02/19/08: Numbers 30-33
Chapter 32:
When they say none of the soldiers are missing, does it mean that none of the soldiers was killed in battle?
Ted: I don't think so. First, the soldiers had gone into battle (Numbers 31:28a). Next, of those who had gone into battle, a certain number of them was set aside for God (31:28b). Then the officers indicated that none of the solders was missing (31:49). I assume this is referring to the soldiers who had been set aside or chosen, meaning that the expected number to be counted was the actual number counted. But I could be wrong.
When they say none of the soldiers are missing, does it mean that none of the soldiers was killed in battle?
Ted: I don't think so. First, the soldiers had gone into battle (Numbers 31:28a). Next, of those who had gone into battle, a certain number of them was set aside for God (31:28b). Then the officers indicated that none of the solders was missing (31:49). I assume this is referring to the soldiers who had been set aside or chosen, meaning that the expected number to be counted was the actual number counted. But I could be wrong.
02/16/08: Numbers 21-24
Chapter 21:
What is the Book of the Wars of the Lord? Does it still exist?
Ted: I don't know. Wikipedia says this: "The reference to a 'book of the wars of the Lord', occurring in [Numbers] 21:14, has given rise to much discussion. But, after all, what this book was is uncertain, whether some writing of Israel not now extant, or some writing of the Amorites which contained songs and triumphs of their king Sihon's victories, out of which Moses may cite this testimony, as Paul sometimes does out of heathen poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12)." Searching other places revealed no additional enlightening information about it.
When it says Israel settles here, are they settling there temporarily? Or are some of them settling there and the rest moving further?
Ted: According to Deuteronomy 3:8, this land of the Amorites is east of the Jordan River. Moses gave this and other land east of the Jordan to the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh (3:12,13). Later, these tribes were to cross over the Jordan and help the other Israelites take possession of their land (on the west side of the Jordan), after which these 2½ tribes would be able to return to their own land (3:18,20).
What is the Book of the Wars of the Lord? Does it still exist?
Ted: I don't know. Wikipedia says this: "The reference to a 'book of the wars of the Lord', occurring in [Numbers] 21:14, has given rise to much discussion. But, after all, what this book was is uncertain, whether some writing of Israel not now extant, or some writing of the Amorites which contained songs and triumphs of their king Sihon's victories, out of which Moses may cite this testimony, as Paul sometimes does out of heathen poets (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12)." Searching other places revealed no additional enlightening information about it.
When it says Israel settles here, are they settling there temporarily? Or are some of them settling there and the rest moving further?
Ted: According to Deuteronomy 3:8, this land of the Amorites is east of the Jordan River. Moses gave this and other land east of the Jordan to the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh (3:12,13). Later, these tribes were to cross over the Jordan and help the other Israelites take possession of their land (on the west side of the Jordan), after which these 2½ tribes would be able to return to their own land (3:18,20).
02/15/08: Numbers 18-20
Chapter 18:
What would qualify as an offense against the sanctuary, priesthood, or tent of meeting?
Ted: In Numbers 18:1, when it says "father's family," it probably is referring to the tribe of Levi. Back in 3:6-8, the Levites were to take care of all aspects of the tabernacle. Their specific duties are summarized in 3:25,26,31,36,37,38.
The details of all the duties are provided in Number 4:1-33. Aaron and his sons were to cover and wrap all of the holy and sacred objects in the Tent of Meeting (4:4-14). Then the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites were responsible for carrying all the objects from there to the next place they camped. However, no one but Aaron and his sons actually could TOUCH the sacred/holy objects or they would die (4:15). They were not even supposed to go near the sanctuary furnishings or they would die (18:3).
What would qualify as an offense against the sanctuary, priesthood, or tent of meeting?
Ted: In Numbers 18:1, when it says "father's family," it probably is referring to the tribe of Levi. Back in 3:6-8, the Levites were to take care of all aspects of the tabernacle. Their specific duties are summarized in 3:25,26,31,36,37,38.
