|
The title of the book of Numbers in the King James Version comes from the Latin Vulgate Numeri (“Numbers”), which is descriptive of the census given in the first three chapters of the book rather than of its content in general. Therefore, Numbers is strictly the Christian name for this section of the Torah, or first five books of Moses.
The Hebrews most often chose from among the first words of the text for a title for each of the books in the Bible. Thus, the Jews have called this book either Vayedabber (“And He Spoke”), which is the first Hebrew word of the book, or, more commonly, Bemidbar (“In the Wilderness”), which is the fifth word in the first verse.
This part of the work of Moses records the movement of the children of Israel from Mount Sinai to Mount Pisgah, which was on the east side of the Jordan River and overlooked the promised land. The book includes an account of the numbering of Israel, the Levitical preparations for moving the tabernacle, why Israel was cursed with forty years of wandering, the second numbering of Israel after those above twenty years of age at the time of the Exodus had died, the choosing of Joshua to lead Israel, and a description of some land inheritances by the various tribes.
The book does not have many doctrinal discourses, but it gives the necessary understanding to key historical events in the story of the family of Jacob. Some of the doctrinal implications of these historical events are of great worth. Be alert to the major events and specific preparations Israel underwent before they were ready to realize their promised reward.
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study Numbers 1–12.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
The first census of Israel after the Exodus numbered 603,550 men over twenty years of age who could go to war (see v. 3). This included none of the Levites (see v. 47) who numbered 22,000 (see Numbers 3:39). It also excluded all females, old men, boys under twenty years of age, and men unable to bear arms. This record has causes some scholars to estimate the total number of the children of Israel to be over two million souls (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:4–5). Other scholars believe that there have been textual errors in the transmission of numbers down through the centuries and that the total number of Israelites would be closer to half a million (see Enrichment Section E, “The Problem of Large Numbers in the Old Testament”). Whatever is correct, the task Moses faced was incredibly huge. To lead even five hundred thousand people into a harsh and barren wilderness and attempt to keep their hunger and thirst satisfied, their needs for shelter and protection from the elements met, as well as bring them to a state of spiritual maturity and obedience—no wonder Moses cried out, “I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me” (Numbers 11:14).
The blessing of Ephraim was here fulfilled in having thousands more sons able for war than had his older brother, Manasseh (see Genesis 48:19–20).
Those of the Levitical Priesthood were assigned particularly to care for the house of the Lord: to officiate in it on behalf of the children of Israel and to disassemble and reassemble it in times of movement. They were its protectors, so their tents encircled the sanctuary.
God’s house is a house of order (see D&C 132:8). In symbolic representation thereof, so was the camp of Israel. Order was maintained in both their encampments and marches.
The tribes were deployed in four groups of three tribes. On the east side of the camp and at the front of the moving column were Issachar and Zebulun with Judah at the head. On the south side in second position were Simeon and Gad under the leadership of Reuben. In the middle were the Levites. On the west and fourth in the line of march were Manasseh and Benjamin led by Ephraim. On the north and in the rear were Asher and Naphtali with Dan at the head.
The places of honor, at the head of the hosts and immediately following the tabernacle, were held by Judah and Ephraim, respectively. Judah camped directly east of the tabernacle entrance.
The Levites were not counted with the other tribes of Israel because of their divine stewardship to act in the stead of the firstborn son (see vv. 12–13). Joseph, however, had already been assigned a double portion, and both Ephraim and Manasseh became full and independent tribes (see Genesis 48:22). A distinction was also made between the sons of Aaron and other Levites (see vv. 2, 8–10; Reading 17-15). Descendants of Aaron were designated as priests, and they were the ones given the stewardship to preside in the ordinances of the tabernacle. The other Levites assisted in maintaining the tabernacle and its services, but they could not actually perform the ordinances of sacrifice, burning incense, and so on. Although all the Levites camped around the tabernacle, Aaron and his sons, along with Moses, were placed in the favored position directly in front of the tabernacle entrance (see v. 38).
The total number of Levites in religious service closely approximated the number of firstborn among the children of Israel. The excess 273 firstborn who were not redeemed man for man by a Levite substitute were redeemed by a five-shekel offering each. President John Taylor explained why this procedure was required:
“The first-born of the Egyptians, for whom no lamb as a token of the propitiation was offered, were destroyed. It was through the propitiation and atonement alone that the Israelites were saved, and, under the circumstances they must have perished with the Egyptians, who were doomed, had it not been for the contemplated atonement and propitiation of Christ, of which this was a figure.
“Hence the Lord claimed those that He saved as righteously belonging to Him, and claiming them as His He demanded their services. . . . He accepted the tribe of Levi in lieu of the first-born of Israel; and as there were more of the first-born than there were of the Levites, the balance had to be redeemed with money, which was given to Aaron, as the great High Priest and representative of the Aaronic Priesthood, he being also a Levite. [See Numbers 3:50–51.]” (Mediation and Atonement, p. 108.)
Chapter 4 of Numbers explains the duties and responsibilities of the branches of Levites with respect to the tabernacle. Moses and Aaron were sons of Amram, a grandson of Levi through Kohath (see Numbers 3:19; Exodus 6:18, 20). Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priesthood and were given the other sons of Levi to assist them in the movement and functions of the tabernacle (see Numbers 3:5–13).
Kohath seems to have been the second son of Levi (see Numbers 3:17), but was probably mentioned first because of his grandsons Moses and Aaron and also because his male descendants were the bearers of the sacred furniture of the tabernacle (see Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 104).
The sons of Levi began their ministry in the tabernacle, at the age of thirty, the same age as the Savior was when He began His earthly ministry (see Numbers 4:3, 23, 30; Luke 3:22–23).
Those with leprosy or running sores were not allowed to march or camp with the rest of Israel (see v. 2). To be put out of the camp implied only a separation from the main body, not a total rejection or abandonment. A noted Bible scholar suggested why this isolation was required.
“The expulsion mentioned here was founded, 1. On a pure physical reason, viz., the diseases were contagious, and therefore there was a necessity of putting those afflicted by them apart, that the infection might not be communicated. 2. There was also a spiritual reason; the camp was the habitation of God, and nothing impure should be permitted to remain where he dwelt.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:631.)
This law for determining the guilt or innocence of an adulterer is puzzling in many respects. At first it seems heavily biased against the woman for there is no similar requirement for the man. A close examination of the law will show what was involved in it and why the Lord revealed it.
“The rabbins who have commented on this text give us the following information: When any man, prompted by the spirit of jealousy, suspected his wife to have committed adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and accused her of the crime; but as she asserted her innocency, and refused to acknowledge herself guilty, and as he had no witnesses to produce, he required that she be sentenced to drink the waters of bitterness which the law had appointed; that God, by this means, might discover what she wished to conceal. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened; to which she answered, Amen, amen.
“The priest then wrote the words of the law upon a piece of vellum, with ink that had no vitriol in it, that it might be the more easily blotted out. The words written on the vellum were, according to the rabbins, the following:—‘If a strange man have not come near thee, and thou art not polluted by forsaking the bed of thy husband, these bitter waters which I have cursed will not hurt thee: but if thou have gone astray from thy husband, and have polluted thyself by coming near to another man, may thou be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may thy thigh rot, and thy belly swell till it burst! may these cursed waters enter into thy belly, and, being swelled therewith, may thy thigh putrefy!’
“After this the priest took a new pitcher, filled it with water out of the brazen bason that was near the altar of burnt-offering, cast some dust into it taken from the pavement of the temple, mingled something bitter, as wormwood, with it, and having read the curses above mentioned to the woman, and received her answer of Amen, he scraped off the curses from the vellum into the pitcher of water. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense.
“The other priest, who had prepared the waters of jealousy, then gave them to be drank by the accused person, and as soon as she had swallowed them, he put the pan with the meal in it into her hand. This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:634.)
Several points should be noted.
1. Although this ritual focused on the woman, it in no way implied that men who committed adultery were to be excused, for the law clearly stated that adulterers of both sexes were to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10).
2. In a way, the law provided protection of two different kinds for a woman. First, without this law it is possible that a husband could unjustly accuse his wife of infidelity. If his word alone were sufficient to convict her, she would be in a terrible state indeed. Putting the determination of guilt or innocence into the hands of God rather than into the hands of her husband, or even other men, ensured that she could vindicate herself if she were innocent.
The second positive benefit is more subtle but probably is of even greater value. If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, one result would be a terrible strain in the husband-wife relationship. In today’s legal system, with no witnesses to prove her guilt, the court would probably declare her not guilty. But the basis for her acquittal would be a lack of positive evidence of her guilt rather than proof of her innocence. Such a legal declaration, therefore, would do little to alleviate the doubts of the husband and the estrangement would likely continue. Neighbors and friends also would probably harbor lingering suspicions about her innocence. With the trial of jealousy, however, dramatic proof of God’s declaration of her innocence would be irrefutable. The reputation of the woman would be saved and a marriage relationship healed. Thus, true justice and mercy were assured, and the whole matter would be laid promptly to rest.
3. Those who ask why there was no parallel test a woman could ask of her husband should remember that if the accused woman refused to undergo the trial by drinking the water, her action was considered a confession of guilt. Thus, she and her partner in the evil act would be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10). If she attempted to lie and pass the test, but brought the curses upon herself, this result too was considered proof of the guilt of her male partner. It is possible that a wife who believed her husband guilty of infidelity could ask that his suspected partner be put to the trial of jealousy. The outcome would immediately establish the guilt or innocence of her husband as well as that of the other woman.
Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.
A Nazarite was a man or woman who took a voluntary vow to separate his life for the service of the Lord, or to live consecrated unto Him (see Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:34). Being a Nazarite had nothing to do with coming from the town of Nazareth.
A Nazarite took three vows: he would abstain absolutely from wine or strong drink, including any products of the vine in any form (see Numbers 6:3–4); he would not let a razor touch his head, but would let his hair grow naturally as a crown to God (see Numbers 6:5); and he would not allow himself to draw near a dead person, even a member of his own family (see Numbers 6:6). His life and all his efforts were completely and expressly dedicated to the Lord. This consecrated life bore some resemblance to that of the high priest (see Leviticus 21:10–12). Those who seem to have taken such vows, or had parents who made the vows for them, include Samson (see Judges 13:5), Samuel (see 1 Samuel 1:11, 28), and John the Baptist (see Luke 1:15). In some cases, these Nazarite vows were for life, but more often they were for a specific period of time, after which the person returned to a normal life. (Two instances in the New Testament that seem related to this vow taking are recorded in Acts 18:18–19 and 21:23–26.)
The word prince in the Hebrew means “a leader or ruler of the tribe.” For a discussion of the utensils of the tabernacle see Readings 13-7 through 13-12. For the worth of a shekel see the table of weights and measures in Maps and Charts.
 |
| The sanctuary, or holy place |
In the Hebrew over against means that when the lamp was lighted, its light illuminated whatever was on the opposite side of the room (“over against the candlestick”) [v. 2]). In this case, the table of shewbread was opposite the lamp.
The Levites entered into their service in the tabernacle just as a baby comes into the world—clean and pure (see vv. 6–7). In addition, the people laid hands upon the priest (see v. 10), who was then set apart for his service. When an Israelite brought an offering to the tabernacle, before he offered it in sacrifice, he laid his hands upon the animal and symbolically transferred his identity to it (see Reading 14-5). For the people of Israel to lay hands on the priest thus suggests that he took upon himself their identity; that is, he became their representative before the Lord.
“The Aaronic Priesthood is divided into the Aaronic and the Levitical, yet it is but one priesthood. This is merely a matter of designating certain duties within the priesthood. The sons of Aaron, who presided in the Aaronic order, were spoken of as holding the Aaronic Priesthood; and the sons of Levi, who were not sons of Aaron, were spoken of as the Levites. They held the Aaronic Priesthood but served under, or in a lesser capacity, than the sons of Aaron.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:86.)
Chapter 4 of Numbers speaks of the Levites’ role in transporting the tabernacle, and these verses in chapter 8 refer to their stewardship and service in it. Since they had been given to Aaron and his sons to assist them as they administered in the sacred ordinances, the Levites were assigned to set up and take down the tabernacles, clean it, carry wood and water, and slay animals to be used by their brethren in these sacrifices. They were allowed to begin such service five years earlier than those who transported the tabernacle. (See Numbers 8:24; 4:3.)
After the age of fifty the Levites were to “minister with their brethren,” Aaron and his sons, in caring for the furniture of the tabernacle (Numbers 8:26; see also 3:7–9). This voluntary service was a crown to their advancing years.
The crucial concept taught by the Passover feast was that Israel, through an exacting ceremony, had a type and a reminder of the Only Begotten Son of God, whose blood would save man spiritually as the blood on the door posts in Egypt had saved them physically. (Review Readings 10-1 and 10-6.)
This statement is the most comprehensive on the law of the Lord concerning the movement of the camp of Israel. Since the cloud of smoke and fire was a visible sign of God’s presence, Israel learned to literally follow the Lord. They made camp, broke camp, traveled, and performed their services at the command of the Lord—the Hebrew reads, “at the mouth of Jehovah” (see v. 18). In very deed they were schooled to follow Jehovah, who has ever directed His church and kingdom, and yet many of them did not transfer the meaning from this miraculous physical demonstration to its more important spiritual corollary.
The trumpets of beaten or hammered silver were used on seven special occasions: to call the general assembly, to assemble the princes or tribal leaders, to sound the signal for breaking camp, to sound an alarm for war, to announce the days of celebration and gladness, to announce solemn feast days, and to announce the start of the offerings and sacrifices at the beginning of each month. It is evident that some far-reaching means was essential to calling such great numbers to action.
