Numbers and Deuteronomy

NUMERS IS BEING UPDATED more to come

NUMBERS: Introduction- Chapter 6:21
Unless you are an accountant or Mathematics instructor, the title, NUMBERS sound rather boring. One commentator wrote, “Many Bible readers do not come to the Book of Numbers with noticeable enthusiasm.” Maybe we should call it something else. How about: The Wilderness Adventures of Moses.

So, what can we expect from this study? Well, there are a few chapters do deal with a census that was taken of the Israelites. It makes sense to know how many people are leaving Mt. Sinai. We wouldn’t want to leave someone behind. Well, maybe a few, but we won’t go there. But there is a story of rebellion against Moses and lots of complaining among the Israelites. But of course, there is disobedience, complaining, and rebellion along the way which leads to total failure on the part of the people to complete their stated mission.

The Book covers a period of thirty-eight years starting at Sinai, where they received the Law of Moses, to the plains of Moab, just opposite the promised land. With the promised land in sight, out of fear, they refused to go any further. Their penalty was a six-month loss of internet service and video games. No, not really. Since they refused to trust God and move ahead into the land of Canaan, the entire generation, all those over the age of twenty, were sentenced to live out their lives in the wilderness. For forty years they wandered around, killing time. I can hear their kids saying, “Nice going Mom and Dad. Because of you we have to waste forty years of our lives.”

The Israelites lived up to their reputation by complaining about most everything. They complained about the leadership decisions made by Moses, the lack of variety in the menu at the mess hall, the lack of water, and there were no shopping malls. Does this sound like the type of group you would want to go on a long vacation with?

 Oh, did I mention snakes? Yes, there were a bunch of snakes that attacked some of the Israelites and a false prophet who was hired to place a curse on the people. There is more in this book than just “numbers.” Speaking of numbers, there is a second census that is made.

This one counted the number of those in the second generation who did make it into the promised land.

Joshua is chosen as Moses’ successor. How do you think Moses felt when he had to give up his position of leadership? He probably felt like James Buchanan Who said to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, “If you are as happy in entering the White House as I shall feel on returning to Wheatland, you are a happy man indeed".

”Some tribes request land east of the Jordan River. Moses grants their request as long as they cross the river and help the other tribes get settled.

 The book ends with the new generation of Israelites in the Plain of Moab ready for the crossing of the Jordan River. And yet, this new generation never fully occupied the land that they were given.

Num. 1:2-3, “The Lord spoke to Moses, take a census.

”The census by tribe served several purposes. Primarily it was to organize the people by tribe and to determine how many men were of military age, above 20 years of age. But it also demonstrated to the Israelites God’s faithfulness in fulfilling one of the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant. God promised that he would multiply the descendants of Abraham, to make them a great nation. These former slaves, few in number, were now free and growing in number.

The census also helped organize everyone by tribe to prepare for their movement from Sinai. If you’ve ever led a military convoy, you can imagine the logistical issues in moving a large number of people, vehicles and possessions over a long distance.

The census determined that there were 603,000 men above the age of twenty eligible for military service. I wonder if they had to pass a medical examination to determine if they were “fit to serve”? Or perhaps take an aptitude test such as The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) as we do in the U.S.? I would guess that the only qualification, beyond the age requirement, was, “Does he have a pulse?” Afterall, God was going to put fear into the hearts of the Canaanites and drive them out ahead of the Israelites, so most of them will be gone before the Israeli military even showed up. Archeologists have found an ancient video that they posted on YOUTUBE showing the recruiting and training of the Israeli soldiers.

 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFy4gmGZFO

Of those 603,000 military age men, only two would make it into the promised land, Joshua, and Caleb. The rest of these 603,000 men could have been among the heroes who led their people into the promised land. Instead became known as the military that disqualified themselves and died in the desert.

A second census would be done of the next generation to determine if the old generation had passed away and in preparation for going into the promised land.

Num. 1:47 describes the status of the Levites, who numbered only 2,000. They were exempt from military service, non-combatants. Their role was to provide security for the tabernacle. Not just anyone could wander around the place, go into the Holy of Holies, sample loafs the shewbread, etc. They were also in charge of the maintenance, dismantling, transportation, and erection of the facility.

 Num. 2, describes the arrangement of the tribal camp. Each camp would have its’ own banner so members would know where they are supposed to be when they muster (or assemble) for movement. Some scholars speculate that each banner was decorated with the color of the gemstone on the priests’ breastplate that represented each tribe.



The clans or tribes were organized around the tabernacle The tabernacle was always at the center of the tribes. This would remind them that God was to be the center of their lives.

 
Num. 3 deals with the recognition of the Levites as belonging to God and were to assist the priests. They were chosen in place of the firstborn of each family. I wonder how many of the firstborns were relieved to hear this news. The Levites were chosen over the other tribes because they demonstrated their loyalty to God during the Golden Calf incident when Moses was “out of town.”

 
Num. 4 further identifies a group of Levites who had the honor of handling the most sacred items of the tabernacle such as the shielding curtain that separated the holy from the holy of holies, the table of the presence, jars, dishes, plates, utensils, the lampstand, its wick trimmers and trays, the oil to fuel it, the gold altar and of course, the Ark of the Covenant.

This subgroup of Levites would be the only Levites who would wrap, package, and carry these most sacred items.

