The Calling of Matthew and Many More Healings by Jesus

Continuing a Bible study of the Gospels:

(Matthew 9:1) And He entered into a ship and crossed over, and came into His own city.

At the end of the last chapter and post, the Gergesenes had asked Jesus to leave their country.  Therefore, He boarded a ship and crossed over the sea, going back to His own city, Capernaum, where He spent most of His adult life.

(2) And behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the one sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you."

Some people brought to Jesus a man struck with palsy, which probably meant he was paralyzed.  It is interesting to note that the original word translated as "palsy" is "paralutikos," very similar to the word "paralytic."  The fact that they brought the man lying on a bed, probably more accurately a mattress or pallet, shows he could not walk.  Jesus saw faith in those who brought him to Him to be healed, but rather than just immediately healing the man, Jesus told him to be of good cheer.  He called him "son," probably meant to be an endearing term, and may have been encouraging him as the man most likely had begun to greatly despond.  Jesus, knowing the hearts of men, may have known the man felt guilty and believed that sinful living had brought about his condition.  He may have felt he was too great a sinner for Jesus to regard him.  Therefore, Jesus, first calling him an endearing name, told him to take heart and be of cheer because his sins had been forgiven.  

(3) And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, "This man blasphemes!"

Some scribes who were witnessing this event, said either to themselves, or within their circle, but not aloud and openly, that Jesus blasphemed, because He had attributed to Himself the ability to forgive sins, that which only belonged to God.

(4) And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?"

Although they had not said it aloud, Jesus knew the thoughts of the scribes, and asked them why they regarded Him as evil; and with that, knowing their thoughts as no mere man could know, He proved His power divine; only God can forgive sins and only God knows the hearts of men.

(5) "For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say 'Arise and walk'?"

These scribes had obviously seen or heard of Jesus's miraculous healings.  How could He miraculously heal, other than by divine power of God?  That same power that miraculously heals, forgives sins; both are equally easy to God, and equally difficult to mere man.  The root cause of sickness and death in this world is sin, and Jesus had gone directly to the source of the sickness in this man.

(6) "But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins," then He said to the one sick of the palsy, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."

So that the scribes might know the truth, that the same One who had power on earth to miraculously heal, also had the power to forgive sins, Jesus told the paralytic to get up, take his bed, and go home.  In other words, to prove to the scribes that He had the power and authority to forgive sins, He would perform the act of healing that they surely perceived to require the power of God.

(7) And he arose, and departed to his house.

The paralytic, perfectly healed, indeed rose up and went to his house.

(8) But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, who had given such power to men.

That which was seen as evil and blasphemous to the scribes, was seen by the multitudes of people as a miracle of God, and they praised and glorified Him.  At this point, they realized only God could do these things, and in their minds, Jesus was a mere man, but they saw Him as one to whom God had given great power.

(9) And as Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the custom house; and He said to him, "Follow Me." And he arose and followed Him.

Jesus went on from the place where He had healed the paralytic.  He saw a man named Matthew (the author of this gospel account) sitting at the custom house, a place where taxes were collected.  Matthew was also known as Levi, which some of the other gospel authors call him.  Matthew was in the custom house, presumably in the midst of his business of collecting taxes, when Jesus called to him to follow Him.  It appears he, without hesitation, immediately rose and followed Jesus.

(10) And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.

This same account in Luke says that Matthew himself had made a great feast in his own house for Jesus, and there was a great company of tax collectors and sinners who were at this feast.  As Matthew had been a tax collector, it makes sense he would have known many such people.  

(11) And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Master eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

When the Pharisees saw this, the account in Luke says they murmured against Jesus's disciples, asking why would their master or teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners, not daring to ask Jesus Himself aloud.  Of course, the insinuation was that their master could not be righteous Himself if He associated with such people.

(12) But when Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but they who are sick."

Even though the Pharisees didn't have the courage to address Him, Jesus heard what they said, and addressed them directly.  Jesus told them that those who were well did not need a physician, but it was the sick who needed Him, and He should be found among them.  Likewise, those who would deem themselves righteous as the Pharisees obviously thought of themselves, then perhaps felt no need to have Him around them.  However, to those sinners He came to heal and save them.  Here Jesus represented Himself as the Great Physician of souls.

(13) "But you go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Jesus challenged the Pharisees to learn the meaning of the scripture Hosea 6:6, "For I desired mercy and not sacrifice."  The meaning, of course, was that God preferred acts of mercy and kindness over ritual acts of religion.  Jesus came for the merciful act of saving sinners, not for engaging in religious rituals with the righteous.  Jesus told them He did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but He came for sinners; therefore it was right He should associate with them.  Of course, all are sinners, but the Pharisees didn't see themselves that way, so Jesus was in essence telling them, if they were so righteous, then they didn't need Him, but these people did.

(14) Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?"

It appears that these disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus at Matthew's feast.  It is probable that John was in prison by this time.  His disciples probably correctly understood that John was the forerunner of the Messiah, so they didn't understand why there was this difference between John's disciples and Jesus's with regard to fasting.  They were possibly grieving because of John's imprisonment, and at that time observing days of fasting; and they didn't understand why the followers of Jesus would not join with them in lamenting the captivity of the one who was the forerunner and baptizer of their Lord.

(15) And Jesus said to them, "Can the children of the bridechamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and then they will fast."

The 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes states that "children of the bridechamber" was a Hebrew idiom for those who were admitted into the marriage chamber as the groom's closest friends.  Jesus's point was that while He, the bridegroom, was with them, it was a time of rejoicing, not mourning.  However, He did say there would come a time when He, the bridegroom, would be taken away from them, and then they would mourn and would fast.

(16) "No man puts a piece of new cloth on an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up takes from the garment, and the tear is made worse."

This is a rather difficult verse to understand, but I believe the meaning is this:  No one would put a new raw unwashed piece of cloth on an old garment and expect it to properly mend a hole.  The patch of new cloth, when washed, would shrink and pull away from the garment and the tear would be made worse.  Just like the children of the bridechamber could not be expected to mourn like those from without, that new patch of Christians could not be expected to wear like the old legalistic religious crowd.  Luke put it this way in his account, "The piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old."  Likewise, there was no agreement between the laws of God, that true spirit of the law Jesus was teaching them, and the old legalistic religious rituals of man.  It would only make things worse to plop those new Christians into the old ways, expecting them to observe the old traditions of man.  Either they would lose the true spirit of God's laws, or they would disrupt the old legalistic rituals.  Just like the children of the bridechamber could not mourn, but only rejoice, so this new patch of Christians could not be expected to squelch the spirit and adhere to legalistic laws of man.

(17) "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles break and the wine runs out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

This one is even more difficult.  However, when you realize that wine bottles back then were actually leather wineskins, it becomes easier to understand.  New fermenting wine would soon burst old worn out wineskins.  Once again, the new does not agree with the old.  Expecting new growing spiritual Christians to fit into the old religion of legalistic rules would hurt both; the Christians' spirits would be squelched, and their actions would disrupt the legalistic rites of man.  Once again, keeping these new Christians in their right place and time with Jesus, the bridegroom, preserves them, and doesn't disrupt the laws of man.  Jesus was telling the disciples of John with these three examples, that there was a propriety for things, and at that present time, His disciples were doing what was proper at that time.

(18) While He spoke these things to them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshiped Him, saying, "My daughter is even now dead, but come and lay Your hand upon her, and she will live."

While Jesus was speaking to the disciples of John, a certain ruler came to Him.  The accounts in Mark and Luke tell us this man's name was Jairus, and he was an elder of the synagogue.  He indeed worshiped Jesus and fell down at His feet, according to the other accounts.  From the other accounts, we get the picture that the man left his daughter at the point of death, and he imagined she would be dead by this time, or else he had been informed that she was indeed dead by then.  This man demonstrated great faith in Jesus that with His touch, he knew his daughter would live.  This is the first account in the Gospels of Jesus raising someone from the dead, although, chronologically, there had been one before this, described in Luke.  

(19) And Jesus arose and followed Him, and so did His disciples.

It appears that Jesus immediately arose and followed the man to his home.  His disciples followed, desiring to witness the miracle, I'm sure.  Jesus could have instantly healed the girl without going to her, and may have healed her before she died.  The reasons He didn't are at the least two-fold.  One was to demonstrate to His disciples that they should spare no steps or pains to save a soul.  The other was likely to give the child time to die, and He would perform a greater miracle.  Why did Jesus have to perform a bigger miracle?  He was teaching that He had power over everything--sickness, demons, weather, and even death.  

(20) And behold, a woman who was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind and touched the hem of His garment. (21) For she said within herself, "If I may but touch His garment, I shall be whole."

While Jesus was on His way to Jairus's house, a woman who had been ill with a flow of blood for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the hem of His garment.  She felt that if she could only touch Jesus's garment, she would be healed and made whole."

(22) But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her, He said, "Daughter, be of good comfort; your faith has made you whole."  And the woman was made whole from that hour.

When the woman touched His hem, Jesus turned around and spoke to her, telling her to be of good cheer, that her faith had healed her.  She surely had demonstrated great faith in Him that merely touching the hem of His garment would heal her.  She was healed or made whole, probably instantly.  The original word that was translated as "hour" also meant "an instant," and knowing our Lord by His previous miracles, I am sure the healing was instantaneous.

(23) And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, (24) He said to them, "Make room, for the maiden is not dead, but sleeps."  And they laughed Him to scorn.