The Kohathites were Levites of the same family as Moses and Aaron, Kohath being their grandfather and a son of Levi (see Numbers 4:15, 18; Exodus 6:18, 20). They were the only Levites whose burden (the tabernacle furniture) was so important that they were required to carry it by hand (see Numbers 7:9).
Raguel is an alternate spelling of Reuel (see Exodus 2:18), who was Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law.
“Hobab, brother-in-law of Moses was persuaded, though at first unwilling to accompany Israel and to be to them ‘instead of eyes’ or to serve as a guide. Although Jehovah gave general directions, Hobab knew the area and could help locate specific trails, campsites, etc. That he and his family went and did become heirs to lands in the land of Israel is apparent later from Judges 1:16 and 4:11; also I Sam. 15:6, II Kings 10:15, I Chronicles 2:55, and as later as Jeremiah 35, wherein that prophet cites them as exemplary for integrity.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:115.)
“In answer to Moses’ request for help, seventy men were chosen and endowed with the ‘spirit that was upon him’ (i.e., upon Moses; it means they were endowed with some of the same authority and spiritual gifts) so that they were able also to ‘prophesy.’ When some people objected that two of the men were prophesying who did not come out for the ceremony of installation, Moses said wishfully, ‘Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!’ He refused to forbid them to prophesy.
“(Note that we live in a dispensation when all members of the congregation of the Lord may have the gift of prophecy, and other gifts, by virtue of the fact that all who are baptized are given the ‘Gift of the Holy Ghost.’ Probably some of us do not exercise it however.)
“On such spiritual gifts in Paul’s time, see I Corinthians 12:4–10.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:115.)
In this material is another evidence of Moses’ greatness. Some leaders would be threatened if subordinates evidenced gifts and abilities similar to their own because then their own status and position would be jeopardized. Not so with Moses. In answer to Joshua’s complaint, Moses asked, “Enviest thou for my sake?” (Numbers 11:29). Not only was he not threatened by this remarkable sharing of his spiritual power, but he expressed the desire to have every single Israelite share the same power with him.
When God sent the quail in answer to Israel’s longing for something other than manna, the people turned gluttonous. The smallest catch equaled about one hundred bushels, far beyond normal need. The greedy lust for more than they could use brought a just punishment upon the people. How many died in the plague is not recorded, but the place was called “Graves of the Craving” or “The Graves of Lust” (see v. 34).
 |
| Desert quail |
According to Josephus, when Moses was a general of the Egyptian army in the attack against the Ethiopians, he married an Ethiopian woman as a political alliance to end the war (see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 2, chap. 10, par. 1).
The ostensible reason for Miriam’s and Aaron’s complaining was that the Ethiopians were non-Israelite descendants of Cush. The real reason for the complaint, however, seems to have been jealousy motivated by Moses’ position as spiritual leader and prophet of Israel.
“This elevation of Moses excited envy on the part of his brother and sister, whom God had also richly endowed and placed so high, that Miriam was distinguished as a prophetess above all the women of Israel, whilst Aaron had been raised by his investiture with the high-priesthood into the spiritual head of the whole nation. But the pride of the natural heart was not satisfied with this. They would dispute with their brother Moses the pre-eminence of his special calling and his exclusive position, which they might possibly regard themselves as entitled to contest with him not only as his brother and sister, but also as the nearest supporters of his vocation. Miriam was the instigator of the open rebellion, as we may see both from the fact that her name stands before that of Aaron, and also from the use of the feminine verb.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:75.)
Today some members of the Church fall into a similar trap. Because the Lord blesses them with the gifts of the Spirit, they think that they have equal or superior status to the presiding priesthood authority. Soon they are led into apostasy if they do not humble themselves and submit to the Lord’s servants called to preside. Even if Moses’ wish had been granted and every soul in Israel had received the gift of prophecy (see Numbers 11:29), Moses would still have been the one chosen by the Lord to preside. One question that arises is, Why was only Miriam, and not Aaron, punished with leprosy when both had participated in the opposition? There are two possible reasons. First, as Keil and Delitzsch pointed out, Miriam was the instigator of the attack on Moses’ right to preside. Thus, her sin was the more grievous. Second, for Aaron to seek priesthood leadership demonstrated pride and self-aggrandizement. He aspired to a position to which he had not been called. When Miriam sought that position, she not only demonstrated pride but also sought to set up an order contrary to God’s system of government. From the beginning, the priesthood callings and the right to preside were given to men. Miriam’s attempt to achieve equality with Moses was a serious breach of that divinely instituted system of order.
 |
| Miriam, a rebellious prophetess |
(17-25) Often teachers of the Old Testament separate Numbers 11 and 12 and treat them as if they are two different stories when actually a powerful lesson comes out of seeing the relationship between the two. Answer the following questions as you study these two chapters again.
1. What event immediately preceded the complaints about the food? (see Numbers 11:1–3). What does that suggest about Israel’s unwillingness to learn from experience?
2. When the Israelites complained about the monotony of their diet, who were they really complaining about? (see 11:20).
3. Manna was the people’s name for the food sent from God and was derived from the Hebrew word meaning “What is this?” (see Exodus 16:15 and explanatory footnotes to that verse). What was God’s name for the food? (see Exodus 16:4).
4. What typological significance do you see in the fact that Israel tired of the food sent from heaven and “fell a lusting” (Numbers 11:4) for the food of Egypt? (see John 6:30–35, 51). Remember that Egypt, like Babylon, is a type of the world (see Revelation 11:8).
5. The Lord eventually gave Israel their wish and provided the flesh of quail for them, but before doing so He granted Moses his wish for help in the burdens of leadership. Instead of just calling additional help, how did the Lord choose to share the burden of Moses? (see 11:16–17, 24–25).
6. The seventy elders of Israel were granted one of the gifts of the Spirit, the gift of prophecy (see D&C 46:22). Of what, do you suppose, did they prophesy? (see Mosiah 13:33–35).
7. Carefully read John 6:33–34, 47–51 again. Do you now see any significance in the fact that the Lord sent the gift of prophecy among the Israelites who were complaining that they were tired of manna?
8. Note the language related to eating in such scriptures as 2 Nephi 9:51; 32:3; Jacob 3:2; Isaiah 40:11; John 21:15–17; D&C 20:77. Who was more truly fed that day, the Israelites who collected the quail or the seventy who feasted on the fruits of the Spirit? How do these events add poignant meaning to Moses’ cry, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!”? (Numbers 11:29).
9. What is the eventual end of those who seek to feast only upon the flesh of the world? (see Numbers 11:31–34).
10. Now think of the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron in the context of what had just happened. Almost certainly Aaron would have been one of the seventy leaders of the people chosen to receive the gift of prophecy (see 11:16). Miriam also had the gift of prophecy, not given on this occasion, but previously, for she was called “a prophetess” (Exodus 15:20). Is there any danger that a person who feels the marvelous power of the gift of prophecy might think he was suddenly equal in power to the prophet who is the presiding priesthood officer? Why?
11. Suppose that Moses’ wish that all Israel were prophets (see Numbers 11:29) had been realized. Would that event have meant that Moses was no longer the prophet, or presiding priesthood officer, in Israel?
12. Miriam’s sin was not in seeking to be like Moses in terms of spiritual gifts but rather in seeking to share with him the calling of presiding priesthood officer. What lesson is there in that event for modern Israel?
13. We saw in Leviticus that leprosy was in and of itself a type (see Reading 15-7). What then is the symbolic significance of Miriam’s punishment for rejecting Moses’ position of leadership? How is that punishment related to the warning given in Doctrine and Covenants 1:14?
 |
The Old Testament has some stories of great and marvelous men and women. Abraham, Sarah, Ruth, Moses, Adam, Eve, Enoch, and many others provide inspiration to all who desire to achieve true greatness. But the Old Testament also records many tragedies. The tragedy was not so much in what happened, but in what was lost, in what could have been, compared to what was. King David lost his exaltation because of his foolish attempt to cover his sin of adultery through murder. Saul, called by the Lord to be the first king of Israel, soon forgot who was the true king and ended his life in a frantic search for tranquility. Samson had unusual powers given him, and yet he wasted them in frivolous and self-centered actions.
In this chapter you will study another Old Testament tragedy, but in this case it was a national tragedy. The Israelites had been led out of the power of the greatest empire in the world at that time. They had been personal witnesses to plagues that afflicted the Egyptians but left Israel untouched. They had with their own hands smeared blood on the doorways of their homes and then heard the cries of the Egyptians as their firstborn fell. They had walked between towering walls of water that divided at the command of Moses, then watched as those walls collapsed on the armies of the pharaoh. They ate bread that miraculously appeared each morning, drank water gushing from a rock, felt Sinai quake, and saw it glow with fire. What people in all of history had greater witness that God was with them and would use His unsurpassable power in their behalf? They had so much and were promised so much more. Then came the choice. In one foolish, blind, faithless choice this generation of Israel lost it all.
Read now the tragedy of Israel. It should make every righteous soul of every age weep for these foolish people. Look into your own heart and see if the tragedy of Israel could not be repeated in your own life.
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study Numbers 13–36.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
At this point in history, Israel was just a few months out of Egypt, and they had been given the law of God. The Lord indicated that it was then time to go in and possess the promised land. He commanded that a reconnaissance group be sent into Canaan to reconnoiter the land. The evidence of the richness of the land was irrefutable, and the spies even brought back a cluster of grapes carried on a staff between two men to demonstrate the beauty and richness of the produce (see Numbers 13:23). Yet the spies, except for Joshua and Caleb, reported that, despite the richness of the land, there was no hope for driving out the inhabitants. The exaggerated tone of their negative report shows in the use of such words as “very great,” the land “eateth up the inhabitants thereof,” “all the people . . . are men of great stature,” “we saw the giants,” “we were . . . as grasshoppers” (vv. 28, 32–33; emphasis added).
Such an exaggerated report of itself was bad enough and demonstrated the lack of faith of the ten men who gave it. But the national tragedy began when Israel hearkened to their report. They openly rejected the numerous evidences of God’s power that had been almost daily fare and began to cry out that it would have been better for them never to have left Egypt. Nor did the murmuring stop there. A movement was started to reject Moses and choose a leader that would take them back to Egypt (see Numbers 14:4 and Nehemiah 9:17, which suggest that they actually chose the leaders who would take them back). When Joshua and Caleb tried to counteract the effect of the negative report, the congregation sought to have them stoned (see Numbers 14:10).
Little wonder that the anger of the Lord was kindled. In a great intercessory prayer, Moses pleaded for mercy for his people (see Numbers 14:13–14). He did not excuse the behavior of his people, but only emphasized the long-suffering mercy of the Lord. Israel was spared destruction but lost the privilege of immediately entering the promised land. For the next thirty-eight years they were to wander in the harsh wilderness of Sinai. During that time they could have conquered the inhabitants of the land of promise, built cities, eaten the fruit of the land flowing “with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27), and raised their children in comfort and peace. But they would not, and so all above the age of twenty who had repudiated the power of the Lord, except Joshua and Caleb, were to die in the wilderness.
When Moses told the Israelites all the words of the Lord, he records that they “mourned greatly” (Numbers 14:39). And yet, their mourning was not that of true repentance, as the events which immediately follow show. Like immature children who missed the whole point of parental punishment, Israel suddenly decided they would go up against the Canaanites, “for we have sinned” (v. 40). But Moses indicated that it was too late. The Lord had retracted the commandment to go up and possess the land, and, therefore, if they went up then, they would go without His power.
Then came the second stage of the tragedy. The Israelites had just lost the right to enter the promised land because they had refused to follow the Lord. Now, in an attempt to show how “repentant” they were, they refused to follow the Lord. With sorrowful brevity Moses simply said, “Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them” (v. 45).
Recorded here is the actual application of the various sacrificial offerings prescribed in Leviticus 1 through 7. The laws of sacrifice, which brought about atonement and reconciliation with God, were reiterated at this point in Moses’ account because in Israel’s state of rebellion they provided the way to come back into God’s favor.
Persons who sinned willfully in ancient Israel were to be “cut off” (v. 30). That is, they were to be excommunicated from the camp of Israel (see v. 30). In some cases the sin also required the death penalty. This extreme action was necessitated because the sinner “despised the word of the Lord” (v. 31). It was not a sin committed in ignorance or weakness, but a deliberate refusal to obey the word of the Lord. This law thus teaches, on an individual basis, the same lesson taught Israel collectively; that is, when persons or nation despise the word of the Lord and willfully sin, they will be cut off from God and not be counted part of His covenant people. They will suffer spiritual death.
To stone a man for violation of the Sabbath seems a harsh punishment. But in its historical context, two things are significant. Moses had just given the law for willful rebellion against God. Did this man know the law of the Sabbath? Moses had clearly taught earlier that one who violated the Sabbath was to be put to death (see Exodus 31:14–15; 35:2). Obviously, here is an example of one who “despised the word of the Lord” (Numbers 15:31).
But think for a moment of what had just happened to Israel. They, as a nation, had despised the word of the Lord, first, by refusing to go up against the Canaanites when the Lord had told them to, and second, by going up against them after the Lord had told them not to. Thus Israel had been denied entry into the promised land. Now, an individual despised the word of the Lord and refused to enter the rest required on the Sabbath. Just as Israel was to suffer death in the wilderness for their rebellion, so a rebellious individual must be punished with the same punishment. Otherwise, God would be inconsistent.
