Gen. 43:1 And the famine was sore in the land.

Gen. 43:2 And it came to pass, when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, their father said unto them, Go again, buy us a little food.

The famine continued for another (second) year, and the brothers remained in Israel until all of their grain was depleted. During the past year, the brothers had not returned for Simeon because Joseph had said they would not see his face unless they brought Benjamin, and Jacob would not permit Benjamin to leave. Now Jacob told his nine sons to return to Egypt to buy more grain. (Simeon was in prison in Egypt, Benjamin was to remain at home, and Joseph was in Egypt.)

Gen. 43:3 And Judah spake unto him, saying, The man did solemnly protest unto us, saying, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you.

Gen. 43:4 If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down and buy thee food:

Gen. 43:5 But if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down: for the man said unto us, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you.

Judah reminded Jacob that they could not see Joseph’s face unless they brought Benjamin.

Jacob was being pressured to relinquish Benjamin. In fact, the brothers refused to obey their father and go without Benjamin, for in their minds, to do so would be to commit suicide.

Because their money had been found in their sacks, they were afraid of being accused not only as spies but also as thieves, and at least taking Benjamin would provide credibility.

Joseph had shown great wisdom in handling his brothers. In warning them, he had alerted their consciences in regard to what they had done to him years earlier. His questions led them to confess they had done wrong, and they recognized their problems as retribution.

For the following reasons, it was apropos that Simeon was the one to be imprisoned. (1) He was probably the ringleader in selling Joseph as a slave. (2) As the second oldest brother (after Reuben), he had more responsibility. (3) His slaughter of the men of Shechem when they were circumcised displayed a meanness of character.

Gen. 43:6 And Israel said, Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man whether ye had yet a brother?

Jacob is called “Israel” here and in succeeding verses to alert us that Israel would go into Egypt.

And later God would call Israel, His “son,” out of Egypt (Exod. 4:22). While in Egypt and dying, Jacob pronounced a blessing on each of his sons, and this act marked the beginning of Israel as a nation.

It is kind of humorous that Jacob asked, “Why did you have to tell the man that you have another brother?” Jacob’s state of mind was thus revealed. He was looking for any excuse, for anyone to blame. His reasoning was not quite straight.

Gen. 43:7 And they said, The man asked us straitly of our state, and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother? and we told him according to the tenor of these words: could we certainly know that he would say, Bring your brother down?

The brothers replied, “The man sprang this upon us with his questions. How could we know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?”

Gen. 43:8 And Judah said unto Israel his father, Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go; that we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones.

Gen. 43:9 I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:

Gen. 43:10 For except we had lingered, surely now we had returned this second time.

Judah spoke up again, taking a leading role. His offer was a little different from Reuben’s (Gen. 42:37). Reuben had offered to slay two of his own sons if Benjamin was not brought back, whereas Judah offered his own life. The two sons would be for Benjamin and Simeon. Judah offered his own personal life as a ransom. It is interesting that Jesus is called “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5).

“Except we had lingered….” Jacob had delayed sending his sons to Egypt for more grain until it was an absolute necessity.

Gen. 43:11 And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds:

Jacob was again called “Israel,” which called attention to Israel’s entering Egypt and 215 years later Israel’s exit from Egypt. Jacob instructed his sons to take a present to Joseph as a pacifier.

They were to “take of the best fruits in the land” balm, honey, spices, myrrh, nuts, and almonds. These items were not necessities, for one could not live on them. And they had only a little balm and honey to give. Their basic need for survival was the grain. Despite the famine, Israel was a land of milk and honey at this time in history in normal years. The balm came from Gilead (Gen. 37:25).

Gen. 43:12 And take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight:

“Take double money … and the money that was … in the mouth of your sacks.” “Double” can mean twice as much or an equal amount. We do not know with certainty which meaning was intended here, but verses 15, 21, and 22 seem to indicate it was an equal amount to what they had taken to Egypt the last time.

Gen. 43:13 Take also your brother, and arise, go again unto the man:

Gen. 43:14 And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.

Now Jacob was submissive. This decision was a providential test on Jacob: to sacrifice, if need be, his nearest and dearest son (that is, “possession”). Jacob’s attitude also let Judah off the hook; namely, “Whatever happens will be.”

Among the brothers, Judah and Reuben were often the leading spirits who spoke out. In the high priest’s breastplate, Judah was listed first, and Reuben was second. The apostles Paul and Peter were the corresponding leaders, respectively.

Gen. 43:15 And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph.

The brothers left with the present, the money, and Benjamin. They stood before Joseph.

Gen. 43:16 And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready; for these men shall dine with me at noon.

When Joseph saw Benjamin and the others, he told the ruler of his house to take them to his home and prepare a meal, for they would all dine together at noon. We know from this statement that the brothers had a morning audience. Joseph would not have known Benjamin by sight, but he spotted the others and could see that there was an eleventh brother.

Gen. 43:17 And the man did as Joseph bade; and the man brought the men into Joseph’s house.

Gen. 43:18 And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph’s house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses.

The brothers were brought to Joseph’s house, and they were all the more afraid because they were singled out. They thought that they were being apprehended because of the money found in their sacks and that they would be accused and taken as servants.

Gen. 43:19 And they came near to the steward of Joseph’s house, and they communed with him at the door of the house,

Gen. 43:20 And said, O sir, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food:

Gen. 43:21 And it came to pass, when we came to the inn, that we opened our sacks, and, behold, every man’s money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight: and we have brought it again in our hand.

Gen. 43:22 And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.

The brothers talked to the steward of Joseph’s house and related, hurriedly, what had happened. They gave a condensed account under emotional stress and ended with, “We cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.”

Gen. 43:23 And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them.

The steward said, “Peace be to you, fear not. Your God has given you the money in your sacks.

I had your money.” The steward’s statement indicates that he respected Joseph and had accepted the Hebrew God. It also suggests that Joseph had previously communed with him about the returning of the money and the releasing of Simeon. Notice that although Joseph had not yet returned, the steward brought Simeon out of prison unto them. Therefore, prior to the return of the brothers to Egypt, Joseph had probably told his steward his intentions regarding them so that the steward would know what to do when they brought Benjamin.

Gen. 43:24 And the man brought the men into Joseph’s house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender.

Gen. 43:25 And they made ready the present against Joseph came at noon: for they heard that they should eat bread there.

The steward supplied water for the brothers to wash their feet and gave food to the animals. The brothers had been told they would eat at Joseph’s house, so they got the present ready for him when he would arrive at noon.

Gen. 43:26 And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth.

When Joseph arrived, the brothers gave him the present and bowed to the earth before him.

Now 11 brothers bowed to him in fulfillment of the dream that 11 sheaves of wheat would bow to Joseph’s sheaf. Previously, only 10 brothers had bowed, at which time Joseph remembered the dream. Later, when Jacob and Leah came to Egypt, the second dream regarding the sun, moon, and stars was also fulfilled. In other words, there was a progressive fulfillment of the dreams, as is often the case with prophecy.

Gen. 43:27 And he asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive?

Gen. 43:28 And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance.

Joseph inquired about the health of their father. The brothers replied that he was in good health and bowed again.

Comment: The brothers would have been concerned now in regard to any question they were asked. When Joseph inquired about their father, they must have been afraid that Joseph would next ask to have him brought to Egypt. They were afraid to answer, and they were afraid not to answer.

It seemed that something mysterious was going on, but they could not figure it out. They still did not know the ruler was Joseph, and Joseph continued to speak through an interpreter. It was like God’s providence, and their consciences certainly were troubling them.

Gen. 43:29 And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom ye spake unto me? And he said, God be gracious unto thee, my son.

When Joseph saw Benjamin, he said, “God be gracious unto thee, my son.” The interpreter would have simulated the emotion, tone, and emphasis that Joseph used.

Gen. 43:30 And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.

Gen. 43:31 And he washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself, and said, Set on bread.

Joseph ran out of the room to weep. When composed, he returned. The emotion shows that Joseph had a tender as well as a stern side, as evidenced in his harsh questioning of his brothers. He had schooled himself to ask questions he knew would hurt them. The questions were like a rapier, awakening their consciences.

Now Joseph acted businesslike and said, “Start the meal. Let us eat.” Even though the table was all set, the brothers had to wait until Joseph gave the order.

Notice that Joseph yearned for his “brother” singular, that is, Benjamin. This detail shows the other ten were half brothers from a different mother. Hence it was like two families, although Joseph had wept for the other brothers earlier. His bowels now yearned for Benjamin. Strong emotions affect even the stomach muscles and the diaphragm, as well as the bowels.

Gen. 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

Three tables were set: one table for Joseph alone, another for the brothers, and a third for the Egyptians. Joseph ate by himself because of his office—he was second in authority in Egypt and the “savior” of the nation, as it were. The Egyptians did not eat with the Hebrews because shepherds were an abomination to them (Exod. 8:26). As worshippers of the bull, the Egyptians were appalled at the practice of raising bulls for food.

Gen. 43:33 And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.

The brothers looked with amazement to see that they were all arranged at the table according to birth or birthright. What was happening?

Gen. 43:34 And he took and sent messes unto them from before him: but Benjamin’s mess was five times so much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with him.

But when the brothers started to eat, they forgot and just enjoyed the food. In time of famine, a lavish meal would be most appreciated. Joseph’s table must have had an abundant supply of food on it, for he sent food to the 11 brothers from there. Joseph dished out the food. There is a spiritual picture here. Joseph was acting paternal towards them.

Q: Does Benjamin picture the Little Flock here because he got five times as much food?

A: Yes, and Joseph pictures Jesus.

Joseph had a divining cup that enabled him to prophesy and see the future. The Egyptians probably regarded him much as the Israelites later considered Ruth the Moabitess.

(1987–1989 Study)

Temple Institute wants to Offer Biblical Passover Sacrifice

(IsraelNN.com) The Temple Mount Institute has filed suit in its fight for the right to sacrifice a sheep on the Temple Mount prior to Passover, as commanded in the Torah.

