Numbers 15

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:18utc

In this chapter we enter into the new phase of Israel's experience, that it the forty year period of wandering in the desert. Our outline gives the following captions to this section:

III. The Failure of Israel in the Wilderness 15:1-19:22Review of the Offerings 15:1-41

The transition between the preceding chapter with its tumultuous events and this one, describing certain kinds of sacrifices to be brought once the people had entered the promised land, is great indeed. It seems like the narration simply stops, and with a few exception, we find a huge gap of silence, lasting thirty-eight years. It is the same gap we find in Hebrews ch. 11, between vs. 29 and 30, where the author jumps from the crossing of the Red Sea to the fall of Jericho. The thirty-eight years of wandering through the desert were years of virtual silence. Some centuries later we learn from the prophets Ezekiel and Amos that the moral decline of the generation that was doomed to die in the desert continued to the point where some of them, at least, became idol worshipers of the lowest rank, who murdered their own children. In Ezekiel God says: "Therefore I led them out of Egypt and brought them into the desert. I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the LORD made them holy. Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the desert. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws-- although the man who obeys them will live by them-- and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the desert. But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would not bring them into the land I had given them-- a land flowing with milk and honey, most beautiful of all lands-- because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them or put an end to them in the desert. I said to their children in the desert, 'Do not follow the statutes of your fathers or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols. I am the LORD your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.' But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws-- although the man who obeys them will live by them-- and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the desert. But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes [lusted] after their fathers' idols. I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts-- the sacrifice of every firstborn-- that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD."[ 1 ] And in Amos we read: "Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god-- which you made for yourselves."[ 2 ] God, in His grace, remains silent about this shameful period in the history of His people.

Chapter fifteen is addressed to the younger generation that will enter the promised land. There is tremendous hope in the words: "After you enter the land I am giving you as a home…" These words were spoken in the desert, while Israel was wandering around aimlessly. The majority of the nation was doomed to die, and the younger ones, who were less than twenty years old when the great rebellion took place, must have lived under the same cloud of emptiness and expectation of death under which their parents moved through life. When God speaks to them here a ray of light breaks through the darkness. Theirs was a generation that was like a child born in prison. They had never had a home of their own, but God promises them life.

These words are spoken as if the conquest of Canaan had already taken place. Their parents had stood at the borders of Canaan and they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to enter. They had said: "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are,"[ 3 ] and: "Why is the LORD bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder."[ 4 ] Here God says: "'After you enter the land I am giving you as a home…"

We should be able to identify with those words, because for us too, the victory is something that is already behind us. the problem of our sins is solved, as we read in Hebrews: "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven,"[ 5 ] and Paul says: "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."[ 6 ] This victory sets the stage of God's stipulations regarding offerings that will be brought to God "as a pleasing aroma to the Lord."

These offerings could not be made in the desert, because the required ingredients of flour and wine were not available. One had to be home, in the place of God's promise in order to be able to bring these sacrifices.

We do not know when these words were spoken, probably several decades before the time of arrival at the borders of Canaan. We would think that God spoke rather prematurely; He could have waited till the people had arrived. Evidently, He could not! He wanted His people to think about what lay ahead. This generation of young people who saw their parents die off in the desert needed to dream about the future, about the fellowship with God that awaited them after the victory was won. God did not want them to fall victim to a desert syndrome. He wanted them to have a vision of the victory and beyond. In the same vein the Apostle Paul says to us: "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."[ 7 ] God wants us to see beyond the boundaries of this life and dream about life at home, lest we fall victim to the desert syndrome of this world.

The Pulpit Commentary denies that the purpose of the insertion of these commands at this point was to show the younger generation there was light at the end of the tunnel. We read: "It must have been during the years of wandering, but within those limits it is impossible even to conjecture the probably date. There is no external evidence, and the internal evidence is wholly indecisive. Neither can it be reasonably maintained that these regulations were designed to revive the hope and sustain the faith of the rising generation. Incidentally they may have had some effect in that way, but it is evident that the primary object of their promulgation was simply to supply certain defects and omission in the Levitical legislation. Why that legislation should have had the fragmentary and unfinished character which it so evidently bears, requiring to be supplemented, here by and isolated commandment, and there by oral tradition, is an interesting and difficult question; but there can be no doubt as to the fact, and it is superfluous to look any further for the reason of the enactments here following."