A symbol is one thing that represents another. One use of symbols is to remind us of our important commitments. For example, the bread and water of the sacrament are symbols that remind us of Jesus’ sacrifice for us and of our covenants with Him. Israel practiced the law of sacrifice for a similar reason.
Similarly, the Lord commanded wandering Israel to fringe the borders of their garments so that when they looked upon the fringes they would be reminded of the commandments of the Lord (see v. 39).
Clothing is used to cover, protect, and beautify. To put fringes on an article of clothing symbolized that an individual is clothed, or covered, with the commandments of God.
The ribbon of blue also symbolically suggested concepts of deep importance. Blue signifies the heavens and so symbolizes the spiritual realm or godliness (see Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “colors,” 1:440).
“The zizith [tassel] on the sky-blue thread was to serve as a memorial sign to the Israelites, to remind them of the commandments of God, that they might have them constantly before their eyes and follow them, and not direct their heart and eyes to the things of this world, which turn away from the word of God, and lead astray to idolatry.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:104.)
In Korah’s rebellion is a direct challenge to Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership. Up to this time, Israel was constantly murmuring and complaining, but apparently this was a greater attempt to replace Moses as the one chosen by God to lead His people. (Miriam’s and Aaron’s rebellion was an attempt to be equal with Moses, but it did not seek to overthrow him.) Korah, a Levite, had two hundred and fifty of Israel’s most prominent leaders behind him when he accused Moses and Aaron of taking too much upon themselves (see vv. 2–3). Korah’s statement that “all the congregation are holy, every one of them” (v. 3) is similar to that of the apostate Zoramites who, in their great wickedness, thanked God that they were His “holy children” (Alma 31:16).
Had the insurrection been led by just any Israelite, it would have been serious enough, but Korah was a Levite, one who held the holy priesthood, and should therefore have been one of those in the forefront of obedience rather than of rebellion. Moses’ questions to him in verses 9 and 10 are very pointed ones. The Prophet Joseph Smith made a significant change in verse 10. It should read, “Seek ye the high priesthood also” (JST, Numbers 16:10; emphasis added). Instead of having a sense of awe and gratitude that he had the honor of being a Levite, Korah and those with him sought to take the higher priesthood and the leadership of Israel unto themselves. This was a serious crisis in the political and religious life of Israel, and the Lord chose to deal with it in a direct and dramatic manner.
The Lord commanded both Aaron and the legitimate priesthood holders and Korah and those who followed him to bring censers and incense to the tabernacle. A censer was a small metal container made to hold hot coals taken from the altar of the tabernacle. During the tabernacle service, the officiating priest was required to sprinkle incense on the burning coals on the altar of incense, which stood directly in front of the veil of the tabernacle. Other scriptures indicate that the burning of incense was a symbol of prayer (see Revelation 5:8; 8:3–4; Psalm 141:2), suggesting that God can only be approached in holy supplication. By asking each group to bring censers and incense, the Lord set up a test very similar to that of Elijah’s contest with the priests of Baal (see 1 Kings 18:17–40). In that instance, false worshipers were asked to call upon God for a sign that Baal had power. When they failed, the Lord gave a dramatic physical witness that He was God—fire from heaven consumed not just the sacrifice but also the altar.
Here, Korah and his supporters were asked to bring fire before the Lord as a symbol of their prayers and supplication for His support of their cause. Instead, the earth opened up and swallowed the leaders of the rebellion (see Numbers 16:31–33), and fire came down and consumed the other two hundred and fifty who presumed to take priesthood power unto themselves (see v. 35).
One cannot help but stand in disbelief at the hardness of the hearts of Israel. They had seen an incredible demonstration of the Lord’s power that directly supported the call of Moses and Aaron as leaders of Israel. Yet, in the face of that miraculous power, they murmured and said that Moses and Aaron had killed the true servants of the Lord (see v. 41). No wonder Abinadi described them as “a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God” (Mosiah 13:29). One also cannot help but marvel at the patience and long-suffering of the Lord.
In the rebellion against the leadership of Moses and Aaron, the Lord gave two miraculous demonstrations that showed Israel without question whom He had chosen to lead His people. First, Korah and those who joined him in the rebellion were killed by being either swallowed in the earth or consumed by fire. Second, those who still continued to sustain his evil leadership, even after Korah’s death, were killed in a plague (see Numbers 16:49). The scriptures state that nearly fifteen thousand people died trying to prove that Moses and Aaron were not the ones who should lead Israel. Then the Lord offered one more miracle to further demonstrate who was chosen to hold the priesthood. Bible scholars have explained the significance of this miracle in this way:
“The miracle which God wrought here as the Creator of nature, was at the same time a significant symbol of the nature and meaning of the priesthood. The choice of the rods had also a bearing upon the object in question. A man’s rod was the sign of his position as ruler in the house and congregation; with a prince the rod becomes a sceptre, the insignia of rule [see Genesis 49:10]. As a severed branch, the rod could not put forth shoots and blossom in a natural way. But God could impart new vital powers even to the dry rod. And so Aaron had naturally no preeminence above the heads of the other tribes. But the priesthood was founded not upon natural qualifications and gifts, but upon the power of the Spirit, which God communicates according to the choice of His wisdom, and which He had imparted to Aaron through his consecration with holy anointing oil. It was this which the Lord intended to show to the people, by causing Aaron’s rod to put forth branches, blossom, and fruit, through a miracle of His omnipotence; whereas the rods of the others heads of the tribes remained as barren as before. In this way, therefore, it was not without deep significance that Aaron’s rod not only put forth shoots, by which the divine election might be recognized, but bore even blossom and ripe fruit. This showed that Aaron was not only qualified for his calling, but administered his office in the full power of the Spirit, and bore the fruit expected of him. The almond rod was especially adapted to exhibit this, as an almond-tree flowers and bears fruit the earliest of all the trees, and has received its name [in Hebrew, which means] ‘awake,’ from this very fact [cf. Jeremiah 1:11].” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:114).
Here a distinction is made between the two orders of the Aaronic Priesthood. Although the terms Aaronic and Levitical are sometimes used interchangeably (see D&C 107:1, 6, 10), there were differences in duties. The lesser priesthood was given to those of “the tribe of Levi” (Numbers 18:2), to which Aaron and his sons belonged. The Levites performed the housekeeping chores of the tabernacle, such as filling and lighting the lamps, carrying the ark of the covenant, assembling and disassembling the tabernacle, and so forth. The priests, who were chosen from Aaron’s sons alone, were appointed to offer sacrifice, burn incense, instruct in the law, and so forth. Presiding over all the priests, or sons of Aaron, was a firstborn son. He served as high priest or president of the priests (see Numbers 3:5–10; 18:1–7; 1 Chronicles 23:27–32).
Those selected to minister in the offices of priest and Levite were to be supported from the tithes and offerings made by the children of Israel (see Numbers 18:21, 24). The Lord said to Aaron, “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee” (v. 12). These, like everything else in Israel, were to be tithed (see v. 26).
In addition, the Levites had to have a place to live. They were not given land as the other tribes were because their inheritance was the priesthood instead (see v. 20). In order to scatter them among the tribes and provide homes for the Levites, Moses commanded that forty-eight “Levite cities” be established for those who ministered to Israel’s spiritual needs (see Numbers 35:1–8). This Levitical inheritance was provided when the land of Canaan was conquered under Joshua (see Joshua 21).
Anciently, an Israelite who had been in the presence of one who died or had been dead was held to be defiled (see Reading 15-3). This chapter in Numbers describes the way in which such a person was purified. First, a red heifer was slain, burned, and the ashes laid aside. Then the ashes were placed in pure water and the mixture sprinkled upon those who had been defiled. This was known as “the water of separation,” since by it one was separated, or purified, from sin (v. 9). Failure to avail oneself of the cleansing power in this way resulted in being “cut off from among the congregation” (v. 20).
Much vital symbolism can be found in this ordinance. One who defiles himself with sin undergoes a spiritual death and is cut off from God’s presence through the loss of the Holy Spirit. Recovery from spiritual death is obtained by faith in Christ’s Atonement (symbolized by the death of the red heifer), repentance from sin, baptism in water, receiving the Holy Ghost, and obedience to God’s commandments. All who thereafter commit certain serious sins and refuse to repent are likewise “cut off from among the congregation,” that is, excommunicated (v. 20).
Rebellion among the children of Israel was not at all uncommon in their desert wanderings. The rebellion described in these verses, however, was especially serious because it apparently led Moses, the prophet of God, to momentarily forget what the Lord had commanded him to do. The Lord had told Moses to provide water for murmuring Israel in a special way. Pointing out a certain rock, the Lord told Moses, “Speak ye unto the rock before their [Israel’s] eyes; and it shall give forth his water” (v. 8). But Moses was weary and angry with Israel. “Hear now, ye rebels,” he said. “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” (v. 10; emphasis added). Then, instead of speaking to the rock as God commanded, Moses “smote the rock twice” and water gushed forth (v. 11). The Lord then chided Moses and Aaron for their failure to sanctify Him in the eyes of the people and told both men that neither of them would be allowed to bring Israel into the promised land (see v. 12). Not only did they not follow the Lord’s instructions carefully but they also suggested by the use of we that they were the ones who provided the water.
This incident, taken together with other scripture, creates a number of questions. Did Moses really sin against the Lord? Was that the reason Moses was not permitted to enter the promised land? Did Moses really assume glory to himself, or was he simply angry with the lack of faith exhibited by the children of Israel? Was this one error enough to cancel out years of great faith, obedience, and devotion?
At least two other Old Testament passages indicate that Moses did sin in striking the rock at Meribah (see Numbers 27:12–14; Deuteronomy 32:51–52). Other passages, however, help to clarify the matter. Deuteronomy 3:26 and 4:21 indicate that the Lord told Moses that the reason he could not enter the promised land was that the Lord was angry with him “for your sakes” (emphasis added). This statement could imply that there were reasons other than the error of Moses for the prohibition. Two other facts strengthen this supposition. First, both Moses and the higher priesthood were taken from Israel because of the people’s unworthiness, not Moses’ (see D&C 84:23–25). Second, Moses was translated when his mortal ministry was finished (see Alma 45:19). In other words, Moses was privileged to enter a land of promise far greater than the land of Canaan. He had finished his calling in mortality, and a new leader was to take Israel into the promised land. And, Moses was translated—hardly a punishment for sinning against God.
 |
| Wilderness of Edom |
Moses referred to his people as “brother Israel” when he addressed the king of the Edomites (v. 14) because the Edomites were direct descendants of Edom (Esau), the brother of Jacob (Israel), from whom the Israelites descended. There was therefore a blood relationship between the two peoples. The things that Moses said imply that the Edomite king was well aware of the relationship. Still, he refused to let the Israelites pass through his lands.
Between the rebellion of Korah (chaps. 16–17) and the request for passage through the land of Edom (chap. 20), thirty-eight years of wandering had transpired. For reasons not known to us now, Moses did not describe those years in this record.
 |
| Near the King’s Highway |
“The ‘king’s way’ is the public high road, which was probably made at the cost of the state, and kept up for the king and his armies to travel upon, and is synonymous with the ‘sultan-road’ (Derb es Sultan) or ‘emperor road,’ as the open, broad, old military roads are still called in the East” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:134).
The highway ran along the highlands of present-day Jordan from the Red Sea up into Syria. On the east it paralleled the Dead Sea and the River Jordan.
“This was, in effect, depriving him of his office; and putting the clothes on his son Eleazar implied a transfer of that office to him. A transfer of office, from this circumstance of putting the clothes of the late possessor on the person intended to succeed him, was called investing or investment, (clothing;) as removing a person from an office was termed divesting or unclothing.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:682.)
The same custom continues to this day in some institutions. When an officer is installed or removed from office, ceremonial clothing is either put on or taken off, symbolizing a transfer of authority. When one departs in dishonor, he is literally stripped of his gown or robes. In the military, the cutting off of one’s epaulets or insignia of rank is the same thing.
Aaron, however, was not retiring in dishonor or disgrace. His death was imminent (see v. 28), and it was time for new and younger leadership.
For the typological significance of this event read John 3:14–15; 2 Nephi 25:20; Alma 33:19–20; Reading 18-26.
When the two mighty kings of the Amorites were defeated by the irresistible might of Israel, the Moabites, with their Midianite confederates, were filled with such alarm that Balak, their king, sought assistance. It was not from his own god, Baal, who had proven impotent against Israel during the Amorite conflict, that he sought power, however. Instead, he decided to use Israel’s own God, whose power had been marvelously manifest, against them. To this end he sent a delegation bearing presents to Balaam of Pethor, a celebrated prognosticator in upper Mesopotamia, who apparently had a reputation for being able to bless and curse with great effect (see Numbers 22:3–6).
It is difficult to determine from the record whether or not Balaam was a true prophet of God holding the powers of the priesthood authority. He lived in an area known as Aram, probably named after the son of Kemuel and grandson of Nahor, a cousin of Abraham. Haran, the place of Abraham’s first settlement after he left Ur, was a seat for the worship of Jehovah and was also in Aram. Therefore, Balaam could have been one of the few scattered people such as Jethro, who held the priesthood and exercised its power. The Bible suggests that he had a true knowledge of God and was susceptible to revelation from Him. Regardless of their origin, the Lord raises up inspired men to all nations (see Alma 29:8).
