OpenTheo
00:00
00:00

Numbers 25 - 27

Numbers
NumbersSteve Gregg

In an insightful analysis of Numbers 25-27, Steve Gregg explores the significance of the events and their relation to biblical teachings. Gregg highlights the distinction between Balaam and his prophecies, emphasizing that God did not curse Israel as intended. Drawing on Corinthians and Exodus, Gregg examines the interpretation of the death of 23,000, questioning its connection to the golden calf incident. Additionally, he discusses the increase in population and the division of land among the tribes. Throughout the discussion, Gregg emphasizes the importance of leadership and God's role in guiding His people.

Share

Transcript

Okay, we're at Numbers chapter 25 and we've just spent three chapters looking at Balaam and his prophecies where he blessed and did not curse Israel. And yet we are told in the New Testament that the man loved the wages of unrighteousness and did find a way to curse Israel after all, although God would not allow him to do so verbally. He did counsel Balak to send beautiful Moabite and Midianite women among the Israelite men to seduce them into sexual activities that would lead them into ritual sex in the worship of probably Chemosh or one of the other pagan gods.
And we read about that happening, although in chapter 25 we read about it, we don't read about Balaam's involvement in it until much later in chapter 31. But he was behind this plot. Then Israel remained in the Acacia Grove and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab.
Now here it says Moab, but the rest of it seems to indicate Midian. As I mentioned when we were talking about chapter 22, Midian and Moab seem to be intermixed together, almost as if they're one people at this point in time.
Both groups had probably been conquered at an earlier time by Sihon, the Amorite king, who is now defeated by Israel.
But it may be that the two nations of Moab and Midian had been quite intermixed under that coalition because we don't see much of any difference made between them.
We do see some distinction made between, for example, the mention of the, what does it say over in chapter 22, verse 7, it says, So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the diviner's spee in their hands to Tahir Balaam. So they are distinguished as two different groups, and yet they're spoken of almost interchangeably.
Their exact relationship is not known from exterior sources, and therefore we can only somewhat speculate as to why their views are so interchangeably.
But they, the women of Moab, verse 2, invited the people to sacrifice to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of Yahweh was aroused against Israel.
Now, apparently the attraction was the sex, because these pagan gods were worshipped through sexual orgies, sometimes even with ritual prostitutes in their temples who were their priestesses. That was true even in much later days, even in the Greek religion and in the Roman religion. And so Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, this made God angry, and then Yahweh said to Moses, take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before Yahweh out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.
Now, apparently a plague had come upon Israel, and it was to be, God was to be appeased by the hanging of all the people who had led Israel into this sin. So Moses said to the judges of Israel, every one of you, kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor. And indeed, even after this order was given, we read, one of the children of Israel came and presented to his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of Israel, who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.
Now, it's not clear if they were weeping in repentance because of the plague that had come upon them or if they were weeping as part of their ritual of worship to the false God. But it sounds like perhaps at this point, because God had begun to judge Israel, people were weeping in something like repentance. And yet, though that was happening, there was still this brazen defiance on the part of this one Israelite man who brought a Midianite woman right in the sight of Moses and of the people and even presented her to his brethren.
Now, who were his brethren? This man, we're told in verse 14, was named Zimri. He was the son of Sallu, a leader of a father's house among the Simeonites. Now, it may be since he was a leader of a father's house and he presented this woman to his brethren that he was trying to introduce officially this ritual.
Prostitution and worship of the false God, trying to introduce it as an official practice among his brethren. He didn't just go in and sleep with her. He presented her to his brethren in some way.
He was not, in other words, being shy or embarrassed about the situation. He was not trying to sneak around. He was trying to officially bring her in, apparently to the tabernacle of meeting.
Now, verse 7 says, when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand. And he went after the man of Israel into the tent. This may have actually been in the tabernacle itself.
And thrust both of them through the man of Israel and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. This is a rather gruesome judgment that came upon them.
They asked for it. I can't imagine how they thought that this was not going to be avenged. I mean, again, these people were very stupid.
And this is the second generation.
This is not the first generation of Egypt. These people are the new people who are actually going to conquer the land of Canaan.
They're making some of the same mistakes as the others. But the plague was stopped by this. And it says, nonetheless, those who died in the plague, verse 9, were 24,000.
Now, here we have a slight discrepancy, as the records stand, between this statistic and that given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10, which is apparently about the same incident. In 1 Corinthians 10 and verse 8, Paul said, nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did. And in one day, 23,000 fell.
Now, what Paul is doing here in this section, as we know, because we've seen this passage a number of times already, he's going through some of the history of Israel in the wilderness and showing the mistakes they made and saying, this is a warning to us, this is something for us to avoid. And in the midst of it, he says, let us not commit sexual immorality as some of them did. And in one day, 23,000 fell.
Now, the problem here, obviously, is that Paul says 23,000 fell, whereas Numbers, chapter 25 and verse 9 says 24,000 fell. Now, there are a couple of ways that this has been resolved by Bible scholars. Though I don't accept either of them as very likely.
You might, and that's OK if you find them to commend themselves to your reasoning, then that's fine. I think there's probably a more accurate way to describe the problem and its cause. One solution I've seen offered is that Paul is not referring to this incident, that Paul is referring to a different incident.