By the time Jesus arrived at the ruler's house, his daughter was indeed dead.  There were musicians and people lamenting her death.  Jesus told them to make room for Him, that the girl was not dead, but only sleeping.  To that statement, the people ridiculed Him for they "knew" her to be dead.

(25) But when the people were put out, He went in and took her by the hand, and the maiden arose.

When the people were moved out, Jesus went in to where the girl lay, and took her by the hand, and she arose.

(26) And the fame of this went abroad into all that land.

The report of this miracle of raising that girl from the dead went far and wide all over that countryside.

(27) And when Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, "Son of David, have mercy on us!"

When Jesus left Jairus's house where he had raised his daughter from the dead, two blind men followed Him, crying out to Him, calling Him the son of David, and asking Him to have mercy on them.  These blind men seemed to have great faith that Jesus was the Messiah, that Son of David (Matthew 1:1), and He would open the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 35:5).

(28) And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."

When Jesus had come into the house to which He had been going, the blind men followed Him.  Jesus did not stop to talk to them as they followed Him on the way to the house, even though they were crying out to Him.  This may have been to avoid an audience, or perhaps to test their faith, as He did then, asking them if they believed He could heal their blindness.  They answered that yes, they believed He was able.

(29) Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith let it be to you."

Jesus touched their eyes.  He certainly did not have to touch them to heal them, but since they were blind, I believe it may have been an extra bit of communication demonstrating that the power to heal their eyes did come from Him.  Jesus healed in many different ways, I believe to show His power was not limited to any one way, and to prove there was no one magic formula.  He told the blind men that according to the great faith they had, they would receive the sight they believed He could grant.

(30) And their eyes were opened; and Jesus sternly charged them, saying, "See that no man knows."

Their eyes were immediately opened, meaning they could see.  Jesus this time more sternly charged these recipients of miraculous healing not to tell anyone.  How could they not tell?  Even if they tried to keep such an amazing miracle a secret, it would become quite evident pretty soon afterward that they could now see.  I believe the only explanation is that Jesus didn't want them to go out and immediately proclaim it.  It is probably for the same reason that He didn't heal them until they came privately into the house.  For one thing, Jesus did not heal for fame and vain glory; and He did not want to draw even more throngs of people that might hasten His persecution and crucifixion, as all things must be done in God's timing.

(31) But they, when they were departed, spread abroad His fame in all that country.

In spite of Jesus's stern command, the blind men went out and proclaimed far and wide what He had done for them, spreading His fame throughout all that country.

(32) As they went out, behold, they brought to Him a dumb man possessed with a devil.

When the blind men went out of the house, some other people brought to Jesus a mute man who was demon-possessed.

(33) And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spoke, and the multitudes marveled, saying, "It was never seen like this in Israel!"

Apparently, the muteness was not natural, but was demon-caused, for when Jesus cast out the demon, the mute man immediately spoke.  The multitudes marveled, meaning a great number of people had come to witness the miracle, possibly being driven by the proclamation of the blind men as they were going out.  They exclaimed there had never before been anything like the miracles of Jesus seen in Israel.  Although there had been many miracles performed in Israel's past by Moses and the prophets, they had never seen anything like what Jesus could do.

(34) But the Pharisees said, "He casts out devils by the prince of the devils."

The Pharisees, who had begun to be envious and scornful of Jesus, absurdly remarked that He cast out demons by the power of the prince of the demons, Satan himself.  They could not deny that Jesus had indeed cast out demons, nor could they deny that it was a good thing that He did in casting them out.  Therefore, their only possible charge against Him was that He cast out demons by the power of Satan, which seems a ridiculous charge, because why would Satan want to cast devils out of people?  But such is the wisdom of fools, as there is no wisdom against God (Proverbs 21:30).

(35) And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Jesus went about all the cities and villages, not confining Himself to one area, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the good news of the kingdom of the Messiah, that is, that reconciliation to God was possible through salvation in the Messiah.  Once again, it is stated that Jesus healed every sickness and disease among the people.  Also I am once again reminded that Word of Faith followers believe this means every sickness and disease must now be healed if only we had the faith to believe Christ has already done it.  He has indeed healed us from death, but He has not healed us from every disease we may possess on earth.  I believe the hundred percent healings He did during His time was for the purpose of showing His power over all sin, sickness, and death.  To not heal even one would have made fodder for the skeptics to say He was unable to heal that one.  However, we have the knowledge that Christ did overcome all, even death, and now those miraculous healings are not always necessary.  Yes, sometimes people are healed miraculously in this day and age.  I have been witness to one remarkable healing.  If that is God's will that it might be used for His glory and to bring more people to salvation, then He may choose to do it.  However, it can also be His will to have people witness the faith and joy in someone even through his or her sickness, and that can make people want to know the reason and source of their joy (1 Peter 3:15).

(36) But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were faint and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.

As Jesus went about all the cities and villages, He was moved with compassion for the multitudes of people He saw.  They were weary in their minds and souls, tossed about and divided with the rites of religion and the doctrines of the Pharisees.  Although they had many teachers, they had no one to care for their souls, and were lost as sheep with no shepherds.

(37) Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few."

Being moved by seeing all the people without a shepherd, Jesus told His disciples that the harvest of souls that were prepared to receive the truth of the gospel was plentiful, but there were few workers or ministers to bring them in to their place of salvation.

(38) "Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth laborers into His harvest."

Jesus instructed His disciples to pray to God that He would send forth laborers to bring these lost souls to salvation.  The original word "ekballo" that was translated as "send forth" was actually a much stronger emphatic word, meaning more like "eject" or "thrust forth."  There was to be an urgency in the prayers for workers who had never before had occasion for work such as this.  Therefore they were to be pushed outside their comfort zones into new territory, being led by the Holy Spirit and furnished with the grace and gifts necessary for the work.

This chapter presented many different healings by Jesus.  Jesus healed all who came to Him, demonstrating His power over all sins and demons and even death.  There is no sin so bad, nor any sinner so wicked, that cannot be forgiven by Jesus.  There was also demonstrated in this chapter the perseverance of those coming to Christ in the case of the man on a cot being brought by others, and the woman who grabbed at Jesus's hem as He went by.  So the poor sinner should let no obstacle stand in his way, but come to Jesus at once.  We saw in this chapter strong instances of faith in Jesus to heal and even raise from the dead.  We may be just as assured that Jesus will not turn any of us away who truly seek His salvation.

Clean and Unclean Meats, and Tithes Eaten Before the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 14:1) “You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead."

In the last chapter and post, Moses gave the people dire warnings against idolatry.  Now he began describing some of the customs of the pagans that would be around them.  There was a practice among them of cutting themselves or shaving the front of their heads in lamentations for their dead.  These same practices were performed for their deities, consecrating their hair for them, or making incisions in their flesh to honor their gods.  The children of Israel were children of the one true God of the universe, and He was not to be disparaged by the common and grotesque practices the heathens performed for their worthless idols.

(2) “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a treasured people to Himself, above all the nations that are on the earth."

The children of Israel were a holy people, set apart by the Lord from all other people, chosen by Him to be His special treasure, to be His special servants and worshipers, above all the other nations on the earth.

(3) "You shall not eat any abominable thing."

The children of Israel were not to eat anything unclean and forbidden by the Lord, which would therefore be abominable to Him, so should be likewise to His people.

(4) "These are the beasts which you shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, (5) The hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygarg, the wild ox, and the chamois."

Moses then gave the people a list of the animals whose flesh they were allowed to eat per their Lord.  I did not try to translate or alter the names of these animals as given in the King James Version.  The first three are obvious, then there are any of a number of deer varieties, wild goats and wild oxen, and there are various opinions on what is meant by the pygarg and the chamois.  I don't see that it really matters; we know they were clean animals.  Additionally, the next verse tells us how to distinguish a clean animal from an unclean one.

(6) "And every beast that parts the hoof, and cleaves the cleft into two claws, and chews the cud among the beasts, that you shall eat."

Every animal with cloven hooves and that chewed the cud were allowed to be eaten.  It must be stressed that it had to be both.  Camels apparently chewed the cud, but did not have cloven hooves, and therefore could not be eaten.  Swine have cloven hooves, but do not chew the cud, so they were considered unclean and not to be eaten.

(7) "Nevertheless, these you shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof:  the camel, the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, but do not divide the hoof, they are unclean to you.  (8) And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you; you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcasses."

Indeed, Moses did go on to explain that the animals had to have both cloven hooves and the practice of chewing the cud.  Those that had just one or the other trait were considered unclean.  The people were not to eat of their flesh, nor even touch their dead carcasses.  As always, God's laws are not arbitrary and tyrannical, but are made for our good.  Animals that chew the cud, ruminants, have multiple stomachs and digest their food in stages.  The more fibrous portion of their food, the cud, is regurgitated and chewed again.  This mixes the cud with saliva and continues to break it down into more easily absorbed nutrients.  This method of nutrient absorption extracts the ultimate benefit from nutrient-poor vegetation like grass and leaves.  Animals that chew the cud have better nutrition!  Additionally, the unclean animals include all scavengers that eat decaying flesh.  Even the animals that are predatory generally prey on the weakest animals, which can often be because they are diseased.  Likewise, the sea creatures that do not have fins and scales, described as the unclean of the species, such as lobsters and crabs and shellfish, scavenge for dead animals and decaying matter (including waste) on the sea floor.  These unclean animals routinely eat what would sicken or even kill humans.