The details of all the duties are provided in Number 4:1-33. Aaron and his sons were to cover and wrap all of the holy and sacred objects in the Tent of Meeting (4:4-14). Then the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites were responsible for carrying all the objects from there to the next place they camped. However, no one but Aaron and his sons actually could TOUCH the sacred/holy objects or they would die (4:15). They were not even supposed to go near the sanctuary furnishings or they would die (18:3).
02/14/08: Numbers 15-17
Chapter 16:
This is the second time recently Moses has fallen facedown. Is he trying to show humility to the men accusing? Is what they accuse him of a sin and he wants God to not be offended?
Ted: I think that, from past experience, Moses knew that when anyone came against him (which means that they were rebelling against God), God often would punish them, sometimes with death. Therefore, instinctively, he fell facedown before God, knowing that doing so would be the only chance of pleading for the lives of the people (as in Numbers 16:22,45).
I suspect that Moses' great humility had something to do with it as well. In effect, what he was doing was humiliating himself before the people--which did not matter to him, if there was some chance that they could be saved from God's wrath. Moses was a "type" of Jesus, Who did the same for our salvation.
This is the second time recently Moses has fallen facedown. Is he trying to show humility to the men accusing? Is what they accuse him of a sin and he wants God to not be offended?
Ted: I think that, from past experience, Moses knew that when anyone came against him (which means that they were rebelling against God), God often would punish them, sometimes with death. Therefore, instinctively, he fell facedown before God, knowing that doing so would be the only chance of pleading for the lives of the people (as in Numbers 16:22,45).
I suspect that Moses' great humility had something to do with it as well. In effect, what he was doing was humiliating himself before the people--which did not matter to him, if there was some chance that they could be saved from God's wrath. Moses was a "type" of Jesus, Who did the same for our salvation.
02/13/08: Numbers 11-14
Chapter 12:
What is Miriam's sin? And didn't Aaron do the same thing? Why is he not plagued?
Ted: Both Miriam and Aaron grumbled and talked against Moses. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that God had just sent a plague on many of the Israelites (in the previous chapter) for craving "other food" (i.e., meat). Perhaps Miriam and Aaron thought that Moses hadn't done enough to influence the Lord to allow the people to eat the quail with no consequences.
In any case, Miriam and Aaron believed that they could do at least as well being in charge of the people as Moses was. In their thoughts and actions, they were exhibiting "pride"; whereas, Moses was very humble (Numbers 12:3). For her pride and arrogance, the plague was sent by God upon Miriam.
It is not clear why only Miriam was struck with the plague. Maybe she was the one who initiated the griping and dissent. Or maybe it was because, afterwards, Aaron acknowledged their sin and foolishness (which, of course, God would have known, beforehand, that he would do). Furthermore, as high priest, Aaron would not have been as "expendable" as Miriam, who never really is described as having any major role or doing anything of notable significance.
What is Miriam's sin? And didn't Aaron do the same thing? Why is he not plagued?
Ted: Both Miriam and Aaron grumbled and talked against Moses. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that God had just sent a plague on many of the Israelites (in the previous chapter) for craving "other food" (i.e., meat). Perhaps Miriam and Aaron thought that Moses hadn't done enough to influence the Lord to allow the people to eat the quail with no consequences.
In any case, Miriam and Aaron believed that they could do at least as well being in charge of the people as Moses was. In their thoughts and actions, they were exhibiting "pride"; whereas, Moses was very humble (Numbers 12:3). For her pride and arrogance, the plague was sent by God upon Miriam.
It is not clear why only Miriam was struck with the plague. Maybe she was the one who initiated the griping and dissent. Or maybe it was because, afterwards, Aaron acknowledged their sin and foolishness (which, of course, God would have known, beforehand, that he would do). Furthermore, as high priest, Aaron would not have been as "expendable" as Miriam, who never really is described as having any major role or doing anything of notable significance.
