Numbers 29
II. The Regulations of Offerings and Vows 28:1-30:16The Regulations of Sacrifices 28:1-29:40 (continued)
All the sacrifices in this chapter pertain to celebrations in the seventh month, which is the month of Ethanim. TLB equates the first day of this month with the fifteenth of September. There are three celebrations held during this months: the Feast of Trumpets (vs. 1-6), the Day of Atonement (vs. 7-11), and the Feast of Tabernacles (vs. 12-40).The Feast of Trumpets vs. 1-6.
The Feast of Trumpets was the celebration of Israel's civil year. In Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary we read: "With regard to the year, the Jewish historian Josephus stated that Israel had two New Years-- the commercial New Year, which began in the fall (seventh month), and the religious New Year, which began in the spring (first month). Since the months were based on the lunar system and since each month averaged 29½ days, the year would be 354 days, or 11 days short of the solar year. In just three years the calendar would be off more than a month." And The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia adds to this: "There are four periods of commencement of years: On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for kings and for festivals; the 1st of Elul is a new year for the tithe of cattle. .... The 1st of Tishri is new year's (day) for the ordinary or civil year, for the computation of 7th years, and of the jubilees; also for the planting of trees, and for herbs. On the 1st of Shebat is the new year for trees. The ritual for the day consequently needs little explanation. All new moons were heralded by trumpeting [Num 10:10], and so the custom was of course observed on this feast also. There is nothing in the language of either [Lev 23] or [Num 29] to require a prolongation of the music on this special new moon, but its special distinction was no doubt marked by special trumpeting at all times, and at a later period … elaborate rules were laid down for this feature. The additional sacrifices simply involved an increase of those prescribed for new moons [Num 28:11-15], without changing their type."The Day of Atonement vs. 7-11
In the law on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus the main ritual consisted of the sacrifice of the animals, the blood of which was brought inside the tabernacle to be sprinkled in front of, and on the cover of the ark. Another outstanding feature was the sending away of the scapegoat. The burnt offering is briefly mentioned in Leviticus, but not in the elaborate form in which we find it here; only one ram, as over against "one young bull, one ram and seven male lambs a year old," in our text here.[ 1 ] This burnt offering stands in contrast to the character of the day. In the institution of the day God said to Moses: "And {this} shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls, and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you; for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you shall be clean from all your sins before the LORD."[ 2 ] It is this paradox between the horror of sin that had to be atoned for, and the glorious way in which it was done that makes us call the day Christ died "Good Friday." The pleasing aroma of the burnt offering was victorious over the stench of our sin. h. The Feast of Tabernacles vs. 12-40
The Feast of Tabernacles, or The Feast of Booths, as the older versions call it, was a commemoration of the desert crossing, when the people were living in temporary dwellings instead of in permanent houses. The emphasis of the feast is on the transient character of life, and on God's provision during a prolonged period of instability. The surprising feature of the feast is the exuberance of the celebration. It is a joyful celebration of privations and emergencies, and it is one of the most elaborate feasts of the year
Adam Clarke's Commentary remarks here: "[On the fifteenth day of the seventh month] On this day there was to be a solemn assembly, and for seven days sacrifices were to be offered; on the first day thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs. On each succeeding day one bullock less, till on the seventh day there were only seven, making in all seventy. What an expensive service! How should we magnify God for being delivered from it![ 3 ] Yet these were all the taxes they had to pay. At the public charge there were annually offered to God, independently of trespass-offerings and voluntary vows, fifteen goats, twenty-one kids, seventy-two rams, one hundred and thirty-two bullocks, and eleven hundred and one lambs! But how little is all this when compared with the lambs slain every year at the Passover, which amounted in one year to the immense number of 255,600 slain in the temple itself, which was the answer that Cestius, the Roman general, received when he asked the priests how many persons had come to Jerusalem at their annual festivals, the priests, numbering the people by the lambs that had been slain, said, 'twenty-five myriads, five thousand and six hundred.' " Clarke's remark about the cost of the sacrifices is very interesting. If we realize how much the Lord paid for our salvation, and how generous He is toward us in providing for our sustenance, remarks about how much it costs us seem to be strangely out of place.