 
Num. 5 gives instruction on laws of purity. There was a strange ritual to determine if a wife had been unfaithful to her husband. She was to be taken to the priest who would have a drink a concoction of water which had some dust from the tabernacle floor sprinkled onto it and have her drink it. She then states under oath and threat of a curse whether she was unfaithful. If she was, then she would have a miscarriage if pregnant or not be able to conceive if she wasn’t pregnant. One commentator suggests that this was really the means of protecting the woman from a jealous husband who might have tried to harm her. If nothing else, if done in a dramatic way, it certainly could lead a woman to confess if she really was unfaithful.

 
Num. 6 The Nazarite Vow
The Nazirite or Nazarite vow was taken by individuals who had voluntarily dedicated themselves to God. The word Nazarite comes from the Hebrew word nazir, simply means “to be separated or consecrated.” It’s similar to becoming a temporary lay priest. It is voluntary (no divine command), can be done by either men or women, has a specific time frame, has specific requirements and restrictions, and at its conclusion a sacrifice was offered.

 
Though it was almost always voluntary and temporary, there are several examples of involuntary and permanent consecrations. The parents of Samuel and Samson presented their sons for service in the Old Testament, and John the Baptist in the New Testament are examples.

 
These vows of temporary service would be made for any number of personal reasons. It could be an expression of thanksgiving for recovery from an illness or for the birth of a child.
If you were a single woman, she could have her vow rescinded by her father and a married woman could have her vow rescinded by her husband. I guess a Nazarite vow would not be an escape mechanism from a troubled home life. I wonder if it was sometimes used to leave your past life behind, such as when someone joins the French Foreign Legion or disappears from his current life by going off on a mission trip where nobody knows where he is?

 
During the period of the vow, they were to abstain from wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins. The Nazirite was not to get a haircut nor go near a dead body. This would mean that you couldn’t serve your vow while working in a hospital or funeral home.

 
At the end of the vow period, they got a haircut, put the hair on the altar and a sacrifice was made on the altar. And, I imagine, headed for the nearest tavern for a glass or two of wine.
Is there a New Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow? In Romans 12:1-2 Paul states, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be in the world, but not of the world and its values, to be a holy people consecrated to God (2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15).

Num. 22:20-41, Balaam and His Talking Donkey Part 2

Num. 22:20-22, “Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab. But God was very angry when he went with the princes of Moab. . . Balaam was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.”

Balaam had two servants, yet he saddled his own donkey. Some commentators suggest that saddling his own donkey, rather than having a servant do it, shows his eagerness to get on with the job. If that is so, then he might have left behind a few items in his motel room, or even one of his other servants. “Where’s my phone charger? Has anyone seen my charger?” “I think you left it behind in your rush to hit the road boss.”

Who can blame him if he was in a hurry. After all, a customer who is wealthy, generous and pays on time, like a king is not to be kept waiting. Or, maybe our imaginations read more into the passage than is warranted.

God was angry that he left. Why would he be angry if he had given him permission to go? In verse 12 God tells Balaam not to go with the messengers to Balak. In verse 20 God tells him to go, but then in verse 22 he says he is angry that he went. “Don’t go . . . ok, you can go . . . Now I’m angry that you went.”

 
What’s going on here? The problem is not with God nor is he suffering from borderline personality disorder, but with the shifting attitude of Balaam. God forbade him to go and curse Israel. He then allowed him to go only if he would say what God tells him to say. His approval for the trip was conditional. But Balaam’s attitude and plan probably changed while in transit. Perhaps he was focusing on that big paycheck he was going to get from Balak. God wasn’t angry that he went, as much as his motive for going.

Balaam and his entourage are off to visit Balak when suddenly the donkey he was riding veered off the road. What happened?

Num. 22:23, “When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field.” Balaam’s response? He beat the poor animal to get her to get back on the road. I’m liking Balaam less and less as this story progresses.

 
They continued to move along when the path narrowed with walls on both sides. Num. 22:25, “When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord (again), she pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it.” Balaam’s response? Again, he beat the poor animal. The donkey saw the angel of the Lord a third time and just decided to sit down. She’s had enough of Balaam’s’ abuse. The poor creature was too scared to move ahead or to get another beating from Balaam. Now this is when things get weird. Num. 22:28, “Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

Imagine the look on Balaam’s face! If he ever doubted the account of God speaking to Moses through a burning bush, all doubt evaporated.

 
How long do you think there was a stunned pause with Balaam’s’ jaw hanging open and his eyes wide as saucer?

Num 22:29, “Balaam answered the donkey, ‘You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

 
The donkey made a fool of Balaam. Besides, he probably also scuffed up his highly polished sandals when he crushed his foot against the wall.

 
Num. 22:30, “The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden to this day. Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

What was the purpose of this donkey speaking miracle? God told Balaam to only say what he tells him to say. The message was “Don’t try to say anything but what I tell you. If I can control what comes out of a donkey’s mouth, I can do the same with you.” In other words, “Balaam, stick to the script. No improvisations on your part. Read it as it is written.”

 
We might say, “This is just myth, this just doesn’t happen.” Of course not, not in the real world, but if you bring into the equation a supernatural being, such as God, then you must accept the possibility of these strange things being able to occur. If we can’t accept these miracles, how can we accept the miracles performed by Jesus or his resurrection? If you insist that these strange miracles found in the Bible couldn’t have happened, what hope do you have of any future beyond this life?

 
Num. 22:31, “Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn.” Wouldn’t you have liked to have seen the look on his face when this happened?

 
The angel of the Lord has a talk with Balaam who was warned again to speak only what he was told to speak and on his way he went.

 
Balaam has had quite a morning so far. Wait until he gets back home and tells his friends of his strange experiences. Or, maybe he shouldn’t tell anyone.