The opening words are also found in Leviticus in connection with the law on the first fruits.[ 8 ] The Pulpit Commentary assumes that the burnt offerings and sacrifices mentioned here were not brought during the remainder of the years in the desert. The text does not mention this. It is obvious that the additional parts of the offerings, the flour, the oil and the wine were not available in the desert. Whatever stocks the Israelites had brought out of Egypt did not last forty years. It could very well be, though, that these years in the desert were marked by a general decline of religious practices. We know for sure that the rite of circumcision was not practiced. We learn this from the mention of it in Joshua. We read there: "At that time the LORD said to Joshua, 'Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.' So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth. Now this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt-- all the men of military age-- died in the desert on the way after leaving Egypt. All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not."[ 9 ] We may suppose that the priests and Levites continued their duties at the tabernacle, and that those sacrifices that were not dependent upon the private initiative were continued, but freewill offerings made by individuals could well have diminished, and, eventually discontinued. But to interpret this chapter as a legislation for discontinuation does not make much sense.

Amos' indictment: "You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god-- which you made for yourselves,"[ 10 ] and Stephen's quote, "You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship," suggests strongly that the practice of worshipping YHWH declined considerably during this period. It is impossible to serve God and Satan simultaneously. We can picture the condition of the generation of those who refused to obey the Lord.

The sacrifices referred to in these verses had already been regulated in the book of Leviticus, and, no doubt, had been brought in some form or another even before the construction of the tabernacle. All this chapter does is add features of ingredients that would not be available until the arrival in the promised land. Leviticus distinguishes between five basic types of sacrifices: the burnt offering,[ 11 ] the grain offering,[ 12 ] the fellowship offering,[ 13 ] the sin offering,[ 14 ] and the guilt offering.[ 15 ] Only the last two of these kinds of sacrifices were directly connected to sin. The verses 1-12 of our text seem to apply only to the burnt offering and the fellowship offering, and they add bread, wine, and oil to the bloody sacrifices.

It is hard to miss the symbolic significance of these additions, especially if we look at the sacrifices in the light of New Testament revelation. All bloody sacrifices reflect the death of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. He is "the Lamb that was slain."[ 16 ] At the Last Supper, the Passover Jesus celebrated with His disciples, we read that He took bread and wine and told them to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. This seems to be the significance of the supplementary offerings in the verses before us. With the ordinance of the Passover God instituted the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in which the Israelites had to eat break without yeast for one whole week. It was a practical application to daily life of the redemption provided by the blood of the Passover lamb. When Jesus took the bread, He said: "Take and eat; this is my body,"[ 17 ] and about the wine, He said: "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."[ 18 ]

It should strike us as odd that Jesus did not take the meat of the Passover lamb and said: "take, eat, this is my body," but He took the emblems of the Feast of Unleavened Bread to indicate that the results of His death on the cross had to be applied to a lifetime of sincerity and truth. That is why the Apostle Paul says: "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth."[ 19 ]

The addition of oil to be mixed with the flour can be seen as a reference to the ministry of the Holy spirit, both in the sacrifice as well as in the application. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews mentions the role the Holy Spirit played in Jesus' death on the cross, when he says: "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"[ 20 ]

The point of these supplementary offerings is the application of the substitutionary death of the sacrificial animal to the daily life of the Israelite. Over against the rebellion of the older generation God puts the example of a life of sincerity and truth.

The offerings that are specified are those which are "an aroma pleasing to the Lord," which, basically, limits them to the burnt offering and the fellowship offering. The only exception could be the sin offering brought by a member of the community for an unintentionally committed sin. This kind of sacrifice is dealt with separately in the verses 22-29 of this chapter.