In his second epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks about "the grace of giving."[ 4 ] Presenting to the church the needs of other members of the body of Christ, he reminds them of what God did for them. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich." The difference between the Old Testament dispensation and ours is not that we are delivered from the obligation of giving, but that for them it was a law, for us it is a privilege: "the grace of giving." Those who do not have this grace are poor, regardless of their monetary worth.
Unger's Bible Dictionary has an extensive article about this feast. We read: "The dwelling in booths was to be a reminder to them of the fatherly care and protection of Jehovah while Israel was journeying from Egypt to Canaan [Deut. 8:7-18]. 'In comparison with the ' 'house of bondage' ' the dwelling in booths on the march through the wilderness was in itself an image of freedom and happiness' … Such a reminder of God's loving care and Israel's dependence would, naturally, keep the Israelites from pride and conceit. …On the first day of the feast, booths were constructed of fresh branches of fruit and palm trees, 'boughs of leafy trees and willows.' These were located in courts, streets, public squares, and on house roofs. In these all home-born Israelites were to dwell during the festival, in memory of their fathers' dwelling in booths after their exodus from Egypt [Lev. 23:40; Neh. 8:15]. The day was also to be observed as a Sabbath and a holy convocation, in which no secular work was to be done, and all able-bodied male members of the congregation not legally precluded were to appear before the Lord. The booth in Scripture is not an image of privation and misery but of protection, preservation, and shelter from heat, storm, and tempest [Pss. 27:5; 31:20; Isa. 4:6]."
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia writes: "The Feast of Tabernacles is at once the general harvest festival, chagh he-' saciph, and the anniversary of the beginnings of the wanderings in the wilderness."
The meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles went far beyond the commemoration of an historic event; it was meant to be a reminder of the transient character of human life on earth. The Bible teaches that, as long as we are on earth, we live in a tent. We are not here to stay. The author of Hebrews says: "For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come."[ 5 ] Or, as TLB puts it: "For this world is not our home; we are looking forward to our everlasting home in heaven." When the Word of God became flesh, He lived among us as in a tent.[ 6 ] The Greek word skenoo refers to a tent, or a camp. We tend to look at our journey through life as passing through "a valley of tears." We think that joy in the life of a Christian should revolve only around the hope he has of glory to come. The Feast of Tabernacles teaches us that life on earth itself should be a celebration, and an exuberant one at that! God wants us to go through life joyfully, not in spite of our troubles and hardships, but because of them! James reminds us of this in the opening words of his epistle, when he writes: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."[ 7 ]
Another important part of the meaning of the feast was that God does not want us to forget our history. He wants us to understand where we are, and how we got there. Israel should never forget that they left Egypt and crossed the desert to enter into the Promised Land. The tragedy of the human race is that we do not learn from history. Moses put this very clearly, when he addressed the younger generation with the words: "He led you through the vast and dreadful desert, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, 'My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.' But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today."[ 8 ] The desert crossing was not a sinecure; the desert was a dreadful place. Sin has made the world we live in a desert. In a sense our planet is not fit for human habitation, and if it were not for the fact that God still keeps His hand on the human race, none of us would make it through. Mr. Unger is correct when he says: "The booth in Scripture is not an image of privation and misery but of protection, preservation, and shelter from heat, storm, and tempest."
The celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles was also a statement of defiance against Satan, who had attempted to make life unlivable for God's children. Those who dwell in the house of the Lord, make Baca into a valley of springs, as the psalmist says: "Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you. Selah. Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools."[ 9 ]
The Feast of Tabernacles was one of the three occasions that drew pilgrims to the temple in Jerusalem. It was also the time the Egyptian Hallel was chanted, that is, the Psalms 113-118. In later times the celebration of the feast was accompanied by the pouring out in the temple of water from the pool of Siloam. This ceremony was omitted on the last day of the feast. It was, supposedly, on this day, which John calls "the last and greatest day of the feast," that Jesus gave His great invitation: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."[ 10 ] So the joy and exuberance that was typical for the Feast of Tabernacles was a pointer to the fulness of the Holy Spirit which God wants to give to those who obey Him.[ 11 ]
The essence of the feast was joy, but it was not a pure and unadulterated joy, it was bitter sweet. The shadow side of the feast was not the cost involved, as Adam Clarke suggested, but the fact that so many creatures had to die for it. Each one of the animals represented the death of Him, who would make it possible for streams of living water to flow from within those who obey Him. This fact gives to the joy of the feast a depth that is beyond words. It can only be expressed in the loudest praise or in the deepest silence.