Num. 22:33, the angel of the Lord tells Balaam, “The donkey saw me three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her.”
I hope that Balaam feels really bad about his treatment of his donkey. Time to apologize Balaam, and give that poor animal some nice treats, ok?

Num. 22:36, “When Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him.” Balak sure was eager and happy to see Balaam. He’s been a nervous wreck for days. This story could be portrayed in a very funny way. The hapless prophet trying to get to his valuable client with a stubborn donkey. The king who is about to collapse from nervous exhaustion running around like his hair was on fire.

 
Balak is relieved that Balaam has finally arrived. He offers some animal sacrifices, had a big barbeque for his guests (verse 40) and prepared to head out the next morning.

 
Num. 23 Now it’s Balaam’s time to offer some sacrifices. While that was going on Balaam said, in verse 3, “Stay here beside your offering while I go aside. Perhaps the Lord will come to meet with me. Whatever he reveals to me I will tell you.”

 
Num. 23:4, “God met with him.”

 
Do you think that Balaam really expected to meet with God or was he putting on a show for Balak? God did meet with him, but might Balaam have been surprised when God showed up? Maybe he went around the corner to smoke a cigarette and was surprised that God showed up.

 
Balaam returns to Balak and Balak urges him, “Come, denounce Israel.” Against his wishes, Balaam instead pronounces blessings on Israel. Balak freaks out, “What have you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, but you have done nothing but bless them.”

Balak grabs Balaam arm and takes him off to another location. Perhaps a change of location will get him to curse these people. They build more altars, Balaam met with God again, he returned to Balak and . . . that’s right, Balaam blesses Israel again.

In frustration Balak says, Num. 23:25, “Neither curse them at all nor bless them at all.” In other words, “If you aren’t going to curse them, then at least don’t bless them.” In the mind of Balak, Balaam is doing more harm to him than good.

 
Let’s try this one more time. Balak takes Balaam to a third sight. Num. 23:27, “Come, let me take you to another place. Perhaps it will please God to let you curse them for me from there.” Sorry Balak, it isn’t the location that is the problem here.

 
Num. 24:2, “When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him, and he uttered his oracle.” Can you guess what happens?

Num. 24:5, Balaam says, “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob. Their king will be greater than Agag, their kingdom will be exalted. May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed.”

 
This is NOT what Balak wanted to hear. Num. 24:10, “Then Balak’s anger burned against Balaam.” Verse 11, “Now leave at once and go home.” Balaam, you’re FIRED! And I will not pay you your fee!

Balaam responds with, “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab . . . Edom will be conquered . . . but Israel will be strong.”
Then he goes on with his speech saying that Amalek will come to ruin, along with the Kenites, Asshur and Eber.

 
Num. 24:25, “Then Balaam got up and returned home and Balak went his own way.
What can we take away from this story? God can use anyone he wants to serve his purposes. They can be believers or non-believers. One example is King Cyrus of Persia. In Isaiah 45:1 he is called a Messiah, or savior. It was Cyrus who issued a decree releasing the Israelites from captivity.

 
God chose Abraham and his descendants as his chosen people. He said that He would bless those who bless them and curse those who curse them. The power to bless or curse doesn’t originate in man but God. No man can manipulate God with words, rituals or geographical locations.

 
Our words, whether in the form of curses or blessings do not have the power to make things happen. False teachers in the word-faith movement claim that their words alone can change reality, can bring about good fortune. They teach, “If we proclaim positive things, it will be created for us.” And, “You can have what you say. God is obligated to meet your needs because of His word.” To support their false claim, they refer to Rom. 4:17, which says, “. . . the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.”

The passage says that God calls into being things that were not, not MAN. It was God who said, “Let there be light . . . and there was light.” God can do this, but not man. Our words do not have magical powers.

 
In part of Africa there are witchdoctors who claim to be able to cast spells or release people from spells cast upon them. We needn’t fear such talk of curses placed on us by others. Word-faith preachers and witch doctors are taking upon themselves powers that only God has.

 
Balak believed that with the right sacrifices or the right geographical location, that he could control God with words and rituals. God is not there to serve us, nor is he controlled by our rituals or words. We are to serve him.

Numbers 26-30 Inheritance, Retirement of Moses, and Vows

Hey, is everyone ready to put behind them the unpleasantness of Balaam and move into their new land? Sure you are. But first, it’s time to take another census. The last census is no longer accurate since it was taken 38 years ago. They also must be sure that all the older generation have died off before moving into the promised land.

The overall number of Israelites hasn’t changed much. The number of adult men is still about 600K. Some tribes (Manasseh, Asher, and Issachar) grew in number, and some (Simeon and Naphtali) declined. Zimri, the fellow who was speared by Phinehas and caused that plaque was a Simeonite, so that probably explains that tribe’s big decline from 59K to 22K.

Num. 26:54, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance based on the number of names.”

The first census which was conducted at Mt. Sinai was for military purposes. This one was for determining which tribe is assigned what part of Israel. Now the Levites weren’t to inherit any land, as such, because they won’t be farmers or ranchers, but workers in the Tabernacle.

Num. 26:52 says, “All the male Levites a month old or more numbered 23,000.”

Why did count them only after they were a month old? In some cultures, babies weren’t named until they were of a certain age since the neonatal death rate was so high. In Israel, you didn’t “count” until you were a month old.