(9) “These you may eat of all that are in the waters: you shall eat all that have fins and scales. (10) And whatever does not have fins and scales you may not eat; it is unclean to you."

Indeed, Moses went on to describe what fishes could be eaten, only those with fins and scales.

(11) “All clean birds you shall eat."

Moses then went to the subject of fowl.  The people were allowed to eat all clean birds.

(12) “But these you shall not eat: the eagle, the ossifrage, and the ospray, (13) And the glede, the kite, and the vulture after its kind, (14) And every raven after its kind, (15) And the owl, the night hawk, the cuckow, and the hawk after its kind, (16) The little owl, the great owl, and the swan, (17) And the pelican, the gier eagle, and the cormorant, (18) And the stork, the heron after its kind, the lapwing, and the bat."

Once again we have a list of animals with the meaning of many names in dispute.  I listed them just as the KJV did.  Since there was no general rule given as with the cud-chewing cloven hoofed animals and the fish with fins and scales, one would assume that all birds could be eaten that were not on the list of forbidden ones.  That makes that list and its correct translation more important.  The original word for "ossifrage" was "peres" from a word meaning "claw", so it appears to be a bird of prey.  The meaning of "ospray" is unknown.  "Glede" means "sharp sight" so is thought to be a bird of prey.  I believe the same rule about animals could be applied to birds; scavengers like vultures eat dead flesh; birds of prey like hawks and eagles could prey on slower diseased animals; and some of the birds that appear to just eat fish like the pelican, the cormorant, the heron, the lapwing, and I believe would include the seagull, are sea birds of prey.

(19) "And every creeping thing that flies is unclean to you; they shall not be eaten. (20) All clean fowls you may eat."

The original word translated as "creeping things", "sherets", comes from a word meaning "wriggle" or "swarm", indicating insects.  The point in verse 19 is that even though some insects fly as birds do, they are considered unclean.  However, clean birds that fly may be eaten.

(21) “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you shall give it to the stranger who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to an alien, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."

God's people were forbidden to eat the flesh of any animal that had died on its own.  However, they were allowed to give it to the stranger within their gates, which would have been someone not of their Jewish religion, or they might even sell it to a foreigner.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, gave a good explanation for this, and pointed out something I had not before realized.  Although this law was repeated from Leviticus, the permissions now granted were only at this time being granted.  To have forbidden the people to allow to be eaten what had died among their herds would have involved loss of property.  In the wilderness, they had had little opportunity to sell any animal that had died on its own.  Now there was opportunity, so the people could remain a holy people to the Lord and not eat an animal that had died on its own or had been killed by wild beasts (Leviticus 22:8), but could give it to a guest or sell it to a foreigner. 

This is the third time that the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk had been given.  The reasons for the prohibition have been unclear.  It could have been seen as cruel to take a baby before its time when it was supposed to be left with its mother and then boil it in its own mother's milk which was designed for its life and nourishment.  Apparently, there was also a heathen custom at the time of boiling a kid in its mother's milk at the end of harvest and sprinkling that milk on the fields to make them more fruitful the next year.  For the first time, I saw a simple reason given in the 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes, "Because their blood was not shed, but remains in them."  Whatever the reason, it had been given three times, surely indicating how important it was, if only for the reason that God said.

(22) “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field brings forth year by year."

All the commentaries I study say this is speaking of a second tithe.  The first tenth or tithe was given wholly to the Levites who had no inheritance in the land.  However, as this tithe was eaten by the owners themselves, as we'll see in the following verses, it must be a second tithe.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, pointed out that although the people's produce was tithed twice, meaning 20% instead of only 10%, the second could hardly be seen as a hardship, since they themselves would receive the benefit of it.  It surely would have been a reminder that all belonged to the Lord, as they brought their tithe as recognition of God's blessings and in thanksgiving to Him.  The people were instructed to separate the tithes themselves and were to do so truly and honestly, taking care that God's part might not be diminished either by design or by oversight.

(23) “And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your corn, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks; that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always."

The people would be allowed to eat of those tithes before the Lord in the place where He would later choose to place His name, the tithe of their grains, of their wine, of their oil, and of the firstborn of their herds and flocks.  This was said to be done so that they might learn to fear their Lord God always.  As was stated before, the people learned to be mindful that everything they had was given them by their Lord God, and without Him, they might have nothing.

(24) "And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it, if the place is too far from you, where the LORD your God shall choose to put His name, when the LORD your God has blessed you, (25) Then shall you turn it into money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God shall choose."

If the place where the Lord was going to choose to be His place where He would have His name, was too far that the people were not able to carry their tithes of all with which the Lord had blessed them, then they were allowed to turn it into money, the value of their tithes, and take that to the Lord's place of His choosing.

(26) “And you shall bestow that money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires; and you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Just as the people who brought their tithes would be allowed to feast upon them before the Lord, so would the people who brought money be allowed to buy whatever they desired with regard to food or drink to feast before the Lord.  And yes, it does appear that strong drink was allowed.  I get amused at all the commentators who go to great links to suggest this passage does not mean what it says.  "Strong drink" would have meant any fermented beverage, as wine was fermented grape juice.  It is very clear that the Bible condemns drunkenness, but it is equally clear that wine and other fermented drinks were allowed.  Psalm 104:15 considers wine a gift from God that gladdens the heart.  There is a huge difference in having a glass of wine or even beer with a meal that lightened the heart and allowed more rejoicing before the Lord, or going into a bar and getting drunk, or even getting drunk at home, although done privately, is certainly not healthy or edifying before the Lord.  I believe we all know in our hearts, and isn't that what God judges, when we are rejoicing in God's gifts, or indulging to excess.  That would include all manner of activities, including the eating of food.  God's gifts that He wished people to enjoy in His presence included all manner of food which when taken to the extreme of gluttony is certainly condemned (Proverbs 23:20-21).

(27) "And the Levite who is within your gates, you shall not forsake him, for he has no part nor inheritance with you."

Once again is the reminder to never forget the Levites, and always include them in their feasts before the Lord, as they did not have their own part in the inheritance of the other tribes.

(28) "At the end of three years you shall bring forth the tithe of your increase the same year, and shall lay it up within your gates."

Every third year the tithe of the increase from that same year was to be stored up for the poor.

(29) “And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do."

Once again, the Levites who had no other portion in the inheritance of God's people, could come, eat, and be satisfied, as well as the poor and needy (strangers, orphans, widows, etc.).  Their Lord God would bless them in all the work of their hands, when His commands, including this one respecting the tithes were obeyed.

Once again, we can marvel at the wise laws of God that provide for all.  If we would only adhere to these laws!  It's not for government to provide all the needs of the poor (unless it would be a Godly government), for government requires we taxpayers pay for many ungodly things.  If the churches and ministries for the poor and needy were their only providers, the poor would receive a much more Godly message than the one given by the government.  Unfortunately, government gives the message that it is the only provider of needs and makes people dependent on it, and believe that only by more government, can they survive.  Our current laws encourage laziness and broken families.  They are completely antithetical to God's word, which says that an idle hand becomes poor, but a diligent hand gets rich (Proverbs 10:4).  For those who cannot work, God provides for them through the promises of blessings to those who generously support them.  He even encourages that His very tithes be given to their support.  Oh, that we would totally trust God for our needs!  "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want..." and His grace is sufficient for me (2 Corinthians 12:9)!

Moses Continues His Historical Review

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 2:1) “Then we turned and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea, as the LORD spoke to me, and we circled Mount Seir for many days."

In the last chapter and post, Moses addressed the children of Israel in their fortieth year after their exodus from Egypt.  He spoke to a new generation of Israelites about to enter their promised land.  It was a historical review of the events that led to their having to wander in the wilderness for so many years.  The end of chapter 1 left them in Kadesh after the Lord had told them they would not be able to enter their promised land because of their unbelief.  Deuteronomy 1:40 related the words of the Lord telling the people to turn back toward the Red Sea and journey into the wilderness.

Here in the second chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses continued his historical account.  The people indeed turned back toward the Red Sea as the Lord had told them to do, and they went around Mount Seir for many days.  Most of the commentaries I study interpreted this to mean they wandered around the entire mountainous country of Edom for many, many days, as in thirty-eight years.  The original word "rab" translated as "many" means "abundant" and is a shortened form of the word "rabab" which means "increase", even "multiply by the myriad" and "ten thousands".  The word that was translated as "days", that is "yom", Strong's defines as "literally (days), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term)", which in this case is a myriad or thousands of days.

(2) “And the LORD spoke to me, saying, (3) ‘You have circled this mountain long enough; turn northward.'"

Moses told the people it was at that point that the Lord spoke to him saying they had been around that mountain long enough and that it was time to turn northward.  The following map shared by www.gantshillurc.co.uk, specifically in this blog post, shows Mount Seir's proximity to the Red Sea.  It was time to move northward toward Canaan.

(4) "‘And command the people, saying, “You will pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir, and they shall be afraid of you; therefore take good heed to yourselves."'"

Moses related to the people that the Lord then told him to charge the people to be very careful as they were to be passing through the border of the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, who dwelt in Seir.  The Edomites would be afraid of the Israelites and might feel threatened.  Numbers 20:21 said that Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.  Some of the commentaries I study believe that although they could not cross into Edom, they went along the border.  The 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes referred to this as the second time they were to cross the border of Edom.

(5) "'“Do not meddle with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession."'"