“The command to perform a Paschal [Passover] sacrifice is a positive commandment; the punishment for failing to perform it is ‘karet’ [lit. -- 'cut off', meaning that a person is cut off from the Nation of Israel], and it can be performed only on the day before Passover and only on the Temple Mount,” the organization explained in a petition to the Supreme Court. Fighting the group’s request are the Israel Police, who argue that the sacrifice would lead to Muslim riots and thus threaten public safety.

Jews have the right to offer animal sacrifices on the Temple Mount under Israeli law, the organization claimed. Israelis are guaranteed the right to freedom of worship, and Israel prides itself in allowing members of all faiths to access their holy sites.

In previous years, the court has ruled that the right to freedom of worship is outweighed by the consideration of public safety, and has forbidden the Paschal sacrifice.

The Temple Mount Institute also took the opportunity to take police to task for barring Jews and Christians from the Temple Mount following Muslim riots. “The Israel Police is giving rioters a ‘prize’ and encouraging them to hold violent riots and disturb the peace, on the one hand, and is discriminating against Jews and members of other faiths and trampling their human rights – the right to freedom of movement and freedom of worship – on the other,” the organization accused.

The Institute asked the court to order police to explain why Jews are barred from the mount when Muslims riot.

By RACHEL DONADIO and ALAN COWELL
Published: March 20, 2010 NYTimes

Pope Benedict XVI has said he was 'shocked' to hear of the Munich sex abuse case. Other church officials have taken responsibility for letting the abuser strike again. Photograph: Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images

VATICAN CITY — Confronting a sex abuse scandal spreading across Europe, including his native Germany, Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday apologized directly and personally to victims and their families in Ireland, expressing “shame and remorse” and saying “your trust had been betrayed and your dignity has been violated.”

His message, in a long-awaited, eight-page pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, seemed couched in strong and passionate language. But it did not refer directly to immediate disciplinary action beyond sending a special apostolic delegation to investigate unspecified dioceses and religious congregations in Ireland. Moreover, it was, as the Vatican said it would be, focused particularly on the situation in Ireland, even as the crisis has widened among Catholics in Ireland, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany.

“You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated,” the pope told Irish victims and their families.

“Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape for your sufferings,” he continued.

“It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church,” Benedict continued. “In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel.”

Nowhere in the letter did Benedict address the responsibility of the Vatican itself. Many victims’ groups have criticized the Vatican for not recognizing the depth and scope of the abuse crisis sooner. Nor did he use the term punishment, or spell out any consequences for clergy or bishops who had not upheld canon or civil law. Indeed, he laid blame firmly with Irish Catholic leaders.

“I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way church authorities in Ireland dealt with them,” he said. Addressing a section of his letter to abusers, the pope said they must “answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals” urging them to pray for forgiveness, “submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.” He did not specify the nature of the tribunals.

He said those who had committed abuse had “betrayed the trust” of “innocent young people and their parents” and “forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonor among your confreres.”

Speaking on Saturday just before the publication of the letter, Maeve Lewis, an executive director of One In Four, a support group in Dublin for victims of sexual abuse, said that the Vatican had tried to suggest that clerical abuse was an Irish problem. “The events of the last three weeks in Germany and Netherlands suggest otherwise,” she said.

Since last year, the Irish church has been shaken to the core by two damning reports by the Irish government. One revealed decades of systematic abuse of children in religious institutions, another showed an apparent cover-up in the diocese of Dublin of priests who had abused children being allowed to continue in pastoral care.

In neither case did the church routinely inform civil authorities about priests who had committed felonies. Four Irish bishops offered their resignation in the wake of the publication of the so-called Murphy report in November, but the pope has accepted only one.

For many Catholics, the letter offered a critical test of whether the pope can stem a widening crisis that has shaken the credibility and authority of the Roman Catholic church in other parts of the world and challenged the Vatican to end a culture of secrecy and cover-up permeating its cloistered hierarchy.

In his letter, Benedict spoke of “a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situation,” adding that “it is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse.”

The pope attributed the problem in part to “a misplaced concern for the reputation of the church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.”

He also cited “inadequate procedures” for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life and “insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation” in seminaries.

Benedict also directly addressed the bishops on whose watch the systematic abuse took place.

“It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse,” Benedict wrote. “Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations.”

“I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and the complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice,” he said, adding that besides “fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse,” bishops should also “continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.”

The pope also proposed a “nationwide mission” for all bishops, priests and religious to strengthen their vocations. And he urged Irish dioceses to devote chapels for intense prayer “to make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm.”

Earlier this week, Cardinal Sean Brady, the primate of Ireland, said in extraordinary comments to a mass on St. Patrick’s Day that he was “ashamed” of the situation and of his own actions in compelling two youths to sign secrecy agreements not to report abuse in the 1970s.

“I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by any failure on my part that I apologize to you with all my heart,” Cardinal Brady said. ”I also apologize to all those who feel I have let them down. Looking back, I am ashamed that I have not always upheld the values that I profess and believe in.”

In Germany the scandal has raised questions about the pope’s own past. This week the German church suspended a priest who had been permitted to work with children for decades after a court convicted him of molesting boys.

In 1980, Benedict, then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, allowed the priest to move to Munich for therapy after allegations of abuse. The priest returned to pastoral work, but last week another church official took responsibility for allowing that move.

As reports of abuse cases spread many questions have been raised about the collision of Vatican secrecy and civil judicial process.

Some Irish church officials have said the problem has been deepened by confusion over the interpretation of a 2001 directive by Benedict, then a cardinal, reiterating a strict requirement for secrecy in handling abuse cases. The directive also gave the authority in handling such cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Benedict was prefect of the congregation from 1982 until becoming pope in 2005.

In the past decade, the congregation has handled 3,000 such cases, 80 percent from the United States, a Vatican official acknowledged last week.

As the crisis deepened, the Vatican condemned what it called an aggressive campaign against the pope in Germany.

A week ago, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said it was “evident that in recent days there are those who have tried, with a certain aggressive tenacity, in Regensburg and in Munich, to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse.” He added, ”It is clear that those efforts have failed.”

Pope being set up over Munich sex abuse case, says Vatican

The Observer, Sunday 14 March 2010

The pope’s spokesman has launched a vigorous counter-attack against a report linking Benedict XVI to a sex abuse cover-up while he was archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1981.

Father Federico Lombardi appeared to suggest in an interview on Vatican Radio that the pope, who also has strong links to the city of Regensburg, was the victim of a plot.

“It’s rather clear that in recent days there have been people who have searched – with notable tenacity – in Regensburg and Munich for elements to personally involve the holy father in the question of the abuses,” Lombardi said. “To any objective observer it’s clear that these attempts have failed.”

The Vatican has been appalled in recent days by a flood of allegations of priestly sex abuse in Germany, Holland, Austria and even Italy.

Today, the pope’s former diocese rushed out a statement to pre-empt a story in tomorrow’s edition of the Munich-based daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. It said that when Joseph Ratzinger was the city’s archbishop he had agreed that a priest from another diocese should undergo therapy at a rectory. The records suggested that “it was known then that this therapy should probably be carried out due to sexual relations with children”. But instead of sending him for therapy, the statement said, the diocese’s then vicar-general, Gerhard Gruber, assigned him to a parish where at least one child was subsequently abused.

“Gruber takes full responsibility for the wrong decisions,” the diocese said.

The church’s attempt to bury the affair was immediately challenged by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which tomorrow is holding “sidewalk vigils” in more than 30 US cities in support of European victims. David Clohessy, the network’s national director, said: “As a high-ranking church official for decades, if Ratzinger knew of one reassigned paedophile priest, the odds are he knows of others, possibly dozens. German secular authorities should do in Munich what Irish secular authorities did in Dublin: launch a thorough secular probe of clergy sex crimes and cover-ups.”

The latest front was opened in Austria where two newspapers reported cases of abuse among choirboys in Fügen and Vienna. Today a newspaper in the predominantly German-speaking Italian province of Bolzano-Bozen recounted the story of a then 15-year-old boy who said that in the 1960s he was coerced into providing sexual services to local friars.

The growing scandal has also put Catholic leaders under siege elsewhere in Europe. Bishops in the Netherlands are looking into more than 200 suspected cases, and in Germany at least 170 former pupils at Catholic schools have made accusations. Another case concerns an all-boys choir in Regensburg, the Domspatzen, once conducted by the pope’s brother, Georg Ratzinger. The reported sex abuse dates from before his 30-year tenure as director.

The scandals have set off an unprecedented public debate among church leaders on one of Roman Catholicism’s strongest taboos – whether the paedophilia in its ranks is a consequence of priestly celibacy. On Friday, Benedict himself vigorously defended an unmarried priesthood, telling an audience of priests that it was not something to be given up for “passing cultural fashions”. But one of his own prelates, Hans-Jochen Jaschke, said in a radio interview: “The celibate lifestyle can attract people who have an abnormal sexuality and cannot integrate sexuality into their lives.”

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, rather than a doctrine, and most of the Eastern rites of the Catholic church follow the practice of the Orthodox in allowing for married priests; the pope could do away with celibacy at any time. The Italian daily La Repubblica reported that a Vatican working group had been set up secretly to consider reform, but said no change was likely for at least 50 years.

The Vatican’s own newspaper, meanwhile, added to the debate. In an article in L’Osservatore Romano, Catholic academic Lucetta Scaraffia linked the scandals to the lack of women in pastoral and decision-making roles in the church. She said a more significant female presence “could have ripped away the veil of male omertà” that had covered up abuse.

On Friday, the head of the German bishops’ conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, briefed the pope on measures being taken by his archdiocese to deal with clerical sex abuse. But, as a German lay group noted, the pope did not take the opportunity to express sympathy with victims, and doubts remained as to how many of his pastors understand the gravity of the situation. The day before, one of the bishops closest to Benedict, Gerhard Müller, declared that the scandal was over “cases from 40, 50 years ago” that had been blown out of proportion by “a big media clamour”.