The addition to these sacrifices consists of part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with part of a him of oil. A footnote in the NIV explains the measure of the ephah and the hin. One tenth of an ephah of fine flour amounts two quarts of flour, and a quarter of a hin of oil is translated as four quarts of wine. The supplementary offerings increase with the seize of the animal. For a ram the amount of fine flour is doubled from one tenths of an ephah to two tenths, or two quarts to four quarts, and the oil from a quarter of a hin to a third of a hin, or one quart to one and a quarter quarts. The amount of wine is increase the same. The fact that amount of oil does not increase in proportion to the flour would result in a different kind of mixture; the dough presented with the lamb would be thinner than that brought with the ram. The kind of dough presented with a bull would even be more solid, since the amount of flour is tripled from one tenths of an ephah to three tenths, that is from two quarts to six, and the oil only from a quarter of a hin, or one quart, to half of a hin, or two quarts. The disproportionate increase of the wine does, of course, not influence the dough, since the wine was kept separate. No explanation for the disproportion is given and I cannot think of any lesson to be drawn from it. It is true that the flour represents the human element in the sacrifice and the oil the divine. But it would be speculation to draw too many conclusion from this.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says about this: "The meat-offerings were of two sorts; some were offered alone, and we have the law concerning those, <Lev. 2:1>, etc. Others were added to the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and constantly attended them, and about these direction is here given. It was requisite, since the sacrifices of acknowledgment (specified in v. 3) were intended as the food of God's table, that there should be a constant provision of bread, oil, and wine, whatever the flesh-meat was. The caterers or purveyors for Solomon's temple provided fine flour, <1 Kin. 4:22>. And it was fit that God should keep a good house, that his table should be furnished with bread as well as flesh, and that his cup should run over. In my Father's house there is bread enough. Now the intent of this law is to direct what proportion the meat-offering and drink-offering should bear to several sacrifices to which they were annexed. "

The choice of the sacrificial animal would be up to the person who brought the sacrifice. The only option excluded, or at least not mentioned here, was the sacrifice of two birds as a burnt offering.[ 21 ] Whether this meant that this sacrifice was not accompanied with a supplementary offering, we are not told.

The verses 13-16 divert the attention from the offering to the offerer. The main thrust of these verses seems to be the inclusion of foreigners who resided in Israel. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and the house of the Lord was to be a house of prayer for all nations. Isaiah says: "And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."[ 22 ] Jesus quotes these words in Mark: "Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.' "[ 23 ] There is a glimpse of missionary vision in these verses. The altar in Israel was to be an altar for the whole world.

The verses 17-21 deal with the offerings of the first fruit of the land, that is at the time of the harvest. The introductory phrase: "When you enter the land to which I am taking you and you eat the food of the land, …" must have had the same psychological effect upon the younger generation as the word of promise that opened this chapter. God was taking them to the land of promise and they were going to eat bread, real bread which most of them had probably never tasted.

But there was an even deeper meaning in the words God speaks to Moses here at this point in time. Israel was wandering through the desert, surrounded by death. God had spoken to the people about the significance of bread, oil, and wine in connection with some bloody sacrifices to be brought. That also spoke of death, but of the redeeming feature of death in God's plan of salvation. In bringing up the subject of the harvest, and of the first fruit of the promised land, however, God speaks of resurrection from the dead. The bringing of an offering of the first fruit of the land was a symbolic expression of the victory of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death in our behalf. The Apostle Paul says: "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."[ 24 ] The majority of the Israelites could see no farther than the horizon of the desert in which they would die. God looks beyond the horizon, not only into the promised land, but beyond death to the eternal kingdom to come. All this was, obviously, beyond the scope of anyone's vision at that time. Not even Moses could fathom the depths of the things God was communicating to him. The hope God places before His people in the desert surpasses their wildest dreams. To quote Paul's words: "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit."[ 25 ] That is the way God wants us to travel through the desert of life on earth.

The next section of this chapter deals with sins of omission and of commission. The verses 22-26 deal with unintentional sins committed by the whole congregation; the verses 27-29 with the unintentional sin of an individual; the verses 30, 31 with a sin that is committed intentionally, and the verses 32-36 give an example of such a kind of sin that was committed defiantly and intentionally, and how the nation was to deal with this. The chapter ends with a reminder, in the form of an object lesson: tassels at the corner of each garment.

The verses 22-26 run more or less parallel to Lev. 4:1-35, although, as The Pulpit Commentary points out, the sins in Leviticus are sins of commission and the sins in these verses are sins of omission.

Just as in the parallel passage in Lev. 4:13-35 the sin in question is something which made the whole nation guilty before God. No specific act is indicated; God only wants them to be aware of the fact that sin is not only something that people commit consciously. When a person leans against a freshly painted wall, the paint will soil his clothing whether he is aware of this or not. So we can be polluted morally and not even know it. Sin only becomes apparent in a comparison with the holiness of God. God's holiness is the yardstick for all moral behavior. The Apostle Paul gives us the clearest definition of sin by saying: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."[ 26 ] Whether we sin unintentionally by not doing what we ought to do, or by doing what we ought not to do does not make much difference; we fall short of God's glory.

