Moses Continues His Speech, Now an Earnest Exhortation to Obedience

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 4:1) "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, to the statutes and to the judgments which I teach you, to do them that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers gives you."

In the past chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses had been giving a speech to the Israelites before they went in to possess their promised land.  Most of his speech thus far had been a historical review of the events leading up to their present moment.  Now he turned to an exhortation to Israel to keep the commands, statutes, and judgments of God that they might live, as the laws of God are always about life and life more abundant, as Jesus later described as the reason He had come, in John 10:10.  Following the instruction of their God would also allow them to go in and take possession of the land promised long before to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

(2) “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Moses charged the people to keep the commandments of the Lord just as he had given them to them.  They were not to add new laws of their own, nor were they to detract from or make void any part of the law as was given them.

(3) “Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baal Peor, for all the men that followed Baal Peor, the LORD your God has destroyed them from among you."

Moses reminded the children of Israel that they had seen what the Lord had done because of Baal Peor, that is, because of the idolatry the people of Israel fell into by worshiping that idol, having been drawn into it by the daughters of Moab and Midian, through the counsel of Balaam, with whom they committed fornication, which led them to idolatry.  The Lord had destroyed those who had followed Baal Peor from among them; 24,000 were killed (Numbers 25:9).

(4) “But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you."

Moses offered what should seem a word of encouragement that every one of them who held to the statutes and judgments of their Lord and were not idolaters, were alive at that moment, every one of them.  I believe there is significance beyond the fact that they were not killed the day the 24,000 were killed.  There had since that incident been a war with the Midianites and not one person had died (Numbers 31:49); neither it appeared had anyone died from any other disease or accident.  Everyone who held fast to the Lord was alive that day.

(5) "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do so in the land which you go to possess."

Moses had faithfully delivered the statutes and judgments of the Lord just as the Lord had commanded he do, instructing the people in the way they should act when they finally possessed their promised land.

(6) "Therefore keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’"

Moses charged the people with keeping and doing the commandments of the Lord for in them was their wisdom and their understanding.  I am reminded of the scripture that tells us, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD" (Proverbs 21:30).  There is no wisdom apart from God; no human scheme can prevail against Him.  There is also, "For the LORD gives wisdom; out of His mouth comes knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6).  If they kept the laws of their Lord, the nations would hear and marvel that theirs was a great and wise nation.

(7) "For what nation is there so great, that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is in all we call upon him for?"

Moses reflected about there being no other nation that had God so near to it, having communication with Him, being able to call upon Him for all its needs to help and deliver it from all dangers.  It's not that Israel in itself was so great, but it was great because of the guidance of their Lord who had chosen them to be His people.

(8) "And what nation is there so great that has statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"

Moses continued in reflecting about how great a nation theirs was to have such wise and righteous statutes and judgments, as the law their Lord had given them.

(9) “Only take heed to yourself, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; but teach them to your sons and your sons' sons."

Moses stressed that the people be mindful of the laws of God and careful to adhere to them, and to keep their souls from transgressions, lest they forget the things they had witnessed from their God and they allow worldly lusts to replace God in their hearts.  Moses exhorted the people to teach God's laws to their children and their grandchildren.

(10) "The day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, ‘Gather the people to Me, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they shall live on the earth, and they may teach their children.'"

Moses reminded the people of the day they stood before the Lord, albeit some were not yet born at that time; nevertheless God Himself gave the people the law in fire and thunder, an awesome event that surely was cemented in the young minds of those who witnessed it, and the report of it impressed upon those who were not yet born and able to witness it.  God's purpose at the time was to so impress upon the people that their God Himself gave this law that they honor and revere Him as Lord and Lawgiver, and teach their children the same.

(11) "And you came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. (12) And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the voice of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice."

Moses more vividly described the day the people received the Ten Commandments.  They stood at the foot of the mountain that burned with fire and smoke that went up into the air, and thick darkness and clouds covered the sky.  The Lord had spoken to them out of the midst of the fire; the people saw no form of God, but only heard His words.

(13) "And He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone."

Moses reminded the people that it was God Himself who pronounced His Ten Commandments to them, commanding them to do them; and it was God Himself who wrote the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets.  Exodus 31:18 told us of that particular event, when God had given Moses two tablets of stone "written with the finger of God".

(14) “And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might do them in the land in which you go over to possess."

Moses reflected that the Lord had commanded him at that time to teach the people statutes and judgments that they follow in their promised land.  These were all the statutes and judgments besides the Ten Commandments that Moses gave mostly in the book of Leviticus.

(15) “Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, (16) Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of any figure--the likeness of male or female, (17) The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flies in the air, (18) The likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth."

Moses reminded the people that they had seen no form of God when He spoke to them to give them the Law, so he warned them to be careful not to fall into the temptation of making carved or sculpted images of a god they had formed in their own minds, with the likeness of a man or woman, or of any beast, bird, or fish, lest they corrupt themselves and fall into idolatry, and also corrupt and defile God by the images they created.

(19) "And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has divided to all nations under the whole heaven."

In addition, Moses warned the people against the temptation of looking up toward heaven and feeling driven to worship the sun, moon, or stars.  Those things had been placed there by God.  The rotations and revolutions of the moon and earth divided them among the nations, sometimes one part of the earth enjoying them, and then another, but they were not present with all the people all at once, which it would seem would be necessary if any of them were a god.

(20) “But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be His people, an inheritance, as you are this day."

Moses reminded the people that their God had brought them out of the fiery furnace, a reference to their hell and bondage in Egypt, to be His own people, His own inheritance, as they continued to be at the day Moses spoke to them.

(21) “Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and swore that I would not cross over the Jordan, and that I would not enter the good land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance."

Once again Moses reminded the people that it was for their sakes that the Lord was angry with him.  I can't help but wonder if Moses was a bit resentful of the people because it was their seemingly constant faithlessness that stoked his anger and may have driven him to his actions.  However, it was Moses himself who spoke contrarily to what the Lord had told him and did not act in the way the Lord had commanded him, and therefore did not sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote a little more generously about Moses and suggested that his point was that if the Lord was so angry with Moses so as to bar him from entering the promised land, could the people think to escape the Lord's wrath if guilty of greater provocations?  That does appear to be a good explanation since that comment was inserted at this point.

(22) “But I must die in this land, I must not cross over the Jordan; but you shall cross over and possess that good land."

Moses lamented that he must die in the land east of Jordan and would not be allowed to cross over into the good promised land.  However, he assured the children of Israel that they would cross over Jordan and possess that good land promised to them.

(23) “Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden you. (24) For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God."

Moses exhorted the people one more time to take heed, perhaps the point being because he would not be with them, or else they might forget the covenant their Lord made with them, and make a carved idol which God had forbidden in His Ten Commandments.  The people had witnessed that the Lord was a consuming fire as with the men who offered incense with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16).  The Lord is a jealous God in the sense that He is "solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something", one of the definitions of jealous in the dictionary.  We have come to think of jealousy as envy, but that is not the case with God's jealousy.  He is certainly not envious of other false gods and idols, but He is solicitous and vigilant in guarding our only means of salvation which is in Him alone.  He is intolerant of unfaithfulness and rivalry, once again, not because He is envious, but because it takes us away from our only salvation.  Primarily though, a Holy God simply cannot tolerate sin in His presence.  That is why we needed Jesus Christ to cover our transgressions with His everlasting sacrifice and atonement for our sins.

(25) “When you beget children and grandchildren and have remained long in the land, and you corrupt yourselves and make a carved image in the likeness of anything, and do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger, (26) I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed."

Moses warned the people that even many years from that point, when they were old and gray and had grandchildren and had lived in their promised land for many years, even if at that point they corrupted themselves by making carved images or idols of any likeness, therefore doing evil by disobeying God and provoking Him to anger, he called heaven and earth as witnesses of the law that had been set before them which so expressly forbade it.  Deuteronomy 30:19 gives a further explanation of this call:  "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."  Once again we see that God's jealousy is one that guards us against death; He wishes that all should come to Him and not perish; He wants us to choose life in Him, and His laws help us to live.  Moses warned that if the people in the future should forget their God and make idols that they would soon thereafter perish from their promised land.