It is significant that Balaam is referred to as a soothsayer or diviner, somewhat on the order of Simon of the New Testament (compare Joshua 13:22; Acts 8:9–24). Although he acknowledged Jehovah and professed his dependence on Him, Balaam was willing to go against the Lord’s counsel and accompany the men of Balak. To assure his responsiveness to God’s will, the Lord sent an angel to threaten him with death should he curse Israel.
One of the remarkable things about Balaam’s blessing of Israel is the Messianic promise of Christ (see Numbers 24:14, 17, 19).
The rebuke received by Balaam from an animal wrought upon by the Spirit of God is a singular event in history. Speculation on how the deed was accomplished is useless. It is certain that the beast spoke in a way understandable to Balaam. Other scriptures indicate that when animals are filled with the divine Spirit and celestialized, they will be able to express themselves in ways presently denied them (see Revelation 4:6, 9; D&C 77:2–4). Balaam is not recorded as showing surprise at this phenomenon, which circumstance has led some to suggest that Balaam’s mind was troubled because of his attempt to serve both God and mammon. Had he been more thoughtful, the unusual behavior of his otherwise obedient mount would have caused him to look about to discover the trouble. Then perchance he would have discovered the angel’s presence.
The incident was sufficient to carry out the Lord’s purposes, however. Balaam was shown that it was not the journey in itself that was displeasing to God, but the feelings and intentions he harbored. The entire incident seems to have been brought about to sharpen his conscience and sober his mind so he would strictly speak only the word of God.
The record next describes the whoredoms Israel committed with the daughters of Moab; that is, Israel joined the women of Moab in worshiping Baal-peor, a fertility god, including offering sacrifices to the god and indulging in sexual immorality. What is not mentioned here but is explained later (Numbers 31:16) is that Balaam advised the Moabites in this action. Evidently, when he saw that he could not earn Balak’s commission by cursing Israel directly, he told Balak that God would only bless Israel when they were righteous. If the Moabites could seduce Israel into idol worship, they would lose God’s power. Thus, Balaam became a symbol of those who use their callings and gifts to get gain and pervert the Lord’s people (see 2 Peter 2:15; Revelation 2:14).
Despite the severe action taken by Moses against those who had joined the Moabites in the worship of Baal, one man dared to bring one of the women into camp. Phinehas slew them both, signifying to all that the priesthood could not tolerate such evil. He knew that the evil of a few could result in suffering and even death for many. If Israel lost power with God by tolerating evil in their midst, innocent people would die in the wars with the Canaanites when Israel crossed over Jordan.
Modern bishops have a similar responsibility to put away evil in the Church. While excommunication is the most severe penalty they can invoke, it is nonetheless their responsibility to root out evil from among the Saints. Failure to do so is to bear responsibility for the people’s sins themselves (see Jacob 1:19).
 |
| The land of Moab |
Prior to entrance into the promised land, Moses and Eleazar, the priest, counted by their respective tribes the children of Israel aged twenty years and older. In the process, they discovered that, except for three people, not one living soul over twenty years of age who had been numbered at the beginning of the desert wanderings thirty-eight years earlier was left among the children of Israel. Only Joshua, Caleb, and Moses himself remained of the original company that came out of Egypt. All of this was as the Lord had said (see v. 65). Numbers 33:54 gives the reason the Israelites were numbered on this occasion.
The event described here is the ordination and setting apart of Joshua to the priesthood held by Moses.
“Special blessings, anointings, sealing of anointings, confirmations, ordinations, callings, healings, offices, and graces are conferred by the laying on of hands by the Lord’s legal administrators. As with all of the Lord’s prescribed procedural requisites, the proffered blessings come only when the designated formalities are observed. (Teachings, pp. 198–199.) . . .
“‘According to the order of God,’ ordination to offices in the priesthood is performed by the laying on of hands. (Alma 6:1; Acts 6:5–6; 1 Tim. 5:22.) Setting apart to positions of presidency, administration, or special responsibility comes in the same way. (Fifth Article of Faith; Num. 27:18–23; Deut. 34:9.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 438.)
For an account of ancient Israel’s use of the Urim and Thummim, see Reading 13-13.
The making of a covenant with the Lord was a very serious act in ancient Israel (see Reading 16-15). This chapter in Numbers discusses the force and strength of one’s vows before the Lord. Particularly, it sets forth the relationship between man and woman where a vow or covenant is concerned. Four special instances are discussed:
“The first case (vers. 3–5) is that of a woman in her youth, while still unmarried, and living in her father’s house. If she made a vow of performance or abstinence, and her father heard of it and remained silent, it was to stand, i.e. to remain in force. But if her father held her back when he heard of it, i.e. forbade her fulfilling it, it was not to stand or remain in force, and Jehovah would forgive her because of her father’s refusal. Obedience to a father stood higher than a self-imposed religious service.—The second case (vers. 6–8) was that of a vow of performance or abstinence, made by a woman before her marriage, and brought along with her (. . . ‘upon herself’) into her marriage. In such a case the husband had to decide as to its validity, in the same way as the father before her marriage. In the day when he heard of it he could hold back his wife, i.e. dissolve her vow; but if he did not do this at once, he could not hinder its fulfilment afterwards. . . . The third case (ver. 9) was that of a vow made by a widow or divorced woman. Such a vow had full force, because the woman was not dependent upon a husband.—The fourth case (vers. 10–12) was that of a vow made by a wife in her married state. Such a vow was to remain in force if her husband remained silent when he heard of it, and did not restrain her. On the other hand, it was to have no force if her husband dissolved it at once.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:224).
See map 3 in the Bible for the tribal divisions of the land.
Six of the forty-eight Levitical cities were appointed to be “cities of refuge,” places where those who had taken human life could find protection until they had been tried and either convicted of murder or released (v. 11). These cities were to be located on both sides of the Jordan (see v. 14). Note the distinction that Moses made between murdering and slaying a human being (see vv. 15–25). Differentiation was made among what is called today premeditated murder, murder of passion, manslaughter, and self-defense.
“Cities of refuge among the Hebrews were necessary, because the old patriarchal law still remained in force, viz., that the nearest akin had a right to avenge the death of his relation by slaying the murderer; for the original law enacted that whosoever shed man’s blood, by man should his blood be shed, Genesis 9:6, and none was judged so proper to execute this law as the man who was nearest akin to the deceased. As many rash executions of this law might take place, from the very nature of the thing, it was deemed necessary to qualify its claims, and prevent injustice; and the cities of refuge were judged proper for this purpose. Nor do we ever read that they were ever found inefficient, or that they were ever abused.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:730.)
Here Moses dealt with a practical problem that would face Israel when they began to conquer the land. Once the tribal divisions were determined, individual families within each tribe were given a land inheritance. If a portion of land was given to a single woman and she married into another tribe, which was probably quite common, then the woman’s land would become the joint property of her husband. Thus, another tribe would get a portion of the land assigned by the Lord and Moses to the original tribe. Moses and the elders foresaw the potential problems and ruled that land inheritances could not move from tribe to tribe.
(18-26) In this chapter we have reviewed several instances in which Israel or its individual members did not keep the laws of God.
Read Numbers 21:4–9.
This incident is famous in Israel’s history. Notice that all one had to do to recover from the serpent’s poisonous strike was to look to the brass serpent on the pole that Moses had made and held up before the people. Nothing more is told of the story. Yet, later prophets have used this incident to teach some valuable lessons. Jesus used it as a type of Himself. How?
Read John 3:14.
Nephi reported that although God had prepared the serpent on the pole as a means of the people’s being healed, some refused to avail themselves of the proffered gift. Why? What happened then?
Read 1 Nephi 17:41.
Alma added a reason why the people would not obey. What does he say?
Read Alma 33:20–22.
Nephi, son of Helaman, said that Moses and later prophets taught the children of Israel that the brazen serpent was a type of Christ. What special connection did Nephi draw between the serpent on the pole and Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
Read Helaman 8:13–16.
Elder Boyd K. Packer likewise drew upon this incident to teach us why we should heed the words of the living prophets.
“They are given divine authority. Not one of them aspired to the office he holds, nor did he call himself, for ‘in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called,’ said President Clark, ‘which place one neither seeks nor declines.’ (Improvement Era, June 1951, p. 412.)
“‘Ye have not chosen me,’ said the Lord, ‘but I have chosen you, and ordained you.’ (John 15:16.)
“We don’t have to listen to them or pay heed to them—we have our agency. But there is a lesson in scripture to consider.
“The children of Israel entered the land of Edom. It was infested with serpents and snakes, the bite of which was so painful and so dangerous that they called them fiery, flying serpents. They cried for deliverance.
“‘. . . And Moses prayed for the people.
“‘And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
“‘And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.’ (Num. 21:7–9.)
“‘How silly,’ some must have said. ‘How can such a thing cure me? I’ll not show my stupidity by paying any attention,’ and some would not look. . . .
“And today many say, ‘How silly! How could accepting Christ save me?’ They will not turn their heads to look nor incline their ears to hear. They ignore the great witness that comes from these conferences. We ought to, indeed we must, heed the counsel of these men, for the Lord said, ‘What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.’” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1968, pp. 75–76.)
It is not because they are learned, or have achieved professional success, or have traveled widely, that one should listen, but because they are “called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof” that one should listen (Articles of Faith 1:5). Those who fail to heed their warning voice lose the promised blessings. Truly, as the scriptures record, there are no successful sinners.
 |
If you knew that you had but a short time to live, what would you want to say to your family? Of what would you warn them? Would you want to remind them of anything?
This was the position Moses was in when he wrote the book of Deuteronomy. The long journey from Egypt to Canaan was over. Israel was about to enter the promised land, but Moses could not go with them. What could he say to this people, in parting, whom he had loved and led for forty years? And if he spoke, would they heed his words of counsel any better than they had in the past?
Blessings from the Lord are based upon obedience. We can no more disobey God’s commands and reap promised rewards than we can enjoy the benefits of electricity without conforming to the physical laws that govern its effects. The principle of free agency allows us to make our own choices, to seek our own goals. Some choices, however, are better than others. Wise children of our Father in Heaven understand the spiritual laws of cause and effect and govern themselves accordingly. Unwise children do not. The former reap the promised blessings; the latter sometimes reap the sorest cursings.
“Cursings are the opposite of blessings, and the greater the opportunity given a people to earn blessings, the more severe will be the cursings heaped upon them, if they do not measure up and gain the proffered rewards. Failure to pay tithing, for instance, brings condemnation upon the covenant people, whereas the people of the world—not being specifically obligated to keep this law—do not suffer the same penalties for non-tithe paying. (Mal. 3:7–12.) ‘Hearken and hear, O ye may people, saith the Lord and your God, ye whom I delight to bless with the greatest of all blessings, ye that hear me; and ye that hear me not will I curse, that have professed my name, with the heaviest of all cursings.’ (D. & C. 41:1.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 175.)
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study Deuteronomy 1–16.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
Deuteronomy is a title formed from the two Greek words deutero, “second,” and nomos, “law.” Thus, the title means “the second law,” or “the repetition of the law” (see Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Deuteronomy,” 1:522). The Christian world adopted this descriptive title from the Septuagint (the first Greek translation of the Old Testament written in the second century before Christ) rather than the Jewish name for the book, Eileh Hadvareem, which is the first two words of the book in Hebrew (translated as “these be the words”).
The translators of the Septuagint called the fifth book written by Moses the second law because in it Moses summarized the Mosaic code in three final discourses he gave to Israel before leaving them. This name, however, does not imply that he gave them a new law in any sense of the word, nor that he merely repeated what had already been given. Moses knew that he was soon to leave Israel. Israel was by this time camped in Moab across the Jordan from the promised land. Joshua would shortly lead them to battle against the Canaanites to take possession of the land of promise. In three separate discourses Moses eloquently exhorted Israel to look to the laws given them by God so that they could enjoy God’s favor and protection in the future.
In the first address (Deuteronomy 1:6–4:40), Moses recounted the most important events in the wanderings in the wilderness and reminded Israel that they must not forget the laws given them at Sinai.
The second address (chaps. 5–26) contains Moses’ review of the law, including the Ten Commandments (see Deuteronomy 5:6–21). But his purpose was far more than a mere review. These chapters contain a “description, explanation, and enforcement of the most essential contents of the covenant revelation and covenant laws, with emphatic prominence given to the spiritual principle of the law and its fulfilment, and with a further development of the ecclesiastical, judicial, political, and civil organization, which was intended as a permanent foundation for the life and well-being of the people in the land of Canaan.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:270).
The third and final address (chaps. 27–30) was a call for Israel to renew the covenant and a warning of the consequences of failing to do so. Moses again solemnly reviewed the Lord’s goodness to them and all that He had done for them, and then Moses advised Israel to make the covenant with God so that the curses would not come upon them.
Chapters 31 through 34 are a supplement, perhaps not written by Moses, which recount the selection and ordination of Joshua as Moses’ successor and the “death” of Moses. (Other sources indicate that Moses did not die but was translated. See Reading 20-35.)
The value of Deuteronomy is shown in the fact that, of all the five books of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy is quoted more often by the Old Testament prophets than any other book of the Law.
“Deuteronomy has been made most use of by the prophets, simply because it is best calculated to serve as a model for prophetic declarations, as also because of the inward harmony that exists between the prophecies and the laws upon which they are based.” (Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Deuteronomy,” 1:523.)