Since only men were counted in the census to determine land ownership, what about the women who didn’t have any male siblings? What would happen to their father’s estate when they died? This is addressed in Num. 27 where the daughters of Zelophehad, whose father died, approached Moses and asked, “Shouldn’t we be included in the inheritance of land? This may have been the practice of the day, but it seems unfair to exclude the women whose father had died. Moses took the issue to the Lord, and it was agreed that the women should also be given land.

Notice that these women went to Moses to lobby him for a change in the tradition that only men would inherit land. These women found strength in going together as a group to overturn the unfair inheritance traditions. If the women could not inherit any land, what would be their fate in life? Poverty, slavery, and prostitution would probably have been their fate.

This is another story where some might ask, “Why are these stories in the Bible?” In some countries today, women still have few rights. Some can’t purchase items without the approval of a father or husband. Some still can’t vote or even drive a car.

Num. 27:9, “If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. If he has no daughters, give his inheritance to his brothers, if he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers, if no brothers, his nearest relatives.” This is very much like our probate laws. If someone dies without a will the property goes to the spouse, then the children, etc.

In Num. 36:6-7 the fine print of this law says, “They (daughters who inherit land) may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers.”

The daughters do marry within their clan (Num. 36:10–12) and eventually receive their inheritance (Josh. 17:3–6).

So, if you ladies inherit property or have other rights that were once given only to men, you can thank Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah, the five daughters of Zelophehad. They were among the very first feminists in history.

Num. 27:12, “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Go up this mountain in the Abram range and see the land I have given the Israelites. After you have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was . . .”

“Gathered to your people?” Even back then they used euphemisms to avoid words dealing with difficult subjects. When a patient dies, I’ve heard doctors use the term “expired.” People don’t expire. Cottage cheese forgotten in the back of refrigerators expire. Drivers’ licenses expire. Medications expire. People die.

Moses is going to have to hike up the mountain, peek at the promise land, and then die? I wonder if he hiked very slowly, stalling for time, taking time to smell the flowers along the trail or gaze up at the sky and watch the birds. “Hurry up, Moses or it will be dark by the time you get to the top and you won’t be able to see anything.”

Num. 27:15, “Moses said to the Lord, ‘May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community.” Moses is suggesting that this would be a good time to appoint his successor. This will prevent any power struggle between rivals among the top leaders.

That’s very nice of Moses, to be thinking about his people at a time like this. Or maybe he was thinking, “It’s about time you’re relieving me of my command. I’ve had it with these people.” Do we see a different Moses now than when he was younger? He didn’t argue with God. He didn’t grieve over his loss of opportunity to enter the land. He didn’t insist on naming his successor, nor did he cling to power. He was thinking about the well being of his people. He wanted to have a smooth transition of power.

Num. 27:18-20, God says to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun . . . have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him SOME of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him.”

Notice that only SOME of his authority was given to Joshua. Joshua wouldn’t have the absolute authority that Moses had. Moses spoke to God face to face, but from now on the civil leadership and the religious leadership would be separated. Joshua would receive God’s instructions through the high priest. (verse 21).  Having this change in command ceremony in public would leave no doubt who the rightful successor is.  I imagine Moses breathed a sigh of relief. Do you think he was happy to be relieved of some of his responsibilities?

Some of America’s outgoing presidents were very happy to turn over the responsibilities to someone else. Outgoing President James Buchanan told his successor, Abraham Lincoln: "If you are as happy, my dear sir, on entering this house as I am in leaving it and returning home, you are the happiest man in this country." I wonder how many pastors were just as eager to move onto another church.

Num. 28-29 talk about the offerings and holy days that were spoken of earlier in Leviticus. Why are they repeated here? Well, most of the adults who heard these laws given years ago are now dead. The second generation must not have been taught very well by their parents, so they needed to be told about such subjects as offerings and holy days. Or, maybe, the people thought that the requirements of the Law of Moses were only in effect while Moses was alive.

Num. 30 deals with the law of the vows or promises to God. This was the practice of people promising to voluntarily dedicate themselves to God. Even today some people take a vow when they enter full-time religious service, or some may take a vow of poverty. The Hebrew word for vow is nazir and it means to be separated or consecrated. Num. 6:1-21 describes five characteristics of a vow. It is voluntary, can be done by either men or women, has a specific time frame, has specific requirements and restrictions, and at its conclusion a sacrifice is offered.

While generally done by the individual by his own choice, two individuals in the Old Testament, and one in the New Testament, were presented to God by their parents. Samuel and Samson in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 2:8-28; Judges 13:1-5), and John the Baptist in the New Testament received the Nazirite vow from birth (Luke 1:13-17).

Though a woman could make a vow, it could be rescinded by her father or her husband. This is like a minor who tries to enter a contract, such as join the military. Their parents can prevent this from happening because the minor isn’t of legal age to enter a contract or vow. Women were treated like children back in the old days and in some countries even today.

There were rules for those who make a vow. During the period of the vow, the individual could not drink wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins of the grapes.  That must have been a real test of the candidate’s sincerity.  What else could they drink what was reasonably safe? Nor could they cut their hair or go near a corpse during the period of the vow. Ah, an excuse for not getting your hair cut or going to a funeral. When the vow was completed, a sacrifice was made, the individual received a hair cut and the clipping were places on the altar for a sacrifice. Their next stop was probably the local wine shop. What do you think?

Although the Nazirite vow is an Old Testament concept, there is a New Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow. For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be separate from this world, a holy people consecrated to God (2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15).

The Apostle Paul did make a Nazarite vow as seen in Acts. 21:23-24. But this is a description of what he did, not a prescription that we must do. And again, all vows were voluntary.