In fact, I've heard it said that he was referring in chapter 1 Corinthians 10, 8 to the golden calf incident. Now, we know that in the golden calf incident, there were 3000 people who were slain by the Levites because of that. But we're told that there was an untold number of people who died from drinking from a plague that came upon them when they drank the water that Moses.
Remember, Moses ground the calf down, put the dust in water, made the people drink it. And a plague came on the people and a great number of them died. We don't know how many.
And some commentators will say, well, this Paul tells us here how many died then. Because Exodus doesn't tell us how many died in that plague. So Paul's telling us there's 23,000, therefore, he's not contradicting numbers because he's not talking about the same incident that numbers is talking about.
There's a couple of problems I have with that. One is that although in the same context of 1 Corinthians 10, Paul warns against idolatry. For example, in the previous verse, he says, do not become idolaters as some of them were.
As it is written, the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Now, the idolatry he mentions in 1 Corinthians 10, 7 is the golden calf incident because he quotes from that. The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
That was quoted in Exodus as being about the golden calf incident. But Paul then gives a different concern. It says, nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did.
And we do not read in Exodus that they committed sexual immorality at the golden calf. They might have. Some people think that the words they rose up to play refers to them having an orgy there and they may have.
It's not impossible, but we're not told in Exodus that they did have an orgy. We're not told that they committed sexual immorality there. The sexual behavior of the golden calf incident is not mentioned in Exodus.
Therefore, Paul would have to be assuming it here. And why would he do that when, in fact, there is the case of Baal Peor, which specifically it was instigated by sexual immorality. Associated with idolatry, of course, but sexual immorality nonetheless.
Furthermore, where would Paul get the information that in one day, 23000 fell at the golden calf incident since the number is not given in Exodus? So I think what Paul got it by inspiration. Well, let me say this. Paul did get revelations from God.
On one occasion, he was caught up in the third heaven and heard things that he couldn't repeat. And there were other times when Jesus appeared to him and gave him special information. But the number of people that died in the plague at the golden calf incident does not appear to be a statistic so important as to occupy one of these rare occurrences where Jesus revealed special things to Paul.
It seems to be a matter that Paul and his readers were expected to know from the record rather than him saying, by the way, you guys, God revealed me that number. It was not revealed in the Old Testament that I was caught in the third heaven and Jesus told me the number was 23000. Well, again, Paul's visits to the third heaven were probably not frequent and they were probably reserved for very special revelations.
And it doesn't seem very likely to me that Jesus would have taken the opportunity to tell Paul the number of people that even Moses didn't choose to record since that number is not important. I mean, just to know that many people died has as much impact as knowing it was 23000. I don't think that it is likely that Paul got this number by revelation.
My impression is that he's referring to an incident that he expects his readers to have heard about and read about and that he's simply quoting the facts from the record. Now, you could see it differently if you want to, but I just don't think it's likely that he would refer to the golden calf incident as an instance of sexual immorality when Exodus does not. And then he would give the number of those slain in the plague when Exodus is not.
And when giving the number doesn't really advance the spiritual benefit of the readers over not knowing the number that died. So I think that Paul is referring to Baal Peor. There the issue was sexual immorality, which led to idolatry.
And there the number was very close to the number Paul gives. The number in Numbers is 24000. The number Paul gives is 23000.
Now, the other solution that evangelicals give, and they give it quite frequently, is that Paul is in fact talking about the same incident as Numbers chapter 25. He is talking about Baal Peor. But he says that in one day 23000 fell.
Now, in Numbers it says altogether 24000 died. And so the explanation often given is, well, Paul is not telling us the total number who died. He's telling us how many died in one day.
They say what Paul is telling us is that of that 24000 who eventually died of that plague, 23000 died one day. The other 1000 must have died afterward from maybe lingering effects of the plague or something. Now, again, this is a valiant attempt to make there be no contradiction between Paul and Numbers, but it has its problems.
For one thing, where would Paul get this information again? The book of Numbers doesn't tell us that 23000 died in one day and 1000 died later. It just tells us the total number that died. Where would Paul learn that 23000 of those 24000 actually died a different day than the other 1000 died? Once again, he would have to know it by divine revelation.
And is that really a piece of information significant enough that God would interrupt Paul's normal mental state in order to give him information about the fact that these 24000 who died, actually 1000 died the next day and 23000 died one day? I mean, it's so it'd be such an insignificant bit of data and irrelevant to anything that it just doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that God gives in special revelations when he gives people special revelations in the Bible. Usually when he gives special revelations, it's earth shaking stuff. It's stuff that's relevant, that's edifying, that's necessary, that's helpful, that's a warning or something that people really need to know.
It's not an everyday thing that God just kind of shows up and gives a special revelation to someone. It's usually when he has something special to say, not in order to clarify a small statistic that whereas numbers says 24000 died, that God wants to make clear there were only 23000 the first day who died. The other 1000 died the next day.
Obviously, it's not consequential and therefore not likely that Paul got a special revelation about that number. So what solution is there? Well, to me, it seems like a scribal error, a scribal error does not impugn the inspiration of the Old Testament. It does not even impugn the accuracy of Paul himself.
A scribal error would mean that Paul, when he wrote this, actually wrote the same figure that was in the book of Numbers. Now, whether that figure was 23000 in the book of Numbers, but that since then, our copies of the book of Numbers have been corrupted to say 24000. Or on the other hand, whether the figure was originally 24000 in Numbers and that's what Paul wrote, but that some scribe copying Paul's work before we got our hands on it, accidentally changed the number to 23000.
