judah on his father's side. However, in Numbers, he is presented as the son of Manasseh, on account of his grandmother, the daughter of Macchae.

In Jair, we have another exceptional and surprising example of a father's name being preserved and secured through his daughter's line. When we consider what the daughters of Zelophehad represent, we might understand what is fitting that the whole book of Numbers ends with a reminder of them. In the biblical history, there are several examples of women who proactively sought to ensure that the names of their husbands, fathers, or fathers-in-law not be blotted out.

We might think of the daughters of Lot in Genesis chapter 19, Tamar in Genesis chapter 38, and most notably Ruth in the book of Ruth. The actions of these women were not all morally praiseworthy. But in the character of Ruth in particular, the laudable character of such a woman's faithfulness, loyalty, and creative proactivity is most clearly manifest.

Zelophehad's daughters are exemplars of these virtues too, virtues that Israel itself should pursue as a whole nation. Zelophehad's daughters represent the promise of a new faithful generation, of a generation of children determined to grasp their possession in the land where their fathers had once drawn back. As daughters, they might also be a symbol in which Israel is invited to see itself.

At various points in our discussion of the book of Numbers, we have noted the presence of passages strangely preoccupied with unusual situations involving women or female animals. The law concerning the test of jealousy in chapter 5, the ritual of the red heifer in chapter 19, the daughters of Zelophehad in chapter 27, the law concerning the vetoing of women's vows in chapter 30, and now the case of the daughters of Zelophehad again. In each of these instances, I believe that beyond the immediate situations or cases being addressed, there is a symbol of Israel as a nation.

In these various figures, Israel can see something of what it is or what it could be. Tested as a bride, they should be found faithful, the unfaithful bride having perished in the wilderness and having been cleansed of corpse defilement. Their faithful divine husband will affirm the vow that they once made to him, and as they enter into the promised land, they should follow the example of the faithful and determined daughters of Zelophehad, grasping hold of their inheritance.

Ending on such a note, the Book of Numbers presents its hearers with a model for their own confident response to the promise of the Lord. As they follow Zelophehad's daughter's example, every one of them will secure their inheritance promised to their forefathers. A question to consider, the case of the daughters of Zelophehad was first raised in the opening half of chapter 27, a chapter which ended by treating the death of Moses and the appointment of his successor Joshua.

We have noted the likely significance of what the Book of Numbers ends with, but just as a piece of music that does not conclude in the expected manner, the absence of the expected resolution of a piece has its own effect upon a hearer. What designed effect might the text's recognized omission of any mention of the death of Moses and the succession of Joshua have upon the attentive hearer of this final chapter?