He lashed out at Germany’s justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, who had talked of a Catholic wall of secrecy. Müller said she belonged to a humanist association which he claimed was a kind of “masonry” that “considers paedophilia normal and wants to decriminalise it”. Müller, who founded the institute that is publishing Benedict’s complete works, is also the prelate charged with probing abuses in the Domspatzen choir.

Num. 21:1 And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners.

Num. 21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.

Num. 21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

For verse 1, the Revised Standard has, “When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.” Arad is down in the more or less habitable portion of southern Israel (that is, not in the desert). The land between Beer-sheba and Eilat is almost all barren desert with little verdure. The king did not wait until the Israelites came to Arad but went farther south to confront them. Therefore, the battle took place near the boundary line where the 12 spies were originally sent forth.

God hearkened to the Israelites’ vow to destroy the king of Arad and the satellite cities of the Canaanites in that portion of the land. Of course the term “Canaanites” embraced more than just Arad, for they were in other places of Israel as well. The Lord instructed the Israelites to destroy seven major enemies when they entered the land. “When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou” (Deut. 7:1). In antitype, the seven represent different types of sin that must be overcome by the new creature. Considered in the broad sense, the word “Canaanite” is synonymous with the thought of an enemy of the Lord, but in the land of Canaan, there were six other tribes as well.

When the Israelites were told to enter the land, they wanted to search it out first. When Moses brought the seemingly reasonable matter to the Lord, permission was given, and 12 spies were sent out, one spy from each tribe. Upon the return of the 12 spies, ten of them—all except Joshua and Caleb—gave an unfavorable report. Because the people listened to the unfavorable counsel, they were fearful of the Amorites, who were described as people of great stature. As a result, the Israelites did not enter the land, yet shortly thereafter they disobeyed again by saying, “We will enter the land and fight.” In the ensuing battle, many Israelite lives were lost because this time the Lord had not told them to go into the land. Moses and some others remained where they were, refusing to be a party to the disobedience. The foibles and inconsistencies of fallen, depraved human nature can be seen in these incidents. The old heart, the reasoning of the old man, is desperately wicked and exceedingly deceitful (Jer. 17:9).

This time the Israelites properly first sought permission from the Lord. God “hearkened to the voice of Israel,” and they were successful in the battle with the Canaanites in that locale. The name Hormah means “utter destruction.”

Num. 21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.

Num. 21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.

Num. 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

The Israelites compassed the land of Edom, which is down in the desert floor. The floor of the Arabah is a dry, deep, wide valley that extends from the south end of the Dead Sea all the way down to the Gulf of Eilat. A similar valley on the north end of the Dead Sea is related to Ezekiel’s Temple.

“They journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea.” The Israelites had been up near Kadesh-barnea. Now they journeyed down by way of the Red Sea to go around the land of Edom. In the dry wadi, they had neither bread nor water. When they murmured, they were bitten by “fiery serpents.” What are these “serpents”?

Comment: The Berean Manual suggests they were cobras.

Comment: The fact that the Israelites “loatheth this light bread” (the manna) shows their hearts were hardened.

Reply: Having the right heart condition makes the difference. “The LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 13:3). Superficially there was a reason for the Israelites to complain, but who was leading them? The Lord. Therefore, although the murmuring was ostensibly against Moses, it was really a reflection on God.

On this long journey, the 2 million Israelites traveled about 20 miles each day. That means they walked about ten hours per day.

As for the “fiery serpents,” we notice, first, that the vipers, or snakes, were plural. Different reasons are given as to why they were “fiery.” One reason is the color, and another is the effect of the strong venomous bite, which caused the victims to experience internal fire and die. Vipers in the deserts of the world are known to cause such reactions. Some of the smallest snakes, such as the cobra of India, are the deadliest.

Num. 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

Num. 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Num. 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

God told Moses to make a copper serpent transfixed to a pole, the copper picturing perfect humanity. The serpent had to be reasonably large—larger than life-size—in order for the nation to view it. To hold the copper serpent, the pole required a crosspiece. Otherwise, the serpent would circle the pole all the way up, giving the appearance of a barber pole. With the crosspiece at the upper end of the pole and the serpent wrapped around the crosspiece, the result resembled the symbol for medicine, Aesculapius. How interesting, for if those who were bitten looked upon the serpent on the pole, they were cured!

It is a known fact in chemistry that poison is fought with poison. Sometimes medicinal cures even have a skull and crossbones on the outside. The “X” crossbones is a symbol of Christ, and the skull indicates death. Of course the average person does not understand the symbolism, but it has been overruled, just as many places and events have been overruled to teach spiritual lessons. Thus it took death to cure death. The fiery serpents were a curse to whomever they bit, but looking at the brazen serpent, pictured as a curse, had a negating or blocking effect that disannuled the death penalty. In the antitype, the serpent on the cross is Jesus, who said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14). The serpent on the pole is probably more representative of Jesus’ death than of his resurrection, for it pictures his crucifixion and his being made a curse upon a tree. God pronounced a malediction on Adam for his sin, and it takes a curse to nullify a curse. A tree brought the curse upon Father Adam, and subsequently the dying race was started in his loins.

And so Jesus, in effect, with an unborn race in his loins, countermanded or offset the penalty of Adam and his yet unborn children.

At least the people recognized that they had sinned. Of their own accord, they went to Moses and said, “We have sinned.” Then they asked Moses to pray for them.

Num. 21:10 And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in Oboth.

Num. 21:11 And they journeyed from Oboth, and pitched at Ije-abarim, in the wilderness which is before Moab, toward the sunrising.

Moab, the next country, bordered Edom on the north side and was adjacent to the east (or right) side of the Dead Sea. The defiles that marked the boundary of Moab were two wadis, Arnon in the north and Zared in the south. The bottom defile also marked the northern boundary of Edom. Now the Israelites were journeying toward Jericho, their ultimate purpose being to enter the Promised Land by crossing the river Jordan at the north end of the Dead Sea. After they camped in Oboth and left, they went to Ije-abarim, which is in the wilderness and “opposite Moab, toward the sunrise [the east]” (RSV).

Moses had wanted to travel on the King’s Highway, which was up on the mountain range.

That road was the quickest and most efficient way to get up to Jericho, but the Lord’s providence led them way down on the plain through very barren territory. From there, they went north and skirted the northern part of Edom as well as the east border of Moab.

Num. 21:12 From thence they removed, and pitched in the valley of Zared.

Num. 21:13 From thence they removed, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, which is in the wilderness that cometh out of the coasts of the Amorites: for Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.

Num. 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

The “book of the wars of the LORD” is one of the lost books that probably one day will be found like the scrolls in the caves of Qumran. “What he [the LORD] did in the Red sea” refers to when He led the Israelites through the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus.

Zared is the southern boundary and Arnon the northern boundary of Moab. Of the two wadis, Arnon is more distinct as a stream because it flows with regularity.

A little below the Dead Sea on the right side was Edom. To the north was Moab at the bottom end of the Dead Sea and on the right side. Still farther north were the Amorites. Edom was Esau, the brother of Jacob. Lot’s two sons were Moab and Ammon, and Ammon was slightly north of the Dead Sea and a little more inland on the east, or right. From south to north, the order of these lands was Edom, Moab, the Amorites, and Ammon.

Num. 21:15 And at the stream of the brooks that goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border of Moab.

Num. 21:16 And from thence they went to Beer: that is the well whereof the LORD spake unto Moses, Gather the people together, and I will give them water.

Num. 21:17 Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it:

Num. 21:18 The princes digged the well, the nobles of the people digged it, by the direction of the lawgiver, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah:

The song starts with “Spring up” and ends with “their staves.” Verse 19 should begin with “And from the wilderness.”

For the well to have been dug with staves, the water could not have been too deep below ground level. Thus, whenever the rain came, it sank into an invisible cistern, as it were, that was below the surface of the sand. Under the counsel and instruction of the Lord at the hand of Moses, the princes were able to pierce this source of water with their staves. Probably the “princes” and “nobles” were the same individuals, being a couplet in the song.

Num. 21:19 And from Mattanah to Nahaliel: and from Nahaliel to Bamoth:

Num. 21:20 And from Bamoth in the valley, that is in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon.

Num. 21:21 And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, saying,

Num. 21:22 Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields, or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the king’s high way, until we be past thy borders.

With Edom, when Moses proposed to travel up the King’s Highway, he promised to purchase water. Edom refused but did sell the Israelites water when they went down into the valley and around Edom. The Edomites felt they could not trust the Israelites.

Q: Were the Israelites near the Promised Land at this time?

A: They were getting closer. The Amorites extended up to the Valley of Jericho at the north end of the Dead Sea. Their territory was subsequently given to the 2 1/2 tribes east of Jordan.

Num. 21:23 And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness: and he came to Jahaz, and fought against Israel.

Num. 21:24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.

Num. 21:25 And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof.

The Amorite territory not only bordered the north end of the Dead Sea but went farther north a fairly considerable distance to another river, Jabbok. The Jabbok is mentioned in the news today with regard to Syria, Jordan, and Israel. Israel is concerned lest the Jabbok be diverted to diminish the flow of water going into the Jordan River.

Comment: The Israelites were shown no kindness by any of these peoples. This treatment fits the antitype, for we have no peace in the present life from the enemies that keep assailing us.

Reply: Yes, and of course Edom is a picture of Christendom.

Num. 21:26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon.

Num. 21:27 Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say, Come into Heshbon, let the city of Sihon be built and prepared:

Num. 21:28 For there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon: it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon.

The land occupied by the Amorites was originally given to the Moabites. The Amorites took away the northern half of the land of Moab—a tremendous portion of land.

Num. 21:29 Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites.

Num. 21:30 We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba.

“Medeba” is now called Madeba. The proverb in verses 27–30 was famous and meaningful to the people of that day. The Amorites gloated over their victory, and the Moabites smarted under the defeat.

Num. 21:31 Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.

Num. 21:32 And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there.

Num. 21:33 And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei.