Moses continued telling the people of the Lord's command to them regarding Edom.  They were not to meddle with the Edomites.  The Lord had given Mount Seir to Esau to possess; "Thus Esau dwelt in Mount Seir; Esau is Edom" (Genesis 36:8).  He would not allow Israel to possess so much as a footstep of the Edomites' land.

(6) "'"You shall buy food from them with money, that you may eat; and you shall also buy water from them with money, that you may drink."'"

The Lord allowed the Israelites to trade fairly with the Edomites.  Although the people had daily manna, it appears the Lord did not forbid them to trade with their neighbors when they had the opportunity.  I do believe the sense of this verse is that they must trade fairly.  They were not to take advantage of the Edomites in any way.

(7) "'"For the LORD your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand; He knows your walking through this great wilderness; these forty years the LORD your God has been with you; you have lacked nothing."'"

Because the Lord had so blessed the children of Israel in all they did so that they had lacked nothing in their forty years of wandering, they had no reason to take anything from the Edomites without fair payment.

(8) “And when we passed beyond our brethren the children of Esau, who dwelt in Seir, through the way of the plain from Elath and from Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the wilderness of Moab."

Moses continued to relate to the Israelites about when they had passed beyond the border of the Edomites in Seir by way of the plain from Elath and Ezion Geber, and turned and passed by way of the wilderness of Moab.  This map from Free Bible Images offers a good idea of what was meant.  In Numbers the Israelites had requested passage through Edom along the King's Highway, but were refused.  If they instead traveled along the border of Edom from Elath and Ezion Geber on the Red Sea, they would have been in the plain west of Edom until they turned back eastward to the wilderness which was "before Moab" (as described in Numbers 21:11).
 

(9) "And the LORD said to me, 'Do not distress the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the children of Lot for a possession.'"

Like with the Edomites, the Lord had told Moses not to harass the Moabites, at least not at this time, because He had given Ar, the metropolis of Moab, to the descendants of Lot.  Genesis 19:37 told about Lot's firstborn daughter bearing a son named Moab, and he was the father of the Moabites.

(10) The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. (11) Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

These two verses, as well as the next verse, were sort of parenthetical statements.  Most translations even put them in parentheses.  They don't appear to be part of Moses's statements, but were either placed by him as a parenthetical, or perhaps by a later scribe.  The land of the Moabites that at that time had been given to descendants of Lot, had once belonged to the Emim, a people great and many and as tall as the Anakim, who were considered giants.  In Genesis 14, we were told about the Emim, who were destroyed by King Chedorlaomer.  Then Lot possessed their country after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

(12) The Horims also dwelt in Seir formerly, but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their place, just as Israel did to the land of their possession which the LORD gave them.

The Horim, or Horites, were also mentioned in Genesis 14 as dwelling in Seir, till Esau and his sons drove them out, as explained in a later verse here in Deuteronomy.  "Just as Israel did..." could have been added by a later hand after Israel had indeed driven out the inhabitants to take possession of the land promised them by their Lord, or it could have been a prophetic statement by Moses.  Either way, I believe an underlying theme is that the Lord determined who would possess what, driving out the inhabitants for their sins, and giving the land to whomever He pleased.  It should have been an encouragement to the Israelites that they would surely succeed in dispossessing the Canaanites and settling in their land, just as dispossessions of this kind had already been made, even the removing of giants!

(13) "'Now rise up', said I, 'and cross over the brook Zered.' And we went over the brook Zered."

After the parenthetical verses, we return to the words of Moses.  The children of Israel had passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab (v. 8) and at this time Moses instructed them to cross the valley of Zered, as it was more commonly known, the original word "nachlah" meaning either a brook or a valley.  They indeed crossed the valley of Zered.

(14) “And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over the brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until all the generation of the men of war was consumed from the midst of the camp, just as the LORD had sworn to them. (15) For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed."

The space of time from the time that the spies were sent from Kadesh Barnea, until the passage of the Israelites over Zered, was thirty eight years, until the entire generation of men who had believed the bad report of God's good promised land, were dead and gone from the camp.  The Lord had indeed told them at the time of the bad report that none of them would enter the promised land, except for Caleb and Joshua who had trusted God's report over that of the spies.

(16) "So it came to pass, when all the men of war were consumed and dead from among the people, (17) That the LORD spoke to me, saying, (18) 'You are to pass over through Ar, the coast of Moab, this day.'"

After 38 years when all the former generation were dead and gone, the Lord told Moses it was time for the people to cross over the river Arnon, by the city Ar of Moab, which was situated by it; and they were to pass along by the border only of Moab, because they had been told by the Lord not to distress the Moabites (v. 9).

(19) "'And when you come near the children of Ammon, do not distress them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the children of Lot for a possession.'"

As with the Moabites who descended from Lot's firstborn daughter's son, the children of Ammon were also Lot's descendants through his younger daughter (Genesis 19:38).  The Lord had told the children of Israel not to harass the children of Ammon, either, because He had also given them their land, and would not allow it to be given to Israel.

(20) (That also was counted a land of giants; giants dwelt there in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; (21) A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.

Again we have a parenthetical statement; even the KJV put these verses within parentheses.  Just like the Emim who had dwelt in Moab, so the people who had formerly dwelt in the land of Ammon, were considered giants.  The Ammonites called them Zamzummims, which is thought to be the same as the Zuzims mentioned in Genesis 14:5, who were also destroyed by Chedorlaomer at the same time as the Emim.  It is said that it was the Lord who destroyed them, and the Ammonites, descendants of Lot, then dwelt in their place.

(22) As He did for the children of Esau, who dwelt in Seir, when He destroyed the Horims from before them; they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even to this day. (23) And the Avim, who dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and dwelt in their place.)

Continuing parenthetical statements in explanation of the history of the Ammonites as to why the children of Israel were not to harass them, it is said the Lord did the same for the Ammonites as He had done for the children of Esau when He destroyed the Horites and the children of Esau dwelt in their place (v. 12).  So was the case of the Avim or Avites, who dwelt in villages as far as Gaza; they were destroyed by the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, and they dwelt in their place.

(24) “‘Rise up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon; behold, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.'"

After the parenthetical statements, Moses continued speaking the words of the Lord he had begun in verse 17 and 18.  The Lord had told the children of Israel to rise up from where they were, take their journey over the river Arnon, and seize the country of Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon.  The Lord said He had already given it to them; they just had to go in and possess it, by battling Sihon.

(25) "‘This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the nations under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you, and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.’"

Moses continued with the words of the Lord saying that as the children of Israel went in to possess the land of Sihon, when they fought, He would be there putting dread and fear of them upon all nations.  Those nations would hear about the children of Israel, all the things they, or more properly, what the Lord had done before them--in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, miracles in the wilderness, and now what would be done to Sihon and Og.  The world would know Israel's reputation and would tremble in fear at the thought of them.

(26) “And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, (27) ‘Let me pass through your land; I will go along by the highway, I will neither turn to the right nor to the left.'"

After reminding the people of the words of the Lord, Moses continued talking to them, telling them of his actions at that time.  He sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, asking that the Israelites be able to pass through their land, promising to stay on the king's highway, not veering off it.

(28) "‘You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot, (29) as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar did for me, until I cross over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God gives us.'"

Moses continued with his message to Sihon.  He proposed that his people also be allowed to buy food and water, paying fair money for the use, just as they had done with the Edomites in Seir and the Moabites in Ar, until they all passed by on foot across the Jordan into the land their Lord had given them.

(30) “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day."

However, Sihon king of Heshbon refused the Israelites passage through his land, because the Lord had hardened Sihon's heart against them.  Just as the Lord had hardened Pharaoh's heart in Egypt for His purposes at that time, so He at this time hardened Sihon's heart for the purpose of having him destroyed at this time.  Just as with Pharaoh, the Lord did not force a good person to turn bad just so He could punish him for no reason.  Both of these were wicked leaders that were allowed to go on with their wicked ways until such time the Lord sought to deal with them.  When that time came, he hardened the heart of the enemy so that he would not listen to the words of Moses, but act with the same pride and haughtiness of spirit that he had always had that made him despise Israel.  It was not out of character for Sihon at this time, just as it wasn't out of Pharaoh's character.  I think the sense could be that the Lord didn't allow their hearts to be softened at the gentle reasonable requests of Moses, but made them stay as hard as they ever were.  At any rate, Sihon did refuse to let the Israelites pass, and the Lord made sure of that so that He might deliver Sihon into the Israelites' hands.

(31) “And the LORD said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before you; begin to possess it, that you may inherit his land.’"

When Sihon refused to let the Israelites pass, the Lord said to Moses that this was part of His plan to begin to give Sihon and his land over to Israel to possess it.  Therefore, had said the Lord, they were to go forth and take possession of Sihon's land as part of their promised inheritance.

(32) "Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz."

Indeed Sihon came out against the children of Israel to fight them at a place called Jahaz.

(33) “And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people."

Moses reflected that the Lord had indeed delivered Sihon into their hands.  They were able to defeat him, his sons, and all his people.

(34) "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."

The Israelites took all of the cities of Sihon and utterly destroyed them and killed all the people so that none remained.  It was the time that the Amorites' iniquity was full, as was prophesied in Genesis 15:16 to Abraham, that after four generations his descendants would return to the land of the Amorites, but at that time of Abraham, "the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full."

(35) "Only the cattle we took for a prey to ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took."

The Israelites had destroyed all the cities and all the people, but did not kill the cattle.  They kept them for their own use, as well as plunder of anything of value or usefulness that was left in the cities after the destruction of all the people.