I don't know. By the way, I wouldn't really have any problem if we just said Paul's memory failed him. If Paul was working from memory and he thought it was 23000, he put it down and he was wrong.
So you say, oh, wait a minute, that's against the inspiration of 1 Corinthians. Well, it's not against anything Paul said about the inspiration of 1 Corinthians. Paul didn't say anything about the inspiration of 1 Corinthians, nor did God say anything about it anywhere.
There's no place in the scripture that says anything about the inspiration of 1 Corinthians. Paul doesn't claim inspiration and he even makes mistakes in 1 Corinthians and has to correct himself. Which I mean, this may be a mistake Paul made, but I'm not going to assume it.
I could assume that a scribe or copyist made the mistake at a later date than Paul. But if Paul had made the mistake, it would not be a problem to me. We know of another mistake Paul made in 1 Corinthians and I've given it on many times as an example of it.
But it certainly proves that Paul could make a mistake. Because in 1 Corinthians 1, in verse 14, it says, I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius. And then he corrected himself in verse 16.
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, besides I don't know whether I baptized any other. In other words, Paul's not claiming that he's giving some kind of an oracle to the Corinthians as he writes a personal letter to them. He's not claiming that he's writing under inspiration.
He doesn't remember how many people he baptized. At first he thought it was only Crispus and Gaius and he affirmed that it was only Crispus and Gaius. Then he remembered, oh wait, there was some others too, now that I think about it.
So we see that Paul was entirely capable of making a mistake and he didn't even pretend otherwise. He wasn't trying to fake like he was writing under inspiration. It's later traditions that impose that upon his writings.
He doesn't make any such claims for them. He's writing a personal letter to people he knew, just like any pastor might write a letter to his church or something like that. The difference between Corinthians and let's say a letter your pastor would write to the church is that Paul was an apostle.
And so regardless of inspiration, he had apostolic authority and what he commanded are the commands of Christ. And so he said in 1 Corinthians 14, he said, if anyone thinks he's spiritual or prophet, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. That he said in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 37.
He's not saying he's writing under inspiration. He's saying that what he commands is what Jesus commands because he's an apostle. He has the authority of Christ to speak.
So anyway, Paul does give a different number. I feel that it's really unreasonable to suggest that he's talking about a different plague than this one. I think it's also not very reasonable to say he's giving us a little more detail than numbers gives since he didn't have any other information other than what numbers gives.
If in fact 23,000 died one day and a thousand the next day, numbers doesn't tell us so. And therefore, Paul would have to either make that up or get it by revelation. And there's no reason to assume that either is true.
There's simply nothing unreasonable about an evangelical thing. Either Paul made a mistake. He remembered the number wrongly or just like he remembered wrongly the number of people he baptized.
Or, and by the way, if you remember wrongly the number of people you actually baptized, you might be forgiven for getting a number of something that happened thousands of years earlier that you weren't there to witness. So, I mean, it's not really a problem. But if if it is a problem to people, then it's not hard to say that Paul, when he wrote First Corinthians, actually did put the right number there.
But we don't have Paul's handwriting. We have copies of copies of copies. And one of the people who copied it copied the number wrong.
There's so many different ways to solve it. There's no there's no reason to see this as a problem to me. At least I don't see any reason to see it as a problem.
But we do have this number of people given in numbers 25, 9. Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying this is in verse 10. Phineas, the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron, the priest has turned back my wrath from the children of Israel because he was zealous with my zeal among them so that I did not consume the children of Israel in my zeal. Therefore, say, behold, I give to him my covenant of peace and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood because he was zealous for his God and made atonement for the children of Israel.
Actually, Eliezer did become the replacement for his father. He was actually the grandson of Aaron. Do I say Eliezer Phineas, the son of Eliezer, became the priest after Eliezer.
And it says now the name of the Israelite who was killed. Who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri, the son of Salu, a leader of his father's house among the Semites. And the name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cosby, the daughter of Zor.
He was the head of the people of a father's house in Midian. So these were noble families represented by these centers. A major leader in Midian was the father of this girl and a major leader in the house of Simeon was the man involved.
Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, harass the Midianites and attack them. For they harassed you with their schemes. This wasn't just a matter of, you know, some girls seducing some men.
It was a scheme. It was, of course, Balaam's scheme by which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cosby, the daughter of a leader in Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague because of Peor. Now, this same harass the Midianites would be fulfilled in chapter 31.
Actually, it's not until chapter 31 that we find they go and do attack the Midianites and they do fight this war of retaliation. In the meantime, in between, we have some more laws. And before even that, we have the second census.
The census was taken originally of Israel in chapter one when we saw that there were two hundred and three thousand five hundred fifty men above 20 years of age. And we saw the number of men in each tribe. We were also told at that time who the leaders of the tribes were.
Here we have another census very similar in form to that one in chapter one. This one, of course, is of the new generation, though we see how the dying off of the old generation and the coming of the new generation has affected the total population of each of the tribes. Some of them went up in numbers and some went down and somewhat drastically down.