02/12/08: Numbers 7-10
Chapter 9:
Are the Israelites still being sustained by Manna? Aren't they wandering the desert? How do they have all of these livestock and grains? Are they eating their livestock in addition to manna?
Ted: Yes, they are continuing to wander in the desert and to eat manna everyday. The livestock are used to transport their things when they move from place to place, and select animals are being sacrificed. Evidently, only Aaron and his sons can eat some of the sacrificed meat. Perhaps the people can drink the milk of the animals. Seemingly, the things made with grains can be eaten only by Aaron and his sons as well.
I do not know how they sustained the lifestock, other than possibly with grains. But then I don't know how they grew the grains, other than possibly if they were at one place for an extended period of time, long enough to grow some. In Exodus 17:1-7, God provided them water from a rock. There probably were some oases along the way as well. So, whether naturally or supernaturally, God provided everything they needed that they could not get for themselves.
As far as I can tell, the people were restricted to eating only manna. They ate it for forty years (Exodus 16:35). Evidently, the only variety they had was the different ways to cook it, such as boiling it or baking it into cakes. As we will read later, the people did wail and complain about not being able to eat meat, and God brought them so many quail that they were about 3 feet high in the camp
But as the people ate the quail, God became very angry that they had not been satisfied with the manna, and He struck many of them with a severe plague (Numbers 11:4-34). So I guess the moral is that they should have been content with whatever God provided to sustain them and not craved other things.
Are the Israelites still being sustained by Manna? Aren't they wandering the desert? How do they have all of these livestock and grains? Are they eating their livestock in addition to manna?
Ted: Yes, they are continuing to wander in the desert and to eat manna everyday. The livestock are used to transport their things when they move from place to place, and select animals are being sacrificed. Evidently, only Aaron and his sons can eat some of the sacrificed meat. Perhaps the people can drink the milk of the animals. Seemingly, the things made with grains can be eaten only by Aaron and his sons as well.
I do not know how they sustained the lifestock, other than possibly with grains. But then I don't know how they grew the grains, other than possibly if they were at one place for an extended period of time, long enough to grow some. In Exodus 17:1-7, God provided them water from a rock. There probably were some oases along the way as well. So, whether naturally or supernaturally, God provided everything they needed that they could not get for themselves.
As far as I can tell, the people were restricted to eating only manna. They ate it for forty years (Exodus 16:35). Evidently, the only variety they had was the different ways to cook it, such as boiling it or baking it into cakes. As we will read later, the people did wail and complain about not being able to eat meat, and God brought them so many quail that they were about 3 feet high in the camp
But as the people ate the quail, God became very angry that they had not been satisfied with the manna, and He struck many of them with a severe plague (Numbers 11:4-34). So I guess the moral is that they should have been content with whatever God provided to sustain them and not craved other things.
02/11/08: Numbers 4-6
Chapter 5:
Is the affliction of the barren women akin to any diseases? The description of having a skinny body and a fat stomach makes me think of starving African children.
Ted: It has to do with the punishment of a woman who has been unfaithful to her husband. There are some phrases where the footnotes indicate something else, and I think that is one. I think the footnotes indicate that she simply will be barren if she is guilty. It could be that God also would cause, as an outward appearance, her belly to look larger. Perhaps that was just an unsightly sign to everyone else that she was "marked" as being unfaithful. I'm not sure.
Is the affliction of the barren women akin to any diseases? The description of having a skinny body and a fat stomach makes me think of starving African children.
Ted: It has to do with the punishment of a woman who has been unfaithful to her husband. There are some phrases where the footnotes indicate something else, and I think that is one. I think the footnotes indicate that she simply will be barren if she is guilty. It could be that God also would cause, as an outward appearance, her belly to look larger. Perhaps that was just an unsightly sign to everyone else that she was "marked" as being unfaithful. I'm not sure.