(36) "From Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even to Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us; the LORD our God delivered all to us."

It appears that the two phrases "which is on the bank of the River Arnon" and "the city that is by the river" both refer to Aroer.  Aroer stood on the north bank of the river, but also extended through the midst of the river via a viaduct.  From Aroer to Gilead, there wasn't a city they couldn't overtake because the Lord delivered the cities to them.

(37) "Only to the land of the children of Ammon you did not come, nor to any place of the river Jabbok, nor to the cities in the mountains, nor to wherever the LORD our God forbade us."

However, Moses reminded them, the children of Israel had not gone near the land of the children of Ammon, nor any town or city situated on the Jabbok River which was the border of the children of Ammon, certainly not into their cities in the mountains, nor any place the Lord had forbidden them to go.

The earth is the Lord's and He gives it to whom He pleases.  God had told His people which lands were to be overtaken, and only those were to be destroyed and plundered.  The Moabites and Ammonites were spared at this time, but later fought against the Israelites and committed the most shocking cruelties; the Lord would deal with them later.

The Law of Sin Offerings for Unintentional Sins of Ignorance

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 4:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a person shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them;'"

The Lord continued talking to Moses telling him what to say to the people with regard to offerings and sacrifices.  In the first three chapters of Leviticus, He had given Moses instructions for voluntary burnt offerings, grain offerings, and peace offerings.  This appears to be a new type of offering for a person who sinned through ignorance.  This appears to refer to an actual deed, something done against the commandments, not just a word or thought, and it appears to be a committed act done against the commandment that stated the act should not be done.  That is to say there may be a distinction being made here between a sin of commission, doing something the Lord commanded not to do, and one of omission, not doing something the Lord said to do.

(3) "'If the priest that is anointed sins, according to the sin of the people, then let him offer to the LORD for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish for a sin offering.'"

Continuing the instructions for a person who sins unintentionally, the Lord started with a case of an anointed priest who sinned through ignorance or unintentionally.  Most all the old commentaries I study on a regular basis believe "the priest that is anointed" meant the high priest.  Although the high priest should have the greatest understanding and knowledge of the Lord and His laws, it would be possible for even him to sin through ignorance, especially since the word of God was still being revealed at the time the Lord was giving these instructions.  To me "according to the sin of the people" sounds as if the priest committed the same such sins as the common people, but most of the old commentaries suggested this phrase meant more along the lines of "making the people to sin".  Indeed, a person in an elevated position could lead masses of people astray by his erred example, even if unintentional.  Perhaps by observing a general sin of the people, it could be pointed back to the unintentional advice or consent of the high priest, and that is what is meant by "according to the sin of the people".  In whatever way it was meant, when the priest sinned in ignorance of the law and unintentionally, he was to offer a young bull without blemish for a sin offering.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, wrote that a young bullock (as it was written in the KJV) was considered one to be two years old.  He referenced Maimonides, the Jewish medieval scholar, who wrote that "wherever it is said a calf, that is a young one of the first year, but a bullock it is a young one of the second year", and neither were to be confused with an ox which was three years old.  

(4) "'And he shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD, and shall lay his hand on the bull’s head, and kill the bull before the LORD.'"

The priest was to bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle and was to lay his hand on the bull's head, indicating that this sacrifice was his and his alone, and that he alone deserved to die as that animal he brought was about to do, but with this animal sacrifice, he requested pardon of his sin.  This action of laying his hand on the head of the bull also signified the transferring of his sins from himself to this sacrifice, which was to be offered to make atonement for them.

(5) "'And the priest that is anointed shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation.'"

The high priest offering for himself was he himself to take some of the bull's blood and bring it inside the tabernacle, probably in a basin.

(6) "'And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.'"

The priest offering for himself was to then dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil that covered the mercy seat within the holiest of holies.  The number seven was a number of perfection indicating completion or fullness.  It began with creation when the Lord made everything in six days and rested the seventh.  The sprinkling probably represented the sprinkling of Christ's blood ("So shall He sprinkle many nations..." - Isaiah 52:15), and sprinkling seven times represented the perfect satisfaction Christ made with the complete cleansing of souls by His blood, of which this animal blood sacrifice was a precursor and picture of what was to come. 

(7) "'And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.'"

The priest, again offering for himself, was to then put some of the blood on the horns of the incense altar, which was the golden altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place.  He was then to pour out all the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering which was at the door of the tabernacle.

(8) "'And he shall take from it all the fat of the bull for the sin offering; the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, (9) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, he shall remove, (10) As it was taken from the bull of the sacrifice of peace offering; and the priest shall burn them on the altar of the burnt offering.'"

The priest was to take from the bull the fat that covered the inwards (possibly the mid-section), the two kidneys and the fat that was on them, and the caul above the liver, just as it was to be taken from the bull of the peace offering (Lev. 3:3-5, studied here).  These parts were to be burned on the altar of burnt offering.

(11) "'And the skin of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and legs, its inwards and its dung, (12) The whole bull he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out it shall be burned.'"

 The head and body of the animal, including its internal organs and dung, skin and all, were to be carried outside the camp to a certain place appointed for that purpose, "where the ashes are poured out", and there it was to be burnt to ashes.

(13) "'And if the whole congregation of Israel sins through ignorance, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty, (14) When the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the congregation shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of the congregation.'"

Continuing the instructions for sin offerings for people who sinned unintentionally, the Lord turned now to the case of a whole congregation that sinned through ignorance or unintentionally.  This might be the case if they were led astray by a high priest who also sinned unintentionally.  Again this seems to refer to sins of commission against the negative precepts, i.e. "Thou shalt not..."  When the sin was made known to them, then the congregation was to offer a young bull for the sin, the same offering as that of the anointed priest, and they were to bring it before the tabernacle.

(15) "'And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD; and the bull shall be killed before the LORD.'"

It was not possible for all the people to put their hands on the head of the bull, especially when it was possible the whole nation could have sinned unintentionally.  Therefore only the elders, as representatives of the entire people, were to place their hands on the head of the bull.  The elders were agents for the people, and they represented the fact that all the people acknowledged that this offering was theirs and they recognized that they deserved to die for their transgression against the Lord, and that by their agents' hands on the bull's head, they were transferring their sin to the bull and offered it to make atonement for them.   The bull was then to be killed, although the verse does not specify whether this was to be done by the elders, the priest, or some third party butcher.

(16) "'And the priest that is anointed shall bring some of the bull’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation. (17) And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil.'"

It was definitely by this point that the anointed priest took over from the elders, and he was to bring some of the bull's blood to the tabernacle, as he did for himself in verse 5.  As he also did for himself in verse 6, the priest was to dip his finger in the blood of the people's bull sacrifice and was to sprinkle it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil that covered the Ark of the Covenant with the mercy seat.

(18) "‘And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.'"

Some of the blood was then put on the horns of the incense altar, the golden altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place, and the remaining blood was poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which was at the door of the tabernacle.

(19) "'And he shall take all the fat from it and burn it on the altar. (20) And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull for a sin offering; thus he shall do with it; and the priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them. (21) And he shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is a sin offering for the congregation.'"

The priest was then to take the fat from the bull and burn it on the altar.  It was to be done in the same way as with the sin offering of the high priest in verses 8 and 9 above--the fat covering the inwards, the kidneys and their fat, and the caul above the liver.  With this sin offering of the congregation, the priest could make atonement for their sin and it would be forgiven them.  The priest was then to carry the bull outside the camp just as was done in verse 12, and burn it to ashes.

(22) "‘When a ruler has sinned, and done something through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty, (23) Or if his sin, wherein he has sinned, comes to his knowledge, he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish.'"

The Lord turned to instructions for the sin offering of a ruler.  First I have to take an aside with the original word translated as "ruler"--"nasi", meaning "exalted one" or "one lifted up", "chief, prince, captain, leader".  I find it so interesting that we called the Nazis this when that name was really only an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistishe, the national socialist German workers party.  I find no evidence that people realized its Hebrew meaning at the time.  Rather it is suggested that it was a derogatory slang word akin to "nutsy", and Hitler and his party did not call themselves Nazis.  There is also this movement that suggests a connection between Nazis and Ashkenazi, but I certainly won't go there.  The word is simply "Nazi", or "nasi" in Hebrew, and means "exalted one" or "one lifted up", and I find it very interesting that name came to be used thousands of years after it was first written in the Bible.  It seems as if people didn't really know why they came to use the term, but there may be a divine reason behind it.  Just food for thought...

Back to the sin offering of a ruler:  This ruler probably referred to anyone who was lifted up above others as with a political leader, prince, or governor of a family or tribe.  Some of the old commentaries I read suggest that it meant "king", but I don't see that the word "nasi" was ever translated as "king" in any other scriptures.  Its most common translation was "prince", followed by "captain", "chief", "ruler", and one instance of "governor".  Once again this sin offering was for a ruler who sinned against the negative precepts, doing something that he was commanded not to do, but he did it in ignorance of the law.  It was not an intentional sin.  Once the sin came to his knowledge, he was to bring his offering, that of a kid of the goats, a male without blemish.  I find it interesting that the sin offering of a ruler seems less than that of a high priest or even one of a whole congregation; a kid seems smaller and less of a burden and sacrifice than a young bull.  This may suggest that a ruler was held to a lesser standard than the high priest, which makes perfect sense.  However, what is most interesting is that the congregation's sin appears to be considered more heinous than that of a ruler. A kid of the goats was sufficient to be offered for a ruler, but it had to be a bull for the congregation.  It is bad when rulers give bad rules and examples, but worse when all men follow them.  I can't help but think of the countless times it was written in scripture that a king "was evil in the sight of the Lord" and "made Israel to sin".  I always considered our current leaders most at fault when they put in ungodly laws and "cause the people to sin".  However, this would suggest that the people are most at fault.  Perhaps it is because a whole people who sin causes more destruction than one ruler.  Let's face it, a handful of judges who declare that it's okay to murder unborn children is very bad, but an entire nation of people who then participate in the murder of millions upon millions of unborn children would definitely be much worse.  It's no wonder that we have begun to see the decline and destruction of our country.