This feast was part of the law of the Lord. Besides this feast and the preceding ones, the people had the option to give what they wanted. The chapter concludes with the words: "In addition to what you vow and your freewill offerings, prepare these for the LORD at your appointed feasts: your burnt offerings, grain offerings, drink offerings and fellowship offerings." But what can man pay to the Lord in exchange for his soul?CHAPTER THIRTY
II. The Regulations of Offerings and Vows 28:1-30:16B. The Regulations of Vows 30:1-16
The purpose of this chapter is not so much to confirm the sacredness of the vow, as to emphasize the authority of a father over his unmarried daughter, and of a husband over his wife within the context of vows made by women.
The Hebrew word for vow, used in this chapter is neder, which Strongs defines as "a promise (to God); also (concretely) a thing promised." In order to understand the background of this chapter correctly, we have to take the vow in its concrete sense, not as an oral promise, but as the thing promised, as a sacrifice. This involved property which, legally, belonged to the father, or to the husband of the girl.
The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary writes about the topic: "[A woman ... in her father's house in her youth.] Girls only are specified; but minors of the other sex, who resided under the paternal roof, were included, according to Jewish writers, who also consider the name 'father' as comprehending all guardians of youth, and tell us that the age at which young people were deemed capable of vowing was thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. The judgment of a father or guardian on the vow of any under his charge might be given either by an expressed approval or by silence, which was to be construed as approval. But in the case of a husband, who, after silence from day to day, should ultimately disapprove or hinder his wife's vow, the sin of non-performance was to be imputed to him, and not to her."
Adam Clarke's Commentary remarks: "[In her youth] That is, say the rabbis, under twelve years of age; and under thirteen in case of a young man. Young persons of this age were considered to be under the authority of their parents, and had consequently no power to vow away the property of another. A married woman was in the same circumstances, because she was under the authority of her husband. If however the parents or the husband heard of the vow, and objected to it in the same day in which they heard of it, [Num. 30:5], then the vow was annulled, or, if having heard of it, they held their peace, this was considered a ratification of the vow."
There are three points to be considered in this chapter: the nature of a vow, the status of a person who is under authority of someone else, and the meaning of silence.
A vow in the context of this chapter is a promise, made to God, to give certain things, or perform certain acts. The neglect to keep the promise amounts to sin in the eyes of God. We can, no doubt, extend the binding character of the vow to inter-human relations also. Broken promises always constitute sin. All sin between humans is sin for God. My own life is littered by unfulfilled pledges and promises, both by people made to me and by me to others. Our tongues are sharper than our memories, and often the satisfaction our good intentions give to us seems to us the equivalent of a fulfilled pledge. But the Lord's opinion differs from ours on this point. God's Word says: "If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin."[ 12 ] And in Ecclesiastes we read: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow."[ 13 ] Those who make promises, but do not intend to keep them, are fools in the eyes of God.
Vows rated very highly in man's moral behavior in biblical times. The breaking of a vow was considered the greatest sin of all, even to the point that, as in the case of Jephthah, murder was committed, rather than breaking the vow.[ 14 ] Even the immoral king Herod preferred being known as a man who kept his promises, even if it made him guilty of murder. When his daughter asked: "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist," we read: "The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted."[ 15 ] Scripture did not sanction this concept of the binding character of a vow, but it shows how vows were rated by the people of those times.
The second point we want to look at is the status of one who is under authority. As we read in the commentaries, quoted above, the regulations of this chapter were applied, not only to girls who were minors, but to members of both sexes up to the point of puberty. The law provided a place for parental authority to override a vow made by a child. The law suggests that the making of vows requires insight and wisdom that may not be present in the mind of a child. A child is more easily inclined to act impulsively, and make rash promises that cannot be fulfilled, than an adult. God does not take the attitude of not taking the vow earnestly, by saying: "it is only a child." He takes children's vows seriously, but He also wants them to understand the seriousness of their vows. That is why He creates a place for a parental veto.