(27) “And the LORD will scatter you among the nations, and you will be left few in number among the heathen where the LORD will drive you."

Continuing his warning started in verse 25, if the people forgot their covenant with their Lord and made idols, the Lord would scatter them among the heathen nations, and they would be left few in number.

(28) “And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell."

Among the heathen nations they would find what it was like to serve worthless idols which could do nothing for them.

(29) "But if from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. (30) When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, if you turn to the LORD your God and obey His voice, (31) (For the LORD your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them."

What a beautiful promise!  Even if the children of Israel forgot their God and were driven from their promised land to live among the heathen nations, if they then turned back to their God, genuinely seeking Him with all their hearts, He promised to be found.  Even when they found themselves in tribulation in the future, if they turned back to their Lord and were obedient to His word, because their Lord was a merciful God, and only punished in an effort to have them return to their only source of salvation, He would not forsake or destroy them, but would remember His covenant with their fathers.

(32) "For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one side of heaven to the other, whether there has ever been anything as great as this thing, or has ever been heard like it?"

Moses exhorted the people to inquire into and consult the annals of history, ever since God created man, from as far and wide as they could examine, if there had ever been anything as great as they had experienced, as he would go on to further detail in the next few verses.

(33) “Did people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and live?"

First he asked had any people ever heard the voice of God out of the midst of fire, as they had, and lived?  They had distinctly heard God's voice in the midst of the fire that represented His presence, and they were not consumed by His awesome presence.

(34) "Or has God tried to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?"

Moses then asked had there ever been another time when God chose a people for Himself and took them out of another nation by all the means and miracles, and by His own mighty hand, as He had done for them when He delivered them from Egypt and brought them to this point on the eve of their entering their promised land.

(35) “To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself is God; there is none else besides Him."

Moses pointed out that all those signs and miracles had been shown to them alone that they would see that their Lord was the only true God of the universe and that there were no other besides Him.

(36) “Out of heaven He let you hear His voice, that He might instruct you; on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire."

Out of heaven God had allowed the children of Israel to hear His voice, and He had allowed them to see a symbol of Him in the fire, and they had heard His voice out of the midst of the fire to instruct them on how they should live.

(37) “And because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them; and He brought you out of Egypt in His sight with His mighty power, (38) To drive out nations from before you greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land as an inheritance, as it is this day."

Because God had loved Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He had chosen their descendants to be His own special people, and He had brought them out of Egypt to be in His presence; and with His mighty power, He had driven and would continue to drive out nations greater and mightier than theirs, to bring them in to their promised inheritance.

(39) "Know therefore this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is none else."

Moses exhorted the people to realize and know in their hearts that their Lord was God of all the heavens above them, and of all the earth, and that there was no other God but Him.

(40) “You shall therefore keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the LORD your God gives you forever."

Knowing that He was the one and only God who chose them to be His people, they should keep all the statutes and commandments that Moses had given them, so that they should be blessed, and their children after them, that they might live long in the land the Lord had given them.

(41) Then Moses set apart three cities on this side of the Jordan, toward the rising of the sun, (42) That the manslayer might flee there, who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without having hated him in time past, and that by fleeing to one of these cities he might live.

Then Moses set apart three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan.  To those cities a manslayer could flee to safety if he had accidentally and without malice killed his neighbor.  In Numbers 35:14 God had commanded that there be three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan River.  The law stated that anyone who murdered was to be put to death.  However, God provided cities of refuge where someone who had accidentally killed another could flee to safety, safe from the avenger, the family member of the slain person trying to avenge the victim's death.  A person in the city of refuge could stay there in safety until his case was judged.

(43) Bezer in the wilderness in the plain country of the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead of the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan of the Manassites.

The three cities of refuge that Moses appointed were Bezer in the plain of the land allotted to the Reubenites; Ramoth, that part of Mount Gilead that had been appointed to the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, that kingdom of Og, of the land allotted to that half tribe of Manasseh.  Adam Clarke wrote that the cities of refuge were a symbol of the salvation by Christ to sinners, and that the names of the cities were thought to "express some attribute of the Redeemer of mankind".  I don't totally see that in these cities' names.  Bezer literally meant "an inaccessible spot"; Ramoth meant "heights"; and Golan meant "captive".  They just sound like names of safety and refuge, but that certainly does define salvation in Christ.  Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions defined Golan more fully as "their captivity: their rejoicing".

(44) And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel: (45) These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which Moses spoke to the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt, (46) On this side of the Jordan, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel defeated after they came out of Egypt.

These and the last few verses of this chapter comprise a big build-up to what was to follow in the next chapter, a review of the laws, statutes, and judgments that Moses had previously delivered to the children of Israel after they had come out of Egypt, on their current side of the Jordan River in the land that had formerly belonged to Sihon king of the Amorites, but had been overtaken by Israel.

(47) And they possessed his land, and the land of Og king of Bashan, two kings of the Amorites, which were on this side Jordan toward the rising of the sun; (48) From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even to Mount Sion, which is Hermon, (49) And all the plain on this side Jordan eastward, even to the sea of the plain, under the slopes of Pisgah.

The introduction to the review of the laws continued.  The description of their current place east of the Jordan River that they now possessed also included the land of Og, another king of the Amorites.  They possessed the land from Aroer on the Arnon River in the south to Mt. Hermon (also called Sion) in the north, and all that plain east of the Jordan, as seen in this map:

Their possession included all that plain east of the Jordan, but also the slopes of Mt. Pisgah on the eastern side of the Dead Sea in the south.  Although Pisgah is not marked on the map, it is near Mt. Nebo.  They possessed the land north of the Arnon River, east of the Dead Sea in the slopes of Pisgah.

This chapter was mainly Moses's exhortation to the children of Israel to keep the commands, statutes, and judgments of God, and his warning against disobedience.  This was his introduction to a review of the laws in the next several chapters.

The Law Concerning Vows

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Numbers 30:1) And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, “This is the thing which the LORD has commanded:"

In the last two chapters the Lord had reviewed the law of sacrifices and commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel all He had said, which Moses did.  Now he spoke to the heads of the tribes to tell them something else which the Lord had commanded which follows:

(2) “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

A vow made to the Lord had to be one in a thing that was lawful to be done, and he might vow to dedicate something to the Lord, give to the poor, or accomplish some other work for the Lord.  Vows might be made in the heat of a zealous holy moment, in humility for some sin committed or for the prevention of sin, or in the pursuit of some mercy desired or in gratitude for some mercy received.  Most of the commentaries I study agree in varying degrees that swearing an oath to bind one's soul with a bond was just another way of stating that he made a vow to the Lord.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, wrote, "It is a vow to God, who is a spirit, and to him the soul, with all its powers, must be bound. A promise to man is a bond upon the estate, but a promise to God is a bond upon the soul."  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, suggested it was something additional to the vow.  Swearing "an oath to bind his soul with a bond; to his vow adds an oath for the greater confirmation of it, and to lay himself under the greater obligation to perform it."  However, Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, saw these as two different sorts of promises:  "The 'vow' was positive; the 'bond' negative or restrictive. By a vow a man engaged to dedicate something to God, or to accomplish some work for Him: by a bond he debarred himself from some privilege or enjoyment. A vow involved an obligation to do: a bond, an obligation to forbear doing."  Regardless of the exact meaning, vowing a vow and swearing an oath were serious matters and were to be done just as vowed or sworn; they were not to be broken.

(3) "If a woman also vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a bond while in her father’s house in her youth, (4) And her father hears her vow and her bond by which she has bound her soul, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand."

If a young woman vowed a vow to the Lord and bound herself by a bond while she still resided in her father's house, it was up to her father to intervene if necessary.  If he heard her vow and held his peace, then her vow and bond would stand.  Note that in this verse it does seem that a vow and a bond are one in the same.

Since I neglected it up to this point, now is a good time to study the original words used for vow and bond.  A vow, "neder" is a promise to God.  A bond, "esar" is a binding obligation, says Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions.  Strong's agrees it's an obligation or vow, but then adds a parenthetical "of abstinence".  Seems like we're back to the beginning of not knowing exactly the difference (or similarity) in the two types of promises, but either way, when they are made to the Lord, they are not to be taken in vain.