(24) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it at the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD; it is a sin offering.'"

The ruler was to place his hand on the head of the goat in the same way as all the previous offerings.  However, I'm not sure it was the ruler himself who killed the animal.  Although it appears to read that way, both Dr. John Gill and the 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes say that it was not the ruler who killed the goat, "but the priest after mentioned, or the butcher" (Gill), "for it was not lawful for any out of that (priest's) office to kill the beast" (Geneva).  The goat was to be killed in the place where they killed the burnt offerings, that is, on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).  This was to be a "sin offering", an offering for his sin of ignorance.

(25) "'And the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering.'"

The priest was then to take some of the animal's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering.  This was different than the offering of the priest himself and of the congregation, where there the blood was to be placed on the horns of the altar of incense.  I'm not sure how this was significant, other than it may again prove the more heinous sin was that of the high priest or of the congregation, and that blood was placed on the horns of the altar inside the tabernacle before the veil within the holy place.  For the sin of the ruler, it was sufficient to place the blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering.

(26) "‘And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.'"

The priest was then to burn the animal's fat on the altar in the manner of the peace offering described in Leviticus 3:3-4, "the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys".  By these actions, the priest made atonement for the sin of the ruler, and his sin would be forgiven him.  Not that there was any power in the priest or the sacrifice, but that this would be considered an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord and He would forgive the sin.

(27) "'And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty, (28) Or if his sin, which he has sinned comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned.'"

If one of the common people, that is one who was not a priest or a ruler, but just one of the general public, sinned unintentionally by doing something against one of the commandments that specifically said not to do what he had done, once the sin became known, he was to bring an offering to the Lord.  This offering was to be a female kid goat without blemish, probably considered inferior to the offering of the ruler because the unintentional sin of the commoner was considered not as great or heinous as the sin of the ruler which might affect many.

(29) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.'"

The one bringing the goat to be sacrificed was to place his hand on the head of his offering.  Again it reads as if the offerer was to kill the offering at the place of the burnt offerings.  However, this time Dr. John Gill stated that the one offering the sacrifice was the one who killed the animal.  Even though the verses read the same way, Dr. Gill made two different assertions about which person killed the sacrifices.  Perhaps he knew the historical law or tradition, but I have to assume it is not an important issue.  The fact that in all cases the one offering the sacrifice placed his hand on his own sacrifice indicated he acknowledged and confessed his sin, transferring it to the sacrifice.  I'm not sure it was necessary for he himself to kill the animal, or necessary that an anointed priest be the one who killed the animal, at least not when it had not been expressly commanded.

(30) "'And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out all the remaining blood at the base of the altar.'"

At this point, we know that the priest has taken over, and he was to take some of the goat's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and was then to pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar.

(31) "'And he shall take away all its fat, as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.'"

Again the priest was to burn the animal's fat on the altar in the manner of the peace offering described in Leviticus 3:3-4.  It would be a sweet aroma to the Lord, that is, it was acceptable to Him for the forgiveness of the offerer's sin, and in that way, the priest made atonement for the offerer, by doing what was commanded by the Lord for him to do.

(32) "'And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish.'"

By this, we learn that a commoner was allowed to bring either a goat or a lamb, whichever was more convenient for him, again indicating that the commoner's unintentional sin perhaps did not require as high a price as that of others who sinned unintentionally.  Whether a lamb or a kid, the animal must be a female without blemish.

(33) "'And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it as a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.'"

As always, the one offering the sacrifice must place his hand on the head of his offering, and the animal was to be killed in the place where they killed the burnt offerings, that is, on the north side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).  In this case, it was John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, who suggested it was the priest who killed the animal, and not the offerer.  I am not going to pretend to know with certainty when the animal was killed by the priest, and when it was killed by the one offering the animal.  If I were to go by scripture alone, I would think it suggests the one offering did the killing, but I don't know the history of the traditions as these Bible scholars probably knew.  I will have to assume it doesn't make much difference who did the killing at this point.

(34) "'And the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar.'"

As with the kid goat offering, the priest was to take some of the lamb's blood with his finger and was to put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and was then to pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar.

(35) "'And he shall take away all the fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.'"

The priest was to remove and burn the fat of the lamb on the altar.  It was to be in the same manner as the fat of the lamb in peace offerings described in Leviticus 3:9-10.  The parts of the lamb that were to be burned on the altar were much the same as those above described, except that the fat tail of the lamb was also burned.  By following these instructions, the priest would be able to make atonement for the unintentional sin of the common man.

In this chapter, we learn that sin is sin, even if it is unintentional, and must be atoned for, once it is discovered.  Matthew Henry pointed out, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "perhaps there was some allusion to this law concerning sacrifices for sins of ignorance in that prayer of Christ's, just when he was offering up himself a sacrifice, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The Law of the Peace Offering

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 3:1) "'And if his offering is a sacrifice of a peace offering, if he offers it of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.'"

In the first couple of chapters of Leviticus, God had been telling Moses to instruct the children of Israel on how they were to offer their sacrifices.  Chapter 3 begins with instructions for a peace offering.  The peace offering was sometimes referred to as a thank offering, according to the old commentaries I read.  The 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes described it as a "sacrifice of thanksgiving offered for peace and prosperity, either generally or particularly".  Strong's defined the original word "shelem" as a "voluntary sacrifice in thanks, a peace offering".  A peace offering "of the herd" meant of cattle, as in the burnt offerings in chapter 1.  This offering could be either male or female, but it had to be without blemish.  Whereas the burnt offering had to be male, I believe because that represented Christ, the peace or thank offering could be either male or female, indicating that there is no distinction of male and female with respect to blessings from the Lord (Galatians 3:28).

(2) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood all around on the altar.'"

The person offering this peace offering was to lay his hand on the head of the animal he was offering, signifying that this sacrifice was his own, and that he was sort of transferring his own thankfulness and also unworthiness onto the animal.  He was to kill the animal at the door of the tabernacle, and then Aaron's sons, the priests, were to sprinkle its blood all around on the altar.

(3) "'And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire to the LORD; the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, (4) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, he shall remove. (5) And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet aroma to the LORD.'"

"He" seems to refer to the one offering the sacrifice, but it was actually Aaron's sons who did the burning of the sacrifice.  What was to be offered was all the fat on the "inwards", the two kidneys and their fat, and the caul above the liver.  I covered a little more in depth than here what these parts probably were in the study on Exodus, chapter 29, Consecration of the Priests, specifically verse 13.  Basically, I believe these made up the "gut" or middle section of the animal, perhaps representing the center of emotion.  These were to be removed from the animal to be burned in an offering made by fire.  Aaron's sons then burned this offering on the altar "upon the burnt sacrifice", which referred to the ashes of the continual burnt offering referred to in Exodus 29:38, where daily an offering was made, keeping the fire burning continually.  This offering would then be considered a sweet aroma to the Lord, an acceptable sacrifice.

(6) "'And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering to the LORD is of the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. (7) If he offers a lamb for his offering, then he shall offer it before the LORD.'"

A peace offering could also be a sacrifice "of the flock", which meant of the sheep or goats.  It could be male or female, but must be one without blemish.  If a lamb was offered, as opposed to a goat (verse 12), that lamb would be sacrificed as a peace offering before the Lord.  There may be significance in the word "lamb", but I'm not certain that it was a mandatory condition.  Strong's says the word "keseb" means a "young sheep".  Dr. John Gill wrote that according to Maimonides, a Jewish physician and philosopher, and an important figure in the history of Torah scholarship, "lamb" meant one of the flock in its first year and that "that where ever this word is used in the law, it signifies one of the first year".

(8) "‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood all around on the altar.'"

As with the offering of the herd, the person offering the animal was to lay his hand on the head of the animal and then kill it "before the tabernacle", which probably meant somewhere in the court before the door of the tabernacle.  Then Aaron's sons, the priests, were to sprinkle the animal's blood all around on the altar.

(9) "'And he shall offer from the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire to the LORD, its fat and the whole fat tail which he shall remove by the backbone; and the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, (10) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, he shall remove. (11) And the priest shall burn it on the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire to the LORD.'"

The parts of the lamb that were to be burned on the altar were much the same as those of an animal from the herd, except that the fat tail of the lamb was also burned.  The tails of the eastern sheep were said to be very large and fat, alone weighing 15 pounds and more.  These parts were considered the "food" of the offering made by fire to the Lord.  It was the Lord's food or bread burned to and for Him, whereas the rest fell to the priests, as we are told elsewhere.

(12) "'And if his offering is a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD.'"

A goat could also be offered as an offering of the flock, and could be male or female, but either must be without blemish, according to verse 6.

(13) "'And he shall lay his hand on its head and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood all around on the altar.'"