Moses “speaks like a dying father to his children. The words are earnest, inspired, impressive. He looks back over the whole of the forty years of their wandering in the desert, reminds the people of all the blessings they have received, of the ingratitude with which they have so often repaid them, and of the judgments of God, and the love that continually broke forth behind them; he explains the laws again and again, and adds what is necessary to complete them, and is never weary of urging obedience to them in the warmest and most emphatic words, because the very life of the nation was bound up with this; he surveys all the storms and conflicts which they have passed through, and, beholding the future in the past, takes a survey also of the future history of the nation, and sees, with mingled sorrow and joy, how the three great features of the past—viz. apostasy, punishment, and pardon—continue to repeat themselves in the future also.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:276).
These verses are a review by Moses of the instructions given by the Lord during the desert wanderings. They also set forth Moses’ view of how well Israel carried out those instructions. The people failed many times to heed their God. Moses feared they would fail again once he had departed from them, so he gave the lengthy counsel recorded in Deuteronomy.
This account clarifies events also recorded in Exodus or Numbers. Israel came to Sinai in the third month following their departure from Egypt (see Exodus 19:1–2). They departed from Mount Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, so it seems that they remained near Mount Sinai for almost a whole year. After an eleven-day journey to Kadesh, men were sent into the land of Canaan to search out the land. Their return with a negative report of walled cities and strong inhabitants so discouraged Israel that they began to murmur against the Lord. (See Numbers 13:26–33.) They had expected to move into the promised land without effort. As a result of their lack of spiritual readiness, they were compelled to wander thirty-eight more years in the desert.
“The Israelites were eleven days in going from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, where they were near the verge of the promised land; after which they were thirty-eight years wandering up and down in the vicinity of this place, not being permitted, because of their rebellions, to enter into the promised rest, though they were the whole of that time within a few miles of the land of Canaan!” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:737.)
This situation adds poignant meaning to the phrase “so near, and yet so far.”
 |
| From Kadesh-barnea Moses sent spies into the promised land. |
For discussion of why Moses was refused entrance into the promised land see Reading 18-13.
It is not uncommon for those who object to Latter-day Saint belief in modern scripture to cite Revelation 22:18–19 as proof that all revelation is contained in the Bible. Moses, however, uttered the same warning in Deuteronomy 12:32. This reference indicates that any warning not to add to the things written refers only to the writings of that particular prophet. On this subject President Brigham Young stated:
“The saying which we have quoted, and which constitutes the sweeping argument of modern Christians against new revelation, only alludes to this particular book [Revelation], which was to be kept sacred, as the word of the Lord to John, and not to the whole Bible; nor does it prohibit the Saints in his day, or the Saints in any future time, from getting new revelation for themselves. That is not all; if we turn to the writings of Moses, we find the same sentiment, and almost the same language used. Moses says, ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.’ So if such quotations are given with the intent to shut the heavens, and put an end to all new revelation, then the revelations given to Prophets who arose after Moses, and the revelations given to Jesus Christ and his Apostles, including John and his revelation on the Isle of Patmos, all amount to nothing, and are not worthy of our notice. This ‘sweeping argument,’ when it is examined, sweeps away rather too much; besides, John’s Gospel and his epistle to his brethren were written after he wrote his revelation on the Isle of Patmos, consequently he would destroy his own system; but it sets forth the ignorance and short-sightedness of those who have not the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy.” (In Journal of Discourses, 1:242–43.)
Moses was anxious for the people to remember the Lord. This remembrance was to come through keeping the law. Why, then, didn’t the Lord show Himself to Israel at Sinai? (see vv. 15–16).
Moses had no illusions about how long Israel would remain obedient. Here he prophetically foresaw one of the most common themes in the Old Testament: the scattering of Israel because of their wickedness, but also the great gathering that is to take place “in the latter days” (v. 30). The Lord pointed out two reasons why Israel shall be regathered. First, many of latter-day Israel will turn to the Lord (see v. 29); second, the covenants Jehovah made with Israel’s fathers (the patriarchs) will be kept (see vv. 31, 37). This gathering involves a return to the lands of Israel’s inheritance, but, more important, it involves a spiritual gathering, that is, a return to the covenants and laws of God. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained spiritual gathering in this way:
“As is well known, ancient Israel was scattered among all the nations of the earth because they forsook the Lord and worshipped false gods. As is also well known, the gathering of Israel consists of receiving the truth, gaining again a true knowledge of the Redeemer, and coming back into the true fold of the Good Shepherd. In the language of the Book of Mormon, it consists of being ‘restored to the true church and fold of God,’ and then being ‘gathered’ and ‘established’ in various ‘lands of promise.’ (2 Ne. 9:2.) ‘When they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance.’ (2 Ne. 6:11.)
“Two things are accomplished by the gathering of Israel: First, those who have thus chosen Christ as their Shepherd; those who have taken upon themselves his name in the waters of baptism; those who are seeking to enjoy his Spirit here and now and to be inheritors of eternal life hereafter—such people need to be gathered together to strengthen each other and to help one another perfect their lives.
“And second, those who are seeking the highest rewards in eternity need to be where they can receive the blessings of the house of the Lord, both for themselves and for their ancestors in Israel who died without a knowledge of the gospel, but who would have received it with all their heart had opportunity afforded.” (“Come: Let Israel Build Zion,” Ensign, May 1977, p. 117.)
The law of Moses provided cities of refuge for persons guilty of involuntary manslaughter until their cases could be judged or until the high priest died (see Numbers 35:6, 14; Joshua 20:1–6). The statement that Moses “severed three cities” means that before his death he set apart these cities as cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 4:41). The cities mentioned were on the eastern side of the Jordan across from where most of the Israelites would settle. Later, additional cities of refuge were set aside within the promised land.
 |
| Israel’s route of conquest: Sihon and Og [click for scalable version] |
Moses reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them at Mount Horeb (Sinai), beginning with a review of the great fundamental principles known as the Ten Commandments (see vv. 6–21). Moses’ special admonition is given in verses 29, 32, and 33.
The law of Moses represents a gospel orientation (see Reading 12-1), and these verses demonstrate such an orientation. In this section of Deuteronomy Moses issued a call to obedience, to commitment, to righteousness, to holiness. Moses taught that blessings, both temporal and spiritual, follow those who answer that call and, conversely, that punishments and misery come to those who do not heed it.
Verse 4 begins what is known among Jewish people as the Shema (from the Hebrew word meaning “hear”). “The Shema is in Jewish thought the supreme affirmation of the unity of God and is frequently called ‘the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven’” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Shema, Reading of,” The Shema in Jewish Thought, 14:1372). The entire Shema, which consists of Deuteronomy 6:4–9; Deuteronomy 11:13–21; and Numbers 15:37–41 (in that order), is recited twice daily by all devout Jews as an evening and a morning prayer. It has become traditional for Jewish martyrs to face death with the Shema on their lips. In fact, “Jewish devotional manuals sometimes advise the worshiper to have in mind while reciting the Shema that if he is called upon to suffer martyrdom for the sanctification of God’s name he will do so willingly and with joy” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Shema, Reading of,” The Shema in Jewish Thought, 14:1373). The Shema passage in Deuteronomy 6 is of interest to Christians also because Jesus said that verse 5 contained the greatest commandment in the law (see Matthew 22:36–37). It is the sum and substance of all other commandments, for if people loved God with all their heart, might, mind, and strength, every aspect of their lives would be devoted to righteousness and holiness. And if these words were constantly in their hearts (see v. 6) and they sought to teach them to their children in every way possible, in every aspect of their lives, through precept and example, at night and in the day, at home or elsewhere, all of society would be dramatically altered. In that respect, this belief of the Jews is correct. The Shema, if it truly is an affirmation of faith and not just words, should be the supreme thought in one’s heart, and it is even worth dying, if living means a denial of that affirmation.
If latter-day revelation the Lord taught a similar principle of commitment: “And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory. Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full. Therefore, care not for the body, neither the life of the body; but care for the soul, and for the life of the soul. And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.” (D&C 101:35–38.)
The Lord emphasized the importance of this injunction by using figurative language commanding the people to bind these words on their foreheads and hands and to put them on the doorposts of their homes. These verses led to the Jewish customs known as the tefillin (or phylacteries) and the mezuzah.
 |
| A thirteen-year-old boy wearing a phylactery |
Taking the command literally, the Jews inscribed certain scriptural passages, including Deuteronomy 6:4–9, on tiny pieces of parchment, folded them up, and put them into tiny leather boxes about 1½ inches square. These boxes were then tied to the head to be over the forehead, or on the left biceps, suggesting that the wearer would “fulfill the law with the head and heart” (Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “phylactery,” 3:1344). Some apostate Israelites later viewed these frontlets as amulets to ward off evil spirits. Thus, the Greeks called them phylacteries, which means “safeguards.”
The mezuzah (Hebrew for “doorpost”) was similar to the tefillin in that it was a parchment with a scriptural passage on it inserted into a tiny, cylindrical box. The mezuzah was attached to the door frame, and it became customary for Jews to touch or kiss the mezuzah each time they left or entered the home.
The symbolic words of the commandment teach a beautiful lesson. The doorpost symbolizes the portals through which man moves to interact with his fellow man. As one sets forth from or returns to home, one’s conscious desire should be to do the will of God.
The sad truth that men forget God in times of peace and prosperity was eloquently taught by Moses both here and in Deuteronomy 8:11–20. Mormon also taught this truth in Helaman 12:1–7.
Elder Marion G. Romney taught that Jesus’ “thorough knowledge of the scriptures is evidenced by the fact that He repeatedly cited them. When the devil tempted Him to turn the stones into bread, He countered by quoting from Deuteronomy: ‘. . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ (Matthew 4:4; see Deuteronomy 8:3.) When the tempter challenged Him to cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, He responded by quoting from the same book: ‘It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.’ (Matthew 4:7; see Deuteronomy 6:16.) For the third time He quoted from Deuteronomy (6:13) when Satan offered Him the kingdoms of the world, saying: ‘Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ (Matthew 4:10.)” (Jesus Christ, Man’s Great Exemplar, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, Utah, 9 May 1967, p. 9.)
The Hittites, Hivites, and Jebusites were direct descendants of Canaan, son of Ham, and were therefore Canaanites. The Girgashites, Amorites, and Perizites were inhabitants of Canaan. (Canaanite also refers to one who lived in the land of Canaan, irrespective of descent.) Undoubtedly these groups had intermarried. By the time Israel approached the promised land, these Canaanites had become an extremely wicked and idolatrous people. When Abraham was told that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan, the Lord also told him that Israel would first be taken into captivity in Egypt because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Genesis 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, that fulness of iniquity had come.
Certain acts are so evil and so destructive to the order of the society that the only just reparation is the death of the guilty parties (see Exodus 21:12–17). Nephi was told that Laban’s death was justified because his wickedness threatened the spiritual existence of an entire future nation. The Lord began His explanation of that principle by saying, “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes” (1 Nephi 4:13).
Likewise, the kinds of evil of which the Canaanites were guilty were so infectious, so contaminating, that to have shown mercy and let them survive would have proven to be the spiritual downfall of Israel. Indeed, later history shows that this is exactly what happened when Israel failed to follow these instructions. Moses warned Israel: “Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee” (Deuteronomy 9:5; see also 1 Nephi 17:32–38).
Israel was not commanded to treat all her enemies in this manner. One commentator explained why the Canaanites were different: “The second commandment prohibits graven images in worship; it requires the destruction of all such forms of worship: ‘Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works; but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images’ (Ex. 23:24). In Deuteronomy 12:1–14, the contrast is drawn clearly: obedience means on the one hand destroying all places of idolatrous worship, and, on the other hand, bringing offerings to God in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed place. The commandment to destroy idolatrous places and images is restated in Deuteronomy 7:5; 16:21, 22; Numbers 33:52; and Exodus 34:13, 14. But, in certain instances, the destruction of graven images required also the destruction of the people of the images (Deut. 7:1–5); not only are covenants with the Canaanites forbidden, but inter-marriage also. The Canaanites were ‘devoted’ or set apart, ‘sanctified’ unto death by God’s order. This is an important point and needs careful attention. The law specifically forbad reprisals against Egyptians or any other foreigner; instead of vengeance, they should remember their oppression in Egypt as a means of greater dedication to justice for all under God’s law (Lev. 19:33–37). Having suffered injustice at foreign hands, they should themselves be careful to avoid being like the Egyptians, themselves the instruments of injustice. Egypt sought to exterminate all Hebrews (Ex. 1:15–22), but Israel was required to render justice to all Egyptians in terms of their individual obedience or disobedience to the law. But all Canaanites were devoted to death. The criterion was not enmity to Israel but the law of God. Egypt was an enemy of God as was Canaan, but the iniquity of the Canaanites was ‘full’ or total in God’s sight (Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:24–28, etc.). Prostitution and homosexuality had become religious practices to the point where the people were entrenched in depravity and proud of it. Their iniquity was ‘full’ or total. Accordingly, God sentenced them to death and made Israel the executioner. . . . The Canaanites as a whole were deserving of death; God’s patience allowed them a few centuries from Abraham’s day to Joshua’s and then His judgment was ordered executed. The failure of Israel to execute it fully became finally their own judgment.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 92–93.)
Nephi said of the Canaanites, “He that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity” (1 Nephi 17:35).
According to Moses, of all the people of the earth, Israel was the chosen of the Lord because the Lord loved Israel and “would keep the oath which he had sworn unto [their] fathers” (v. 8). Many blessings were promised to those who would keep their covenants with the Lord. The idols of other nations, Moses instructed the people, were to be burned entirely, and neither the idols themselves nor the precious metals on them were to be taken into the homes of the Israelites (see vv. 25–26).