Today we make wedding vows. A less serious vow might be New Year’s resolutions. Though today some wedding vows are taken about as seriously as New Year’s resolutions.

What can we take away from these chapters? Women should have the same rights and responsibilities as men. Leader should have a successions plan in place to avoid chaos, power grabs, and the resulting divisions. When we make a profession of faith don’t we become “Ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor 5:20). In living the life of an Ambassador aren’t we to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:1)? When we are baptized which says to the world that our old self has died and been buried, and we have been risen into a new life, then doesn’t this sacrament have some of the same characteristics of making a lifetime vow?

Numbers 31 God Declares WAR on the Midianites

Num. 31:1-24, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that you will be gathered to your people . . . Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling. They fought against Midian and killed EVERY man. They also killed Balaam, son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.”

When the Israelites returned to camp, Moses was angry with the leaders. Num. 31:15, “Have you allowed all the women to live? They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plaque struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

So, God says, “take vengeance” . . . “kill every man”. The Israelites took the spoils of war home and captured every woman and young girl. And the fact that they didn’t kill the women angered Moses.

WOW! This sounds like God is some kind of war criminal. Is this the God of love, mercy, and patience that we read about in Scripture? What is going on here?

The expression, in verse 7, “they killed every man” probably meant “every man who fought the Israelites” We know this because the Midianites were not wiped out and are seen in the days of Gideon.

Have you noticed that if your supervisor likes you, it is very easy for him to see your strengths and to overlook your faults? Likewise, if he doesn’t like you, he can see little more than your faults. Either way, there is a biased view of your job performance, either for good or for ill.

Our view of God can also be biased. An atheist can read through the Scriptures and see a God who has an “anger management” problem, who hates gays, women, and orders genocidal wars against others. A believer might only see a God who is loving, patient and merciful.

Vengeance, killing, and kidnapping aren’t activities we usually associate with the character of God as we like to think of Him. We would rather focus on the nice traits of God, His love, patience, and mercy rather than His anger, justice, and wrath. But to do so will give us a distorted view of Him, a caricature rather than an accurate and complete picture.

It’s human nature to want to hear the pleasant rather than the unpleasant. The Israelites would rather listen to false prophets speak lies than to hear than true prophets speak the truth that they needed to hear.  The Israelites told the prophets, in Isa. 30:10, “Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions.”

We like to focus on those passages that describe God in terms that we find most appealing.

John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

1 John 4:8, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

God was patient with those who were living in sin. Old Testament prophets oftentimes preached to the people for years, even generations, to get them to repent and avoid judgment.

Jonah recognized His patience and mercy. Jonah 4:2, “I know that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.”

In Gen. 18:32 God says to Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were as few as ten righteous people living there. There weren’t, so the cities were destroyed.

He is also merciful, kind, and so many other easy to accept traits. But he is even more. He is also a God of justice, anger, and wrath.

Isaiah 30:18, “Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore, he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!

Besides the love of God there is also the anger and wrath of God. Moses praises the wrath of God in Exodus 15:7. In Deut. 9:19, after the incident of The Golden Calf, Moses said, "I feared the furious anger of the LORD.”

Jesus spoke of the wrath of God in John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

If God is a God of justice, does He have the right to command the Israelites to attack the Amalekites for their injustices? The Amalekites were the ones who attacked Israelite men, women, and children who were on their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land.

If God is a God of justice, does He have the right to punish those who led the Israelites to engage in idolatry and perverse sexual acts in the tabernacle?

It’s important to recognize that God did not randomly kill innocent people. The Midianite women were not innocent victims.

What about taking captive the innocent young girls? What else could the Israelites have done with them? Should they have abandoned them to starve or to be kidnapped and abused by other people? They were taken captive, but they weren’t taken captive to be abused, tortured, or killed in a death camp. They were taken in by the Israelites and cared for. Their care was more in line with German prisoners of war (POWs) who were taken to the U.S. during WW II than the Jews who were taken to concentration camps. Here is a video showing how the allied nations cared for captured German soldiers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bu5FUjpPu0

The wrath and justice of God led to the deaths of many in the plaque that hit the Israelites (Num. 25). The attack on the Midianites killed many people guilty of the same sin. The remaining males were potential enemies of Israel and continued to pose a threat to their existence. The innocent young girls were protected from harm.

Many nations have agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention rules of war that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict. The purpose of this agreement is to save lives, reduce suffering and unnecessary destruction. Civilians, medical personnel, and aid workers were to be protected, as were prisoners of war. The sick and wounded were to be cared for, regardless of what side they were on. Prisoners can’t be tortured or treated in a degrading manner. Rape and other forms of sexual violence is also prohibited.

God gave Moses a similar set of rules for the same reasons, to minimize suffering and destruction. Plus, as the Israelites moved closer to Canaan, God filled the Canaanites hearts with fear to drive them out in an effort to avoid military conflict altogether. God wasn’t interested in annihilation, but only expulsion. And when there was to be military conflict between the Israelites and the remaining soldiers, there were rules of war then, as today, to minimize suffering and destruction.

Deut. 20:10, “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.” War was always to be a last resort.

Deut. 20:19, “When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.”

Deut. 21:10-14 “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

God is a God of love, patience, and mercy. He is also a God of judgement, anger, and wrath. To only see only one aspect of God is to have a distorted view of Him. General, George S. Patton was known as “Old blood and guts” to his soldiers, and he was feared by his enemies.  But that was only one side of him. I bet his grandchildren didn’t see him that way. To them, he wasn’t “Old blood and guts”, he was just Grandpa who wrestled with them on the living room floor. Just like General Patton, we have to see both sides of God to get a more complete picture of who He is.