(5) “But if her father disallows her in the day that he hears, not any of her vows or of her bonds by which she has bound her soul, shall stand; and the LORD shall forgive her because her father disallowed her."

Back to the young woman who vowed a vow while living in her father's house, if her father heard her vow and overruled her, then her vow would not stand, and the Lord would forgive her for making a vow and not following through because her father had not allowed it.

(6) "And if she had at all a husband when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, by which she bound her soul, (7) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it, then her vows shall stand, and her bonds by which she bound her soul shall stand. (8) But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it, then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, by which she bound her soul, of none effect; and the LORD shall forgive her."

Likewise, if a woman had a husband when she made a vow or rashly uttered an obligation in which she bound her soul, it was up to her husband to decide if the vow was to stand.  If he held his peace when he heard it, it would stand; if he disallowed her, then her vow would not stand, and the Lord would forgive her for not fulfilling her vow because her husband had not allowed it.  I can hear the screams of protest about how a woman was not allowed to make her own vows if a man did not allow it, but it really makes sense that a woman couldn't vow to give household money to the poor that her husband knew they couldn't afford, or she couldn't dedicate something that belonged to the household.  The Lord knew her heart and would forgive her, but she was to submit to the head of the household.

(9) "But every vow of a widow and of her who is divorced, by which they have bound their souls, shall stand against them."

If the woman was a widow or divorced, then she was responsible for her vows, as she had no man to disallow her, and her vows would stand.

(10) "And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; (11) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and did not disallow her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond by which she bound her soul shall stand."

I believe the meaning is that if she vowed the vow before her husband died or before she was divorced, and her husband had heard it and held his peace, then her vows and bonds would stand even after he was gone from the household, by death or divorce.

(12) "But if her husband has utterly made them void on the day he heard them, whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand; her husband has made them void, and the LORD shall forgive her."

Likewise, if a woman vowed a vow before her husband died or divorced her and he had disallowed the vow and made it void, then the vow would not stand even after the husband was gone from the household.  Her husband had made the vow void before his departure by death or divorce, and the Lord would forgive her for making and not fulfilling a vow.

(13) "Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void."

For every vow or bond to afflict her soul that a woman might make, it was up to her husband to establish and confirm it, or to make it void and nonbinding.

(14) "But if her husband altogether holds his peace at her from day to day; then he establishes all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he confirms them because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them."

Even if he did not verbally confirm her vows, if her husband continually holds his peace and says nothing about her vows, then he confirmed them because he held his peace and did not object to her vows when he heard them, and to not contradict them was to confirm them.

(15) "But if he shall in anyway make them void after that he had heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

However, if the man who had held his peace when he heard the woman's vows, later tried to make them void, he would bear the iniquity of breaking a vow to the Lord.

(16) These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife and between the father and his daughter in her youth in her father's house.

The preceding verses were the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses were to be concerning vows as it related to a man and his wife and between a father and his young daughter still in her father's house.

It has already been noted that vows were serious business, but Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, took it a step further, suggesting, "Making vows, in almost any case, is a dangerous business; they seldom do any good, and often much evil. He who does not feel himself bound to do what is fit, right, and just, from the standing testimony of God’s word, is not likely to do it from any obligation he may lay upon his own conscience. If God’s word lack weight with him, his own will prove lighter than vanity."  That is an interesting point of view.  Perhaps just as God provided for divorce although He hated it, He provided for other vows even though He did not desire them.  Vows to the Lord were very serious business and not to be done in vain.

Balaam and Balak

Continuing a chronological Bible study, and reaching the conclusion to a literal chiffhanger from the last chapter and post:

(Numbers 23:1) And Balaam said to Balak, “Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams."

At the end of the last chapter, Balak had taken Balaam up to the high places of his idol Baal to allow him to see the Israelites below them.  Balaam now asked that Balak build right there in one of the high places devoted to Baal seven altars, and to prepare for him seven oxen and seven rams.  There was much speculation among the early Biblical scholars I study about Balaam's motive in this.  Most seemed to think it was perverse, that perhaps he was "bribing God" with so many altars, that building seven altars was heathenish, that they were built for the seven known planets at the time.  I may stand corrected as I read on, but at this point, I give Balaam full benefit of the doubt that he had seen the light.  Seven is also the number of perfection.  Maybe Balaam asked for these preparations that would seem familiar and acceptable to Balak, so that he would be more susceptible to hearing the truth from the one true God.  As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

(2) And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram.

Balak did as Balaam had instructed him, and together they offered on each altar a bull and a ram.

(3) And Balaam said to Balak, “Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you.” And he went to a high place.

Balaam asked Balak to stand by his burnt offerings while he went away from him to another high place to meet with the Lord if He would come to meet him.  Balaam told Balak that whatever his Lord showed him, that is what he would tell him.

(4) And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, “I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered on every altar a bull and a ram.”

God did indeed meet with Balaam, and Balaam told him he had prepared seven altars and had offered a bull and a ram on each.  Again Biblical scholars believe Balaam was boasting to the Lord, hoping to gain His favor in what he desired to do all along for his client, Balak.  I still don't necessarily see this; we shall see how God responds to it:

(5) And the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”

The Lord did not reprimand Balaam, but told him to return to Balak and speak to him the words the Lord put in his mouth, which is exactly what the Lord had told him to do in chapter 22 of Numbers.  I see no reason to add to the story that Balaam was still trying to force his own will and bribe his Lord.

(6) And he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab.

Balaam returned to Balak to find him doing just as he had told him to do, standing by his burnt offering, he and all his princes.  They were surely anticipating a favorable response from Balaam.

(7) And he took up his parable, and said, “Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, ‘Come, curse Jacob for me, and come, defy Israel.'"

Balaam "took up his parable", or advanced his words of wisdom as received from God.  He said that Balak the king of Moab had brought him there to curse and defy Israel.  So far, so good, with respect to how Balak might receive these words, and with how Balaam was following his Lord's will and not his own.

(8) “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? Or how shall I defy whom the LORD has not defied?"

Balaam went on to say how could he possibly curse whom God had not cursed, and how could he defy whom God had not defied, again showing his willingness to only do what God had told him to do, and telling Balak what he had said he would tell him--whatever his Lord showed him, he would tell him.

(9) "For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him; lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. (10) Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”

Balaam went on to pronounce a blessing on Israel, rather than the curse Balak expected.  From the high places of Baal where he was, he could see Israel.  The Israelites were to dwell alone and separate and would never be reckoned among the other nations, but would always be a distinct nation.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, rightly noted that this was a prophecy that had been literally fulfilled through a period of thousands of years to the present day, and was truly an astonishing fact.  Balaam went on to ask who could even count the infinite multitude as numerous as the dust of the earth; who could number even a fourth of them?  When he died, as all men do, he wished to die as the righteous died, and wished for his end to be as Jacob's (Israel's) was.  The death of the righteous was far superior to the death of the wicked.  How could death be better one way or another?  It can only be if there is something after that death.  The original word "achariyth" that was translated as "end", Strong's more fully defines as "posterity" and Brown-Driver-Briggs adds to that "after part, latter time".  Especially when you consider the fact that Balaam said "last end", he was undoubtedly speaking of what came after death.  The last end of Jacob was peace, rest, and eternal life. It was so blessed, Balaam wished his end to be like Jacob's.

(11) And Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and, behold, you have altogether blessed them."

In utter disbelief, Balak cried out to Balaam to ask what had Balaam done to him.  Balak had brought Balaam there to curse Israel, whom he considered his enemies, and Balaam had instead completely blessed them.

(12) And he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak that which the LORD has put in my mouth?”

Balaam answered Balak with the question of should he not take heed to speak only what the Lord had put in his mouth.  Most of the great scholars I study at this point, still suggest that Balaam had been pretending regard for the Lord.  I still don't see it.  Maybe because Balaam went this far, instead of shutting off Balak in the beginning, is why they feel his heart had not been changed.  They say he would have to speak what the Lord would have him speak at this point, against his will, unable to resist the power of the Lord.  While that is true, I've seen no reference to his hardened heart at this point.  I don't see why it couldn't be that he was shown the light by the Lord and was doing all this to show the glory of God in His blessing of Israel.