And yet the overall population remain roughly the same, whereas the population of the first generation had been six hundred and three thousand five fifty. This population totals six thousand one thousand seven hundred thirty, so that it's just almost exactly two thousand people less than a generation earlier. And we have the numbers given for each tribe.
Here we have given, in addition to the numbers of each tribe, a breakdown of the various clans or families of each tribe. The information for which is probably taken from Genesis forty five, which told about not only Jacob's sons, but his grandsons. And these grandsons of Jacob became clan leaders or clan heads of each tribe.
And so we have the names of the tribes and we have the names of the clans within the tribes. And then we have the number given and we don't need to read this entire chapter because it's well, frankly, it's a census. But we I will summarize what's in it, but let's begin it.
And it came to pass after the plague that the Lord spoke to Moses and Eliezer, the son of Aaron, the priest saying, take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel from twenty years old and above by their fathers houses, all who are able to go to war in Israel. So Moses and Eliezer, the priest, spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho saying, take a census of the people from twenty years old and above, just as the Lord commanded Moses and the children of Israel who came out of the land of Egypt. OK, so just as they had done with the people who came out of Egypt, now they're going to do with those who are their offspring and in verses five through 13.
And also through eleven five through eleven is a description of the census of the tribe of Reuben. Suffice it to say, their number was forty three thousand seven hundred thirty. The numbers given in verse seven.
There is more information about them because they've been in a by room were also of the sons of Reuben and had rebelled with Korah and had died when the earth opened up and swallowed them. And that information is we're reminded of that in verses nine and ten. But in verse eleven, we are told, nevertheless, the children of Korah did not die.
I mentioned that earlier when we saw the actual destruction of these people in chapter sixteen seventeen sixteen particularly that the children of David and Byron died with their fathers and their wives apparently died with him, too. But Korah died alone without his children and his children, his offspring eventually wrote some of our songs in the book of Psalms. But we are told here specifically that the children of Korah did not die.
I mentioned the reason might have been because they were adults at the time and live separately, didn't live in their father's tent and therefore were not involved with him. Anyway, their number is forty three thousand seven hundred thirty. According to verse seven, now the previous census, the number of the Rubenites is forty six thousand five hundred.
So they dipped just a little bit. They dipped on about three thousand, almost three thousand people. Then in verses twelve.
Through fourteen, we have the sons of Simeon. Their number is twenty two thousand two hundred. Now, this is the tribe that had lost the most in the previous census.
Their number was fifty nine thousand three hundred. That is almost sixty thousand. In the first census is down to twenty two thousand two hundred in verse fourteen.
So they've lost like almost two thirds of their population. There's no explanation for why this was and no other tribe was as big a loser. These guys were definitely they win the biggest loser prize.
It might have to do with the fact that this leader of the problems that Bale payor was a Simeonite. That is Zimri, the guy who slept with the Midianite girl and got herself speared. He was of the tribe of Simeon.
It's possible since he presented her to his brother and that many of them also followed him. We don't know how long this went on or to what extent this paganism and idolatry began to affect certain tribes. All we know is the name of one man who was a leader in a house of Simeon.
And it was the case that we see fewer of the people of Simeon here than ever before. In fact, it might be that most of those who died in that play were of the tribe of Simeon. If that is so, and we have no reason to know that is so, but if it was so, that would explain some things.
That would mean that the number had dipped. Well, if you add, say, twenty four thousand to what's there, you'd have forty six thousand Simeonites. And that's going to be much closer to the original fifty nine thousand.
But still, they lost considerably even apart from that. Verses fifteen through eighteen give us the number of the tribe of Gad. The numbers in verse eighteen is forty thousand five hundred.
And that is down also because in the first census, the tribe of Gad had forty five thousand six hundred and fifty. Forty five thousand six fifty was their original number. Now they're down about five thousand to forty thousand five hundred.
Verses nineteen through twenty two give the tribe of Judah's numbers and that's going to be seventy six thousand five hundred. And that's up. That's up about two thousand from the first census.
In the first census, it was seventy four thousand six hundred. Then verses twenty three through twenty five, the tribe of Issachar's numbers were sixty four thousand three hundred. A very large tribe for one of lesser significance.
Their number, sixty four thousand, is actually up ten thousand from their first numbers. Originally, their numbers were fifty four thousand four hundred. Now they're almost exactly ten thousand more up at sixty four thousand three hundred.
Then the tribe of Zebulun is in verses twenty six through twenty seven. Their number is now sixty thousand five hundred up a little up about three thousand from the previous census, which was fifty seven thousand four hundred for them. Verse twenty eight through thirty four, the tribe of Manasseh.
Their number is fifty two thousand seven hundred. Up twenty thousand from before. They are one of the biggest gainers percentage wise from thirty two thousand two hundred to fifty two thousand seven hundred.
They've gained ten thousand five hundred, which is like a third of their original size has been added to their numbers. They've gained twenty thousand five hundred. My mistake.
And therefore, two thirds of their original size has been added to their original number. They've really gained tremendously. Now, in talking about Manasseh, there's an aside there in verse thirty three, which is now Zilothahad, the son of Hefer, had no sons but daughters.
And the names of his daughters are given, which are Mala, Noah, Hoogla, Milka and Tirzah. These daughters become the focal point of two other chapters later on. So that's why they're mentioned here.
Just an interruption of the symmetry of the of the census. Generally, this was a family in Manasseh, a man who didn't have any sons. It must have been unusual for men to have no sons.