Like the lamb, the person offering the goat, was to place his hand on the goat's head and then kill it in front of the tabernacle, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, were to sprinkle its blood all around on the altar.

(14) "'And he shall offer from it his offering, an offering made by fire to the LORD, the fat that covers the inwards and all the fat that is on the inwards, (15) And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, he shall remove.'"

The same parts of the goat as the parts of the animal offered from the herd, were to be offered and burned.  Nothing is said of the tail, which was peculiar to the sheep.

(16) "'And the priest shall burn them on the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet aroma; all the fat is the LORD’s.'"

These parts were to be burned on the altar by the priest, and was considered the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet aroma to the Lord, or acceptable and pleasing to Him.  All the fat on the animals, especially as described in the parts that were to be burned on the altar, were to be the Lord's.

(17) "'It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that you eat neither fat nor blood.’”

It was to be an everlasting statute throughout their generations, not only of the animals they sacrificed at the tabernacle, but throughout their personal dwellings of the animals they killed for their personal use, that they should eat neither fat nor blood.  It is believed that the fat meant was the fat that had been described in the passages above, that it was not meant to include every bit of fat that is marbled in the meat of an animal.  The blood was considered the life of the flesh (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:14, Deu. 12:23), and was forbidden to be eaten.

The peace offering was a voluntary offering made to God that appears to have been either in thanksgiving for peace and prosperity or as a vow to make peace and reconciliation with God (Lev., chap. 7).  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, pointed out that the peace offering, the burnt offering from chapter 1, and the grain offering from chapter 2, were all spoken of as "if it was familiarly known before the giving of the Law".  The next chapter will begin to discuss a new kind of offering instituted by the Law. 

The Ten Commandments

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Exodus 20:1) And God spoke all these words, saying, (2) “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

In chapter 19, God told Moses to clean and sanctify the people and bring them to the mountain and He would speak to Moses in the hearing of the people.  He spoke these words in an audible voice out of a thick fiery smoke on top of the mountain.  He began by telling the people that He was their God, the One who had brought them out of bondage in Egypt, perhaps showing them that He alone had the sovereign right to enact the laws He was about to give them, as their part of the covenant with God that they unanimously agreed to obey and keep.

(3) “You shall have no other gods before Me."

God began with the first of what we call the "ten commandments".  His people were to worship Him only.  They had come from Egypt where they had been exposed to many gods.  It was Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible, who pointed out that the meaning was more than having no other gods "in front of" or "above" and in that respect "before" God, but rather literally have no other gods "before My face", or in God's presence.  No other god was to be worshiped, period.  I've always learned this to mean that we shouldn't put any idols of worship above God, or more important than God, but God doesn't want us to have any idols at all, but we are to worship only Him.

(4) “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (5) You shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, (6) And showing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments."

This has always been a difficult one for me.  Are we not to have any pictures of Christ or symbols of God in our churches?  I don't want to flippantly disregard a commandment with "just as long as we don't worship it" to fit what I want the commandment to be.  I really want to understand the commandments as they were intended by God.  I do believe it must be a case of not making statues or images of God Himself who has no body, for the sake of bowing down and worshiping this image of God.  God is more awesome and unimaginably wonderful than anything our human minds could conjure up; to make Him into this carved image of our imagination is to greatly diminish Him.  The commandment surely couldn't mean that there could be no images at all of things that are in heaven, etc., because cherubim were instructed to be used in the tabernacle furnishings and for the ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18).  Therefore I believe that we may have symbols of our worship, spiritual symbols, but the key is that we don't bow down to a symbol we have made as if we were bowing to our one true God.

Indeed, God commanded that the people not bow down or serve false idols because He was a jealous God!  "Jealous" has a negative connotation these days--envious and resentful, creating bitterness and fear.  There are two other dictionary definitions of "jealous"--"solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something" and "intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry".  I believe these are the more accurate descriptions of God's jealousy for His people.  God loved His people as the most loving husband would love his spouse, actually much more, and He is jealous for their fidelity, solicitous and vigilant in guarding it, because He is always about what is best for His people.

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." is a little harder to get my head around, but after reviewing other references, it becomes clear that God does not punish children for their father's sins, but they will indeed suffer because of their father's sins.  Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."  However, there are references to the fact that children suffer because of their father's sins, such as written in Lamentations 5:7, "Our fathers sinned and are no more, but we bear their iniquities."  Likewise, those descendants who come from parents and grandparents who walk in the ways of the Lord and obey His commandments will reap benefits and blessings.  There are definite consequences for actions that will pass down to subsequent generations.  That is not to say that sovereign God never personally blesses or punishes.  Romans 9:18 says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."  God constantly refines His people, and uses His rod and staff to keep them on the correct path.  I find that His chastisements are usually always about getting His people back to Him and back on the right path, reminding them of where they should put their trust and faith.

(7) “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

We have tended to make this commandment about using God's name in profanity, but it is about much more.  The original word "shav" translated as "vain" more completely means "empty, vain, false, worthless".  Actually, Leviticus 19:12, speaks of two distinct abuses of the Lord's name:  "And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD."  God's name is to be used with deep reverence and respect and should never be flippantly used in exclamations, swearing, or appealed to as a witness of the truth.  The LORD "will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."  We have a tendency to believe that words don't actually harm, so we don't usually give them the same level of importance as we give actions.  Although there may not seem to be any real consequences for abusing the Lord's name, and the abuser himself may say he didn't mean anything by it, the Lord finds it of utmost importance and says He will account him guilty.

(8)  “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

The Israelites had already been observing a Sabbath day.  In Exodus 16, they were instructed to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day because the seventh day was the rest of the holy sabbath to the LORD (Exodus 16:23).  God had actually blessed and sanctified the sabbath day in the beginning (Genesis 2:3).  Whether it was something the Israelites had been observing for a long time or something the Lord had begun to institute with the manna, He now told the people that they were to remember the Sabbath day and to keep it holy.  The original word that was translated as "holy" here is "qadash", and it meant something causatively set aside, pronounced or observed, as morally or ceremonially clean.  The day was to be a day set aside and observed as a holy day of God.

(9) "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, (10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. (11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."

The Israelites were allowed six days to labor and do their work, but they were to do no work on the seventh day.  I believe by including all other household members, cattle, and strangers, the implication is that they also shouldn't hire out or use their animals to have any work done on the sabbath day.  Exodus 23:12 added, "that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and the stranger may be refreshed."  The day was to be observed as holy by the Israelites, but was also to be considered a day for rest for all people and animals.  Why did the Lord command this?  Verse 11 further explained what had been told us in Genesis 2:3, that the Lord Himself rested on the seventh day and had blessed and hallowed the sabbath day.  It's not as if the Lord was wearied from creating and had to rest, but his created beings do need rest, and He chose to rest and symbolically set aside a day for His people to likewise rest.  It's a day for them to rest in Him; they physically rest, but they also spend time in prayer and communion with the Lord which spiritually feeds them for the tasks of the week ahead.  The Sabbath day is a holy day to the Lord, but it was created for the benefit of the Lord's people.  We must not become legalistic and forget the spirit of the law.  Luke 13:14 spoke of a ruler of a synagogue who was indignant with Jesus because He healed a woman on the Sabbath; he specifically quoted the scripture in verse 9, that there were six days on which men ought to work and therefore could come and be healed on them, but not on the Sabbath day.  Jesus Himself said in Mark 2:27 that the "Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."  He added that He, Jesus Christ, was Lord of the Sabbath.  I believe the rest on the Sabbath was symbolic of the rest we have in the Lord of the Sabbath, as described in Hebrews 4.  So does there still remain a commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy?  I have personally struggled with this and wondered if I am justifying myself by saying that Jesus Christ IS the Sabbath and by resting in Him, I obey this commandment.  I will continue to study this as it is written about in scripture, but I thought this quote by Adam Clarke in his Commentary on the Bible, was beautiful food for thought:  "...but the thing signified by the Sabbath is that rest in glory which remains for the people of God, therefore the moral obligation of the Sabbath must continue till time be swallowed up in eternity."

(12) “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you."

The ten commandments have always been considered to be able to be divided into two groups, possibly grouped as such, one on each stone tablet that the Lord wrote (Deut. 4:13).  Jesus summed up the commandments into two:  "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-39)  The first few commandments, and possibly the first tablet, deal with how we honor and love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and the last few deal with how we are to love our neighbors.  "Honor your father and mother" has been most of the time considered part of how we deal with others, and would mean the ten commandments were divided into two groups as the first four, and then the last six.  However, I like what Albert Barnes wrote, in his Notes on the Bible:  "According to our usage, the fifth commandment is placed as the first in the second table; and this is necessarily involved in the common division of the commandments into our duty toward God and our duty toward men. But the more ancient, and probably the better, division allots five commandments to each table, proceeding on the distinction that the first table relates to the duties which arise from our filial relations, the second to those which arise from our fraternal relations. The connection between the first four commandments and the fifth exists in the truth that all faith in God centers in the filial feeling. Our parents stand between us and God in a way in which no other beings can."  Mr. Barnes also referenced the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:9, where he summarized just five commandments for how we ought to love our brother, and he did not include honoring our parents.