(13) And Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.”

Then Balak suggested that Balaam go with him to another place where he could see the Israelites, although only the outer edge of them, and he would not see them all.  Balak told Balaam to curse the Israelites for him from there.  I'm not quite sure why Balak thought a different view would change his blessing, but I guess he felt he was a desperate man.  Perhaps he thought Balaam had been overwhelmed by the sight of such an immense camp, or maybe even full of admiration for the glorious sight.  Maybe seeing just a small outer edge of the group would change his perspective.

(14) And he brought him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.

Balak brought Balaam into the field of a place called Zophim, which literally meant "watchers".  He took him to the top of Mount Pisgah and there again built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.  These appear to be the actions of Balak, not Balaam, so once again I don't see Balaam acting wickedly as so many scholars believed.  Balak was the one trying to entice Balaam into giving him what he wanted.

(15) And he said to Balak, “Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there.”

Balaam did agree to meet with the Lord again.  He told Balak to stand by his burnt offering while he went to meet with the Lord.

(16) And the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, “Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”

The Lord did meet with Balaam and told him to go back to Balak and tell him the words the Lord had put into his mouth to say.  I don't see a God admonishing Balaam for coming to Him again.  I don't see Balaam asking the Lord to change His mind.  I still don't see a conniving Balaam anxious to change the mind of the Lord for his own benefit.  I see this all as the Lord gaining Balaam's full attention and understanding through the words of the angel, and Balaam going through the motions as the Lord had then told him, "Go, but only speak the word I give you".

(17) And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said to him, “What has the LORD spoken?”

When Balaam returned to Balak, he was standing by his burnt offering with the princes of Moab with him.  He was most anxious to hear what the Lord had spoken to Balaam.  Balak appears to have at that point realized that Balaam would only do what his Lord would have him do or say, but he was still under the impression that His mind could be encouraged to change.

(18) And he took up his parable, and said, “Rise up, Balak, and hear. Hearken to me, you son of Zippor."

Balaam took up his parable, again delivering the words his Lord had given him.  Balak was already standing by his burnt offering, but the words of the Lord seem to imply he was to raise his attention and carefully listen to what the Lord had to say directly to him.

(19) “God is not a man, that He should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent; has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?"

God, through Balaam, asked Balak directly about His nature.  Was He a man who lied or like a man that he should change His mind?  No, he said He was not.  Did Balak really think that He had spoken and would not bring it about?

(20) "Behold, I have received commandment to bless; and He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it."

The words of Balaam, put there by God, now told Balak that he had received the command from God to bless Israel.  He had blessed them, and Balaam could not reverse that blessing.

(21) “He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel; the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them."

Balaam went on to say the words of his Lord to Balak.  The Lord had not observed any iniquity or perverseness in Israel that He should curse them.  Of course, they had had sin and iniquity, but not to the point that God would curse them and not be their Lord.  The Lord God was with Israel, and the joyful and triumphant shouts that people might give their king was among Israel; He was their King and ruler.

(22) "God brought them out of Egypt; he has strength like a unicorn."

Balaam went on to pronounce that God had brought His people out of Egypt.  "He" meaning Jacob or Israel, had the strength of a unicorn.  It seems no one knows exactly what the original word "reem" translated as "unicorn" really meant.  Since a unicorn is a mythical creature, it is unlikely that that is what is meant, unless the fables of their time suggested an animal of strength that could no longer be held as a slave, as the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt.  Some scholars speculate that it might have actually been a rhinoceros that was meant; the rhino having a single horn was definitely an animal of great strength.

(23) "Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither any divination against Israel; according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, 'What has God wrought!'"

Balaam told Balak that there was no enchantment or divination that could prevail to bring about a curse to Israel.  According to that particular time, it would be said of Israel with wonder and amazement, what great things God had done for His people.

(24) "Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up itself as a young lion; he shall not lie down until he eats the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain."

Balaam went on to say that the Israelites would rise up like a great lion, the old king of the forest that was feared and respected by all other animals.  Israel would lift itself up as a young lion, the young predatory lion that would not rest until it devoured its prey.  These images illustrated a people strong and courageous and even victorious against their enemies.

(25) And Balak said to Balaam, “Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all.”

Balak's response to Balaam was something to the effect of--"Fine, if you won't curse them for me, then don't, but don't bless them, either."  I believe it might be a little late for that request, not that it would have done any good, as God had placed the words in Balaam's mouth, and he was going to say them, regardless of any other requests or orders.

(26) But Balaam answered and said to Balak, “Did I not tell you, saying, ‘All that the LORD speaks, that I must do’?”

Indeed Balaam did answer Balak that he had already told him that whatever the Lord spoke, he must also speak.

(27) And Balak said to Balaam, "Come, I pray thee, I will bring you to another place; perhaps it will please God that you may curse them for me from there.”

Incredibly, Balak suggested they go to a different place and maybe God would curse them from there.  Balak did not have a full understanding of the Almighty never-changing God of the universe.  However, at least at this point, he seemed to realize and acknowledge that there was this God of Balaam and that it was He who hindered Balaam, that it was not Balaam's fault that he did not curse the Israelites for him.  Perhaps now he was trying to please God with a more worthy location from which to curse them.

(28) And Balak brought Balaam to the top of Peor, that looks toward Jeshimon.

Balak took Balaam to the top of Mount Peor, afterwards called Baal-Peor where the idol Baal was worshiped.  There was very likely a temple for Baal here, and perhaps Balak thought that God would appreciate this high place of honor.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed out that Jeshimon was the same as Beth Jesimoth in the plains of Moab, thus being the place where Israel camped (Num. 33:49), and a place where Balaam would have a full view of the Israelites.

(29) And Balaam said to Balak, “Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams."

Once again Balaam told Balak to build seven altars prepared with seven bulls and seven rams.  Perhaps Balaam shouldn't have kept on tempting or appearing to bribe the Lord, as most scholars believe he did for selfish reasons.  I still don't see it that way.  Only God knows what was in Balaam's heart at this point, but God did allow them to keep going forward with these futile motions.  When you consider the time and labor and even expense spent on preparing multiple sets of seven altars with multiple sets of sacrifices, I believe the answer would make more of an impactful impression on both Balak and Balaam, and was used for God's purposes at this point.  It is true that God first told Balaam not to go to Balak.  However, once He allowed him to go, God's will was to be shown in another way that would be well impressed upon both these men, as Balaam surely needed this reinforcement after his initial actions of pressing forward to go to Balak.

(30) And Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.

Once again, Balak did as Balaam told him to do, and built the altars (or had them built) and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.  Again considering the time and expense in an action that seemed less and less likely to produce the desired effect, you can see that Balak was a desperate man grasping at straws in order to have Israel cursed.

(Numbers 24:1) And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times, to seek to use enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness.

This is the first indication I have that perhaps Balaam had tried to use his own means to maybe achieve his more desired answer of the Lord.  He had used sorcery or divination the other times he sought an answer from the Lord.  He now had definitely seen that the Lord was determined to bless Israel, and he did not bother with enchantments or asking the Lord, but just turned his face toward the wilderness to look upon Israel and to pronounce his parable.  I still don't believe this necessarily proves that Balaam had evil and selfish motives at this point.  This is how he had become accustomed to seeking an answer from the Lord, using his enchantments, but now he was totally convinced of the Lord's intentions and will, and did not bother with his enchantments.

(2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel encamped according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.

Balaam looked upon Israel encamped according to their tribes, and the Spirit of God came upon him.  Whether or not Balaam was filled with the Holy Spirit because he had finally come to have complete faith in God alone, or God was just using his vessel just as He had used the donkey's, God's spirit was now upon him.

(3) And he took up his parable, and said, "Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said, (4) He has said, who heard the words of God, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:"

In prophetic words, Balaam spoke of himself in the third person as a man whose eyes were opened to the truth, one who heard the words of God and who had seen a vision of the Almighty God.  Falling into a trance but having eyes wide open, I believe is Balaam's attempt to explain that although he was wide awake, it was as if the truth came upon him as he was in a sort of trance.  Most scholars would suggest that he was declaring that his eyes had only at that point been opened to the truth, but I still believe they had been opened ever since he saw the angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:31--"Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way..."  The only inkling I have had that Balaam was still trying to assert his own will all this time was the fact that he had continued to use sorcery up to this point.  However, if he had learned to always use sorcery to inquire of the Lord, he may have still believed that was the only way to hear from the Lord.  At this point, he realized that was no longer necessary.