Most people drift along happily through life without realizing that they go down the stream that will throw them over the fatal cliff. Even people who begin to understand something of God's holiness show a great degree of density in the understanding of their own moral condition. I have been appalled when God brought certain sins to my attention, to realize how long it took me before my eyes were opened to things that had been wrong in my life for years. Jesus calls this blindness to our own faults hypocrisy. In Matthew's Gospel He says: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."[ 27 ] Maybe we are less innocent than we think with our unintentional sins.

If it were not for the fact that our passage deals with the ways of atonement for unintentional sins and not with punishments, we would be in a dire strait indeed. For the stress in these verses is not upon the sin, but upon the atonement. That is why God accepts the sacrifice as "an aroma pleasing to the Lord." People may be guilty, even when it is not their fault. This fact becomes even more apparent when we speak about collective guilt. To quote some examples: the whole German nation was guilty of the sin of "the final solution," and the other atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, but the majority of that nation may not even have been aware of what went on at that time. Some guilt may stick to a nation collectively for sins committed by previous generations. The guilt of what the white race did to the black race in the various aspects of slavery is a stain that has never been completely removed yet. As Daniel of old, we ought to confess the sins of pervious generations before the Lord. We read that Daniel "prayed to the LORD [his] God and confessed: 'O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame-- the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you."[ 28 ] The least we can do is make this kind of confession to disassociate us from the guilt of our forefathers, lest we would be branded "the descendants of those who murdered the prophets," as Jesus reproached the Pharisees of His time. We read that Jesus said: "So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!"[ 29 ]

The lesson we can learn from this passage is that we live in a world that is polluted by sin. The very air we breath is morally unclean. Sanctification consists in disassociating us from all the filth and dirt that surrounds us and clings to us. God does not accept excuses such as "I did not do it," or "I did not know it." He only accepts the sacrifice of His Son, which cleanses us from all sins, the sins of commission and of omission, the conscious ones and the unconscious ones.

In this context we read again the words: "One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien." I suppose this means that, in case of collective guilt, we cannot even plead ignorance on the basis that we do not belong to the people in whose land we live. The alien also had to disassociate himself by confession from the sins that were committed around him.

The tone of the next section, the verses 30-36, is quite different. The law in vs. 30 and 31 deals with sins that are committed intentionally, and the verses 32-36 illustrate what this law means by quoting an incident that took place at that time, to which this law was applied.

Vs. 30 reads: "But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people." This is not a case in which a person sin unintentionally, where ignorance or negligence can be pleaded, but it is an act of defiance; it is open rebellion to God. God considers this to be blasphemy. The Hebrew word is gadaph, which Strong's Dictionary defines as "to hack (with words), i.e. revile." The KJV translates it with "to blaspheme, reproach." It is not the same word Jesus uses, though, when He says: "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."[ 30 ] The Greek word in the New Testament is not the same as the one the Septuagint uses to translate "blaspheme" in Numbers.[ 31 ]

The underlying thought, however, is the same. The sin is a sin of defiance, that is not a of transgression of God's will alone, but a rejection of God's grace. This is the same kind of sin the author of the Hebrew epistle deals with when he says: "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"[ 32 ] The sin in question is not the breaking of the moral law, but of the ceremonial law, which is the law on the sacrifices that stand for confession and pardon of sin. This sin shuts the door to the atonement, which means that, in the words of Hebrew "no sacrifice for sins is left." Or, in the language of Numbers: "his guilt remains on him."

What is meant by this, is illustrated in the verses 32-36. A man was apprehended while gathering wood on the Sabbath. The act of gathering wood was not punishable, but the fact that it was done on the Sabbath was. The Sabbath command, as given in the Ten Commandments, read: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."[ 33 ] The explanatory clause in Deuteronomy links the Sabbath command to the deliverance from the slavery in Egypt, instead of to creation. We read there: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day."[ 34 ]

Gathering wood on the Sabbath seems a trivial offense to us; certainly nothing that would warrant the death penalty. But then, eating a fruit from a tree seems an even lesser offence, and that caused death to enter the whole of creation. The magnitude of the act is in the defiance of it. The man who did this despised God's creation, which was commemorated in the Sabbath, and he belittled his deliverance from the slavery in Egypt. He demonstrated in a small and puny way that God's creation, and, to use the New Testament concept, God's new creation in Christ were of no consequence to him. By rejecting the Sabbath he withdrew from the protection God had provided for Israel in the blood of the Passover lamb, and consequently, he bore the responsibility for his sin.