The Apostle Paul also pointed out that this commandment was the first with a promise (Eph. 6:2), which may tell us how important this commandment is to God.  It is expanded upon a little more in Deuteronomy 5:16, "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you."  A long life in that good land was promised particularly to obedient children.  Those who do their duty to their parents are most likely to have the comfort of that which their parents gather for them and leave to them.  Besides physical property that parents might leave, there are usually continual prayers for their children.  In this day, there may be some who believe their parents do not deserve such love and respect, but God used those parents as instruments to bring those children into the world, whomever they may be, and for that they are deserving of some degree of honor.  If indeed this commandment is one that teaches us filial respect, then it helps us to learn respect for all authority--parents, government, and ultimately God (Heb. 13:17, 1 Pet. 2:13).  Isn't that usually the way with our sweet Lord?  His laws are generally always about our ultimate good, rather than a commandment just for commandment's sake.

(13) "You shall not kill."

The word translated as "kill" is "ratsach".  It is generally understood to mean "murder".  Strong's says it this way:  "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er)."  Discussions can and have been made far and wide over what this actually means.  Does it include war, capital punishment, abortion, suicide, and killing animals?  These will be debated until Jesus returns.  And speaking of Jesus, He said this:  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council, but whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt 5:21-22)  I am not going to try to decipher every word of that passage in Mark just yet, but I believe the gist is that one word might be judged by the council, but another is still judged by Jesus; He said in so many words that it was possible to have murder in our hearts, and that is what is judged by God.  Personally, I believe that we must follow the examples put forth in the Bible regarding what actions constitute murder.  Once again, we can debate whether war is ever justified, but I don't believe it is considered murder and breaks this commandment, as we have many examples of war in the Bible.  Once again, we can debate capital punishment, but it would not be considered murder to lawfully execute someone who had committed a particularly heinous crime; again we have examples in the Bible.  Abortion?  In that case, I believe we have examples to the contrary, that God never condoned the taking of an innocent baby's life.  Suicide?  As we should not take the life of any other living human being, I believe we don't have the right to take our own lives.  The killing of animals for food and clothing is certainly permitted in the Bible, but certainly no torturing of animals for sport would be.

(14) “You shall not commit adultery."

In its strictest sense, committing adultery is having relations outside the marriage relationship, whether it is one married person with a single person, or two people married to others.  However, once again our Lord had stricter guidelines:  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)  Once again, it is about what's in a man's heart, and notice that Jesus didn't say "whoever looks at a married woman"; he just said "woman".  Consider also the fact that Jesus included fornication when He spoke of the wickedness that comes from the heart: "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:18-19)  I believe it is no stretch to conclude that the seventh commandment refers to all sexual activity outside the marriage bed.  Sex apart from marriage would be an adulterous act against God's design for marriage and sexual relations in the marriage bed.

(15) “You shall not steal."

The eighth commandment is pretty straight forward.  We are not to take another's property.  This means physically taking by force or taking stealthily or by fraud or deception.  Unjust contracts, withholding a worker's pay, making a slave of a person against his will, not repaying agreed upon debts, not restoring what is borrowed, etc., would all be examples of stealing.

(16) “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I had occasion to study this commandment back when I studied the first chapter of Exodus when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh and would not kill the baby boys as commanded.  God blessed the midwives, and I had to wonder if God could bless liars.  It was suggested to me that perhaps God blessed them in spite of their lying, but after studying the words of this commandment, I do not believe it is a blanket commandment against all lying.  I honestly believe "white" lies to protect people and their feelings would not be sins against this commandment.  This commandment is about injuring your neighbor by bearing a false witness against him, either a public false charge or private gossip and slander whereby he may suffer in his character, reputation, or in his business.  Rather than a long list of what we must not do, the 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes explained this commandment succinctly, "But further his good name, and speak truth."  Further your neighbor's good name and do not speak falsely in a way that will diminish him.  If the commandment is truly about building up your neighbor and not tearing him down, then I honestly don't believe that a "white" lie meant to protect or build up a person could be considered a breach of this commandment.  In the New Testament, Paul went as far to say in Philippians 2:3 that we should esteem others better than we esteem ourselves.

(17) “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Jesus seemingly took the commandments against killing and adultery to another level by adding that if you even think about those things, you have committed a breach of the commandment.  However, this last commandment in itself does seem to suggest that we not injure our neighbor in thought.  The sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments forbid us to injure our neighbor in deed, the ninth forbid us to injure him in word, and the tenth in thought.  Once again, I point to Matthew 22:37-40, when Jesus summed up all the commandments into two--loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind; and loving your neighbor as yourself.  The last five commandments all pertain to how we are to treat one another.  This final one commands us not to covet or to desire or long after those things belonging to or accomplished by our neighbor.  James in the New Testament explained why this was so important:  "But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it brings forth sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." (James 1:14-15)  Sinful actions start with our own covetous desires.  I like what Adam Clarke wrote in his Commentary on the Bible.  His words were a little too flowery for my taste, but I will give him credit for his idea that this commandment "is a most excellent moral precept", and that observing it alone would prevent "all public crimes".  I am giving him credit for part of his words, but actually that idea is obviously why Jesus was able to sum up half the commandments with just loving your neighbor as yourself.  Certainly, if we treated everyone the way we wanted to be treated, I can't imagine there would be any crimes against people.

(18) And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. (19) And they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

In the last chapter, before the Lord began speaking in the hearing of the people, there were thunderings, lightnings, smoke, and a loud trumpet.  This statement is either repeated, or these things continued or perhaps just occurred again at the end of the Lord's speaking.  Before God spoke, the people were breaking forth to gaze upon Him, or at least desired to do that which was what the Lord wanted to prevent, lest they die (Exodus 19:21).  After hearing Him, they were so moved with awe and fear, they moved themselves back and stood afar off.  Those same people who would have pushed themselves out front to approach God now realized their need for a mediator and welcomed Moses to speak to them on God's behalf.

(20) And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”

Moses reassured the people not to fear that the Lord had come to destroy them.  He indeed could easily destroy them and it was important that they understood His power and respected it.  Thus they understood their need for a mediator, and they had a reverent awe and fear for the Lord that would make them careful (as opposed to being careless and flippant) to obey His laws.

(21) And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.

At the end of the last chapter, the Lord had sent Moses back down the mountain to insure the people would keep their distance.  However, He had told him at that time that he, Moses, and Aaron, alone, were to come up the mountain.  Moses, having had that prior authorization, now left the people standing afar off and went back to where God was.

(22) And the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. (23) You shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.'"

The Lord told Moses to tell the people the words of the Lord, that He had indeed spoken to them from heaven.  I find it very interesting that the Lord took this opportunity to repeat and more fully describe His commandment that the people not make little gold or silver idols to be representative of Him.  John Wesley suggested this was because "they were more addicted to idolatry than to any other sin."  Perhaps it was just a preface to what was to come afterward, not to make idols for Him, but rather make a simple altar as instructed.  Most likely, the Lord knew that was exactly what the people would do as they did in Exodus 32 when they made a golden calf.  I suppose that indeed suggests the statement of John Wesley is true; the people were so addicted to idolatry and symbols of worship, that the Lord knew they needed this extra reiteration.

(24) "‘An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in all places where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you.'"

I believe the point here is that these are directions for constructing temporary altars before the tabernacle was built.  God would have very specific instructions for the tabernacle, but if His people wanted to construct a temporary altar for Him, then it was to be a simple one from the earth.  There they could sacrifice their offerings.  In all places, that is, wherever the Lord was worshiped at this makeshift altar, He would come to them and bless them.  That sentiment was repeated by Jesus Christ in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

(25) "‘And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have polluted it.'"

If the people chose instead to make a stone altar, perhaps because they were in a rocky place, then the altar was still to be a simple one with natural rocks.  They were forbidden to use hewn stones or to use any tools to carve out or make their altars.  Perhaps in carving, they would be tempted to carve idols.  Without God's specific instructions for a more elaborate altar, the people were to keep theirs simple and natural, for as was discussed with the second commandment, the people could in no way imagine and create anything equal to God, and anything they created would diminish Him and become a worthless idol of their worship.

(26) "'Neither shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be discovered on it.’"

And finally, regarding the building of a temporary altar, it should not be made with steps going up to it.  I feel like partly this was to again keep it simple, but Matthew Henry in his Commentary on the Whole Bible had a reasonable explanation for why this was added.  He wrote they were appointed to "make their altars very low, so that they might not go up by steps to them. That the higher the altar was, and the nearer heaven, the more acceptable the sacrifice was, was a foolish fancy of the heathen, who therefore chose high places; in opposition to this, and to show that it is the elevation of the heart, not of the sacrifice, that God looks at, they were here ordered to make their altars low."

I had a little difficulty understanding the second half of that verse regarding their nakedness, but the old commentaries took that literally.  It has already been discussed and established that it was foolish to make steps going up to a high altar anyway, so in doing so, the only thing accomplished is that you would expose yourself to those underneath.  Dr. John Gill put it this way in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, anyone doing this would "be in danger of discovering those parts which would make them the object of contempt and ridicule with the people", and "all immodesty and indecency, and whatever tends to create impure thoughts and stir up unclean lusts, should be carefully avoided in his worship."  In summation, the altar should be a simple one where God promised to come to them and bless them.  I will close this study with the words of Matthew Henry:

"Afterwards, God chose one particular place wherein to record his name: but that being taken away now under the gospel, when men are encouraged to pray every where, this promise revives in its full extent, that, wherever God's people meet in his name to worship him, he will be in the midst of them, he will honour them with his presence, and reward them with the gifts of his grace; there he will come unto them, and will bless them, and more than this we need not desire for the beautifying of our solemn assemblies."