We like to focus on the love of Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away our sins. But there is also the other side, described in Revelation where he is described as the Lion of Judah. Rev. 19:11, “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.”

God is not a moral monster. After exhibiting much patience and mercy He can and will inflict punishment. When there were wars of expulsion, He first drove the enemies out by putting fear into their hearts. And, finally, when military action was required, there were guidelines in place to minimize suffering and unnecessary damage.

Numbers 32-36 Towns for the Levites and Cities of Refuge

The Israelites are about to move into the promised land. It’s an exciting time. Their parents have been talking about this day for years. They must wonder what it will be like for them in this country they have never visited before.

A couple of the tribes, Reuben and Gad, were known for their huge herds. They marveled at the beautiful pastureland on the east side of the Jordan River. They asked Moses and Eleazar the priest and the other leaders of the community if they might be assigned this part of the country for their herds. They said, in Num. 32:5, “If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan.”

They may have wanted this land, but it appears they also wanted to avoid confronting the enemy.

Moses was shocked at this request. Num. 32:6, “Shall your countrymen go to war while you sit here?”

If these two tribes stayed behind, this could lead to the other tribes revolting as well. That’s the last thing Moses wanted to deal with as his role as leader was coming to an end.

The Reubenites and Gadites went onto explain in verse 17, “But we are ready to arm ourselves and go ahead of the Israelites until we have brought them to their place. Meanwhile our women and children will live in fortified cities. We will not return to our homes until every Israelite has received his inheritance.”

Moses agreed to their request, but he wanted to be sure that the nation remained united as they took over the land. In the back of his mind, he may have feared that this younger generation would be no more committed to the plan God had for them than their parents had been.

Num. 33 lists some of the places the Israelites have been since leaving Egypt. There are a lot of, “They left here and then camped over there” verses. Why did Moses bother with this? Was he getting nostalgic? Perhaps it was to teach or remind the younger generation of all the places that God had led their parents over the years as they wandered through the wilderness. By remembering the past it might encourage the younger generation that God will also be with them as they moved forward into the promised land.

We sometimes do the same thing. We can look back and see God’s hand in our lives, even if we didn’t recognize it as such at the time. We made it thorough past challenges and we can feel certain that we can handle what might lay ahead of us. Remembering how we met past challenges helps us to handle future ones.

Num. 33:50, “When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols and demolish all their high places.”

Did God have the right to drive people out of their homes? Well, since God created the land, He can choose to give a small portion of it to a particular group. Ps. 24:1-2, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.” Besides, it’s not as if these people were such wonderful, peace-loving people. After all, they were known for idolatry, immorality, even infant sacrifices to pagan gods, etc.

Notice that God didn’t tell the Israelites to kill everyone, just drive them out. Earlier God promised to put fear into their hearts and drive them out like hornets would. That being the case, there should be very little bloodshed. The only people who would be at risk of injury or death would be the diehard young men who insist on fighting.

What if the Israelites failed to drive them out? What if they decided on a Plan B? What if they said, “Well, why can’t we just learn to live together? What harm would there be in that?” Well, God wouldn’t like that idea. He makes it clear in Num. 33:55, “If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.”

In other words, “If you don’t drive them out of the land, you will become corrupted by their lifestyle and then I will drive you out of the land.” And, of course, that is exactly what happened. The Israelites did not drive them out. They did not destroy their idols. They did worship their pagan gods. And they were taken into captivity by the Babylonians.

Not only were the Israelites to drive them out, but they were to destroy their carved images, their cast idols and demolish all their “high places”. The high places were shrines with an elevated platform. Something like a home altar where people go to meditate and pray. Archeologists have excavated such structures at Megiddo and Tel Dan in Israel.

In Num. 34 Moses gives the people the boundaries of each tribe and announces the new leaders for each of the tribes.

Can you sense the excitement in the air? People know where they will be settling. They know who their new leaders are going to be. They will be moving into houses they didn’t have to build, harvest food from gardens they didn’t have to plant. What kind of questions would you have at this time?

If you recall, the Levites were not to inherit any tribal territory because they were going to be working in the tabernacle on behalf of all the other tribes. But they did receive cities scattered throughout the nation. There would be forty-eight such cities for the Levites through the nation mentioned in Num. 35.

I don’t think of these cities as monasteries where the Levites would be isolated from the general population. I view them as being more like salt scattered throughout the nation having a positive influence on all the tribes. Imagine if seminary students, rather than living on campus, were scattered throughout the neighborhood. Their presence, I would hope, would have a positive influence on the community.

Among these cities for the Levites were six cities known as cities of refuge. What’s a city of refuge? If someone killed another person, the victims’ family would appoint an avenger or redeemer to go after that person to seek monetary payment or to kill the accused. To protect the accused until there was a trial, the accused could seek shelter in a city of refuge. This prevented individuals from taking the law into their own hands. But if the accused left the city of refuge and is killed by the avenger, the avenger is not guilty of murder.

In the city of refuge, a trial would be held to determine if the accused intended to murder the victim or whether killing was unintentional. The community would decide, not the family of the victim. Num. 35:16, “If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; and murderer shall be put to death.”

If a deadly weapon is used, then there is a presumption of guilt. If he is found guilty then he is turned over to the avenger.

But, if someone is struck unintentionally and there is no evidence of hostile intent, then the accused is not guilty of murder.