The words used by Moses affirm the idea that the clothes of the Israelites did not wear out because God gave them a miraculous durability. Some early rabbis and Christian theologians interpreted this passage to mean that the clothes of the younger generation grew upon their backs like the shells of snails. Israel did, however, have limited means for producing some items of clothing.
 |
| Out of Egypt: Wilderness wanderings [click for scalable version] |
Only Kadesh-Barnea may be located with any degree of certainty (see map). The other places mentioned were most likely in the wilderness of Shur and the wilderness of Paran to the south. At least two or three of them may have been only oases in the wilderness of Sinai. If it were possible to pinpoint these locations, scholars would likely know precisely which route the wandering Israelites took.
Here is another example of a beautiful gospel concept in the Mosaic law. Any Latter-day Saint could profitably use these verses as a creed. (For the meaning of the phrase “circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart” [v. 16], see Reading 5-17.)
The Lord drew some distinctions between Egypt and Canaan. What are they? (See Reading 19-15.)
“By the first or former rain we are to understand that which fell in Judea about November, when they sowed their seed, and this served to moisten and prepare the ground for the vegetation of the seed. The latter rain fell about April, when the corn was well grown up, and served to fill the ears, and render them plump and perfect. . . . If the former rain were withheld, or not sent in due season, there could be no vegetation: if the latter rain were withheld, or not sent in its due season, there could be no full corn in the ear, and consequently no harvest. Of what consequence then was it that they should have their rain in due season! God, by promising this provided they were obedient, and threatening to withhold it should they be disobedient, shows that it is not a general providence that directs these things, but that the very rain of heaven falls by particular direction, and the showers are often regulated by an especial providence.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:770.)
Moses pointed out to Israel that the children were not aware of all that God had done for their fathers while they were wandering in the wilderness (see v. 2). He gave them specific instructions about teaching their children (see vv. 18–19) and promised them certain blessings if they obeyed.
Moses set before Israel both a curse and a blessing. To symbolize them, Moses selected two of the most prominent hills in central Canaan to use as object lessons. Mount Gerizim was appointed to be the mount of blessing, and Mount Ebal the mount of cursing.
“The two mountains mentioned were selected for this act, no doubt because they were opposite to one another, and stood, each about 2500 feet high, in the very centre of the land not only from west to east, but also from north to south. Ebal stands upon the north side, Gerizim upon the south; between the two is Sichem, the present Nabulus, in a tolerably elevated valley, fertile, attractive, and watered by many springs, which runs from the south-east to the north-west from the foot of Gerizim to that of Ebal, and is about 1600 feet in breadth. The blessing was to be uttered upon Gerizim, and the curse upon Ebal.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:349–50.)
One very difficult problem for those Israelites uninitiated in the ways of the Lord was discerning true prophets or the true God from false ones. These verses counseled them about this problem. Why would the Lord command that a false prophet or deceiver be put to death? (see vv. 9–11). Similar instructions were given about whole cities whose inhabitants had gone astray (see v. 15). (For an additional test for determining true and false prophets, see Deuteronomy 18:18–22.)
Reference is made again to the “cursed thing” (Deuteronomy 13:17), which refers to anything sacrificed to idols or made to represent an idol or made to be used in the worship of idols. Cursed things were to be avoided by the Israelites altogether (see Joshua 7, which records an incident in which this restriction was not followed, and lists the resulting problems).
For an explanation of the prohibitions against pity for idolaters, see Reading 20-9.
“The tithe, or tenth of all increase, was ordinarily contributed ‘in kind’; but if the contributor lived too far from the central place for making the contribution, he could sell the material and carry the money instead, where he could convert it back into whatever kinds of goods he desired to make his contribution and to make the thanksgiving feast which accompanied tithe paying. The goods would be used by the Levites (who produced none of their own) and by the poor (cf. D&C 119:3–6).
“The word ‘lusteth’ in the phrase ‘whatsoever thy soul lusteth after,’ in [Deuteronomy 14:26], has bad connotation to us, but it is merely a King James translation of a word that means ‘to long or yearn for.’ Also the use of wine and other fermented fluids (here called ‘strong drink’) may surprise us because we do not use them for any purpose; however, they were then commonly used in ceremonial meals. (We noted, nevertheless, that fermented drinks were forbidden to Priests in service, to Nazarites and to some others, according to Leviticus 10 and Numbers 3.)” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:131.)
Christmas and Easter celebrations aid the followers of Jesus Christ to remember certain great events in Christian history. The festivals which the Lord commanded Israel to keep served a similar purpose. Moses once again reminded his people of the solemn need to observe these festivals in just the way and at just the time the Lord had commanded.
“From very early times the Jewish year was punctuated by the great festivals—the ‘feasts of the Lord’. Some were timed to coincide with the changing seasons, reminding the people of God’s constant provision for them, and providing an opportunity to return to God some token of all that he had given. Others commemorated the great events of Israel’s history, the occasions when in an unmistakable way God had stepped in to deliver his people. All were occasions of whole-hearted delight and enjoyment of God’s good gifts, and at the same time sober gatherings to seek his forgiveness and cleansing.
“They were never intended to be observed out of mere formality and empty ritual. The prophets had sharp words for those who reduced them to this level. The purpose of the festivals was spiritual: a great and glorious meeting of God and his people.” (Alexander and Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 180.)
(19-28) As a prelude to his call for Israel to commit themselves to living the laws of God so that they could become a holy and covenant people, Moses prophesied of the scattering and eventual gathering of Israel. Are the two concepts related? Does living the laws of God have any relationship to the scattering and gathering of Israel? Read what Elder Bruce R. McConkie has said about the gathering of Israel in our day and then answer the questions that follow.
“Now, if those of us who have been gathered again into the sheepfold of Israel are to play the part assigned us in the Lord’s eternal drama concerning his people, we must know that some things relative to the gathering of Israel are past, some are present, and yet others are future. We ought not to struggle through a quarter of a century or so trying to determine, as did the New Testament saints in an analogous situation, what part we should play in the building up of Zion.
“The gathering of Israel and the establishment of Zion in the latter days is divided into three periods or phases. The first phase is past; we are now living in the second phase; and the third lies ahead. Prophecies speak of them all. If we do not rightly divide the word of God, as Paul’s expression is, we will face confusion and uncertainty. If on the other hand we correctly envision our proper role and know what should be done today, we shall then be able to use our time, talents, and means to the best advantage in building up the kingdom and preparing a people for the second coming of the Son of Man.
“The three phases of this great latter-day work are as follows:
“Phase I—From the First Vision, the setting up of the kingdom on April 6, 1830, and the coming of Moses on April 3, 1836, to the secure establishment of the Church in the United States and Canada, a period of about 125 years.
“Phase II—From the creation of stakes of Zion in overseas areas, beginning in the 1950s, to the second coming of the Son of Man, a period of unknown duration.
“Phase III—From our Lord’s second coming until the kingdom is perfected and the knowledge of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea, and from then until the end of the Millennium, a period of 1,000 years. . . .
“Many things have already been restored, and many things are yet to be restored. Israel has been gathered in part, but in many respects the greatest part of the gathering of Israel is ahead. The foundations of Zion have been laid, but the promised City of Holiness has yet to be built. We have done some of the things destined to be accomplished in this dispensation; we are now engaged in doing the very things reserved for our time; and there are many things ahead to be done by our children and grandchildren and by all those who shall build on the foundation we are now laying.” (“Come: Let Israel Build Zion,” Ensign, May 1977, pp. 115–16.)
1. What was the cause of the scattering of Israel in the first place? (see Deuteronomy 4:25).
2. Upon what basis will the Lord forgive Israel and gather her back? (see 4:29–30).
3. We are in the second phase of the latter-day fulfillment of Moses’ prophecy that Israel would be gathered, and we are fast approaching the third stage. What conditions do you think are necessary for latter-day Israel to build the latter-day Zion?
4. Elder McConkie said, “Each one of us can build up Zion in our own lives by being pure in heart” (“Come: Let Israel Build Zion,” Ensign, May 1977, p. 118). What does Moses counsel Israel about their hearts? (See Deuteronomy 4:9, 29, 39; 4:29; 6:5–6; 8:2, 5, 14; 9:4–5; 10:12–16; 11:13–18; 13:3; 15:7–10.)
 |
Our Father in Heaven is a being who governs by law. Nothing is haphazard or accidental about the manner in which He dispenses His blessings. If we keep the commandments, we receive the promised rewards. If we disobey the commandments, we lose the proffered gifts. It is now as it has ever been: “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise” (D&C 82:10).
It is true also that our choices in premortal life affect our condition in earth life. Thus Moses wrote the following:
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8–9.)
Why were the people of Israel so favored of the Lord? Could it be that they had earned their privileges by their conduct in the premortal life? Commenting on Deuteronomy 32:8–9, Elder James E. Talmage said:
“From this we learn that the earth was allotted to the nations, according to the number of the children of Israel; it is evident therefore that the number was known prior to the existence of the Israelitish nation in the flesh; this is most easily explained on the basis of a previous existence in which the spirits of the future nation were known.
“No chance is possible, therefore, in the number or extent of the temporal creations of God. The population of the earth is fixed according to the number of spirits appointed to take tabernacles of flesh upon this planet; when these have all come forth in the order and time appointed, then, and not till then, shall the end come.” (Articles of Faith, pp. 193–94.)
Do you see how the Lord works by law? We obtain exactly that for which we live—blessings or cursings—just as Moses indicated. Understanding this concept helps us appreciate why the Lord would command Israel to deal so harshly with their Canaanite neighbors, who were ripe in iniquity. It also helps us to see why the Lord compelled Israel to wander forty years in the desert before permitting them to enter the promised land. Israel had to learn certain lessons first.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie commented: “God sends his spirit children to earth on a regular, organized schedule. There is nothing haphazard or accidental about the peopling of the earth or the assignment of various land areas to the races of men. ‘The race and nation in which men are born in this world is a direct result of their pre-existent life. All the spirit hosts of heaven deemed worthy to receive mortal bodies were foreordained to pass through this earthly probation in the particular race and nation suited to their needs, circumstances and talents. . . . Not only Israel, but all groups were thus foreknown and their total memberships designated in the pre-mortal life.’ (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 616.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:159–60; see Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26.)
The Lord chose certain spirits to be the seed of Abraham, with the assignment to take the blessings of the gospel to all the nations of the earth (see Genesis 12:1–3; Abraham 2:6, 9–11).
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study Deuteronomy 17–33.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
Moses set the penalty for worshiping false gods: death. The worship of false gods was so destructive to the spiritual life of man and the order of Israel as a nation that those who sought to entice Israel to abandon Jehovah were to forfeit their lives. When idolatry is tolerated or even punished lightly, the whole order of God’s law is jeopardized. In other words, in a system based on the acceptance of God, idolatry is high treason against that system, and high treason is punished by death.
Modern bishops in the Church are judges in Israel (see D&C 58:14–17; 64:40). Upon their shoulders rests the heavy responsibility of hearing and judging cases involving Church membership or worthiness. Anciently, priests of the Aaronic Priesthood performed similar functions (see Deuteronomy 17:9).
The Lord understood His children well, knowing that some time after their entry into the promised land they would seek a king in order to be like surrounding nations. This event is exactly what happened about two hundred years later (see 1 Samuel 8). So the Lord gave the following counsel about the future king:
1. He should be a man selected by the Lord (see Deuteronomy 17:15).
2. He had to be an Israelite (see v. 15).
3. He should not “multiply horses” (v. 16). In the ancient Middle East, horses were used primarily in warfare. One Bible scholar believed this use was forbidden “lest the people might depend on a well-appointed cavalry as a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the strength and protection of God. And . . . that they might not be tempted to extend their dominion by means of cavalry, and so get scattered among the surrounding idolatrous nations, and thus cease, in process of time, to be that distinct and separate people which God intended they should be.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary 1:783.)
4. He should not “multiply wives” (v. 17), for usually a king had multiple wives for political as well as personal reasons. Foreign wives would represent an enticement to false gods; thus, they were forbidden, “that his heart turn not away” (v. 17). This situation later led to Solomon’s fall from God’s favor (see 1 Kings 11:4).
5. He should not seek to expand his wealth (see v. 17), for this goal often led to oppression and unjust taxation of the people.
6. His basis for rule was to be the law of God (see vv. 18–19). David gave similar words of counsel to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:2–4.
7. He was not to be “lifted up” in pride (v. 20).
In the history of the world, few political rulers have followed these guidelines, and much of the sorrow of the world is directly traceable to that failure.
The Canaanites were a superstitious people who believed in and practiced divination and black magic. An enchanter inspects the entrails of dead animals, watches the flight of birds, or uses other means to predict the future. A charmer employs spells and incantations in predicting future events. Consulters with familiar spirits try to contact the spirit of a departed person to learn things not known to human beings. A wizard is a male witch. A necromancer, like one who consults with familiar spirits, seeks the secrets of the spirit world by inquiring of the dead. All of these activities were forbidden to ancient Israel. They were admonished to heed the words of their living prophet.
At least four other scriptures refer to the prophet like unto Moses (see Acts 3:22–23; 1 Nephi 22:21; 3 Nephi 20:23; JS—H 1:40). In each instance these scriptures make it clear that the prophet like unto Moses was the Savior, Jesus Christ. When Jesus visited the Nephites, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, He identified Himself in this way:
“Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.” (3 Nephi 20:23.)
“When is a prophet a prophet? Whenever he speaks under the inspiration and influence of the Holy Ghost. . . .
“When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously. Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:187.)