(5) "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O Israel!"

Balaam began the actual blessing of Israel.  How good and pleasing were the tents of Israel!  Not that they were rich or magnificent in structure, but they were in a pleasant order that suggested unity and harmony.  The Israelites didn't have multiple tabernacles, but I believe the sense is that their general church of God where Israel dwelt in tents with their Lord among them, was very good.

(6) "As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of aloes which the LORD has planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters."

As long and broad as the valleys, Israel lay encamped.  As gardens, perhaps because of their beauty and the fact they were laid out in a pleasing manner, Israel lay pleasingly encamped.  As the aloe trees that the Lord had planted, that were beautiful in their natural state as opposed to gardens planted by man, so was Israel.  As the cedar trees beside the waters that grew tall and mighty and majestic, so was the camp of Israel.

(7) "He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted."

Israel would have plentiful blessings as I believe the image of water pouring forth from buckets suggests.  His posterity would be showered with many blessings from the Lord.  Israel's king would be higher and greater than Agag, the king of Amalek, who was probably considered the greatest king on earth at that time.  Israel's kingdom would be exalted in the world.

(8) "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn; he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

God brought Israel forth out of Egypt out of bondage, and now Israel had that strength of a unicorn or rhinoceros, or whatever mighty beast was meant.  He would devour his enemies, breaking their bones, signifying the breaking of their men and their cities, and would utterly slay them.

(9) "He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion; who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesses you, and cursed is he that curses you."

Israel lay as a sleeping lion, the king of the forest respected by all others and having no fear of the others.  Who would dare to rouse the sleeping lion or provoke Israel?  Then speaking directly to Israel, Balaam pronounced the blessing that whoever blessed Israel would be blessed, and whoever cursed Israel would be cursed.

(10) And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have altogether blessed them these three times."

At this point, Balak had become very angry with Balaam and he struck his hands together in an expression of that anger.  He said to Balaam that he had called him to curse the Israelites whom he called his enemies, but Balaam had completely blessed them instead these three times.

(11) “Now therefore, flee to your place; I thought to promote you to great honor, but, lo, the LORD has kept you back from honor.”

Balak told Balaam to go back to his own country.  He told him that he had intended to promote him to great honor when he cursed Israel for him, but his Lord had kept him from that honor.

(12) And Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not also speak to your messengers whom you sent to me, saying, (13) ‘If Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do good or bad of my own mind; but what the LORD says, that will I speak?'"

Balaam reminded Balak that he had warned his messengers that even if Balak were to give him his entire house full of silver and gold, he would not stray from what the Lord had put in his mouth to speak.

(14) “And now, behold, I go to my people; come, I will advise you what this people will do to your people in the latter days.”

Balaam agreed to go back to his people, but first he wanted to tell Balak what the Israelites, whom he had wanted cursed, would later actually do to his people.

(15) And he took up his parable, and said, "Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said:"

Balaam spoke the prophetic words of the Lord, beginning with the fact that he had had his eyes opened to the truth.

(16) "He has said, who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open."

Balaam, still speaking of himself in the third person, said he had heard the words of God and thus spoke; he knew what the most high God wanted as he had seen a vision of Him while awake.

(17) "I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not near; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth."

At this point, Balaam seemed to possibly be prophesying about the coming Messiah.  He would see Him in the future, but not yet; he would behold Him from afar.  A Star would come out of Jacob and a scepter would rise out of Israel, descriptive words of the Messiah who would come out of Israel as King.  He would destroy Moab from one corner to the other, and would destroy all the children of Sheth.  Sheth means "substituted" and was the same as Seth, the third son of Adam.  As all nations came from Seth, He would rule over all the world.  Some scholars believe this might refer to some ruler of Moab whom He would destroy.  Some of the Bible commentators believed this prophesied the coming of King David out of Israel who would smite the Moabites.  However, David himself was a sort of illustration of the coming Messiah who would rule the world and destroy all those who opposed Him.

(18) “And Edom shall be a possession; Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly."

Balaam went on to prophesy that Edom, including Mount Seir, would be possessed by Israel.  Indeed David would make the Edomites his servants.  Perhaps the mention of Mount Seir depicted the strongest and most fortified places would fall to their enemy, Israel.  Israel would conquer valiantly!

(19) "Out of Jacob shall come He who shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remains of the city."

Once again Balaam appeared to be prophesying about the coming Messiah who would have dominion over the entire world, destroying any enemies who remained.

(20) And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, "Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish forever."

Of Amalek, Balaam prophesied that although it might have been first among the nations, whether literally the first nation, or the most powerful or richest, or even that it was the first to war against Israel, its ultimate end would be that it would perish forever.

(21) And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, "Strong is your dwelling place, and you put your nest in a rock. (22) Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry you away captive."

Balaam looked upon the Kenites.  There is some uncertainty as to exactly who the Kenites were, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Kenites were a Canaanite people, who may have derived their name from the city of Kain.  The word translated as "Kenites" in verse 21 is not the same word translated as "Kenite" in verse 22.  "Qeyniy" in verse 21 Strongs' states means "Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin" stemming from the root word "qayin" which is the word used in verse 22.  "Qayin" means "the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine".  Qayin would be wasted, which could be the city of Kain, as some scholars suggest, but I believe it was just the nation as a whole--Kain, the Kenites; as Edom, the Edomites, was used; and Amalek, the Amalekites.  The Kenites may have been the securest of the nations as nature had fortified them as they dwelt in the rocky places, but they would waste away until carried away captive by Asshur, or the Assyrians.

(23) And he took up his parable, and said, “Alas! Who shall live when God does this?"

Balaam continued his prophesying, asking the rhetorical question of who could possibly live when God brought all this about.  Some scholars suggest that this might mean that it will happen so far in the future that no one in that present time would live to see it happen.

(24) "And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish forever."

Strong's defines Chittim as "...from an unused name denoting Cyprus (only in the plural); a Kittite or Cypriote; hence an islander in general, that is, the Greeks or Romans on the shores opposite Palestine..."  Ships would come from Chittim, or Cyprus, or the islands.  Albert Barnes explained it this way in his Notes on the Bible, "Cyprus, the nearest of the western islands, the only one visible from Palestine, and so the representative to Balaam and to Israel of all those unknown western regions across the Mediterranean Sea, from which were at length to come the conquerors of the mighty empires of the East."  Asshur would carry away Kain, and then Chittim would afflict Asshur, and also Eber.  Most of the older commentaries I study believed Eber referred to the descendants of Eber, or Shem, and were Hebrews.  It makes more sense that they were as Adam Clarke suggested, "Probably not the Hebrews, as some think, but the people on the other side the Euphrates, from עבר  abar, to pass over, go beyond; all which people were discomfited, and their empire destroyed by Alexander the Great."  Indeed, even Strong's states Eber is the same as "eber" meaning "properly a region across...on the opposite side (especially of the Jordan; usually meaning the east)".  Either Eber would also perish forever, or it might even mean that the conqueror from Chittim would also perish.

(25) And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place; and Balak also went his way.

With the end of the words of prophecy given him by God, Balaam then rose up and went back toward his home, and Balak also left.  Reading those prophetic words, it is interesting to note how God can use all people to bring about His purposes.  He can use evil nations to bring down other evil nations, but then He also used a donkey, so it should come as no surprise that God can use whomever or whatever He chooses to bring about His will and purposes.

Laws of Sacrifice and Offerings and the Law of the Fringe as a Reminder

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Numbers 15:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you have come into the land you are to inhabit, which I am giving to you,'"

In chapter 14 of Numbers, the Israelites had been sentenced to wander in the wilderness for forty years and to die there (except Caleb and Joshua) never seeing their promised land.  However, in 14:31, the Lord said He would bring their children into the land, and here He confirmed His promise that they would indeed reach their promised land.  It could be that some years had passed since their sentence was given, as what follows are instructions that would seem to be given to adults rather than children.  However, it is just as likely that the Lord would reiterate His promise and instructions for their conduct to all the Israelites, demonstrating that He was reconciled to them all (even though the elder generation would not see the promised land), and that He would bring to fruition His promise that their children would indeed inherit the promised land.