When the high priest dies, the accused is free to leave the city of refuge. Why his death allows for a “pardon” of sorts is not commented on very much. One commentator suggests that the death of the high priest in some way might atone for the accidental death of someone.

The principle of “pardoning” someone at the death of the high priest of other high- ranking person is seen in Ex. 2:23. “the king of Egypt died.” Only then, in Exodus chapter 3 did God call Moses to go back to Egypt without fear of him being arrested for the killing of an Egyptian (Ex. 2:12), who was beating up an Israelite

.   

Num. 35:30, “Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.”

There also had to be two eyewitnesses to the murder. The Hebrew word for “witness” can mean an eyewitness or someone who had learned about something. Lev. 5:1 illustrates this. “If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.”

This tells us that if you know something about a criminal act, you are under obligation to testify.

The fact that there had to be two eyewitnesses is important. Our memories are not like video cameras. Our memories are error prone and sometimes just untrustworthy. We sometimes remember things as we want to remember them. We sometimes change the facts and add false details when we retrieve our memories. This is illustrated when you hear two people describing an event. One person sometimes corrects the other about the details of the story. Have you heard something like this? “We were driving into Atlanta when we had a flat tire.” “No, it was as we were driving into Savanah.” “Well, we stopped at a McDonalds”. “No, it was a Wendy’s. We stopped at McDonald’s the next day.”  Both individuals experienced the same events but remember them quite differently.

It seems to me that when two witnesses are required and without any forensic evidence (fingerprinting and DNA analysis) as we have today to determine guilt, that many homicides probably went unpunished. In modern law, there is the concept of the Golden Thread, which states that the prosecution must prove the prisoner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This suggests that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person be found guilty.

Why does the law insist that a murder be executed while other capital crimes can be settled with a ransom? It is because of the status of man. Gen. 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”

It is because man is more than a higher form of mammalian life that capital punishment is legitimate in cases of first-degree murder. The apostle Paul recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate. Rom.13:4, “For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Those who oppose capital punishment might make the argument that executing a criminal is just as wrong as the murder committed by the condemned prisoner. But that isn’t so. Executing a guilty person is not the moral equivalence of murdering an innocent person. In principle, executing criminals is a legitimate punishment. A stronger argument against capital punishment is the corruption that is found in the judicial system which can lead to an innocent person being executed.

Besides murder, there were other crimes that were classified as capital offenses. The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: kidnapping (Ex. 21:16), bestiality (Ex. 22:19), striking or cursing parents (Ex. 21:15,17), breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:15), adultery (Lev.20:10), homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), being a false prophet (Deut.13:5), prostitution and rape (Deut. 22:24). For all capital crimes, except for murder, the convicted criminal could pay a ransom rather than be executed.

Why then were these other crimes classified as capital offenses such as striking or cursing a parent or breaking the Sabbath? Because it demonstrated to the people how serious these crimes were in the eyes of God.

What can we take away from this book, other than learning from the mistakes of a rebellious and disobedient people? The books’ title, in Hebrew is “in the wilderness.” It’s a book of man’s failure of faith and Gods’ faithfulness despite it. It’s a book about wasted years, worthless wanderings, and regrets.

Like the Israelites, most of us can look back at missed opportunities, misdirected efforts and even rebellion against God. We’ve probably done our share of wasted time and worthless wanderings in our lives. Are those wasted years lost forever?

A passage from Joel comes to my mind. The Israelites had experienced four years of crop failures where giant locust devastated their crops. Yet God says to them, in Joel 2:25, “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—   the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm—my great army that I sent among you.”

I find it reassuring to think that God can restore to us the years the locust of our wanderings and rebellion have eaten just as he did with the Israelites. Moses spent many years waiting and wandering, yet God multiplied his fruitfulness, and He can do the same in our lives.  

DEUTERONOMY - THE SECOND GIVING OF THE LAW, FAREWELL ADDRESS OF MOSES BEFORE THE SECOND GENERATION GOES INTO THE PROMISED LAND

Why does Moses have to give the law a second time? The people he gave the law to earlier, refused to go into the Promised Land and died in the wilderness. Now, their children have grown up and they are the ones who will enter the Promised Land. So, Moses has to repeat the laws. 

Deut 2:25; “This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.” 

Now instead of the Israelites being afraid of going into the Promised Land, the people of Canaan are going to be terrified of the Israelites. Many leave the country to avoid war; those who do not leave are to be forced out or, if necessary, killed.

Deut 4:2; “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the command of the Lord your god that I give you.” 

Oftentimes churches add to or take away from what God wants by making their traditions binding on their people or by ignoring parts of the Bible. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for “setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions” (Mark 7:9). 

Deut 4:25-27; “After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time-if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol . . . you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.”

 God’s promise to Abraham giving him land is unconditional, but the privilege of remaining in the land is conditional upon their obedience.

The land will always be theirs, but the privilage to live there is based on their behavior. This is like your son buying his first car. It is his car, but, if his grades go down, he loses the privilage of driving it. 

Deut 6:6-7; “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” 

The Passover Seder’s goal is nothing less than assuring the Jewish people’s continuity by having the parents teach their children how God freed their ancestors from slavery. For this reason, much of the Seder is designed to involve the children, since they will carry Judaism into the next generation.

It is the parent’s responsibility to teach the Word of God to their children. We can delegate to others in the church the authority to teach, but parents retain the responsibility. We can’t assume that by taking the children to church and Sunday school that they are getting the teaching they need.

Are you children learning anything in their Sunday school classes? 