Bashan was still farther north, just below the Sea of Galilee. Going south to north, the order now was Edom, Moab, land of the Amorites, and Bashan (later called the land of Gilead).

Num. 21:34 And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.

Num. 21:35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.

The account has been saying that in this journey, the Israelites fought some battles. In winning the battles, they now occupied entirely the land of the Amorites and the land of the Bashanites.

Q: Were only Edom, Moab, and Ammon still intact?

A: Yes, Edom was not destroyed and the southern half of Moab, which was not taken by the  Amorites, was preserved. The northern half of Moab, which had been conquered by the Amorites, now fell into the hands of the Israelites. In addition, the Israelites also took the land of Bashan (or Gilead).

Q: How far north did Ammon go?

A: Ammon extended up to the Sea of Galilee but was farther inland. Today Ammon is an artificial type of property something like Armenia, a landlocked territory.

(1996–1997 Study)

by Hana Levi Julian

President Barak Obama

(IsraelNN.com) U.S. Congressional lawmakers have flooded the White House and the media with letters and news releases complaining about the Obama administration’s unprecedented scolding of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This, following an Israeli announcement last week that a routine housing project was proceeding apace in eastern Jerusalem.

Politicians from across the political spectrum called on President Barack Obama and his aides to tone down their attacks on Israel and start using a more even-handed approach when dealing with the Palestinian Authority.

Many pointed out the lopsided double standard used by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joseph Biden in harshly condemning Israel’s routine announcement of a zoning approval for new housing in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in northwestern (mistakenly called east by most of the media) Jerusalem – a three-year-old project.

Their criticism was delivered as the PA government dedicated a public square to the memory of a brutal murderer who in 1979 led the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history, slaughtering 37 innocent civilians, including children.

Neither Biden nor Clinton came out with any public statement condemning the PA’s decision to go ahead with the ceremony naming a public square in the terrorist’s honor, nor the PA decision to follow up with a public study day in her memory two days later.

In a letter dated Wednesday, March 17, ten members of Congress told the president, “While your Administration clamors over the announcement of a proposed residential development years away from completion, Iran continues to develop its nuclear weapons capability and Hamas and Hizbullah rearm and reenergize. Remarks made by your Cabinet and advisors embolden Israel’s enemies – who are wholly committed to destroying the Jewish State – and undermine the critical relationship we have with our strongest ally for democracy and peace in the Middle East.”

Senator: Move US Embassy to Jerusalem
“It’s hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace,” U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) said dryly in a separate statement. “Rather than launching verbal attacks on our staunch ally and friend, it would be far more worthwhile for this Administration to expend the effort planning for the transfer of our embassy to Jerusalem and tackling the growing Iranian nuclear threat.”

U.S. Representative John Boozman (R-AR) went further, saying, “The Administration has lost focus on what has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy in the Middle East. We have an unbreakable bond with Israel, but the Administration is systematically eroding that relationship. The lack of clear objective and strategy by the Administration challenges and poses a security threat both in the Middle East as well as to our national security.”

In Obama’s own party, U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV)  sent out a particularly scathing statement about the Administration’s “irresponsible overreaction” to Israel’s Interior Ministry’s awkward timing of its zoning announcement, which Obama advisor David Axelrod termed an “insult” and an “affront.”  Berkley noted, “No doubt the administration’s overwrought rhetoric is designed to try to appease Palestinian politicians and convince them the U.S. is an honest partner in the peace process by seizing every available opportunity to criticize the actions of our ally Israel.”

“That strategy also includes ignoring the myriad provocations by Palestinian leaders that make pursuing peace such a long and arduous process,” Berkley pointed out. “Where, I ask, was the Administration’s outrage over the arrest and month-long incarceration by Hamas of a British journalist who was investigating arms-smuggling into Gaza? Where was the outrage when the Palestinian Authority this week named a town square after a woman who helped carry out a massive terror attack against Israel? It has been the PA who has refused to participate in talks for over a year, not the government of Israel. Yet once again, no concern was lodged by the Administration. And, all the while, Hamas restocks its terror arsenal and fires rockets into Israel.”

Shelley added that the U.S. should be pursuing a process of fairness, “not a policy of constant appeasement and reinforcement of the Palestinians’ failings as legitimate partners in the peace process.”

The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) published a complete list of the politicians who issued statements in support of Israel.

U.S. Senate

Republicans

Arizona – John McCain (R-AZ)

Kansas – Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Nebraska – Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Independent

Connecticut – Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Democrats

Maryland – Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

New York – Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Pennsylvania – Arlen Specter (D-PA)

U.S. House of Representatives

Republicans

Arizona – John Boozman (R-AR)

California – Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)

David Dreier (R-CA)

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Florida -  Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)

Connie Mack (R-FL)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

Georgia – Tom Price (R-GA)

Ohio -     Jim Jordan (R-OH)

John Boehner (R-OH)

Illinois -  Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Indiana – Dan Burton (R-IN)

Mike Pence (R-IN)

Mark Souder (R-IN)

Kansas -  Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)

Oregon -  Greg Walden (R-OR)

Michigan – Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

Texas -   John Carter (R-TX)

Pete Sessions (R-TX)

Virginia -  Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Washington – Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Democrats

California –  Howard L. Berman (D-CA)

Florida -      Ron Klein (D-FL)

Illinois -       Mike Quigley (D-IL)

Michigan -   Gary Peters (D-MI)

New Jersey – John Adler (D-NJ)

Robert Andrews (D-NJ)

Steve Rothman (D-NJ)

New York -    Gary Ackerman (D-NY)

Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Steve Israel (D-NY)

Nita Lowey (D-NY)

Kevin McCarthy (D-NY)

Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

Nevada – Shelley Berkley (D-NV)

Pennsylvania – Chris Carney (D-PA)

Jim Rogers Says a Eurozone of 10 Members Would Be a “Wonderful Thing”

March 19, 2010 | From theTrumpet.com

America’s economic crisis is not over. Social unrest and food shortages are on the horizon. And look out for a pared-down, more powerful European Union.

On March 13, famed investor Jim Rogers gave an exciting interview with King World News. Here are some paraphrased highlights.

With the United States and the European Union in economic trouble and showing few signs of recovery, the whole world can’t help but be affected. China’s economy is a bit of a dichotomy. Some aspects of the economy are in a major bubble that is still inflating, especially coastal real estate. However, some sectors, like those dependent on exports to America, are struggling.

U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs is getting bad press for its role in helping Greece hide its bad debt. Along with Greece, many other countries, such as Italy and France, are also keeping two sets of accounting books. The official set is doctored so that the countries can comply with the rules of eurozone membership.

Although Greece is in the spotlight right now, America keeps two sets of accounting books too. You can look back at any period of American history and find many, many cases of phony bookkeeping, both at the government level and corporate level. “This is just the way the world has always worked.”

However, you can’t keep hiding financial problems forever. When these countries start to collapse, voters will be furious—and justifiably so. People are already very unhappy in California, Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere. If things keep getting worse, social unrest will escalate. History shows that when standards of living dramatically fall, social unrest results.

Some countries like Iceland and Latvia have already collapsed. If nothing changes we will see the same thing in America within the next decade. Some smart people whom Jim Rogers admires insist that America will default on its debt within the next couple of years. Default will occur at the city level, the state level and the federal level.

America is not the country it was in the 1930s. The safety valves that have existed in the past are no longer there. America has gone from the world’s largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in history. Today we have much more of an entitlement, “you owe it to me,” mentality, and people’s work ethic has greatly deteriorated. People like this are much more likely to be unhappy and try to do something about it.

Protectionism is flaring up and trade wars are looming. These things helped cause the Great Depression.

High energy prices are here to stay. The experts know that known reserves are declining at a steady rate. In 25 years there will be no oil for anyone at any price. There could be ups and downs in the price along the way, if for example the UK goes bankrupt. In a decade, the price will be much, much higher though.

The pound sterling’s outlook is not good. North Sea oil is drying up. The UK has huge, huge debt. The City of London financial center is badly damaged and politicians are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg by increasing taxes so much that it will drive out the remaining banks. In a few years we will look back and be shocked at how far the pound has come down.

The euro, although in trouble, will most likely survive its current stresses. They will either paper over the problem, which will cause a sigh of relief, or they will let Greece default, which will show investors that Europe wants a sound currency.

Longer term, however, the euro, in its current form, will not survive. The eurozone has expanded too much too fast. Most of the countries do not bring much to the party. As things get tougher, the odds are that some countries will leave the eurozone.

The EU, however, is a fabulous concept. The world desperately needs the euro, or something like it, because the dollar is such a flawed currency.

Conceivably we could have a much smaller European Union someday. “If they had an EU of 6, 8, 10 countries, it could be a wonderful entity.” Built on that foundation, the euro could then expand organically.

It is hard to say whether Europe or America is in worse shape today. In Europe, some countries are still net creditors to the world, others are debtors. Similarly, in America, some states are technically bankrupt, while others are not in as bad as shape. There are some states in America that are in better shape than some countries in Europe, and vice versa.

Economically, America’s leaders must think the “tooth fairy is going to save us all” because they continue to ignore reality. “Eventually the market swamps people who deny reality. And they collapse quickly and suddenly.” Oftentimes the crisis begins where nobody is expecting it. Maybe it will be California, or New York, but maybe it will be State X that breaks the camel’s back and affects everyone.

Throughout history, things have not gone well for countries that have found themselves in debt problems as big as America’s. At best they move sideways for a while, before they fall. “Look at the numbers. There is no way that America can ever pay off its debt. … It is just physically, arithmetically, mathematically impossible … without some kind of total collapse first, and then you just default.” Anybody who sits there and denies reality is going to get swept away, just like a tsunami.

Two bubbles that could eventually pop are Chinese coastal real estate and long-term U.S. treasuries.

Another potential crisis brewing is a food shortage. There is a shortage of farmers around the world, not to mention fertilizer, seeds and farm equipment, especially tractor tires. Food prices are unbelievably depressed.