There is a fine line between the healthy development of a child's character, and unbridled liberty that leads to insecurity. On the other hand there is a subtle difference between strong parental guidance and imperious authority. Paul uttered words of deep wisdom when he wrote: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' -- which is the first commandment with a promise—'that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.' Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."[ 16 ] As parents, we are to respect our child's personality, but we should also recognize that the developing mind of a child is not always able to oversee all the consequences of its acts. It takes maturity to be able to calculate the outcome of one's choices. Above all, it takes intimacy with God to discern which way one should go. We live in a world that is complex, and the pollution of sin blurs everyone's vision to the point that clear moral choices are often extremely difficult to make. God has ordained certain lines of authority within the family to help define those choices. Even so, no family is foolproof against mistakes and failures. There is only One "who is able to keep [us] from falling and to present [us] before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy;"[ 17 ] He is the One to turn to in our dilemmas.
In our modern society it has become possible for a child to take his parents to court in cases where disciplinary acts are involved. Instead of protection of a child against parental brutality, this procedure has become an indication of the fact that our society has gone awry. Scripture, evidently, considers the evil of absence of parental authority greater than the excesses of the exercise of it.
The third point that draws our attention in this chapter is the meaning of silence. The father of the girl, or the husband of the wife did not have to verbally consent to validate the vow; the absence of objections stood for acquiescence. The problem is that silence does not always indicate approval; it can be the evidence of a lack of interest or attention. The provision of the law suggests that a father or husband was required to give full attention to the words of the girl or wife under his jurisdiction. It could be costly for a husband who was not in the habit of listening to his wife. Cancellation after the facts, of a vow that was made previously, would make the husband the guilty party.
Matthew Henry's Commentary says significantly: "Silence gives consent. Hereby he allows his daughter the liberty she has assumed, and, as long as he says nothing against her vow, she shall be bound by it." If silence is born of neglect, it stands for consent. Neglect makes us just as responsible as our acts.CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE
III. The Conquest and Division of Israel 31:1-36:13
A. Victory over Midian 31:1-54
This chapter represents a sorrowful page in the history of the conquest of Canaan. The order to take vengeance on the Midianites came from God. The verses 1-12 detail the instructions and the execution. The verses 13-18 tell the gruesome story of the slaughter of prisoners. In the verses 19-24 the soldiers and their spoil are purified before they are allowed back into the camp. The verses 25-47 give us an inventory of the spoil, and in the verses 48-54 we read that the commanding officers decided to bring a memorial offering to the tabernacle as an expression of gratitude that no one in the Israelite army was killed in the raid.
The Pulpit Commentary has a lengthy section in which the moral questions that arise from this chapter are probed. We copy some of the remarks: "The grave moral difficulty presented by the treatment of their enemies by the Israelites, under the sanction or even direct command of God, is here presented in its gravest form. It will be best first to state the proceedings in all their ugliness; then to reject the false excuses made for them; and lastly, to justify (if possible) the Divine sanction accorded to them.
I. That the Midianites had injured Israel is clear; as also that they had done so deliberately, craftily, and successfully, under the advice of Balaam. They had so acted as if e.g. a modern nation were to pour its opium into the ports of a dreaded neighbor in time of peace, not simply for the sake of gain (which is base enough), but with deliberate intent to ruin the morals and destroy the manhood of the nation. … Midian, therefore, was attacked by a detachment of the Israelites…. So far the Israelites had but followed the ordinary customs of war, with this great exception in their favor, that they offered (as is evident from the narrative) no violence to the women. Upon their return to the camp Moses was greatly displeased at the fact of the Midianitish women having been brought in, and gave orders that all the male children and all the women who were no virgins were to be slain. The inspection necessary to determine the latter point was left presumably to the soldiers. … To put the matter boldly, we have to face the fact that, under Moses' directions, 12,000 soldiers had to deal with perhaps 50,000 women, first by ascertaining that they were not virgins, and then by killing them in cold blood. It is small additional horror that a multitude of infants must have perished directly or indirectly with their mothers.
