Another Exhortation to Obedience and What to Teach Their Children

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 6:1) "Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you go to possess it."

In the last chapter and post, Moses had given a review of the Ten Commandments.  In the following chapters he continued with a review of all the other laws, statutes, and judgments, that the Lord had given him to teach to the children of Israel that they might live according to them in their promised land.

(2) "That you might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, you, and your son, and your son's son, all the days of your life; and that your days may be prolonged."

Moses continued.  Learning all the commands, statutes, and judgments of the Lord would also teach the people a reverential fear for their awesome God, a respect for His sovereign authority as lawgiver, and make them feel ever bound to obey Him, and to teach that to the generations that came after them.  By doing this their days might be long in this world.

(3) "Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it, that it may be well with you, and that you may increase mightily, as the LORD God of your fathers has promised you, in the land that flows with milk and honey."

Moses continued his exhortation to the people of Israel to really listen, understand, and perform the commandments as given, that it might go well with them and that they might increase mightily in wealth and numbers, just as their Lord had promised in their land abundant with all good things.

(4) “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."

Moses drew the people's attention to the fact that their Lord Jehovah was the one and only true God, and there was no other.

(5) "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might."

Since there was only one God and that was the God of Israel, they were to love Him alone completely with all they had.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, described it this way:  "The 'heart' is mentioned as the seat of the understanding; the 'soul' as the center of will and personality; the 'might' as representing the outgoings and energies of all the vital powers."

(6) “And these words which I command you this day shall be in your heart."

Loving the Lord with all their hearts, they should also love His word and commandments and hold them dear to their hearts.

(7) "And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up."

The children of Israel were to teach the commandments diligently to their children.  The original word translated "diligently" was "shanan" and meant more precisely "sharpen, pierce, whet".  They were to teach their children again and again and again, sharpening or refining them, as the Lord spoke of refining His people as silver (Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3).  The commandments should be taught and discussed in the home, and outside the home, in the public square, if you will.  The people should begin and end the day with the Lord's word.

(8) "And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes."

Just as one might tie a string around a finger or a cord around the wrist to help him remember something, so should the people do to always remember the commands of their Lord.  Figuratively, they were always to be on the minds of the people.  Literally, the Jewish people wore phylacteries with a piece of inscribed parchment on their foreheads and on their arms; the word was literally bound on their hands and as frontlets between their eyes, certainly constant reminders of the Lord's commands.

(9) "And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Let the commandments of the Lord be written on the doorposts of their houses and on their gates to be reminders as they left and came back.  It would also surely serve as a sign to anyone who passed by that they were children of the one true God and were not ashamed of Him or His word.

(10) "And it shall be, when the LORD your God has brought you into the land which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you great and goodly cities which you did not build, (11) And houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant; when you have eaten and are full, (12) Beware, lest you forget the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."

Moses exhorted the people to always remember their Lord who brought them out of bondage in Egypt.  When they had settled in their promised land with all the great things around them that they themselves did not have to build or furnish, Moses warned them not to forget their Lord who was the One who brought them out of bondage and misery to give them this wealth and ease.

(13) “You shall fear the LORD your God and serve Him, and shall swear by His name."

The people were to revere their Lord and serve only Him.  They were to swear oaths in His name only.  The original word translated as "swear" was "shaba", and Strong's defines it literally as "to seven oneself, that is, swear (as if by repeating a declaration seven times)."  Seven in the Bible represents completeness, perfection.  Therefore the meaning of the scripture might actually be, rather than about swearing oaths, about completely recognizing and openly confessing that their Lord alone was the one true God of the universe, and there was no other.  Consider Isaiah 45:23 when the Lord said, "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."  When that scripture was referenced in the New Testament, it was written, "every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

Albert Barnes pointed out that in Matthew 5:34, Jesus said, "Swear, not at all."  However, it must be noted that He went on to expand on this that people should not swear by heaven, for it was God's throne; not by the earth, for it was God's footstool; not by Jerusalem, for it was the city of God; not even by their own bodies or lives, for they were not the authors of their own lives, but only God was.  This seems consistent with Moses's declaration that there was only one God that was to be feared, served, and confessed to Him alone.  As with so many of the laws that had been given in the Old Testament, the people had veered from the spirit of the law.  Jesus was all about teaching the heart of the law.  He said He came not to change one bit of the law, but He often pointed out the spirit of the law and how people had transgressed.  In this case, people had turned to the practice of swearing by anything other than God, because they had no intention of keeping their oath.  Jesus said they should not be swearing at all, because it was all God's, and that they should let their "yes" mean "yes", and their "no" mean "no".  Jesus was not referring to oaths sworn before a court; He was once again correcting a false interpretation of the law.  People were to always speak the truth, and swearing by something other than God did not give them an excuse to lie.