Deut 17:14-20 Moses anticipates the desire of his people for a king, which they demand in I Sam 8:5. 

Deut 20:16 Here is a passage that troubles some of us and is oftentimes used by militant atheists to criticize God, calling him a sadistic, violent deity. In Deut 20:16 God tells the Israelites that when they enter the land, “. . . do not leave anything that breathes. Completely destroy them . . .” Wow, that’s pretty harsh. Does this passage sound like the ranting of a psychopathic mass murderer or that of a loving God? Are we missing something here? Is God commanding the Israelites to kill babies and small children, the frail, sick and aged? Is there more to the command to “completely destroy them” than appears on the surface? We know that we should not take one passage out of context or only look at one passage dealing with the subject at hand and ignore others that can shed some light on the issue. So let’s look at a few other passages and perhaps we can better understand this passage. 

If you look at Lev. 20:22-23, it says “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you . . .” God is going to “drive them out” He is going to expel them from the land, not exterminate them in the land. What tool did He use to expel them from the land?

In Ex 23:27 Moses is told, “I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.” God is going to use FEAR to drive the enemy out of the land. We see this fear impacting them before the Israelites even entered the land. In Joshua 2:9 were we find the spies of Israel meeting with Rahab at Jericho. She says, “I know that the Lord as given this land to you and that a great FEAR of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country (not just those in Jericho) are melting in fear because of you.” Keep in mind that Jericho was not a city, but merely a fort with only about 150 people on hand. Most of these inhabitants were probably soldiers, whoever else who may have been there have already fled in fear. What was Rahab doing there? The fort probably protected a trade route so it served as an outpost for the military and a place for travelers to stay on their journey.

One question that we have to consider is: When God commands the Israelites to kill everyone or everything that breathes, are these commands to be taken literally? Let’s take a look at Joshua 8:16-17 and see if the word “all” should be taken literally. It says, “ALL the men of Ai were called to pursue them (the Israelites), and they pursued Joshua and were lured away from the city. Not a man remained in Ai.” Here we see that the city appears to have been emptied of all inhabitants. But in verse 24 it says, “. . . and when every one of them had been put to the sword (the ones lured out of the city) all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it.” Now, how could they kill those in the city if all of them had already been lured out of it? Apparently “all” does not always mean “all.” We see this elsewhere in Scripture where “all” does not always mean “all”. In II Chron 36:16-17 we find the city of Jerusalem being destroyed and it says that the Babylonians “killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged.” But in verse 20 it says that “He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword.” Again, how could one passage say that no one was spared, but later we are told that survivors were taken captive?

In Joshua 10:40 it says that Joshua subdues the WHOLE region and that “He left no survivors. He totally destroyed ALL who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.” But in the next book, Judges 1:21 it says “The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem . . .” Later in Judges 1:27 we read that Manasseh “did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Tanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land.” If you read the rest of this chapter you will find that many of the other tribes did not drive out all of the inhabitants.

So what really happened as the Israelites invaded Canaan and why did God tell them to not leave anything alive that breaths? Does the Bible contradict itself or do we not clearly understand what He meant? Here is one explanation. Throughout history military leaders have used hyperbolic statements to both inspire the troops and to put fear into the hearts of the enemy. If you recall the movie Patton, starring George C. Scott, it opens with General Patton giving a speech to his troops. In this speech he says, “We have the finest food and equipment; the best spirit and best men in the world. We are going to cut out their guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushels.”

This is typical military talk, but it is not to be taken literally, it is stereotypical speaking. The U.S. did not have the best of equipment. Compared to the Germans Panther tanks, our Sherman tanks were equipped with an inferior 75 mm cannon and the armor was thinner than the Panther’s. Ours were nicknamed after the popular Ronson cigarette lighter, which some claim used an advertising slogan that said, “Lights first time, every time.” The Sherman would oftentimes burst into flame when it was hit. We didn’t have the best machine guns, either. The Germans had the MG 42, a reliable, durable and simple machine gun that could fire between 1,200 and 1,500 rounds per minute.

But we did have one great advantage over the German military. Our great industrial capacity allowed us to build nearly 50,000 tanks, more than both Great Britain and Germany who could only produce about 6,000. We won the war by wearing them down; we won a war of attrition; not by having superior weapons.

In spite of what General Patton said, we were not going to “murder” the lousy Hun.” To do so would be to commit war crimes.

Also in support of this idea is found in Deut 7:3 where God tells the Israelites to NOT intermarry with the Canaanites. Now, how would they be able to intermarry with them if they took God’s command to kill everything that breaths, literally? And by the way, why would Rahab be spared if the Israelites were to kill “everything that breathed”?

In numerous passages (Deut 9:1; 11:23; 18:12, 14; 19:2) we are told that the Canaanites will not be exterminated but will be DRIVEN OUT of the land. To destroy, in these passages, means to expel, not exterminate in a genocidal rage. The command to kill everything that breaths is not the command of a psychopathic mass murdering deity, but a hyperbolic statement used by the military throughout history, and I might add, Jesus used hyperbolic statements when he said, “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off (Matt 5:30). ”

Deut 28: Blessing for obedience, curses for disobedience. 

Deut 34: Moses dies. He never made it into the Promised Land. Joshua takes over the leadership of the Israelites.

Congratulations to you if you have read through the first five books of the Bible. The Pentateuch, is it is also known, is probably the most difficult part of the Bible. Some people have set a goal for themselves to read through the Bible in a year. They oftentimes get discouraged going through Leviticus and Numbers. The next section is the historical books.