II. It is commonly urged in vindication of this massacre that the war was God's war, and that God had a perfect right to exterminate a most guilty people. This is true in a sense. If God had been pleased to visit the Midianites with pestilence, famine or hordes of savages worse than themselves, no one would have charged him with injustice. All who believe in an over-ruling Providence believe that in one way or other God has provided that great wickedness in a nation shall be greatly punished. But that is beside the question altogether; the difficulty is, not that the Midianites were exterminated, but that they were exterminated in an inhuman manner by the Israelites. … The fact is (and it is so obvious that it ought not to have been overlooked) that Midian was overthrown, not because he was given over to an 'obscene idolatry,' wherein he was probably neither much better nor much worse than his neighbors; but because he had made an unprovoked, crafty, and successful attack upon God's people, and had brought thousands of them to a shameful death. The motive which prompted the attack upon them was not horror of their sins, nor fear of contamination, but vengeance; Midian was smitten avowedly 'to avenge the children of Israel' (ver. 2) who had fallen through Baal-Peor, and at the same time 'to avenge the Lord' (ver. 3), who had been obliged to slay his own people."
In the point III, the commentary finds the true justification of the 'atrocities' committed by the Israelite soldiers in putting the moral problem in a historic perspective. The commentator presents the theory of an evolution of moral awareness over the ages, growing from primitive cruelty to modern standards. He says: "Even a bad man will shrink from doing to-day what a good man would have done without the least scruple some centuries ago; and (if the world last) a bad man will be able sincerely to denounce some centuries hence what a good man can bring himself to do with a clear conscience to-day." This position seems to be highly debatable, not only on the point of definition of a "bad man" and a "good man," but also on whether there has really been an improvement in the concept of moral behavior.
Unless we see Israel's acts upon her enemies as acts of God, which may look shocking to us from our twentieth century perspective, but were permissible within the context of that dispensation, we will not be able to deal with the problem, or face God's perfect holiness in an appropriate way. It is not in the difference of mentality from one age to another, but in the fundamental difference between dispensations, that is God's dealing with this world, and the mode of revelation which He chose for particular periods in world history, that the answers to our questions must be sought.
It is also not true, that fear of contamination, but only vengeance was the only motive for the execution of the women. Especially as far as they were concerned, fear of contamination was the overriding motive. Moses' words: "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people," clearly indicate that more Israelite men could fall, if those women were kept alive, and be allowed to live among the nation.
Another problem is that we cannot conceive of righteous or holy wars, because of the abuse of the concept in world history. The crusaders traveled to Palestine under the banner "God wills it!" The Inquisition thought that they were pleasing God when they burnt the martyrs at the stake. Even slavery was carried out under a Christian seal, and Hitler's armies had "God with us"[ 18 ] engraved on the buckles of their belts. All this clutters our minds sufficiently to look at this ancient history with skepticism. This does not mean that the moral problems that evolve from this chapter can be easily solved. The execution of the Midianite women was ugly, but it was not an atrocity. All executions are ugly, and death itself is ugly in all its forms. God hates death. Death is the weapon of the enemy; it is the Last Enemy.[ 19 ] But death is not the last word. In some cases physical death is to be preferred over a life that leads to spiritual and eternal death. The death of those women may have been more merciful than appears on the surface.
Above all, we must watch against the tendency to judge God. To doubt God's righteousness in His judgment over Midian, suggests that our standards are higher than God's. If we could see the real enemy behind Midian's plot to destroy Israel, as the carrier of God's revelation in this world, we would realize that the matter goes too far about our understanding of right-and-wrong to be able to argue with the Judge of all the earth.
It seems strange that the Midianites were singled out for this expedition of vengeance, and the Moabites, who were the ones who invited Balaam, were not disturbed. Evidently, the involvement of Moab in the Baal-Peor affair had been much less than that of Midian. This in itself is an indication of the righteousness of God, who did not command a blind vengeance upon the enemies, although Moab had, certainly, not been without guilt. Balaam must have found a more fertile ground for his plan for Israel's moral destruction among the Midianites than among the Moabites.