(3) "'And will make an offering by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice to fulfill a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savor to the LORD, from the herd or the flock, (4) Then he who offers his offering to the LORD shall bring a grain offering of a tenth deal of flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of oil.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, giving instructions that he was to pass on to the Israelites when they came into the land of Canaan.  When they offered to the Lord burnt offerings from the cattle or sheep, in the various ways they might offer an offering by fire to please the Lord and be accepted by Him, they were also to bring a tenth part of an ephah of flour, an omer, mixed with a fourth hin of oil.  I've read that the Hebrews didn't maintain a standardized measuring system throughout history, therefore the estimates of how much this actually was vary, and I get a different answer every time I look it up.  One point of view is that it was about as much as a man could eat in one day, perhaps about a quart of flour with about a cup of oil.  However, to illustrate the huge disparity among Biblical scholars, Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, suggested it was about three quarts of flour mixed with about four and a half pints of oil.  The range is so varied, all we can determine from these instructions is the fact they were specific and understood by the people at that time.

(5) "'And a fourth of an hin of wine for a drink offering you shall prepare with the burnt offering or the sacrifice, for each lamb.'"

With the burnt offering of each lamb, they were to offer a fourth of a hin of wine.  A liquid hin of wine seems to be different from a hin of oil, and in this case, I believe the amount of wine to be about three pints.  Dr. Gill would say it was the same as a fourth of a hin of oil, about four and a half pints. 

(6) "‘Or for a ram you shall prepare as a grain offering two tenth deals of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil. (7) And for a drink offering you shall offer a third of a hin of wine as a sweet savor to the LORD.'"

For a burnt ram offering, the people were to prepare a grain offering with two omers of flour mixed with a third of a hin of wine.  Based on the first conversion used for verse 4 above, this would be about two quarts of flour and about a cup and a third of oil.  They were also to offer a third of a hin of wine which would have been about two quarts of wine.  These they would offer as pleasing and acceptable to the Lord.  Dr. Gill wrote it was "the quantity of six quarts of fine flour, and about three pints and a quarter of a pint of oil."  Once again, with the conversions so varied, the only certain message is that as the quality of the sacrificial animal had increased, so was the amount of accompanying offerings to be increased.

(8) "‘And when you prepare a young bull for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice to fulfill a vow, or for a peace offering to the LORD, (9) Then shall be offered with the young bull a grain offering of three tenth deals of flour mixed with half a hin of oil. (10) And you shall bring for a drink offering half a hin of wine for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the LORD.'"

If the people brought a young bull for a burnt offering, they were also to bring a grain offering of three omers of flour mixed with half a hin of oil and half a hin of wine to be pleasing and acceptable to the Lord.  Once again, we see a proportional increase of the accompanying offerings relative to the quality of animal sacrifice.

(11) "‘Thus it shall be done for each bullock, for each ram, or for each lamb or kid. (12) According to the number that you prepare, so you shall do with every one according to their number.'"

It was to be done as dictated above for each young bull, each ram, and each lamb or kid goat.  If two animal sacrifices were offered, then the accompanying offerings were to be doubled, with one set as described above per animal sacrifice.

(13) "‘All who are born of the country shall do these things in this manner, in offering an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the LORD.'"

All people born of the Israelites were to do as instructed above when offering burnt offerings to be pleasant and acceptable to the Lord.

(14) "‘And if a stranger sojourns with you, or whoever is among you throughout your generations, and would offer an offering made by fire of a sweet savor to the LORD, just as you do, so shall he do.'"

Any non-Jew alien among them throughout their generations who desired to offer a burnt offering to the Lord was also required to do it just as the Israelites were to do.  I believe there are two important messages in this.  First, God invited all people to come and join His people in worship of the one true God.  Secondly, however, if they did, they must conform to the rules the Lord set forth.  I can't help but think of our present-day immigration battle.  Liberals love to throw God's word back at whom they consider to be hypocritical conservatives, that God welcomed all foreigners.  Even now the gift of everlasting life through the blood of Jesus Christ is offered to all people.  However, they seem to conveniently forget the second part, that the foreigners must conform to the rules and requirements of the people they are joining, that is to assimilate.  In our country, we have the freedom of religion, so immigrants are not required to worship as we do, but they should be required to obey the laws and come here legally and seek to assimilate and become Americans.  If only we followed the wisdom of God!

(15) "'One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger who sojourns with you, an ordinance forever throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. (16) One law and one custom shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.'"

One ordinance or set of rules were to be for both the Israelites and the foreigners who dwelt among them throughout their generations.  While at first glance, this looks like a repetition of what the Lord had already said, it actually is a statement that the stranger was to be treated just as the Israelite, and accepted by the Lord, if he conformed to the laws the Lord set forth for them.

(17) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (18) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you come into the land to which I bring you, (19) Then it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall offer up a heave offering to the LORD.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, telling him what to say to the children of Israel.  He was to tell them that when they came into the land to which the Lord was bringing them, the land of Canaan, when they were to eat of the bread of the land, they were first to offer up a heave offering to the Lord, as described in the following verse.

(20) "‘You shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering; as a heave offering of the threshing floor, so shall you heave it.'"

From the first dough of the first grain they harvested, they were to make a cake for a heave offering.  It was to be a heave offering of the corn or grain on the threshing floor when they had gathered in their harvest.  Similar to what had been instructed in Leviticus 23 when they were to bring the first fruits of their harvest to the priest and he waved them before the Lord, so the people were to heave up a cake from the first dough of their harvest.  A wave offering was one that was waved back and forth; a heave offering was one heaved up and then down and up again, etc.  The idea in both cases is that the first belongs to the Lord.  Actually, it all belongs to the Lord, and it is only by His grace, that we have anything, so by offering up the first to Him, the people demonstrated their acknowledgment of God's blessings and their thankfulness for them.

(21) "'Of the first of your dough you shall give to the LORD a heave offering throughout your generations.'"

Not only when they first came into the land of Canaan (v. 18), but continually throughout their generations, they were to offer up their first dough.

(22) "'And if you have erred, and not observed all these commandments which the LORD has spoken to Moses, (23) All that the LORD has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the LORD commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations; (24) Then it shall be, if it is committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savor to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering.'"

If the people erred unintentionally through oversight or ignorance, and strayed from what the Lord had commanded through Moses they do, at any time throughout their generations, then the entire congregation, upon the realization it had been omitted, was to offer a young bullock for a burnt offering to be acceptable to the Lord.  They were to bring the required grain and drink offerings along with it (v. 8-10), with the addition of one kid goat as a sin offering.

(25) "'And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it is ignorance; and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance.'"

With the offering of the burnt offering and sin offering described above, the priest would make atonement for all the congregation, and their unintentional sin would be forgiven them.  What a perfect illustration of the coming Christ who would atone for the sins of the people with His blood sacrifice, and their sins would be forgiven them.

(26) "'And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger who sojourns among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.'"

All the people would be forgiven, the children of Israel and the foreigners who dwelt among them, because of the atoning sacrifice offered, since all the people had acted unintentionally.  Again, what a beautiful picture of Jesus Christ this is!  His gift of salvation through His blood sacrifice is offered to all!

(27) "'And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering.'"

If any individual soul, or person, sinned unintentionally through ignorance or a misunderstanding of the commandment above, then he was to bring a yearling female goat as a sin offering. 

(28) "'And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul who sins ignorantly, when he sins by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.'"

The priest would then make atonement for the person who had sinned ignorantly.  It should be noted that the original word translated as "ignorance" in the above verses was "shegagah" which means "mistake" or "inadvertent transgression", or "unintentionally", as most translations define it.  However, the word translated as "ignorantly", "shagag", Strong's defines as "stray", "deceived, err, go astray, sin ignorantly".  Perhaps the meaning is essentially the same; obviously to err is to make a mistake, and one would sin unintentionally if he had been deceived or taught by someone who had strayed from the original commandment, but I couldn't help but wonder if one who went astray from what he knew to be correct was included in this group.  Maybe that is not the case, but if it was, I think the sense is that this person is one who did not willfully sin.  I may be letting my New Testament grace view take over here, when in actuality, these people had to adhere to the law.  That's the reason Jesus had to die, to pay for our sins because it was impossible to adhere 100% to the laws.  Therefore I have to believe that going astray in this case must mean by ignorance or deception only, and not what we call backsliding when the person himself knew what to do.