It should be kept in mind, however, that the Lord will continue to add line upon line through His prophets. On-going revelation will expand and clarify revelations the Lord has already given. Thus, living prophets help keep the Church in tune with the living God.
This chapter relates Israel’s war-making activities and gives special rules for selecting soldiers (see vv. 1–9). A noted Bible scholar gave some excellent insights into the principles in the Mosaic code related to warfare.
“The military laws of Scripture are of especial relevance to man, in that they involve not only laws of warfare but an important general principle.
“In surveying military laws, we find that, first, when wars are fought in terms of a defense of justice and the suppression of evil, and in defense of the homeland against an enemy, they are a part of the necessary work of restitution or restoration, and they are therefore spoken of in Scripture as the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14). The preparation of the soldiers involved a religious dedication to their task (Josh. 3:5).
“Second, the law specified the age of the soldiers. All able-bodied men twenty years old and up were eligible for military service (Num. 1:2, 3, 18, 20, 45; 26:2, 3). This standard long prevailed and was, for example, the basis of operation in the American War of Independence. It was, however, still a selective service (Num. 31:3–6), so that, for example, out of 46,500 eligible from Reuben, 74,600 from Judah, and 35,400 from Benjamin (Num. 1), in the war against Midian, only a thousand from each tribe were taken (Num. 31:4). The eligibility of each able-bodied man was thus in principle to assert their availability in an extreme crisis.
“Third, since warfare against evil is godly and serves God’s task of restoration, God promised to protect His men if they moved in terms of faith and obedience. . . . In the battle against Midian, cited above, 12,000 Israelite soldiers burned all the cities of Midian and slew their men, brought back 675,500 sheep, 72,000 head of cattle, 61,000 asses, and 32,000 unmarried women, without any loss of life. Out of this, a tithe or portion was given to the Lord. Thus, where a war is waged in terms of God’s law and in faith and obedience to His law-word, there men can count on His protecting and prospering care even as Israel experienced it.
“Fourth, exemption from military service was provided by law. The purpose of an army should be to fight God’s battles without fear (Deut. 20:1–4). Exemptions were given to several classes of men: (a) those who had built a new house and had not dedicated nor enjoyed it; (b) those who had planted a vineyard and had not yet enjoyed its fruit; (c) and those who have ‘betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her’; such men would have a divided mind in battle; finally, (d) all who were ‘fearful and faint-hearted’ were excused as dangerous to army morale, ‘lest his brethren’s heart melt as his heart’ (Deut. 20:5–9). The exemption of the newlywed men was mandatory according to Deuteronomy 24:5, ‘When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife, whom he hath taken.’ Also exempt from military service (e) were the Levites (Num. 1:48, 49). The Levites very often fought, but they were exempt from a draft.
“From these exemptions, a general principle appears: the family has a priority over warfare. The young bridegroom cannot serve; the new home must come first. The new farmer similarly gains exemption. Important as defense is, the continuity of life and godly reconstruction are more important.
“A fifth aspect of military law requires cleanliness in the camp (Deut. 23:9–14). A latrine outside the camp is required, and a spade ‘to cover up your filth’ (Deut. 23:13, Moffatt). ‘For the Eternal your God moves within your camp, to rescue you and to put your enemies into your power; hence your camp must be sacred—that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you’ (Deut. 23:14, Moffatt).
“Another general principle appears from this law as well as the first and third laws (above), namely, that it is not enough for the cause to be holy: not only the cause, but the people of the cause, must be holy, both spiritually and physically.
“A sixth military law requires that, prior to an attack, or rather, a declaration of war, an offer of peace be extended to the enemy. The offer of peace cannot be an offer to compromise. The cause, if it be just, must be maintained; the enemy must yield to gain peace (Deut. 23:9–14). A ‘sneak attack’ after a declaration, in Gideon’s manner, is legitimate: hostilities are in progress. But, prior to a declaration of war, an attempt to negotiate with honor to the cause is required. [This position is supported also in latter-day scripture; see D&C 98:33–36; Alma 43:46; 48:14–16.] The formal blowing of trumpets, both before war and in rejoicing at the time of victory, placed the cause before God in expectancy of victory and in gratitude for it (Num. 10:9, 10).
“Seventh, warfare is not child’s play. It is a grim and ugly if necessary matter. The Canaanites against whom Israel waged war were under judicial sentence of death by God. They were spiritually and morally degenerate. Virtually every kind of perversion was a religious act: and large classes of sacred male and female prostitutes were a routine part of the holy places. Thus, God ordered all the Canaanites to be killed (Deut. 2:34; 3:6; 20:16–18; Josh. 11:14), both because they were under God’s death sentence, and to avoid the contamination of Israel. Among related and adjacent peoples whose depravity was similar but not as total, men (Num. 31:7; Deut. 1:1, 2, 16; 20:16, 17) and sometimes married women as well were killed (Num. 31:17, 18), but the young virgins were spared (Num. 31:18). With other foreign countries, of better calibre, any woman taken prisoner could be married, but could not be treated as a slave or as a captive (Deut. 21:10–14), clearly indicating the difference in national character between Canaanites and other peoples. These provisions are quite generally condemned by the modern age, which has hypocritically resorted to the most savage and total warfare in history. These laws were not applicable to all peoples but only to the most depraved. They assert a still valid general principle: if warfare is to punish and/or to destroy evil, the work of restoration requires that this be done, that an evil order be overthrown, and, in some cases, some or many people be executed. . . .
“Eighth, the normal purpose of warfare is defensive; hence, Israel was forbidden the use of more than a limited number of horses (Deut. 17:16), since horses were the offensive weapon of ancient warfare. . . .
“Ninth, a very important military law appears in Deuteronomy 20:19, 20, one which also embodies a basic principle of very far-reaching implications. According to this law, ‘When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.’ The last portion of Deuteronomy 20:19 is rendered by various translators to read, ‘for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?’ (MJV). In other words, war is not to be waged against the earth, but against men. But, even more centrally, life must go on, and the fruit tree and the vineyard represent at all times an inheritance from the past and a heritage for the future: they are not to be destroyed. Other trees can be cut down, but only as needed to ‘build bulwarks against the city.’ Wanton destruction is not permitted. . . .
“Tenth, and finally, the laws of booty provided a reward to the soldiers (Num. 31:21–31, 29, 30, 42; Deut. 20:14), so that there is legal ground not only for soldiers’ pay but also a pension, a reward for their services. War indemnity was an aspect of the penalty imposed on an enemy (II Kings 3:4) as penalty for their offense, and to defray the costs of the war.
“In terms of Scripture, in a sinful world, war is ugly, but it is a necessity if evil is to be overcome.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 277–81.)
Modern readers are shocked at this requirement, and some try to use it as proof of the primitive and savage nature of the law. The following points are important in considering this requirement:
1. This requirement, like all else in the Mosaic law, was given by the Lord, who was the premortal Jesus. It is consistent with all other aspects of His nature.
2. The law was not speaking of just disobedient children but of incorrigible children, those to whom no counsel or guidance was meaningful.
3. Almost certainly, these were children who had reached maturity. (The charge of drunkard is evidence for this view.) Small children would not qualify as incorrigible.
4. The parents have tried all other means of correction (see v. 18), and all have failed.
5. Although the parents had to bring charges against their own child, they were not required to execute him, as were the witnesses in other capital crimes.
6. Since the family is the basic unit of society and the most important means of transmitting righteousness from generation to generation, the child who utterly rejected parental authority threatened the very order of society. Thus, like the idolator, he must be put to death (see Reading 20-2).
7. A parent who upheld his child in crime became a contributor to crime in society.
“To deny the death penalty is to insist on life for the evil; it means that evil men are given the right to kill, kidnap, rape, and violate law and order, and their life is guaranteed against death in the process. The murderer is given the right to kill without losing his life, and the victim and potential victims are denied their right to live. Men may speak of unconditional love, and unconditional mercy, but every act of love and mercy is conditional, because, in granting it to one man, I am affirming the conditions of his life and denying others in the process. If I am loving and merciful to a murderer, I am unloving and merciless to his present and future victims. Moreover, I am then in open contempt of God and His law, which requires no mercy to a man guilty of death.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 78.)
Rushdoony continues: “If the parents refused to complain against their son, they were then guilty of condonation and/or participation in his crimes. Their role was thus a formal but necessary one: would the family align itself with justice or stand in terms of blood ties? In view of the strong nature of family loyalties, the parental participation was necessary in order to ensure freedom from feud and also to place the family firmly against its criminal members. A parent refusing to file a complaint in such a case would become a party to the offense and a defender of crime. The principle required was clear-cut: not blood but law must govern. . . .
“Clearly then, the intent of this law is that all incorrigible and habitual criminals be executed. If a criminal son is to be executed, how much more so a neighbor or fellow Hebrew who has become an incorrigible criminal? If the family must align itself with the execution of an incorrigibly delinquent son, will it not demand the death of an habitual criminal in the community?
“That such is the intent of the law appears from its stated purpose, ‘so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.’ The purpose of the law is to eliminate entirely a criminal element from the nation, a professional criminal class. The family is not permitted the evil privilege of saying, ‘We will stand behind our boy, come what may’; the family itself must join the war on crime.” (Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 187–88.)
8. Think for a moment of how strongly parents would strive to turn their children from sin, knowing that if they failed, they would have to go through the horror of taking them to the judges for execution. Surely they would chasten them in every possible way to see that such an event never happened (see v. 18). In a world of permissive child rearing and the ensuing destruction of righteousness, the lesson of this passage has great meaning.
“Its exposure for the space of one day was judged sufficient. The law which required this answered all the ends of public justice, exposed the shame and infamy of the conduct, but did not put to torture the feelings of humanity by requiring a perpetual exhibition of a human being, a slow prey to the most loathsome process of putrefaction. . . . In the case given in the text, God considers the land as defiled while the body of the executed criminal lay exposed, hence it was enjoined, Thou shalt in any wise bury him that day.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:793–94.)
The way one clothes oneself is important to the Lord. A special prohibition in the law of Moses forbade men and women to wear each other’s clothing. When this practice is tolerated by society, it produces great confusion. The Lord expressly forbade a unisex society. Any attempt to erase the obvious distinctions between men and women is unnatural and an abomination to the Lord.
“Houses in the East are in general built with flat roofs, and on them men walk to enjoy the fresh air, converse together, sleep, &c.; it was therefore necessary to have a sort of battlement or balustrade to prevent persons from falling off. If a man neglected to make a sufficient defence against such accidents, and the death of another was occasioned by it, the owner of the house must be considered in the light of a murderer.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:795.)
The word amerce means to fine. Here, the term refers to levying a charge against the man who accused his wife of not being a virgin when she really was. A betrothed or married woman could be defended by her father.
“In connection with the seduction of a virgin . . . two, or really three, cases are distinguished; viz. (1) whether she was betrothed (vers. 23–27), or not betrothed (vers. 28, 29); (2) if she were betrothed, whether it was (a) in the town (vers. 23, 24) or (b) in the open field (vers. 25–27) that she had been violated by a man.—Vers. 23, 24. If a betrothed virgin had allowed a man to have intercourse with her (i.e. one who was not her bridegroom), they were both of them, the man and the girl, to be led out to the gate of the town, and stoned that they might die: the girl, because she had not cried in the city, i.e. had not called for help, and consequently was to be regarded as consenting to the deed; the man, because he had humbled his neighbour’s wife. The betrothed woman was placed in this respect upon a par with a married woman, and in fact is expressly called a wife in ver. 24. Betrothal was the first step towards marriage, even if it was not a solemn act attested by witnesses. . . . Vers. 25–27. If, on the other hand, a man met a betrothed girl in the field, and laid hold of her and lay with her, the man alone was to die, and nothing was to be done to the girl. . . . In the open field the girl had called for help, but no one had helped her. It was therefore a forcible rape.—Vers. 28, 29. The last case: if a virgin was not betrothed, and a man seized her and lay with her, and they were found, i.e. discovered or convicted of their deed, the man was to pay the father of the girl fifty shekels of silver, for the reproach brought upon him and his house, and to marry the girl whom he had humbled, without ever being able to divorce her. This case is similar to the one mentioned in [Exodus 22:15–16]. The omission to mention the possibility of the father refusing to give him his daughter for a wife, makes no essential difference. It is assumed as self-evident here, that such a right was possessed by the father.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:412.)
Discovering one’s skirt is a Hebrew euphemism similar to uncovering one’s nakedness (see Leviticus 18:6–19) and means to have sexual relations. Thus, this prohibition probably referred to a stepmother. In some cases an older man would marry a much younger woman after the death of his first wife. Then when he died an older son who was close to the age of this stepmother would be tempted to marry her. The law prohibited this eventuality, as it did other cases of incest (see Leviticus 18).
Those who had undergone sexual mutilation, who were illegitimate children, or who were Ammonites or Moabites were not allowed to be part of “the congregation of the Lord,” even to the tenth generation (v. 2).
One possible explanation for this prohibition is the following: “There seems to be some corruption of rules here, as contradictions to many of these can be found elsewhere in the Scriptures” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:133). Ruth, a Moabitess, is just one of these examples.
Another possible explanation is that the word congregation had a special, limited meaning. It referred to the civil authority of the people.