Matt. 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Matt. 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John up into a “high mountain apart.” There they witnessed the transfiguration scene, or vision. Mount Tabor was probably the site of this incident. Imagine seeing Jesus’ face shining “as the sun”! It is likely that his face was seen first and then nothing but a bright light. Moses’ face shone similarly when he came down from Mount Sinai. In addition to Jesus’ face shining as the sun, his clothing was “white as the light”; both glistened.

Matt. 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

In vision, Moses and Elijah were talking with Jesus. Jesus was in the middle. Moses (representing the Ancient Worthies) was on one side, and Elijah (representing the Church) was on the other side; that is, Moses and Elijah represented the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints, respectively. Moses pictured the faithful who lived before Christ, and Elijah pictured the “more than conquerors” who live after Christ, with Jesus being the “centerpiece,” as it were (Rom. 8:37).

What were Jesus, Moses, and Elijah talking about in this vision? They spoke about Jesus’ death, “his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (see Luke 9:31). Earlier Jesus had been discussing this very subject with his disciples (Matt. 16:21).

Of course at the time of the vision, Peter, James, and John did not realize what Moses and Elijah represented. Moses looked forward to the death of Jesus at Calvary, and Elijah looks back to that event. Moses forsook the wealth of Egypt because he looked ahead to Christ and the Kingdom Age, whereas the Church class in the present age look back to Christ. Inferentially, the death of The Christ is included in the vision. If the Master had to have a cross, then so do the disciples who follow him (Matt. 16:24).

Even though Jesus spoke sternly to Peter (Matt. 16:23), laid the groundwork for his crucifixion, provided many details, and gave the transfiguration vision to the three apostles, the disciples were surprised when the Crucifixion actually took place. Nevertheless, these facts, experiences, and words entered into their minds like a computer. Information must at least be received— even if it is not acted upon or fully appreciated at the time—so that later the Holy Spirit can energize and call it to remembrance.

Because Jesus could perform so many wonderful miracles, including the raising of the dead, the disciples and others thought that he could not be put to death under such humiliating circumstances, but they—and we—have to be educated to God’s way of thinking. God’s plan was something new; we are a New Creation. That is why Peter wrote in his epistle, “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you” (1 Pet. 4:12). Earlier, at Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter did think the trial was strange, but he learned his lesson.

Matt. 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“Then answered Peter.” In the New Testament, “answered” does not necessarily mean the comment was preceded by a question. Peter simply made a remark here. See Luke 9:33, which reads in connection with the same event, “Peter said unto Jesus.”

A natural born leader, Peter did all the talking. If properly disciplined (“when thou art converted”), this trait is a good one (see Luke 22:31,32). When Peter denied Christ, he wept bitterly. After the third denial, Jesus turned and looked directly at Peter. The look of the Master caused Peter to remember the prediction and, accordingly, cut him to the quick. Later, after Jesus’ resurrection, he appeared to Peter privately (1 Cor. 15:5). Although no details are given, it must have been a very touching scene.

Also, when Jesus appeared as a stranger on the shore following his resurrection, Peter recognized him from the boat, plunged into the water, and swam to shore. After Jesus and the disciples dined on fish, the Master continued the rebuke, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?… lovest thou me?… lovest thou me?” (John 21:15-17). Jesus’ questions were instructional. They were like a surgeon’s tool going into the heart of Peter—very precise and to the point. Later, in retrospect, Peter could see that these rebukes were a confirmation of Jesus’ love: “Feed my lambs…. Feed my sheep…. Feed my sheep.” Peter was “converted”—he was a changed man—when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. He was the primary spokesman who preached boldly to the thousands who were assembled.

Why did Peter say, “Lord, … let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias”? Of course Peter was impulsive, but why did he choose these particular words? In the vision, only Jesus was truly there, for Elijah and Moses were merely represented, being off the scene and in the grave. Why was Peter interested in constructing tabernacles to their memory, in making memorials in the form of small tent-like structures? In view of the tremendous effect the vision had on Peter—he wrote about it many years later in his second epistle—it was natural for him, as a Jew, to be given to signs and thus to make the suggestion. The Greeks liked wisdom, whereas the Jews were given to signs and demonstrations of a supernatural power.

As already stated, Mount Tabor was probably the site of the Transfiguration. There are three “holy” mountains: Sinai, Hermon, and Tabor. Daniel 11:45 describes Mount Tabor as a “glorious holy mountain” that is “between the seas” (the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee). Jesus could not have been transfigured at Mount Hermon because there would have been snow on it. Deborah’s song is about a great victory that occurred at Mount Tabor (Judg. 4:6). A prophetess with great ability, Deborah masterminded the victory for Israel, yet in humility under the divine arrangement, she achieved the victory through a man, Barak. The situation with Priscilla and Aquila in the New Testament was similar. Both helped Paul, but Priscilla, a woman, was the driving force.

Matt. 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

“A bright cloud overshadowed them.” This phenomenon was awesome in itself, but then a  voice thundered out very majestically, “This is my beloved Son, … hear ye him.” This scene was so impressive that Peter referred to it in his epistle but said that despite its awesomeness and positiveness, the “more sure word of prophecy” was superior (2 Pet. 1:16-19). Do we have such a conviction? Is God’s Word more “sure” to us than if we had witnessed the transfiguration and heard the voice coming from the cloud? We should have the same reverence and respect for the Word of God that Peter had—regardless of the degree of our comprehension.

Being familiar with the account of the bright cloud over the nation of Israel and the Tabernacle in the Wilderness of Sinai, the disciples would have had no difficulty realizing that the message, or voice, came from God. Also, “Hear ye him [Jesus]” was almost like a reprimand, for earlier Peter had been arguing with the Master (Matt. 16:22). Now the Father was saying, “This is my Son. I am well pleased with him. You had better listen to him.” In other words, in listening to Christ, we are really listening to God, for the Son is the true and highest representative of the Father.

Matt. 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Matt. 17:7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

Matt. 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

Imagine first seeing Jesus with a bright effulgence emanating from him, and then Moses and Elijah disappeared from the vision, so that finally only the man Christ Jesus remained!

Matt. 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Notice Jesus’ charge to the three apostles as he came down from Mount Tabor: “Tell the vision to no man.” This statement proves that the scene was a vision and not a literal occurrence with Moses and Elijah actually being there. The vision was not to be told until Jesus had “risen again from the dead.”

Matt. 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

What was the disciples’ reason for asking, “Why then say the scribes that Elias [Elijah] must first come?” The transfiguration is sometimes called the “Kingdom vision” because of Matthew 16:28, where Jesus said, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” On Mount Tabor, the disciples saw a vision, a portrayal, of Jesus’ authority and glory in the Kingdom. In his epistle, Peter spoke of this vision as a preview, or foreview, of Jesus’ coming glory (2 Pet. 1:16-18). Having seen this tableau of Jesus transfigured and his garments glistening, the disciples raised this question about Elijah.

The question was correct from one standpoint but incongruous from another. First, what was troubling the disciples? If Jesus was the Messiah, where was Elijah, for the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 had to be fulfilled; namely, “Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD,” Elijah would be sent. The disciples reasoned that Elijah had to come first, before Messiah and the Kingdom. (Others used this argument to undercut or vitiate Jesus’ Messiahship.)

Matt. 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

The word “first” in verse 11 is spurious. Jesus’ answer should read, “Elias truly shall come, and restore all things.” The word “all” is very significant. In the Old Testament, Elijah restored the true religion. Jezebel had her own private priesthood of 400 “prophets of the groves,” who ate at her table, and the nation of Israel also had the 450 prophets of Baal, totaling almost a thousand false prophets in all (1 Kings 18:19). The true religion was represented by only Elijah and a handful of minor personalities. In the ensuing contest, the true God of Elijah answered by fire and consumed the sacrificial offering on Mount Carmel. The 450 false prophets were all slain subsequently but not the 400.

For a while, therefore, Elijah restored the true religion in Israel. Jesus was alluding to that work except he was referring not to the restoration that took place at the time of the French Revolution, which was only a partial fulfillment, but to the real fulfillment or restoration that will occur in the Kingdom, when all men will serve the Lord with one “shoulder” (Zeph. 3:9 KJV margin). In that day, there will be one religion and one language.

Thus the disciples used the argument that Elijah had to first come, and their reasoning seemed to belittle Jesus’ understanding. However, Jesus used the rebuttal of verse 12.

Matt. 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Matt. 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Jesus rebutted the disciples’ question of verse 10 by saying, “Elijah has already come.” He was referring to a partial fulfillment in the person of John the Baptist, who prefigured an “Elijah work” by preaching repentance for sin; that is, John did the beginning of the Elijah work, and he introduced Jesus: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” Thus the prevalent argument to insinuate that Jesus was not really the Messiah was having a fulfillment before the disciples’ very eyes.

“They knew him [John the Baptist] not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” The pronoun “they” referred to Herod (the king, civil power, who gave the executive order), Herodias (Papacy, the mastermind and instigator), Salome (federated Protestantism, the daughter who danced and did the mother’s bidding), and the nation. All four shared in the responsibility. Even though the king, the queen, and the daughter did the dirty work, the people incurred responsibility because they were not sufficiently astute and zealous to halt John’s imprisonment and execution.

“Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.” This was a significant prophecy, for Jesus was predicting his coming death at the hands of civil and religious power and the people.

Matt. 17:14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,

Matt. 17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.

Matt. 17:16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.

In this forcefully emotional account, a man came to Jesus and cast himself down at the Master’s feet to implore help for his “lunatic” son. Notice the son’s behavior. It is one thing to have an epileptic fit, in which one falls to the ground and froths at the mouth, but the man’s son was trying to destroy himself by throwing himself into the fire or into a body of water to drown. Imagine the terror the parents experienced in having such a son! When least expected, the son would run over and cast himself into the fire. No doubt the father beseeched Jesus with great fervor and emotion. Previously, the father had asked the disciples to help, but to no avail. Now he came to Jesus directly.