God apparently gave sons to most of the families. This man had five daughters, but no sons. And that put his family in a precarious situation for inheritance questions.
And so in chapters twenty seven, which is the next chapter. And chapter thirty six, the last chapter in the book, these daughters of Zilothahad are actually the instigators of new legislation from God to determine the rights of daughters and families that have no sons. Their names are given here and also elsewhere.
Mala, Noah, Hoogla, Milka and Tirzah. I always thought Tirzah was an attractive name. Hoogla, not so much.
Verse thirty five. These are the sons of Ephraim. And so they run through verse thirty seven and their number is thirty two thousand five hundred.
That's down from before they had been forty thousand five hundred. So they've lost exactly eight thousand in their number. They're now thirty two thousand five hundred.
Then verses thirty eight through forty one, we have the tribe of Benjamin. The new numbers for Benjamin are forty five thousand six hundred. That's up ten thousand.
Actually up ten thousand two hundred from before they were thirty five thousand four hundred before. So they've increased thirty something percent. Tribe of Dan in verses forty two through forty three.
The numbers are sixty four thousand four hundred. Up slightly from sixty two thousand seven hundred in the first census. Up a little less than two thousand from the original number.
Verse forty four through forty seven. The sons of Asher. Their numbers are fifty three thousand four hundred.
That's just around two thousand from before also. I'm sorry. I take it I can look at the wrong number in the ten thousand column.
That's up twelve thousand from the early number. Their earlier number was forty one thousand five hundred. So up from forty one thousand five to fifty three thousand four for Asher.
And finally Naphtali in verses forty eight through fifty. The new numbers for Naphtali are forty five thousand four hundred. The old numbers were fifty three thousand four hundred.
So they're down exactly eight thousand from what they were before. So the total is given. The math is right.
Sixty. That is six hundred and one thousand seven hundred thirty is the new number. The old number was almost two thousand more than that.
About eighteen hundred more than that. So they've gone down, but not down very far in population. Verse fifty two.
Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying to these, the land shall be divided as an inheritance according to the number of names to a large tribe. You should give a larger inheritance and to a small tribe. You should give a smaller inheritance.
It shall be given its inheritance according to those who are numbered. Of them, but the land shall be divided by a lot and they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers, according to the lot. Their inheritance shall be divided between the larger and the smaller.
Now, I have to say this is entirely clear which way this is to be taken. But he is he is saying that the larger tribes will get larger parcels. That's only reasonable.
And the smaller tribes, smaller parcels. But but there'll be a division done by casting lots also. So it's not just going to be a matter of measuring out the size of certain parcels.
OK, well, that size corresponds with the size of this tribal. Put it there. God is actually going to be involved in choosing land.
Now, what I'm not sure of is this. Is it that it is saying that the tribe itself will receive certain, you know, parcels? But the division between the families of the tribe will be divvied up by the casting of lots so that the smaller divisions within the tribal land will be determined by the casting of lots. But by but the actual decision about what land each tribe gets will be simply made on the basis of mathematics.
Or is it saying simply that tribes that are, say, 60,000 or more would be called large tribes. And there'll be a certain number of parcels suitable for such tribes that size. And those will be divided between the different tribes by the casting of lots.
I think it's this latter way that most of the commentators take it. So maybe that is the way it is. But I don't know that it's worded in such a way that makes that obvious.
I guess it probably leans in favor of a group of plots that are large being given to large tribes by the casting of lots rather than the subdivision within the tribe. The casting of lots, though, was an important thing. For one thing, it was considered to be a way of getting the mind of God about things.
It was a way for God to make his will known to people. If they cast lots, God could control the way the lot would fall. And casting lots, of course, was, apart from God into consideration, simply a game of chance.
It's like rolling dice or drawing straws. Whoever gets the short straw wins or loses, depending on the arrangement. The point is, it seems to be just a game of chance to draw lots, to cast lots.
But it was not so, because the Israelites saw that at least in important matters for the casting of lots were used to find the mind of God, that God actually sovereignly superintended over the outcome of the lot being cast. And it is actually stated that that is the conviction of the Israelites by Solomon in Proverbs 16, verse 33, where he says, The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Proverbs 16, verse 33.
The lot is cast, but its decision comes from the Lord. So Solomon sees God as one determining the outcome of the casting of lots. Now does this mean that every time we want to know the mind of God about what to do, what schools to go to or not to go to, or whether to move to another town or not, that we can simply cast lots and God will guarantee that he'll give an answer from that? I don't know.
I wouldn't want to trust that assumption.
Because it's probable that the lots were only cast in certain special circumstances, where God had a special stake in the matter and would want the children of Israel to make no mistake about his will in the matter. And they were important matters, like the dividing of the land among the tribes, or the choosing of a new apostle to replace Judas.
Lots were cast for that too. The pagans even cast lots to find out who it was on their ship that was responsible for the storm that was coming up on them, and the lots fell on Jonah, and it had to be right. And so even when the pagans cast lots in that case, God caused it to turn out correct.
But again, that might have been a case sort of like God intervening in a case where occultists are doing something that God gives the answer he wants them to give anyway. In any case, the casting of lots served another purpose. In addition to finding the mind of God, it would simply be a way of ending disputes.