(29) "‘You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, both for him who is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourns among them.'"

This one law that pertained to the individual person who sinned unintentionally, applied to both the Israelite and the foreigner who dwelt with the Israelites alike.

(30) "'But the soul who does anything presumptuously, whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproaches the LORD, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.'"

The word translated as "presumptuously" was actually two words, "yad" meaning "hand" and "room" meaning "high".  The person who sinned with a high hand, through pride, exalting himself in a bold and haughty manner, with no regard or fear for his Lord; that person reproached the Lord, that is, blasphemed Him.  The original word "gadaph" was defined by Strong's as "to hack (with words), that is, revile: - blaspheme, reproach."  Brown-Driver-Briggs defined it as "to revile men, blaspheme God."  The person who so blasphemed the Lord, whether he was an Israelite or a stranger who dwelt among the Israelites, was to be cut off from his people, either by the civil magistrate or by the immediate hand of God.  There was no sacrifice that could atone for this willful sin.

(31) "‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.'"

Because the person who sinned presumptuously despised the word of the Lord and willfully broke His commandment, he was to be completely cut off and his iniquity forever upon him, with no atonement to remove it.

(32) And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day.

While the Israelites were in the wilderness, there was a time when they found a man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day.  I don't think it necessarily happened immediately after God gave these commandments to Moses at this time, but may have been cited here as an illustration.

(33) And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.

Those who had found that man who was gathering sticks on the Sabbath brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation.

(34) And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

They put the man in a type of prison or at least under guard until it was decided what should be done to him.  It had already been established in Exodus 31:14 and Exodus 35:2 that whoever did work and defiled the Sabbath would be put to death, but this may have been the first such case and they did not know in what manner he should die.  Dr. John Gill wrote that some believed that it may have been a "matter of doubt whether gathering of sticks was a breach of the sabbath, or at least such a breach of it as required death."

(35) And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

Moses had obviously consulted the Lord about what was to be done with this man, and the Lord made it clear that this was indeed an offense that demanded death.  The congregation was to stone him with stones outside the camp.  I am sure others feel as I did when first reading this that it seems so harsh, and it made me shudder to think I would have to throw stones at a person and kill him!  I can also hear the chants about the Lord commanding us not to kill.  First of all, it has been established in this study that the word "kill" in the commandment actually meant "murder".  A lawful execution is not murder.  I believe the people had to take part to show that they wanted no part of someone who defiled and blasphemed their Lord.  Most importantly, people had to learn that they were sinful and never good enough to approach the pure and holy God of the universe.  All such incidences in the Old Testament proved that man was worthy of death and needed a savior, specifically their Savior Jesus Christ.  Without such lessons, they may never have known their need.

(36) And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses.

The congregation did just as the Lord had commanded Moses they do, and they took him outside the camp and stoned him to death.  Once again, this incident may have been inserted here to illustrate what was to be done with a person who sinned presumptuously and despised the word of the Lord.

(37) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (38) “Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make fringes on the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue cord on the fringe of the borders."

I have read that the outer Jewish garment was ordinarily a rectangular piece of cloth.  The Lord told Moses to tell the people to make fringes, or what actually turned out to be tassels, on the borders of their garments.  The original word "kanaph" that was translated as "borders" more precisely meant the extreme quarters, or corners.  They were to put tassels in the corners of their outer garments with a blue twined thread in each tassel.

(39) "And it shall be to you a fringe that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD and do them, and that you not seek after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the harlot."

The tassel with the blue cord, blue perhaps considered a heavenly color, was to be looked upon to remind them of the commandments of the Lord that they should do them and not go after the desires of their sinful hearts or the sinful pleasures seen by their eyes.  The reference to playing the harlot in this case meant committing idolatry, committing adultery in that they took what was to be the Lord's alone and gave in to worldly affections.

(40) "That you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy to your God."

Finishing the thought started in verse 39, the tassel with the blue thread was to remind them not to follow the sinful desires of their hearts, but to recall and do all the Lord's commandments, so that they would be holy and sinless in His presence.

(41) “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; I am the LORD your God.”

God declared He was their one and only true Lord, the One who brought them out of captivity in Egypt to be their Lord.  As their Lord God, He had the sovereign right to enact laws and demand the observance of them.

In the last chapter of Numbers, the Lord had determined to destroy the children of Israel because of their rebellion, but upon Moses's intercession, He did not utterly destroy them, and in His mercy, it appears He took this opportunity to reiterate some of the laws regarding offerings.

Unclean Removed From Camp, and Law of Jealousy Regarding a Woman Accused of Adultery

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Numbers 5:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, everyone who has a discharge, and whoever is defiled by the dead."

In the last chapter and post, the Lord had Moses and Aaron count the Levites who were thirty to fifty years of age and able to do the service of the tabernacle, and describe the particular service each group would do.  Now the Lord spoke to Moses regarding purifying the camp.  He told Moses to command the children of Israel to put out of the camp all who were ceremonially unclean, lepers, those with discharge issues, and those who had been made unclean by the touching of the dead.

(3) "Both male and female you shall put out, outside the camp you shall put them, that they may not defile their camps in the midst of which I dwell.”

Whether male of female, any person who had been made unclean was to be put outside the camps so that he or she would not defile the camp in the midst of which the Lord dwelt.  The tabernacle was the dwelling place of the Lord and it was in the midst of the camps of the children of Israel.

(4) And the children of Israel did so, and put them outside the camp; as the LORD spoke to Moses, so the children of Israel did.

The children of Israel did just as the Lord had commanded and put all the unclean outside their camps.

(5) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (6) “Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person is guilty, (7) Then he shall confess the sin which he has committed; and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.'"

Now the Lord told Moses to instruct the children of Israel on what to do when a man or woman committed a sin.  I can't help but notice the Lord said when a person committed a sin, not if; the Lord knew all people would sin.  "Any sin that men commit" would be any of the sins of men that are commonly committed because of the infirmity of the flesh and the temptations of Satan.  Also noteworthy is that any sin that a person commits is a trespass against the Lord; every sin against man is a sin against the Lord as it is disobedience to His direct command.  The consensus of the commentaries I generally study suggest that the word "guilty" in verse 6 refers to the person's own admission that he is guilty, for obviously if he sinned, he is guilty.  When he was convicted in his conscience that he was guilty, he was to confess his sin, and then make restitution to the person he wronged by paying the whole of what he defrauded his neighbor of, plus one-fifth more.

(8) "‘But if the man has no kinsman to recompense the trespass to, let the trespass be recompensed to the LORD, to the priest, besides the ram of the atonement, by which an atonement is made for him.'"

If the man who was wronged had no kinsman, because evidently in this case he had been killed, then the restitution, the principal plus one-fifth, was to be given to the priest of the Lord, in addition to the ram of atonement, the trespass offering for atonement that was made law back in Leviticus 6:6.

(9) "'And every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring to the priest, shall be his.'"

Every offering of all the holy things, which would be things given to the Lord, that was brought to the priest, was to be the priest's.  I believe the point here is that it no longer belonged to the person who brought it, and could never be taken back by him.

(10) "'And every man's hallowed things shall be his; whatever any man gives the priest, it shall be his.'"

Every man's hallowed things, those things that were made holy because they had been vowed or offered to the Lord, were to be the priest's.  Whatever thing was given to the priest was to be the priest's alone.  John Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes on the Entire Bible, reminds us that this was not to be understood of the sacrifices, where only part was offered to the Lord, and the remainder was eaten by the offerer and the priest.  This spoke of things that were devoted to God, and could not be offered in sacrifice, such as a man consecrating a house to the Lord; that would be the priest's.