The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary says about this point: "The Midianites had rendered themselves particularly obnoxious by entering into a hostile league with the Amorites [Josh. 13:21]. The Moabites were at this time spared in consideration of Lot [Deut. 2:9], and because the measure of their iniquities was not yet full."
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary writes this about the problem of Moab's apparent exclusion: "In the time of Balaam, Moab (then ruled by Balak son of Zippor) conferred with the elders of Midian in regard to Israel, and the resulting embassy to Balaam consisted of elders both of Moab and Midian [Num. 22:1-7]. In the chapters that relate the prophecies of Balaam (23-24) only Moab is mentioned. In [25:1] it is the daughters of Moab who entice Israel; but in [25:6-15] it is Midian, and in vv. 16-18; [31:1-12] vengeance is executed on Midian. In [31:8-9] it is among the Midianites that Balaam perishes. We may therefore conclude that Midian had a prominent part in the transaction."
The war in this chapter is called "the Lord's vengeance." Vengeance is God's prerogative. In the epistle to the Hebrews, we read: "For we know him who said, 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' and again, 'The Lord will judge his people.' "[ 20 ] The psalmist said: "O LORD, the God who avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O Judge of the earth; pay back to the proud what they deserve."[ 21 ] This verse reads in the KJV: "O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth.…" The Bible calls the Day of Judgment, the Day of Vengeance. Isaiah says: "For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause." What Israel did to Midian was not the paying back of a personal grudge, it was the carrying out of a divine mandate. What was unusual, in this case, was that God asked His own people to do this. But then, this was, partly, the basis for the whole conquest of Canaan. It was the way God carried out judgment in that particular dispensation. The fact that we live in a dispensation of grace, makes it hard for us to understand that God deals differently with the world today than He did 4000 years ago. We have a hard time reconciling the attribute of God's love with the attribute of His wrath. Yet, wrath is as much part of His holiness as love is. When the Apostle Paul writes: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…"[ 22 ] he speaks about God's wrath in the present tense, as something that is always there; that is part of His character. Adam Clarke's Commentary says about this verse in Romans: "By orgee … Theou …, the wrath of God, we are not to understand any uneasy passion in the Divine Being; but the displeasure of His righteousness, which is expressed by the punishments inflicted on the ungodly, those who retain not God in their knowledge; and the unrighteous, those whose lives are profligate." What Israel was ordered to do, was part of the cosmic struggle between good and evil, between God and Satan. It was a prelude to the final Day of Judgment that will close of the history of this world.
This may not clear away for us all the problems and moral objections that were voiced by The Pulpit Commentary in a previous quote, but it should help us to put this page of history in its proper perspective. Ultimately, man is responsible for the evil he commits. When human depravity clashes with God's holiness, we cannot blame God for the awful results. We may be grateful that, in our dispensation, we are not involved in the carrying out of judgment, as the Israelites were. I would never volunteer to be an executioner, but that does not mean I am not in favor of capital punishment for those who deserve it.
Verses 19-24 are proof of the fact that God took no pleasure in this mass execution, although He had ordered it. The men who were involved in the operation were considered impure, not only because of their close contact with death, but because of the principle of evil involved. It is true that the impurity caused by a close encounter with death was given as the reason but, as it turns out, not only the people, who had been the executioners, had to be purified, but also the prisoners and the material spoil. Midian's plot to destroy Israel through prostitution had not only been a sexual temptation, but a demonic affair. Behind it all loomed the ugly face of Baal-Peor. This fact was ultimately the reason for the severity of the punishment on those who had, obviously, given themselves irrevocably to the service of demons.
The law on purification after the touching of dead bodies had been given in ch. 19:11-22. There it was stipulated that the period of purification lasted for seven days, and that the water of cleansing had to be applied on the third and the seventh day. Both the application of the water of cleansing, as well the days on which it had to be applied, are full of symbolic significance. The water of cleansing was prepared with the ashes of a red heifer, that had been killed outside the camp. The preparation of the cleansing water in itself was full of rich symbolism. The killing of the heifer symbolized Christ's death on the hill of Golgotha, outside the city of Jerusalem. The application of the water on the third day connects it to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the application on the seventh day indicates that it was to have its effect for the duration of life.