Matt. 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

Why did Jesus abruptly call that generation “faithless and perverse” and ask, “How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” The father, the son, and the disciples all lacked sufficient faith, although they themselves were not the “perverse generation.” This statement, which was made before Jesus initiated the cure, was quite embracive, for the whole generation was being criticized.

Matt. 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

Jesus effected the cure by rebuking the demon spirit that was in the child, making him want to destroy himself. This incident gives us a clue as to the vicious, sadistic, malevolent nature of fallen spirit beings. To a greater or lesser extent, certain crimes are committed because a person is possessed (for example, stabbing a person 50 times when two or three times would be sufficient to kill him). When taking hard drugs, a person can be susceptible to strange, bizarre acts because the fallen angels influence his mind. For the same reason, patients in an insane asylum are sometimes put in padded cells or straitjackets to prevent injury to themselves.

Hence these evil spirit beings still exert a powerful influence over their victims in our day. In other words, today the conditions are the same as at the First Advent, even though the medical profession denies the possibility of possession. The most the psychiatrists will admit is that a person can have “illusions” of being possessed by fallen spirit beings or separate personalities.

The doctors will not recognize the reality of the matter because they do not believe in the existence of a personal Devil and fallen angels. Thus they consider possessed patients as having a “disease.” Actually, a disease can exist, but the fallen angels capitalize on weaknesses of the mind or body to produce effects that might not otherwise be done at all by that individual.

Matt. 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

In order to avoid embarrassment, the disciples went privately to Jesus and asked, “Why couldn’t we cast him out?”

Matt. 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Jesus replied, “Because of your unbelief.” If the disciples had had as much faith as a grain of mustard seed, they could have effected the cure. In fact, they could even have commanded a mountain to depart and it would!

What is faith? It is the exercise of the mind with regard to the Word and the will of God. Faith is not credulity (superstitious belief), for faith has a large degree of knowledge—so much so, in fact, that faith and knowledge are inseparable. However, “knowledge” does not mean seeing how things are done, but rather, it is seeing the necessity for them to be done. A person with real faith would not pray for or do certain things on certain occasions because he would realize the request and/or action would be contrary to divine thinking, but the cure of this man’s son under this circumstance—and where the father was beseeching help on his knees—was the proper thing to do. Therefore, Jesus rebuked the evil spirit, causing it to depart. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If you had possessed faith to the degree of a grain of mustard seed, you could have cast out the demon plus done other things even more miraculous. And nothing would be impossible unto you.”

The question is, Can a Christian have such faith (“faith as a grain of mustard seed”) in the present life? No. The disciples said to Jesus, “Lord, increase our faith” (Luke 17:5). After a while, they began to get the lesson that they needed more faith than what they already possessed. If faith were possessed to the degree of a grain of mustard seed, the power of prayer would not be exercised for selfish reasons. Real faith is doing God’s will. Even if something seems to be impossible, if it is the Lord’s will, it can be done through faith.

Matt. 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Jesus gave a clue as to why the disciples could not exorcise the demon from the son. The son was deeply possessed by an especially malevolent spirit being that was resident in him. This kind could not be exorcised except by prayer and fasting.

As far as we know, Jesus did not pray and fast in the casting out of this demon because he already had faith to an even greater extent than a grain of mustard seed. Therefore, nothing was “impossible” to him, but he did suggest that it is possible for others to produce a miraculous cure even to this extent in some instances if prayer and fasting accompany the words to exorcise the demon. In especially difficult cases, praying and fasting are a necessity. Fasting is preparation. In order for exorcism to be performed in an effective manner, it must be preceded by a condition of fasting for a day or more. With such a procedure, exorcism can be accomplished. The apostles could not cast out this malevolent demon because they had not prayed and fasted.

The words “and fasting” are omitted in the Sinaitic Manuscript but are a proper thought (compare Acts 13:3 and 1 Cor. 7:5). In other words, the disciples were unsuccessful in exorcising this evil spirit, but exorcism was possible if accompanied previously by prayer and fasting— prior to the actual time or day of exorcism. In proportion to the seriousness of the case at hand, prayer and fasting are prerequisites. Consider Daniel, who, wanting to know the meaning of a vision, fasted and prayed for three weeks, and then he got the answer. How many of us would do likewise? Daniel was greatly beloved by God. A person with that type of conviction is a real leader.

Those who say they are like Paul or Moses are talking through their hats. Words are cheap, but deeds, suffering, persecution, and being an outcast in the eyes of fellow brethren, false brethren, and the world are another matter. Those who so suffer and endure are a little more realistically identifying themselves with the faith of Paul or Moses.

Fasting is a natural accompaniment to serious prayer. Our faith can be increased, but in the present life, a Christian will never achieve faith to the degree of a “grain of mustard seed.” Therefore, at times, prayer and fasting are essential—as in the case of extreme possession.

Matt. 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Matt. 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Luke 9:43-45 gives additional information: “And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples, Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying [in regard to Jesus’ death], and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.” How do we harmonize the Matthew and Luke accounts? The two accounts did not take place at exactly the same moment, even though both statements followed the exorcism. The Luke account occurred first, with Jesus’ statement going over the heads of the disciples. When he repeated the statement, making it more explicit the next day or so, the disciples understood and were “exceeding” sorrowful.

Jesus clarified the situation. He would be “betrayed into the hands of men.” They would kill him, and the third day he would be raised again. Jesus was preparing the disciples in advance for his death. In many instances, when Jesus desired a lesson and/or words to sink in, he prepared the way instead of bluntly announcing or doing something. First, Jesus said, “Let these sayings sink down into your ears” (Luke 9:44). Then later—perhaps even three weeks later—Jesus explained more fully.

In Luke’s account, the disciples got a hint of what Jesus was saying but were afraid to question him. Sometimes the “bait” is held out, but the “fish” will not bite. Thus Jesus later forced the disciples to understand. It is possible that following Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for telling him not to go to Jerusalem, which occurred prior to the transfiguration and this exorcism (Matt. 16:23), the disciples were hesitant to question or contradict him in regard to his death.

Despite all this preparation and warning in advance, when the crowds hailed Jesus and joyously acclaimed him with “Hosanna,” the thought of his being put to death fled from the apostles’ minds because they had not dwelled on his words about the Crucifixion; that is, they did not let the words “sink down” into their ears. They were caught off guard by the emotional reaction of the populace. Their reaction shows that as Christians, we must be careful to follow God’s Word and not let a momentary exaltation sidetrack us from our mission. The apostles mistakenly concluded that the Kingdom was close at hand and forgot what Jesus had told them in advance regarding his death and betrayal. If the apostles had really let his words sink down into their hearts, they would have realized all the way down to Jerusalem that Jesus was intentionally going to his death. In fact, he was walking into a death trap. Despite his warnings, the apostles thought he would use his miraculous powers to protect himself. That is where one aspect of Judas’s problem came in. He thought that he could get money in the meantime and that no one could really execute Jesus.

Matt. 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Matt. 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Matt. 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Matt. 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Jesus and the apostles went to Capernaum, and it was tax-collecting season. Notice that the tax collectors approached Peter instead of going to Jesus direct when they were really inquiring about the latter. Evidently, Jesus’ personality had an aura of innate purity and holiness that made people a little fearful.

Jesus was inside a house at the time. As Peter was about to enter, Jesus stopped him in the doorway and preempted him with a question, showing he knew about the inquiry and conversation that had just transpired. “What do you think, Simon? Of whom do kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers?” This significant drama indicated that a lesson was forthcoming; namely, when taxes are due and we have no money, we must realize that God and Jesus know of our temporal predicaments. God will take care of us and feed us with bread and water. Peter did not have to relate the incident and conversation, for Jesus already knew about it. “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matt. 6:8).

Why did Jesus ask of whom tribute is taken? Peter knew the custom, which was to pay tribute to the conquerors. In the higher sense, it was the Jewish nation, not Rome, that was recognized of God, but in order not to offend Rome, Jesus gave Peter instructions to pay the tax to Caesar.

This incident gives some insight into the practices of Rome. Roman citizens were free from many obligations; they had several real privileges not only in criminal courts but also in everyday life. For example, they could ask someone along the road to carry their burden to the next milepost. Evidently, Paul inherited a large amount of money from his parents, for not just anybody could receive an education under Gamaliel. However, Paul sacrificed that education to follow Christ.

Actually, the reverse was true in the higher sense. Israel was the true nation in God’s sight, and Rome was tribute. The Gentiles (Romans) were “strangers,” and the Jews were God’s “children.” Instead of the Jews being the “strangers,” as Rome regarded the matter, the Jews were free. Jesus could have simply said, “In order not to offend Rome, we will pay tribute.” Instead he inserted a constructive lesson as well.

Peter probably knew they did not have the tribute money, and this was embarrassing. That is one reason Jesus intercepted him—and also to give a lesson to all of God’s people with regard to temporal privations.

“Then are the children free.” From the Jews’ standpoint, Israel was a subject nation (“strangers”), of whom Rome was exacting tribute, but from the divine standpoint, the reverse was true. Israel was the nation of God (and hence “free children”), and Rome was the “stranger.”

“Notwithstanding, lest we offend them [Rome],” we will pay the tax. In other matters, Jesus did a lot of “offending,” especially to the scribes and Pharisees. Why not here? He “offended” the religious leaders when principle was involved, but he did not offend civil authorities unnecessarily when conscience was not involved. “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21). In religious matters involving conscience, we are to take a stand. The Christian should concentrate his time on doing God’s will and avoid social and civil causes as much as possible.