(11) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (12) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and commits a trespass against him, (13) And a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed, and she is defiled, and there is no witness against her, neither was she taken in the act, (14) And the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife, and she is defiled, or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife, and she is not defiled...'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses.  He told him to talk to the children of Israel about the circumstance of a man whose wife went astray and trespassed against him by committing adultery.  If a man lay with her carnally, and it was done in secret and concealed from her husband, and she was indeed defiled, but she was not caught in the act and there were no witnesses against her, and the spirit of jealousy came over the husband...  This seems to indicate that the husband became jealous and suspected his wife of having an adulterous affair.  There had been no witnesses, but he suspected that she had lain with another man carnally and had defiled herself.  So whether the man became jealous of his wife and she was defiled, or if he was jealous but she was not defiled, this train of thought is continued in the next verse.

(15) "'Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.'"

The man was to bring his wife whom he suspected of committing adultery to the priest.  He was also to bring an offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal, which was an omer, said to be about the amount a man could eat in one day.  The meal was to have no oil or frankincense on it.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, suggested that, "The offering was to be of the cheapest and coarsest kind, barley...representing the abused condition of the suspected woman."  Additionally, he wrote, "It was, like the sin-offering...to be made without oil and frankincense, the symbols of grace and acceptableness."  This was an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing that sin to remembrance.

(16) "‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD.'"

The priest was to bring the woman before the Lord.

(17) "'And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.'"

The priest was then to take holy water from the laver, putting it in an earthen vessel, and then he was to take dust from the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.  The old commentators I study, suggest that the dust represented the baseness of the accused crime, and the fact that it came from the tabernacle floor made it holy dust, perhaps representing the vile act was a sin against the holy Lord, which adultery surely is.  Adultery is a sin against the direct commandment of the Lord, as put forth in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shall not commit adultery."

(18) "'And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering; and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causes the curse.'"

The priest was to stand the woman before the Lord and uncover her head.  Uncovering her head perhaps signified her own immodesty in what she did (or was accused of doing), but it certainly was a shameful thing for her to be exposed that way to men, as suggested in other verses (1 Cor. 11:5-6).  The priest then put the offering of memorial, the jealousy offering of barley meal described above, in her hands.  The priest held in his hand the vessel of holy water with the dust in it.  This would not have caused it to be bitter tasting, but it was bitter because the holy water had been defiled by the dust representing the depraved act.  The water with the dust did not in itself cause the curse, but it symbolized and declared her to be accursed.

(19) "‘And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness with another instead of your husband, be free from this bitter water that causes the curse."'"

The priest was to put the woman under oath and tell her that if no man other than her husband had lain with her, and she had not gone astray to be defiled by another man, she would be free from the curse that the dusty holy water represented.

(20) "'“But if you have gone aside to another instead of your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband--" (21) Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman, "The LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; (22) And this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, to make your belly swell and your thigh rot." And the woman shall say, "Amen, amen."'"

However, if the woman had indeed committed adultery with another man, then the priest would "charge", originally "shaba", the woman.  "Shaba" as defined by Strong's, was a root meaning "to be complete", a root of "sheba", meaning "seven" or "seven times"; therefore "shaba" meant to "seven oneself", meaning to swear, as if repeating a declaration seven times; the priest would charge the woman with an oath of cursing, which Brown-Driver-Briggs defines more simply in one of its definitions, as "curse".  I believe the meaning is that the priest would charge the woman by her own oath, or by his, an oath that would bring a curse if she had indeed committed adultery.  The priest would then say to the woman, pronouncing the curse upon her, "The LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people..."  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, explained this somewhat difficult language this way, "accursed according to the oath taken; or let this be the form of an oath and imprecation used by the people, saying, if I have done so and so, let me be accursed as such a woman, or let not that happen to me, as did to such a woman..."  The curse pronounced was that the Lord would make her thigh rot and her belly swell, if she was guilty.  I used to wonder about the significance of the thigh, but John Wesley explained it very convincingly that the thigh was just a modest word for the private part meant.  That does make a lot of sense.  She would rot and her belly would swell if she were guilty of adultery.  Upon drinking the holy water, the curse would come upon her, rotting her and making her swell.  The woman was to agree to this if she were found to be guilty; if she was not guilty, she had nothing to fear.

(23) "'And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water.'"

The priest was to write these curses in a book and blot them with the dusty holy water which probably was symbolic of transferring the curses to the water.

(24) "'And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causes the curse, and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.'"

The priest would then make the woman drink the water.  The water, upon entering her when she drank it, would then become bitter.  Probably it was not bitter tasting, but rather bitter because it caused the above mentioned curse if the woman was guilty.

(25) "'Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar.'"

Actually, it appears that the priest took the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand before she was forced to drink the water, as stated in the next verse.  He waved the offering back and forth before the Lord, and offered it upon the altar.

(26) "'And the priest shall take a handful of the offering, the memorial of it, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.'"

The priest would take a handful of the offering, a reminder of the woman's iniquity, and burn it on the altar, and then make the woman drink the cursed water.

(27) "'And when he has made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she is defiled, and has done trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot; and the woman shall be a curse among her people.'"

When the priest made the woman drink the water, if she was defiled and had committed adultery, then the water would become bitter and cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot.  This scripture proves there was nothing literally bitter about the water, but rather it was supernatural that the water would cause the curse if the woman was guilty.  There were some commentaries I read that tried to suggest that the priest might have put something bitter in the water, but I see absolutely no reason to assume that.  If she was guilty, and the curse came upon her, she would be looked upon by the people as an accursed woman, probably shunned by all.

(28) "'And if the woman is not defiled, but is clean, then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.'"

If the woman was not defiled and guilty of adultery, then she would be free from the curse and would be able to conceive.  This indicates the rotting of her "thigh" was actually the rotting of her private child-bearing parts, and the swelling of her belly indicated the disease within her.

I briefly wondered if the curse would be immediately visible or if it would come over time.  I concluded it would have to be immediately visible; how else would a woman be made known to be a curse among her people?  And imagine if a woman was not guilty, but she was unable to bear children right away or at all; people would assume she had been guilty and was cursed even though she wasn't.  To have the people witnesses to this curse, it must have been immediately visible to them.

(29) "‘This is the law of jealousy, when a wife goes astray to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; (30) Or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.'"

The preceding instruction was to be considered the law of jealousy; it was to be applied when a wife committed adultery against her husband, and also when a man became jealous and suspected his wife of committing adultery.  He would bring his wife to the priest, thus bringing her before the Lord, and the priest would execute the law as described in the above verses.

(31) "'Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.'"

By bringing his wife to the priest when he knew of or suspected her of adultery, he would then be innocent of iniquity, obviously meaning he would be guilty of iniquity if he did not bring her to the priest.  This shows that the act of allowing his wife's loose living to go on, or even if only once committed, to go unpunished, would be considered a sin against God.  By bringing his wife to the priest, he was pronounced innocent, and the woman would bear the punishment of her sin, if she was indeed guilty.

This brings to my mind another scripture, Romans 1:32, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."  Also Ezekiel 33:8-9:  “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."  Not only did God command against evil, but those who allowed, enabled, or condoned it, were also guilty of sin against the Lord.  Note the Lord commanded in verse 1 of this chapter that the people put all the unclean outside their camp.  Not only were the people to obey God's commands, but they were to turn out of the camp those others who were unclean before the Lord.  If this pertained to those people who unknowingly or even necessarily became ceremoniously unclean, how much more must it have applied to those who knowingly and willingly sinned.  The people had a responsibility to keep sin out of their camp; therefore they could not turn a blind eye to it, or they, too, would be guilty of sin.

What a lesson for us now!  Think of how much people celebrate sins against God these days.  People cheered when same-sex marriage was made lawful; Obama lit up the White House in rainbow colors in celebration of it, a symbol that our entire country condoned and celebrated that which God called an abomination.  Think of how the choice of killing a baby is celebrated; women march for the right of murder, and people celebrate and promote those demonstrations.  We are not guiltless if we condone such sins against God.  We cannot judge those who commit such sins; after all, "There but for the grace of God, go I."  We all sin and are guilty before God, and no one sin is greater than another in the eyes of the Lord, but we should not be celebrating these sins.  We should be praying for these sinners and for ourselves to be led by and to the Lord.  Jesus loved all the sinners and came to save them, but He wished them to "go and sin no more".