“The ban was not on faith; i.e., it is not stated that [those listed in Deuteronomy 23:1–3] cannot be believers. There is, in fact, a particularly strong promise of blessing to believing eunuchs in Isaiah 56:4, 5, and their place as proselytes was real even in the era of hardened Phariseeism (Acts 8:27, 28). The Moabitess Ruth intermarried twice, first with a son of Naomi, then with Boaz, to become an ancestress of Jesus Christ (Ruth 1:4; 4:13, 18–21; Matt. 1:5). There is no reason to doubt that eunuchs, [illegitimate children,] Ammonites, and Moabites regularly became believers and were faithful worshipers of God. Congregation has reference to the whole nation in its governmental function as God’s covenant people. G. Ernest Wright defined it as ‘the whole organized commonwealth as it assembled officially for various purposes, particularly worship.’ The men of the legitimate blood line constituted the heads of houses and of tribes. These men were the congregation of Israel, not the women and children nor excluded persons. All the integrity and honesty required by the law was due to every ‘stranger’ (Lev. 19:33, 34), and it was certainly not denied to a man’s illegitimate child, nor to a eunuch, an Ammonite, or a Moabite. The purpose of the commandment is here the protection of authority. Authority among God’s people is holy; it does require a separateness. It does not belong to every man simply on the ground of his humanity.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 85.)
Other scholars agree that congregation referred to civil authority. “If by entering the congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as magistrate, judge, &c., then the reason of the law is very plain; no man with any such personal defect as might render him contemptible in the sight of others should bear rule among the people, lest the contempt felt for his personal defects might be transferred to his important office, and thus his authority be disregarded. The general meaning of these words is, simply, that the persons here designated should not be so incorporated with the Jews as to partake of their civil privileges.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:797.)
“The grounds for exclusion are significant. Edom met Israel with open, honest enmity [Numbers 20:18, 20], and Egypt worked to destroy them [Exodus 1:22], but Ammon and Moab instead worked to pervert Israel [Numbers 22:2–5; 31:16], after Israel showed them forebearance [Deuteronomy 2:9, 19, 29]. . . . Edom and Egypt sought to kill Israel; Ammon and Moab tried to pervert and degrade Israel, and their judgment was accordingly severe.” (Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 85–86.)
The word dog is a contemptuous term for males who either were prostitutes themselves or profited from prostitution. Thus, no money gained from prostitution or homosexuality (“a sodomite” [v. 17]) could be used as offerings to God.
For the restriction in the law against usury, see Leviticus 25:36. Victuals are food. Vows made unto the Lord were to be fulfilled without delay.
The purpose of a “bill of divorcement” (v. 3) was that a woman divorced by her husband could remarry if she desired. The restriction here is that one who has divorced his wife may not later change his mind and remarry her. Bible scholars explained this rule as follows:
“If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again. . . . The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 1:3:417–18).
Forty stripes was the most that could be laid upon a man as punishment for sin. In order to prevent a miscount and therefore break a commandment of the Lord, thirty-nine lashes were usually administered. Thus, the Apostle Paul reported that “of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one” (2 Corinthians 11:24).
These verses define the levirate law of marriage, which provided that a dead man’s brother should marry the widow and raise a family to the dead man. “The custom insured the security of a widow who might otherwise be left destitute and friendless. . . . If no brother existed, some more distant male relative was required to perform this duty. Whichever relative married the widow became her ‘go’el’ (redeemer or protector). The first son born to the widow by the new marriage was counted as a child of the dead husband and inherited his property.” (Great People of the Bible and How They Lived, p. 132.)
The word levirate has nothing to do with the tribe of Levi. Rather, it is taken from the Latin word levir, meaning “husband’s brother.” The Sadducees used this law in trying to trap Jesus when they asked whose wife such a woman would be in the Resurrection (see Matthew 22:23–33).
Clarification of the incident with Amalek mentioned here can be found in Exodus 17:8–16.
After briefly reminding Israel of God’s goodness to her, Moses gave one of the finest statements of a covenant found anywhere in scripture. Israel promised to keep the Lord’s commandments, and the Lord “avouched” (promised) to honor Israel and make of her a holy nation (v. 17).
As a token of Israel’s gratitude to God for His many kindnesses, Moses commanded that an altar of uncut stones should be built following Israel’s arrival in the promised land. On the stones were to be inscribed the words of God given to Moses.
For an explanation of the cursings from Mount Ebal, see Reading 19-23.
This chapter of Deuteronomy is very similar to Leviticus 26, in which the Lord specifically outlined the blessings that would accrue to Israel if they were obedient (see vv. 1–14) and also the punishments they would suffer if they turned from the Lord (see vv. 15–68). One particularly gruesome prediction added in this chapter concerned a siege so terrible that cannibalism would result (see vv. 49–57). When Jerusalem fell to Babylonian forces under Nebuchadnezzar, conditions were so terrible that the people did turn to cannibalism to survive (see Lamentations 4:1–10). But in the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the prophecy seems to have been fulfilled with particular preciseness. Note the parallels.
“A nation . . . from far” (v. 49). Rome lies over a thousand miles from Israel.
“Swift as the eagle flieth” (v. 49). The eagle was the symbol of Rome and was carried on the standards of the legions of Rome.
“Whose tongue thou shalt not understand” (v. 49). While the Aramaic of Babylon was a sister tongue to Hebrew, Latin was completely different in alphabet, structure, and so on.
“A nation of fierce countenance which . . . shall not shew favor” (v. 50). Roman ferocity in battle and treatment of captives not profitable for slavery was well known.
“He shall besiege thee in all thy gates” (v. 52). Titus built a siege wall completely around Jerusalem so that none could escape (see Josephus, Wars of the Jews, bk. 5, chap. 12).
“Thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body” (v. 53). Under siege, the people in Jerusalem soon became so desperate for food that all kinds of things were eaten, and finally the people turned to cannibalism (see Josephus, Wars, bk. 5, chap. 10, pars. 1–5; chap. 13, par. 7; bk. 6, chap. 3, par. 2).
“The tender and delicate woman . . . shall eat them . . . secretly in the siege” (vv. 56–57). Josephus described a noblewoman from Perea who killed her son and used him for food during the siege (see Josephus, Wars, bk. 6, chap. 3, pars. 4–5).
In these two chapters Moses explained the nature of the covenant that Israel must make with God in order to be worthy of the promised land. Failure to keep the covenant would curse the people and the land as Sodom and Gomorrah had been cursed. “All the curses that are written in this book” (the book of Deuteronomy) would then be in effect (Deuteronomy 29:20). Eventually, the people would be scattered among the nations for their rejection of the covenant.
Later, when Israel had learned to lean upon the Lord, what did Moses say would happen? (see Deuteronomy 30:3–6, 8–10). What would happen to the curses placed upon Israel? (see Deuteronomy 30:7). Moses concluded this chapter with a stirring appeal to Israel to choose the way of blessing rather than the way of cursing (see Deuteronomy 30:16–20).
This chapter is an interesting study in contrasts. First Moses said that the Lord would protect and preserve Israel as they entered the promised land. “Be strong and of a good courage,” he said (v. 6). Do not fear your enemies, he urged them, “for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee” (v. 6). Next Moses prophesied that following his death, Israel would desert the Lord. What did he say the principal sin would be? (see v. 20). What did he indicate would befall her then? (see v. 29).
The word bashan means “fruitful.” It was the title given to a district east of the Sea of Galilee that was taken by the Israelites during the conquest of Canaan. It extended from the border of Gilead on the south to the base of Mount Hermon on the north and was given as an inheritance to the tribe of Manasseh (see Maps and Charts). Bashan included the area now known as the Golan Heights.
The word jeshurun is a Hebrew word meaning “upright,” or “right in the sight of God,” and refers to Israel itself. As used in Deuteronomy 32:15, it implies that Israel was once in the path of righteousness, but upon becoming fat (prosperous) would yet kick (rebel or fight) against God and esteem the source of their salvation as naught. Some feel that it refers to Israel’s calling to be a righteous people and that God used this word to demonstrate her flagrant disregard for Him.
 |
| Bashan |
“Christ is the Stone of Israel. (Gen. 49:24.) ‘I am the good shepherd, and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall.’ (D. & C. 50:44.) Christ is thus the stone or foundation upon which all men must build. Of him the psalmist prophesied: ‘The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.’ (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10–11; Luke 20:17–18.) Peter used this truth to teach that the saints ‘as lively stones’ should build ‘a spiritual house,’ with Christ, the Stone of Israel, as the foundation. (1 Pet. 2:1–9.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 768.)
That the Apostle Paul understood this concept is clear from a statement he made about the children of Israel during the period of their wanderings: “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). In other words, they all ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink.
Once again is recorded a reference to the Lord’s refusal to permit Moses to enter the promised land. For a discussion of why Moses was forbidden to enter the promised land, see Reading 18-13.
A comparative study of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 shows some additions to the blessings of the sons of Jacob that were given when they were still only twelve small families. At the time Deuteronomy was written, they were twelve tribes numbering thousands each. It had been about four hundred and fifty years since Jacob gave the sons his patriarchal blessings. What evidence is given that Jacob’s blessings were prophetic?
Moses’ view from Nebo was greater than what could be seen by even the sharpest eyes of an observer. His was a complete view of the promised land to the Mediterranean Sea, which was hidden from view by the mountains of Jerusalem. The view was given to him, perhaps through a vision or revelation.
 |
| Mount Nebo from the Jordan Valley |
“The Old Testament account that Moses died and was buried by the hand of the Lord in an unknown grave is an error. (Deut. 34:5–7.) It is true that he may have been ‘buried by the hand of the Lord,’ if that expression is a figure of speech which means that he was translated. But the Book of Mormon account, in recording that Alma ‘was taken up by the Spirit,’ says, ‘the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma in the spirit, unto himself.’ (Alma 45:18–19.) It should be remembered that the Nephites had the Brass Plates, and that they were the ‘scriptures’ which gave the account of Moses being taken by way of translation.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 805.)
The question is raised, Why was Moses translated? President Joseph Fielding Smith answered the question in this way:
“Moses, like Elijah, was taken up without tasting death, because he had a mission to perform. . . .
“When Moses and Elijah came to the Savior and to Peter, James, and John upon the Mount, what was their coming for? Was it just some spiritual manifestation to strengthen these three apostles? Or did they come merely to give comfort unto the Son of God in his ministry and to prepare him for his crucifixion? No! That was not the purpose. I will read it to you. The Prophet Joseph Smith has explained it as follows:
“‘The priesthood is everlasting. The Savior, Moses, and Elias [Elijah, in other words] gave the keys to Peter, James, and John, on the Mount when they were transfigured before him. The priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the gospel are administered, there is the priesthood. . . . Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next.’ [Smith, Teachings, p. 158.] From that we understand why Elijah and Moses were preserved from death: because they had a mission to perform, and it had to be performed before the crucifixion of the Son of God, and it could not be done in the spirit. They had to have tangible bodies. Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection; therefore if any former prophets had a work to perform preparatory to the mission of the Son of God, or to the dispensation of the meridian of times, it was essential that they be preserved to fulfill that mission in the flesh. For that reason Moses disappeared from among the people and was taken up into the mountain, and the people thought he was buried by the Lord. The Lord preserved him, so that he could come at the proper time and restore his keys, on the heads of Peter, James, and John, who stood at the head of the dispensation of the meridian of time.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:107, 110–11.)
(20-36) Obedience to the Lord always has its own rewards. When Moses reminded Israel of its spiritual obligations and then set before the people both a cursing and a blessing, he knew that they must choose.
Life is like that for us, too. We cannot stand uncommitted forever in the face of choices to be made. And while it is true, as the Lord declared, that He is a “jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” (Deuteronomy 5:9), it does not follow that we can blame our sins upon our ancestors. Consider this inspired counsel:
“The Jews believed in the law of heredity to a great extent, probably to a greater extent than they were justified; and by and by they took this commandment and crystalized it into a proverb which declared, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ [See Lamentations 5:7; Jeremiah 31:29; Ezekiel 18:2.] Then when rebuked for their sins and their abominations, they would turn and say, in effect, ‘Well, we are not to blame. It’s not our fault. It is the sins of the fathers being visited upon the heads of the children, and surely God will not condemn us for the sins which we have inherited from our fathers, for our teeth have been set on edge by our fathers eating sour grapes.’ The Lord was very much displeased with this excuse of theirs, and He declared to Ezekiel, the prophet, ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.’ He then went on to tell the people through the prophet that He would require of every man and every woman in Israel an accounting for his or her own conduct and course in life, and every one should be judged according to the deeds done in the body. These Israelites seemed to forget that part of the commandment which said, that He would show mercy unto thousands of them that loved Him and kept His commandments.” (Hyrum M. Smith, in Conference Report, Apr. 1904, p. 52.)
But if others’ cursings are not our cursings, then others’ blessings are not our blessings either. We must earn our own. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote the following:
“Search the Scriptures, search the Prophets and learn what portion of them belongs to you and the people of the nineteenth century. You, no doubt, will agree with us, and say, that you have no right to claim the promises of the inhabitants before the flood; that you cannot found your hopes of salvation upon the obedience of the children of Israel when journeying in the wilderness, nor can you expect that the blessings which the apostles pronounced upon the churches of Christ eighteen hundred years ago, were intended for you. Again, if others ‘blessings are not your blessings, others’ curses are not your curses; you stand then in these last days, as all have stood before you, agents unto yourselves, to be judged according to your works.” (Teachings, p. 12.)
Take a moment now to thumb through the book of Deuteronomy. What scriptures did you mark? What concepts impressed you as Moses lovingly counseled Israel for the last time? Write, in no more than a page or two, your own reaction to Moses’ counsel. What value does it have for you? How would your life be different if you took his counsel fully to heart?