If everybody agreed, okay, heads I win, tails you win. You know, that kind of agreement. And there are times when it's that way, when things can't really be decided between two parties because both have an equal claim to get their way, so they just agree to the flip of a coin.
They'll agree to some kind of a game of chance that whoever wins, wins their way in general. And we read in Proverbs 18, 18, casting lots causes contentions to cease and keeps the mighty apart. Proverbs 18, 18, it causes contentions to cease when you cast lots.
Now that is to say, here's four parcels of ground in Canaan, and there's four tribes approximately the same size. Some of these parcels might be considered to be more desirable to some than to others. But if they're decided by the casting of lots, no one can say that favoritism was shown by Moses, or in this case by Joshua, in giving out the land to his favorites or whatever it is.
No one can claim that there was any prejudice shown against them. It was just left to the casting of lots. Now even if they didn't believe God was in it, which they did, but even if a person didn't believe that God was in the casting of lots, they could just say, well listen, I don't have any more claims of this parcel than you do, but I want it, and you want it, so let's just decide by a flip of a coin, or by a casting of lots.
That settles the contention. It means that, okay, we've made an agreement. The lot will decide it.
And, you know, I lost because the lot favored you, so we're not going to contend about this anymore. I accept the terms. And so casting lots was used for various things, to avoid conflict, and of course to discover the mind of God.
Now there's one other thing left in this, and that is the Levites. In chapters 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, the Levites actually receive separate treatment in separate chapters. But here we have, in verse 57 and following, these are those who were numbered of the Levites.
And their number is given, and it's up a little from before. Do you remember when they were numbered before there were 22,000 Levites? Now there's 23,000. So, verse 62 tells us they've gone up just 1,000 in their number, from 22 to 23,000.
Verse 63, these are those who were numbered by Moses and Eliezer the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab, by the Jordan, the cross, and Jericho. But among these, there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest when they numbered the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. All of them were dead, because the number was those 20 years old and up.
And all those 20 years old and up at that time were now dead. Only those under 20 were allowed to survive, with the exception of two men. And of course, we read that in verse 67, The Lord had said to them, they will surely die in the wilderness, so there was not left a man of them, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
So, the census is an entirely new batch of people, but not an entirely different number, a very similar number to that which was before. Now, it was mentioned in the course of that census about Zelophehad and his daughters. In verse 33.
And that raises the issue of, well, what does happen to a man's inheritance if he doesn't have any sons and he only has daughters? And that is brought up and resolved at the beginning of chapter 27. You see, the problem was this, that daughters usually would get married. And then their inheritance would be that of their husbands.
It would usually be that the sons would inherit the father's property, and so if the daughters of Zelophehad married some other men, then their inheritance would be their husbands' inheritance, not their dad's. But if all the daughters married other men, then that leaves their dad's inheritance sitting there vacant with no one to inherit it. And so, that was a question they raised to Moses, and Moses raised it with God.
And the answer was given. Chapter 27. So, Moses brought their case before Yahweh.
Moses was a good leader. He didn't just answer off the top of his head. He wanted to know what the mind of God was.
And he brought their case before Yahweh. Joshua got in trouble at a later date because he had to make a decision about forgiving Isaac. And it says he did not consult the Lord.
And therefore he was deceived by them and made a decision that he later regretted. Moses always seemed to consult the Lord about things before making a decision. And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying, The daughters of Zilatha had, they speak what is right.
You shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their fathers' brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. So this is an easy and straightforward solution.
Do the daughters have inheritance rights like the sons if there are no sons? And God says, yeah, that makes sense. They speak the right thing. Let's make that a rule.
If a man dies with no sons, his daughter is inherited. But of course that raises the question, what if he has no daughters? Well, if he has no daughter besides this, then you should give his inheritance to his brothers. But what if he doesn't have any brothers? Well, that's covered too.
If he has no brothers, then you should give his inheritance to his father's brothers, his uncles. Well, of course the next question is, what if his father didn't have any brothers? Well, if his father has no brothers, then you should give his inheritance to the kinsmen nearest him. Certainly there's somebody.
He doesn't have a son or a daughter or a brother or an uncle. There must be somebody, really. He came from somewhere.
He had to have ancestors. So whoever is nearest the relative, it might be his great-grandfather's brother is the nearest relative, but someone is related to him in some remote way. Give it to them.
Whoever is the kinsman nearest him in his family, he shall possess it. And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment, just as Yahweh commanded Moses. Now there's another matter here in chapter 27.
And that is the matter of succession. Moses is going to die, and he's reminded of that. God reminds him of that.
And the Lord said to Moses, Go up into this mount, Abarim, and see the land which I have given the children of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother was gathered. For in the wilderness of Zin, during the strife of the congregation, you rebelled against my command to hallow me at the waters before their eye.
These were the waters of Meribah at Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin. Then Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, Let Yahweh, the God of the spirit of all flesh, send a man over the congregation, who may go out before them, and go in before them, who may lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd. Now this is an extremely unselfish thing to be on Moses' mind, as he's told that he's going to die, and he's going to be disappointed.
And the thing he's been leading the children of Israel for, for the last 40 years, is something that he's not going to be able to finish, the task. He can't lead them in because of one wrong thing he did. And I expect more complaining from him, more self-pity perhaps.
And he did have that from time to time. The book of Deuteronomy, Moses says that he did complain to the Lord about that matter on a number of occasions. But this time he didn't.