The Israelites seem to have been at loss when the offender was apprehended. We read: "Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him." When God pronounced the death sentence on him, the whole nation must have been in shock. In a human court the man would have gotten away with a warning, or a suspended sentence as a first time offender. God's judgment sounds harsh to us; as if God overreacted to the situation. We can be assured, however, that God's judgment was just. In the words of Abraham: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"[ 35 ] God judged the man's motives, not just the act.

The incident becomes even more troubling when we compare this judgment to Jesus' transgressions of the Sabbath. We read the following story in Mark's Gospel: "One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?' He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.' Then he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.' "[ 36 ]

We have to admit that the man who gathered wood in the book of Numbers did not do so, because he considered himself "Lord of the Sabbath," or maybe he did! If he did so, he did so defiantly, and opposing God. Jesus declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," because he reinstated the Sabbath to what God originally intended it to be: a day of celebration of creation, both old and new. Jesus purchased the Sabbath back when He died on the cross and paid with His blood.

We have trouble with the Sabbath and its interpretation in the context of the New Testament, because it does not fit in either category of the law; it cannot be taken as a moral law, nor as part of the ceremonial law. It is a category by itself. It is clear that Jesus is the end of the law, as far as the ceremonial part is concerned. This is what Paul means when he says: "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."[ 37 ] He does not mean to imply that the New Testament believer would be free to murder, steal, or commit adultery, but that he does not have to rely any longer on the blood of a sacrificial animal to cover his sins before God, since he is washed in the blood of the Lamb.

All of the Ten Commandments on the two stone tablets are repeated in the New Testament, with the exception of the Sabbath Command. Yet, many Christians try to fit the Sabbath in to their new life style, either by transferring the command to the Sunday, for which there is no biblical ground, or by observing the Sabbath, like the Seventh Day Adventists do.

According the writer to the Hebrews, the Sabbath is no longer a day we observe, but a rest we enter in to. We read: "Now we who have believed enter that rest," and "Anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his."[ 38 ] That is why this portion of Numbers is so hard for us to accept and to understand, since we have grown into a stage where the former condition no longer exists and that law no longer applies. The difference is between defiance and surrender. Entering into God's rest is incompatible with defiance.

This is the only instance, with one in Leviticus,[ 39 ] where a person is put in custody under the Levitical law. In his Commentary On The Psalms, George Knight remarks that the Israelite law knew no prison sentence, as our Western judiciary system practices it. People were only put in custody awaiting sentencing. Punishment were meted out in fines to be paid and death sentences. No one ever served a prison term legally. Imprisonment was known in Egypt, and was later practiced in Israel, but it was never sanctioned by the law of the Lord. Some persons were confined to cities of refuge in cases of manslaughter, but that was all.

The last five verses of this chapter deal with the addition of a tassel to the garments as a reminder of Israelite identity in reference to God's purpose for His people. The tassel was to be made of blue cord. It gave a "heavenly touch" to the clothing of the people.

The Hebrew word which is translated by "tassel" is tsiytsith, which is defined in Strong's with "a floral or wing-like projection, i.e. a forelock of hair, a tassel." The Pulpit Commentary points out that the same word was used for the shining plate of gold upon Aaron's head-band.

Matthew Henry's Commentary says about this: "Provision had been just now made by the law for the pardon of sins of ignorance and infirmity; now here is an expedient provided for the preventing of such sins. They are ordered to make fringes upon the borders of their garments, which were to be memorandums to them of their duty, that they might not sin through forgetfulness…. The sign appointed is a fringe of silk, or thread, or worsted, or the garment itself ravelled at the bottom, and a blue riband bound on the top of it to keep it tight, v. 38. The Jews being a peculiar people, they were thus distinguished from their neighbours in their dress, as well as in their diet, and taught by such little instances of singularity not to be conformed to the way of the heathen in greater things. Thus likewise they proclaimed themselves Jews wherever they were, as those that were not ashamed of God and his law. Our Saviour, being made under the law, wore these fringes; hence we read of the hem or border, of his garment, <Mt. 9:20>. These borders the Pharisees enlarged, that they might be thought more holy and devout than other people. The phylacteries were different things; these were their own invention, the fringes were a divine institution. The Jews at this day wear them, saying, when they put them on, Blessed be he who has sanctified us unto himself, and commanded us to wear fringes."