Some of the spoil had to be purified with fire, that is: it passed under the divine judgment, without being destroyed by it. The application of the water was a form of judgment also, but the judgment did not destroy the individual either. Some other creature had been destroyed in the process. The heifer, the ashes of which had been used in the preparation of the water, had been killed. Even the captives were purified by the death of the heifer. They had been linked to the nation and to the system that stood for demonic evil, but now they were purified by the water that symbolized the death of the Savior of the world.
In the verses 25-47 we are given an inventory of the spoil, and the way it was to be divided. The whole lot, people, animals, and material goods, was to be divided among the soldiers and the rest of the people, one half for each group. This meant that one half was given to the 12,000 men who had gone out in the battle, and the other half to the nation, which consisted of several million people. So, proportionally, the soldiers profited immensely. They were also taxed very lightly: they only gave 1/500th of everything to the service of the tabernacle, and the people had to give 1/50th. Matthew Henry's Commentary says about this: "That yet the 12,000 that went to the battle had as much for their share as the whole congregation (which were fifty times as many) had for theirs; so that the particular persons of the soldiery had a much better share than any of their brethren that tarried at home: and good reason they should. The greater pains we take, and the greater hazards we run, in the service of God and our generation, the greater will our recompense be at last; for God is not unrighteous to forget the work and labour of love."
The very detailed list of inventory seems uninspiring reading. The number of animals is impressive, and the advantage of this spoil for each of the soldiers is overwhelming. For example, the total head of sheep for the army was 337,500, which was divided among 12,000 men, giving to each individual 28,125 sheep, of which 1/500th had to be given to the Lord, leaving him approximately 28,120 sheep. This made each soldier rich overnight. It also seems redundant that the whole list is given twice, once for the soldiers, and once for the whole community. We can deduct from this God's eye for detail, for which the birds of the sky are kept track off, and the hairs of our head are counted.[ 23 ]
The last verses of this chapter, the verses 48-54, give a rather moving account of the reaction of the commanding officers of the army, upon the discovery that there had been no Israelite casualties in this raid. In their gratitude to the Lord for sparing the lives of each one of them, they brought all the spoil in gold jewelry. The NIV puts the value of that at 16,750 shekels. TLB put this down as a value of more than $300,000. They brought this gold as an atonement for their souls. The Hebrew word used here is nephesh. This does not mean that they could buy their salvation. Jesus' words stand: "What can a man give in exchange for his soul?"[ 24 ] But it shows the appreciation of those men for the fact that God had spared their lives. They were under no obligation to give it all to the Lord. They could simply have tithed their portion, and lived happily ever after. But their hearts were too full of gratitude to keep the golden trinkets to themselves. Those men had their priorities straight.
[ 1 ]
Compare Lev. 16:3 with Num. 29:8
[ 2 ]
Lev. 16:29,30 (NAS)
[ 3 ]
Italics are mine.
[ 4 ]
See II Cor. 8:7
[ 5 ]
Heb. 13:14
[ 6 ]
See John 1:14
[ 7 ]
James 1:2-4
[ 8 ]
Deut. 8:15-18
[ 9 ]
Ps. 84:4-6
[ 10 ]
John 7:37,38
[ 11 ]
See John 7:39, and Acts 5:32
[ 12 ]
Deut. 23:21
[ 13 ]
Eccl. 5:4
[ 14 ]
There is disagreement among scholars, as to whether Jephthah actually had his daughter killed or that she was condemned to a life of celibacy.
[ 15 ]
Matt. 14:8,9
[ 16 ]
Eph. 6:1-4
[ 17 ]
Jude vs. 24
[ 18 ]
Gott mit uns
[ 19 ]
See I Cor. 15:26
[ 20 ]
Heb. 10:30
[ 21 ]
Ps. 94:1,2
[ 22 ]
Rom. 1:18
[ 23 ]
See Matt. 10:29.30
[ 24 ]
Matt. 16:26b
Copyright (c) 1999, 2000
E-sst, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Please see the License at Copyrights for restrictions and limitations
Note: Copyright does not apply to KJV text.
Table of Contents
Copyrights