Notice the manner in which the tax money was acquired. Peter, a fisherman by trade, was told to go down to the Sea of Galilee, cast in a hook, and take up the first fish he caught. In its mouth would be a coin sufficient to cover the taxes for “me and thee” (for Jesus and Peter)—a tender expression. Why was the coin provided in this way? Why did not Jesus produce a coin instantly like a magician? A miracle occurred all along the way—from Jesus’ knowing about Peter’s conversation with the tax collector to the provision of the coin. If Jesus had merely pulled a coin out of a pocket, Peter might have considered it a donation previously given to the disciples. Notice that Peter had to expend some effort. Similarly, Christians are to provide things decent and honest.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12, the Apostle Paul showed that the Christian should work for his food and shelter and not expect others to take care of him. The principle is the same here. Christians are to provide for parental and marital responsibilities, and they are to work for their living according to training and ability. It was natural for Jesus to tell Peter, a fisherman, to go to the sea and catch a fish in order to get the money to pay the tax. Accordingly, the Lord expects Christians to earn a living, and in so doing to first provide for the needs of their families, pay taxes to the government, etc.—all necessities—and then to give the free time to Him. Our main responsibility is to God, but He expects us to do what is right and honest in the sight of men, providing the necessary things for our own (not large houses, luxury cars, etc., but essentials). This lesson—that God knows and cares, but that we have responsibilities too—was not only for Peter but for all Christians.

(1983–1985 study plus 1985 and 1997 discourses)

Num. 20:1 Then came the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, into the desert of Zin in the first month: and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there.

There is a big jump in time from the events of earlier chapters through Chapter 19 and this chapter—in fact, more than 37 years. Now we are near the end of the 40 years in the wilderness. The focus of attention in the Book of Numbers is on the beginning and the end of the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings.

Miriam, Moses’ older sister, died at this time, and Aaron would die very shortly. In addition, Moses himself died before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. At the time of Miriam’s death, the Israelites were abiding in Kadesh. Beyond the defile entering Petra, there is a hill on which a monastery marks the traditional place where she died. When standing on that hill and looking across the broad wadi that leads up to the bottom end of the Dead Sea, one can see Mount Hor on the other side. It was on Mount Hor that Aaron died and was buried. The point is that the places where Miriam and Aaron died are near each other.

Miriam was a little girl when Moses was three months old in connection with the ark of bulrushes. Therefore, she was about seven years older than Moses, the youngest of the three. Moses died at age 120, and Aaron lived to be 123 (Deut. 34:7; Num. 33:39).

Num. 20:2 And there was no water for the congregation: and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.

Num. 20:3 And the people chode with Moses, and spake, saying, Would God that we had died when our brethren died before the LORD!

How startling that, after all of their previous experiences, the Israelites murmured again! The congregation “gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron” to complain that “there was no water.” They “chode with Moses … saying, Would God that we had died when our brethren died before the LORD!”

Num. 20:4 And why have ye brought up the congregation of the LORD into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?

Num. 20:5 And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.

Num. 20:6 And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto them.

After almost 40 years in the wilderness, the people were weary. At the time they left Egypt, they were to go directly into the Promised Land, but when ten of the spies returned with an unfavorable report and the people believed it, God said that for each day the spies had searched out the land, the Israelites would spend a year in the wilderness. Since two years had already expired, the wanderings were to continue for 38 more years. Now the people were again chiding Moses for their not getting into the land of milk and honey. However, because of what had happened, the Israelites actually entered the land exactly on time. It was their wrong heart attitude that caused their patience to wear thin. The same wrong attitude will occur with some at the end of the Kingdom. Those in the wrong heart condition will overestimate the time factor and be in a disgruntled attitude. They will reason and murmur, “We have been under the Kingdom rule for such a long time. The reign was to last for only the thousand years, and we were promised kingship.”

When Moses and Aaron brought the matter to the Lord, “the glory of the LORD appeared unto them.” Of course the congregation could see the glory to a certain extent.

Comment: When we think of the Israelite wanderings in the wilderness as picturing the Christian experience during the Gospel Age, this murmuring against Moses and Aaron was really a murmuring against “dignities,” to use the language of Jude 8 and 2 Peter 2:10. Just as the Israelites murmured in the beginning and at the end of their wilderness wanderings, so Jude and Peter warn about an ungodly element who “speak evil of dignities” in the early Church and now again at the end of the Gospel Age.

Reply: The Apostle Paul not only spoke of the Tabernacle as being a type but said the things that happened to the Israelites are a lesson to us (1 Cor. 10:11).

Num. 20:7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num. 20:8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

Num. 20:9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

Num. 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

Num. 20:11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

What did God command Moses to do? This time Moses was told just to speak to the rock, not to smite it, whereas previously, toward the beginning of the 40 years, he had properly smitten the rock with the result that water came forth (Exod. 17:5,6). Apparently, Moses assumed that the smiting was a necessary complement in connection with obeying the Lord’s voice. Also, he was now getting fed up and running out of patience with the attitude of the people. Up to this point, he had been very patient and meek—in fact, remarkably so. However, the Lord told him clearly in this instance to simply “speak … unto the rock.”

The disobedience of Moses consisted of his smiting the rock twice and also his addressing the congregation: “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” In other words, he accredited the fetching of water to himself. In this particular picture, he represented a Second Death class, even though overall he “verily was faithful in all his house” (Heb. 3:5). (At other times, Moses variously represented God, Jesus, the Church, or The Christ.) Moses’ smiting the rock twice is referred to in the Hebrews 6:4,6 description of the Second Death class: “For it is impossible … If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” And there is a connection with Jude 12; namely, “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: … trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” We should keep in mind that this incident with Moses occurred shortly before the Israelites entered the Promised Land.

“The water came out abundantly”—so much so that all of “the congregation drank, and their beasts also.” The people were granted the favor of much water.

Num. 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Num. 20:13 This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and he was sanctified in them.

God spoke to both Moses and Aaron: “Because ye believed me not, … therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” Since neither Moses nor Aaron could enter the Promised Land, Aaron must have manifested sympathy with Moses. Although Moses did the smiting, both of them must have been boiling mad. The penalty indicates willful sin, which required expiation. Not being able to enter the Promised Land would have been a severe penalty for Moses because in faith, he had looked forward to that day.

Kadesh is near Petra. Today in the Petra area, tourists can see the Meribah spring that resulted from Moses’ smiting the rock.

Q: Is Kadesh different from Kadesh-barnea?

A: Yes, but Kadesh-barnea is a bigger area.

Num. 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

Num. 20:15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers:

Num. 20:16 And when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border:

Num. 20:17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king’s high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.

Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom, which adjoined Kadesh, an outpost of Edom, as it were. Moses was seeking permission for the Israelites to have clear passage to the Promised Land from the upper end of the Red Sea, that is, from Jericho and what is modern-day Jordan. If permission was granted, Moses promised that the Israelites would respect the rights of the people of Edom—their wells, fields, etc. They would “not turn to the right hand nor to the left” but would go through the land posthaste.

At that time, “Kadesh [was] a city in the uttermost of thy [Edom’s] border.” Later on, Petra became famous as the capital of the Nabateans.

Num. 20:18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword.

Num. 20:19 And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet.

Num. 20:20 And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.

On one of the trips, we took the King’s Highway. From Madeba and Nebo at the northern end of the Dead Sea, we traveled on this mountain road all the way down to Petra. That is the route Moses wanted to take because it was natural, quicker, and not on the low, hot desert floor where the need for water was severe. Because of Edom’s refusal, Moses had to skirt that nation and go on the lower valley road, which we took on another trip.

Num. 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

Num. 20:22 And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, journeyed from Kadesh, and came unto mount Hor.

Num. 20:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying,

Num. 20:24 Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah.

Aaron was informed that he would die shortly.

Num. 20:25 Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto mount Hor:

Num. 20:26 And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.

Num. 20:27 And Moses did as the LORD commanded: and they went up into mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.

God told Moses to take Aaron and Eleazar up into Mount Hor. (Mount Hor is reasonably high, and the word “Hor” can mean “high place” depending upon the vowel.) There Eleazar, Aaron’s oldest son, was clothed with the garments of the high priest. Of Aaron’s three other sons, Nadab and Abihu had died earlier for offering strange fire, and Ithamar was alive but is not mentioned here.

Several Scriptures refer to Aaron’s death. Numbers 33:36–39 reads, “And they removed from Ezion-geber, and pitched in the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh. And they removed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom. And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month.

And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor.” Miriam, the older sister of Moses, died in Kadesh before the Israelites went to Mount Hor (Num. 20:1). Shortly thereafter Aaron died. The reason for his death is that he supported Moses when, instead of just speaking to the rock, the latter smote the rock twice and water gushed out in such great volume that it supplied all of the flocks as well as the people of Israel. Then Moses said, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” whereas it was God’s power that had produced the water. Although Moses was expressing frustration because of so many similar trials, both he and Aaron were told they could not enter the Promised Land.

Normally we think of Moses’ being forbidden to enter the Promised Land when he was 120 years old and his death at this age as picturing the death of the feet members. Aaron was 123 at the time he died. The Aaronic priesthood was the sacrificing priesthood in contrast to the Melchisedec priesthood. In addition, Moses, as the mediator of the old Law Covenant, pictured The Christ as the mediator of the New Covenant. The date of Aaron’s death was the first day of the fifth month of the 40th year of the wilderness wanderings. Therefore, the fact that four months of the 40th year had already expired means that Numbers 20 took place near the end of the 40 years in the wilderness. Only eight months remained until the Israelites entered Canaan.

Comment: The time frame is interesting because it means that all the rest of Numbers and the Book of Deuteronomy transpired in the remaining eight months of the 40th year.

Reply: Yes, and Leviticus, which is filled with information, covered a very short period of time at the beginning of the 40 years. Then the earlier part of the Book of Numbers went into detail about the beginning years of the wilderness wanderings, and now we are concentrating on the end of the 40 years. Leaving Egypt, arriving at Mount Sinai, and constructing the Tabernacle are treated in reasonable detail. And from the leaving of Mount Sinai to the border of the land of Canaan when the 12 spies were sent out and shortly thereafter, the Israelites’ experiences are related. Then follows a gap of more than 30 years with no explanation. Now we have reached the latter part of the 40 years in the wilderness, which are explained in great detail.

Ezion-geber (Num. 33:36) is down near Eilat. From there, the Israelites went up to the Wilderness of Zin and to Kadesh, which is quite a distance. In tracing the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, scholars invariably overlook the fact that there were two circular journeys to Eilat. This realization is necessary in order to harmonize the account.