The phylacteries, Matthew Henry mentions are "small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scripture passages and traditionally worn on the left are and forehead by Jewish men during morning weekday prayers," according to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Whether these were merely human inventions, as Matthew Henry suggest, is debatable.

The idea introduced here, is that the obedience of the Israelites was something that did not come naturally to them. They had to be forced into it. They needed props in order to remind themselves of the necessity to obey, lest they die. The tassels are, therefore, both a reminder of God's law and of their own fallen nature.

Vs. 39 suggests that, if they would be left to themselves they would prostitute themselves by going after the lusts of their own hearts and eyes. The use of the word "prostitute" suggests a connection with idolatry. Their natural tendency is to make their own gods, lifeless statues that can be manipulated by man. There is, probably, also a reference in these words to the immoral practices that accompanied the worship of idols. Man is in a sad state if he has to force himself to obey God's law in order to live. Sin, left to itself brings death. G. K. Chesterton uses the image of a fence post. He says that a fence post left by itself will deteriorate and rot over the years. In order to preserve a fence post it has to be painted and protected. Such is human nature, left by itself rot and corruption will do its work.

As New Testament Christians we should not need tassels to remind us of the need to obey. Jesus says: "If you love me, you will obey what I command."[ 40 ] Tassels are a reminder of our disobedience. We can say, though, that the command to make tassels is an illustration of the fact that "the Spirit helps us in our weakness." We do need reminders and props. We have to realize that we are frail human beings, not only physically, but spiritually as well. Just as in our daily life we can write notes to help us remember what we should not forget, God wants us to make reminders that help us to love and obey Him. This may not necessarily be in the form of a tassel or any other outward sign. Scripture memorization, for instance, is a very good equivalent of a tassel.

Regarding the blue cord, The Pulpit Commentary writes: "This may have been a blue string with which to fasten the tassel to the corner of the garment, as if it were the stalk on which this flower grew; or it may have been a prominent blue thread in the tassel itself. The later Jews seem to have understood it in this sense, and concerned themselves greatly with the symbolical arrangements of the blue and other threads, and the method in which they were knotted together, so as to set forth the whole law with all its several commandments. The latter Jews, however, have always contrived, with all their minute observance, to break the plain letter of the law; thus the modern talith is an under, and not an upper, garment."

The chapter ends with the magnificent statement: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD your God." Again, we copy from The Pulpit Commentary the following beautiful remarks: "This intensely solemn formula, here twice repeated, may serve to show how intimately the smallest observances of the Law were connected with the profoundest and most comforting of spiritual truths, if only observed in faith and true obedience. The whole of religion, theoretical and practical, lay in those words, and that whole was hung upon a tassel."

[ 1 ] Ezek. 20:10-26

[ 2 ] Amos 5:25-26

[ 3 ] Num. 13:31

[ 4 ] Num. 14:3

[ 5 ] Heb. 1:3

[ 6 ] Col. 2:15

[ 7 ] Col. 3:1-4

[ 8 ] See Lev. 23:10

[ 9 ] Josh. 5:2-5

[ 10 ] Amos 5:26

[ 11 ] Lev. 1:1-17; 6:8-13

[ 12 ] Lev. 2:1-61; 6:14-23

[ 13 ] Lev. 3:1-16; 7:11-21

[ 14 ] Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-29

[ 15 ] Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10

[ 16 ] Rev. 5:12

[ 17 ] Matt. 26:26

[ 18 ] Matt. 26:27-28

[ 19 ] I Cor. 5:7^b-8

[ 20 ] Heb. 9:14

[ 21 ] See Lev. 1:14-17

[ 22 ] Isa. 56:6-7

[ 23 ] Mark 11:17

[ 24 ] I Cor. 15:20,23

[ 25 ] Rom. 15:13

[ 26 ] Rom. 3:23

[ 27 ] Matt. 7:3-5

[ 28 ] Dan. 9:4-8

[ 29 ] Matt. 23:31-32

[ 30 ] Matt. 12:31,32

[ 31 ] Septuagint: parozunei; NT: blasphemia.

[ 32 ] Heb. 10:26-29

[ 33 ] Ex. 20:8-11

[ 34 ] Deut. 5:15

[ 35 ] Gen. 18:25

[ 36 ] Mark 2:23-28

[ 37 ] Rom. 10:4

[ 38 ] Heb. 4:3, 10

[ 39 ] Lev. 24:12

[ 40 ] John 14:15