He thought, well, who's going to lead these people? I remember when I was young and didn't have any children, I was just eager to die and go be with the Lord. I couldn't care less if someone killed me, because I just wanted to be Jesus. When I had children, I began to be a little less interested in dying quickly.
Because I thought, well, if I die, who's going to raise my kids? And once my kids had been raised and they're all adults now, I could find about dying again. But when I had children, I was responsible for them. The thought would have been, if the doctor had said to me, you're going to die in six months, my first thought would have been, well, who's going to raise my kids? I don't like children to be like sheep without a shepherd.
I don't mind dying. But I am concerned about who's going to take my place and who will care about my children like I do. Moses had observed that there weren't very many good men in Israel.
There weren't many good leaders available. He was going to die, and he had been very sacrificial. He had been very humble.
He had been very patient, very sympathetic for the most part with the people who were rebellious. He interceded for them. He had a shepherd's heart for them.
He cared about them, frankly, like his own children, although he complained about them too, being like his own children. But here, when he realizes he's going to die, and rather quickly, he doesn't think, wow, what am I missing out on? He's thinking, what will Israel miss out on if they don't have a leader to keep them out of trouble? He intercedes for them, to care about them like I do. Now, he says, basically, Lord, just please set somebody over them who will be a good shepherd to them, so they won't be like sheep without a shepherd.
Jesus said to his disciples that he had compassion on the multitudes. The Bible says because they were like sheep without a shepherd. Actually, that's an interesting thing, because Jesus knew that he was going to die too, and that he had to leave the work in the hands of others.
It must be hard for a man who's exceptional, like Moses, or like Jesus, and unique in his generation, certainly, maybe unique in history, to know that he's leaving his post and someone else has to take over. Where do you find someone like that? You see, in Matthew chapter 9, verse 36, and following, Matthew 9, verse 36, it says, But when Jesus saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered like sheep having no shepherd. The very term that Moses used, Lord, don't leave Israel like sheep without a shepherd.
Well, Jesus was the good shepherd, but he wasn't going to be around permanently. He was going to die and go away. And he was moved with compassion for them.
Then he said to the disciples, The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. That is, just like Moses prayed that God would raise up a man to replace him, Jesus said, pray to God that he will raise up leaders, that he will raise up shepherds, that he will raise up those who will bring the sheep together, who will harvest the crop.
And interestingly enough, in the very next chapter, Jesus called the twelve and gave them power over demons and sicknesses and sent them out on a short-term mission to give them a bit of a dry run themselves about being harvesters. See how they did. But Jesus was realizing that he's going to need to be replaced by these men.
And he wants to make sure that the movement is left to people who are not shepherds, who would not care for the sheep. And Moses, like Jesus, has that concern for Israel here. In Numbers 27, 18 says, Yahweh said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun with you, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him.
Stand him before Eliezer the priest and before all the congregation, and inaugurate him in their sight. And you shall give some of your authority to him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. He shall stand before Eliezer the priest, who shall inquire before Yahweh for him, by the judgment of the Urim, which is short for the Urim and Thummim.
At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, all the congregation. So Moses did as Yahweh commanded him. He took Joshua and set him before Eliezer the priest, and before all the congregation, he laid his hands on him, and inaugurated him, just as Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses.
Now, this is one of the first instances in the Bible of an ordination. We saw that the people of Israel also had laid their hands on the children of Levi, back when they were inaugurated. We saw that in an earlier chapter, going back quite a ways.
I forget where that was, but I mentioned at the time that that was similar to laying hands on elders and so forth in the New Testament, ordaining people. What we see here is something of an explanation, which is rare in the Bible, to explain what the laying on of hands signifies. Here, he laid hands on him, and we're told in verse 20 what this was, that Moses was giving some of his authority to Joshua.
Now, authority is not something tangible, that is really magically transmitted like electricity through a conductor, through the hands of another person. Authority is simply the recognized right to rule. And Moses was the recognized leader.
Everyone knew that God had raised him up and authorized him. He had the authority to be the leader. Now, they needed to know that Moses was authorizing Joshua to be his replacement.
It's not necessary to assume that any magic went through the hands into the person. It was simply a demonstration publicly to the people that Moses was authorizing or passing along his authority, some of it, to Joshua. Now, some of it? It says only some of it.
Because Joshua was never going to do all the things that Moses did. Moses was God's leader who was authorized to do many things, but couldn't give the law. Joshua wasn't going to give any laws.
Moses was, you know, the leader in many ways. Joshua was going to be the leader in a few ways. He was going to be the man who would do in Canaan what Moses would have done had Moses survived to do it.
And so the laying on of hands becomes the public acknowledgement of Joshua's ailing. Now, Joshua had been a faithful servant under Moses before this. And that is what probably qualified him.
It says the spirit of the Lord was on him. And it's like Elisha, the prophet, before he was a prophet, was a servant to Elijah. And Elijah says he washed Elijah's hands and feet, and he became the successor of Elijah.
The man who is the servant often is the one that God honors to make him chief. And that was the case with Joshua. He was very, you know, humble, very unassuming.
He had shown leadership ability before. Way back in the beginning, 40 years earlier, he had led the armies of Israel against the Ammonites when Moses and Aaron and Hur were on the mountaintop with their hands up. And he also, of course, had been one of the spies who had shown himself faithful to give the unpopular but good report.