Information about Aaron continues. Deuteronomy 10:6 states, “And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest’s office in his stead.” Because Moses reminisced several times in the Book of Deuteronomy, the events in that book are not sequential. His purpose was to impress certain lessons, not to give a chronological listing of events. He listed events in sequence for a while and then went back and reviewed other events, listed in sequence again and reviewed, etc.

Deuteronomy 32:50 reads, “And die in the mount whither thou [Moses] goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people.”

Q: Are Mount Nebo and Mount Hor near each other?

A: No, Mount Hor is a considerable distance south of the bottom end of the Dead Sea, whereas Nebo is up almost to the tip of the Dead Sea. Thus they are widely separated by the length of the Dead Sea and beyond.

Q: Are Nebo and Pisgah the same?

A: Yes, just as Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb are the same. Mount Sinai pertains to the mountain chain; Horeb, to a particular peak in that chain. The Mount Sinai chain, which is about two miles in circumference, contains three prominent peaks in the front, and each has a name.

In the back is a fourth peak, Mount Musa, which cannot be seen from the plain in front.

Num. 20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.

Num. 20:29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they mourned for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.

Comment: When Aaron went up into Mount Hor, he was breathing one moment and died the next. What a peaceful way to die!

Reply: Yes, the account does not say that either Aaron or Moses agonized in death. This is truly a case of “expiring”—that is, breathing the last breath.

Comment: The Lord had just said that Aaron could not enter the Promised Land because of his attitude in connection with the waters of Meribah. Although he disobeyed in that instance, he was faithful overall, being called a “saint” in Psalm 106:16. Therefore, we would hope that he was given some comfort and assurance of his faithfulness prior to his death.

Reply: When the Lord reasoned with Moses about not entering the Promised Land, the restriction must have almost broken Moses’ heart (Deut. 32:48–52). He was allowed to see but not to enter the land.

When clothed by Moses with the garments of glory and beauty, Eleazar supplanted Aaron as high priest. Subsequently Eleazar had to go through the ceremony pertaining to the consecration of the priesthood. The account does not state all of these details, for it is assumed that we already know them, as given in Exodus 29.

(1996–1997 Study)

Not sure if I understand this question.

1) Moses didn’t enter the Promised Land in the Old Testament because he struck the rock twice. He disobeyed God’s instruction and overstepped his bounds. God used this incident as a type, to picture the “second death class” (though Moses himself is not in that class). The lesson for us is that we will not get to the Promised Land (Heaven) if we disobey God’s commands. All the “Precious Promises” throughout the scriptures are only for those who are “keeping the commandments.” We do not get to heaven just because we raised our hand, obedience to God is required to spend an eternity with Him.

See our verse by verse study on Numbers Chapter 20

2) Moses didn’t enter the Promised Land in the New Testament, because he is still dead awaiting the resurrection.

1Co 15:50-52 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  51  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,  52  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Th 4:14-17 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.  15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.  16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

What does these scriptures show us: 1) There must be a change of nature to go to heaven, 2) Death is a sleep 3) This change of nature (resurrection) cannot take place until the “Last Trump”, which is the Second Coming.

Now these scriptures are talking about dead Christians, but notice they are said to rise first, “first resurrection”, therefore those who have not accepted Christ (since he opened the “new and living way”), are not part of the “first resurrection”, but must wait until the Bride of Christ is complete and the Reign begins (2 Tim. 2:12, Rev. 5:10).  Moses is not part of the Bride class, but of what we call the “Ancient Worthies” described in Hebrews 11. If we read the last verse:

Heb. 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

We see there is a difference between the Christian and the Old Testament saints. (There are other scriptures which is for another time)

We see Moses and Elijah on the mount of Transfiguration with Jesus, but we are clearly told it is only a vision and not reality. (see our verse by verse study on Matthew 17)

Mat 17:9  And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

So we see all the scriptures do harmonize when we put them together.

By YAAKOV LAPPIN AND YAAKOV KATZ
Jpost 19/03/2010

6 targets hit, 2 reported wounded; Security sources: Hamas not behind attack.

IAF aircraft struck six targets in the Gaza Strip overnight Thursday, in response to a Kassam attack that killed a foreign worker in Netiv Ha’asara earlier in the day.

The army said it struck three smuggling tunnels on the Egyptian border, a weapons production facility and two tunnels intended for infiltration into Israel to carry out attacks.

Two Palestinians were reportedly wounded in the strikes.

The Kassam rocket slammed into a greenhouse in the small southern agricultural community of Moshav Netiv Ha’asara on Thursday, ripping through the roof, killing a Thai worker and leaving his coworkers, who came to his aid, traumatized.

The incident marks the first death from Gazan rocket attacks since Operation Cast Lead ended last year.

Senior defense officials had vowed to respond harshly to the attack, but said they would keep its response isolated, to avoid being drawn into a larger-scale conflict with Hamas.

IDF sources said that the rocket was not fired by Hamas, and by Thursday evening the terrorist group was reportedly rounding up suspects behind the attack for interrogations.

“It is currently not in Hamas’s interest to attack Israel,” one senior officer said, noting that while Hamas has attacked IDF border patrols since Operation Cast Lead last year, it has refrained from firing rockets into Israel.

“Hamas’s current policy is to keep the situation quiet so it can continue to build up its military infrastructure ahead of a future conflict with Israel,” the officer said.

The Thai foreign worker, in his 30s, was killed by a Kassam rocket that scored a direct hit on a greenhouse, spraying shrapnel and small potted plants in all directions.

Magen David Adom paramedics tried to resuscitate the man and stem his blood loss, but he succumbed to his wounds shortly afterwards.

Policemen, headed by Sderot station commander Dep.-Cmdr. Shimon Nahmani, and IDF personnel converged on the site.

“This is the third rocket attack that has directly targeted an Israeli community in the past 24 hours,” Israel Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

“The rocket fired was a standard Kassam-type projectile, capable of killing anyone in its radius who did not take cover,” he added. “We are assessing the security situation in the western Negev in light of recent events.”

Yair Farjun, chairman of the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council, said the dead man had worked on the moshav for three years and eight months.

“He drove a tractor. He was always smiling. He learned how to speak Hebrew,” Farjun told The Jerusalem Post.

“These attacks do not target the army, and are not part of a military confrontation. The Palestinians are targeting farmers who work their land, civilians, and children.

“A price tag must be set, so that the Hamas government, supported by Iran and Hizbullah, will not think they can fire on us at will and that we will wait for things to get really bad before responding. We are on the front line here,” Farjun said.

“The international community must wake up. We have left Gaza, so what do the Palestinians want now? They are not building up their own economy and society in Gaza. They have turned it into one big military camp, and a base for terrorism,” he said.

“All of these incidents are happening not because Israel is building in Jerusalem, or because a synagogue was opened in the Old City in Jerusalem, they are happening because the Palestinians want all Jews out of this land and seek the destruction of Israel,” Farjun said. “It’s time for the world to know the truth. Those who want to see reality should come here.”

Thai farm workers “are part of our family and community. We make our living by working the land. If the work becomes untenable, our farming will come to a standstill,” Farjun said.

The rocket was apparently fired from deep within the Gaza Strip, he said, citing the IDF Home Front Command. He added that a long-range attack would explain why almost a full minute passed between the sounding of the Color Red warning siren and the rocket’s impact.

“Usually, rockets land 15 seconds after the siren. This time, nearly a minute separated the siren from the impact. From what I understand, this rocket was fired from central Gaza. The man who was killed today lay on the ground when the siren went off, but stood up after 20 seconds,” Farjun said.

Small bomb shelters have been erected near the greenhouses and were situated close to the work areas, allowing workers to reach them within 15 seconds, he said.

“Some of the workers ran toward the shelters, while others lay on the ground,” he added.

A small Islamist faction calling itself Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility for the attack. Fatah’s Aksa Martyrs Brigades later also claimed responsibility.

Speaking from the site of the attack on Thursday evening, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Israel Beiteinu) said, “This is one rocket out of 12,000 that the citizens of Israel have endured in recent years. The responsibility for this attack rests with Hamas.”  Ayalon said the attacks were a result of Hamas incitement to violence.

“While Israel continues to extend its hand in peace, the other side not only refuses to come to the negotiating table, but continues to incite recklessly against Israel,” he said. “Israel still seeks peace and calls for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without preconditions; however, the incitement must end.”

Referring to the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, Ayalon said the document “provides legitimacy and a propulsion for terrorism and is immoral and unprofessional. With or without the report, Israel will continue to defend its citizens. I call on those who voted for the Goldstone Report to come and see the consequences.”

IDF sources said that since Cast Lead, most rocket attacks against Israel have been carried out by hardline groups such as Ansar al-Sunna, affiliated with al-Qaida and global jihad. These groups consist of a few thousand followers and several hundred armed men, many of them former Hamas fighters who left in protest of the ruling movement’s current policy of refraining from attacking Israel.

Israel’s considerations in restraining its response have to do firstly with the government’s desire to restart peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and secondly with the diplomatic crisis with the United States, which would likely not support Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud) warned that the rocket attack would lead to a strong reaction, and said that Hamas was ultimately responsible.

“It is severe escalation,” Shalom said. “Israel will not return to the situation of before Operation Cast Lead. The response will be particularly fierce… I hope Hamas will learn a lesson.”

Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i (Labor) held a security assessment with officials from the IDF Home Front Command to discuss the level of protection in the area of greenhouses near the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas is in control of Gaza and Israel will hold Hamas responsible for every rocket attack originating in Gaza,” Vilna’i said. “Israel is not interested in a military conflict but will not allow rocket fire against its civilians.”

After the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Netiv Ha’asara became the closest community in Israel to the Gaza Strip, located 400 meters away from the edge of the Palestinian town of Beit Lahiya. At the southern edge of the moshav, a car park was converted into an IDF base and tanks were deployed. An electric fence was erected to stop infiltrators from Gaza, and three concrete walls were built against Palestinian snipers.