(14) “You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the people all around you, (15) (For the LORD your God is a jealous God among you), lest the anger of the LORD your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth."

Moses warned the people not to walk in the ways of the false gods of the people they would find all around them.  As their Lord had betrothed the children of Israel to Himself as a bride is to her husband, He was zealous and ever vigilant of their faithfulness, and would not tolerate their "whoring" after false gods.  Once again, God is life, and the world with its false gods is death.  Additionally, one cannot serve two different masters (Matthew 6:24).  Once one starts dabbling in the ways of false gods, he has denied that his God is the one and only God of the universe.  If the people chose the ways of death, they would necessarily be destroyed from the face of the earth.

(16) “You shall not tempt the LORD your God as you tempted Him in Massah."

In Exodus 17:7 the people were said to have tempted (or tested) the Lord by asking if He was with them or not.  The place was called Massah, which meant "temptation".

(17) “You shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you."

Moses exhorted the people to diligently keep all the commandments, statutes, and judgments of the Lord, not only the Ten Commandments, but the other commands that were to follow.

(18) “And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore to your fathers, (19) To cast out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has spoken."

Moses told the people they were to do what was right and good in the sight of the Lord, meaning what the Lord Himself told them to do.  If they obeyed Him, it would go well for them and they would be able to go in and possess the land the Lord had sworn to their patriarchs.  Following the Lord's commands, their enemies would be cast out from before them.

(20) “And when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which the LORD our God has commanded you?’ (21) Then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt, and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.'"

When in time their children asked them what the meaning of the testimonies, statutes, and judgments were, or perhaps more precisely why they did the things they did, the people would describe to them how they had been in cruel bondage to Pharaoh in Egypt, and that it was their Lord who brought them out with His mighty power.

(22) "'And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and severe, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes. (23) And He brought us out from there, that He might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore to our fathers.'"

They would tell their children about all the terrible plagues the Lord had brought upon Egypt and on Pharaoh and his household that they had witnessed, in order to bring them out of bondage to bring them to the land they now possessed which He had long before sworn to their patriarchs.

(24) "‘And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day.'"

After bringing them to their promised land, they would explain to their children that the Lord gave the people these statutes to revere and respect their Lord, and that they were designed by Him for their ultimate good that they might live.

(25) "'And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.'"

It would be reckoned as righteousness, they would tell their children, if the people observed and performed the commandments of the Lord as He had commanded them.  No one mortal man can really be totally righteous in the eyes of the Lord, but He would count it as righteousness if they observed His commandments.

I found these words of the Biblical scholar Adam Clarke very interesting and profound, especially considering he lived from 1762 to 1832.  Even way back then, people had these notions!

A most injurious and destructive maxim has lately been advanced by a few individuals, which it is to be hoped is disowned by the class of Christians to which they belong, though the authors affect to be thought Christians, and rational ones, too; the sum of the maxim is this: “Children ought not to be taught religion for fear of having their minds biased to some particular creed, but they should be left to themselves till they are capable of making a choice, and choose to make one.” This maxim is in flat opposition to the command of God, and those who teach it show how little they are affected by the religion they profess. If they felt it to be good for any thing, they would certainly wish their children to possess it; but they do not teach religion to their children, because they feel it to be of no use to themselves. Now the Christian religion properly applied saves the soul, and fills the heart with love to God and man; for the love of God is shed abroad in the heart of a genuine believer, by the Holy Ghost given to him. These persons have no such love, because they have not the religion that inspires it; and the spurious religion which admits of the maxim above mentioned, is not the religion of God, and consequently better untaught than taught. But what can be said to those parents who, possessing a better faith, equally neglect the instruction of their children in the things of God! They are highly criminal; and if their children perish through neglect, which is very probable, what a dreadful account must they give in the great day! Parents! hear what the Lord saith unto you: Ye shall diligently teach your children that there is one Lord, Jehovah, Elohim; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and that they must love him with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all their might. And as children are heedless, apt to forget, liable to be carried away by sensible things, repeat and re-repeat the instruction, and add line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, carefully studying time, place, and circumstances, that your labor be not in vain: show it in its amiableness, excite attention by exciting interest; show how good, how useful, how blessed, how ennobling, how glorious it is. Whet these things on their hearts till the keenest edge is raised on the strongest desire, till they can say, “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth I desire besides thee!”

Moses Continues His Historical Review

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law 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.