And almost got a show of stones for his faithfulness. And now we're told he has the spirit in him, which may have been something that God just noticed or, you know, was announcing as something that had always been the case. Or maybe God was now putting his spirit on Joshua in such a way as to authorize him as Moses was authorized.
In fact, maybe Joshua was even one of those 70 upon whom the spirit had come earlier. We're not told that he was. But he was present at that time.
And so maybe that's why it says he had the spirit on him. Maybe he already was one of the 70 leaders. Anyway, we see then that God has made the official arrangement for Joshua to succeed Moses in leadership after Moses' death.
And then we come to some more laws which we will take next time. For more information, visit www.fema.org

Series by Steve Gregg

Song of Songs
Song of Songs
Delve into the allegorical meanings of the biblical Song of Songs and discover the symbolism, themes, and deeper significance with Steve Gregg's insig
Ezra
Ezra
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the book of Ezra, providing historical context, insights, and commentary on the challenges faced by the Jew
Charisma and Character
Charisma and Character
In this 16-part series, Steve Gregg discusses various gifts of the Spirit, including prophecy, joy, peace, and humility, and emphasizes the importance
Hosea
Hosea
In Steve Gregg's 3-part series on Hosea, he explores the prophetic messages of restored Israel and the coming Messiah, emphasizing themes of repentanc
Church History
Church History
Steve Gregg gives a comprehensive overview of church history from the time of the Apostles to the modern day, covering important figures, events, move
1 Peter
1 Peter
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the book of 1 Peter, delving into themes of salvation, regeneration, Christian motivation, and the role of
Job
Job
In this 11-part series, Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the book of Job, discussing topics such as suffering, wisdom, and God's role in hum
Amos
Amos
In this two-part series, Steve Gregg provides verse-by-verse teachings on the book of Amos, discussing themes such as impending punishment for Israel'
Judges
Judges
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the Book of Judges in this 16-part series, exploring its historical and cultural context and highlighting t
Individual Topics
Individual Topics
This is a series of over 100 lectures by Steve Gregg on various topics, including idolatry, friendships, truth, persecution, astrology, Bible study,
More Series by Steve Gregg

More on OpenTheo

Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
#STRask
April 21, 2025
Questions about whether one can legitimately say evil is a privation of good, how the Bible can say sin and death entered the world at the fall if ang
Are Works the Evidence or the Energizer of Faith?
Are Works the Evidence or the Energizer of Faith?
#STRask
June 30, 2025
Questions about whether faith is the evidence or the energizer of faith, and biblical support for the idea that good works are inevitable and always d
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
Risen Jesus
July 9, 2025
In this episode, we have Dr. Mike Licona's first-ever debate. In 2003, Licona sparred with Dan Barker at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. Once a Ch
What Would You Say to an Atheist Who Claims to Lack a Worldview?
What Would You Say to an Atheist Who Claims to Lack a Worldview?
#STRask
July 17, 2025
Questions about how to handle a conversation with an atheist who claims to lack a worldview, and how to respond to someone who accuses you of being “s
If Jesus Is God, Why Didn’t He Know the Day of His Return?
If Jesus Is God, Why Didn’t He Know the Day of His Return?
#STRask
June 12, 2025
Questions about why Jesus didn’t know the day of his return if he truly is God, and why it’s important for Jesus to be both fully God and fully man.  
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Knight & Rose Show
April 19, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Heritage Foundation policy expert Dr. Jay Richards to discuss policy and culture. Jay explains how economic fre
Why Do You Say Human Beings Are the Most Valuable Things in the Universe?
Why Do You Say Human Beings Are the Most Valuable Things in the Universe?
#STRask
May 29, 2025
Questions about reasons to think human beings are the most valuable things in the universe, how terms like “identity in Christ” and “child of God” can
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Risen Jesus
June 25, 2025
In today’s episode, Dr. Mike Licona debates Dr. Pieter Craffert at the University of Johannesburg. While Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the b
God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
#STRask
May 15, 2025
Questions about how God became so judgmental if he didn’t do anything to become God, and how we can think the flood really happened if no definition o
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Knight & Rose Show
May 31, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose interview Dr. Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary about their new book "The Immortal Mind". They discuss how scientific ev
Why Does It Seem Like God Hates Some and Favors Others?
Why Does It Seem Like God Hates Some and Favors Others?
#STRask
April 28, 2025
Questions about whether the fact that some people go through intense difficulties and suffering indicates that God hates some and favors others, and w
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Risen Jesus
May 7, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off for the second time on whether historians can prove the resurrection. Dr. Ehrman says no
The Plausibility of Jesus' Rising from the Dead Licona vs. Shapiro
The Plausibility of Jesus' Rising from the Dead Licona vs. Shapiro
Risen Jesus
April 23, 2025
In this episode of the Risen Jesus podcast, we join Dr. Licona at Ohio State University for his 2017 resurrection debate with philosopher Dr. Lawrence
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
Life and Books and Everything
May 19, 2025
The triumvirate comes back together to wrap up another season of LBE. Along with the obligatory sports chatter, the three guys talk at length about th
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
#STRask
July 7, 2025
Questions about whether or not inherently sinful humans could have accurately recorded the Word of God, whether the words about Moses in Acts 7:22 and